2017 Notes on Criminal Law Procedure and Evidence

CASE UPDATES IN CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE & EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW QUALIFIED THEFT The elements of the crime of theft are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the. taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances under Article 310 is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen· is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. People of the Philippines v. Luther Sabado et al., G.R. No. 218910, July 5, 2017. The elements aforementioned were all alleged and proved. First, there was a taking of personal property consisting of pieces of jewelry, i.e. two men's rings and one necklace with pendant. Second, said pieces of jewelry belong to the Pawnshop. Third, the taking of said pieces of jewelry was with intent to gain. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. Fourth, the taking was obviously without the consent of the Pawnshop; and, Fifth, the taking was accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. People of the Philippines v. Luther Sabado et al., G.R. No. 218910, July 5, 2017. Theft here became qualified because it was committed with grave abuse of confidence. Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of theft, must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the accused-appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the accused-appellant abused. Accused-appellant, as established by the prosecution, is an employee of the Pawnshop. Accused-appellant could not have committed the crime had he not been holding the position of the 1 trusted employee which gave him not only sole access to the Pawnshop's vault but also control of the premises. People of the Philippines v. Luther Sabado et al., G.R. No. 218910, July 5, 2017. The management of Diamond Pawnshop clearly had reposed its trust and confidence in the accused-appellant, and it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of his employer. We view with disfavor accused-appellant's plea of acquittal on the ground that there exists. no evidence which linked him directly to or showed his participation in the robbery. He underscores in particular that nobody witnessed what transpired inside the pawnshop during the incident, hence, he must be excused from any criminal liability. This contention is unmeritorious because even if it was not shown that he personally took away the pieces of jewelry, his overt act of opening the steel gate, facilitating the entry of one of his co-accused inside the pawnshop, and opening of the vault despite his avowal that the vault was controlled by a time delay mechanism, showed his complicity in the commission of the crime charged. People of the Philippines v. Luther Sabado et al., G.R. No. 218910, July 5, 2017 KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION The elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Fabro, G.R. No. 208441, July 17, 2017. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Fabro, G.R. No. 208441, July 17, 2017. There is no dispute that accused-appellant is a private individual and that she took AAA from her school on March 2, 2006, brought her to Nueva Ecija and kept her there until she was arrested on March 5, 2006. That AAA was deprived of her liberty is clear from her testimony that despite her pleas for accused-appellant to let her go home, the latter refused. Accused-appellant, however, contends that AAA had not been deprived of liberty while in her custody. She argues that the records are bereft of any indication that AAA was physically restrained, or was under her constant 2 control, or was ever prevented from going home. She claims that during the period she had custody ofAAA, the latter was free to interact with third persons and communicate with her relatives, and was well taken care of. The argument fails. The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim's liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim's person. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly. People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Fabro, G.R. No. 208441, July 17, 2017. In People v. Bisda [G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003] the Court upheld the conviction of kidnapping for ransom even though the abducted five-year old child was, during her detention, free to roam around the place of detention, to practice on her drawing and to watch television, and was regularly fed and bathed. Citing United States v. McCabe [812 F. 2d. 1660 (1987)] the Court stated that "to accept a child's desire for food, comfort as the type of will or consent contemplated in the context of kidnapping would render the concept meaningless." Should the child even want to escape, said the Court, she could not do so all by herself given her age; she was under the control of her abductors and was merely waiting and hoping that she would be brought home or that her parents would fetch her. People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Fabro, G.R. No. 208441, July 17, 2017. Nine-year old AAA was brought by accused-appellant to a place unfamiliar to her. 19 In fact, she learned that the name of the place was Nueva Ecija only after she was rescued. Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. Under such a situation, the child's freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor. The RTC, thus, correctly held that even in the absence of evidence that AAA was locked up, she was still deprived of her liberty because considering her minority and the distance between her home and Nueva Ecija, she could not possibly go back home to YYY without accused-appellant's assistance. People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Fabro, G.R. No. 208441, July 17, 2017. KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM In kidnapping for ransom, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements: "[first,] the accused was a private person; [second,] he [or she] kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; [third,] the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and [fourth,] the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom." People of the Philippines v. Elmer Avancena et al, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017. 3 Badges or Shields not a Ground for Immunity from Prosecution Accused-appellants claim that they were agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency's Task Force Hunter but were unable to present any evidence to substantiate their claim. The prosecution, however, was able to present Police Inspector Nabor of the Human Resource Service of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, who testified that accused-appellants"[were] not in any manner connected with [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency]." It also submitted to the trial court a letter sent by P/Supt. Edwin Nemenzo of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to Philippine National Police P/Sr. Supt. Allan Purisima stating that the accused- appellants were not agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Nonetheless, even if they were employed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, detaining any private person for the purpose of extorting any amount of money could not, in any way, be construed as within their official functions. If proven, they can be guilty of serious illegal detention. Their badges or shields do not give them immunity for any criminal act. People of the Philippines v. Elmer Avancena et al, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017. The prosecution was likewise able to prove that Rizaldo was illegally deprived of his liberty. The undisputed facts establish that on August 1, 2004, around midnight, Rizaldo was in his vehicle being followed by accused-appellants along Evangelista Street. When he alighted from his vehicle near the police station, accused-appellant Avancena approached him and implied that he was involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Accusedappellant boarded his vehicle and told Rizaldo to drive, with the rest of the accused-appellants following in their vehicle. Upon reaching the comer of Lacuna and Evangelista Streets, accused-appellant Avancena took over the steering wheel. Accused-appellant Taytay boarded the vehicle and handcuffed Rizaldo and they drove to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency parking lot in Malate. Accused-appellant Popioco and Nazareno also boarded the vehicle. They drove around for a while in the Manila and Makati areas but eventually returned to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency parking lot. While on board, accused-appellant Taytay tried to strangle Rizaldo while accused-appellant Popioco punched him. People of the Philippines v. Elmer Avancena et al, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017. In order to prove kidnapping, the prosecution must establish that the victim was "forcefully transported, locked up or restrained." It must be proven that the accused intended "to deprive the victim of his liberty." The act of handcuffing Rizaldo and physically harming him to prevent escape falls under this definition. Accused- appellants, however, claim that Rizaldo was not kidnapped because he voluntarily went with the accused-appellants. People of the Philippines v. Elmer Avancena et al, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017. 4 "[T]he fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused [does] not remove the element of deprivation of liberty [if] the victim went with the accused on a false inducement without which the victim would not have done so." Rizaldo would not have gone with the accused-appellants had they not misrepresented themselves as Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents who allegedly caught him selling illegal drugs. People of the Philippines v. Elmer Avancena et al, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017. Accused-appellants also told Rizaldo that he would only be released if Alfonso paid them PIS0,000.00. "The act of holding a person for a proscribed purpose necessarily implies an unlawful physical or mental restraint against the person's will, and with a willful intent to so confine the victim." If Rizaldo was indeed free to leave, there would have been no reason for Alfonso to come rushing to his son's aid. Rizaldo was also able to come home only after Alfonso negotiated his release. Taken together, the prosecution was able to establish the elements of kidnapping for ransom, which is punishable under the Revised Penal Cod with death. Considering the suspension of the death penalty, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. People of the Philippines v. Elmer Avancena et al, G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT Illegal recruitment is "committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes." Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either non- license or license holders. Non-license holders are liable by the simple act of engaging in recruitment and placement activities, while license holders may also be held liable for committing the acts prohibited under Section 6 of RA 8042. People of the Philippines v. Erlinda A. sison, G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017 Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not; or (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under Section 6 of RA 8042.People of the Philippines v. Erlinda A. sison, G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017. The Court has held in several cases that an accused who represents to others that he or she could send workers abroad for employment, even without the authority or license to do so, commits illegal recruitment. It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers that renders the recruitment activity unlawful. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that "the accused 5 as in the present case. sison. 214340.000. August 9. No. (b) the offender undertakes any of the "recruitment and placement" activities defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. 187160. Bueron.000. Dedales. G. Iloilo and represented herself as a recruiter who could send them to Brunei for work.People of the Philippines v. Pastolero. Erlinda A. and appellant collected processing or placement fees from the private complainants in various amounts ranging from PS. Gilda Abellanosa. Suobiron.R. G. People of the Philippines v. has the following elements: (a) the offender does not have the valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement of workers. July 19. No.R. and Bacomo show a common purpose and and each undertook a part to reach their objective. 2017 We agree with the trial court and the CA that the prosecution was able to establish that appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment in large scale. 2017 On the other hand. and that she did not reimburse said amounts despite demands.gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end. that Dedales signed the acknowledgment receipt from Sison.00 to P20. Their concerted action is evident in that either Sison or Dedales was receiving payments from the recruits. Orias. it "is not essential that there be actual proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act. It was proved that appellant was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.00. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. enterprise or scheme. illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. 2017 The acts of Sison. and that the three accompanied their recruits 6 . Erlinda A. it was proved that appellant does not have any license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. that appellant impressed upon them that she had the authority or ability to send them overseas for work by showing them a job order from Brunei and a calling card. and Pelipog testified that appellant went to Pavia." People of the Philippines v. No. or engages in any of the prohibited practices enumerated under now Section 6 of RA 8042. 187160. sison." In the third element. and that appellant committed these prohibited acts against three or more persons. individually or as a group. private complainants Pomar.R. In addition. that despite demands. and (c) the illegal recruitment is "carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. appellant failed to reimburse or refund to private complainants their monies. To recall. she offered or promised employment abroad to private complainants. Cathedral. August 9. she received monies from private complainants purportedly as placement or processing fees. G. that private complainants were not actually deployed to Brunei. Thus. G. A conviction premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts. it must be established as clearly as any element of the crime. August 9. beyond reasonable doubt. June 19. are NOT crimes. Conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken lightly or accepted at every tum. People of the Philippines v. without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate. 2017. As such. where the only act attributable to the other accused is an apparent readiness to provide assistance. (2) the inclusion of rape. People of the Philippines v. It is a legal concept that imputes culpability under specific circumstances. 227306. however. Roberto Jesalva. Since it was proven that the three accused were acting in concert and conspired with one another. under the last clause of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act. is not enough to establish conspiracy. In this case. sison. CARNAPPING Three amendments have been made to the original Section 14 of the Anti- Carnapping Act: (1) the penalty of life imprisonment was changed to reclusion perpetua. People of the Philippines v. Roberto Jesalva.together in seeking out their visas in Malaysia and Indonesia. We emphasize that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. No. the prosecution has to prove 7 . 187160. In the absence of conspiracy. we repeat. Erlinda A. and (3) the change of the phrase "in the commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof" This third amendment clarifies the law's intent to make the offense a special complex crime. accused-appellant is responsible only for the consequences of his own acts. In this case. No. G. 2017. their illegal recruitment activity is considered done by a syndicate. CONSPIRACY [ABSENCE OF] We stress that mere knowledge. Likewise. not on mere inferences and presumption. absent any active participation in the furtherance of the common design or purpose. their mere presence does not make them parties to it. No.R. absent any other overt act on his part. June 19. Further.R. These. G. making the offense illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage. the impression given to Castuera and other recruits was that the three were indeed working together. there is no conspiracy. while accused-appellant's presence and act of pointing at the victim and his group may mean he approved of the crime or that he was ready to assist his co-accused. acquiescence or approval of the act. The quantum of evidence to be satisfied is. but with no certainty as to its ripening into an overt act. Even if the accused were present and agreed to cooperate with the main perpetrators of the crime. all that accused- appellant did was to stare and point at the victim and his companions.R. 2017. there is no conspiracy. 227306. by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. together with the appellant who approached the victim and the witness Kathlyn and employed force and intimidation upon them and thereafter forcibly took the victim's motorcycle and then shot the victim on the neck causing his death. it must show that the original criminal design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof" Consequently. What is essential is that the prosecution was able to establish that at the time of their arrest. June 21. 226846.R. the provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act would cease to be applicable and the homicide or murder (if proven) would be punishable under the Revised Penal Code. June 7. Jeffrey Macaranas. but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. 2017 To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide. there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping. 226846. G. 2017. 8 . 200512. all the elements are present as the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution show that there were two (2) men both wearing jackets and bonnets. Jeffrey Macaranas.the essential requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim." People of the Philippines v. Accused-appellants. G. June 21. In this particular case. June 7." The marked money was recovered from the accused- appellants when they were arrested. where the elements of carnapping are not proved. No. People of the Philippines v. counter that the ultraviolet powder dusted on the marked money was found on their faces. "Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing. Elmer Avancena et al. 200512. which proves that they were able to gain possession of Alfonso's money. SIMPLE ROBBERY The elements of simple robbery are "a) that there is personal property belonging to another. People of the Philippines v. there was a taking of personal property belonging to Alfonso by means of intimidation. No. and more importantly. not their hands.R. including the possibility that the accused-appellants simply wiped their hands clean. Elmer Avancena et al. No. the marked money was recovered from the accused-appellants. 2017. G. 2017. even if [the offender] has no opportunity to dispose of the [thing]. however.R. c) that the taking is with intent to gain.R. In this instance. People of the Philippines v. G. No. and d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. b) that there is unlawful taking of that property. A number of events could have transpired from the time NAKTAF agents apprehended the Toyota Revo up to the time the accusedappellants were handcuffed and brought to Camp Crame. This detail is irrelevant. " then fled together with their loot. boarded the public utility jeepney and declared a "hold-up". The accused- appellant was never entitled to hurt. together with his three companions. their main objective was to rob the passengers of the jeepney. 9 . or murder due to jealousy is not a manifestation of this sacred understanding. x x x The robbery is the [main] purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. appellant fired at him twice. the fatal shooting of Cerbito was merely incidental. People of the Philippines v. during or after the robbery. July 26. appellant kicked him three or four times with such force that he fell off the jeepney. He must suffer its consequences. (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. (3) with the use ofviolence or intimidation against a person. Abenir Brusola. as used in its generic sense. G. in this case the accused's own child. One who professes love should act better than this. July 24. The passengers. resulting by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. to accuse somebody else other than the real culprit. their daughter Joanne clearly testified that she suddenly saw her father hit the head of her mother with a small mallet. (2) with intent to gain. maim. Joanne's straightforward and candid narration of the incident is regarded as positive and credible evidence. Appellant therefore committed the crime of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information. 2017 With respect to the killing by the accused of his wife. July 26. no matter the reasons. Where there is nothing to indicate that witnesses were actuated by improper motives on the witness stand. If anything.R. Appellant. Well settled is the rule that it is unnatural for a relative. G. were forced at gunpoint to turnover their cash and possessions. it is an obligation to love and cherish despite his or her imperfections. To be driven to anger. No. People of the Philippines v. Appellant and his three cohort. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE The elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are: "(1) the taking of personal property belonging to another. 2017 PARRICIDE The promise of forever is not an authority for the other to own one's spouse. Mark Gamba. For her to do so is to let the guilty go free. the crime of homicide. Still dissatisfied with the violence he vented on Cerbito.R. rage. their positive declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence. including Sandagan. or kill his spouse. who is interested in vindicating the crime. He committed a crime." The prosecution successfully established these elements. 210615. 215332. No. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before. No. 2017. sufficient to convict the accused. 210615. Undoubtedly.R. G. Abenir Brusola. was committed. hitting him in his chest and abdomen resulting in his untimely death. People of the Philippines v. When Cerbito refused to be divested of his cellphone. 220458. considering that: (a) more than five (5) persons are involved in Multitel's grand fraudulent scheme. unknown to them. and (d) Baladjay and her co-accused defrauded the private complainants. The deception continued when Baladjay's counselors actively solicited investments from the public. and (c) the defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders. 2017 ESTAFA IN ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit. July 26. or members of rural banks. promising very high interest returns starting at five percent (5%) per month. (c) relying on the false promises and misrepresentations thus employed. No. G. private complainants invested their hard-earned money in Multitel. Rosario Baladjay. People of the Philippines v. No.who employed deceit. SYNDICATED ESTAFA The elements of Syndicated Estafa. "samahang nayon(s). Rosario Baladjay. No. despite her not being licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for 10 . in truth. Here. they did not have such authority. Eventually. However. the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accusedappellant deceived private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment.R. including Baladjay and her co-accused . July 26. as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC. or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. 220458. and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. are as follows: (a) Esta/a or other forms of swindling. as Multitel was not really engaged in any legitimate business. G. People of the Philippines v. Rosario Baladjay. 2017 Clearly. July 26." or farmers' associations. false pretenses and representations to the private complainants regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity with Multitel in order to solicit money from them~ (b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud.R. obviously to the latter's prejudice. the promised high-yielding venture was unsustainable. People of the Philippines v. cooperatives. G. Baladjay and her cohorts ran away with the private complainants' money causing them damage and prejudice. is committed. all the elements of Syndicated Esta/a obtain in this case.R. Baladjay and her more than five (5) counselors employed deceit and falsely pretended to have the authority to solicit investments from the general public when. 2017 Using Multitel as their conduit. (b) the Esta/a or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons. Convinced of Baladjay's and her counselors' promise of lucrative income. the private complainants were then enticed to invest in Multitel. 220458. August 23. 2017 ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R. 198795. If the State does not establish the corpus delicti. Man. therefore. with freedom. No. Under the classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based. as evidence.overseas employment. In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. the basis of criminal liability is human free will.. the private complainants parted with their hard-earned money for the payment of the agreed placement fee. 9165. the following elements must be satisfactorily established by the State. Thus. then the crime is not established beyond reasonable doubt. failing in which the State would not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed. 11 . coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug. any substantial gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When he commits a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso). G.180447. 2017 In every prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu prohibited under Republic Act No. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. People of the Philippines v. 2017 CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND FREE WILL The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. People of the Philippines v. What matters is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily. or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Merceditas Matheus. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. Fernando Geronimo. Fernando Geronimo. for which accused-appellant issued petty cash vouchers and used fictitious names evidencing her receipt of the payments. the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur- buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. Because of the assurances given by accused-appellant. No. i. the object of the sale. G.R. August 23.A. 9165.e.R. G. No.180447. No. the State carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense. the accused-appellant deserves acquittal due to the reasonable doubt that the lapses in the chain of custody engendered. People of the Philippines v. intelligence and intent. namely: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. such as when the dangerous drug subject of the prosecution is missing. the corpus delicti. and the consideration.R. June 9. The accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent. G. In the eyes of the law. 2017. G. 224886. Roger Racal. Thus. he who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. motives. it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind within a reasonable period both before and after that time. No. 2017 "Diminished capacity" is not the same as "complete deprivation of intelligence or discernment.R. may be overthrown by other factors. appellant's act of treachery. that is by 12 . The moral and legal presumption under our law is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. G." He must be deprived of reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will.should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired. People of the Philippines v. Furthermore. To ascertain a persons mental condition at the time of the act. 224886. This presumption. 2017 INSANITY An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted during a lucid interval. it is clearly evident that the defense failed to prove that appellant acted without the least discernment or that he was suffering from a complete absence of intelligence or the power to discern at the time of the commission of the crime. September 4.R. he shall be acquitted but the court shall order his confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be released without danger. People of the Philippines v. September 4. Direct testimony is not required." Mere abnormality of mental faculties does not exclude imputability. Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity. Roger Racal. 224886. but rather in a verdict which is followed by commitment of the accused to a mental institution. if clear and convincing suffices. on the basis of these examinations. and emotions may be evaluated only by outward acts to determine whether these conform to the practice of people of sound mind. No.R. People of the Philippines v. Circumstantial evidence. If the court therefore finds the accused insane when the alleged crime was committed. Neither are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. No. and one of these is insanity which exempts the actor from criminal liability. In the absence of evidence to the contrary. A person's thoughts. the law presumes that every person is of sound mind and that all acts are voluntary. for the unfathomable mind can only be known by overt acts. An acquittal of the accused does not result in his outright release. insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. September 4. Roger Racal. And the evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. however. 224886. September 4. the accused is deprived of reason. may not be given credit. the victim was not in a position to defend himself. As testified to by a prosecution witness. two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack. in subsequent rulings. there is no denying that appellant's sudden and unexpected onslaught upon the victim. People of the Philippines v. is not the product of a completely aberrant mind. rejected and abandoned this rule for being too broad and for lacking a clear legal standard for criminal responsibility.e. 224886. This rule postulated that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the result of a mental disease or defect at the time of the incident. thus.R. People of the Philippines v. he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In other words. in the Philippines. or that there is a total deprivation of the will. To emphasize. done in a swift and unexpected way. or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. methods. 2017 TREACHERY Paragraph 16. i. Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means. appellant's reliance on the Durham Rule is misplaced and. Thus. G. or forms of attack employed by him. and the fact that the former did not sustain any injury. methods. No. the courts have established a clearer and more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Francisco. evidences treachery.R. the victim. US Federal Courts and State Courts. thereafter. without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. even by the court which originally adopted it. As earlier discussed. The stealth. These elements are extant in the facts of this case and as testified to by the prosecution witnesses. Francisco was then holding a plastic container containing bread and was eating. was caught off guard when appellant attacked him. evidence points to the fact that appellant was not suffering from insanity immediately before.employing means and methods to ensure the killing of Francisco without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make. appellant cites the "Durham Rule" which was used in criminal courts in the United States of America. However. 2017 In his Supplemental Brief. swiftness and methodical manner by which the attack was carried out gave the victim no chance at all to evade when appellant thrust the knife to his torso. and even right after the commission of the crime. Roger Racal.. September 4. and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means. the fact that appellant was facing Francisco when he stabbed the latter 13 . Thus. as well as his subsequent reaction of immediately fleeing after his commission of the crime and. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated. simultaneous to. affording the hapless. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning. Roger Racal. No. evading arrest. Also. G. Gabby Concepcion and Toto Morales.000. the crime of murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with treachery. the killing was attended by treachery. unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person when Sabida surprisingly emerged from the road and hacked him with a bolo. G. moral damages and exemplary damages must however be increased to ~l 00. In addition. so as to afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves was the tying of the hands of the victims. 2017 The attending circumstance of treachery was likewise properly appreciated. He had no foreboding of any danger. Appellants are not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. place and occasion. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. As correctly imposed by the trial court and as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Without a doubt. The sudden and unexpected attack adopted by Sabida deprived the victim of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. 2017. 9346. the Court of Appeals added that "appellants' attack and their co-accused came without warning and without the slightest provocation from the victim. June 19. appellant must suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua.R. G.R. No. Roger Racal. as in this case. No. threat or harm upon his life at the said time. 208359. Treachery is present when the following conditions are present: (1) the employment of such means of execution that gave the one attacked no opportunity to defend oneself or to retaliate and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution." People of the Philippines v. due to the absence of an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime. interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all 14 . treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent peril to his life. Further.R. No. Demetrio Sabida. There was treachery not only because of the suddenness of the attack but also because of the absence of an opporunity on the victim's part to repel the attack. it was correctly pointed out by the trial court that the fact that "the arms of the [victim] were held by [Leopoldo and Algel] when he was stabbed in the back by accused Toto Morales is enough to qualify the killing to murder. 224886." In this case.is of no consequence. The awards of civil indemnity. People of the Philippines v.00 each in line with prevailing jurisprudence. People of the Philippines v. In this case. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. September 4. July 4. There is treachery when "the means used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of the killing of the victims. G. Undoubtedly. Mawac was obviously caught off-guard. the RTC and the CA correctly held that the crime committed was murder under Article 248 of the RPC by reason of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. 2016 The qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated by the CA. unprepared for the sudden. the lower of the said two indivisible penalties. 212206. that it is done by using force or intimidation. July 4. G.monetary awards from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. as opined by the courts a quo." As such. People of the Philippines v. July 17. accused-appellant had raped AAA in the same house. which led the courts a quo to believe that accused- appellant could not have intended to lie with her. is below 18 years of age. August 2.a young girl 12 years of age . "squeezing.of AAA's genitalia clearly constitutes lascivious conduct. 2016 LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT On the other hand. or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 1995. It could not have been done merely to annoy or vex her. 2017 After a careful evaluation. and lecherous. lustful. At the time of the commission of the lascivious act. The prosecution was able to prove AAA's minority at the time of the incident through the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth40 showing that she was born on September 3.more so. and that the offended party is another person of either sex. No. G. 221443. accused-appellant's act of squeezing AAA's vagina was a lewd and 15 . 2017 Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity. Dominador Udtohan. the requisites of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC above-enumerate must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. (2) the said act is perfonned with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. which strongly suggests that the act was intentional . the law indicates that the mere touching . Gabby Concepcion and Toto Morales. 228887. committed a lascivious act by "squeezing" her vagina. Dominador Ladra." in this case. or when the offended party is under 12 years of age. That AAA was fully clothed at that time. whether male or female. People of the Philippines v. AAA was then 12 years old. and (3) that the child.R.could not have signified any other intention but one having lewd or indecent design. No. the Court finds that the mere fact of "squeezing" the private part of a child . It was likewise established that accused- appellant.R. Indeed.R. an adult who exercised influence on AAA. acts of lasciviousness under the RPC has the following elements: that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness. A judicious examination of the records reveals that all the elements of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC and lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 have been sufficiently established. "'Lewd' is defined as obscene. G. indecent. 212206. for which act he was appropriately convicted. People of the Philippines v. It must not be forgotten that several years prior. No. is inconsequential. or that which is carried on a wanton manner. intimidation or influence . and [4] When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented. No. G.through coercion. People of the Philippines v. September 6.R. 214880. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit. Thus. regardless of whether there was force. No. As long as a child is subjected to sexual abuse. either by engaging in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 221443. G. but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.R. No. 2017 STATUTORY RAPE The rape of a minor constitutes moral depravity of the highest order.lascivious act within the definitions set by law and jurisprudence. III ofRA 7610 shall be the proper imposable penalty. but also where one . Under Article 266-A of the RPC. Amante Padlan. Pablo Armodia. threat.A. 215200. July 26. Section 5 (b). 5 (b). 210654. threat or intimidation. and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her. G. July 17. 7610 punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution. this fact does not necessarily negate rape for a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and worse. [3] By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. He proffers the "sweetheart theory" as a defense. No. Nomerto Napoles. But the Court "has decreed that even if the alleged romantic relationship were true. or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. RAPE Appellant further maintains that he and "AAA" have a romantic relationship. a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. or intimidation. Dominador Ladra.engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child. whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness. the penalty under Sec. People of the Philippines v. Art. No. [T]here is statutory rape when: "(1) the offended party is under [twelve] years of age . rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: [1] By using force. It is enough that the age of the 16 . R. [2] When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. 2017. Philippines v. G. employ violence upon her on the pretext of love because love is not a license for lust. 2017.R. 2017 CHILD ABUSE It is clear from the above that "AAA" need not be a child exploited in prostitution for money or profit in order for the provisions of RA 7160 to apply. People of the Philippines v. Article III of R. June 7. the accused remains liable for rape even if the victim acceded to the sordid acts. step-parent.victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. Article 266-A of the RPC. 11 Moreover. No. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. 212201. 2017. 2017. the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. September 6. People of the Philippines v. Proof of force. Acosta. 208013. intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape. The defense did not even contest her condition. 228887. No. Amante Padlan. sexual intercourse with an intellectually disabled person is rape since proof of force or intimidation becomes needless as the victim is incapable of giving consent to the act. as amended. Dominador Udtohan. People of the Philippines v. with a mental age below 12 years old. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. 212201. The gravamen of rape under Article 266-A (1) is carnal knowledge of "a woman against her will or without her consent. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent. No. there is qualified rape when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. G. the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. The reason behind the rule "is simply that if sexual intercourse with a victim under twelve years of age 17 . June 28. G. constitutes statutory rape. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. R. If a woman above 12 years old has a mental age of a child below 12. considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12.R. is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. People of the Philippines v. August 2. G. Rodolfo Deniega. It is also a settled rule that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate. If a mentally-retarded or intellectually-disabled person whose mental age is less than 12 years is raped. Edgar Allan Corpuz. to the sexual act." Undoubtedly. One's capacity to give consent depends upon his or her mental age and not on his or her chronological age. No. People of the Philippines v. G. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. the rape is considered committed under paragraph 1 (d) and not paragraph l(b).R. under Article 266-B of the RPC.R. 2017 This Court has consistently held that rape under Article 266-A(l)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.R. ascendant. No. People of the Philippines v. or the lack of it. 2017. AAA's intellectual disability was undisputed and well substantiated by the testimonies of Tablizo and Dr. July 3. 2017. intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations. Thus. June 28. guardian. Rodolfo Deniega. force. G. 214880. his relationship with the victim cannot qualify the crimes of rape. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "in all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty. The crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B(1)48 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the twin circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the perpetrator. Pablo Armodia. People of the Philippines v." People of the Philippines v. the appropriate penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law. 2017. Even if the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were present. No. Romeo De Guzman. 2017. 228248. June 7. 2017 SIMPLE RAPE The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court found that accused- appellant's relationship with AAA was not duly alleged in the informations. G. both of which must concur and must b alleged in the information. or the common-law spouse of her mother. People of the Philippines v. August 9. Simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Jurisprudence dictates that the moral ascendancy wielded by De Guzman as a stepfather substituted actual force. It is immaterial whether the relationship was proven during trial if that was not specifically pleaded for in the information. G. such as the victim's father. Ruling otherwise would deprive him of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. No.R. No. No.is rape. Pablo Armodia. Edgar Allan Corpuz. August 8. G.R. 2017. G. No. moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.R. violence or intimidation in the crime of rape. People of the Philippines v. it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Noel Go Caoili. July 3. 208013.R. uncle. stepfather. 18 . QUALIFIED RAPE The Court likewise cannot subscribe to the assertion of [the Accused] that his moral ascendancy as a stepparent is 'insufficient to replace force. 196342. June 7. 2017. 210654. threat and intimidation.R. it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. it must thereby follow that carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of a child below twelve years should likewise be constitutive of rape. People of the Philippines v. 210654. Thus. It is likewise settled that in cases where the rape is committed by a close kin. G. No. Sandy Domingo. G. 225743. August 8. even though the latter crime was proven during trial. G. No.R. the appellant should be convicted only of rape. the variance doctrine cannot be applied to convict an accused of rape by sexual assault if the crime charged is rape through sexual intercourse. People of the Philippines v. (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT Rape by sexual assault is not subsumed in rape through sexual intercourse. Where the main objective of the culprit for the abduction of the victim of rape was to have carnal knowledge of her.A. August 8. and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. 2017. 2017 19 .R. No. 8353. The Court remains steadfast in confining its powers within the constitutional sphere of applying the law as enacted by the Legislature.R. 196342. rape by sexual intercourse and rape by sexual assault. To broaden the scope of rape by sexual assault. by eliminating its legal distinction from rape through sexual intercourse. It is through legislative process that the dichotomy between these two modes of rape was created. No. People of the Philippines v. June 7. 2017 The language of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC. No. 225743. provides the elements that substantially differentiate the two forms of rape. he could be convicted only of rape. Noel Go Caoili. People of the Philippines v. G. calls for judicial legislation which We cannot traverse without violating the principle of separation of powers. June 7.A. His forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his real objective in abducting her was to commit the rape. i. the elements of forcible abduction are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will. An accused charged in the Information with rape by sexual intercourse cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation.R. In fine. Sandy Domingo. 8353. since the former offense cannot be considered subsumed in the latter. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE Under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape if the primary objective of the accused is to commit rape. This is due to the substantial distinctions between these two modes of rape. G. No. given the material distinctions between the two modes of rape introduced in R.. People of the Philippines v. Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained. 196342.e. and (2) with lewd designs. 2017. as amended by R. Noel Go Caoili. under any of the attendant circumstances in paragraph 1 of Article 266-A. the Court agrees with the findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that Dizon committed the crime of rape by sexual assault against AAA by inserting his finger into her anus. Both the trial court and the CA therefore properly sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified rape but without eligibility of parole. As to the charge of rape by sexual assault. In addition.000. whether a man or a woman. all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape. September 11. For a charge of rape through sexual intercourse to prosper. or on the occasion of a robbery. threat.R. Undoubtedly. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. appellant committed the crime of qualified rape (three counts). No. the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. although not all of them took part in the rape. In this case. Rolly Dizon. or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. Appellant also used his moral ascendancy to cow "AAA" to submit to his bestial desires. moral damages. G.00 each. July 5. Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years of age is statutory rape. Melchor Panes. 215730. It is beyond cavil that appellant had carnal knowledge of "AAA" on three separate occasions and the same were committed through force. No. We likewise sustain the findings of the lower courts that Dizon committed the crime of rape through sexual intercourse against AAA when he had carnal knowledge of her. or (2) a male or female offender inserts any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. People of the Philippines v. 2017 20 .. under any of the attendant circumstances in paragraph 1 of Article 266-A. In line with prevailing jurisprudence. G. G. whether a man or a woman. 2017 The CA's verdict is in full accord with the evidence on record. July 10. the amount of damages awarded must be modified. Marlon Belmonte et al. and (2) he accomplished such act through force. It is also undisputed that it was properly alleged in the three Informations and proved during trial that appellant is the father of "AAA. People of the Philippines v. 217982. or intimidation." a 13-year-old minor at the time of the rape incidents. the same contemplates either of the following situations: (1) a male offender inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice of another person. No. all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until full payment.R. and exemplary damages are increased to Pl 00.R. 220889. People of the Philippines v. or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. threat. or intimidation. 2017 ROBBERY WITH RAPE The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence. However. the awards of civil indemnity. even if there might be unlawful aggression on the part of Nonilon at the start. People of the Philippines v. and (3) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused claiming self- defense. 2017. who was already kneeling with his hands raised. 220889. based on the records and the evidence adduced by both parties. Appellant's wife never testified that Nonilon was armed with a knife.R. 220889. indicating a position of surrender. Clearly. People of the Philippines v. the latter was already in a kneeling position with his hands raised. Being the party initiating the attack and armed with a deadly weapon. No.. However. as in the present case. it already ceased when Nonilon ran away and when appellant caught up with him. unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape. it is indisputable that Sabida failed to show that Mawac exhibited unlawful aggression against him. However. they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery.. 1631. Marlon Belmonte et al. People of the Philippines v. Even appellant's wife testified that she only saw Nonilon throwing stones at her husband. (2) there was reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the attack. was quite helpless when appellant started stabbing him. Robbery with Rape is a special complex crime under Article 294 of the RPC. Thereafter. Appellant's claim that Nonilon tried to stab him first with a knife was belied by the testimony of another defense witness who stated that Nonilon was armed only with a piece of wood which he picked up while running after appellant. No. Once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery. Nonilon. Sabida's self- 21 . was stabbed by appellant five times which caused Nonilon's death. 219885. as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. Jr. there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Nonilon which amounts to actual or imminent threat to the life of appellant. When appellant started attacking Nonilon. 2017 SELF DEFENSE There are three essential elements that must be established by an accused claiming self-defense: (1) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual and imminent threat to the life of the accused. 2017 The crime of Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). At that moment. July 17. Marlon Belmonte et al. with intent to gain. G. appellant still hacked Nonilon. Nonilon. July 5.R. personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. 7659. Augusto Gallanosa. hitting him on his left forearm.R. It contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take. the first element of unlawful aggression is already lacking in this case. Thus. No. appellant stabbed Nonilon four more times on the right and left chest. G. In Criminal Case No. G. the victim. Sabida cannot successfully claim that there was unlawful aggression. July 5. there was no more unlawful aggression that would warrant legal selfdefense on the part of the offender. Even assuming that the unlawful aggression emanated from Intia. In retaliation. 208359. June 19. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It must be commensurate 22 . If no unlawful aggression is proved. who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. 2017. People of the Philippines v. Demetrio Sabida. the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him. To invoke selfdefense successfully. "When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists. Tica went beyond the call of self-preservation when he proceeded to inflict excessive." Undoubtedly. To be sure. SELF-DEFENSE V. while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused. G. The essential elements of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. While all three elements must concur. These two concepts are not the same. The trial court aptly noted that there was no clear and credible evidence that Mawac was the one who instigated the fight and that Sabida was merely fending off an attack. The accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness ofthe prosecution. the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove it by credible. RETALIATION Considering that self-defense is an affirmative allegation and totally exonerates the accused from any criminal liability. No. The means employed by the person invoking self-defense contemplates a rational equivalence between the means of attack and the defense. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression. atrocious and fatal injuries to Intia. there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused.serving claim of self-defense coupled with the fact that he did not sustain any injury from his supposed attacker fails to support any claim of unlawful aggression. when the present victim no longer persisted in his purpose or action to the extent that the object of his attack was no longer in peril.R. the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis. clear and convincing evidence. What actually transpired in the present case is not an act of selfdefense but an act of retaliation on the part of Tica. the means employed by Tica was not reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of the alleged attack that he sought to prevent. the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even wournd the former aggressor. it is well settled that when it is invoked. no self- defense may be successfully pleaded. self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. even when the allegedly unlawful aggression had already ceased the night before. if there is nothing to prevent or repel. . the controversy involves run-of-the mill matters that could have been resolved with ease by the lower court had it been given a chance to do so in the first place. In fact. the matter presented before the Court is not of first impression. Neither will this Court be swayed to relax its rules on the bare fact that the petitioner belongs to the minority party in the present administration. No.to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of courts is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. Jonathan Tica. That the petitioner is a senator of the republic does not also merit a special treatment of her case. De Lima v. A primary hallmark of an independent judiciary is its political neutrality. We have held in the past that the nature and number of wounds are constantly and unremittingly considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense. In like manner. 2017 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HIERARCHY OF COURTS Trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by this Court. Hon. October 10. August 30. and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. he could have simply engaged him in a fistfight. Intia was unarmed when he allegedly attacked Tica. No. One 23 . which caused the victim's eventual death. October 10. Instead. It will not entertain direct resort to it when relief can be obtained in the lower courts. and younger than Intia. 222561. had a bigger body built. Juanita Guerrero et al. 2017. Petitioner is not the first public official accused of violating RA 9165 nor is she the first defendant to question the finding of probable cause for her arrest. petitioner's argument that the rule on the hierarchy of court should be disregarded as her case involves pure questions of law does not obtain. People of the Philippines v.R. Senator Leila M.R. using his own knife. This Court is thus loath to perceive and consider the issues before it through the warped prisms of political partisanships. 2017. without more. Juanita Guerrero et al. is not and will not be a reason for this Court's decisions. Petitioner's allegation that her case has sparked national and international interest is obviously not covered by the exceptions to the rules on hierarchy of courts. The notoriety of a case. 229781. No. 229781. Senator Leila M. stripped of all political complexions. De Lima v.R. G.. In this case. G. G. contrary to her position. Hon. Tica chose to fatally stab Intia about six times. Further. Considering that Tica is taller. The right to equal treatment before the law accorded to every Filipino also forbids the elevation of petitioner's cause on account of her position and status in the government. without any compelling reason.R. the warrant of arrest and the Order dated February 24.R. She did not ask for the dismissal of the subject criminal case. it is all the more for these practical considerations that the Court must insist on the application of the rule and not the exceptions in this case. the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor. G. It is based on the presumption that "no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true." is an unmistakable admission that the RTC has yet to rule on her Motion to Quash and the existence of the RTC's authority to rule on the said motion.557 criminal cases involving drugs. and around 260. Senator Leila M. De Lima v. 2017 committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center.. Indeed. Clearly petitioner seeks the recall of said orders to effectuate her release from detention and restore her liberty. 229781. bypassing the appellate court. 229781. this ground removes the case from the ambit of cases involving pure questions of law. This Court cannot thus allow a precedent allowing public officers assailing the finding of probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants to be brought directly to this Court. No.796 criminal cases involving other offenses pending before the RTCs. the Court has considered the practical aspects of the administration of justice in deciding to apply the exceptions rather than the rule." It can be presumed then that the declaration corresponds with the 24 . October 10. Senator Leila M. G. Juanita Guerrero et al. This matter. with the President having declared the fight against illegal drugs and corruption as central to his platform of government. De Lima v. Yet. 2017. 2017 finding probable cause. including other documents and/or evidence appended to the Information. No. her request for the issuance of a writ of prohibition under paragraph (b) of the prayer "until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality.of the grounds upon which petitioner anchors her case is that the respondent judge erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to issue her arrest. As it now stands. ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST Petitioner De Lima asks for a writ of certiorari annulling the Order dated February 23. an admission against interest being the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. By itself. there are 232. should have first been brought before the appellate court. Juanita Guerrero et al. This admission against interest binds the petitioner. As petitioner herself alleges. Hon. More importantly. therefore. there will be a spike of cases brought before the courts involving drugs and public officers. It is established that the issue of whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused is a question of fact. petitioner harps on the supposed judicial efficiency and economy of abandoning the rule on the hierarchy of courts in the present case. which is in the better position to review and determine factual matters.. 2017. determinable as it is from a review of the allegations in the Information. October 10. However. Hon. Juanita Guerrero et al.R. October 10. 2017. Section 5 (2)(C) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly requires the existence of "final judgments and orders of lower courts" before the Court can exercise its power to "review. modify. As per the block letter provision of the Constitution.which puts the jurisdiction of the lower court in issue -." Nowhere in the prayer did petitioner explicitly ask for the dismissal of Criminal Case No.there is no controversy for this Court to resolve. Juanita Guerrero et al. without a doubt.R. Juanita Guerrero et al.truth. reverse. De Lima v.. The Court. revise. 229781. De Lima v." as the lower court's feared denial of the subject Motion 25 . there is no other course of action to take than to dismiss the petition on the ground of prematurity and allow respondent Judge to rule on the Motion to Quash according to the desire of petitioner. Senator Leila M. G. G. No. revise. 2017. or affirm. if it rules positively in favor of petitioner regarding the grounds of the Motion to Quash. Hon. This. this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a vacuum nor issue a definitive ruling on mere suppositions. or affirm on appeal or certiorari" in "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue". there is simply no final judgment or order of the lower court to review. it is not for this Court to negate "uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as anticipated..R. This is clearly outside of the ambit of orderly and expeditious rules of procedure. Succinctly. reverse. No. October 10. No Party should Pre-empt the Action of a Trial Court Petitioner prayed for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction and a status quo ante order which easily reveal her real motive in filing the instant petition-to restore to "petitioner her liberty and freedom. In view of the foregoing. Indeed. will be preempting the respondent Judge from doing her duty to resolve the said motion and even prejudge the case. G. October 10. De Lima v. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN A VACCUM In the palpable absence of a ruling on the Motion to Quash -. Senator Leila M. 17-165. 229781. the prematurity of the present petition cannot be over-emphasized considering that petitioner is actually asking the Court to rule on some of the grounds subject of her Motion to Quash. and it is her fault if it does not. as the latter abstains from resolving the incidents until this Court rules with finality on the instant petition. No. the present petition is immediately dismissible for this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a non-existent court action. 2017. modify.. It can only act to protect a party from a real and actual ruling by a lower tribunal. the present petition cannot satisfy the requirements set before this Court can exercise its review powers. Surely. Hon. 229781. Without such order. Hon. or indeed may not occur at all. Senator Leila M. causes an inevitable delay in the proceedings in the trial court. What is clear is she merely asked the respondent judge to rule on her Motion to Quash before issuing the warrant of arrest. In the absence of a final judgment. there is no occasion for this Court to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari.. G. speedy and adequate remedy found in law. Requirements for Review on Certiorari Furthermore. or ruling on the Motion to Quash challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court. Exercise of Original Jurisdiction requires an Assailed Ruling or Judgment Even granting argu. 2017 Orders she is currently assailing in this Petition.to Quash.R. No. De Lima v. it is a basic requirement under Rule 65 that there be "[no] other plain. Hon. Juanita Guerrero et al. Senator Leila M. nay violate." Thus. G. 2017. and for us to be satisfied that the case does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.. Juanita Guerrero et al. Various policies and rules have been issued to curb the tendencies of litigants to disregard. No. They have to be more judicious and circumspect in preparing the Information since a mistake or defect 26 . Juanita Guerrero et al. CRIMINAL INFORMATION The Court. 2017. October 10.R. the failure to exhaust all other remedies. there is nothing for this Court to declare as having been issued without jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion. 229781. Senator Leila M. The established rule is that courts of justice will take cognizance only of controversies "wherein actual and not merely hypothetical issues are involved. "[a] motion for reconsideration allows the public respondent an opportunity to correct its factual and legal errors xx x [it] is mandatory before the filing of a petition for certiorari. the rule enunciated in Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution to allow the Court to devote its time and attention to matters within its jurisdiction and prevent the overcrowding of its docket..R. Office of the Ombudsman. Without a judgment or ruling. 229781. As this Court held in Estrada v.endo that what is invoked is the original jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5 (1) of Article VIII. before a premature resort to this Court is fatal to the petitioner's cause of action. Petitioner even failed to move for the reconsideration of the February 23 and 24. Hon. thus. Hon. De Lima v. as will be later discussed. order." The reasons proffered by petitioner fail to justify her present premature recourse. No. De Lima v. There is no reason to consider the proceedings at bar as an exception. 2017. takes this occasion to once again remind public prosecutors of their crucial role in drafting criminal complaints or Information. October 10. G." Senator Leila M. 229781. the petition nonetheless falls short of the Constitutional requirements and ofRule 65 ofthe Rules of Court. October 10." The reason underlying the rule is "to prevent the courts through avoidance of premature adjudication from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements. No. G.R. even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the precise time alleged. Federico Gerola. 217973. July 19. What is essential to sustain conviction is proof of carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances provided by law. the Court has held that the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the crime and need not be stated with absolute accuracy. what remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the same. "Precision as to the time when the rape is committed has no bearing on its commission. People of the Philippines v. 2017 Specific reference of the exact date or time of the commission of rape is not an element of the said crime. Senator Leila M. No. 2017 THOUGHT PROCESSES INVOLVED IN CRAFTING A CRIMINAL INFORMATION Notably. Section 5. Section 26(b). People. De Lima v. the date or the time of the commission of the rape need not be stated in the complaint or information with absolute accuracy. No. Republic Act No. the designation of the offense in the Information is a critical element required under Section 6. Further. People of the Philippines v.R. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in apprising the accused of the offense being charged. G. No. As this Court clarified in Quimvel v. Noel Go Caoili. 228248. a reading of the provisions of RA 9165 under which the petitioner is prosecuted would convey that De Lima is being charged as a conspirator in the crime of Illegal Drug Trading. and Section 28. the offended party and even the offender. conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime. October 10. 9165. 2017. 229781. 27 . Instead." From the very designation of the crime in the Information itself. It is well to stress that variance in minor details has the net effect of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness' credibility because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. 2017. for it is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime was committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Juanita Guerrero et al. August 9.therein may not render full justice to the State.. in relation to Section 3(jj). Hon. Romeo De Guzman. People of the Philippines v. 196342. Consequently. August 8.R. G. the prefatory statements and the accusatory portions of the Information repeatedly provide that the petitioner is charged with "Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. it should be plain that the crime with which the petitioner is charged is a violation of RA 9165. where the time of commission is not an essential element of the crime charged.R. the designation. Time and again. G. On this score. October 10. Read as a whole. 229781. De Lima v. The minute details of this participation and cooperation are matters of evidence that need not be specified in the Information but presented and threshed out during trial. Hon.R. Hon. manufacture. Section 26(b).the offense for which the persons involve should be penalized. of RA 9165. De Lima's participation and cooperation was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates. An example would be reports of recent vintage regarding billions of pesos' worth of illegal drugs allowed to enter Philippine ports without the scrutiny of Customs officials. it is not indispensable for a co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime. No. the Information against De Lima goes beyond an indictment for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC. 28 . it is not participation in all the details of the execution of the crime.R. 229781. described by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as "a global illicit trade involving the cultivation.R.. helped and cooperated in the consummation of a felony. 2017. Any money and bribery that may have changed hands to allow the importation of the confiscated drugs are certainly but trivial contributions in the furtherance of the transnational illegal drug trading . Juanita Guerrero et al. October 10. 2017.. form "part of the description on how illegal drug trading took place at the NBP. that it has not been alleged that petitioner actually participated in the actual trafficking of dangerous drugs and had simply allowed the NBP inmates to do so is non sequitur given that the allegation of conspiracy makes her liable for the acts of her co-conspirators. While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as constitutive of some elements of Direct Bribery under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). which may be taken as constitutive of bribery. G. No.. Senator Leila M. 2017. and Section 28. not the least of which is the bribery and corruption of government officials. Hon. October 10. De Lima v. in one way or another. Juanita Guerrero et al. 83 As the Information provides. these facts taken together with the other allegations in the Information portray a much bigger picture. As long as the accused. 229781. Senator Leila M. and not picked apart with each word or phrase construed separately. As this Court elucidated. As Justice Martires articulately explained. Dayan and the NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully trading dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices under Section 5. Juanita Guerrero et al." necessarily involves various component crimes. as conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony. in relation to Section 3(jj). A conspirator need not even know of all the parts which the others have to perform. Illegal Drug Trading. Senator Leila M. Ragos." The averments on how petitioner asked for and received money from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of conspiracy between her. distribution and sale of substances. The latter crime. G. G. No. the averments on solicitation of money in the Information. she is liable as a co-principal. De Lima v. jurisprudence has defined a broker as one who is simply a middleman. As pointed out by Justice Perlas-Bernabe. Senator Leila M.." For the Court. but not limited to. in Illegal Trade) would be impractical. text messages. De Lima v.R. By "using electronic devices such as. instant messengers and chat rooms. possibly bribery and violation of RA 9165. what. The exercise of this discretion depends on a smorgasboard of factors. which are best appreciated by the prosecutors. such as the identities of the buyer and the seller.. De Lima v. two-way radios. Hon." the Illegal Trading can be remotely perpetrated away from where the drugs are actually being sold. Senator Leila M. internet. No. it will be quite myopic and restrictive to require the elements of Illegal Sale-a mere component act-in the prosecution for Illegal Trading. De Lima v. it is illogical to require the elements of Illegal Sale of drugs. Juanita Guerrero et al. G.R. this Court even acknowledged persons as brokers even "where they actually took no part in the negotiations. No. 229781. mobile or landlines. More so. proof that the accused "act[ed] as a broker" or brought together the buyer and seller of illegal drugs "using electronic devices such as. G. 2017. Juanita Guerrero et al. October 10. G. Juanita Guerrero et al. In some cases. October 10. that which qualifies the crime of Illegal Trafficking to Illegal Trading may make it impossible to provide the details of the elements of Illegal Sale. To require the elements of Illegal Sale (the identities of the buyer. the prosecution is vested with a wide range of discretion-including the discretion of whether. and whom to charge. the object and consideration. never saw the customer. text messages. With the proliferation of digital technology coupled with ride sharing and delivery services. 2017. 229781. internet. For the prosecution of Illegal Trading of drugs to prosper. email.. as recognized and defined in RA 9165. away from the subject of the illegal sale. as early as 1916. negotiating contracts relative to property with which he has no custody. With the complexity of the operations involved in Illegal Trading of drugs. still the prosecution has the 29 . In this instance. in indictments for Illegal Trading. the primary occupation of a broker is simply bringing "the buyer and the seller together. Hon. October 10. instant messengers and chat rooms" is sufficient. the object and consideration. seller. or trading by "acting as a broker" in transactions involved in Illegal Trafficking. 2017. After all. No.R." Hence. but not limited to. the accused may neither have physical possession of the drugs nor meet the buyer and seller and yet violate RA 9165. The same may be said of the second mode for committing Illegal Trading. Granting without conceding that the information contains averments which constitute the elements of Direct Bribery or that more than one offence is charged or as ill this case. 229781. two-way radios. Hon. Senator Leila M. mobile or landlines. e-mail. The DOJ's designation of the charge as one for Illegal Drug Trading thus holds sway. even if no sale is eventually made. Illegal Trading under RA 9165 can be committed without getting one's hand on the substances or knowing and meeting the seller or buyer. " In determining the forum vested with the jurisdiction to try and decide criminal actions. narcotic substances possess unique characteristics that render them not readily identifiable. as amended by RA 10660. In fact. No. that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear drug- related cases. Certainly. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606. Hon. touted by the petitioner and the dissents as a catchall provision. 2017. No. Senator Leila M. Senator Leila M. they must first be subjected to scientific analysis by 30 . G. The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking government officials is not omnipotent. 229781. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972." This is an exception. as of RA 6425.. jurisdiction over offenses and felonies committed by public officers is not determined solely by the pay scale or by the fact that they were committed "in relation to their office. However. it is easy to dismiss them as common and untechnical. G. Juanita Guerrero et al. In this case. regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. 17-165 can still be amended pursuant to Section 14. will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other. couched in the special law on dangerous drugs.authority to amend the information at any time before arraignment.R.R. Senator Leila M. 229781. De Lima v.97 which amended Presidential Decree No. does not operate to strip the RTCs of its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. De Lima v. With the proliferation of cases involving violation of RA 9165. to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606. October 10. RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to "exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165). REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER DRUGS CASES The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is RA 9165. which updated the rules provided in RA 6425. It should occasion no surprise. the laws governing the subject matter of the criminal prosecution must likewise be considered.R. It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law and the latter is to be considered as an exception to the general. 229781. No.. RA 9165 relegating original exclusive jurisdiction to RTCs specially designated by the Supreme Court logically follows given the technical aspect of drug-related cases. A plain reading of RA 9165. G. 2017. 2017. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Juanita Guerrero et al. (PD) 1606. as amended by RA 10660. Hon.. Hon. October 10. Since petitioner has not yet been arraigned. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher. October 10. therefore. The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its limits are currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660. then the information subject of Criminal Case No. Juanita Guerrero et al. The exceptional rule provided under Section 90. De Lima v. for purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a warrant of arrest. This is not surprising given that the only evidence available on record are those provided by the complainants and the petitioner. 229781. the primary consideration of RA 9165 is the fact that the substances involved are. did not present any counter-affidavit or evidence to controvert this. De Lima v. G. their plant sources. the latter did not say anything. After all. 17-165. Section 12 of the Constitution states that "[t]hese rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION Dela Cruz's extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police station without a valid waiver of the right to counsel . G. Thus. 229781." Dela Cruz was merely told of his Constitutional rights. Senator Leila M. Without a doubt. 2017. No. De Lima v. there is nothing to disprove the following preliminary findings of the DOJ prosecutors relative to the allegations in the Information filed in Criminal Case No. but he 31 . Further. 2017. in fact.R. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. not one of the Sandiganbayan justices were provided with knowledge and technical expertise on matters relating to prohibited substances. DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ARREST WARRANT Notably.. Article III. October 10. Juanita Guerrero et al. Again.is inadmissible in evidence. of the guilt of the accused. the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability. Hon.. Juanita Guerrero et al. October 10. A finding of probable cause to order the accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. No. dangerous drugs. judges presiding over designated drugs courts are specially trained by the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJa) and given scientific instructions to equip them with the proper tools to appreciate pharmacological evidence and give analytical insight upon this esoteric subject. Senator Leila M. It is undisputed that Dela Cruz was neither assisted by a lawyer nor was his confession reduced into writing. not the certainty. Even so.that is. such silence did not constitute a valid waiver of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel. 129 She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. in writing and in the presence of counsel . in fact.forensic chemists to determine their composition and nature. per the February 23. Thus. respondent judge evaluated all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation and on the basis thereof found probable cause to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. when the police officers informed Dela Cruz of his right to a lawyer. Hon.R. 2017 Order. or their controlled precursors and essential chemicals. G. 2017 Republic Act (R. G.A. 2017 Any statement obtained in violation of the constitutional provision. if it was made without the assistance 32 . 221424.R. July 19. 181474. 217973. Romaldo Lumayag et al. July 19.R. Robelyn Cabanada. Federico Gerola. G. (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. (3) P02 Cotoner was present during Cabanada's apology and admission to Catherine. People of the Philippines v. in whole or in part. This kind of perfunctory giving of the so- called Miranda rights is what this Court has previously frowned upon as ineffective and inadequate compliance with the mandates of the Constitution. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v.was never asked whether he understood what he was told or whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights. not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.R. No. Robelyn Cabanada. shall be inadmissible in evidence. and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned.) No. 221424. July 19. Cabanada was brought to the police station for further investigation. Robelyn Cabanada.R. People of the Philippines v. one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires. No. G. People of the Philippines v. (2) the alleged confession happened in the office of the chief. 2017 PROCEDURAL DELAY Delay in the prosecution of an offense is not an indicium of a fabricated charge. July 19. July 26. No. The compelling pressures of custodial setting were present when the accused was brought to the police station along with Catherine. 2017 MIRANDA DOCTRINE The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth. No. 7438 reinforced the constitutional mandate and expanded the definition of custodial investigation. 2017 The subsequent confession of Cabanada at the CIU office can be considered as having been done in a custodial setting because (1) after admitting the crime. The said rights are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit something false.R. This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda rights. G. Any confession obtained under these circumstances is flawed and cannot be used as evidence not only against the declarant but also against his co-accused. 221424. No. No. in this regard. July 19. The circumstances surrounding Cabanada's appearance before the police station falls within the definition of custodial investigation.R. As opined by Justice Regalado. 2017. August 7. ceased to be a general inquiry even if they contemplated that she was covering for someone. it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct. 221424. regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. People of the Philippines v. G. civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. John Paul Ceralde. No. July 19. revise the judgment appealed from. No. it becomes inadmissible in evidence. thus. The investigation. "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed. Robelyn Cabanada. it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and. 2017 APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES At the outset. 2017 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION The "investigation" in Section 12. Robelyn Cabanada. cite. is inadmissible. increase the penalty. paragraph 1 of the Bill of Rights pertains to "custodial investigation.R." Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. Accused's civil liability based on sources other than the subject delict survives. i. G. therefore. No. and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.R.e. Despite the claim that she was not considered as a suspect at that time. 2017 DEATH OF ACCUSED PENDING APPEAL OF CONVICTION Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. 228894. People of the Philippines v. G.. July 19. the fact remains that she confessed to having committed the crime and was able to produce the money from her room. People of the Philippines v. and cite the proper provision of the penal law. "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records. 221424.of counsel. G. which led to the recovery of the other items at her house. Cabanada's confession without counsel at the police station. 221424.R. and the victim 33 ." People of the Philippines v. Robelyn Cabanada. may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused-appellant. July 17. 9165 only for the first time on appeal.R. the chain of custody so essential in the establishment of the corpus delicti of the offense charged against Lumudag was not shown to be unbroken and preserved. No. without the State's justification for the lapses or gaps. This presumption exists without requiring the accused to do anything to trigger it other than be the subject of a criminal charge. People of the Philippines v. To state otherwise is to contravene the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. No.R. particularly the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 225054. which. the accused is presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Maritess Cayas G. as may be warranted by law and procedural rules. The delay of his challenge hardly matters. Agapito Dimaala. 2017. 2016 BURDEN OF PROOF The State bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 34 .A. People of the Philippines v. i. EVIDENCE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE At the onset of any criminal proceeding. 206888. Any doubt regarding the evidence of guilt is resolved in favor of the accused. a constitutional presumption exists for the accused arising from the fact that he is charged with the commission of a crime. Parok Lumudag.. July 4. No. The unavoidable consequence of the non-disclosure of the justification was the nonestablishment of the chain of custody. The non-disclosure of the justification by the members of the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence against the accused. August 23. 201478. Verily.e. G. G. in turn.R. It was really not up to the Defense to raise such issue at the start because the disclosure of the necessary justification for any lapse or gap in following the requirements was always the sole responsibility of the State by virtue of the obligation of the members of the buy-bust team themselves to explain why the lapses or gaps had occurred. 2017 BURDEN OF PROOF IN DRUGS CASES Lumudag has challenged the police officers' failure to comply with the requirements outlined in Section 21 of R. People of the Philippines v. No. Here. Without question. that was delivered by accused-appellant. August 23. or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. any substantial gap rendered the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt Thus. and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed." is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operation. Parok Lumudag. No. it was shown that there was a prior surveillance on appellant's illegal activities and it was confirmed that indeed appellant was selling illegal drugs. There was no showing that the infonnant induced the accused-appellant to sell illegal drugs to him. June 19. is mere evidence of a course of conduct. or that the substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance worked against the authenticity of the dangerous substance presented as evidence in court. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with the accused-appellant.raised serious doubt on whether or not the shabu presented as evidence was the shabu supposedly sold by Lumudag. and should the State not discharge its burden. 2017 PROPER HANDLING OF EVIDENCE IN DRUGS CASES Decoy Solicitation A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation.R. we should then unhesitatingly hold and pronounce that the guilt of the accused had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 220022. 35 . the solicitation by SP02 Agbayani and the informant of drugs from Lingbanan ana Alacdis. People of the Philippines v. A "decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to inducement or instigation.R. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed. We should always demand that in every prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 201478. No. This could mean either that the dangerous drug truly the subject of the prosecution had been lost or gone missing. Wilton Alacdis. 2017. Without the credible proof of the unbroken and unassailable chain of custody. G. the evidence of the corpus delicti was not adduced. or what is known as a "decoy solicitation. It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way. People of the Philippines v. and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminal's 'course of conduct. 9165. The police received an intelligence report that accused-appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. or that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal. G. the State must alone discharge the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense. In this case. or whether or not shabu had really been sold by him. Lumudag deserves acquittal from the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt of his guilt. G. Several substantial lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. G. because succeeding handlers of the seized drug or related items will use the marking as their reference. has the heavy burden of justifying at the trial the lapses or gaps in the chain of custody. if only to render it improbable that the integrity or identity of the original item had been compromised." is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operations. or substitution . Observance of the Chain of Custody The State. To start with. August 23. G. A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy- bust operation. August 16. No. Jocelyn Carlit.that they are not readily identifiable and prone to tampering. Without the justification. what transpired was a typical buy-bust operation which is a form of entrapment.R. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings. the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti was not preserved. the chain of custody is not shown to be unbroken.180447. a buy-bust operation was planned. Fernando Geronimo. hence. "planting. 2017 A review of the records indicates that the procedure laid down by Republic Act No. Appellant negotiated with P02 Ricote as to the price of the marijuana to which the latter agreed and paid the same. Processing and Treatment of Seized Articles Rules require the marking of the seized drug immediately upon seizure.hence.180447. No. 2017. Armando Mendoza. 220759." or contamination of evidence. The CI introduced P02 Ricote to appellant as a buyer of marijuana. People of the Philippines v. This is where the observance of the chain of custody comes in.which justifies the Court's imposition of a more exacting standard before they could be accepted as evidence. Much had already been said about the unique characteristic of narcotic substances . Presenting in court the corpus delicti is not rote function. No. 2017. July 24. not the accused. alteration. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v.R. thereby obviating switching. People of the Philippines v.R. G. or what is known as a "decoy solicitation. The acquittal of the accused should follow. No doubt. and he was arrested. 2017.R. Fernando Geronimo. No. but a tedious undertaking. Such marking is the starting point in the custodial chain. August 23. no 36 . The sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed. 9165 and its IRR was not followed by the agents of the State. 227309. and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminal's course of conduct. It is also crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody. And. The photograph would have visually preserved the seized shabu for proving the corpus delicti. until the disposal of the shabu after the trial. To our mind. or even later on after the buy-bust team had brought the accused-appellant to their office. collectively raise doubts on whether the items presented in court were the exact same items that were taken from Cayas when she was arrested. the Prosecution tendered no explanation of why none of the members of the buy-bust team had seen to the taking of any photograph of the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. the poseur-buyer. none of the members of the buy-bust team saw the need to photograph the seized shabu and the confiscated buy-bust bills then and even later on. however. attested that she had placed her initials "JAS" on the confiscated shabu at the place of the entrapment right after the accused-appellant had been apprised of his constitutional rights by P03 Hunilassan Salisa. whom we must presume to have been well-instructed on the law demanding the preservation of the links in the chain of custody. G. They should then have dutifully seen to the compliance with the requirements. August 23. 2017. and beyond. and if their compliance was not full. It is significant to note. People of the Philippines v. July 4. that the application of the saving mechanism to any particular situation is expressly conditioned upon the State rendering a fitting or suitable explanation of the lapse or gap in the compliance with the procedures. People of the Philippines v. Here.180447. 2016 37 . Fernando Geronimo.R.R. Likewise. thirdly. Maritess Cayas G. Surely. standing unexplained. We should specially note at this juncture that the requirements were not unknown to the members of the buy-bust team. the saving mechanism under the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR would not apply if there was no credible showing of any effort undertaken by the members of the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit from the moment of seizure to the police station.photograph of the seized shabu was taken either at the place of the entrapment and arrest. or member of the media. These constitute major lapses that. The explanation should at least disclose to the trial court the reason or reasons for the lapse or gap in compliance with the procedure considering that every step in the procedure is an essential link in the chain of custody. or member of the media. are fatal to the prosecution’s case. or representative of the Department of Justice during the entrapment and confiscation of the evidence. they should at least have the readiness to explain the step or steps omitted from such compliance. there was no explanation given as to why they did not ensure the presence of an elected official. although POI Janet Sabo. as well as the unexplained discrepancy in the marking. The last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non- compliance irreversibly prejudices the State's evidence. no elected official. or representative of the Department of Justice was present. the procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized drugs. Secondly. No. No. 206888. or even afterwards. The presumption stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. at the very least. 2016 All told. to recognize it as sufficient to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence would be an unconstitutional act. 213922. submitted an explanation and proof showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Section 3(m) of the Rules of Court. 206888. July 4. People of the Philippines v. 2016 Without the presumption of regularity. People of the Philippines v. July 4. the prosecution and the lower courts cannot simply rely on the presumption that the arresting officers were in the regular performance of their duties in the light of Cayas’ right to be presumed innocent. July 5. in the first place. No. Otherwise. Had the prosecution done so. No. 38 . a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused. given the foregoing lapses and gaps in the chain of custody. No.R. Maritess Cayas G.23 It must be remembered that the presumption of regularity is a mere statutory and rebuttable presumption created under Rule 131. July 4. 206888. Maritess Cayas G. the presumption. No. Maritess Cayas G. did not even recognize the procedural lapses the police committed in handling the confiscated items. 2016.A. 2017 Moreover. July 4. People of the Philippines v. 9165 were not met in the present case as the prosecution. No. G.R. No. Article II of the IRR of R. Rommel Diputado. Lapses and Gaps in the Chain of Custody The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the police officers will not save the prosecution's case. 206888. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. it would not have glossed over the deficiencies and would have. Maritess Cayas G. And even in that instance. People of the Philippines v.A.R. 9165. People of the Philippines v. and the prosecution failed to prove the crucial links in the chain of custody rule. testimonies of the arresting officers must stand on their own merits and must sufficiently establish proof beyond reasonable doubt that the corpus delicti of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs exists. of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 206888. 2016 Presumption of Regularity v. the identity and the evidentiary value of the three (3) plastic sachets containing shabu confiscated from Cayas were not substantially proven because her arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R. The conditions set by Section 21(a).R.R. No. never arises. G. however.R. John Paul Ceralde. August 23. the required justification was not given herein by any of the members of the buy-bust team. Generally. In this jurisdiction. From the perspective of the defense. Thus. 2017 INSUFFICIENCY AND INACCURACY OF AFFIDAVITS It is oft-repeated that affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. in fact. the need for her to adduce evidence on her behalf. including the basest of criminals. People of the Philippines v. Oftentimes. the defense of denial and frame-up. it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm. but also that the evidentiary value of the seized items was properly preserved by the apprehending team. do not add any strength nor can they help the prosecution's case because the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. People of the Philippines v. an affidavit is incomplete. 228894. Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. and implied that the plastic sachets confiscated from her were planted. we cannot but note that the evidence for the defense is not strong as Cayas merely claimed that she was framed. that later tum out not to 39 . resulting in its seeming contradiction with the declarant's testimony in court. In the first place. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities. G. No. we go back to the conclusion that Cayas should be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. however praiseworthy their intentions. As the records bear out. Maritess Cayas G. 206888. People of the Philippines v. The defense evidence must likewise be so regarded without being hobbled by the presumption of regularity. Parok Lumudag. the affiant is asked standard questions. No." Yet. These weaknesses. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. But as demanding as this campaign may be. 2016 It is true that Section 21(a) of the IRR provides that the "noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. has been viewed with disfavor for it can be easily concocted and is a common defense ploy in drug cases. especially the susceptible youth. like alibi. No. 2017 It is fitting to mention that '[t]he Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people. coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers. such saving mechanism is conditioned upon a clear showing on the part of the agents of the law not only that the non-compliance with the requirements was upon justifiable grounds. 201478.R.R. July 4. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. however. August 7. if the prosecution cannot establish Cayas' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. would substantially affect the ruling of the case. from Sabida's emergence from the road until his attack on the victim. Gabby Concepcion and Toto Morales. More so. July 4. July 17. The appellate court found Reggie's testimony "clear. 201478. they being his former friends. Zenaida Fabro. Pimentel' s testimony is even bolstered by the fact that he immediately reported what he witnessed and revealed the identity of the assailant to the authorities.R. once affirmed by the CA.R. This assessment. People of the Philippines v. 212206. if properly considered. we agree with the appellate court's ratio decidendi that this fact alone does not make Reggie a biased witness. 2016. the assessment by the trial judge of the credibility of the witnesses is accorded the highest respect on appeal primarily because of his unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses. 2017 Reggie was found to be at the crime scene when the crime of murder took place. 208441. People of the Philippines v. G. Gabby Concepcion and Toto Morales. 2017 ASSESSMENT OF WITNESSES Well-settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight. since he was alongside the victim when the incident occurred. the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of Pimentel. No. With respect to appellants' allegation that it was impossible for Reggie to have witnessed the whole incident. thus. Clearly. No. allowing the whole statement to be taken out of context. 2016. He was also familiar with appellants. G.R. No. is binding and conclusive upon the Court. thereby enabling him to determine the truthfulness and reliability of their testimonies. as the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses. People of the Philippines v. unless there is a showing that certain facts or circumstances had been overlooked or misinterpreted that. No. conduct and attitude under gruelling examination. July 4. G. Pimentel has not been shown to have been inspired by any 40 . August 23. People of the Philippines v. Reggie categorically stated in his direct examination that he was about two to three meters from the situs criminis. Discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Worse.R. Parok Lumudag." While Reggie may be a member of Siete Pares a rival group of Otso Makulit. G. 212206.be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant knows them. since he saw the entire event transpire before him. straightforward and credible. Generally. the process of affidavit-taking may sometimes amount to putting words into the affiant's mouth. and has the unique opportunity to observe the witness first hand and note his demeanor. at such a sudden violent incident." If an intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Demetrio Sabida. July 3. Lou and Sany. the number of shots fired against the victim. Rolly Dizon. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses. G. this Court cannot expect the witnesses to focus on each and every specific detail of the incident. People of the Philippines v. July 10. the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the accused. Jr. do not affect the substance of their declarations or the veracity or the weight of their testimonies. No. No. do not detract from the overwhelming testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses that accused-appellant came rushing from Sitio Ocampo and suddenly shot the victim. for they show that such testimonies were not contrived or rehearsed. 208013. 207516.stimony of the prosecution's witnesses to the effect that it was accused- appellant who shot the victim Armando. considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.R. it is admissible in court. Ambrosio Ohayas et al. People of the Philippines v. rather than weaken. No. 2017. 217982. solely by this reason. 207516. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details. courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired. It was consistently testified to that the shooting happened so quickly. 2017. June 19. Ambrosio Ohayas et al. and the exact location of the wounds.. G.R. No. Edgar Allan Corpuz. These inconsistencies are minor and inconsequential which even tend to bolster.R. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses pointed out by accused-appellant with respect to the position of Armando. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE IN RAPE CASES When the victim is of tender age and immature. No.. 208359. G. As aforesaid. what is relevant is the consistency in the te. G.R. Jr. Certainly. "He or she can be a witness.ill-motive to incriminate and testify against Sabida. 2017.. 2017 41 . how the victim fell. the credibility of the witnesses. An intellectually disabled person is not.R. 2017. ineligible from testifying in court. and that the witnesses' instinct were to seek cover from the bullets. People of the Philippines v. depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows. People of the Philippines v. June 19. People of the Philippines v. when referring only to minor details and collateral matters. the reaction of accused-appellant's companions after the shooting. G. June 19. leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors. this Court has recognized that different people react differently to a given situation involving a startling occurrence. would concoct a story of defloration. Time and again. no woman. least of all a child. considering that their youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. No. No. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. they must adduce clear and convincing evidence that they were in a place other than 42 . The harrowing incident experienced by AAA in the hands of her own father would negate any reasonable standard form of reaction on a rape victim. Jurisprudence has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. Evidently. August 8. 2017 We make short shrift of accused-appellant's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the rape incident is not the normal behavior of a minor girl who had been previously sexually assaulted. Dominador Udtohan. been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being. their defense of alibi and denial cannot stand against the prosecution's evidence.R. and still others may be shocked into insensibility even if there may be a few who may openly welcome the intrusion. this Court has given full weight and credit to the testimonies of child victims. No. The delay in reporting the incident to her parents or the proper authorities is insignificant and does not affect the veracity of her charges. To merit approbation. Testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence. as in this case. especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse. hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim. Alex Amar. Indeed. People of the Philippines v. In a long line of cases. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. 228887. August 2. in truth. 196342. allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not. Noel Go Caoili. People of the Philippines v. the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. others may faint. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain. G. People of the Philippines v. and people react differently .R. rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims. and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician. G.R. The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. The failure of AAA to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless. July 5. 2017 When a rape victim's testimony on the manner she was molested is straightforward and candid. Furthermore. G. Motives such as resentment. 223513. untrue and fabricated.some may shout. 2017. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help does not negate rape. The use of a knife and bolo and the threat of death posed by appellant constituted sufficient force and intimidation to cow "AAA" into submission. is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. People of the Philippines v. undoubtedly exerted a strong moral influence over "AAA. 218572.the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v. July 12. June 19.R. No. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies are expected in ·a rape victim's testimony. Here. Furthermore. It causes deep psychological wounds that scar the victim for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget.R. G. physical resistance is not an element of rape. 212814. Rape is a painful experience which is often times not remembered in detail. No. as well as the facility of access between the two places. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Likewise. a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. G. Thus. alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable. Thus. 215200. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene. Alex Amar. Billie Gher Tuballas. as in this case. but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut.R. G. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed. the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for liim to have been at the scene of the crime. Nomerto Napoles. G. 2017 The Court has declared repeatedly that "failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the erpetrator's lust. July 5. a rape victim is oftentimes controlled by fear rather than reason. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight." which may even substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation. 223513. accused-appellant's alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of his own daughter who had no improper motive to testify falsely. Accused-appellants failed in this regard. 2017 DEFENSES OF DENIAL AND ALIBI Denial. Ernie Carillo et al. No. such that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed." Moreover. No. Besides. 43 . 2017.R. who is "AAA's" stepfather. July 26. appellant. We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial and appellate courts for the conviction of accused- appellants for the crime of rape against AAA as they were sufficiently supported by the evidence on record. 2017. blogspot. at ___ (ROBERTS. 443. the US Supreme Court declares. 207516. at 11–12).. C. id. People of the Philippines v.com/2015/11/cellphone-and-warrantless-search- in. even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest. 13-132 [25 June 2014]). Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirement is “an important working part of our machinery of government. S.the defense of alibi must fail.. concurring in part and dissenting in part) (slip op. made the process of obtaining a warrant itself more efficient. even though the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones. SPECIAL NOTES Cellphone and warrantless search in the Philippines By Subic Lawyer’s Blog http://subiclawyer. search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested? This issue has been resolved in the seminal US Supreme Court case of Riley vs. Moreover. Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises. other case-specific exceptions may still justify a warrantless search of a particular phone. in addition. at ___ (slip op. suffice it to state that the defense failed to establish that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have perpetrated the offense. is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search. J. New Hampshire. No.” not merely “an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency. Privacy comes at a cost. June 19. 2017. Ambrosio Ohayas et al.R. S. California (No. See McNeely... 569 U. 403 U. thus: “We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. without a warrant.” Coolidge v. of course. and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Our holding. Ruling in the negative. “One well -recognized exception applies when ‘“the exigencies of 44 . it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search.. at 8) (describing jurisdiction where “police officers can e- mail warrant requests to judges’ iPads [and] judges have signed such warrants and e- mailed them back to officers in less than 15 minutes”).html 4th November 2015 May the police. Recent technological advances similar to those discussed here have. 481 (1971).. G. In this case. 625 (1886). it is feared. 385. 1856). S. at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. at 8–9.. there is no reason to believe that law enforcement officers will not be able to address some of the more extreme hypotheticals that have been suggested: a suspect texting an accomplice who. Our answer to the question of what police 45 . S. Such exigencies could include the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence in individual cases. S. to pursue a fleeing suspect.the situation” make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 563 U. 9.’” Kentuckyv. the exigent circumstances exception requires a court to examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case. at 6) (quoting Mincey v. the patriot James Otis delivered a speech in Boston denouncing the use of writs of assistance. they stress—that such fact -specific threats may justify a warrantless search of cell phone data. and to assist persons who are seriously injured or are threatened with imminent injury. 13–212. 394 (1978)). 13–132. is preparing to detonate a bomb. King. Then and there the child Independence was born. Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity.. unlike the search incident to arrest exception. Brief for Respondent in No.” 433 U. S. as I did. at 30. for example. In 1761. 563 U. at ___ Our cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment was the founding generation’s response to the reviled “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” of the colonial era. S. but noted that “if officers have reason to believe that luggage contains some immediately dangerous instrumentality. Arizona. 41.” Id. The defendants here recognize—indeed. and he would later write that “[e]very man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away. A young John Adams was there. With all they contain and all they may reveal. See McNeely. In light of the availability of the exigent circumstances exception.. at 15. See Reply Brief in No. supra. United States. or a child abductor who may have information about the child’s location on his cell phone. such as explosives. 437 U.. it would be foolhardy to transport it to the station house without opening the luggage. 616. n. Adams ed. The critical point is that. at ___. 116 U. they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life. ready to take arms against writs of assistance. at ___ (slip op.. In Chadwick. Otis’s speech was “the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain.” 10 Works of John Adams 247–248 (C. Opposition to such searches was in fact one of the driving forces behind the Revolution itself. the Court held that the exception for searches incident to arrest did not justify a search of the trunk at issue. at 248 (quoted in Boyd v. supra. According to Adams.” Boyd. 13–212. former Chief Justice Reynato Puno discussed the subject matter in his separate opinion in the landmark case ofRepublic of the Philippines v.it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine .must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant. particularly on the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. asserting that they had a significant influence in the exclusionary rule in Philippine jurisdiction: “. Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule ‘is to deter . al. . pervades Philippine jurisprudence. He quoted at length significant US rulings. and after its dozen years on our books.to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only available way . are led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right. 364 US at 217) 46 . In short. namely. In fact. in extending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches . Quoting US jurisprudence. 104768 [2003]). To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment. We reverse the judgment of the California Court of Appeal in No. United States. We affirm the judgment of the First Circuit in No.’ (Elkins v. the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. Sandiganbayan. It is so ordered. reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. the admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf could not consistently tolerate denial of its most important constitutional privilege.” (Emphasis supplied) It is modestly opined that the United States of America case law. et. (GR No. 13–132 and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Chief Justice Puno stated that the “exclusionary rule” had been incorporated in the state system the US because other means of controlling illegal police behavior had failed. . .by removing the incentive to disregard it.an essential part of the right to privacy .be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right newly recognized by the Wolf case. Today we once again examine the Wolf’s constitutional documentation of the right of privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion.state or federal . . … Therefore. a law professor at George Washington University. But Chief Justice Roberts said neither justification made much sense in the context of cellphones. You can’t apply the old rules anymore. the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.” Professor Kerr said. its impact will most likely be much broader. “This is a bold opinion. was keenly alert to the central role that cellphones play in contemporary life. was revulsion against “general warrants. “does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the founders fought.” said Orin S.WASHINGTON — In a sweeping victory for privacy rights in the digital age. They are. Kerr.. One of the driving forces behind the American Revolution. saying they are justified by the need to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence. “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” But he added that old principles required that their contents be protected from routine searches. and it says we are in a new digital age. The ruling almost certainly also applies to searches of tablet and laptop computers.” Chief Justice John G. many for minor crimes. “once an officer has secured a phone 47 .” which “allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand. Roberts Jr. he wrote. In Wednesday’s case and in a 2012 decision concerning GPS devices. and its reasoning may apply to searches of homes and businesses and of information held by third parties like phone companies. While the decision will offer protection to the 12 million people arrested every year. writing for the court. “But the government got zero votes in those two cases.” The government has been on a surprising losing streak in cases involving the use of new technologies by the police. “It is the first computer-search case. the Supreme Court’s precedents had supported the government. While the police may examine a cellphone to see if it contains. he said. The courts have long allowed warrantless searches in connection with arrests. say.” the chief justice also wrote. Chief Justice Roberts wrote. a razor blade. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the decision would make law enforcement more difficult. tape recorders. maps or newspapers. with 12 percent admitting that they even use their phones in the shower.” But other technologies. but Chief Justice Roberts. said the department would work with its law enforcement agencies to ensure full compliance with the decision. the chief justice wrote. The police may turn off a phone. 59. “Privacy comes at a cost. they may well be entitled to search the phone under a separate strand of Fourth Amendment law. The Supreme Court is occasionally criticized for its lack of technological savvy.” Even the word cellphone is a misnomer. Should the police confront an authentic “now or never” situation. Ellen Canale. is the data contained on typical cellphones. can make it easier for the police to obtain warrants. was remote. one concerning “exigent circumstances.” He wrote. however. Rolodexes. he said.” he wrote. “They could just as easily be called cameras. “Cellphones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises. he said. “According to one poll. he wrote. calendars. and they contain “a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives — from the mundane to the intimate. a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. seemed fully familiar with what 48 . officers can sometimes have a warrant in hand in 15 minutes. video players. nearly three-quarters of smartphone users report being within five feet of their phones most of the time. Chief Justice Roberts wrote.” The possibility that evidence could be destroyed or hidden by “remote wiping” or encryption programs. Ninety percent of Americans have them. and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. televisions.” he wrote. Chief Justice Roberts said. diaries. Using email and iPads.” On the other side of the balance.and eliminated any potential physical threats. libraries. the chief justice wrote. data on the phone can endanger no one. albums. remove its battery or place it in a bag made of aluminum foil. speculative and capable of being addressed. 13-212. News organizations. Wurie in which they argued that cellphone searches can compromise news gathering. “An Internet search and browsing history. Wurie. Riley and Mr. entries they associated with a street gang.” he wrote. not only around town but also within a particular building. “The average smartphone user has installed 33 apps. “which together can form a revealing montage of the user’s life. said cellphones were not materially different from wallets.” for “sharing prayer requests” and for “tracking pregnancy symptoms. No. purses and address books. Riley. Data on a cellphone can also reveal where a person has been. Riley v. “can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual’s private interests or concerns — perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease. he added. Last year. who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for having an expired auto registration. California.” And yet more information. in its Supreme Court briefs. The Justice Department. arose from the arrest of David L. Wurie’s phone. may be available through cloud computing.smartphones can do. No. filed a brief supporting Mr.” he wrote. The police found loaded guns in his car and. Riley to a shooting. on inspecting his smartphone.” for “alcohol. The first case. A California appeals court said neither search had required a warrant. 49 . A more comprehensive search of the phone led to information that linked Mr.” Records from those applications. he said. Chief Justice Roberts disagreed. but issued a single decision. Historic location information is a standard feature on many smartphones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute. 13-132. who was arrested in 2007 in Boston and charged with gun and drug crimes. the federal appeals court in Boston threw out the evidence found on Mr. involved a search of the call log of the flip phone of Brima Wurie. drug and gambling addictions.” The court heard arguments in April in two cases on the issue. coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. United States v. “may be accessible on the phone indefinitely. including The New York Times.” There are mobile applications. He was later convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. he said. for “Democratic Party news and Republican Party news. The second case. “That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. It triggers privacy concerns far more profound than ordinary physical objects. said the decision was a landmark.” he said. Jeffrey L.” he wrote. Fisher. This one was straightforward. “The core of the decision is that digital information is different.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.” The Supreme Court’s decisions can be technical. What must the police do when they want to search a cellphone in connection with an arrest? “Get a warrant. 50 . “The decision brings the Fourth Amendment into the 21st century. a lawyer for Mr. Riley.