Pecho vs.

SB (Formal Crimes)
No attempted or frustrated violations of the Anti-Graft Law
Held: There is no sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy between the petitioner and Catre to commit the
complex crime of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents.  Neither is there evidence of
petitioner’s active participation in the commission of the crime.  There is reasonable doubt as to his guilt.  And
since his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond
reasonable doubt, the petitioner must then be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted.
There is no evidence that petitioner interceded for Catre.  Prosecution witness Calica testified that it was Catre
and not petitioner, who introduced themselves as agents of Eversun Commercial Trading.  He also testified that it
was Catre who did all the talking and directly transacted with him (Calica) regarding the terms and conditions of
the particular engagement and it was also Catre, and not petitioner, who actually delivered the documents to him.
There is no evidence that petitioner had a hand in the processing of the import entry declaration for the release of
the shipment from the Bureau of Customs.  There is also no evidence that petitioner was instrumental in the
approval of the import entry declaration.  In short, there is no showing that petitioner performed an overt act in
furtherance of alleged conspiracy.
The evidence for the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner (1) personally represented himself as an agent
of Eversun Commercial Trading; (2) knew of the falsity of any of the public and commercial documents in
question; and (3) had, at any time, possession of all or some of the said documents.
Facts: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that after having been acquitted of the violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Anti-Graft Law, a special law, he could not be convicted anymore of attempted
estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents, an offense punishable under the Revised Penal
Code, a general law; otherwise, the constitutional provision on double jeopardy would be violated.  His acquittal
of the crime charged precludes conviction for the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of
official and commercial documents, because both offenses arose from the same overt act.
The information charges the petitioner and his co-accused Joe Catre as principals who “conspired, and mutually
helped one another,” with Catre “representing himself to be a representative of Eversun Commercial Trading of
Cotabato City, a corporation, firm or partnership which turned out to be non-existent, fake or fictitious.” The
evidence for the prosecution, as admitted by the respondent, only showed that it was Catre who possessed the
falsified documents, contracted the services of Calica, and delivered the documents to the latter for processing.  In
the absence of satisfactory explanation, Catre, being the one in possession of the forged documents, is presumed
to be the forger. Catre, however, could not provide the explanation because only the petitioner was tried.  The
information states that his address is “unknown,” and the record does not show that a warrant for his arrest was
issued.  The only warrant of arrest that was issued was that for the petitioner. Assuming that such evidence and
the others adduced by the prosecution are to be admitted to prove the commission of the crime, a prima facie case
enough to prove the guilt of Catre with moral certainty was duly established against Catre as a principal. 
Accordingly, if conspiracy were proven, the petitioner would be equally guilty of the offense proved. 
People vs. Tomas Marcellana (Rape and Act of Lasciviousness)
Facts: Private complainant Francia Marcellana testified that her father, accused-appellant Tomas Marcellana, had been
raping the former since 1992, the last of which happened on Novembers 10 and 12, and December 5, 1996.  The
incidents usually happen at about 7 o’clock in the morning when Francia is left alone in their house, as her classes
start at 11:00 a.m.  At this time, her brothers and sisters are already in school while her mother is in the farm. 
Accused-appellant also goes to the farm early but returns before 7:00 a.m., at which time Francia’s ordeal at the
hands of her father begin.  He would drag Francia inside the bedroom, undress her, lay her down on the bed and
tie her hands and feet to the farm posts of the bed.  Accused-appellant would then take off his shorts and brief, lay
on top of Francia and make a push and pull movement for about three minutes.  Thereafter, accused-appellant
would put on his brief and shorts, untie one of the hands of Francia and leave her.  The latter would then untie her
other hand and feet. She could not tell her mother as well as her siblings about the incidents because she was
always threatened by accused-appellant.  It was only in December of 1996 when Francia, suspecting that she
might be pregnant, gathered enough courage to reveal her ordeal to her mother. Since her mother did not initially
believe her, Francia went to her high school teacher who helped her secure assistance from the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.
Held: Court finds the accused TOMAS MARCELLANA, as having committed beyond reasonable doubt the crime of
RAPE against his daughter FRANCIA MARCELLANA, who was sixteen (16) years old at the time of the
incidents complained of.  He is therefore declared GUILTY of the crime as charged on three (3) counts.

People vs. Vicente Valdesancho (Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness)

Held: This Court has many times declared that the date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the
crime. While this is true in the cases at bar, the dates when the rapes were committed are nonetheless essential to
the accused Vicente Valdesancho’s defense of alibi.  Thus, for failure of the prosecution to allege in the
information and prove during trial the correct dates of the rapes allegedly committed against the victim, Elvie
Basco, the accused will be let off the hook on due process considerations.
In the cases at bar, the informations charged that the crimes were committed on August 15 and 16, 1994.  The
entire evidence of the prosecution, including the testimony of Elvie, showed that Elvie was allegedly raped by the
accused on said dates while living in the latter’s house.  Contrary to the prosecution’s evidence, the defense
convincingly showed that in August 1994, Elvie was already in Grade 2 at the Barangay Minayutan Elementary
School and living with her brothers in Minayutan.  Nonetheless, the trial court convicted the accused of two
counts of rape committed on August 15 and 16, 1993, instead of August 15 and 16, 1994 as alleged in the
information and in the prosecution's evidence. 
The accused cries foul over his conviction for two counts of rape committed on August 15 and 16, 1993 when the
informations filed against him alleged August 15 and 16, 1994 as the dates when the crimes were committed.  He
contends that he was denied due process to defend himself.  His whole defense of alibi centered around August 15
and 16, 1994, the alleged dates of the rape incidents.
We agree.  Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no  person shall be held liable for a
criminal offense without due process of law.  It further provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel. 
People vs. Fabro (Conspiracy and Proposal)
Held: The Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the
entrapping officer has been accepted by the prohibited drug seller. 38 Rather, of importance are the facts that the
prohibited drug given or delivered by the accused was presented before the court and that the accused was clearly
identified as the offender by the prosecution eyewitness. 3
Appellant's contention that Irene Martin was the real culprit being the source of the contraband does not
in any way absolve her of the crime of selling marijuana. While it is true that it was Irene Martin who took
the money, appellant was the one who negotiated with the poseur-buyers; fetched her co-accused; carried
and handed over the marijuana to Apduhan. The acts of Martin and appellant clearly show a unity of
purpose in the consummation of the sale of marijuana. In other words, between Martin and appellant,
conspiracy in the commission of the crime was indubitably proven by the prosecution.
Facts: At around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 7, 1993 in Camp Henry Allen, Baguio City, two "concerned
individuals," later identified as Gloria and Emma Borce, 3 reported to Chief Inspector Allyn Evasco of the 14th
Narcotics Regional Field Office, that a couple living together as husband and wife in Quirino Hill, Baguio City,
was engaged, in selling marijuana. They added that sales usually took place between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. 4
Acting on that report, Chief Inspector Evasco organized two teams to conduct a buy-bust operation. After briefing
the group, Chief Inspector Evasco gave P600.00 as purchase money to Apduhan. The amount consisted of six
P100-bills with their serial numbers duly listed down.7
With the civil informers in tow, the group proceeded to Quirino Hill on board three vehicles. They arrived at
around 5:45 p.m.8 All of disembarked from the vehicles except for Mabanag who stayed in his car. Apduhan,
Gloria and Emma took a stairway down to the house of Pilay and appellant below street level. Batag stationed
himself on the top portion of the stairway about twenty (20) meters from Pilay's house. 9 Carrera positioned
himself at the upper portion of the road about thirty (30) meters away from the same house. 10 The back-up team
deployed within the immediate vicinity in such a way that they could clearly see the transaction between the
suspected pushers and the poseur-buyer.
As Apduhan, Gloria and Emma drew near Pilay's residence, appellant met them. Her common-law husband who
appeared drunk was inside the house by the main door.11 Gloria and Emma introduced Apduhan to appellant as a
stranger in the place who wanted to buy marijuana. Appellant told them that a kilo would cost them P700.00 but
she agreed to Apduhan's price of P600.00.12 After Apduhan had ordered a kilo of the contraband, appellant told
them to wait a while.13 Appellant then went to a house just behind her own.14
After a few minutes, she returned in the company of another woman who was later identified as Irene Martin.
Appellant was holding something that looked like a brick wrapped in newspaper and placed inside a transparent
plastic bag.15 Appellant handed the stuff to Apduhan. Her companion, Irene Martin, demanded payment therefor.
Apduhan gave her the P600.00. Apduhan removed the wrapped of the merchandise. After ascertaining that it was
a brick of marijuana, he made the pre-arranged signal of lighting his cigarette. 16 Immediately, the back-up team
rushed towards their direction. However, before the team could reach them, Irene Martin ran away. Apduhan held
appellant so that she could not escape.17 Donald Pilay was also arrested. The buy-bust team in pursuit of Irene
Martin ended up in her house with barangay councilman Dominic Dicoy. Since her house was locked, the team
forcibly opened it. Inside, they found Irene's husband, Eusebio Martin. The team obtained his consent to search
the house.18 The search proved futile — neither Irene nor marijuana was found there. 19 Thereafter, the team
brought the suspects and the confiscated marijuana to their office at Camp Allen.
People vs. Espiritu (Conspiracy and Proposal)
Held:

Facts: