December 2016 Criminal Cases.docx

TOPIC: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases; Malversation thru Falsification of Public/Official Document Zenaida P. Maamo and Juliet O. Silor vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 201917. December 01, 2016 CAGUIOA, J.: FACTS: Zenaida Maamo, former Mayor of the Municipality of Lilo-an, Southern Leyte and Juliet Silor, then Assistant Municipal Treasurer were charged for 9 counts of Malversation through Falsification of Public/Official Documents for the alleged falsification of public documents consisting of Time Books and Payrolls representing different time periods in the Sandiganbayan (SB). ISSUE: WON the prosecution was able to prove the culpability of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. RULING: No. What is necessary for conviction of Malversation is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefore was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. (Note that while demand is not an element of Malversation, it is a requisite for the application of the presumption of misappropriation of public funds). Therefore, to support a conviction for the crime, the prosecution must nonetheless present direct evidence clearly convincing misappropriation of public funds. TOPIC: Robbery with Homicide aggravated by the circumstance of employment of disguise and abuse of superior strength People of the Philippines Vs. Willy Vallar, et al. G.R. No. 196256. December 5, 2016 SERENO, CJ: FACTS: The appellants robbed the store of spouses Bagabaldo and in the process inflicted a fatal wound to Opiso and killed Eufracio Bagabaldo. ISSUE: 1. WON the appellants was properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 2. WON the CA was correct in its modification of the crime to robbery with homicide only. RULING: 1. Yes. It is a time-honored principle that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive declaration of witnesses who have convincingly identified the accused as the perpetrators of the crime charged. 2. Yes. It has been jurisprudentially settled that the term of homicide is to be used in its generic sense, to embrace not only acts that result in death, but all other acts producing any bodily injury short of death. It is thus characterized as such regardless of the number of homicides committed and the physical injuries inflicted. TOPIC: Bail; Certiorari People of the Philippines Vs. Dr. David A. Sobrepeña, Sr., et al. G.R. No. 204063. December 5, 2016 DEL CASTILLO, J.: FACTS: Respondents are officers and employees of Union College of Laguna. They were charged in several informations for allegedly committing Estafa and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment. Respondents filed a petition for bail but was denied by the RTC. The

CA overturned their ruling saying that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretionary mounting to excess of jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal of certiorari. ISSUE:

WON the impugned order of the RTC should be reinstated.

RULING: Yes. In cases involving non-bailable offenses, what is controlling is the determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong, which is a matter of judicial discretion that remains with the judge. In a summary hearing, the Court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered and admitted. The findings and assessment of the trial court during the bail hearing were only a preliminary of the strength of the prosecution’s evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether respondents are entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial. From the perspective of the CA, the issue therein resolved is not so much on bail application but already on the merits of the case. TOPIC: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act; Buy-bust Operation; Chain of Cutody Rule People of the Philippines Vs. Susan M. Tamaño and Jaffy B. Gulmatico G.R. No. 208643. December 5, 2016. PERALTA, J.: FACTS: In a buy-bust operation by the PDEA in Lapaz, Iloilo City, the appellants were arrested for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The appellants were convicted by both the RTC and CA. ISSUE:

1. WON the buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA in apprehending the appellants is valid. 2. WON the chain of custody rule was complied with.

RULING: 1. Yes. 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. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only authorized, but are duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant. The mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi (intent to possess) sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. 2. Yes. In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction therefore, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. Section 21, Art. II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure to be observed by the apprehending officers in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs. However, under the same provision, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.

TOPIC: Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide People of the Philippines Vs. Christopher Elizalde y Sumagdon and Allan Placente y Busio G.R. No. 210434. December 5, 2016 PERALTA, J.: FACTS: Accused-appellants were alleged to have kidnapped Letty Tan y Co and asked for P20,000,000.00 ransom. They later found her in a jeepney dead. RTC and CA convicted the accused. ISSUE:

WON the accused-appellants were rightfully found guilty.

RULING: Yes. Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime, i.e., when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. TOPIC: Private person subjected to the prosecution of the Ombudsman in a plunder case (PDAF) Richard A. Cambe Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./Richard A. Cambe Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./John Raymund De Asis Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales, et al./Ronald John Lim Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales, et al./Janet Lim Napoles Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales, et al./Mario L. Relampagos, et al. Vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 212014-15/G.R. Nos. 212427-28/G.R. Nos. 212694-95/G.R. Nos. 21347778/G.R. Nos. 213532-33/G.R. Nos. 213536-37/G.R. Nos. 218744-59. December 6, 2016 PERLAS – BERNABE, J.: FACTS: Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators for their respective participations in the illegal pillaging of public funds sourced from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Sen. Revilla for the years 2006 to 2010, in the total amount of P517,000,000.00. Probable cause was found by the OMB. One of the petitioners, Napoles, alleges that since she is not a public officer, she cannot be subjected to the prosecution by the OMB before the Sandiganbayan. ISSUE: WON Napoles can be subjected to the prosecution by the OMB before the Sandiganbayan. RULING: Yes. It has been long-settled that while the primary offender in the aforesaid crimes are public officers, private individuals may also be held liable for the same if they are found to have conspired with said officers in committing the same. This proceeds from the fundamental principle that in cases of conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. In this case, since it appears that Napoles has acted in concert with public officers in the pillaging of Sen. Revilla's PDAF, the Ombudsman correctly indicted her as a co-conspirator for the aforementioned crimes. TOPIC: Treachery People of the Philippines Vs. Samson Berk Bayogan G.R. No. 204896. December 7, 2016 PEREZ, J.:

FACTS: Clarita was shot four times by two men riding a motorcycle while she was tending to her store. The RTC and CA found the appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. ISSUE: WON the prosecution was able to establish the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. RULING: Yes. The prosecution ably established the presence of the element of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The shooting of the unsuspecting victim was sudden and unexpected which effectively deprived her of the chance to defend herself or to repel the aggression, insuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. TOPIC: Qualified Rape People of the Philippines Vs. Napoleon Bensurto, Jr. y Bolohabo G.R. No. 216061. December 7, 2016 PERALTA, J.: FACTS: AAA was only 9 years old when the accused, her father, raped her sometime in February 1999. This was repeated in January 2000. AAA was, however, only able to tell her mother on November 2000. The accused was found guilty by the trial court and the CA. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE:

WON the accused is guilty of the crime of qualified rape.

RULING: Yes. When the offender is the victim's father, as in this case, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. Furthermore, resistance, therefore, is not necessary to establish rape, especially when the victim is unconscious, deprived of reason, manipulated, demented, or young either in chronological age or mental age. TOPIC: Rape People of the Philippines Vs. Jesus Mayola y Picar G.R. No. 214470. December 7, 2016 PERALTA, J.: FACTS: Accused is the father of AAA, the private complainant. AAA alleges that accused has had sexual intercourse with her every day since 2001, when she was just 13 years old. AAA was eventually fed up and told him not to do it again. AAA reported the incident and was subjected to medical examination which found that there were lacerations in her hymen. The trial court and the CA found appellant guilty of rape. Hence, this present appeal. ISSUE:

WON appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING: Yes. Under paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. Anent the second element, it was duly proven and uncontested that appellant is the father of private complainant. When the offender is the victim’s father, as in this case, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

TOPIC: Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs People of the Philippines Vs. Orlando Fernandez y Abaraquiz G.R. No. 210617. December 7, 2016 PEREZ, J.: FACTS: Appellant was arrested during a buy-bust operation and was found to be in possession of shabu and improvised water pipe. Appellant was subsequently charged for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The trial court and the CA both rendered judgment convicting the accused for said crime. ISSUE:

WON the RTC and the CA were correct in finding the appellant guilty.

RULING: Yes. In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the transaction of the sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself. Furthermore, the Court noted that procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. TOPIC: Chain of Custody Rule in Drugs Cases People of the Philippines Vs. Rosario Bayot Mahinay G.R. No. 210656. December 7, 2016 PEREZ, J.: FACTS: The appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation from which ten (10) sticks of marijuana cigarettes were found on his person. The RTC and CA found appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. ISSUE:

WON there was chain of custody in the case.

RULING: Yes. In the seizure of dangerous drugs and its custody, what is of primordial importance is the untainted integrity and preserved evidentiary value of the seized articles as such would determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. Well-established is the rule that in order for the prosecution to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the buyer and the seller must first be established, followed by the object and consideration of the sale and finally the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Accordingly, what is of utmost importance is the proof of the consummation of the sale or whether the transaction indeed transpired.