Zoleta Vs.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 185224, July 29, 2015
BRION, J.:

Facts:

A complaint was filed against petitioner Zoleta, Gadian and Tangan before the ombudsman for
participating in the questionable grant to a fictitious cooperative using provincial funds.

Thereafter, the COA conducted a special audit in Sarangani and discovered that a P20,000.00
financial assistance was given to Women in Progress (WIP), a cooperative whose members were
mostly government personnel or relatives of the officials of the Province.

As a result, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, charged the petitioner,
Vice-Governor Constantino, Bahilidad, Camanay, and Diaz with malversation of public funds by
falsification of public documents.

In its decision dated November 5, 2008, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioner and Bahilidad
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Thus, this petition for Certiorari assailing the validity of the decision of the Sandiganbayan.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime charged.

Held:

No. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioner of the
complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents. The
following elements which constitute malversation have been established by the prosecution; (a)
that the offender be a public officer; (b) that he had custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office; (c) that those funds or property were public funds or property
for which he was accountable; and (d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented,
or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

Wherefore, the petition was denied, the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan was affirmed
with modification in the penalty imposed.
 Mainar vs. People
G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015
BRION, J.:

Facts:

The petitioner offered for sale to Eric Naval portitons of land located in Davao City. The
petitioner also informed Naval that the area subject of the proposed sale would still be segregated
from the mother title.

On March 24, 2003, the parties executed an Agreement to Buy and Self where the petitioner
agreed to sell to Naval a 200-square meter portion of the land which is part of the petitioner's
share in the estate of her deceased father Nicolas Estrellado. Naval paid a down payment totaling
P100,000.00 and thereafter allowed to build his house therein.

On June 3, 2005, representatives from JS Francisco, Inc. demolished Naval's house only then the
latter discovered that the lot sold to him had been the subject of a dispute between the petitioner's
family and JS Francisco. Naval demanded from the petitioner the return of the amount he paid
for the land, as well as to pay the value of the house demolished, but the latter refused to heed
these demands.

The prosecution charged the petitioner with the crime of other forms of swindling under Article
316, paragraph 1 of the RPC, before the MTCC of Davao City.

The MTCC convicted the petitioner which was affirmed by the RTC and CA.

Hence, the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty as charged.

Held: No. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the essential elements of
swindling are present in this case. The following must be established: (1) that the thing be
immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building; (2) that the offender who is not the owner of
said property should represent that he is the owner thereof; (3) that the offender should have
executed an act of ownership, e.g., selling, leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging the property;
and (4) that the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a third person.

The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner pretended to be the lawful owner of the lot
because Naval was informed from the very beginning that the lot being sold to him is still under
the name of petitioner’s father and still to be separated from the mother title.

Wherefore, the decision of the MTCC as affirmed by the RTC and CA was Set Aside acquitting
the petitioner.
 People vs. Edaño

G.R. No. 206970, July 29, 2015

Perez, J.:

Facts:

Accused-appellant, together with co-accused Nestor Edaño were charged with murder of
Leonardo Dabalos. Nestor was arrested on June 28, 1999 and was eventually convicted on
November 29, 2001 of the crime charged.

Accused-appellant remained at large until he was arrested in 2005. Prosecution’s witness

Fernando testified that he saw Leonardo Dabalos being stabbed by accused-appellant while
Nestor held him on both arms. Accused-appellant on the other hand interposed an alibi that he
was no longer a resident of the place where the crime happened during that time.

On January 24, 2008, he was convicted of the crime charged by the RTC which was affirmed by
the CA in toto.

Thus he appealed assailing the credibility of the eyewitness.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty as charged.

Held:

Yes. The court held that the appellant’s appeal is not meritorious. Fernando’s failure to come to
Leonardo’s aid and to immediately report the incident does not affect the credibility of Fernando.
The testimony of Fernando that the victim was stabbed 3 times when in fact it was seven times
was not vitiated because it was safe to speculate that Leonardo was stabbed a few more times
either before Fernando stumbled upon the incident or immediately after he left.

Wherefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the assailed decision.

 People vs. Galvez
G.R. No. 212929, July 29, 2015
Villarama, Jr., J.:

Facts:

Accused-appellant Enrique Galvez was charged with four counts of rape and four counts of
sexual abuse for allegedly having carnal knowledge with his 13-year old niece.

The testimony of the victim was supported by the medico legal examination done by Dr.
Echaluse corroborating that there are hymenal tears in the vagina of the former.

On his defense, accused appellant alleged that it was his brother, the victim’s own father who
molested her. This caused the confrontation between brothers and accused-appellant insinuated
that his brother went back on him by filing a case against him.

The RTC convicted accused-appellant of four counts of sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 and
four counts of rape under the RPC.

However, the CA modified the decision rendering the accused appellant guilty of four counts of
qualified rape.

Hence, the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of four counts of qualified rape.

Held:

No. The Court held that though minority is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with
equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. There must be independent evidence proving the
age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of
denial by accused-appellant. In this case, no birth certificate was offered in evidence to prove
victim’s age. Neither was there any other authentic document offered to prove her age. It must
also be pointed out that there is doubt as to her real age based on the records of this case. Thus,
accused-appellant must be held guilty of four counts of simple rape only and sentenced to suffer
reclusion perpetua for each count of simple rape.
 Jamaca vs. People
G.R. No. 183681, July 27, 2015
PERALTA, J.:

Facts:

Private complainant Atty. Emilie Bangot filed a complaint for Grave Threats against petitioner
Jamaca before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City. The complaint rooted
when the petitioner threatened to kill the offended party by uttering and shouting the words "If I
will lose my work I will break the head of Atty. Bangot", thereby casting fear upon offended
party's person and endangering his life.
The prosecution presented three witnesses who claimed that they heard the threatening words
uttered by the petitioner. While the petitioner testified that he did not utter those words and was
in fact gone to the place to reconcile with Atty. Bangot, this testimony was corroborated by
petitioner’s wife.
The RTC rendered its decision convicting the accused which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
This this petition alleging that the complaint was just a mere hearsay.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty as charged.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC and CA. Time and again, the
Supreme Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the
trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering
or revising such findings and evaluation.
Wherefore, the petitioned is denied and the decision of the lower courts are affirmed sentencing
to an imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day to be served at the City Jail, Cagayan de
Oro City and to pay a fine in the sum of Five Hundred Pesos (500.00) with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
 People vs. Nuarin
G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015
BRION, J.:

Facts:
The appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5[3] and 11,[4] respectively, of R.A. No.
9165 before the RTC.

The prosecution presented PO1 Manalo who testified that the accused-appellant was caught in a
buy-bust operation which his group conducted. PO1 Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to
buy PI00.00 worth of shabu. The appellant handed a sachet containing white crystalline
substances to PO1 Manalo who, in turn, gave him the marked money.

The accused appellant had her defense and insinuated that her arrest was only a result of the
extortion done to her by the police when she failed to heed with their demands to give them
P40,000 in exchange of her release.

RTC found the appellant guilty of the illegal sale of shabu and sentenced the appellant to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a P500,000.00 fine. This decision was
affirmed by CA.

Thus this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.

Held:
No. The Supreme Court held that in sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic
worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal
drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.

Thus, to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered
from the accused-appellant. It is in this respect that the prosecution failed.

Wherefore, the decision of CA is reversed and set aside and ordered the acquittal and release of
Sonia Nuarin.
 People vs. Nerio
G.R. No. 200940, July 22, 2015
Peralta, J.:

Facts:
Accused Nerio was charged with the crime of rape committed against a 13-year old retardate.
The accused after bringing the offended party to his residence, have carnal knowledge with
aforesaid offended party against her will and without her consent.

When the parents of the victim learned that their child is lost, they seek the help of the police
until they found the child scantily clad sleeping beside a half-naked Nerio, with her head resting
on the latter’s shoulder.

The prosecution’s evidence was supported by the medico legal examination that confirmed that
the victim was raped. A psychological test was also done to prove that the victim has mental
retardation. The defense on the other hand, had the mother of the accused testified that it was the
victim who joined them going home and slept in the second floor of their house while the
accused slept at the ground floor.

The RTC convicted the accused which was affirmed in toto by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is
rape as she is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The
term "deprived of reason" has been construed to encompass those who are suffering from mental
abnormality, deficiency or retardation. Carnal knowledge of a woman above twelve (12) years of
age but with the mental age of a child below twelve (12) years, even if she agrees to the same, is
rape because a mental retardate cannot give a valid and intelligent consent to such act.

If sexual intercourse with a child below twelve (12) years of age is rape, then it must follow that
sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl whose mental capacity is that of a four or seven-
year-old child will likewise constitute rape.

Wherefore, the decision finding accused-appellant Martin Nerio, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
 People vs. Misa
G.R. No. 212336, July 15, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant Misa was charged with the crime of rape in relation to Republic Act (RA) No.
7610 committed against an eleven year old child. The accused appellant approached the victim
and held her hand to see her palm as according to him he could tell the girl’s fortune. Afterwards
she forced the victim who was about to go to school to board a trisikad and proceeded in a farm.
In the ground near banana trees, the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with his victim.
The prosecution presented the victim and her sister to testify. The testimonies were corroborated
by a medical examination result done by Dr. Poca and found that the victim is definite for sexual
abuse.
Appellant denied knowing the victim and raping her. He alleged that he could not have been the
perpetrator because on the day of the supposed incident he was working as a conductor and that
he did not match the cartographic sketch of the alleged rapist.
The RTC found the accused guilty of Rape in relation to Violation of R.A. 7610 as is sentenced
to a penalty reclusion perpetua. This decision was affirmed by the CA and modified the crime
committed to simple rape.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in its decision that the crime committed by the accused-
appellant is simple rape.

Held:
No. The Supreme Court has held that for minority to be considered as an element of a crime or a
qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape, it must not only be alleged in the Information, but it
must also be established with moral certainty. Under Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, it is
inferred that the victim's birth certificate is the best evidence of her age.
Absent victim's certificate of live birth and other means by which her age as alleged in the
Information could have been ascertained beyond doubt, the Court is constrained to agree with the
CA and deem the crime committed as simple rape.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
 Santiago vs. People
G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015
SERENO, C.J.:

Facts:
Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on 29 July 1997, Leonila G. Santiago and
Nicanor F. Santos were charged with the crime of Bigamy.

The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos was married to Estela Galang since 2 June 1974,
but asked petitioner, who was a 43-year-old widow then, to marry him.

Petitioner had her defense that she did not know that Santos was already married to Galang. She
argued also that she cannot be convicted for bigamy because their marriage was void due to the
lack of a marriage license.

Galang on the other hand alleged that she met the petitioner as early as March and April 1997
and told the latter that she is the legal wife of Santos.

The RTC convicted the Petitioner for Bigamy which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of Bigamy.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that in the case at bar, we cannot countenance petitioner’s illegal
acts of feigning a marriage and, in the same breath, adjudge her innocent of the crime. No less
than the present Constitution provides that “marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” It must be safeguarded from the
whims and caprices of the contracting parties. In keeping therefore with this fundamental policy,
this Court affirms the conviction of petitioner for bigamy.

Wherefore, as modified, petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of bigamy as an accomplice. She is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision correccional as
maximum plus accessory penalties provided by law.
 People vs. Adriano
G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015
PEREZ, J.:

Facts:
The accused was charged with two counts of murder committed against Danilo Cabiedes and
Ofelia Bulanan.

The accused who was then driving a Toyota corolla overtook the CRV in front which was driven
by Cabiedes which caused the car of the latter to fall in the canal. Four (4) armed men then
suddenly alighted the Corollo and started shooting at the driver of the CRV, who was later
identified as Cabiedes. During the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, who was standing near the
road embankment, was hit by a stray bullet.

The accused was identified as Rolly Adriano by certain witnesses. He, on the other hand
interposed an alibi that during the time of the alleged crime, he was at a motor repair shop.

The RTC convicted him for Murder for the death of Cabiedes and for Homicide for the death of
Bulanan.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications in the accessory
penalties.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of two counts of murder.

Held:
Yes. The death of Cabiedes is a case of murder by ambush. In ambush, the crime is carried out to
ensure that the victim is killed and at the same time, to eliminate any risk from any possible
defenses or retaliation from the victim ambush exemplifies the nature of treachery.
Although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate, we shall adhere to the prevailing
jurisprudence pronounced in People v. Flora, where the Court ruled that treachery may be
appreciated in aberratio ictus. In Flora, the accused was convicted of two separate counts of
murder: for the killing of two victims, the intended victim, and the victim killed by a stray bullet.
The Court, due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, qualified both
killings to murder. The material facts in Flora are similar in the case at bar. Thus, we follow the
Flora doctrine.
Wherefore, the decision of the CA is affirmed with modification convicting the accused for two
counts of Murder.
 People vs. Octa
G.R. No. 195196, July 13, 2015
SERENO, C.J.:

Herein accused Estanly Octa was charged with the crime of kidnapping for ransom committed
against Johnny Corpuz and Mike Adrian Batuigas.

On September 25, 2003, around 6:40 am, Corpuz and Batuigas were travelling through
Sampaloc, Manila when their way was blocked by a Mitsubishi Lancer car. The four (4) armed
occupants of the Lancer car alighted. The armed men went inside the car and Johnny was
ordered to transfer at the back seat at that time. They brought the victims in a safe house.

Afterwards, the kidnappers contacted Johnny’s wife, Ana Marie and asked for 20 million for the
release of her husband and her brother but the amount was considerably reduced up to the time
that Ana Marie was able to raise the amount of P538,000.00 which was accepted by the
kidnappers. On October 1, 2003, the victims were released.

In his defense, Octa insinuated that he was in Camarines Norte during the time of the alleged
crime.

The RTC found the accused guilty as charged and was confirmed in toto by the CA.

Thus, this appeal assailing that he was not properly identified as the one who accepted the
ransom money.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged.

Held:
Yes. Accused-appellant’s contention that he was convicted based only on circumstantial
evidence deserves scant consideration. The Supreme Court agrees with the conclusion of the CA
that Ana Marie testified that she gave the ransom money to accused-appellant, and as the trial
court declared, his act of receiving the ransom money is sufficient conspiratorial act in the
commission of the kidnapping for ransom. The positive identification of the accused-appellant
then constitutes direct evidence, and not merely circumstantial evidence.

Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the CA is affirmed.

 People vs. Garrido
G.R. No. 191258, July 08, 2015
PEREZ, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant Garrido was charged with the crime of rape allegedly committed against
AAA who was then 19 years old.
In the side of the prosecution, AAA testified that she and her sister’s friend BBB were in a
shopping center to submit a job application when they met Garrido and his friend James. Garrido
invited AAA and BBB to attend the birthday party of James. Upon arrival to James’ house the
AAA was surprised that the supposed party they were attending was in fact a drinking session.
When they got drank Garrido offered AAA and BBB as well as Garrido’s cousin to go with him
to his house to have coffee. Therein, AAA claimed that she was raped by Garrido for three times.
The medical examination showed that there were indeed hymenal lacerations in AAA’s vagina

In his defense, Garrido claimed that the sexual intercourse between him and AAA were
consensual as corroborated by his mother, Walita, his cousin and his brother.

The RTC found the accused guilty as charge and was affirmed by the CA.

Thus, the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

Held:
No. Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the statements of AAA which compelled the court
to acquit the accused. If indeed AAA was raped by Garrido, human reaction dictates that she
could have at least at the earliest opportunity taken the chance to escape when her rapist fell
asleep. Her claim that she was not able to leave as she was not familiar with place can hardly be
sustained. AAA lives in the same city as the accused. In addition, it was already past 7:00 in the
morning when the alleged third rape happened and the jeepney terminal where she can easily
take transportation home can be reached by walking. Even more baffling is that AAA even
waited for her alleged rapist to accompany her and BBB to the jeepney terminal.

In conclusion, the reasonable doubt entertained in the mind of the court as to whether AAA was
really raped or consented to sexual intimacy on that night results to acquittal even though
Garrido's innocence was not proven without tarnish.

Wherefore, the decision of the CA is reversed and ordered the acquittal and release of Garrido.
 People vs. Gersamio
G.R. No. 207098, July 08, 2015
PEREZ, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape committed against AAA a 15-year
old minor. The prosecution’s evidence provided that in the afternoon of August 28, 2002 when
the victim was about to enter their house, accused appellant who was then holding a knife
grabbed and dragged her at the back of their house in a banana plantation where he did have
carnal knowledge with AAA. Her medical examination in September 2002 provided however
that she was 5 months pregnant and showed no contusions in her sex organ.
In his defense, accused appellant claimed that he was in another city from 1999 to 2002
working as a jeepney driver which makes impossible for him to have been perpetrated the crime.
The RTC rendered its decision convicting the accused for the crime charged and ordered
him to acknowledge the paternity of AAA’s offspring being the result of rape.
The CA affirmed the conviction but not the acknowledgement of paternity.
The accused appellant averred the decision claiming that there are inconsistencies in the
testimonies of AAA.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that when the credibility of witnesses is in question, the court is
bound to give highest respect to the appreciation of the lower court. AAA’s trustworthy account
proved all the elements of rape as defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (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 12 years of age. The appellant in this case had sexual intercourse with
AAA, which he accomplished through force, that is, with the use of a knife he threatened to kill
AAA to make her succumb to his bestiality. Indubitably, the appellant committed the crime of
rape against AAA.
Also, the fact that AAA is already 5 months pregnant during the medical examination which is 6
days after the incident of rape does not vitiate or diminish the act of accused of raping AAA.
Pregnancy is not an element of Rape.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed.
 People vs. Famudulan
G.R. No. 212194, July 06, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
Accused appellant was charged with the crime of statutory rape committed against AAA which
was then 6 years old.

AAA testified that the appellant was her aunt's neighbor. She stated that on January 1, 2010, at
around noon, she was cornered and ordered by the appellant to fellate him while he inserted his
finger in her vaginal orifice. Thereafter, accused inserted his organ in her orifice. Accused
threatened to kill her if she told anybody of what had happened. She positively identified accused
as her assailant in open court.

Dr. Malaluan, a Rural Health Physician, examined AAA and affirmed that the latter incurred
lacerations of her hymen, an indication that the victim was raped.

In his defense, accused appellant interposed an alibi that he was in his cousin’s house during the
alleged time of the crime.

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. The CA affirmed the decision with
modification in the award of damages.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.
It thus ruled that in the prosecution of statutory rape the following elements must exist: (1) the
victim is a female under 12 years of age or is demented; and (2) the offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim. In order to successfully convict an accused for statutory rape therefore,
it is imperative that the prosecution prove that the woman is under 12 years of age and carnal
knowledge took place. AAA's age was established by a certified true copy of her Certificate of
Live Birth which is the best evidence to prove age.

Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed with modification, Appellant ROD
FAMUDULAN y FEDEL1N is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory
Rape and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole.
 PEOPLE VS. BANDRIL
G.R. No. 212205, July 06, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged with three counts of Rape and one count of Acts of
Lasciviousness all committed against his 14-year old daughter.

Sometime in March 2007, at around 11:00 p.m., while AAA's mother BBB was not in the house,
appellant removed AAA's clothes, took his own clothes off and ordered AAA to lie down.
Appellant mounted on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain. After
satisfying his lust, appellant ordered AAA to wear her clothes and walk away. Out of fear of her
father's threats, she did not divulge the incident to anyone. The same act happened again
sometime in June and October 2007. Sometime in 2008, appellant attempted to rape AAA in
their house. He was able to undress her but failed to rape her. Several months later, AAA got
pregnant.

Appellant denied the charges and insisted that they were instigated by some persons unknown to
him to destroy his good reputation and character.

The RTC found the accused guilty as charged as affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged.

Held:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In incestuous rape of a minor,
actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of
the father would suffice. In this case, appellant had carnal knowledge three times of his daughter,
AAA, who was then only 14 years old.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

 PEOPLE VS. VICTORIA
G.R. No. 201110, July 06, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:

Accused-appellant Victoria was charged with the crime of rape committed against AAA,
a fifteen year-old minor.
The prosecution presented AAA who testified that in the evening of December 1, 2006,
she went to a funeral home to collect bets for “ending”. While waiting for the payments, accused
appellant sat beside he and the former was convinced by his friends to eat in a lugawan. AAA
was also convinced by the accused to join them, however when they learned that the lugawan is
already closed they decided to walk home. Accused-appellant let his two friends walk ahead of
them and when the latter were gone he lured AAA to a dark place where he covered her mouth
with one hand, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. It was corroborated by the
result of a medical examination finding hymenal lacerations to her vagina.
For his defense, the accused claimed that what happened between him and AAA was
consensual because the latter was his girlfriend.
The RTC convicted the accused which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, the appeal questioning the credibility of the victim.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that in rape, the "sweetheart" defense must be proven by
compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she
consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first, because this
Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust. Accused-appellant failed in both
aspects.
It is well to note that the court consistently declared that 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.
Wherefore, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
 OLARTE VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 197731, July 06, 2015
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts:

Olarte, Olavario and Pasquin were charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
The prosecution averred that in the early morning of September 15, 2002, the victim
Eugene Villostas was fetched by his brother, Charlie, from a drinking session. On their way
home, Villostas decided to buy cigarettes from a nearby videoke bar. Inside the bar, however,
three men who belonged to a group then singing and drinking suddenly stabbed him on different
parts of his body. They only stopped when bystanders started throwing stones at them.
Barangay tanods immediately responded and brought the malefactors to the Barangay
Hall and Villostas was rushed to the Hospital where he was treated by Dr. Pascual. The doctor
said all the wounds could have caused Villostas' death were it not for the timely medical
attention given him.
The defense, on the other hand, alleged that they were in the same bar when several
persons threw stones on them and they headed to the Barangay Hall to report the matter
however, they were surprised that Olarte, Olavario and Pasquin were being implicated in a
stabbing incident.
The RTC found the assilants guilty as charged which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting petitioners of the crime of frustrated
homicide.

Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused
intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the
victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance;
and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code exist. These elements were proved during trial.
Moreover, the errors raised by the petitioners are all "appreciation of evidence" errors or
factual errors which are not within the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45.
Wherefore, the petition was denied and the assailed decision of the CA was affirmed.
 PEOPLE VS. PALOTES
G.R. No. 209786, July 06, 2015
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Facts:

Accused appellant was charged with the crime of rape committed against AAA, a fourteen (14)
years old minor and has the mental abilities of an 8-9 years old child.

The prosecution averred that sometime prior to July 2005, While AAA was on her way back to
her house, she was pulled by appellant Palotes inside the latter's house. Appellant then held
AAA, laid her down, removed her short pants and underwear. He then lowered down his brief up
to his knees, kissed AAA's lips and neck and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. This incident
happened thrice and the accused then told AAA not to tell anyone and it would be between the
two of them.

On September 23, 2005, AAA’s grandmother noticed she did not have her monthly period. The
grandmother brought AAA to a Health Center and found the latter pregnant. AAA finally told
her mother that it was Jerry Palotes whom she had sexual intercourse but she cannot recall when
it happened.

The accused denied the allegations and insinuated that the AAA’s family were just desperate to
find who impregnated her.

The RTC convicted the accused for one count of rape which was affirmed by the CA.
In his appeal the accused questioned the credibility of AAA and her mental capability.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that for a charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must
prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act
through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or when she was under twelve years of age or was demented.
The element of carnal knowledge in this case was adequately established by the testimony of
AAA. That AAA was mentally deficient - thus, deprived of reason - when the accused-appellant
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her was clearly established in this case. Dr.
Rosemarie Gonato, a psychologist at the Vicente Sotto Memorial Hospital, testified that she
conducted a psychological evaluation of AAA. The results thereof indicated that AAA’s mental
age was equivalent to a child of 6 to 7 years of age and her functioning was within the mild
mental retardation.

Wherefore, the decision of the CA was affirmed.

 PEOPLE VS. TOLENTINO
G.R. No. 208686, July 01, 2015
CARPIO, J.:

Facts:
Herein accused-appellant was charged with illegal recruitment and five (5) counts of
estafa under Article 315, of RPC.
The prosecution’s evidence showed that in Novemeber 2001, the accused-appellant
advertise for employment, enlist, contract and promise employment to the following persons:
PANESA, LAYOSO, LEJOS, MARCELINO LEJOS and MAGBOO for a fee without first
securing license and/or permit from the government agency concerned.
The accused, by means of deceit, fraudulent acts and false pretenses executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, defrauded the above-named complainants
testifying that the accused represented herself that she could secure work for them at Korea and
she is capable of processing the travel visa and other documents for her travel and employment at
Korea and demanded from the said complainant to pay the amount of P75,000.00 as placement
fee.
In her defense, accused averred that she does not recruit workers as she herself was also
applying for work as factory worker through Narcisa Santos.
The RTC found the accused guilty as charged which was later affirmed by the CA.
Hence, this appeal

Issue: Whether or not the accused appellant is guilty as charged.

Held: The court ruled that the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant engaged in large-
scale illegal recruitment. First, appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Appellant
admitted that she has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers. Second, despite the absence of a license or authority to
undertake recruitment activities, appellant gave the impression that she has the power or ability
to secure work for private complainants in Korea. Third, there are at least three victims in this
case which makes appellant liable for large-scale illegal recruitment.
The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or
by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation. In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant deceived private complainants into believing that she had the authority and
capability to send them to Korea for employment, despite her not being licensed by the POEA to
recruit workers for overseas employment.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed.
 MADERAZO VS. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 209845, July 01, 2015
CARPIO, J.:

Facts:
Herein petitioners Maderazo and Veruen were charged with the violation of RA 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Caibiran, Biliran unanimously passed and approved a
resolution to authorize the municipal mayor to enter into a negotiated contract with a local
fabricator of tapping saddles for the improvement of the water system of the town.
On 28 January 1998, Maderazo, the Acting Mayor due to the suspension of Mayor
Ramirez, entered into a Job Contract with Vermug Welding Shop. The contract provided that the
shop would complete 400 pieces of tapping saddles in 30 days and it will be paid the whole
amount upon its completion. On the same day the treasurer issued a check amounting to
P454,036 in the name of Vermug.
On 8 February 1998, Ramirez resumed his position as mayor and found that there were no
tapping saddles delivered despite the payment made. Ramirez filed an Affidavit-Complaint,
before the Office of the Ombudsman charging Maderazo, Veruen and the SB members with
Malversation and violation of RA3019.
The Sandiganbayan found Maderazo and Veruen guilty of the crime charged.
Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the actions of Maderazo and Veruen violated RA 3019.

Held: Yes. The court ruled that the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 has the following
essential elements: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or
official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
As found by the Sandiganbayan, all these elements are present in this case. It is undisputed
that both Maderazo and Veruen were public officers discharging administrative functions at the
time material to this case. Maderazo, as the Acting Mayor, and Veruen, as the Acting Municipal
Accountant, ensured the release of the payment for the tapping saddles on the same day that the
Job Contract was executed. However, the tapping saddles were not delivered upon payment
because Vermug welding shop never received any amount for the contract.
Wherefore, the petition was denied and the Sandiganbayan decision was affirmed.
 CELEDONIO VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015
MENDOZA, J.:

Facts:
Herein accused Celedonio was charged with the crime of Robbery with Force Upon
Things. The prosecution presented certain Marquez to have been witnessed the robbery incident
in the house of De Guzman. Marquez, whose house was opposite the house of De Guzman and
Celedonio, which were adjacent to each other, identified Celedonio as the culprit. Upon learning
of the incident, De Guzman reported it to the police and requested that Celedonio be investigated
for possibly having committed the crime, based on the account of Marquez.
When the suspect was apprehended, the police found at the compartment of Celedonio’s
motorcycle the allegedly stolen things. Thus, Celedonio was arrested and was informed of his
constitutional rights. More items were seized from Celedonio at the police station.
In his defense, the accused questioned the legality of the seizure of the allegedly stolen
things.
The RTC found the accused guilty as charged which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that in this case the following essential elements were
established that 1) a robbery had been committed; 2) it was committed recently; 3) several of the
stolen items including cash were found in his possession; and 4) he had no valid explanation for
his possession of the stolen goods. Celedonio was, in fact, caught in exclusive possession of
some of the stolen items when the police officers flagged down his motorcycle during their
follow-up operation. He failed to give a reasonable explanation as to his possession of the said
items.
Moreover, no illegal search was made upon Celedonio. When the police officers asked
where the stolen items were, they merely made a general inquiry, and not a search, as part of
their follow-up operation.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed.
 CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015
MENDOZA, J.:

Facts:

Herein petitioner Canceran was originally charged with "Frustrated Theft." The
prosecution presented Ompoc and Arcenio as witnesses who were personnel of Ororama Mega
Center where the alleged crime happened. Ompoc saw Canceran pushing a cart containing 2
boxes of Magic Flakes for which he paid P1,423 and upon inspection of the former, he found out
that the contents of the two boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits, but 14 smaller boxes of Ponds
White Beauty Cream worth P28,627.20. Canceran hurriedly left and a chase ensued.
In his defense, Canceran claimed that an unknown male person requested him to pay for
the items in his cart and gave him P1,440.
In its Judgment, the RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated
Theft which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is rightfully convicted of Consummated Theft.

Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Under Article 308 of the RPC, the essential elements of
theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking
away was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person
or force upon things. "Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one's personal property, is the
element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful
taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all."
An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged in
the complaint or information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive and
convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any
offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily
included therein.
 PEOPLE VS. BALCUEVA
G.R. No. 214466, July 01, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts:
Balcueva was charged with the crime of rape committed against his biological daughter.
According to the prosecution, in the afternoon of February 15, 2007, AAA just returned home
from school took a nap. Balcueva approached AAA who was lying in bed, undressed her, and
threatened to spank her if she told anybody about this incident. Balcueva then removed his shorts
and underwear, mounted AAA, restrained her hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
While Balcueva was ravishing AAA, the latter's sister sought the help of their neighbor,
who interrupted Balcueva in his dastardly act. Thereafter, AAA's sister and their neighbor
reported the incident to the barangay hall, which led to Balcueva's apprehension.
For his part, Balcueva interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He averred that during
that time, he was repairing appliances.
The RTC found the accused guilty of Qualified Rape which was affirmed in toto by the
CA.
Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Qualified Rape.

Held: Yes. The court held that the elements of Qualified Rape are as follows: (a) the victim is a
female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has carnal knowledge of the
victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when she is deprived of reason or is
otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority.
A perusal of the records discloses the presence of the aforesaid elements in this case. Thus,
the RTC and the CA committed no reversible error in convicting Balcueva of the crime of
Qualified Rape.
 PEOPLE VS. BATICOLON
G.R. No. 193388, July 01, 2015
PEREZ, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant Baticolon and Bocadi were charged with violation of Section 5, Article
II of R.A No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The NBI after receiving information regarding the open sale of shabu in Dumaguete from a
confidential asset, the group of Special Investigator Fineza went to the place.
As they reached the place, they were met by four men, one of whom was identified by the
informant as Baticolon. A man later identified as Bocadi offered them shabu. This led to the
agreement for the purchase of P300.00 worth of the illicit drug. Bocadi gave to SI Fineza one
transparent sachet of suspected shabu. Simultaneously, SI Fineza handed over the marked bills to
Baticolon who was then nearer to him. Thereafter, the group immediately arrested Bocadi and
Baticolon.
Both accused denied the allegations against them and interposed their alibis.
The RTC found both the accused guilty of the sale of shabu and Bocadi for illegal
possession of shabu. Baticolon appealed but the CA affirmed the decision in toto.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty as charged.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that in the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following essential elements shall be established (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 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. The evidence for the prosecution clearly established all these elements. The
prosecution proved that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted with SI Fineza as the buyer
and Baticolon, in connivance with Bocadi, as the sellers of the shabu.
Wherefore, the assailed decision of the CA was affirmed.
 DUNGO VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015
MENDOZA, J.:

Facts:

On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha
Phi Omega Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers
conducted initiation rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte was subjected to
physical harm.
After the initiation rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's condition but he was
ignored by Castillo. He then called co-accused Dungo for help. After Dungo arrived at the resort,
they hailed a tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false name to
the security guard as he heard that Dungo had done the same.
RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing
Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. This decision was affirmed
in toto by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not herein accused were guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Held: Yes, they are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal
conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing,
unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein.
After a careful review of the records, the Court agrees with the CA and the RTC that the
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming enough to establish the
guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt. The unbroken chain of events laid down by
the CA leaves the court no other conclusion other than the petitioners' participation in the hazing.
They took part in the hazing and, together with their fellow fraternity officers and members,
inflicted physical injuries to Villanueva as a requirement of his initiation to the fraternity. The
physical injuries eventually took a toll on the body of the victim, which led to his death.
Wherefore, the assailed decision of the CA was affirmed.