PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOMER BUTIAL G.R. No.

192785, February 4, 2015 SECOND

DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Accused was caught selling illegal drugs during a buy-bust operation. Thus he was charged for
violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. However, there was failure to observe
the procedures in preserving the shabu. Will the accused be convicted?
No. In the prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and the
consideration; and also the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor must be shown .
Further, the evidence of corpus delicti must be established beyond doubt where its identity and
integrity be definitely shown to have been preserved . The prosecution failed to show that the identity
and integrity of the corpus delicti were preserved. The confiscated sachets werent marked nor were
there photographs of the shabu confiscated. The lack of certainty on a crucial element of the
crime such as the identity of the corpus delicti, warrants acquittal.
People of the Philippines vs Dante Dela Pea and Dennis Delima G.R. No. 207635, February
18, 2015; Third Division, Villarama, Jr.
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
The accused were caught in a buy bust operation and were charged with illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. They argue that their guilt was not established. What are the elements
of illegal sale and illegal possession of illegal drugs and the primary consideration in their prosecution?
The elements for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer
and seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
For illegal possession, (a) the accused is in possession of a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
The primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been
preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation in court.
G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LTSG.
DOMINADOR BAYABOS, LTJG. MANNY G. FERRER, LTJG. RONALD G. MAGSINO, LTJG. GERRY
P. DOCTOR, ENS. DOMINADOR B. OPERIO, JR., AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN,
Respondents.
[G.R.
No.
174786]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RADM VIRGINIO R. ARIS, LTJG. KRUZALDO G.
MABBORANG, ENS. DENNIS S. VELASCO, AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
FIRST DIVISION, Sereno CJ
Liability of Accomplices when the Case is Dismissed against the Principals
Alvarez et. Al were charged for the crime of hazing in the RTC. Criminal charges were then filed with
the Sandiganbayan against the school authorities as accomplices to the aforesaid crime. They
presented an Order of Entry of Judgment of the dismissal of the charges against Alvarez et al. There
being no more principals, should the case against them be dismissed also?
NO. Those charged as accomplices are not ipso facto dismissed in the dismissal of the case against the
principals. As long as the commission of the crime can be proven, the trial against the accomplices can
proceed independently. The school authorities merely presented the Order of Entry of Judgment. The
order does not mention that the case was dismissed against the alleged principals, because no crime
had been committed

CHERRY ANN M. BENABAYE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No.
203466
February 25, 2015; First Division; Perlas-Bernabe, J
Prosecution for Estafa
Petitioner was the Loans Bookkeeper of Siam Bank Inc. She was authorized to collect and accept loan
payments of Siam Bank's clients, issue provisional receipts therefor and remit such payments to her
supervisor. The funds were allegedly misappropriated. Did the alleged misappropriation amount to
Estafa?
No. Estafas first element is wanting. Under the first element, when the money, goods, or any other
personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on
commission or (3) for administration, he acquires both material and juridical possession of the thing
received. Juridical possession means a possession giving the transferee a right over the thing which
the transferee may set up even against the owner. Benabayes possession was only material. As a
collector of loan payments from the clients, the money merely passes into her hands where she takes
custody thereof only for the banking day.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CHI CHAN LIU a.k.a. CHAN QUE and HUI LAO
CHUNG a.k.a. LEOFE SENGLAO, Appellants. G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015
Third Division, Peralta, J.

Prosecution for Illegal Importation

The police forces of Mindoro went to the shore of Ambil Island where men were suspiciously
transferring bags of suspected illegal drugs from one boat to another. In the boat, bags full of white
crystalline substance were found. The accused, who were in the boat, were detained and charged with
Importation of Illegal Drugs. They didnt respond to questions by the police. Instead, they kept on
telling the police that big money was waiting if they called China. They were convicted of
importation. Was the conviction valid?
No. Importation necessarily connotes the introduction of something into a certain territory coming
from an external source. If the article merely came from the same territory, there cannot be any
importation of the same. The mere fact that the accused were from China does not establish, beyond
reasonable doubt that the origin of the illegal drugs were from outside Philippine territory.

Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva vs. Elpidio Malicse Sr. and the People of the
Philippines; GR No. 190912, January 12, 2015, Third Division, Peralta.
Elements of An Attempted Felony/Crime
The accused were charged for the Attempted Murder where the victim was unarmed and drunk, while
his attackers were all armed. However, it was averred that the inclusion of the phrase "not necessarily
mortal" in the information means that there is an absence of intent to kill on their part, negating the
attempt to murder. Are they correct?

No. Intent to kill is a state of mind that can be discerned only through external manifestations. The
elements of an attempted felony are (1) The offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts; (2) He didnt perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
(3) The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; (4) The non-performance
was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. Whats important is that all the
elements of attempted murder are alleged and proven to be present.
Renato M. David v. Editha A. Agbay and People of the Philippines; GR No. 199113, 18 March
2015, Third Division; Villarama, Jr.,
Retroactive effects of Penal laws
Renato is a former Filipino citizen who migrated to Canada and became a Canadian citizen by
naturalization in 1974. When he returned to the Philippines, he filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application
with the DENR, wherein he stated that he was a Filipino citizen. A criminal case was filed against him
for falsification of public documents under Art. 172 of the RPC. Can Renato be indicted under Art.
172 of the RPC if he subsequently re-acquires his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA 9225?
Yes. Although, after filing the application, he re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under paragraph 1,
Section 3 of RA 9225, the falsification was already a consummated act, the said provision having no
retroactive effect insofar as his citizenship status is concerned. Further, under paragraph 1, Article 172
of the RPC, it is not necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person be present.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ALFREDO REYES y SANTOS, G.R. NO. 194606, FEBRUARY
18, 2015, Second Division, Del Castillo.
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Alfredo was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165 because of a buy-bust
operation. However, they argue that there was failure to establish the elements of the illegal sale in
proving that payment was given in consideration thereof, in fact there was an absence of a marked
money in the buy bust operation. Is he correct?
Yes. The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, has the following elements: (1)
identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of
the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. Here, the second element is
wanting as SPO1 Acosta said that there was no need to give the money as payment during the sale.
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELIPE GOZON, GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA
L. FLORES, JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PEA-REYES, JOHN OLIVER T. MANALASTAS,
JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, Respondents. G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015; SECOND
DIVISION, Leonen, J.
ABS-CBN conducted a live coverage of Filipino hostage victims arrival at the NAIA and a press
conference. ABS-CBN allowed Reuters to air the footages under a special embargo agreement. GMA-7
received a live video feed of the coverage from Reuters and immediately carried the live newsfeed in
its program. GMA-7 was not aware that Reuters was airing footages of ABS-CBN. May criminal
prosecution for such infringement be negated by good faith?
No. Acts punished under a special law are malum prohibitum where malice is immaterial. The mere act
of rebroadcasting without authority creates probable cause to find that GMA7 violated RA 8293. They
knew that thered be consequences in carrying out the footage as they immediately cut the feed upon
seeing ABS-CBNs logo. To admit a different treatment for broadcasts would mean abandonment of a

broadcasting organization's minimum rights. It is the act of infringement, not intent, which causes
damage.

Angelita Cruz Benito vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 204644, February 11, 2015,
Second Division, Leonen.
Conspiracy
Abadilla and Agbulos entered into several transactions for the sale of jewelry. In all these transactions,
Benito accompanied Agbulos. Agbulos misappropriated the jewelry belonging to Abadilla. Was there a
conspiracy between Benito and Agbulos in committing Estafa?

No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. So long as the evidence show a "common design or purpose to
commit the crime, all the accused shall be held equally liable as co-principals even if one or more of
them didnt participate in all the details of the execution of the crime. Theres no proof of Benito's
direct participation in the commission of the crime. Neither is there proof beyond reasonable doubt of
her conspiracy with Agbulos. The fact that Benito accompanied Agbulos in going to Abadilla's
residence, doesnt prove that Benito received any jewelry from Abadilla.
ROGELIO J. GONZAGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 195671, 21 January 2015,
FIRST DIVISION, PERLAS-BERNABE.
Imposition of Penalties for Complex Crimes
Dionesio was driving his motorcycle together with his children. While ascending the curving road, a car
driven by Rogelio collided with the motorcycle. The children suffered injuries while Dionesio died. The
lower courts found Rogelio guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious
Physical Injuries and Damage to Property and sentenced him a higher indeterminate penalty of (4)
years, (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to (8) years and (1) day of prision
mayor medium, as maximum. Is the penalty based from most serious crime reasonable?
Yes. The RPC provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime, in this case, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, shall be imposed, in its maximum
period.

Arnulfo A.K.A. Arnold Jacaban V. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015
Third Division, Peralta, J.:
Prosecution for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
Accused was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions pursuant to a search
warrant. The team found a calibre .45 placed in the ceiling of his residence. Accused who was at the
living room that time, rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2 Abellana but failed to get hold of
the gun. Is the accused guilty?
Yes. The essential elements for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) existence of
subject firearm; (2) the accused who possessed or owned the same doesnt have the corresponding
license for it. Ownership isnt an essential element the crime . Whats required is mere
possession, actual and constructive or the subjection of the thing to ones control and management.
His act of immediately rushing to where SPO2 Abellana found the gun and grappling with the latter for
the possession of the gun proved that such was under his control and management.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOMINGO GALLANO y

JARANILLA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 184762, February 25, 2015, First Division, Bersamin
Prosecution for Qualified Rape
Accused is being charged of qualified rape. The aggravating circumstance of minority and relationship
are present, the victim being 12 years old and the accused being her relative within the third civil
degree. However, during the trial, the age of the child has not been duly proven by the prosecution
there being inconsistent statements by the witnesses. Is the accused guilty of qualified rape?
No. To be convicted of qualified rape, minority and relationship between the victim and the accused
must concur and be established with absolute certainty . Hence, the victim's minority must be averred
and established "with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself." Thus, failure to do so such as
in this case where the prosecutions witnesses produced inconsistent evidences on the victims age
would result in the conviction of the accused of simple rape, and not of qualified rape.
G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO,Accused-Appellant. First Division, Perez
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Accused was arrested for selling and delivering a sachet of shabu during a buy-bust operation.
However, it was averred that there were lapses in the safekeeping of the suspected drugs that could
affect their integrity value. Was the accused guilty?
Yes. Failure to strictly comply with the procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an
arrest illegal, or the items inadmissible. The elements of illegal sale of drugs under R.A. No. 9165 are
(1) identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; (2) delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. It must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sold and delivered
a prohibited drug to another, and that the former knew that what he had sold and delivered to the
latter was a prohibited drug. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, plus
the presentation in court of corpus delicti.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNALDO BOSITO y CHAVENIA; G.R. No. 209346, January
12, 2015; Second Division, Carpio

Elements of Self-Defense
While watching a game, Bosito hacked Bonaobra with a bolo. The blow to Bonaobras head caused him
to slump to the ground and while escaping, Bosito repeatedly stabbed Bonaobra. Bosito invoked selfdefense as he was allegedly ganged up by Bonaobras group. Was there self-defense?

No. By invoking self-defense Bosito had the burden to prove that the killing was justified. The
elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person claiming self-defense. Aside from Bositos self-serving testimony, they didnt
present other witnesses to corroborate his testimonies. The means employed to prevent or repel the
supposed unlawful aggression was beyond whats reasonably necessary. The number, nature, and
gravity of the wounds sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined effort to kill, negating self-defense.

People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals 21st Division, Mindanao Station, et al.; GR No.
183652, 25 February 2015; Third Division, Peralta
Prosecution for Rape
After their drinking spree to celebrate their graduation, AAA was raped by the 3 accused. The CA
acquitted the accused as there was consensual sex from the fact that AAA did not resist nor did she
cry for help. Was there rape?
Yes. AAA was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. The elements of rape are: (1) the offender
had carnal knowledge of the victim; (2) such act was
accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve
years of age. Here, evidence shows that they intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than
she could handle. They forced her to drink even when
she was already obviously inebriated. AAA was clearly deprived of reason or
unconscious at the time the private respondents ravished her negating the claim of consensual sex.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SANDER DACUMA Y LUNSOD; G.R. No. 205889 February 4,
2015; First Division, Perez
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
A buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap Dacuma. He was then charged with illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In defense, they raised the issue on the non-compliance with
the procedure on custody and safekeeping of seized dangerous drugs. Should he be acquitted?
Yes. The requisites for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
Whats essential is to prove that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
evidence of the corpus delicti. The sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug from the
seller. The prosecution failed to prove that the shabu eventually presented in court were the same
ones confiscated by the officers due to its non-marking at the place where the buy-bust operation was
committed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MERA JOY ELEUTERIO NIELLES, @ MERA NIELLES
DELOS REYES,
G.R. No. 200308, February 23, 2015
Prosecution for Qualified Theft; Elements
Mera Joy as cashier, collected P640,353.86 from the sub-guarantors. However, she didnt remit the
amount to her employer, Flores, nor deposit such in her account. Instead, she issued 15 personal
checks totaling P640,353.86 and deposited them to Flores account. All checks were dishonored upon
presentment due to account closed. Can she be liable for qualified theft?
Yes. All the elements of qualified theft were present. There was abuse of confidence. Accused herself
testified that as a cashier, her functions include collections from agents and the making of deposits
and withdrawals in behalf of Flores. An employee who comes into possession of the monies she
collected enjoys the confidence reposed in her by her employer. The taking of the amount collected
was with intent to gain. It was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, or force upon things as the payments were voluntarily handed to her by the sub-guarantors.

People of the Philippines v. Gerardo Enumerable y De Villa, GR No. 207993, 21 January

2015,
Second Division, Carpio.
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
What is the effect when the prosecution fails to sufficiently establish who had custody of the illegal
drug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted from the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory
until it was allegedly delivered to RTC?
The accused will be acquitted notwithstanding that he has been convicted both by the RTC and the CA.
When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug
presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug
presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken chain of
custody. With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO, G.R. NO. 193855, FEBRUARY
18, 2015, Second Division, Del Castillo.
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
1.
2.
1.

2.

Is the presentation of the poseur-buyer as witness indispensable in a prosecution for violation

of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165?
Is the non-participation of the PDEA fatal to a buy-bust operation?
No. As long as all the elements of Illegal sale of drugs were proved beyond reasonable doubt
and the police officers presented as witnesses were all part of the buy-bust operation as direct
witnesses to the actual sale of the Shabu, the Accuseds arrest immediately thereafter and the
recovery from the poseur-buyer of the marked money, the testimony of the poseur-buyer is
merely corroborative.
No, the coordination with the PDEA is not a crucial requisite of a proper buy-bust operation; it
is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO MORALES Y LAM, AccusedAppellant. G.R. No. 206832, January 21, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Effect of Death of the accused pending appeal of the Case
Alfredo Morales, after trial, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals of illegal
sale and possession of dangerous drugs, thereby violating RA 9165. He appealed the case to the
Supreme Court. However, pending appeal, he died. What happens to the case?
The case is dismissed. The death of accused-appellant Morales pending appeal of his conviction,
extinguishes his civil and criminal liabilities, pursuant to Art. 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
However, there exists no civil liability in violations of RA 9165. Thus, there is no civil liability to
extinguish.

People of the Philippines vs Ronald Nical y Alminario; G.R. No. 210430, February 18, 2015;
Third Division, Reyes.

Prosecution for Rape; Presence of Physical Injuries on the Victim

For the prosecution of rape, the physician testified that he found no signs of any injury, sexual abuse,
lacerations, lesions and bleeding in the private parts of the victim, whose hymen he noted was no
longer intact. He clarified that the victim could have had prior sexual intercourse months or years
earlier, although his medical findings do not exclude the possibility that she was raped or sexually
abused by the accused a few days earlier. Does the absence of physical injuries or lacerations negate
the crime of rape?
No. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape.
Although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be
established by other evidences. In fact, medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the
essential elements in the prosecution for rape.
People of the Philippines vs Marcelino Oloverio; G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015,
Second Division, Leonen.
Prosecution for Murder (Presence of Passion and Obfuscation)
Oloverio was charged with the crime of murder for allegedly stabbing Gulane treacherously. In his
defense, Oloverio alleged that at the time and day of the incident, Gulane had been accusing him of
having an incestuous relationship with his mother and continued mocking him in a loud voice despite
repeated requests by the former for the latter to go home. Oloverio admitted that he stabbed Gulane
because he could no longer bear the insulting remarks against him. Is he entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation?
Yes. Passion and obfuscation, as a mitigating circumstance, need not be felt only in the seconds before
the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no longer be
repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL,

G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015
Second Division, Del Castillo
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Elements)
What are the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002?

For the sale of illegal drugs the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the following elements: (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 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 elements of illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165 are to wit: (1) appellant was
shown to have been in possession of shabu, a prohibited drug; (2) his possession was not authorized
by law; and (3) he freely and consciously possessed the said illegal drug.

People of the Philippines vs Charlie Orosco; G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015; Third
Division, Villarama, Jr.
Conspiracy
Apellant, along with 2 other John Does were charged of Robbery with Homicide. From the lone
testimony of the eyewitness, it was averred that appellant however was not the one who stabbed the
victim, the former was only holding the hands of the victim while the stabbing happened on occasion
of robbery. Is he guilty of robbery with homicide? Or will it only be Robbery?
He is guilty of Robbery with homicide. When there is showing that the perpetrators acted in a
concerted manner in attaining the objective of the crime, there is beyond reasonable doubt the
presence of conspiracy. In conspiracy, it does not matter who stabbed the victim because the act of
one is the act of all. The participation of accused in holding the hands of the victim to restrain her
from moving is sufficient to make him liable for the death of the victim.
People of the Philippines v. Domingo Dilla Y Paular, GR No. 200333, 21 January 2015,
Second Division, Del Castillo.
Award of Damages for Criminal Cases
May the Supreme Court in a criminal case (murder) validly grant temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages notwithstanding that the amount of the actual damages is less than the grant of the
temperate damages?
Yes. When actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, as in
this case (as the actual damages with receipt only amount to 15,000), the award of temperate
damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. However, in the
dispositive portion the decision, the grant of actual damages is DELETED and replaced with temperate
damages to the amount aforestated.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR SEVILLANO Y RETANAL; G.R. No. 200800, February
09, 2015; First Division, Perez
Prosecution for Murder (Treachery as Qualifying Cicumstance)
Pablo and the witnesses were seated on a bench at a vacant lot when they saw Oscar. Oscar who
appeared to be drunk, walked toward them. Without warning, Oscar pulled out a knife and stabbed
Pablo on the chest. Is Oscar guilty of murder?
YES. The accused is guilty of murder. The prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused as
the person who stabbed the victim which eventually caused the latters death. Theres treachery as a
qualifying circumstance. The attack on the unsuspecting victim, who was merely seated on a bench
and talking with his friends, was very sudden, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or
to repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any
provocation on the part of the victim.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MICHAEL JOSON y ROGANDO, G.R. No. 206393. 21
January, 2015, FIRST DIVISION, PEREZ.
Prosecution for Rape (Needed Degree of Force and Intimidation on the Victim)

Appellant was accused with raping his fourteen year old sister when they were left alone at home.
Appellant argues that there can be no rape because AAA did not allege that she was threatened by
appellant with the use of any firearm or any bladed weapon nor did appellant say anything to threaten
or intimidate her. Furthermore, there was even no showing of any resistance on the part of AAA to his
alleged sexual advances. Is the appellant correct?
No. It has been held that the force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied,
it need not be overpowering or irresistible. That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is
enough. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman voluntarily
succumbed to the lust of an accused. After all, resistance is not an element of rape
People of the Philippines vs. Ja Hinlo a.k.a. "Inday Kabang" (at large), Richard Palma y
Varcas a.k.a. "inday Atet", Ruvico Senido y Hamaybay a.k.a. "Ruby" and Edgar Pedroso Y
Palasol a.k.a. "Libat"; G.R. No. 212151 ,February 18, 2015SECOND DIVISION, DEL
CASTILLO, J.
Prosection for Robbery with Homicide
The accused were all armed with knives when they broke into the house of spouses Clavel, took
certain personal properties, and in the course thereof, stabbed Freddie, resulting to his death. This is
supported by the testimony of the state witness, Dumagat, who presented a detailed, consistent and
credible narrative of the incident and positively identified accused-appellants as perpetrators of the
crime. Are they guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
Yes. In robbery with homicide, robbery must be the main purpose, the killing is merely incidental to
the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the killing, but the killing may occur before, during or
after the robbery. Such were present here as shown by the fact that they only killed Freddie when he
woke up to go to the bathroom after they have already gained entry by destroying the knob of the
kitchen door and took the Spouses personal properties.

People of the Philippines vs. Jeric Pavia y Paliza @ "Jeric" and Juan Buendia y Delos Reyes
@ "June"; G.R. No. 202687 January 14, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
A confidential informant reported to the police that a pot session was taking place in a house in
Laguna. The police proceeded to the area where, they saw 4 people having a pot session in the living
room. They were charged with violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. What are the
elements for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings under RA
9165?
The elements under Sec. 13 of RA 9165 are to wit: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; (3) the
free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused, and lastly, (4) the accused possessed the
prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two
persons.

People of the Philippines v. Nestor Suarez y Magtagnob, G.R. No. 201151, 14 January 2016,
First Division, Perez
Rape (Conducts of the Rape Victim)
Accused was indicted for raping his minor niece. The offender is a relative within the third civil degree
by affinity and the victim is a minor under 18 years. Apellant countered that based on AAAs

testimony, there appears to be no significant resistance AAA who did not shout when appellant was
allegedly defiling her. Is the accused correct?
No. It has been settled that in rape cases, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to
prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. Not all victims react the same way. Some may
appear to yield to the intrusion, others may offer strong resistance. The failure of a rape victim to
offer tenacious resistance does not make her submission to accused's criminal acts voluntary. What is
necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he
has in mind.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vPALMY TIBAYAN and RICO Z. PUERTO, G.R. Nos. 20965560;
January 14, 2015FIRST DIVISION, PERLASBERNABE, J.:
Prosecution for Syndicated Estafa
Tibayan and Puerto were charged of Syndicated Estafa. They were engaged in a classic Ponzi scheme
where they induced the public to invest by offering a very high monthly interest rate. However, the
company later on closed down without the private complainants having been paid. Are they guilty of
syndicated estafa?
Yes. All the elements of Syndicated Estafa, through a Ponzi scheme, are present: (a) the
incorporators/directors of TGICI comprising more than five (5) people, made false pretenses and
representations to the investing public
the private complainants
for a lucrative investment
opportunity with TGICI to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representations
were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private
complainants invested their hard earned money; and (d) the incorporators/directors of TGICI ended
up running away with the private complainants' investments, to the latter's prejudice.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL BALUTE y VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 212932, 21
January 2015, FIRST DIVISION, PERLAS-BERNABE.
Prosecution for Robbery with Homicide
While SPO1 Manaois was on board his owner-type jeepney with his wife and daughter during a heavy
traffic, Balute, after poking a gun at the side of SPO1 Manaois and saying "putang ina, ilabas mo!",
grabbed SPO1 Manaois's mobile phone from his chest pocket and shot him at the left side of his torso.
SPO1 Manaois sustained mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his
death. Is the accused guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
Yes. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with
the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. All of these are present
in the case. By poking a gun at Manaois and eventually killing him after the taking of the properties
herein, such consummated the crime.
G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ERIC ROSAURO Y
BONGCAWIL First Division, Perez
Prosecution under the Dangerous Act of 2002 (Entrapment and Testimony of the
Informant)

On the basis of reports that Eric Rosauro was selling and distributing drugs, the an entrapment
operation was conducted. In exchange for the (1) sachet of shabu given by Rosauro to the confidential

agent, the latter gave him a marked 100-peso bill. Rosauro averred that the operation was a decoy
solicitation of persons seeking to expose the criminal and the informant wasn t presented in court.
The solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes
evidence of a course of conduct. They duly acted on the information received by effecting a drug
transaction with appellant. There was no showing the appellant was induced to sell drugs. As a rule,
informants are not presented in court for security reasons. Only when the testimony of the informant
is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect
his security be disregarded.

Richard Ricalde vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015, Second
Division, Leonen.
Variance Doctrine and the Penalty Imposable when the Victim is a Child
Appellant was charged with rape through sexual assault. He inserted his penis in the anus of a 10year-old boy. He was found guilty. He averred that the variance doctrine should have been used in
imposing his penalty. Is he correct?
No. When theres a variance between the offense charged in the complaint and whats proven and the
offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. Here, no variance exists
between what was charged and proven. The prosecution established all elements of the crime. The
gravamen is the insertion of the penis into anothers mouth or anal orifice. However, the penalty to be
imposed is reclusion temporal in its medium period under RA 7610, higher than the imposable penalty
in the Revised Penal Code. A higher penalty is intended when the victim is a child.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMY DASIGAN y OLIVA,G.R. No. 206229; FEBRUARY 4
2015, First Division, PEREZ,J.:
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Amy was apprehended for selling illegal drugs in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act during a buybust operation. There, she delivered the shabu but she only saw the money and didnt receive it. Are
the elements of illegal sale of Dangerous present?
No, hence, she is not liable for sale of illegal drugs. It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that
the sale actually took place, and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the
drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the sellers receipt of the marked money. Receipt of the
marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PACITO ESPEJON Y LEBIOS; G.R. No. 199445, February 04,
2015, First Divsion, Perez
Prosecution for Rape (Conducts of the Rape Victim)
AAA, a 12-year old girl, was raped by the accused on 5 different occasions. Accused averred that the
lower court failed in its appreciation of AAAs testimony as it may have overlooked certain
circumstances therein. He contends the act of the victim receiving P20.00 from him after each act of
rape goes against the case of the victim. Is the accused correct?

No. Such receipt P20.00 from the appellant is not prejudicial to the accusations of rape. It neither
excuses appellants dastardly acts nor implies AAAs consent thereto. The fact that the money was
an unsolicited thing that was handed to AAA after the ruttish subjection, such act which is indignity
upon insult. It is incomprehensible that for an ordinary 12-year-old Filipina girl, would just suddenly
surrender herself to the sexual desires of a married man almost four times her elder in exchange for
money.
Kyle Anthony Zabala vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015
Third Division, J. Velasco
Prosecution for Theft
Kyle was charged for theft. Marlyn his girlfriend testified that she saw Kyle climb through Randolphs
fence and enter his house. She later saw Kyle went out of the house with a big bulge in his pocket.
They went shopping for a cellphone later that day. Is Kyle guilty?
No. The corpus delicti for the crime of theft is not proven in this case. In theft, corpus delicti has two
elements: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
While it was proven that the property was lost, it cannot be proven that such was lost due to a
felonious taking and that it was the petitioner who committed the felonious taking. Marlyn's testimony
does not show that when Kyle left the house, he had with him the money. She merely testified that
there was a bulge in his pocket.
People of the Philippines vs Abola Bio y Panayangan; G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015
Second Division, Del Castillo.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs act of 2002
A buy-bust operation was conducted against the accused wherein he sold to PO2 Salonga one plastic
sachet of Shabu and that an ensuing body search revealed that he possessed another plastic sachet
containing the same illegal substance. What are the elements needed to convict an accused for illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
To sustain a conviction under for illegal sale, all that is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1)
the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is necessary to prove that: (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.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. DANIEL MATIBAG Y DE VILLA DANI OR DANILO; G.R.

No. 206381, March 25, 2015; FIRST DIVISION, PERLAS-BERNABE,

Accused was charged with murder with Treachery as the qualifying circumstance. The victim was
walking in their subdivision when Duhan confronted him. He delivered a fist blow to Duhan who
teetered backwards. While Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him several times. Is the
accused guilty?
Yes. The killing of must be accompanied by a qualifying circumstance such as treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. The prosecution was able to prove that
Matibag, was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, and without any provocation, punched and shot
him on the chest. Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was
made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed.