1. G.R. NO.

218830 SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

JESUS V. COSON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Criminal Law; Article 315 par. 1b; Elements of the Crime of Estafa. RPC provides under Article
315 par. 1b the elements of the crime of estafa. Specifically, they are as follows, a.) that money,
goods or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same; b.) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender or denial on his part of the receipt thereof; c.) that the misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and d.) that there is a demand made by the offended party on
the offender. The court ruled that the third element was not sufficed in the present case.

Same; same; same; What constitutes misappropriation or conversion. Misappropriation or

conversion refers to any disposition of another's property as if it were his own or devoting it to a
purpose not agreed upon. It connotes disposition of one's property without any right. In the case
at bar, the title to the land, as well as the loan proceeds belong to and are owned by GGDC, and
not by private complainant. Hence, there could be no misappropriation or conversion.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

2. . GR No. 217874 DECEMBER 5, 2017

OPHELIA HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PERALTA, J.:

Criminal Law; Estafa under Art 217 of the Revised Penal Code; Elements of
the crime of Estafa. The elements provided for in Article 217 of the RPC are
as follows: a.) that the offender is a public officer; b.) that he had the
custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
c.) that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he
was accountable; and d.) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another
person to take them. It establishes a presumption that when a public officer
fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable,
upon demand by any duly authorized officer, it shall be prima facie evidence
that he has misappropriated the missing funds to his personal benefit. All
that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable
officer had received public funds, that she did not have them in her
possession when demand was made, and that she could not satisfactorily
explain her failure to do so. A public officer may be held liable for
malversation even if he does not use public property or funds under his
custody for his personal benefit, but consents to the taking thereof by
another person, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted such
taking.

3. G.R. No. 206437 November 22, 2017

LEANDRO CRUZ, EMMANUEL MANAHAN, ALRIC JERVOSO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Criminal Law; Elements of the crime of qualified theft. The following are
the elements of Qualified Theft: a) there must be taking of personal
property, which belongs to another; b) such taking was done with intent to
gain, and without the owner's consent; c) it was made with no violence or
intimidation against persons nor force upon things; and d) it was done
under any of the circumstances under Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, which circumstances include grave abuse of confidence. These
elements must be present in order to convict a person with the said crime.
Absence of any of the above-mentioned elements would result to the
acquittal of the accused.

4. GR No 212169 December 13, 2017

People of the Philippines vs. Jojo Ejan Bayato

Criminal Law; RA 9165; Presentation of informant during trial; The

presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the
conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his
testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.

Same; Same; Same; In the present case, despite the non presentation of the
informant the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt
through the testimony of SPO1 Germodo who witnessed the whole
transaction or sale of shabu unfold firsthand.
5. Gr No. 218958 December 13, 2017
People vs Edilberto Norada

Criminal Law; Art. 267 Kidnapping as amended by RA 7659; Elements of

Kidnapping; The crime has the following elements: 1. The accused is a
private individual.; 2. The accused kidnaps or detains another or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 3. The act of detention or
kidnapping is 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; b)it is committed by simulating public authority; c)
any serious physical injuries arc 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 official.

Same; self defense as justifying circumstance; the appellant invoked the

justifying circumstance of self defense. To avail this justifying circumstance,
there are three elements that has to be established, 1) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; 2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
appellant. In self defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is the primordial
requisite.

Same; Treachery; Treachery is present when the offender commits any of

the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, and forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense of the accused. There are
two conditions for treachery to concur, first is the employment of means,
methods, manner of execution that would ensure the offenders safety from
any other act of the offended party, second is the offenders deliberate or
conscious choice of means, method or manner of execution.

Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused,
before, during and after the commission of the suggesting that there is
concerted action and unity of purpose among them. Applying the principle
of conspiracy where the act of in is the act of all, appellant here is guilty as
co-conspirator regardless of his participation.

Civil Liability; Net Earning Capacity; Net earning capacity uses the formula
as follows (Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy* x (gross annual
income – reasonable living expenses), Life expectancy = 2/3 (80 – age of the
deceased).

6. GR No. 208835 January 19, 2018

People vs Noel Bejim Romero

Criminal Law; Rape; Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a

woman with the use of force, threat, intimidation or when she is under 12
years of age or is demented. Where the victim is below twelve years old the
only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. Carnal
knowledge is the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily
connections with a woman.

Same; Acts of Lasciviousness; The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under

Article 336 of the RPC are as follows: That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; That it is done under any of the following
circumstances: Through force, threat or intimidation; Where the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; When the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned above be present; and That the offended
party is another person of either sex.

7. Gr No. 217026 January 22, 2018

People vs Lawrence Gajo y Buenafe and Rico Gajo y Buenafe

Criminal Law; Chain of Custody; Chain of custody refers to recorded

authorized movements and custody of confiscated dangerous drugs, or
controlled substances. It involves testimony on every link in the chain - from
the confiscation of the illegal drugs to its receipt in the forensic laboratory
up to its presentation in court. It is necessary that every person who
touched the seized item describe how and from whom he or she received it;
where and what happened to it while in the witness' possession; its
condition when received and at the time it was delivered to next link in said
chain of custody

1. G.R. NO. 218830 SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

JESUS V. COSON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Criminal Law; Article 315 par. 1b; Elements of the Crime of Estafa. RPC provides under Article
315 par. 1b the elements of the crime of estafa. Specifically, they are as follows, a.) that money,
goods or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same; b.) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender or denial on his part of the receipt thereof; c.) that the misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and d.) that there is a demand made by the offended party on
the offender. The court ruled that the third element was not sufficed in the present case.

Same; same; same; What constitutes misappropriation or conversion. Misappropriation or

conversion refers to any disposition of another's property as if it were his own or devoting it to a
purpose not agreed upon. It connotes disposition of one's property without any right. In the case
at bar, the title to the land, as well as the loan proceeds belong to and are owned by GGDC, and
not by private complainant. Hence, there could be no misappropriation or conversion.

FACTS:
Coson is the chairman and CEO of Good God Development Corporation (GGDC), a
corporation engaged in the business of developing subdivision and building houses and
condominiums.

GGDC borrowed a sum of money from Atty. Evangelista in order that the former could
buy the land owned by the First eBank. The said land was then registered in the name of GGDC.
To secure the loan to Atty. Evangelista, a mortgage over the said property was executed by the
parties where the said land was put up as collateral.

Another Deed of Mortgage, through herein petitioner, was executed by GGDC in favor of
private complainant. The same land was given as security for the second loan. Petitioner and
private complainant executed a MOA which provides that the petitioner desires to borrow the
title of the mortgaged land where such title shall be surrendered to the PAG-IBIG Fund to obtain
a loan. The proceeds of which shall be paid to Atty. Evangelista in satisfaction of the obligation.
They further agreed that the parties shall open a joint account where the proceeds of the PAG-
IBIG Fund loan shall be deposited and that petitioner shall make installment payments.

GGDC executed a Loan Agreement where it was granted a developmental loan by PAG-
IBIG Fund to finance the development of Carolina Homes subject of the MOA. A part of the loan
was released by PAG-IBIG Fund to GGDC. However, despite repeated demands, petitioner
failed to pay its loan to Atty. Evangelista. Hence, a complaint against the petitioner
for Estafa under Article 315 par. 1b of the RPC was filed against him.

The Trial Court ruled against the petitioner finding the latter guilty of the crime charged.
It ruled that all the elements of Estafa under Article 315 par. 1b were sufficed in the present case.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The subsequent motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Coson is guilty of Estafa under Article 315 par. 1b.

HELD:
 NEGATIVE. Article 315 par. 1b provides for the essential elements of the crime of estafa;
namely, a.) that money, goods or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust or
on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same; b.) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender or denial on his part of the receipt thereof; c.) that the
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and d.) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender. The court ruled that the third element was
not sufficed in the present case.

It is to be pointed out that the loan granted by the PAGIBIG is a developmental loan to
finance the housing project of GGDC. Private complainant is very much aware of this fact as
evidenced by the MOA executed by them. Hence, there cannot be any misappropriation or
conversion by petitioner to his own personal use, benefit or advantage, of the title of the land or
the proceeds of the loan since private complainant is fully aware how the proceeds of the loan
should be applied. Also, the title to the land and the loan proceeds are owned by GGDC and not
by petitioner, and more so, not owned by private complainant. There could be misappropriation
or conversion when the aggrieved party is the GGDC, and not the private complainant. For his
uncollected debt, private complainant's remedy is not a criminal action, but a civil action against
petitioner.

Misappropriation or conversion refers to any disposition of another's property as if it

were his own or devoting it to a purpose not agreed upon. It connotes disposition of one's
property without any right. In the case at bar, the title to the land, as well as the loan proceeds
belong to and are owned by GGDC, and not by private complainant. Hence, there could be no
misappropriation or conversion. Since, not all the elements are present, the petitioner could not
be charged of estafa under Art. 315 par 1b.
2. GR No. 217874 DECEMBER 5, 2017

OPHELIA HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PERALTA, J.:

Criminal Law; Estafa under Art 217 of the Revised Penal Code; Elements of
the crime of Estafa. The elements provided for in Article 217 of the RPC are
as follows: a.) that the offender is a public officer; b.) that he had the
custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
c.) that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he
was accountable; and d.) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another
person to take them. It establishes a presumption that when a public officer
fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable,
upon demand by any duly authorized officer, it shall be prima facie evidence
that he has misappropriated the missing funds to his personal benefit. All
that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable
officer had received public funds, that she did not have them in her
possession when demand was made, and that she could not satisfactorily
explain her failure to do so. A public officer may be held liable for
malversation even if he does not use public property or funds under his
custody for his personal benefit, but consents to the taking thereof by
another person, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted such
taking.

FACTS:
Hernan was employed as an accounting clerk and eventually was promoted
as the Supervising Fiscal Clerk at the Department of Transportation and
Communication. She was the person tasked to receive cash and other
collections from customers and clients for the payment of telegraphic
transfers, toll fees, and special message fees. Such collections were
deposited at the bank account of the DOTC at the Land Bank of the
Philippines.

When the auditor of COA conducted a cash examination of the accounts

handled by the petitioner, she found out that the deposit slips amounting to
P11, 300.00 and P81, 348.20 did not bear a stamp of receipt by the LBP nor
was it machine validated. She then verified all the reports and other
documents turned-over to them by petitioner. A letter was sent to the LBP to
confirm the remittances made by petitioner. It turned out that no deposits
were made by petitioner for the account of DOTC in the amount of P11,
300.00 and P81, 340.20.

LBP conducted its own independent inquiry. It was discovered that no

deposit in favor of the DOTC was that made by the petitioner. They then
wrote to petitioner informing her that the remittances were not
acknowledged by the bank. The auditors then found that petitioner duly
accounted for the P81, 348.20 remittance but not for the P11, 300.00. The
LBP then denied receiving any P11, 300.00 deposit from petitioner for the
account of the DOTC. Thus, the COA demanded that the petitioner pay the
said amount. However, petitioner refused such demand. COA filed a
complaint for malversation of public funds against petitioner with the Office
of the Ombudsman which recommended her indictment for the loss of
P11,300.00. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner for
Malversation of Public Funds.

RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Petitioner appealed to the Sandiganbayan which affirmed the RTC's
judgment of conviction. Several motions were filed by the petitioner,
however these motions were denied by the court. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Hernan is guilty of malversation of public funds.

HELD:
AFFIRMATIVE. To convict a person for malversation of public funds,
the elements provided for in Article 217 of the RPC must be sufficed,
namely: a.) that the offender is a public officer; b.) that he had the custody
or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; c.) that
those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and d.) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another
person to take them. These elements were met in the present case. The
mentioned provision of law establishes a presumption that when a public
officer fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, it shall be prima
facie evidence that he has misappropriated the missing funds to his
personal benefit.

Petitioner in the present case failed to overcome the presumption of law. In

the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient
proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that she did
not have them in her possession when demand was made, and that she
could not satisfactorily explain her failure to do so. Thus, even if it is
assumed that it was somebody else who misappropriated the said amount,
petitioner may still be held liable for malversation.

Also, it was ruled that even if it is proved that she actually left the
amount and the deposit slip with the bank teller, still petitioner Hernan
should be convicted of malversation because she permits through her
inexcusable negligence another person to take the money. And this is still
malversation under Article 217.
 As consistently ruled by jurisprudence, a public officer may be held
liable for malversation even if he does not use public property or funds
under his custody for his personal benefit, but consents to the taking
thereof by another person, or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted such taking. The accused, by her negligence, simply created the
opportunity for the misappropriation.

3. G.R. No. 206437 November 22, 2017

LEANDRO CRUZ, EMMANUEL MANAHAN, ALRIC JERVOSO vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Criminal Law; Elements of the crime of qualified theft. The following are
the elements of Qualified Theft: a) there must be taking of personal
property, which belongs to another; b) such taking was done with intent to
gain, and without the owner's consent; c) it was made with no violence or
intimidation against persons nor force upon things; and d) it was done
under any of the circumstances under Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, which circumstances include grave abuse of confidence. These
elements must be present in order to convict a person with the said crime.
Absence of any of the above-mentioned elements would result to the
acquittal of the accused.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners were employed by Prestige Brand which is engaged in the
sale and distribution of various products in the Philippines. They were some
of the employees authorized to access the warehouse. Only Cruz and
Tembulkar had keys to its locks. The routine was they would open it in the
morningand in the evening then Cruz would turn over the keys to
Tembulkar. However, other employees may also enter the said warehouse
provided that such employee was accompanied by warehouse personnel.
Due to the discrepancies in the record, Tembulkar conducted an
investigation with regard to the matter. It was found out that about 1.2
million worth of products were unaccounted.
Cruz, Jervoso, and Pardilla admitted to Dadlani that they stole and
sold products of Prestige Brands, and divided the proceeds among
themselves. They then executed their written confession on the matter. Cruz
thereafter filed his resignation letter which Dadlani accepted but modified
its effectivity date. Prestige Brands twice wrote Cruz to report back to work
and make a stock count but to no avail. On the other hand, petitioners
argued that they were forced and threaten to sign the said written
confession.
An information was filed against the petitioners for qualified theft.
RTC ruled against the petitioners and found the latter guilty as charged.
Petitioners appealed to the CA which in turn affirmed the decision of the
RTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of qualified theft.

HELD:
NEGATIVE. In order to convict the person for qualified theft, it must
be shown that the following elements of Qualified Theft are present,
specifically: a) there must be taking of personal property, which belongs to
another; b) such taking was done with intent to gain, and without the
owner's consent; c) it was made with no violence or intimidation against
persons nor force upon things; and d) it was done under any of the
circumstances under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, which
circumstances include grave abuse of confidence. These elements must be
present in order to convict a person with the said crime. Absence of any of
the above-mentioned elements would result to the acquittal of the accused.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The first element which is the unlawful taking was not sufficed. Such
fact was merely a speculation since the inventories themselves did not
indicate that petitioners committed the said crime. Prestige Brands did not
promptly investigate the supposed discrepancies in its inventory. It even
waited for the subsequent inventory to verify the supposed shortage of
items. Prudent behavior would have prompted them to immediately
investigate and determine if it sustained any loss at the earliest possible
opportunity.
There is clearly no proof that the petitioners were the perpetrators of
the crime since they were not the only persons who had access to the
warehouse. Hence, there is a doubt as to whether they were the persons
behind the crime.
As regards the written confession, the Court found that there is the
presence of threat and intimidation in obtaining the confession. Also, those
confessions did not contain specific details as regards any item unlawfully
taken. Due to the lack of necessary details in their statements, it was ruled
that it did not establish any unlawful taking of the personal properties of
Prestige Brands.
The elements were clearly not sufficed in the present case. Hence, the
petitioners are acquitted for the crime charged for it was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
4. GR No 212169 December 13, 2017
People of the Philippines vs. Jojo Ejan Bayato

Criminal Law; RA 9165; Presentation of informant during trial; The

presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the
conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his
testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.

Same; Same; Same; In the present case, despite the non presentation of the
informant the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt
through the testimony of SPO1 Germodo who witnessed the whole
transaction or sale of shabu unfold firsthand.

Del Castillo, J.:

Facts: Special Investigator Tagle received a confidential information in the

morning of April 2, 2008. It contains a report of a known drug pusher who
had just delivered a large amount of shabu at Brgy Dos, Dumaguete City.
Due to this an anti-narcotic operation was prearranged, and a team of NBI
and PDEA agents were assembled and a briefing was held. During the
briefing SPO1 Sanchez provided two one hundred peso bills to be used as
marked money in the buy bust operation, it was also agreed that SPO1
Germodo will accompany the informant for the buy bust. After the briefing
the team proceeded to Luke wright Street located at Brgy Dos.
Upon their arrival at Luke Wright the informant and SPO1 Germodo got
off from their vehicle while the back-up team remained inside. The
informant walks towards the area followed by SPO1 Germodo. A man
gestured at the informant to come closer. When the latter approached the
man, herein appellant the informant gave him the marked money in
exchange of a sachet that was submitted in evidence. SPO1 Germodo gave
the signal to the back-up team headed by SI Tagle. The appellant run upon
seeing the team but he was pursued and the apprehended. Upon his arrest,
SI Tagle informed him of his constitutional right and SPO1 Germodo
searched the appellant and recovered the marked money. The appellant was
then brought in the PDEA Office. SPO1 Germodo brought the appellant and
the seized item to the provincial crime laboratory for examination.
The defense presented a different version of the case alleging that he
was only sniffing rugby when he was apprehended. And the items that were
allegedly taken from him was produced by SPO1 Germodo when he was
taken in. Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165. The RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
On his appeal the accused questions the failure of the prosecution to
present the informant during trial and such is fatal as there will be no
evidence that the transaction between them ever took place.

Issue: W/N presentation of the informant as witness is indespensable to

convict the appellant.

Held: NEGATIVE
The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential
for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution
because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. The
Supreme Court ruled in the case of People vs Legaspi that the presentation
of an informant is not a requisite for the successful prosecution of drug
cases. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of
the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police.
The failure to present the informant in the case at bar is not fatal to the
prosecution of the accused because the occurrence of the illegal transaction
between them was witnessed by SPO1 Germodo who was stationed only a
few meters from the suspect and the informant where the transaction took
place.
The integrity of the seized item were also established in the case and the
arresting officer faithfully complied with the requirements of Sec 21 of RA
9165 regarding the custody and disposition of seized drugs.. An inventory
was also taken in the presence of the appellant with the required witnesses:
DOJ representative, media representative, and a Barangay kagawad all of
whom signed the inventory.
5. Gr No. 218958 December 13, 2017
People vs Edilberto Norada

Criminal Law; Art. 267 Kidnapping as amended by RA 7659; Elements of

Kidnapping; The crime has the following elements: 1. The accused is a
private individual.; 2. The accused kidnaps or detains another or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 3. The act of detention or
kidnapping is 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; b)it is committed by simulating public authority; c)
any serious physical injuries arc 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 official.

Same; self defense as justifying circumstance; the appellant invoked the

justifying circumstance of self defense. To avail this justifying circumstance,
there are three elements that has to be established, 1) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; 2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
appellant. In self defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is the primordial
requisite.

Same; Treachery; Treachery is present when the offender commits any of

the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, and forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense of the accused. There are
two conditions for treachery to concur, first is the employment of means,
methods, manner of execution that would ensure the offenders safety from
any other act of the offended party, second is the offenders deliberate or
conscious choice of means, method or manner of execution.

Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused,
before, during and after the commission of the suggesting that there is
concerted action and unity of purpose among them. Applying the principle
of conspiracy where the act of in is the act of all, appellant here is guilty as
co-conspirator regardless of his participation.
Civil Liability; Net Earning Capacity; Net earning capacity uses the formula
as follows (Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy* x (gross annual
income – reasonable living expenses), Life expectancy = 2/3 (80 – age of the
deceased).

Del Castillo;J.:

Facts: In Bacolod City the body of a dead person was in a sugarcane field, it
was later on identified as Reggie Pacil, a 42 year old bachelor and the
principal of Alijis Elementary School. During investigation it was discovered
that the victim was last seen at Taculing Court Apartelle. Upon inquiry with
a staff of the establishment it was revealed that three men on board a
Suzuki multicab rented Room 106 of the apartelle. This led the police on
Room 106 where they found bloodstains scattered inside and on the wall.
Days after Norada, followed by Villanueva and Seva were arrested as
suspects for the death of Reggie Pacil.
The mother of the victim testified that the last time she saw her son, he
was with Villanueva as the latter was waiting on Reggie at their house who
arrived with another friend Ray Truck, a Canadian. Pacil and Villanueva left
the house leaving Truck. Villanueva admitted that he was a friend of the
victim and he was with him when the day he died. However he testified that
the victim was killed on an act of self defense. He alleged that after leaving
the house together they met Norada who was also an accused, the three of
them borrowed the car of Seva’s girlfriend. They renter room 106 of the
Apartelle to spend the night, and there they had drinks, it was two in the
morning when Villanueva intended to leave but Pacil stopped him and
Villanueva realized that Pacil wanted to use him so he struggled and Pacil
placed himself on top of Villanueva. Norada came in as the latter was
outside during the altercation, he tried to pacify the two but Pacil won’t
budge so Norada hit Pacil with a piece of wood. The two of them panicked
when they saw blood flowing from Pacil’s head, so they wrapped him in a
blanket and threw him on the sugarcane where he was later on found dead.
The defense of Villanueva was not corroborated by the testimony of
Norada who alleged that the three accused were actually planning to
kidnap Pacil’s Canadian friend Truck. They were convinced that the
Canadian was rich and would pay the ransom. However the plan did not
push through as Truck was left at Pacil’s house, so they changed their plan
and decided to just kidnap Pacil as they also believe that Truck would pay
for the latter. So they brought Pacil to Room 106 of the Apartelle where they
are planning to intoxicate him till he falls asleep. When they thought that
Pacil was asleep they tried to tie him but the latter woke up and resisted the
two, so Norada had no choice but to strike him with the wood in the head,
when he was unconscious Seva taped his mouth and tied his hands and feet.
They drove around and dumped the body where it was found by the police.
The trial court gave probative value on the testimony of Norada and
ruled that the accused were guilty of the complex crime of attempted
kidnapping with murder, all as conspirators and all as principals by direct
participation. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the
decision of the RTC. Hence this appeal.

Issues: 1. whether or not the crime committed is a complex crime of

attempted kidnapping with murder.
2. Whether or not self-defense was provern by the appellant.
3. Whether or not the crime committed is qualified by treachery.
4. Whether or not the appellant acted in conspiracy with each other in
committing the crim.
5. Whether or not the CA erred in deleting the award of compensatory
damages for loss of earning capacity.

Held: 1. Negative. The crime committed was homicide

The decision of both the RTC and the CA on ruling that the accused are
guilty of kidnapping should not be upheld. Kidnapping is defined and
punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act (RA) No. 7659. The crime has the following elements: 1. The
accused is a private individual.; 2. The accused kidnaps or detains another
or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 3. The act of detention or
kidnapping is 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; b)it is committed by simulating public authority:c)
any serious physical injuries arc 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 official. The essence of the crime of
kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the
intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a
person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for
whatever length of time.

The evidence from the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the
guilt of the accused for the crime charged. There was lack of intent to
kidnap the victim as the real target and to whom they have intent to kidnap
is the Canadian friend, Truck. The act of tying Pacil is not also an evidence
that can prove the intention to commit the act. When there is failure to
satisfy the elements stated in the law the accused cannot be held guilty for
the offense.

2. Negative

The appellant invoked the justifying circumstance of self defense. To

avail this justifying circumstance, there are three elements that has to be
established, 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant. In self defense of
strangers, unlawful aggression is the primordial requisite. The appellant
failed to satisfy this element, on his version of the story even if he was
boxed by the victim such act is not sufficient to excuse him from killing the
victim.

3. Negative

There is however no treachery present in this case. Treachery cannot

be presumed for the circumstances surrounding the killing must be proved
as indubitably as the crime itself. Treachery is present when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods,
and forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense of the
accused. There are two conditions for treachery to concur, first is the
employment of means, methods, manner of execution that would ensure the
offenders safety from any other act of the offended party, second is the
offenders deliberate or conscious choice of means, method or manner of
execution. The facts of the case does not show that the method and manner
of killing the victim was for the specific purpose of avoiding his retaliation,
and the act of hitting him in the head was not premeditated.

4. Affirmative

The case posts conspiracy, which may be inferred from the acts of the
accused, before, during and after the commission of the suggesting that
there is concerted action and unity of purpose among them. Appellant did
not prevent Norada from striking the victim, he assisted when it was being
covered by the blanket and was present when the body was dumped. These
actions of the appellant during and after the killing of the victim show that
he acted in concert to achieve the purpose of killing the victim.

5. Affirmative
 The crime committed is homicide, to determine the civil liability in
this case, the net earning capacity should be computed. Net earning
capacity uses the formula as follows (Net Earning Capacity = life
expectancy* x (gross annual income – reasonable living expenses), Life
expectancy = 2/3 (80 – age of the deceased). The victim in this case was 42
years old whose annual gross income is Php 154,044.00 computed based on
his monthly income. His life expectancy is 2/3 of 80 less the time of his
death. Thus using the formula the indemnity for loss of earning capacity of
the victim is Php 1,950,967.26.
6. GR No. 208835 January 19, 2018

People vs Noel Bejim Romero

Criminal Law; Rape; Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a

woman with the use of force, threat, intimidation or when she is under 12
years of age or is demented. Where the victim is below twelve years old the
only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. Carnal
knowledge is the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily
connections with a woman.

Same; Acts of Lasciviousness; The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under

Article 336 of the RPC are as follows: That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; That it is done under any of the following
circumstances: Through force, threat or intimidation; Where the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; When the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned above be present; and That the offended
party is another person of either sex.

Del Castilllo,J.:

Facts: Appellant is charged with seven counts of rape committed against

three girls all under ten years old. Accused was the house boy of CCC’s
father, while the latter was playing with AAA. It was the first week of
October when AAA, six years old, met the appellant at CCC’s house, they
were both playing when he approached them and made them lie on the sofa.
He undressed himself and did the same with the children, then the
appellant applied cooking oil on AAA’s vagina and on his penis, he rubbed
his member to the AAA’s vagina and went on to doing the same to CCC..
After the incident he warned them not to tell anyone of what he did or else
he will kill their families.

On the following week of October, AAA and CCC were playing in the
latter’s house when appellant came in, the two tried to run away but they
were not able to escape the appellant who repeated what he did the first
time to the children and after such warned them to not tell anyone. BBB
was CCC’s cousin, while the two were at the latter’s house, the appellant
pulled them to the sofa in the living room and undressed the two, after
applying oil to CCC’s vagina and to his penis, he tried to enter CCC’s
vagina. He then turned to BBB and did the same, he tried to insert his penis
but was unable to penetrate BBB’s vagina so he just continued rubbing it to
BBB’s.. BBB confessed to her cousins that they were molested by the
appellant but warned them that he would kill their families if anybody would
know. But soon after the incidents were discovered that prompted the filing
of the case.

The three children were examined by one Dra. Valdez and the result was
that no injury at the time of her examination though the medical evaluation
does not exclude possible sexual abuse. On his defense the appellant denied
all the accusation and claimed that he was not on the residence of the
victim when the incident allegedly happened. The RTC held that appellant
was guilty of seven counts of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the RTC. Hence this appeal.

Issue: W/N the accused is guilty of all the seven counts of rape.

Held: Negative.

The Supreme Court ruled that the accused is guilty of five counts of Acts
of Lasciviousness , and two counts of rape.

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman with the use

of force, threat, intimidation or when she is under 12 years of age or is
demented. Where the victim is below twelve years old the only subject of
inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. Carnal knowledge is the act
of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a
woman. There must be proof that his penis touched the labias of the victim
or slid into their female organ and not merely stroked the external surface.
The prosecution failed to prove carnal knowledge on five of the information
the filed. The prosecution’s evidence lack definite details regarding the
penile penetration. However the Court ruled that the accused is guilty of
Acts of Lasciviousness based on the five information.

The crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in

relation to Section 5 of RA 7610, which was the offense proved is included
in rape, the offense charged. The essential elements of sexual abuse under
Section 5 (b) of RA 7 610 are as follows:

1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse; and
 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age

On the other hand, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336
of the RPC are as follows:

1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. Where the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present;
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.

All the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC
and sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 were sufficiently
established, the victims were sexually abused as they were coerced,
influenced, threatened and intimidated by appellant who was the helper
of CCC’s father.

Under the two information filed the Court found that there is a slight
penetration of the penis on CCC’s genitalia, even if the appellants penis
was not inserted enough only indicates that he was able to penetrate her
partially. And as the victim was under 12 years old there is no other
conclusion but to affirm the decision of the CA in relation to these two
information.
7. Gr No. 217026 January 22, 2018

People vs Lawrence Gajo y Buenafe and Rico Gajo y Buenafe

Criminal Law; Chain of Custody; Chain of custody refers to recorded

authorized movements and custody of confiscated dangerous drugs, or
controlled substances. It involves testimony on every link in the chain - from
the confiscation of the illegal drugs to its receipt in the forensic laboratory
up to its presentation in court. It is necessary that every person who
touched the seized item describe how and from whom he or she received it;
where and what happened to it while in the witness' possession; its
condition when received and at the time it was delivered to next link in said
chain of custody

Del Castillo,J.:

Facts: March 2007 the police team of San Mateo Rizal conducted a buy
bust operation as against herein appellant. This was planned after several
surveillance over the residence of the appellants. PO3 Justo wrote his initial
on two 100 bills that will serve as marked money, they also decided that
PO3 Justo will remove his cap once the transaction is finished. When the
team arrived at the target area, PO3 Justo alighted from the vehicle and
went to Lawrence, the latter took the money offered by Justo and went
inside to get the shabu. It was Rico who came out to give Justo the item, the
latter after receiving it removed his cup signaling the rest of the team to
proceed with arresting the appellant. They were able to get the shabu and
marked money.

The two were brought to the police station, it was only then when the
items were marked by the arresting officers. PO3 justifies his act of signing
the items only when they were in the police station because of a commotion
that allegedly happened. PO3 Justo and one PO1 San Pedro claimed that
after being marked they brought the items to the crime lab. However the
records showed that it was another officer who brought the items in.

The defense presented a completely different version of the facts

alleging that they were inside when they saw the policemen outside their
house, they were then seized and brought to the police station. The RTC
held that the accused were guilty. And such was affirmed by the CA.

On their appeal the accused alleged that there were irregularities in the
chain of custody, and so the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Issue: W/N there is non observance of chain of custody in the case at bar.

Held: AFFIRMATIVE

Chain of custody refers to recorded authorized movements and custody

of confiscated dangerous drugs, or controlled substances. It involves
testimony on every link in the chain - from the confiscation of the illegal
drugs to its receipt in the forensic laboratory up to its presentation in court.
It is necessary that every person who touched the seized item describe how
and from whom he or she received it; where and what happened to it while
in the witness' possession; its condition when received and at the time it
was delivered to next link in said chain of custody

It is primordial that the corpus delicti or the confiscated illegal drugs

had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the same illegal
drugs possessed and sold by the accused must be the same ones offered in
court. As such the required unbroken chain of custody under Section 21,
Alticle II of RA 9165 comes into play to ensure that no unnecessary doubt is
created on the identity of the seized illegal drugs. More particularly, chain
of custody refers to recorded authorized movements and custody of
confiscated dangerous drugs, or controlled substances. It involves testimony
on every link in the chain - from the confiscation of the illegal drugs to its
receipt in the forensic laboratory up to its presentation in court. It is
necessary that every person who touched the seized item describe how and
from whom he or she received it; where and what happened to it while in
the witness' possession; its condition when received and at the time it was
delivered to next link in said chain of custody: 1 ) the seizure and marking,
if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the
apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of the seized drug by the
apprehending officer to the for investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the
investigating officer of said item to the forensic chemist 'for examination;
and, 4) the turnover and submission thereof from forensic chemists to the
court.

The prosecution failed to satisfy the regularity of all the links that is
required by the chain of custody principle. First the marking on the seized
items were done not after the arrest but when the accused were already
brought to the police station. The chain of custody requires that all those
who were able to lay a hand on the item must be presented in court but they
failed to do so. The prosecution failed to present their evidence as they
were not able to out on stand PO2 Cruz.
 Indeed the constitutional right of the accused were violated due to the
non observance of the chain of custody. The right to be presumed innocent
weights more than the presumption of regularity.