PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.

JOEL CRISOSTOMO y MALLIAR

G.R. No. 196435, January 29, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault is the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal orifice. In any event, inconsistencies in a rape victim’s
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.

FACTS: “AAA” testified that she was playing with her playmates whereupon she wandered by the house of
accused which was just below their house. "AAA" clarified that the accused is employed in her father’s
vulcanizing shop located in their house. While "AAA" was at the house of accused, she claimed that her genitals
and buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by the said accused. "AAA" testified further that her clothes
were taken off by the same accused who also took his clothes off after which he allegedly placed himself on
top of her, inserted his penis and proceeded to have illicit carnal knowledge of the then six (6) year old girl, as
evidenced by her birth certificate. Dr. Emmanuel Reyes the Medico-Legal Officer testified that the victim
indeed had two (2) third degree burns in the perianal region.

The accused and his brother-in-law, on the other hand, testified that it was impossible for him to have
raped "AAA" on the date and time stated in the information since he was in night shift work schedule.
Moreover, he challenged the credibility of AAA’s testimony arguing that the latter was unsure whether a match,
rod or a cigarette stick, was used in burning her private parts.

ISSUE
Is Crisostomo liable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code?

RULING
Yes, he is liable for two counts of rape by sexual assault and one count of statutory rape. Article 266-
A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides for how rape is committed:

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above should be present;
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit
an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

In this case, all the elements of statutory rape are established. "AAA" testified that appellant took off
her clothes and made her lie down. Appellant also removed his clothes, placed himself on top of "AAA,"
inserted his penis into her vagina, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. At the time of the rape,
"AAA" was only six years of age as evidenced by her birth certificate. "AAA’s" testimony was corroborated by
Dr. Emmanuel Reyes who found "AAA" to have fresh and bleeding hymenal lacerations. Moreover, appellant
inserted a lit cigarette stick into "AAA’s" genital causing her labia majora to suffer a 3rd degree burn. Appellant
likewise inserted a lit cigarette stick into "AAA’s" anal orifice causing 3rd degree burns in her perianal region.

"AAA’s" "uncertainty" on what instrument was inserted into her private parts, did not lessen her
credibility. Such "uncertainty" is so inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that an object was inserted
into her private parts. This is the gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault.
PROBLEM:
Q: While AAA was in the house of the accused Joel Crisostomo, who is employed in their vulcanizing
shop, she claimed that her genitals and buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by the said
accused. AAA, who was then 6 six years old as evidenced by her birth certificate, also claimed that her
clothes were taken off by the same accused who also took his clothes off after which he allegedly
placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her.
Dr. Reyes testified that AAA had two (2) third degree burns in the perianal region. The accused avers
that AAA was unsure whether a match, rod or a cigarette stick, was used in burning her private parts.

What crime/s has/have been committed by Joel Crisostomo, if there is any?

A: He is liable for two counts of rape by sexual assault and one count of statutory rape. In this case,
all the elements of statutory rape are established. "AAA" testified that appellant inserted his penis into
her vagina, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. At the time of the rape, "AAA" was only
six years of age. "AAA’s" testimony was corroborated by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes who found "AAA" to
have lacerations. Moreover, as regards rape by sexual assault, appellant inserted a lit cigarette stick into
"AAA’s" genital causing her labia majora to suffer a 3rd degree burn. Appellant likewise inserted a lit
cigarette stick into "AAA’s" anal orifice causing 3rd degree burns in her perianal region.

"AAA’s" "uncertainty" on what instrument was inserted into her private parts, did not lessen her
credibility. The the gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault is the insertion of the penis into
another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or
anal orifice.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FLORO MANIGO y MACALUA

G.R. No. 194612, January 27, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself Thus, in resolving rape cases, the
victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility
and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof

FACTS: AAA, 13 years of age and her classmate "BBB" were outside the compound of their school waiting
for a ride home after their summer remedial classes. Momentarily, a tricycle arrived which the two boarded.
They told the driver, herein appellant Manigo, to bring them first to Purok Macasero where "BBB" resides.
After "BBB" alighted, the tricycle took a different route. Appellant proceeded to a banana plantation. When
they stopped, Manigo alighted and then positioned himself beside "AAA" who was still inside the tricycle and
told the latter to undress. "AAA" pleaded for appellant not to harm her but the same was unheeded. While
pointing a knife on "AAA," appellant took off her panties and his own clothes. After warning "AAA" not to
make any movement, appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Once satiated, appellant told "AAA" to dress up.
They then left the place and appellant gave her ₱40.00 pesos and allowed her to go home. The following day,
"AAA" disclosed her ordeal to her mother. She was subjected to physical examination that revealed a laceration
on her hymen. Thereafter, "AAA" and her mother reported the matter to the Police Station.

The appellant raised denial and alibi. According to him, he could not have raped "AAA" since on the
day of the alleged incident, he was at their home.
ISSUE
Whether or not Manigo can be held liable under Article 266-A of the RPC based solely on the
testimony of AAA?

RULING
Yes, he is liable for the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. AAA’s testimony should be
given full faith and credence. Appellant points to several flaws in "AAA’s" testimony, to wit: (1) she did not
make a particular description of the tricycle used at the time of the commission of the crime; (2) her description
of appellant’s physical features during the trial is different from what she stated in her affidavit; and, (3) "AAA’s"
out-of-court identification of appellant is doubtful.

The narration of "AAA" is candid, frank and straightforward. Moreover, "AAA’s" claim of rape is
supported by the medical findings of Dr. Perez. Where a victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physical
findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place. A rape
victim’s account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward, candid and corroborated
by the medical findings of the examining physician, as in the present case.

The inconsistency on the physical appearance of appellant has no bearing on the principal question of
whether appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. Neither the failure of "AAA" to describe the tricycle will
dent her credibility. Suffice it to say that these matters are not so material in the prosecution of the crime.

In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court has adopted
the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: (1) the witness’s
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention at that time; (3)
the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness
of the identification procedure.

All six (6) factors were substantially satisfied in the present case: (1) the victim had more than sufficient
time to observe the rapist; (2) the victim’s attention was focused on appellant to whom she even pleaded not
to hurt her since she still had younger siblings; (3) except for appellant’s complexion and hair, the victim gave
prior descriptions of appellant which became the source of the cartographic sketch; (4) she immediately pointed
to appellant as her rapist from among several men inside the prison cell; (5) the crime was committed on April
16, 2004 and appellant was identified by the victim a few days thereafter, or on April 20, 2004; (6) suggestiveness
was non-existent. Even before she was requested to visit the police station, she was already able to describe to
the police officers the physical features of her assailant which was made the basis for the cartographic sketch.
Noticeably, nobody helped her in identifying the appellant. Verily, the totality of the circumstances in this case
shows that her identification of appellant was spontaneous and independent.

PROBLEM
Q: AAA and her classmate BBB boarded a tricycle after their summer remedial classes. They told the
driver, Floro Manigo, to bring BBB home first. After BBB alighted, the tricycle took a different route.
Manigo proceeded to a banana plantation. He alighted from the tricycle, positioned himself beside
AAA who was still inside and ask the latter to undress. AAA pleaded for Manigo not to harm her but
it was unheeded. While pointing a knife on AAA, Manigo took off her panties and his own clothes,
and had carnal knowledge of her. Once satiated, Manigo told "AAA" to dress up. They then left the
place and he gave her ₱40.00 pesos and allowed her to go home. AAA disclosed her ordeal to her
mother. She was subjected to physical examination that revealed a laceration on her hymen.
Thereafter, "AAA" and her mother reported the matter to the Police Station. Can Manigo be convicted
of the crime of rape based solely on the testimony of AAA, the victim?
A: Yes, he is liable for the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. Rape is generally unwitnessed
and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself Thus, in resolving rape cases, the victim's
credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or
significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on
the basis thereof.

The narration of "AAA" is candid, frank and straightforward. Moreover, "AAA’s" claim of rape is
supported by the medical findings of Dr. Perez. Where a victim’s testimony is corroborated by the
physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take
place. A rape victim’s account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward,
candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as in the present case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN SORIA y GOMEZ

G.R. No. 179031, November 14, 2012, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

In determining whether appellant is guilty of rape through sexual intercourse, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that he had carnal knowledge of the victim. There must be proof that his penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.

FACTS: After eating, "AAA" went to the bedroom to rest. Thereafter, appellant also entered the room and
positioned himself on top of "AAA", took off her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. "AAA" felt
intense pain from her breast down to her vagina and thus told her father that it was painful. At that point,
appellant apologized to his daughter, stood up, and left the room. This whole incident was witnessed by
"AAA’s" brother, "BBB". The pain persisted until "AAA’s" vagina started to bleed. She thus told her aunt
about it and they proceeded to a hospital for treatment. Her mother was also immediately informed of her
ordeal. Dr. Supe examined "AAA", which examination yielded the following result: “the subject is in virgin
state physically. There are no external signs of application of any form of physical trauma”

Appellant admitted that he was at home on the day and time of "AAA’s" alleged rape but denied
committing the same. According to appellant, he could not have molested "AAA" because he treated her well.
Moreover, he averred that "AAA" was unsure whether it was indeed Soria’s penis which touched her labia and
entered her organ since she was pinned down by the latter’s weight.

ISSUES
1. Is it fatal to the case if the Information did not specify whether the crime of rape was committed
through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault?
2. Whether or not the Appellant is guilty of rape by sexual assault and not through sexual intercourse.

RULING
1. No, it will not invalidate the information. In this case, the Information stated that appellant inserted
his penis into the genital of "AAA," which constituted rape by sexual intercourse under the first
paragraph of Article 266-A. At the same time, the Information alleged that appellant used force and
intimidation to commit an act of sexual assault. While these allegations cause ambiguity, they only
pertain to the mode or manner of how the rape was committed and the same do not invalidate the
Information or result in the automatic dismissal of the case. He therefore can be convicted of rape
through sexual intercourse or rape by sexual assault, depending on the evidence adduced during trial.
 2. Yes, he is liable only for rape by sexual assault. In determining whether appellant is guilty of rape
through sexual intercourse, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal
knowledge of "AAA". There must be proof that his penis touched the labia of "AAA" or slid into her
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.

"AAA" was unsure whether it was indeed appellant’s penis which touched her labia and entered her organ
since she was pinned down by the latter’s weight, her father having positioned himself on top of her while she
was lying on her back. However, she categorically testified that appellant inserted something into her vagina.
She claimed to have suffered tremendous pain during the insertion. The insertion even caused her vagina to
bleed necessitating her examination at the hospital. It was clearly established that appellant committed an act
of sexual assault on "AAA" by inserting an instrument or object into her genital. We find it inconsequential
that "AAA" could not specifically identify the particular instrument or object that was inserted into her genital.
What is important and relevant is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina. Hence, appellant
committed the crime of rape by sexual assault.

PROBLEM
Q: AAA went to the bedroom to rest after eating the spaghetti brought by his father Benjamin Soria.
Thereafter, Soria also entered the room and positioned himself on top of AAA, took off her clothes
and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt intense pain from her breast down to her vagina and
thus told her father that it was painful. At that point, appellant apologized to his daughter, stood up,
and left the room. This whole incident was witnessed by "AAA’s" brother, "BBB". The pain persisted
until "AAA’s" vagina started to bleed. She thus told her aunt about it and they proceeded to a hospital
for treatment. Her mother was also immediately informed of her ordeal. Dr. Supe examined "AAA",
which examination yielded the following result: “the subject is in virgin state physically. There are no
external signs of application of any form of physical trauma.” On the other hand, Soria averred that
"AAA" was unsure whether it was indeed Soria’s penis which touched her labia and entered her organ
since she was pinned down by the latter’s weight. What crime/s has/have been committed by Soria,
if there is any?

A: He is liable only for rape by sexual assault. In determining whether appellant is guilty of rape
through sexual intercourse, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal
knowledge of "AAA". There must be proof that his penis touched the labia of "AAA" or slid into her
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof. In this case, "AAA" was unsure
whether it was indeed appellant’s penis which touched her labia and entered her organ since she was
pinned down by the latter’s weight, her father having positioned himself on top of her while she was
lying on her back. However, she categorically testified that appellant inserted something into her
vagina. The insertion even caused her vagina to bleed necessitating her examination at the hospital. It
was clearly established that appellant committed an act of sexual assault on "AAA" by inserting an
instrument or object into her genital. We find it inconsequential that "AAA" could not specifically
identify the particular instrument or object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and
relevant is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina. Hence, appellant committed the crime
of rape by sexual assault.
 PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES vs. GLENN SALVADOR y BAL VERDE
G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused
will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the said items have been preserved

FACTS: A confidential informant (CI) reported to PO2 Soriano that a certain alias Bumski, who turned to be
the appellant, was engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs. After the surveillance, a police team was formed
to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Soriano was designated as poseur-buyer. PO2 Soriano and the CI
proceeded to appellant’s house while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves within viewing
distance. The CI introduced PO2 Soriano to appellant as a drug dependent who wanted to purchase ₱200.00
worth of shabu. During their conversation, Parcon arrived and asked appellant for shabu. Appellant gave her a
small heat-sealed plastic sachet. Thereafter, PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the buy-bust money consisting
of two 100-peso bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance. PO2 Soriano then immediately arrested appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy
bust money.

The items recovered during the buy-bust operation were marked by PO2 Soriano and turned over to
the designated investigator, PO1 Calatay. PO1 Calatay then prepared a letter-request for laboratory
examination, which, together with the confiscated specimen, was brought by PO2 Soriano to the PNP Crime
Laboratory.

Aside from the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements constituting the crime of illegal sale of
shabu, appellant asserted that the apprehending officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory of
the seized items and photograph the same as mandated by Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165;
that the chain of custody was broken since PO2 Soriano could not determine with certainty whether the plastic
sachet allegedly seized from him was the same specimen subjected to laboratory examination; and that the
failure to coordinate the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was
prejudicial to his substantive right.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not he is liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 5, Article II of
RA 9165?
2. Is the non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 fatal?
3. Whether or not the a buy bust operation should be invalidated for non-coordination with the PDEA
RULING
1. Yes, he is liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: (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. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. The commission of the offense
of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which
happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.

In this case, all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were established. The testimony of PO2 Soriano
reveals that an entrapment operation was organized and conducted after they confirmed through a surveillance
operation the information that appellant is engaged in drug peddling activities. Designated as a poseur-buyer,
he approached appellant. After having been introduced by the CI to appellant as a drug user, PO2 Soriano
asked him if he could purchase ₱200.00 worth of shabu. PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the marked money
and the latter, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. PO2 Soriano then arrested appellant and recovered
the buy-bust money from the latter. Immediately thereafter his back-up who were monitoring the transaction
from viewing distance arrived. Forensic examination subsequently confirmed that the contents of the sachets
bought from appellant and recovered from Parcon were indeed shabu.

2. It is not fatal. The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful
arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso
added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds
and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved. What is
crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used
in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

"The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as long as the chain of
custody of the same are duly established." "Chain of Custody’ means the duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the
identity and signature of the person who had temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition."

There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely: "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."

In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.
There is no evidence that PO2 Soriano lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was
recovered from the appellant until its turnover to the police station. He marked the seized item immediately
upon arrival at the police station. He turned it over to PO1 Calatay, the investigating officer, who prepared the
letter request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic sachets. These facts were admitted
by the appellant.

On the same day, PO2 Soriano personally brought the letter request and specimens to the PNP Crime
Laboratory where they were received by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Arban who conducted the examination on
the specimens submitted. During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the purpose for which P/Insp.
Arban’s testimony was being offered. The marked sachet of shabu and the marked money used in purchasing
the same were both presented in evidence.

3. No, it should not be invalidated. Appellant’s argument that the entrapment operation is fatally flawed
for failure of the buy-bust team to coordinate with the PDEA deserves scant consideration.
Coordination with PDEA, while perhaps ideal, is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust
operation;" it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA

PROBLEM
Q: A confidential informant reported to PO2 Soriano that Salvador was engaged in the illicit sale of
dangerous drugs. A surveillance operation was conducted the same day on Salvador and thereafter a
buy bust operation was conducted. PO2 Soriano was designated as poseur-buyer. The team arrived at
the area and PO2 Soriano and the CI proceeded to appellant’s house while the rest of the buy-bust
team positioned themselves within viewing distance. The CI introduced PO2 Soriano to appellant as
a drug dependent who wanted to purchase ₱200.00 worth of shabu. During their conversation, a
certain Parcon arrived and asked Salvador for shabu. Salvador gave her a small heat-sealed plastic
sachet. Thereafter, PO2 Soriano handed to Salvador the buy-bust money consisting of two 100-peso
bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
PO2 Soriano then immediately arrested appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy
bust money.

The items recovered during the buy-bust operation were marked by PO2 Soriano and turned over to
the designated investigator, PO1 Calatay. PO1 Calatay then prepared a letter-request for laboratory
examination, which, together with the confiscated specimen, was brought by PO2 Soriano to the PNP
Crime Laboratory.

Aside from the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements constituting the crime of illegal sale of
shabu, Salvador asserted that the apprehending officers failed to immediately conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same as mandated by Section 21 of the
Implementing Rules of RA 9165; and that the chain of custody was broken.

Is Salvador liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs? Is the non-compliance with Section 21, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 fatal?

A: Yes, he is liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs the following elements must be established: (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.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. The commission of the offense
of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment
the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place. In this case, all the
elements of illegal sale are present. PO2 Soriano, after having been introduced by the CI to Salvador
as a drug user, he asked him if he could purchase ₱200.00 worth of shabu. PO2 Soriano handed to
Salvador the marked money and the latter, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu.

Non-compliance with Section 21 Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal. In a buy-bust operation, the failure
to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render
his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. In this case, the prosecution established clearly
the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES vs. WILFREDO GUNDA alias FRED

G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

There is treachery when the offender commits a crime 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.

FACTS: Eladio Globio, Sr., and his son, Eladio Jr., were walking along a trail. Suddenly, when Eladio Jr. was
about 10 meters ahead of his father, the latter was waylaid by appellant Gunda and his unidentified companions.
The John Does held the victim's arms whereupon appellant stabbed him several times. Fearing for his life,
Eladio Jr. fled. The unidentified assailants pursued him but he was able to outrun them. Eladio Jr. informed his
sister of the death of their father. They then reported the incident to the police authorities who eventually
arrested the appellant. The body of the victim was recovered and post-mortem examinations revealed that he
suffered multiple stab wounds which caused his death.

Teofilo Ambal, Jr., the brother-in-law of the appellant, also witnessed the crime. While he was at his
farm gathering feeds for his pigs, he saw appellan armed with a wooden pole positioned himself at the back of
the victim and strike the latter’s head with the wood. The companions of appellant then held the victim’s arms
whereupon appellant drew a bolo locally known as depang from his waist and stabbed the victim several times.
Fearing for his life, Ambal likewise left the crime scene.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant is liable for murder?

RULING
Yes, he is liable for murder. Two prosecution witnesses positively identified him as the person who
waylaid the victim, and with the help of his conspirators, stabbed the victim several times. According to the
postmortem findings, the victim suffered 12 stab wounds which caused his death. There is also no doubt in
our mind that the attack on the victim was attended by treachery. The victim was unarmed and had no inkling
of the impending attack on his person. In fact, he was just on his way home together with his son Eladio Jr.
The victim was attacked by appellant from behind with a blow to his head with a wooden pole. His cohorts
then held the victim’s arms rendering him helpless and immobile. In such position, there is no opportunity for
the victim to escape or even offer a feeble resistance. Appellant then delivered the coup de grâce by stabbing
the victim multiple times.

Undoubtedly, treachery qualified the killing to murder. "There is treachery when the offender commits
a crime 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."

PROBLEM
Q: While walking along a trail and when Eladio Jr. was about 10 meters ahead of his father Eladio Sr,
the latter was waylaid by Gunda and his unidentified companions. The John Does held the victim's
arms whereupon Gunda stabbed him several times. Eladio Jr. fled. The unidentified assailants pursued
him but he was able to outrun them. Eladio Jr. informed his sister of the death of their father. They
then reported the incident to the police authorities who eventually arrested the appellant. The body
of the victim was recovered and post-mortem examinations revealed that he suffered multiple stab
wounds which caused his death.

Teofilo Ambal, Jr. witnessed the crime. He saw Gunda armed with a wooden pole positioned himself
at the back of the victim and strike the latter’s head with the wood. The companions of Gunda then
held the victim’s arms whereupon Gunda drew a bolo from his waist and stabbed the victim several
times. Is Gunda liable for murder? What aggravating circumstance/s is/are present?

A: Yes, Gunda is liable for murder. The prosecution witnesses positively identified him as the person
who waylaid the victim, and with the help of his conspirators, stabbed the victim several times.
According to the postmortem findings, the victim suffered 12 stab wounds which caused his death.
There is also no doubt in our mind that the attack on the victim was attended by treachery. "There is
treachery when the offender commits a crime 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 victim was unarmed and
had no inkling of the impending attack on his person. In fact, he was just on his way home together
with his son Eladio Jr. The victim was attacked by appellant from behind with a blow to his head with
a wooden pole. His cohorts then held the victim’s arms rendering him helpless and immobile. In such
position, there is no opportunity for the victim to escape or even offer a feeble resistance.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SHERWIN BIS y AVELLANEDA

G.R. No. 191360, March 10, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of
its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is duty-bound to establish with
unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same prohibited substance
seized from him.

FACTS: A civilian informant tipped the San Fernando City Police Station about the alleged drug pushing
activity of appellant at his residence. Hence, a team composed of Police Officers Espejo, Arce and Casem
conducted a surveillance. They stayed at a store about 10 meters away from appellant’s house and from there
saw people coming in and out. The said police officers then conducted a buy-bust operation. Espejo was
designated as poseur-buyer. Upon arriving at the locus criminis, Espejo approached appellant who was standing
in front of his house. He told him, "Pards pakikuha ng isang bulto." Appellant looked at Espejo and asked
"where is your money?" After Espejo handed the ₱1,000.00 bill to appellant, the latter went inside the house.
He emerged after a while and gave Espejo three plastic sachets placed in another plastic container. Convinced
that the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachets is shabu, Espejo made the pre-arranged signal and
the appellant was arrested.

Thereafter, he was brought to the police station wherein a further search on him by Espejo yielded
aluminum foils and the marked money. In the meantime, Espejo marked the three plastic sachets he bought
from appellant. Afterwards, the team brought the Request for Laboratory Examination together with the
confiscated items to the Regional Chief of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service. The results of the laboratory
examination on the specimen yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
a dangerous drug.

Appellant posits that the prosecution did not strictly comply with the procedures laid down in Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations regarding the physical inventory and
photograph of the seized items.

ISSUE
Whether or not the chain of custody was established to warrant his conviction for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Sec.5 Article II of Ra 9165

RULING
Yes, the chain of custody was established. Case law has it that non-compliance with Sec.21 Article II
of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. "What is of utmost importance 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."
 In the present case, the totality of the prosecution’s evidence shows the integrity of the drugs seized to
be intact. The identity of the drugs was proven and the chain of its custody and possession has been duly
accounted for and not broken. This can be gleaned from the testimonies of Espejo and Arce who narrated that
from the moment the items were seized from appellant, the same were brought to the police station where
Espejo marked them, properly inventoried, and, together with the laboratory request, were immediately
delivered by Espejo himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of
dangerous drugs. Police Inspector Melanie Joy Ordoño conducted an examination on the specimens submitted
with the corresponding markings and concluded that the three heat sealed transparent plastic sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Moreover, Espejo, when confronted during trial,
identified the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance as the very same items confiscated
from the appellant.

Under the situation, this Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that would hint any doubt as to the
identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. "Besides, the integrity of the
evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence
has been tampered with" and in such case, the burden of proof rests on the appellant. Here, appellant miserably
failed to discharge this burden.

PROBLEM
Q: A civilian informant tipped the San Fernando City Police Station about the alleged drug pushing
activity of Sherwin at his residence. Hence, Police Officers Espejo, Arce and Casem went to the area
to conduct a surveillance. They stayed at a store about 10 meters away from Sherwin’s house and from
there saw people coming in and out. The said police officers then conducted a buy-bust operation.
Espejo was designated as poseur-buyer. Upon arriving at the locus criminis, Espejo approached
Sherwin who was standing in front of his house. He told him, "Pards pakikuha ng isang bulto."
Sherwin looked at Espejo and asked "where is your money?" After Espejo handed the ₱1,000.00 bill
to him, the latter went inside the house. He emerged after a while and gave Espejo three plastic sachets
placed in another plastic container. Convinced that the white crystalline substance inside the sachets
is shabu, Espejo made the pre-arranged signal and Sherwin was arrested.

Thereafter, he was brought to the police station wherein a further search on him by Espejo yielded
aluminum foils and the marked money. In the meantime, Espejo marked the three plastic sachets he
bought from Sherwin. Afterwards, the team brought the Request for Laboratory Examination together
with the confiscated items to the Regional Chief of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service. The results of
the laboratory examination on the specimen yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.

Sherwin posits that the prosecution did not strictly comply with the procedures laid down in Section
21, Article II of RA 9165. Is Sherwin liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec.5 Article II
of RA 9165? Was the chain of custody established to warrant his conviction?

A: Yes, he is liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The chain of custody was established to warrant
his conviction. Case law has it that non-compliance with Sec.21 is not fatal and will not render an
accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. "What is of utmost
importance 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."

In the present case, the totality of the prosecution’s evidence shows the integrity of the drugs seized
to be intact. The identity of the drugs was proven and the chain of its custody and possession has
been duly accounted for and not broken. This can be gleaned from the testimonies of Espejo and
Arce who narrated that from the moment the items were seized from Sherwin, the same were brought
to the police station where Espejo marked them, properly inventoried, and, together with the
laboratory request, were immediately delivered by Espejo himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. The examination yielded positive for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Moreover, Espejo, when
confronted during trial, identified the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance as
the very same items confiscated from the appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERRY OBOGNE

G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not automatically merit the imposition of the death penalty.
Under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or
physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death
penalty.

FACTS: "AAA" recalled that while she was playing, appellant Jerry Obogne saw her and asked her to go with
him because he would give her a sugar cane. Appellant brought "AAA" to his house and while inside, ‘he
removed her panty, and then inserted his penis into her vagina and he got the knife and then he took a sugar
cane and then he gave it to her and then she went home. The appellant was charged with the crime of rape in
an Information that reads as follows:

That on or about the 29th day of July 2002, in the afternoon, in barangay Ogbong, municipality of Viga,
province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused
by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously x x x succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of "AAA",a 12-year old mentally retarded person, to the damage and prejudice ofthe
said "AAA"

The trial court did not consider "AAA’s" mental retardation as a qualifying circumstance considering
that the Information failed to allege that appellant knew of "AAA’s" mental disability.

Moreover, appellant argues that the testimony of "AAA" deserves no credence because she was
incapable of intelligently making known her perception to others by reason of her mental disability.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not AAA should be disqualified from taking the witness stand?
2. Whether or not AAA’s mental disability can be considered as qualifying circumstance?

RULING
1. No, "AAA" is totally qualified to take the witness stand notwithstanding her mental condition. Sec. 21,
Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. -

The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a)Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are
incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
 (b)Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

However, in this case, during the continuation of AAA’s testimony she was able to recall what appellant
did to her. She managed to recount the ordeal she had gone through in the hands of the accused, though in a
soft voice and halting manner. While it is true that, on cross-examination, "AAA" faltered in the sequence of
events, this is understandable because even one with normal mental condition would not be able to recall, with
a hundred percent accuracy, events that transpired in the past. But "AAA" was certain that ‘it was a long time
after the incident’ when it was reported to the police. Likewise, she was very certain that the accused inserted
his penis into her vagina.

2. It should not be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the case at bar. The trial court and the CA
correctly found appellant guilty of simple rape and properly imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the RPC. The trial court correctly ruled that "AAA’s"
mental disability could not be considered as a qualifying circumstance because the Information failed
to allege that appellant knew of such mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime.

The mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not automatically merit the imposition of
the death penalty. Under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the
mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the
qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. As such this circumstance must be
formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution.

PROBLEM
Q: AAA has mental retardation. While she was playing, Jerry saw her and asked her to go with her
because he would give her a sugar cane. Jerry brought "AAA" to his house and while inside, ‘he
removed her panty, and then inserted his penis into her vagina and he got the knife and then he took
a sugar cane and then he gave it to her and then she went home. Jerry was charged with the crime of
rape in an Information that reads as follows:

That on or about the 29th day of July 2002, in the afternoon, in barangay Ogbong, municipality
of Viga, province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court,
the said accused by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously x x
x succeeded in having carnal knowledge of "AAA",a 12-year old mentally retarded person, to
the damage and prejudice of the said "AAA"

Moreover, Jerry argues that the testimony of "AAA" deserves no credence because she was incapable
of intelligently making known her perception to others by reason of her mental disability.

Is Jerry liable only for simple rape?

A: Yes, Jerry is guilty of simple rape only with a penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-
B, par. 1 of the RPC. AAA’s mental disability could not be considered as a qualifying circumstance
here because the Information failed to allege that appellant knew of such mental condition at the time
of the commission of the crime. The mere fact that the rape victim is a mental retardate does not
automatically merit the imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 266-B (10) of the Revised Penal
Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at
the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of
the death penalty. As such this circumstance must be formally alleged in the information and duly
proved by the prosecution.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL APLAT y SUBLINO
G.R. No. 191727, March 31, 2014, Second Division, Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction,
which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through
the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is
considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.

FACTS: SPO4 Sison received information from a civilian informant that his acquaintance named "Manuel"
was looking for a prospective buyer of dried marijuana leaves. SPO4 Sison instructed the informant to accept
the latter’s offer. The informant acceded and shortly thereafter returned to tell SPO4 Sison that Manuel
accepted the offer to buy and that the sale would take place between 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. of the same day in front
of JR Bakery. The police officers then organized a buy-bust team for Manuel’s entrapment. PO3 Fines acted as
poseur-buyer. PO3 Fines was provided with one P1,000.00 bill and one P500.00 bill as buy-bust money.

Upon arrival in the area, PO3 Fines and the informant posted themselves across JR Bakery. Not long
thereafter, two men, one with a sando plastic bag, arrived. Manuel, who turned out to be the appellant,
approached the informant and asked where the buyer was. The informant pointed to PO3 Fines and introduced
him as the prospective buyer. After a brief conversation, appellant demanded the payment from PO3 Fines
who immediately handed to him the marked money. Upon receipt, appellant in turn took an item wrapped in
a newspaper from the sando bag held by his companion, later identified as Danglay, and gave the same to PO3
Fines. PO3 Fines smelled and assessed the item and once convinced that it was a brick of marijuana leaves,
tapped appellant’s shoulder as a signal to his companions that the sale was already consummated. With the
brick in hand, PO3 Fines then introduced himself as a police officer and with the aid of SPO4 Sison arrested
appellant and Danglay,.

At the police station, PO3 Fines marked the suspected marijuana brick he bought from appellant. PO3
Fines placed his signature on the sando plastic bag. Appellant and Danglay were also identified at the police
station and the suspected dried marijuana leaves inventoried and photographed in their presence as well as of
the representatives from the DOJ, the media and an elected barangay official. After a preliminary test on the
bricks were made at their office, PO2 Mateo brought on the same day the confiscated items to the Regional
Crime Laboratory for chemistry examination per request of P/Sr. Insp. Olsim. Forensic Chemist Officer P/Sr.
Insp. Emilia Gracio Montes then examined the bricks and found them positive for marijuana, a dangerous
drug.

Appellant and Danglay interposed the defense of denial. Both claimed that there was no buy-bust
operation, no money recovered and no bricks of marijuana seized from them.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant’s guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana, a dangerous drug, was proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING
Yes, the appellant is liable for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The elements of the crime were present. In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that a sale of one
brick of marijuana for P1,500.00 took place between PO3 Fines, as buyer, and appellant as seller. The brick of
marijuana was presented before the trial court as Exhibit "O." PO3 Fines positively identified appellant as the
seller. It is, therefore, beyond doubt that a buy-bust operation involving the illegal sale of marijuana, a dangerous
drug, actually took place. Moreover, such buy-bust operation, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary
and based on the facts obtaining in this case, was regularly carried out by the police operatives.
 Moreover, the appellant harps on the buy-bust team’s alleged deviation from the mandated procedure
in taking post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug as provided under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
However, this issue was only raised first time on appeal; hence, cannot be entertained. And even if it was
entertained, the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, clearly
shows an unbroken chain of custody.

PROBLEM
Q: SPO4 Sison received information from a civilian informant that his acquaintance named "Manuel"
was looking for a prospective buyer of dried marijuana leaves. SPO4 Sison instructed the informant
accept the latter’s offer. The informant acceded and thereafter returned to tell SPO4 Sison that Manuel
accepted the offer to buy and that the sale would take place between 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. of the same
day in front of JR Bakery. The police officers then organized a buy-bust team for Manuel’s entrapment.
PO3 Fines acted as poseur-buyer. PO3 Fines was provided with one P1,000.00 bill and one P500.00
bill as buy-bust money.

Upon arrival in the area, PO3 Fines and the informant posted themselves across JR Bakery. Not
long thereafter, two men, one with a sando plastic bag, arrived. Manuel, approached the informant
and asked where the buyer was. The informant pointed to PO3 Fines and introduced him as the
prospective buyer. After a brief conversation, appellant demanded the payment from PO3 Fines
who immediately handed to him the marked money. Upon receipt, appellant in turn took an item
wrapped in a newspaper from the sando bag held by his companion, later identified as Danglay, and
gave the same to PO3 Fines. PO3 Fines smelled and assessed the item and once convinced that it
was a brick of marijuana leaves, tapped appellant’s shoulder as a signal to his companions that the
sale was already consummated. With the brick in hand, PO3 Fines then introduced himself as a
police officer and with the aid of SPO4 Sison arrested Manuel.

At the police station, PO3 Fines marked the suspected marijuana brick he bought from Manuel.
PO3 Fines placed his signature on the sando plastic bag. Manuel was also identified at the police
station and the suspected dried marijuana leaves inventoried and photographed in their presence as
well as of the representatives from the DOJ, the media and an elected barangay official. After a
preliminary test on the bricks were made at their office, PO2 Mateo brought on the same day the
confiscated items to the Regional Crime Laboratory for chemistry examination per request of P/Sr.
Insp. Olsim. Forensic Chemist Officer P/Sr. Insp. Emilia Gracio Montes then examined the bricks
and found them positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.

Is Manuel liable for illegal sale of dangerous drugs?

A: Yes, he is liable for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165. The
elements of the crime were present. The prosecution was able to establish that a sale of one brick of
marijuana for P1,500.00 took place between PO3 Fines, as buyer, and Manuel as seller. The brick of
marijuana was presented before the trial court. PO3 Fines positively identified Manuel as the seller. It
is, therefore, beyond doubt that a buy-bust operation involving the illegal sale of marijuana, a
dangerous drug, actually took place. Moreover, such buy-bust operation, in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary and based on the facts obtaining in this case, was regularly carried out by the
police operatives.