PEOPLE VS.

AVILA
G.R. No. 201584 | June 15, 2016

FACTS:

On October 20, 2002 at about 7:30 in the evening, Ryan Vasquez, the 9-year-old brother of the
victim, returned home after borrowing a guitar next door as instructed by his sister. RYAN was
atop the stairscase leading to their house when he saw "Totong" and another man lingering outside
their door. RYAN saw the two men peeping inside the house and out of fear of being spotted by
Totong and his companion; he hid in a spot by the stairs, which was more or less 8 meters away
from where the men were standing. While hiding, RYAN saw Totong fire the first shot. The bullet
went through the door, hitting his sister [Janjoy] on the right side of her body. Totong then kicked
the door open and shot [Janjoy] on the head. The two men immediately fled the scene. RYAN
rushed inside the house and saw his sister lying on the ground bleeding. He hurried to his Ate
Milda's nearby house and asked for help. RYAN's Ate Milda and Kuya Ricky brought [Janjoy] to
the hospital.

The defense of AVILA is one of denial and alibi. The CA found no merit in AVILA’S arguments.
The CA held that contrary to AVILA's contention, the testimony of witness RYAN Vasquez was
reasonably consistent in spite of his young age.

ISSUES:

Is AVILA guilty of the crime of murder?

HELD:

Accused-appellant Apolonio "Totong" Avila is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of

Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and
ordered to pay the heirs of Janjoy Vasquez

The testimony of a single witness, when positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction
even of murder. The child witness in this case positively identified the AVILA several times during
the trial as the person who killed his sister. Such resoluteness cannot be doubted of a child,
especially of one of tender age. The defense failed to destroy the credibility of the child witness
during the questioning. It is for this reason that jurisprudence uniformly pronounces that minor
inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not reflect on his credibility. What remains
important is the positive identification of the AVILA as the assailant. Ample margin of error and
understanding must be accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would be
gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before the court.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRY AGRAMON, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 212156, June 20, 2018

The Facts

On December 24, 2005, at about 6:00 in the evening, Roger and Pelita Aboganda (Pelita, common-
law wife) were sitting inside their dwelling in Brgy. Kinalumsan, San Miguel, Leyte when Roger’s
brother, Gerry, came to their dwelling, drunk and yelled, "I will kill you all." Gerry entered the
house armed with a bladed weapon and delivered a stab thrust against Roger, who was able to hold
the weapon with his hand causing him to sustain four (4) wounds. Pelita, who was then two (2)
months pregnant, tried to cover Roger in order not to be hit again. She was stabbed on her left
breast. When Roger was about to run, Gerry stabbed him and the weapon got stuck at his back.
Gerry searched for another weapon inside the house and when the former saw the long bolo, he
chased Roger who ran towards the barangay hall

Upon reaching the barangay hall, Roger sought help from the barangay officials, Gerry arrived at
the barangay hall brandishing his weapon and roaming around the area. The barangay officials
asked help from the police officials of San Miguel, Leyte. When the police arrived, they arrested
Gerry.

Pelita died, while Roger was taken to the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center for treatment.12

The RTC found Gerry guilty of the crime of murder. It was held that the number and nature of the
wounds inflicted upon the victim disproves Gerry's claim of self-defense. CA affirmed RTC with
modification. The CA found that only evident premeditation was clearly established while
treachery cannot be appreciated because the attack on Pelita was not sudden and unexpected as
Roger and Pelita were aware of the imminent danger to their lives.24

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming Gerry's conviction for murder despite the fact that the
prosecution failed to establish his guilt for Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Court holds that Gerry can only be convicted of Homicide, not murder. Treachery and evident
premeditation were not established beyond reasonable doubt. The existence of a struggle before
the attack on the victim Pelita clearly shows that she was forewarned of the impending attack, and
that she was afforded the opportunity to put up a defense. Absent a clear and positive proof of the
overt act of planning the crime, mere presumptions and inferences thereon, no matter how logical
and probable, would not be enough. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify the
offense in this case.
G.R. No. 197813 September 25, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
EDWIN IBANEZ y ALBANTE and ALFREDO (FREDDIE) NULLA y IBANEZ, Accused-
appellants.

On August 29, 2004, Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog (Wilfredo) was invited by Alfredo to a
drinking session with Jesus and Edwin. Wilfredo’s daughter, Rachel, an adolescent at the time,
was underneath the house of a neighbor, three (3) meters away from the place where Wilfredo and
his companions were ostensibly in merrymaking.

Rachel saw her father step away from the group to urinate. While Wilfredo relieved himself, Edwin
snatched a t-shirt and hooded it over the head and face of Wilfredo. Robbed of vision as his head
was fully covered, Wilfredo was wrestled and pinned down by Edwin, while Alfredo boxed the
left side of Wilfredo’s chest. Jesus, armed with a long iron bar, swung at and hit Wilfredo in the
head. Rachel stood immobilized as she watched the attack on father. Thereafter, she saw her
mother running out of their house and crying for help.

Wilfredo did not reach the hospital alive and was pronounced dead on arrival.

The two accused-appellants pointed to Jesus as the sole culprit, proclaimed their innocence and
professed to being at the scene of the crime only because of their curiosity for what had occurred.

Issue:
whether the accused are guilty of murder.
Decision:

The court AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION the decisions of CA and RTC. The Court affirmed
the appreciation of aggravating circumstance of treachery. It attended the killing of the victim
because he was unarmed and the attack on him was swift and sudden. He had no means and there
was no time for him to defend himself. Indeed, nothing can be more sudden and unexpected than
when petitioners Edwin and Alfredo attacked the victim. The award of exemplary damages is
increased from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00 and we delete the award for loss of earning capacity in
the amount of ₱1,946, 180.00.

G.R. No. 206590

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs
MYRNA GAYOSO y ARGUELLES, Accused-Appellant

FACTS:

Based on the testimonies of SPO3 de Dios, SPO3 Salamida, PO2 Isip, SPO4 Bandoy,
P/Insp. Eleazar Barber, Jr., PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, and the documentary exhibits, it emerged
that: PI Barber of the PNP Guiuan Police Station directed SPO3 De Dios to conduct a surveillance
on appellant after receiving several reports that she was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks
later, SPO3 De Dios confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities. PI
Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to implementing the search
warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a "confirmatory test-buy" designating SPO3 De Dios as
poseur-buyer and giving him P200.00 marked money for the operation.
Appellant denied the charges against her. She maintained that the search warrant was
shown to her only after an hour and that the sachets of shabu were planted. She argued that the
police officers fabricated the charges against her since her family had a quarrel with a police officer
named Rizalina Cuantero regarding the fence separating their houses.
The RTC ruled that the evidence sufficiently established the chain of custody of the sachets
of shabu from the time they were bought from appellant and/or seized from her house, to its
turnover to the PDEA and submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The RTC
rejected appellant's defense of denial and frame-up in view of her positive identification by
eyewitnesses as the criminal offender. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling finding appellant
guilty of unauthorized sale and possession of shabu.

ISSUE:
1. Whether a confirmatory test-buy solicitation constitutes instigation.
2. Whether the chain of custody was established.

RULING:
1. The "test-buy" operation conducted by the police officers is not prohibited by law. It does not
amount to instigation. As in this case, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the poseur buyer
merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that
appellant habitually deals with shabu. They designated a poseur buyer to confirm the report by
engaging in a drug transaction with appellant. There was no proof that the poseur buyer induced
appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.
 It appeared that no chain of custody was established at all. There were only individual links
with breaks in-between which could not be seamlessly woven or tied together. The so-called links
in the chain of custody showed that the seized shabu was not handled properly starting from the
actual seizure, to its turnover in the police station and the PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime
laboratory for examination. The Court therefore cannot conclude with moral certainty that the
shabu confiscated from appellant was the same as that presented tor laboratory examination and
then presented in court.
Aside from the failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody, another
procedural lapse casts further uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the subject shabu. This
refers to the non-compliance by the arresting officers with the most basic procedural safeguards
relative to the custody and disposition of the seized item under Section 21(1), Article II of RA
9165.

G.R. No. 123140. September 23, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO and JOEL
CORTEZANO, appellants.

Sometime in March 1990, Lourney Cortezano decided to take a leave of absence from her part-
time job in Cubao, Quezon City, to spend her vacation with her three children in the house of her
parents-in-law, Santiago and Nita Cortezano, located at Barangay Azucena, Sipocot, Camarines
Sur while her husband Elmer, remained in their residence in Caloocan City.

Early afternoon of May 6, 1990, Joel and Bernardo ordered their niece Leah to sleep in their parents
room, where the latter followed. Leah was awaken when she sensed pressure on her arms and legs.
She saw her uncles Joel and Bernardo holding her hands and feet as she was being undressed. Joel
and Bernardo wet her vagina with their saliva. Bernardo then held her hands as Joel mounted her.
Joel inserted his penis into her vagina, while Bernardo stood by the window to serve as a lookout.
She felt something slippery inside her vagina; after Joel dismounted, Bernardo went on top of her
and inserted his penis into her vagina. Joel stood by the window as a lookout. She once more felt
something slippery in her vagina. Bernardo then stood up.

Boyet Orcine arrived and asked what the two were doing to Leah. They ordered Boyet to rape
Leah and threatened to box him if he refused. They laughed as Boyet was having his turn with
Leah. Joel and Bernardo then called Leah Lou and Lionel into the room, letting them see their
sister naked.

After that first harrowing incident, the two subjected Leah to sexual abuse daily. After each
intercourse, Joel and Bernardo would threaten to kill her and her family if she tell anyone what
they had been doing to her.

On May 27, 1994, Lourney learned from Boyet Orcine that her daughter Leah had been sexually
abused by Joel and Bernardo way back in 1990. Boyet told Lourney that Leah Lou had suffered
the same fate as Leah.4 Lourney asked Leah if she recalled anything that happened to her while
on vacation in Sipocot in 1990. When Lourney asked her daughter, the latter replied that Joel and
Bernardo had raped her.

Issue: Whether the accused are guilty of rape.

Decision:

The Court AFFIRMED the four counts of rape is WITH MODIFICATIONS.

The imposable penalty for rape committed by two or more persons under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code was reclusion perpetua to death.35 The appellants being both minors at the
time they committed the offenses are entitled to the benefits of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority under Article 68(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
In these cases, the crimes were not aggravated by abuse of superior strength because the said
circumstance is already considered in the penalty imposed by the law for the crimes. However, the
crimes were aggravated by relationship, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.36 The appellants are the uncles of the victim. The crime charged
was aggravated by the appellants, adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime. Ignominy
was attendant when the appellants forced Boyet Orcine to rape the victim, and laughed as the latter
was being raped by Boyet, and when they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their naked sister
after the appellants had raped her.