CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

Below is the list Courts Decisions covering Criminal Laws on 2009:

Date Sept 29, 2009

Criminal Law Bigamy; nullity of previous marriage

Case Victoria S. Jarillo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164435

Courts Decision Petitioners conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioners two marriages to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, petitioners marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioners marriage to Uy make any difference. As held in Tenebro, [s]ince a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x A plain reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

marriage Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, bigamy is punishable by prision mayor, which is classified under Article 25 of said Code as an afflictive penalty. Article 90 thereof provides that [c]rimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years, while Article 91 states that [t]he period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents x x x . Septem ber 29, 2009 Bigamy; prescription Victoria S. Jarillo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164435 Petitioner asserts that Uy had known of her previous marriage as far back as 1978; hence, prescription began to run from that time. Note that the party who raises a fact as a matter of defense has the burden of proving it. The defendant or accused is obliged to produce evidence in support of its defense; otherwise, failing to establish the same, it remains self-serving. Thus, for petitioners defense of prescription to prosper, it was incumbent upon her to adduce evidence that as early as the year 1978, Uy already obtained knowledge of her previous marriage It is immaterial whether appellant Agustin acted as a principal or an accomplice. What really matters is that the conspiracy was proven

Septem ber 18, 2009

Conspiracy

People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Cruz, Jr. y Concepcion, et al., G.R. No. 168446

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

and he took part in it. The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim. There must be a showing of actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor. An accused is liable for kidnapping when the evidence adequately proves that he forcefully transported, locked up or restrained the victim. There must exist indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive the victim of his liberty. The restraint of liberty must not arise merely as an incident to the commission of another offense that the offender primarily intended to commit. Appellants challenge to the assailed decision having failed, and no circumstance which creates reasonable doubt on his guilt being extant, his conviction must be upheld. The prevailing jurisprudence on like cases authorizes a civil indemnity of P50,000, not P75,000, in addition to moral damages for a like amount. The elements of statutory rape, of which appellant was charged are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. In 3 the present case, the

Septem ber 18, 2009

Kidnapping; elements

People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Cruz, Jr. y Concepcion, et al., G.R. No. 168446

Septem ber 18, 2009

Rape; damages

People of the Philippines vs. Elizardo Cabiles ali as SARDO G.R. No. 181629

Septem ber 30, 2009

Rape; elements

People of the Philippines vs. Armando Padilla y Nicolas, G.R. No. 167955

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

prosecution failed to prove the age of AAA, much less the allegation that she was under the age of twelve when she was raped. Thus, the Court cannot hold appellant liable for statutory rape. However, since the prosecution was able to establish, without any objection from the defense, that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA with the use of force, he can be convicted of simple rape the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua. Appellant may not be convicted of rape in its qualified form, as to impose upon him the penalty of death, considering that, while the aggravating circumstance of relationship was proven, the prosecution failed to establish AAAs minority by independent proof The elements of robbery are: (1) the subject is personal property belonging to another; (2) there is unlawful taking of that property; (3) the taking is with intent to gain; and (4) there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force upon things. Carnapping, on the other hand, has these elements: taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latters consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

Septem ber 4, 2009.

Robbery; elements

Elmer Diamante y Sioson, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180992

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

Robbery with rape is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. In this case, we find the evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants committed the crime of robbery with rape. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Ortiz, et al., G.R. No. 179944 The first three elements were proven by the following established facts: the victims categorically identified appellants as the ones who threatened them and took their personal belongings; all appellants held weapons; appellants entered the house of Candido, herded Candido and his son, Dennis, in a corner of their house and tied their hands; BBB heard the cries of Dennis and when he checked where the cries were coming from, appellants intercepted him and tied his hands as well; appellants entered the house of BBB and AAA, and thereafter ransacked the said house taking valuable items. From the foregoing, it is clear that the crime of robbery was committed. The appellate and trial courts correctly rejected Rupertos theory of self-defense. When

Septem ber 4, 2009

Robbery with rape; elements

Septem ber 17, 2009 5

Self defense

People of the Philippines Vs. Roel Arbalate,

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

et al

he admitted authorship of the crime, the burden of proof shifted to him to establish all the elements of self-defense. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted the killing. Thus, he must meet the requisites of self-defense, prescribed by Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

Below is the list Courts Decisions covering Special Laws on 2009:

Date Septem ber 2, 2009

Criminal Law Anti-Graft

Case Ofelia Caunan vs. People of the Philippines, et al. / Joey P. Marquez vs. The Sandiganbayan Fo urth Division, et al. G.R. Nos. 181999 & G.R. No. 18200104/G.R. No. 182020-24

Courts Decision For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The presence of the first two elements of the crime is not disputed. Hence, the threshold question we

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

should resolve is whether the walis tingting purchase contracts were grossly and manifestly injurious or disadvantageous to the government. The fact of overpricing is embedded in the third criminal element of Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject contracts would be grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government if characterized by an overpriced procurement. However, the gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not also adequately proven. Thus, we grant the petitions. In criminal cases, to justify a conviction, the culpability of an accused must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, as the accused enjoys a constitutionally enshrined disputable presumption of innocence. The court, in ascertaining the guilt of an accused, must, after having marshaled the facts and circumstances, reach a moral certainty as to the accusers guilt. Moral certainty is that degree of proof which produces 7 Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Otherwise, where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted Under Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the following essential elements must be present: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. All the elements of the offense charged have been duly established beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner, being then the Mayor of Angadanan, Isabela is a public officer discharging administrative and official functions. The act of purchasing the subject truck without the requisite public bidding and authority from the Sangguniang Bayan dis plays gross and inexcusable negligence. Undue injury was caused to the Government because said truck could have been purchased at a much lower

Septem ber 25, 2009

Anti-Graft

Felicitas P. Ong vs. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176546

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

price. The contention that the acquisition through a negotiated purchase was valid the same being pursuant to COA Resolution Nos. 95-244 and 95-244-A, is untenable. Petitioners reliance on said COA Resolutions is misplaced. COA Resolution No. 95-244 as amended by Resolution No. 95-244-A states that there is no necessity of prescribing the limit of purchases not subject to public bidding since Executive Order No. 301 authorizes the heads of an agency with the approval of the Department Heads to enter into a negotiated purchase as long as the same is advantageous to the government. Both resolutions are implementing guidelines which must be read and applied in conjunction with Title VI, Book II, of Republic Act No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. Section 356 thereof states the general rule that the acquisition of supplies by the local government units shall be through competitive bidding. The only instances when public bidding requirements can be dispensed with are provided under Section 366. Buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend

Septem ber 4, 2009 9

Dangerous Drugs Act; buy bust

People of the Philippines vs. Antonio vs. Antonio Ramos

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS
prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense. Because of the built-in dangers of abuse that the operation entails, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded. The records indicate that the buy-bust team did not follow the outlined procedure on the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, despite its mandatory character as indicated by the use of the word shall. . In every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is material. In fact, the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts

y Viray, G.R. No. 180508

Septem ber 17, 2009

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody

People of the Philippines vs. Hasanaddin Guira y Ba nsil, G.R. No. 186497

10

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. A close reading of the law reveals that it allows certain exceptions. Thus, contrary to the assertions of accused-appellant, Section 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. Noncompliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the instant case, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from accused-appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. . Denial, as a defense, is an inherently weak one and has been viewed by this Court with disdain, for it can easily be concocted and is a very common line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165. Similarly, the defense of frame-up is also easily fabricated and commonly used in buy-bust cases. In order for the Court to appreciate such defenses,

Septem ber 17, 2009

Dangerous Drugs Act; defense

People of the Philippines vs. Hasanaddin Guira y Ba nsil, G.R. No. 186497

11

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

there must be clear and convincing evidence to prove such defense because in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against accusedappellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands. In the case at bar, the defense failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers Illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 carries the following elements: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused. On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements

Septem ber 4, 2009

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession

Gilbert Zalameda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183656

12

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

Septem ber 17, 2009

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale

Septem ber 8, 2009

Dangerous Drugs Act; penalty

In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the traded substancethe object evidence which is the core of the corpus delicti. These requirements have been sufficiently established in People of the the instant case. What is Philippines vs. Donato Capco y Sabadl more, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be ab, G.R. No. 183088 preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Capco has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers. Capco failed in this respect. . People of the Under the Indeterminate Philippines vs. Melody Sentence Law, accused Gutierrez shall be sentenced to an y Lauriada, G.R. No. indeterminate sentence, the 187156 maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law punishing the offense, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Hence, the maximum penalty should be in the range of 17 years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to 20 years, while the minimum should not be less than 12 years and one day to 14 years and eight (8) months. The minimum penalty set by the trial court

13

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

Septem ber 17, 2009

Dangerous Drugs Act; procedure

Septem ber 18, 2009

Illegal possession of firearms; mission order

is within the proper range; but as to the maximum penalty, considering that there are no aggravating circumstances, we find that the penalty of imprisonment for 17 years, four (4) months, and one (1) day is appropriate. Generally, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from People of the the accused inadmissible. Philippines vs. What is of utmost Donato Capco y Sabadl importance is the ab, G.R. No. 183088 preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as they would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Eugene C. Firaza vs. . Permit to carry firearm is People of the not the same as permit to Philippines, G.R. No. carry licensed firearm 179319 outside ones residence. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866, a Mission Order is defined as a written directive or order issued by government authority as enumerated in Section 5 hereof to persons who are under his supervision and control for a definite purpose or objective during a specified period and to such place or places as therein mentioned which may entitle the bearer thereof to carry his duly issued or licensed firearms outside of residence when so specified therein.

14

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103

CRIMINAL LAW I (Court Decisions on Criminal Laws)

COURT DECISIONS

The Mission Order issued to petitioner authorized him to carry firearms in connection with confidential (illegible) cases assigned to [him]. Admittedly, petitioner was at Rivas restaurant in connection with a private business transaction. Additionally, the Mission Order did not authorize petitioner to carry his duly issued firearm outside of his residence

15

Far Eastern University / Institute of Law / LLB4103