G.R. No.

130836

August 11, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs.
ARNEL C. MONTANO,

FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs
Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 through a buy-bust operation
conducted by the NBI. The information alleged that accused-appellant
knowingly sell, distribute and/or deliver 229.7 grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a regulated drug, without
the corresponding license and/or legal authority to sell, distribute and/or
deliver the same. His co-accused Hector Tinga was not charged on the
account of insufficiency of evidence. The RTC found the accused-appellant
guilty and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay a fine of P2 million and the costs of the suit.
ISSUES:
Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him
(1) despite its findings that the prohibited drug subject matter of (the) case
did not originate from appellant but from Hector Tinga;
(2) despite the fact that he was singled out for prosecution in violation of his
right to equal protection of laws; and
(3)on the basis of an alleged buy-bust operation when it was shown to have
been resorted to harass, extort and abuse.
HELD:
First. This Court has held that the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of
drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, the evidence for the prosecution establishes these
elements beyond reasonable doubt. NBI Agents positively identified accused-appellant as the
person who, together with Tinga, sold to them two plastic packets of a white crystalline
substance. Accused-appellant was thus caught in flagrante delicto in the buy-bust operation

conducted by the NBI. The corpus delicti of the crime charged, i.e., the 229.7 grams of shabu,
was duly established before the trial court. In fact, accused-appellant, through his counsel, even
admitted the same. The fact that the drug originally came from Tinga is immaterial. As held by
this Court, proof of ownership of the drug is not necessary in the prosecution of illegal drug
cases. It is sufficient that it was found in accused-appellant's possession.
Second. Accused-appellant invokes the defense of alibi. We have consistently held that the
defense of alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is weak, self-serving, and
without weight in law, and thus undeserving of consideration by the courts. It cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses who have no reason or ill motive to testify
falsely against the accused-appellant. In this case, the testimonies for the prosecution are
consistent, unequivocal, and replete with details of the transaction with accused-appellant, and,
therefore, merit our full faith and credence.
Third. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties in
favor of the arresting officers had not been sufficiently controverted by
accused-appellant; hence, this Court is bound to uphold the same
Fourth. Nor is there merit in accused-appellant's assertion that, because of
the release of Hector Tinga, he is entitled to an acquittal. No principle of
equality justifies setting free a man who is otherwise guilty just because his
co-conspirator escaped prosecution. Accused-appellant's guilt is not
dependent on whether or not Tinga was similarly charged with the same
offense.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City
is AFFIRMED in toto.
#22
People
vs.
Abadies
FACTS: The accused-appellee filed an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding
him guilty of four counts of violation of RA 7160. That on July 1, 1997 the accused
actuated by lewd design committed acts of lasciviousness upon his daughter 17
years old by kissing, mashing her breast and touching her private parts against her
will and consent. The other incidents committed on July 2, 3, and 26, 1997. It was
during these short of periods of time while his common law wife was out of the
house that the abuses took place. The accused wrote her a letter from his detention
cell asking for forgiveness. Accused had a defense of denial and alibi.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the prosecution's version
more credible and in convicting him despite the implied pardon given by
complainant.
Whether or not there is a factual basis for the trial court to consider his plea of
forgiveness in his letter to complainant as an implied admission of guilt.
HELD:

1. No. Complainant's testimony was straightforward and free from contradiction as

to any material point. We also accord great weight to the findings of the trial court
having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during trial. On the other hand, accused-appellant's simple denial of the crime
charged is inherently weak. It is negative evidence which cannot overcome the
positive testimonies of credible witnesses. For accused-appellants denial to prevail it
must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability and there is none
2. The Court disagrees, evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had
committed some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous
to an attempt to compromise. Under the circumstances, accused-appellants plea of
forgiveness should be received as an implied admission of guilt.

People vs. Jimenez GR 137790-91

Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
Facts:
Jaime Jimenez was charged with two counts of lascivious acts against his 12 year old daughter
Joana by inserting his finger to her private part, thereby violating RA 7610. The RTC found
Jimenez guilty and sentenced him on each count to reclusion perpetua, among others. Jimenez
now argues that the penalty should not have been increasd from reclusion temporal (medium) to
reclusion perpetua (maximum) considering that both criminal prosecutions failed to allege the
special circumstance of relationship of the victim and the accused.
Issue:
WON the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of reclusion temporal is proper.
Held:
Yes.
Under R.A. No. 7610, however, relationship is not a qualifying but only an ordinary generic
aggravating circumstances and, therefore, although it was not alleged in the information can
nevertheless be taken into account in fixing the penalty for the crime because it was proven.
Accused-appellant fails to distinguish a generic aggravating circumstance from a qualifying
circumstance. A generic aggravating circumstance provides for the imposition of the prescribed
penalty in its maximum period, while a qualifying circumstance changes the nature of the crime.
It is clear from the provisions of RA 7610 Sec. 31 that the nature of the crime does not change
when the circumstance of relationship is present. The law simply provides that the penalty
prescribed should be imposed in its maximum period when such circumstance is present, thus
making the circumstance of relationship merely a generic aggravating circumstance. The trial
court, therefore, correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for each count of lascivious conduct committed against his daughter.
1.) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BETTY CUBA y LUBON
G.R. No. 133568 July 24, 2000
Facts: Accused-appellant was find guilty of the crime of illegally transporting and selling
marijuana under Section 4, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs

Act of 1972, as amended because of the positive and forthright assertions of the witnesses for the
prosecution who, being peace officers. However, the trial court was unconvinced of the criminal
culpability of her co-accused, Cuba and Santos, as there was no competent evidence to show that
the former was the supplier and that the latter participated in the loading and selling of the
forbidden merchandise. The trial court ruled that there was no conspiracy. The other two
accused, for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, were
ACQUITTED. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and assail that the trial court's conviction
because there was no showing that a sale of prohibited drug took place. inevitably the accusedappellant cannot be convicted for the illegal sale of prohibited drug.
Issue: WON appellants contention is with merit.
Held: The SC held that the appeal is without merit. Appellant was charged with and convicted of
the offense of transporting, delivering and selling prohibited drug defined and penalized under
Section 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended. Under this Section the act of selling or acting as broker in a sale of marijuana and
other prohibited drugs consummates the crime. More specifically, it punishes the mere act of
delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by
the seller. It has been consistently ruled that the absence of marked money does not create a
hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately
proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. In the case at bar, the
prosecution was able to prove the fact of sale.
#22
People
vs.
Abadies
FACTS: The accused-appellee filed an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding
him guilty of four counts of violation of RA 7160. That on July 1, 1997 the accused
actuated by lewd design committed acts of lasciviousness upon his daughter 17
years old by kissing, mashing her breast and touching her private parts against her
will and consent. The other incidents committed on July 2, 3, and 26, 1997. It was
during these short of periods of time while his common law wife was out of the
house that the abuses took place. The accused wrote her a letter from his detention
cell asking for forgiveness. Accused had a defense of denial and alibi.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the prosecution's version
more credible and in convicting him despite the implied pardon given by
complainant.
Whether or not there is a factual basis for the trial court to consider his plea of
forgiveness in his letter to complainant as an implied admission of guilt.
HELD:
1. No. Complainant's testimony was straightforward and free from contradiction as
to any material point. We also accord great weight to the findings of the trial court
having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during trial. On the other hand, accused-appellant's simple denial of the crime
charged is inherently weak. It is negative evidence which cannot overcome the
positive testimonies of credible witnesses. For accused-appellants denial to prevail it
must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability and there is none

2. The Court disagrees, evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had
committed some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous
to an attempt to compromise. Under the circumstances, accused-appellants plea of
forgiveness should be received as an implied admission of guilt.

People v. Joey Tion y Cabadu

G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009

Facts:
After a buy-bust operation held by the PNP of Aparri, Cagayan, an information
was filed against Tion and other two people for conspiring together and
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and/or deliver 5.2
kls. of marijuana to operatives of PNP in violation Sec. 4, Art. II of RA
6425.

RTC rendered a decision convicting Tion of selling marijuana, but exonerating

the other two for lack of evidence. He then filed a Motion For New Trial
which was denied and subsequently, filed for a Motion for Reconsideration
which was denied as well. Joey contends that he was clearly instigated and
induced to procure five kilos of marijuana with the money provided for by a
certain P/Insp. Castillo, and there was really no buy-bust operation. He
appealed due to the imposition of reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed.

Issue:
WON the buy-bust operation was valid

Ruling:
The buy-bust operation is a valid entrapment. A buy-bust operation is a form
of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending
drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Police buy-bust operations
bear judicial sanction as long as these are carried out with due respect to
constitutional and legal safeguards; there are no rigid or textbook methods
on the right or proper way of conducting such operations.

xxx Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the
buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve
full faith and credit Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations
of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who
are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in
a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill
motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties. The records do not show any allegation of
improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers must be
upheld.

People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004

FACTS:
That Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15November1995, attacked and
wounded his husband, which ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant
she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her husband
who began the provocation. The Appellant said she was frightened that her husband
would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In
fact, The Appelant had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was
suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on
December 1, 1995.
The Appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her
husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and they
would reconcile. The Apellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive
towards her that night was because 'he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu
Rubillos.
The Appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been shown to be
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self defense
admitted the killing of her husband, she was then found guilty of Parricide, with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.
ISSUES:
1. Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense,
2. Can she be held liable for the aggravating circumstance of treachery?
1. No, Since self- defense since the existence of Battered woman syndrome, which

the appellant has been shown to be suffering in the relationship does not in itself
establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still
be considered in the context of self-defense.
In the present case, however, according to the testimony of the appellant there was
a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of the husband and her
fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent
behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During that time, he apparently
ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger
he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an
actual threat on her life or safety.
Without continuous aggression there can be no self-defense. And absence of
aggression does not warrant complete or incomplete self-defense.
2. No, There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself
arising from the defense that the offended party might make.
The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be
deduced from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the
appreciation of evidence. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is
preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance, because the deceased may be said to have been
forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.
In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the appellant
intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her husband without
any risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it
appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same
moment when she decided to kill her spouse. In the absence of any convincing
proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she
committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved
in her favor.
HELD:
The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby AFFIRMED.
However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstance attending her commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to
six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8 months
and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
ADDENDUM:
When can BWS (Battered Woman Syndrome) as self defense be appreciated?
Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of

actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of
domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. To require the battered person
to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life "would amount to
sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still, impending danger (based on the
conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendant's use of
deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy
the required imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the
existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.
PEOPLE v ELAMPARO
329 SCRA 404
QUISUMBING; March 31, 2000

NATURE
Appeal from judgment of RTC.

FACTS
- Acting on a report by an informant, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation (of marijuana) in Caloocan. They
arrested the person who sold them the marijuana (Spencer), but the same was able to escape. Then: the buy-bust
team pursued Spencer, who ran inside a bungalow-type house. Having trapped Spencer inside the house, the police
officers frisked him and recovered the marked money. The officers also found Elamparo repacking 5 bricks of
marijuana inside the houses sala Elamparo was then arrested and were taken to a precinct and delivered to an
inquest fiscal for further investigation. The buy-bust operation and arrest happened on the same day (12 Feb 1995),
while the information for illegal possession of drugs was filed on 15 Feb 1995.
- Arraignment: plea of not guilty.
- Trial: prosecution presented the ff witnesses: police officer who was also poseur-buyer, another officer who took part
in buy-bust, and NBI chemist who examined and confirmed the confiscated drugs to be marijuana.
Defense presented as witnesses boarders of Elamparos house, saying that Elamparo was at their house when
somebody knocked at their door. His father opened the same and was informed that somebody was looking for him.
He went out and saw Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an arresting officer. When Elamparo persistently
questioned Spencer as to why he was arrested, the arresting officers got mad at him prompting them to likewise
bring him to the police station where he was detained. The officers demanded P15,000.00 for his release which he
did not give. On the other hand, Spencer gave the sum and was released.
- RTC: Guilty, under RA 6425. penalty of reclusion perpetua and fine of P9million. Elamparo appealed.

ISSUE:
1. WON RTC was correct in the assessment of credibility of witnesses
2. WON the arrest of Elamparo was valid
3. WON the penalty imposed was correct

HELD:
1. YES

- it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court which
had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during their testimonies. As compared to
the baseless claims of Elamparo, the version of the prosecution witnesses appears worthy of belief, coming
as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of
proof to the contrary.

2. YES

The arrest was within the purview of Sec5 (a), Rule 113, Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Arrest without warrant, when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
3. YES
Minority serves as a privileged mitigating circumstance to a crime, thus entitling the accused to a reduction of penalty
one degree lower than that imposable (by virtue of art.13 (2) RPC)
Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852
IN RE: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code to R.A. 9262
Facts:
Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married sometime 1999. On 2005, petitioner
Sharica filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO)
against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents parents-in-law Spouses Tan alleging that

Steven and Spouses Tan were causing verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her
in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may
be included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA
9262.
Held:
Yes. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the offender be related or connected to
the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not
preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. In Section 47
of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence,
legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity
to crimes punished under special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on
a particular matter.

PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG

G.R. Nos. 131872-73. February 17, 2000
Before the Court is an appeal by Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San, also known as Willy Tan
challenging the October 16, 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
(Branch 95) in a Criminal Case finding them guilty of illegal possession and sale of shabu and
sentencing each of them to two counts of reclusion perpetua.
HELD:
In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused
is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (2) such
possession is not authorized by law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug. Here, as in Boco, the prosecution witnesses were able to establish these elements.
We are not persuaded by the argument that the samples examined were not taken from the drugs
seized. On the contrary, the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses fairly established that the
shabu taken from the appellants is the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and later
presented as evidence in court. Verily, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants
unfounded allegations and speculations. Appellants behavior during the entrapment showed that
there was conspiracy between them and a third person who got away with the buy-bust money. It
is an established rule that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it may be

inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all of
which indubitably point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of
interest.