IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR STATEMENT IN THE INFORMATION THAT THE ACCUSED WAS

ACTUATED BY MORE THAN ONE CRIMINAL IMPULSE, HE MAY BE CONVICTED ONLY OF THE
COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER.
People of the Philippines vs. Reggie Bernardo
G.R. No. 198789

June 3, 2013

REYES, J.
FACTS: Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision of the CA in People of the Philippines v. Reggie
Bernardo and John Does, which affirmed with modification the Judgment RTC of Laoag City, Ilocos
Norte, Branch 14 finding accused-appellant Bernardo guilty of the complex crime of murder and
attempted murder of Efren Calumag, whom the accused shot to death, and Reah B. Calumag (Reah),
who was only inflicted with gunshot wounds, respectively. Aggrieved, Bernardo elevated the case to this
Court. Bernardo mainly argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The facts are as follows:
Reah testified that the incident transpired on July 27, 2006 along the National Highway in Sarrat, Ilocos
Norte around 11:45 a.m. while she was aboard a motorcycle driven by her father, Efren Calumag (Efren).
Three men on a motorcycle going in the same direction as the Calumags appeared beside them and shot
them several times. Reah and Efren fell down. While Reah survived and was treated for her wounds,
Efren eventually died. It was while being treated at the hospital that Reah described one of the assailants
to the investigating policemen and told them that she could recognize him if she would see him again.
On July 29, 2006, Reah went to the Sarrat Police Station upon being informed by the Dingras police chief
that they had in their custody a person who fitted the description of one of the assailants as given by her.
They then proceeded to the provincial jail where a police line-up was conducted, during which she pointed
to Bernardo as the shooter.
Bernardo interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He alleged that he was inside the District Jail of
Batac, Ilocos Norte when the crime was committed.
ISSUE: Is the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder?
HELD: Yes. The Court also finds no reason to deviate from the ruling of the RTC and CA as to the crime
committed. The presence of treachery qualifying the killing was clearly manifested in the facts of this
case. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and specially to insure its execution
eliminating the risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The
presence of two conditions is necessary to constitute treachery, to wit: (1) that the victim was not in the
position to defend himself at the time of the attack; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted. The prosecution established that Reah and Efren were unarmed aboard a
motorcycle when another motorcycle suddenly appeared and shot them several times. This clearly
showed that Reah and Efren were totally defenseless when they were fired upon by Bernardo.

It was also proven that Bernardo committed attempted murder against Reah. It is settled that if the
victims wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. Such fact was
established by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Corpuz.
Bernardo, however, can only be convicted of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder, not of
the two separate crimes of murder and attempted murder. To be sure, Reah Calumags testimony that the
accused shot her and her father several times shows that the he was actuated by more than one criminal
impulse, ruling out the application of the concept of complex crime. The evidence however, does not
conform to the Information, which contains no allegation that the accused was so actuated. In fact, the
Information merely alleges that the accused shot the victim, but it does not allege that he did so several
times. In the absence of such a clear statement in the Information, the accused may be convicted only of
the complex crime of murder with attempted murder. Afterall, the concept of complex crimes is intended to
favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the number of crimes committed.
A complex crime is only one crime. Although two or more crimes are actually committed, there is only one
crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender when it comes to complex crimes.
Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.

CDDA - IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE DRUGS SEIZED MUST BE ESTABLISHED WITH THE
SAME UNWAVERING EXACTITUDE AS THAT REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT A FINDING OF GUILT
Rodrigo Rontos y Dela Torre vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 188024

June 5, 2013

SERENO, CJ.
FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision and
Resolution of the CA, affirming the Decision RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 123 finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II R.A. 9165.
The facts are as follows:
During a surveillance in Sampaloc St., Camarin, Caloocan City, where there were reports of illegal drug
activity, PO1 Pacis and PO1 Labaclado noticed petitioner standing about five meters away from them,
apparently preoccupied with scrutinizing two plastic sachets in his hand. Upon coming closer, they saw
that the plastic sachets appeared to contain a white crystalline substance similar to shabu. PO1 Pacis
approached petitioner and confiscated the plastic sachets. Thereafter, he introduced himself as a police
officer and informed petitioner of the offense the latter had committed. The two police officers informed
petitioner of his constitutional rights, while he just remained silent. PO1 Pacis marked the plastic sachets
with his initials "JCP-1" and JCP-2" and placed them in a makeshift envelope. They then brought
petitioner to the station and turned him over to PO2 Masi together with the plastic sachets. Forensic
chemist Police Inspector Jessie dela Rosa (P/Insp. dela Rosa) conducted the examination on the plastic
sachets. The tests on the contents of the plastic sachets yielded a positive result for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug more commonly known as shabu.
Through the testimonies of PO1 Pacis, PO1 Labaclado and P/Insp. dela Rosa, the RTC ruled that the
prosecution was able to establish the concurrence of all the elements of possession of dangerous drugs:
(a) an item or object identified to be a dangerous drug was in a persons possession; (b) the possession
was not authorized by law; and (c) the person freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. On
appeal to the CA, petitioner contended that, since his warrantless arrest was illegal, the allegedly
confiscated items were inadmissible in evidence. He further claimed that the police officers failed to
faithfully comply with the procedure for ensuring the identity and integrity of the plastic sachets containing
shabu.
The CA explained that while the arrest was without a warrant, it was with probable cause since petitioner
was arrested in flagrante delicto. He committed a crime in plain view of the police officers, as he was
spotted in the act of holding and examining plastic sachets containing shabu. While the CA admitted that

no photograph or inventory of the confiscated items was taken or made, it entertained no doubt that the
dangerous drugs presented in court were the same ones confiscated from petitioner. Furthermore, the
failure of the police officers to observe the proper procedure for handling confiscated dangerous drugs
may only result in administrative liability on their part. That failure does not cast doubt on the identity and
integrity of the illegal drugs.
ISSUE: Is the accused guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II R.A. 9165?
HELD: No. The SC acquits petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt.
In illegal drugs cases, the identity and integrity of the drugs seized must be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that required to arrive at a finding of guilt. The case against the accused hinges
on the ability of the prosecution to prove that the illegal drug presented in court is the same one that was
recovered from the accused upon his arrest.
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and
integrity of dangerous drugs seized. The Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of
substantive law that mandates strict compliance. It was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution
against potential abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the
penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under
the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith
is fully justified.
Here, the procedure was not observed at all. Where it is clear that Section 21 was not observed, as in this
case, such noncompliance brings to the fore the question of whether the illegal drug items were the same
ones that were allegedly seized from petitioner.
The Court cannot, in good conscience, affirm the conviction of petitioner for possession of illegal drugs if
the police officer charged with the preservation of the evidence cannot even be certain in the identification
of the envelope that was presented in court.
Corpus delicti is the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged." In illegal drug
cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself. When courts are given reason to entertain reservations about
the identity of the illegal drug item allegedly seized from the accused, the actual commission of the crime
charged is put into serious question. In those cases, courts have no alternative but to acquit on the
ground of reasonable doubt.

FACTS THAT MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED OF QUALIFIED RAPE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO GANI y TUPAS
G.R. No. 195523

June 5, 2013

PERALTA, J.
FACTS: On appeal before the Court is the Decision of the CA, which affirmed with modification the
Decision of the RTCof Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 61, finding herein appellant Tupas
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
death.
The facts are as follows:
The victim, AAA, who was then only five (5) years old, was harvesting vegetables with her elder brother.
While they were busy with their work, appellant, who is their uncle and younger brother of their father,
arrived carrying a knife. Subsequently, he instructed AAA's brother to go home ahead. After the latter left,
appellant approached AAA and, right then and there, removed her underwear, placed himself on top of
her and inserted his penis into her vagina. After having sexual intercourse with AAA, appellant drew out
his knife and slashed her vagina causing her serious injury. Thereafter, appellant left. AAA then went
home and recounted her ordeal to her grandmother. AAA was then brought to the health center for first
aid treatment and later to Bacolod City for further medical care. Subsequently, AAA's aunt, Leticia
Alingasa filed, in her behalf, a Criminal Complaint against appellant.
Appellant interposed the defense of alibi claiming that he was in Quezon City at the time that AAA was
raped. He pointed to his brother-inlaw, Ermelo Alingasa, as the one who committed the rape.
In its Decision dated January 11, 2005, the RTC found the version of the prosecution credible and,
accordingly, rendered the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against
his niece AAA. The RTC held that the victim's categorical, spontaneous and candid narration of how the

appellant raped her deserves full faith and credence; the victim's testimony was corroborated by the
findings of the medico-legal officer who examined and treated her; the defense failed to prove ill motive
on the part of the victim and of appellant's sister, who stood as prosecution witness, when they testified
against him; appellant's act of fleeing to Guimaras Island after the crime was reported to the authorities is
an indication of guilt; and, appellant's defense of denial and alibi could not overcome the evidence of the
prosecution which established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the trial court's decision,
appellant appealed his conviction to the CA. The CA promulgated its Decision affirming the findings of the
RTC, but modified the penalty imposed and the amount of moral damages awarded.
On February 10, 2010, appellant filed his Notice of Appeal23 of the CA Decision.
In his Brief, appellant basically questions the credibility of the private complainant. He contends that the
latter failed to amply explain why she previously accused another person as the culprit and who was even
detained by reason of such accusation; and, that if appellant was the actual perpetrator of the crime, why
was he not immediately taken into custody and indicted.
ISSUE: Is the accused guilty of qualified rape?
HELD: Yes, he is.
The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTCs factual findings, as affirmed by the CA. It is
doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are
accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. More importantly, the Courts
assessment of the records of the case indicates no reversible error committed by the lower courts. AAAs
testimony that she was raped by her uncle is worthy of belief as it was clear, consistent and
spontaneously given. There is no compelling reason to disbelieve AAAs declaration given that she was
only five (5) years old when she was ravished and eight (8) years old when she testified in court. It has
long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender years, is given full
weight and credit.
The CA correctly affirmed appellants conviction for qualified rape. Both the minority of the victim and her
relationship to appellant were sufficiently alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution. Such
offense was punishable by death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and the trial court
correctly imposed such penalty. However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346),
which became effective on June 30, 2006 after the promulgation of the RTC Decision and which prohibits
the imposition of death penalty, the CA correctly modified the judgment of the RTC by imposing the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

THE PENDENCY OF ANOTHER CRIMINAL CASE IS A GROUND FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A

CONVICT FROM BEING RELEASED ON PAROLE
MR. ALEXANDER "LEX" ADONIS, represented by the CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND
RESPONSIBILITY (CMFR), through its Executive Director, MRS. MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS;
and the NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), through its
Chairperson, MR. JOSE TORRES, JR., vs.
SUPERENTENDENT VENANCIO TESORO, DIRECTOR, DAVAO PRISONS AND PENAL FARM,
PANABO CITY, DIGOS DAVAO DEL NORTE
G.R. No. 182855

June 5, 2013

Reyes, J.:
FACTS: This is a Petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus under Rule 102 of the 1997
Rules of Court filed by petitioner Alexander Adonis (Adonis), praying that the Court directs respondent
Superintendent Venancio Tesoro (respondent), Director of the Davao Prisons and Penal Farm, to have
the body of the former brought before this Court and in the alternative, praying for the application of the
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, which imposes the penalty of a fine instead of
imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 48679-2001.

The antecedent facts are as follows: Adonis was convicted by RTC of Davao City, Branch 17 for Libel,
filed against him by then Representative Prospero Nograles. He was sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of five (5) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor maximum, as minimum penalty, to four (4)
years, six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium, as maximum penalty. He began
serving his sentence at the Davao Prisons and Penal Farm on February 20, 2007. A second libel case
was likewise filed against Adonis by Jeanette L. Leuterio, pending before the RTC of Davao City, Branch
14.
On December 11, 2007, the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) issued an order for the Discharge on
Parole of seven (7) inmates in various jails in the country, which included Adonis. The said document was
received by the City Parole and Probation Office of Davao on May 2, 2008.
Meanwhile, on January 25, 2008, this Court issued Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, the subject of
which is the "Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel
Cases."
In view of these developments, Adonis, on April 18, 2008 filed with the RTC Branch 17 a Motion to
Reopen Case (With Leave of Court), praying for his immediate release from detention and for the
modification of his sentence to payment of fine pursuant to the said Circular.
On May 26, 2008, in Criminal Case No. 48719-2001 before the RTC Branch 14, Adonis moved for his
provisional release from detention. The motion was granted. On the same date, the said order was served
to the respondent, but the release of Adonis was not effected.
On May 30, 2008, Adonis filed the instant petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that
his liberty was restrained by the respondent for no valid reason.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus.
2. Whether or not the petitioner should be released from prison by virtue of parole.
HELD:
1. No. The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. In
the instant case, Adonis was convicted for libel by the RTC Branch 17, in Criminal Case No. 486792001.1wphi1 Since his detention was by virtue of a final judgment, he is not entitled to the Writ of
Habeas Corpus. He was serving his sentence when the BPP granted him parole, along with six (6)
others, on December 11, 2007.
2. No. He was serving his sentence when the BPP granted him parole. While it is true that a convict may
be released from prison on parole when he had served the minimum period of his sentence; the
pendency of another criminal case, however, is a ground for the disqualification of such convict from
being released on parole. Notably, at the time he was granted the parole, the second libel case was
pending before the RTC Branch 14. In fact, even when the instant petition was filed, Criminal Case No.
48719-01 was still pending. The issuance of the writ under such circumstance was, therefore, proscribed.
There was basis for the respondent to deny his immediate release at that time.