Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim Rev Cases Fulltext
Crim Rev Cases Fulltext
At around 3:20 o'clock in the morning of January 14, 2006, the victim Magat asked the men what happened to their companion. They
Marlon Villanueva (Villanueva) was brought to the emergency room of replied that he had too much to drink. Then they instructed Magat to
Dr. Jose P. Rizal District Hospital (JP Rizal Hospital). Dr. Ramon go to the nearest hospital. He drove the tricycle to JP Rizal Hospital.
Masilungan (Dr. Masilungan), who was then the attending physician Upon their arrival, two of his passengers brought their unconscious
at the emergency room, observed that Villanueva was motionless, not companion inside the emergency room, while their other companion
breathing and had no heartbeat. Dr. Masilungan tried to revive paid the tricycle fare. Magat then left to go home. Several days after,
Villlanueva for about 15 to 30 minutes. Villanueva, however, did not he learned that the person brought to the hospital had died.
PO2 Alaindelon Ignacio (P02 Ignacio). testified that on January 14, Richard Cornelio (Cornelio), an APO Fraternity member, testified that
2006 at around 3:30 o'clock in the early morning, Natividad called up on January 13, 2006, around 4:00 to 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon,
the PNP Calamba City Station to report that a lifeless body of a man he met Dungo at the UP Los Baños Graduate School. Dungo asked
was brought to JP Rizal Hospital. When P02 Ignacio arrived, he saw him if he would attend the initiation ceremony, and Cornelio
Villanueva' s corpse with contusions and bite marks all over his body. answered in the negative because he had other things to do. At 10:00
P02 Ignacio and his policemen companions then brought Dungo and o'clock in the evening of the same day, Cornelio again met Dungo and
Sibal to the police station. He asked them about what happened, but his girlfriend while eating a hamburger at the Burger Machine along
they invoked their right to remain silent. The policemen then Raymundo Street, Umali Subdivision, Los Baños, Laguna (Raymundo
proceeded to Brgy. Pansol at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning. Street). He asked Dungo if he would attend the initiation ceremony.
After finding Villa Novaliches Resort, they knocked on the door and Dungo replied that he would not because he and his girlfriend had
the caretaker, Maricel Capillan (Capillan), opened it. something to do.
The police asked Capillan if there were University of the Philippines Ana Danife Rivera (Rivera), the girlfriend of Dungo, testified that on
Los Baños (UP Los Baños) students who rented the resort on the January 13, 2006 at around 1 :00 o'clock in the afternoon, Dungo
evening of January 13, 2006. Capillan said yes and added that about came and visited her at her boarding house on Raymundo Street.
twenty (20) persons arrived onboard a jeepney and told her that they Around 4:00 o'clock of the same afternoon, they went to the UP Los
would be renting the resort from 9:30 o'clock in the evening up to Baños Graduate School and saw Cornelio. Afterwards, they went back
7:00 o'clock the following morning. to her boarding house and stayed there from 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon to 7:00 o'clock in the evening. Then, they went to Lacxo
Gay Czarina Sunga (Sunga) was a food technology student at UP Los Restaurant for dinner and left at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening.
Baños during the academic year of 2005-2006 and a member of the On their way back to her boarding house, they encountered Cornelio
Symbiosis UPLB Biological Society. Around 3:00 o'clock in the again at the Burger Machine. Dungo then stayed and slept at her
afternoon of January 13, 2006, she was at their organization's boarding house. Around 2:00 o'clock in the early morning of January
tambayan in the UPLB Biological Sciences Building, when she noticed 14, 2006, they were roused from their sleep by a phone call from
three (3) men seated two meters away from her. She identified the Sibal, asking Dungo to go to a resort in Pansol, Calamba City. Dungo
two of the three men as Sibal and Dungo.14 They were wearing black then left the boarding house.
shirts with the logo of APO. Later at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, two
more men arrived and, with their heads bowed, approached the three Dungo testified that around 1:00 o'clock in the early afternoon of
men. One of them was Villanueva, who was carrying a 5-gallon water January 13, 2006, he arrived at the boarding house of his girlfriend,
container. Dungo then stood up and asked Villanueva why the latter Rivera, on Raymundo Street. At around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
did not report to him when he was just at their tambayan. Dungo they went to the UP Los Baños Graduate School and inquired about
then punched Villanueva twice, but the latter just kept quiet with his the requirements for a master's degree. They walked back to the
head bowed. Fifteen minutes later, all the men left. boarding house and met Cornelio. They talked about their
fraternity's ,final initiation ceremony for that night in Pansol, Calamba
Joey Atienza (Atienza) had been a good friend of Villanueva since City. Dungo and Rivera then reached the latter's boarding house
2004. They were roommates at the UP Los Baños Men's Dormitory around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. At around 7:00 o'clock in the
and housemates at the DPS Apartment in Umali Subdivision, Los evening, they went out for dinner at the Lacxo Restaurant, near
Baños, Laguna. According to Atienza, on January 9, 2006, Villanueva Crossing Junction, Los Baños. They ate and stayed at the restaurant
introduced him to Daryl Decena (Decena) as his APO - Theta Chapter for at least one and a half hours. Then they walked back to the
batchmate, who was also to undergo final initiation rites on January boarding house of Rivera and, along the way, they met Cornelio again
13, 2006. at the Burger Machine along Raymundo Street. Cornelio asked Dungo
if he would attend their fraternity's final initiation ceremony, to which
Severino Cuevas, Director of the Students Affairs at UP Los Baños, he replied in the negative. Dungo and Rivera reached the boarding
testified that Dungo and Sibal were both members of the APO house around 9:00 o'clock in the evening and they slept there.
Fraternity, and that there was no record of any request for initiation
or hazing activity filed by the said fraternity. Around 2:00 o'clock in the early morning of January 14, 2006, Dungo
was roused from his sleep because Sibal was palling him on his
McArthur Padua of the Office of the Registrar, UP Los Baños, testified cellphone. Sibal asked for his help, requesting him to go to Villa
that Villanueva was a B.S. Agricultural Economics student at the UP Novaliches Resort in Pansol, Calamba City. Upon Dungo 's arrival at
Los Baños,15 as evidenced by his official transcript of record.16 the resort, Sibal led him inside. There, he saw Rudolfo Castillo
(Castillo), a fellow APO fraternity brother, and Villanueva, who was
Atty. Eleno Peralta and Dina S. Carlos, officers of the Student unconscious. Dungo told them that they should bring Villanueva to
Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) of the UP Los Baños, testified that an the hospital. They all agreed, and Castillo called a tricycle that
administrative disciplinary case was filed on March 31, 2006 against brought them to JP Rizal Hospital. He identified himself before the
the APO Fraternity regarding the death of Villanueva. They confirmed security guard as Jerico Paril because he was scared to tell his real
that Capilla of Villa Novaliches Resort and Irene Tan (Tan) of APO name.
Sorority Theta Chapter appeared as witnesses for the complainant.17
Gilbert Gopez (Gopez) testified that he was the Grand Chancellor of
Roman Miguel De Jesus, UP - Office of the Legal Aid (UP-OLA) the APO -Theta Chapter for years 2005-2006. At around 7:00 o'clock
supervising student, testified that he met Tan of the APO Sorority in the evening of January 13, 2006, he was at the tambayan of their
sometime between July and August 2006 in UP Diliman: to convince fraternity in UP Los Baños because their neophytes would be initiated
her to testify in the criminal case. Tan, however, refused because she that night. Around 8:30 o'clock in the evening, they met their
feared for her safety. She said that after testifying in the SDT hearing, fraternity brothers in Bagong Kalsada, Los Baños. He noticed that
her place in Imus, Cavite was padlocked and vandalized. their neophyte, Villanueva, was with Castillo and that there was a
bruise on the left side of his face. Then they boarded a jeepney and
Evelyn Villanueva, mother of victim Villanueva, testified that, as a proceeded to Villa Novaliches Resort in Pansol, Calamba City. There,
result of the death of her son, her family incurred actual damages Gopez instructed Sibal to take Villanueva to the second floor of the
The US anti-hazing laws and jurisprudence show that victims of xxx xxx xxx
hazing can properly attain redress before the court. By crafting laws
and prosecuting offenders, the state can address the distinct dilemma SENATOR GUINGONA. Yes, but what would be the rationale for that
of hazing. imposition? Because the distinguished Sponsor has said that he is not
punishing a mere organization, he is not seeking the punishment of
Anti-Hazing Law in the an initiation into a club or organization, he is seeking the punishment
Philippines of certain acts that resulted in death, etcetera as a result of hazing
which are already covered crimes.
R.A. No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law .of 1995, has been enacted to
regulate hazing and other forms of initiation rites in fraternities, The penalty is increased in one, because we would like to discourage
sororities, and other organizations. It was in response to the rising hazing, abusive hazing, but it may be a legitimate defense for
incidents of death of hazing victims, particularly the death of invoking two or more charges or offenses, because these very same
Leonardo "Lenny" Villa.63 Despite its passage, reports of deaths acts are already punishable under the Revised Penal Code
resulting from i hazing continue to emerge. Recent victims were
Guillo Servando of the College of St. Benilde, Marc Andre Marcos and That is my difficulty, Mr. President.
Marvin Reglos of the San', Beda College - Manila, and Cris Anthony
Mendez of the University of the Philippines - Diliman. With the SENATOR LINA. x x x
continuity of these senseless tragedies, one question implores for an
answer: is R.A. No. 8049 a sufficient deterrent against hazing? Another point, Mr. President, is this, and this is a very telling
difference: When a person or group of persons resort to hazing as a
To answer the question, the Court must dissect the provisions of the requirement for gaining entry into an organization, the intent to
law and scrutinize its effect, implication and application. commit a wrong is not visible or is not present, Mr. President.
Whereas, in these specific crimes, Mr. President, let us say there is
Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves death or there is homicide, mutilation, if one files a case, then the
called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the intention to commit a wrong has to be proven. But if the crime of
fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This hazing is the basis, what is important is the result from the act of
distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a hazing.
wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se,
the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has To me, that is the basic difference and that is what will prevent or
the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the deter the sororities or fraternities; that they should really shun this
offender is immaterial.64 When the doing of an act is prohibited by activity called "hazing." Because, initially, these fraternities or
law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the sororities do not even consider having a neophyte killed or maimed or
prohibited act is the crime itself.65 that acts of lasciviousness are even committed initially, Mr. President.
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the So, what we want to discourage, is the so-called initial innocent act.
Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are That is why there is need to institute this kind of hazing. Ganiyan po
provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be ang nangyari. Ang fraternity o ang sorority ay magre-recruit. Wala
mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. talaga silang intensiybng makamatay. Hindi ko na babanggitin at
7080, as amended.66 Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes buhay pa iyong kaso. Pero dito sa anim o pito na namatay nitong
defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.67 nakaraang taon, walang intensiyong patayin talaga iyong neophyte.
So, kung maghihintay pa tayo, na saka lamang natin isasakdal ng
The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala murder kung namatay na, ay after the fact ho iyon. Pero, kung
prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or sasabihin natin sa mga kabataan na: "Huwag ninyong gagawin iyong
vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or .omission is hazing. Iyan ay kasalanan at kung mamatay diyan, mataas ang
immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se,- on the contrary, if it is penalty sa inyo."
not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission
b)". reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final xxx xxx xxx
This is the lusot, Mr. President. They might as well have been charged 1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior
therefore with the ordinary crime of homicide, mutilation, etcetera, written notice to the school authorities or head of
where the prosecution will have a difficulty proving the elements if organization;
they are separate offenses.
2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7)
xxx xxx xxx days before the conduct of such initiation;
I am very happy that the distinguished Minority Leader brought out a. The period of the initiation activities, which shall
the idea of intent or whether it is mala in se or mala prohibita. There not exceed three (3) days;
can be a radical amendment if that is the point that he wants to go to.
b. The names of those to be subjected to such
If we agree on the concept, then, maybe, we can just make this a activities; and
special law on hazing. We will not include this anymore under the
Revised Penal Code. That is a possibility. I will not foreclose that c. An undertaking that no physical violence be
suggestion, Mr. President.69 employed by anybody during such initiation rites.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 8049 imposes an obligation
[Emphases Supplied] to the head of the school or organization or their
representatives that they must assign at least two
Having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and (2) representatives, as the case may be, to be
the core principle of mala in se adhered to under the RPC, the present during these valid initiations. The duty of
Congress did not simply enact an amendment thereto. Instead, it such representative ,is to see to it that no physical
created a special law on hazing, founded upon the principle of mala harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit,
prohibita.70 In Vedana v. Valencia,71 the Court noted that in our neophyte or applicant.
nation's very recent history, the people had spoken, through the
Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act previously Noticeably, the law does not provide a penalty or sanction to
considered harmless by custom, as criminal.72 The act of hazing itself fraternities, sororities or organizations that fail to comply with the
is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against notice requirements of Section 2. Also, the school and organization
public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of administrators do not have a clear liability for non-compliance with
criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense Section 3.
of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution.73
Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in
Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or accordance with Section 4 of the law, which provides different classes
practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a of persons who are held liable as principals and accomplices.
fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers
suffering or injury. From the said definition, the elements of the crime and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually
of hazing can be determined: participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing
1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite is prima facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented
for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or the commission of the acts punishable herein.76
organization;
The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of
injury inflicted to the victim.77 The penalties appear to be similar to
The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, [Emphasis supplied]
or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who
actually planned the hazing.81 Although these planners were not Further, the law acknowledges that the offended party in the crime of
present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall hazing can seek different courses of action. n '.'provides that the
still be liable as principals. The provision took in consideration the responsible officials of the school or of the police, military or citizen's
non-resident members of the organization, such as their former army training organization, may impose the appropriate
officers or alumni. administrative sanctions on the person or the persons charged under
this provision even before their conviction.89 Necessarily, the
The third class of principals would ht; officers or members of an offended party can file either administrative, civil, or criminal actions
organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in against the offenders.90
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present
thereat.82 These officers or members are penalized, not because of The study of the provisions of R.A. No. 8049 shows that, on paper, it
their direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their is complete and robust in penalizing the crime of hazing. It was made
indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to malum prohibitum to discount criminal intent and disallow the
attend the hazing. defense of good faith. It took into consideration the different
participants and contributors in the hazing activities. While not all
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's acts cited in the law are penalized, the penalties imposed therein
adviser who was present when the acts constituting hazing were involve various and serious terms of imprisonment to discourage
committed, and failed to take action to prevent them from would-be offenders. Indeed, the law against hazing is ideal and
occurring.83 The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere profound. As to whether the law can be effectively implemented, the
presence in the hazing, but also his failure to prevent the same. Court begs to continue on the merits of the case.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or The Information properly
members of the fraternity, group, or organization.84 The hazing must
be held in the home of one of the officers or members. The parents charged the offense proved
must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes
and failed to take any action to avoid the same from occurring. The petitioners claim that the amended ,information avers a criminal
charge of hazing by actual participation, but the only offense proved
The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The during the trial was hazing by inducement. Their1 contention must fail.
school authorities, including faculty members, who consented to the The Amended Information reads:
hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as That on or about 2:30 in the early morning of January 14, 2006, at
accomplices.85 Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Province of Laguna and
was conducted can also be an accomplice to the crime.86 The owner within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
of the place shall be liable when he has actual knowledge of the accused, during a planned initiation rite and being then officers and
hazing conducted therein and he failed to take any steps to stop the members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity and present thereat, in
same. Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers,
law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be whose identity is not yet known, did then and there willfully,
entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to unlawfully and feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one
commit so grave a wrong.87 Also, the framers of the law intended MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as condition
that the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in hazing. During for his admission to the fraternity, thereby subjecting him to physical
the discussion of whether sodomy shall be included as a punishable harm, resulting to his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
act under the law, the issue of consent was tackled: SENATOR LINA x of the victim. CONTRARY TO LAW.91
xx
On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Section 9,
But sodomy in this case is connected with hazing, Mr. President. Such Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, is enlightening:
that the act may even be entered into with consent. It is not only
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained
sodomy. The infliction of pain may be done with the consent of the
of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
neophyte. If the law is passed, that does not make the act of hazing
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and
not punishable because the neophyte accepted the infliction of pain
not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms
upon himself.
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what
If the victim suffers from serious physical injuries, but the initiator offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
said, "Well, he allowed it upon himself. He consented to it." So, if we circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
allow that reasoning that sodomy was done with the consent of the
It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of
victim, then we would not have passed any law at all. There will be no
the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as
significance if we pass this bill, because it will always be a defense
constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of
that the victim allowed the infliction of pain or suffering. He accepted
common understanding to know the charge against him, and the
it as part of the initiation rites.
court to render judgment properly.92
But precisely, Mr. President that is one thing that we would want to
The Court agrees with the OSG that the "planned initiation rite" as
prohibit. That the defense of consent will not apply because the very
stated in the information included the act of inducing Villanueva to
act of inflicting physical pain or psychological suffering is, by itself, a
attend it. In ordinary parlance, a planned event can be understood to
punishable act. The result of the act of hazing, like death or physical
have different phases. Likewise, the hazing activity had different
injuries merely aggravates the act with higher penalties. But the
stages and the perpetrators had different roles therein, not solely
Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of The petitioners attempted to attack the constitutionality of Section 4
hazing.93 To require the prosecutor to indicate every step of the of R.A. No. 8049 before the CA, hut did not succeed. "[A] finding of
planned initiation rite in the information at the inception of the prima facie evidence x x x does not shatter the presumptive
criminal case, when details of the clandestine hazing are almost nil, innocence the accused enjoys because, before prima facie evidence
would be an arduous task, if not downright impossible. The law does arises, certain facts have still to be proved; the trial court cannot
not require the impossible (lex non cognit ad impossibilia). depend alone on such evidence, because precisely, it is merely prima
facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
The proper approach would be to require the prosecution to state doubt of the offense charged. Neither can it rely on the weak defense
every element of the crime of hazing, the offenders, and the the latter may adduce."100
accompanying circumstances in the planned initiation activity which
has been satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the amended Penal laws which feature prima facie evidence by disputable
information sufficiently informed the petitioners that they were being presumptions against the offenders are not new, and can be observed
criminally charged for their roles in the planned initiation rite. in the following: (1) the possession of drug paraphernalia gives rise to
prima facie evidence of the use of dangerous drug;101 (2) the
Conspiracy of the dishonor of the check for insufficient funds is prima facie evidence of
offenders was duly proven knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit;102 and (3) the
possession of any good which has been the subject of robbery or
The petitioners assail that the prosecution failed to establish the fact thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.103
of conspiracy.
Verily, the disputable presumption under R.A. No. 8049 can be
The Court disagrees. related to the conspiracy in the crime of hazing. The common design
of offenders is to haze the victim. Some of the overt acts that could
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement be committed by the offenders would be to (1) plan the hazing
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To activity as a requirement of the victim's initiation to the fraternity; (2)
determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a induce the victim to attend the hazing; and (3) actually participate in
felony.94 The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active the infliction of physical injuries.
participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may
consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to In this case, there was prima facie evidence of the petitioners'
execute or implement the criminal plan.95 participation in the hazing because of their presence in the venue. As
correctly held by the RTC, the presence of Dungo and Sibal during the
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came hazing at Villa Novaliches Resort was established by the testimony of
together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a Ignacio. She testified that she saw Sibal emerge from the resort and
common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the approach her store, to wit:
secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and
circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of MR. DIMACULANGAN
some complete whole.96 Responsibility of a conspirator is not Q: And how many persons from this group did you see again?
confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy WITNESS
but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing A: Three (3), sir.
out of the purpose intended.97 Q: Where did they come from, did they come out from the resort?
Where did this 3 people or this group of people coming from?
The lawmakers deliberated on whether the prosecution was still A: Inside the resort, sir.
obliged to prove the conspiracy between the offenders under R.A. Q: And around what time was this?
8049, to wit: A: Around 9:00, sir.
Q: And what did they do if any if they came out of the resort?
SENATOR GUINGONA. Mr. President, assuming there was a group A: They went to my store, sir.
that initiated and a person died. The charge is murder. My question is: xxxx
Under this bill if it becomes a law, would the prosecution have to Q: Did you have any other visitors to your store that night?
prove conspiracy or not anymore? xxxx
SENATOR LINA. Mr. President, if the person is present during hazing x A: "Meron po".
xx Q: Who were these visitors?
SENATOR GUINGONA. The persons are present. First, would the A: I don't know their names but I recognize their faces, sir.
prosecution have to prove conspiracy? Second, would the prosecution Q: If I show you pictures of these people, will you be able to identify
have to prove intent to kill or not? them before this Court.
SENATOR LINA. No more. As to the second question, Mr. President, if A: Yes, sir.
that occurs, there is no need to prove intent to kill. xxxx
SENATOR GUINGONA. But the charge is murder. Q: Mrs. Ignacio, I am showing you this picture of persons marked as
SENATOR LINA. That is why I said that it should not be murder. It Exhibit "L" in the Pre-Trial, can you please look over this document
should be hazing, Mr. President.98 carefully and see if any of the persons whom you said visited your
store is here?
The Court does not categorically agree that, under R.A. No. 8049, the xxxx
prosecution need not prove conspiracy. Jurisprudence dictates that A: "Siya rin po."
conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive COURT:
and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship Make it of record that the witness pinpointed to the first picture
and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself appearing on the left picture on the first row.
amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or xxxx
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to ATIY. PAMAOS:
a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the For the record, your Honor, we manifest that the picture and the
crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and name pointed by the witness has been previously marked as Exhibit
purpose.99 "L-3" and previously admitted by the defense as referring to Gregorio
Sibal, Jr., accused in this case…104
R.A. No. 8049, nevertheless, presents a novel provision that Ignacio, also positively identified Dungo as among the guests of Villa
introduces a disputable presumption of actual participation; and Novaliches Resort on the night of the hazing, to wit:
While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable 7. Ignacio saw about fifteen (15) persons gather on top of
doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not the terrace at the resort who looked like they were praying.
preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not Later that evening, at least three (3) of these persons went
available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the to her store to buy some items. She did not know their
guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of names but could identity [sic] their faces. After she was
direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing shown colored photographs, she pointed to the man later
circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually identified as Herald Christopher Braseros. She also pointed
committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is out the man later identified as Gregorio Sibal, Jr.
highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all
circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous 8. Donato Magat, a tricycle driver plying the route of Pansol,
crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to Calamba City, testified that around 3:00 o'clock in the
prove.109 Needless to state, the crime of hazing is shrouded in morning of January 14, 2006, he was waiting for passengers
11. Afterwards, Espina asked the two meq for identification With the fact of hazing, the identity ,of the petitioners, and their
cards. The latter replied that they did not bring with them participation therein duly proven, the moral certainty that produces
any I.D. or wallet.1âwphi1 Instead of giving their true conviction in an unprejudiced mind has been satisfied.
names, the appellants listed down their names in the
hospital logbook as Brandon Gonzales y Lanzon and Jericho Final Note
Paril y Rivera. Espina then told the two men not to leave,
not telling them that they secretly called the police to report Hazing has been a phenomenon that has beleaguered the country's
the incident which was their standard operating procedure educational institutions and communities. News of young men beaten
when a dead body was brought to the hospital. to death as part of fraternities' violent initiation rites supposedly to
seal fraternal bond has sent disturbing waves to lawmakers. Hence,
12. Dr. Ramon Masilungan, who was then the attending R.A. No. 8049 was signed into to law on June 7, 1995. Doubts on the
physician at the emergency room, observed that Marlon was effectiveness of the law were raised. The Court, however, scrutinized
motionless, had no heartbeat and already cyanotic. its provisions and it is convinced that the law is rigorous in penalizing
the crime of hazing.
13. Dr. Masilungan tried to revive Marlon for about 15 to 20
minutes. However, the latter did not respond to Hopefully, the present case will serve as a guide to the bench and the
resuscitation and was pronounced dead. Dr. Masilungan bar on the application of R.A. No. 8049. Through careful case-build up
noticed a big contusion hematoma on the left side of the and proper presentation of evidence before the court, it is not
victim's face and several injuries on his arms and legs. He impossible for the exalted constitutional presumption of innocence of
further attested that Marlon's face was already cyanotic. the accused to be overcome and his guilt for the crime of hazing be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must bear in mind
14. When Dr. Masilungan pulled down Marlon's pants, he the secretive nature of hazing, and carefully weave its chain of
saw a large contusion on both legs which extended from the circumstantial evidence. Likewise, the defense must present a
upper portion of his thigh down to the couplexial portion or genuine defense and substantiate the same through credible and
the back of the knee. reliable witnesses. The counsels of both parties must also consider
hazing as a malum prohibitum crime and the law's distinctive
15. Due to the nature, extent and location of Marlon's provisions.
injuries, Dr. Masilungan opined that he was a victim of
hazing. Dr. Masilungan is familiar with hazing injuries, While the Court finds R.A. No. 8049 adequate to deter and prosecute
having undergone hazing when he was a student and also hazing, the law is far from perfect. In Villareal v. People,116 the
because of his experience treating victims of hazing Court suggested that the fact of intoxication and the presence of non-
incidents. resident or alumni fraternity members during hazing should be
considered as aggravating circumstances that would increase the
16. Dr. Roy Camarillo, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP applicable penalties. Equally, based on the discussion earlier, this
Crime Laboratory in Region IV, Camp Vicente Lim, Court suggests some further amendments to the law. First, there
Canlubang, Calamba City, testified that he performed an should be a penalty or liability for noncompliance with Section 2, or
autopsy on the cadaver of the victim on January 14j 2006; the written notice requirement, and with Section 3, or the
that the victim's cause of death was blunt head trauma. representation requirement. Second, the penalties under Section 4
From 1999 to 2006, he was able to conduct post-mortem should also consider the psychological harm done to the victim of
examination of the two (2) persons whose deaths were hazing. With these additional inputs on R.A. No. 8049, the movement
attributed to hazing. These two (2) persons sustained against hazing can be invigorated. R.A. No. 8049 is a democratic
multiple contusions and injuries on different parts of their response to the uproar against hazing. It demonstrates that there
body, particularly on the buttocks, on both upper and lower must, and should, be another way of fostering brotherhood, other
extremities. Both persons died of brain hemorrhage. than through the culture of violence and suffering. The senseless
Correlating these two cases to the injuries found on the deaths of these young men shall never be forgotten, for justice is the
victim's body, Dr. Camarillo attested that the victim, Marlon spark that lights the candles of their graves.
Villanueva, sustained similar injuries to those two (2)
persons. Based on the presence of multiple injuries and WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 26, 2013 Decision and
contusions on his body, he opined that these injuries were the October 8, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-
hazing-related.114 H.C. No. 05046 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Let copies of this
Decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice as
Petitioners Dungo and Sibal, on the other hand, presented the guidance for the proper implementation and prosecution of violators
defense of denial and alibi. These defenses, however, must fail. Time of R.A. No. 8049; and to the Senate President and the Speaker of the
and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the House of Representatives for possible consideration of the
weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and amendment of the Anti-Hazing Law to include the penalty for
fabricate.115 As properly held by the RTC, these defenses cannot
SO ORDERED. In the course of its deliberation on the case, the Court required Arnel
and the Solicitor General to submit their respective positions on
EN BANC whether or not, assuming Arnel committed only the lesser crime of
attempted homicide with its imposable penalty of imprisonment of
G.R. No. 182748 December 13, 2011 four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four
months of prision correccional, as maximum, he could still apply for
ARNEL COLINARES, Petitioner, probation upon remand of the case to the trial court.
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Both complied with Arnel taking the position that he should be
entitled to apply for probation in case the Court metes out a new
DECISION penalty on him that makes his offense probationable. The language
and spirit of the probation law warrants such a stand. The Solicitor
ABAD, J.: General, on the other hand, argues that under the Probation Law no
application for probation can be entertained once the accused has
This case is about a) the need, when invoking self-defense, to prove perfected his appeal from the judgment of conviction.
all that it takes; b) what distinguishes frustrated homicide from
attempted homicide; and c) when an accused who appeals may still The Issues Presented
apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial court.
The case essentially presents three issues:
The Facts and the Case
1. Whether or not Arnel acted in self-defense when he
The public prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the accused Arnel struck Rufino on the head with a stone;
Colinares (Arnel) with frustrated homicide before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of San Jose, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213.1 2. Assuming he did not act in self-defense, whether or not
Arnel is guilty of frustrated homicide; and
Complainant Rufino P. Buena (Rufino) testified that at around 7:00 in
the evening on June 25, 2000, he and Jesus Paulite (Jesus) went out 3. Given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a
to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. On their way, Jesus took a leak lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty, whether
by the roadside with Rufino waiting nearby. From nowhere, Arnel or not he may still apply for probation on remand of the
sneaked behind and struck Rufino twice on the head with a huge case to the trial court.
stone, about 15 ½ inches in diameter. Rufino fell unconscious as
Jesus fled. The Court’s Rulings
Ananias Jallores (Ananias) testified that he was walking home when One. Arnel claims that Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias attacked him first
he saw Rufino lying by the roadside. Ananias tried to help but and that he merely acted in self-defense when he hit Rufino back with
someone struck him with something hard on the right temple, a stone.
knocking him out. He later learned that Arnel had hit him.
When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of
Paciano Alano (Paciano) testified that he saw the whole incident since showing that he was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting
he happened to be smoking outside his house. He sought the help of injury to him. The accused must establish the elements of self-
a barangay tanod and they brought Rufino to the hospital. defense by clear and convincing evidence. When successful, the
otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on the
Dr. Albert Belleza issued a Medico-Legal Certificate2 showing that lack of criminal intent of the accused.4
Rufino suffered two lacerated wounds on the forehead, along the
hairline area. The doctor testified that these injuries were serious and In homicide, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted, self-
potentially fatal but Rufino chose to go home after initial treatment. defense requires (1) that the person whom the offender killed or
injured committed unlawful aggression; (2) that the offender
The defense presented Arnel and Diomedes Paulite (Diomedes). Arnel employed means that is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the
claimed self-defense. He testified that he was on his way home that unlawful aggression; and (3) that the person defending himself did
evening when he met Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias who were all quite not act with sufficient provocation.5
drunk. Arnel asked Rufino where he supposed the Mayor of Tigaon
was but, rather than reply, Rufino pushed him, causing his fall. Jesus If the victim did not commit unlawful aggression against the accused,
and Ananias then boxed Arnel several times on the back. Rufino tried the latter has nothing to prevent or repel and the other two requisites
to stab Arnel but missed. The latter picked up a stone and, defending of self-defense would have no basis for being appreciated. Unlawful
himself, struck Rufino on the head with it. When Ananias saw this, he aggression contemplates an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or
charged towards Arnel and tried to stab him with a gaff. Arnel was an imminent danger of such attack. A mere threatening or
able to avoid the attack and hit Ananias with the same stone. Arnel intimidating attitude is not enough. The victim must attack the
then fled and hid in his sister’s house. On September 4, 2000, he accused with actual physical force or with a weapon.6
voluntarily surrendered at the Tigaon Municipal Police Station.
Here, the lower courts found that Arnel failed to prove the element of
Diomedes testified that he, Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias attended a unlawful aggression. He alone testified that Jesus and Ananias rained
pre-wedding party on the night of the incident. His three companions fist blows on him and that Rufino and Ananias tried to stab him. No
were all drunk. On his way home, Diomedes saw the three engaged in one corroborated Arnel’s testimony that it was Rufino who started it.
heated argument with Arnel. Arnel’s only other witness, Diomedes, merely testified that he saw
those involved having a heated argument in the middle of the street.
On July 1, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Arnel guilty Arnel did not submit any medical certificate to prove his point that he
beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to suffered injuries in the hands of Rufino and his companions.7
suffer imprisonment from two years and four months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, In contrast, the three witnesses—Jesus, Paciano, and Ananias—
as maximum. Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under testified that Arnel was the aggressor. Although their versions were
the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for probation. mottled with inconsistencies, these do not detract from their core
story. The witnesses were one in what Arnel did and when and how
Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), invoking self-defense he did it. Compared to Arnel’s testimony, the prosecution’s version is
and, alternatively, seeking conviction for the lesser crime of more believable and consistent with reality, hence deserving
attempted homicide with the consequent reduction of the penalty credence.8
imposed on him. The CA entirely affirmed the RTC decision but
deleted the award for lost income in the absence of evidence to
In a real sense, the Court’s finding that Arnel was guilty, not of The Court is now faced with one of the predicaments I discussed in
frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original my Dissenting and Concurring Opinion in Colinares v. People.1 The
conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable question regarding the application of the Probation Law is again
penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have inescapably intertwined with the present petition. Consequently, I
found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right must reiterate my assertions and arguments in Colinares to the case
penalty of two years and four months maximum.lavvphil This would at bar.
have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
In the present controversy, petitioner Mustapha Dimakuta y Maruhom
The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to alias Boyet was indicted for Violation of Section 5 Paragraph (b),
probation through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy of Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 or the Special Protection of
probation is one of liberality towards the accused. Such philosophy is Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discriminatory Act. The
not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory Information reads:
provisions.18 As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent in
Francisco, the Probation Law must not be regarded as a mere That on or about the 24th day of September 2005, in the City of Las
privilege to be given to the accused only where it clearly appears he Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
comes within its letter; to do so would be to disregard the teaching in the above-named accused, with lewd designs, did then and there
many cases that the Probation Law should be applied in favor of the willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit a lascivious conduct upon
accused not because it is a criminal law but to achieve its beneficent the person of one AAA, who was then a sixteen (16) year old minor,
purpose.19 by then and there embracing her, touching her breast and private
part against her will and without her consent and the act complained
One of those who dissent from this decision points out that allowing of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological development of the
Arnel to apply for probation after he appealed from the trial court’s complainant.2
judgment of conviction would not be consistent with the provision of
Section 2 that the probation law should be interpreted to "provide an After trial, the RTC promulgated its Decision3 which convicted
opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender." An accused petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer an
like Arnel who appeals from a judgment convicting him, it is claimed, indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years of
shows no penitence. prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the
This may be true if the trial court meted out to Arnel a correct accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. In addition,
judgment of conviction. Here, however, it convicted Arnel of the he was directed to pay a fine of ₱20,000.00, civil indemnity of
wrong crime, frustrated homicide, that carried a penalty in excess of ₱25,000.00, and moral damages of ₱25,000.00.4
6 years. How can the Court expect him to feel penitent over a crime,
which as the Court now finds, he did not commit? He only committed Feeling aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of
attempted homicide with its maximum penalty of 2 years and 4 Appeals (CA) arguing, among other things, that even assuming he
months. committed the acts imputed, still there is no evidence showing that
the same were done without the victim’s consent or through force,
Ironically, if the Court denies Arnel the right to apply for probation duress, intimidation or violence upon her. Surprisingly, when asked to
under the reduced penalty, it would be sending him straight behind comment on the appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
bars. It would be robbing him of the chance to instead undergo relying heavily on People v. Abello,5 opined that petitioner should
reformation as a penitent offender, defeating the very purpose of the have been convicted only of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336
probation law. of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in view of the prosecution’s failure to
establish that the lascivious acts were attended by force or coercion
At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right because the victim was asleep at the time the alleged acts were
and imposed on Arnel the correct penalty of two years and four committed.
months maximum, he would have had the right to apply for probation.
No one could say with certainty that he would have availed himself of On June 28, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision6 adopting the
the right had the RTC done right by him. The idea may not even have recommendation of the OSG. In modifying the RTC Decision,
crossed his mind precisely since the penalty he got was not petitioner was found guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336
probationable. of the RPC and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and
The question in this case is ultimately one of fairness. Is it fair to two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Likewise, he
deny Arnel the right to apply for probation when the new penalty that was ordered to pay ₱20,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱30,000.00 as
the Court imposes on him is, unlike the one erroneously imposed by moral damages.
the trial court, subject to probation?
Petitioner received a copy of CA Decision on July 6, 2012.7 Instead of
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition, MODIFIES further appealing the case, he filed on July 23, 2012 before the CA a
the Decision dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. manifestation with motion to allow him to apply for probation upon
CR 29639, FINDS petitioner Arnel Colinares GUILTY beyond remand of the case to the RTC.8 Petitioner invoked the case of
reasonable doubt of attempted homicide, and SENTENCES him to Colinares v. People9 which allowed petitioner therein to apply for
suffer an indeterminate penalty from four months of arresto mayor, probation after his sentence was later reduced on appeal by the
as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as Supreme Court.
maximum, and to pay Rufino P. Buena the amount of ₱20,000.00 as
moral damages, without prejudice to petitioner applying for probation The CA issued a Resolution on September 3, 2012 denying
within 15 days from notice that the record of the case has been petitioner’s manifestation with motion.10 It was ruled that Colinares
remanded for execution to the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, is inapplicable since petitioner therein raised as sole issue the
Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213. correctness of the penalty imposed and claimed that the evidence
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. – Subject to the provisions of this Decree, WHEREAS, the time, effort and expenses of the Government in
the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a investigating and prosecuting accused persons from the lower courts
defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, up to the Supreme Court, are oftentimes rendered nugatory when,
suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on after the appellate Court finally affirms the judgment of conviction,
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it the defendant applies for and is granted probation;
may deem best.
WHEREAS, probation was not intended as an escape hatch and
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of should not be used to obstruct and delay the administration of justice,
imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed but should be availed of at the first opportunity by offenders who are
with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has willing to be reformed and rehabilitated;
been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the
application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the WHEREAS, it becomes imperative to remedy the problems
automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. An order granting or abovementioned confronting our probation
denying probation shall not be appealable.24
system[.]
Later, the filing of an application for probation pending appeal was
still allowed when Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 was amended by P.D. No. Observing the developments in our Probation Law, the Court settled
125725 on December 1, 1977 by providing that such application may in Llamado v. Court of Appeals:29
be made after the defendant had been convicted and sentenced but
before he begins to serve his sentence. Thus: Examination of Section 4, after its amendment by P.D. No. 1257,
reveals that it had established a prolonged but definite period during
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. – Subject to the provisions of this Decree, which an application for probation may be granted by the trial court.
the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a That period was: "After [the trial court] shall have convicted and
defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence and upon sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence."
his application, suspend the execution of said sentence and place Clearly, the cut-off time – commencement of service of sentence –
the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and takes place not only after an appeal has been taken from the
conditions as it may deem best. sentence of conviction, but even after judgment has been rendered
by the appellate court and after judgment has become final. Indeed,
The prosecuting officer concerned shall be notified by the court of the in this last situation, Section 4, as amended by P.D. No. 1257
filing of the application for probation and he may submit his comment provides that "the application [for probation] shall be acted upon by
on such application within ten days from receipt of the notification. the trial court on the basis of the judgment of the appellate court";
for the appellate court might have increased or reduced the original
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of penalty imposed by the trial court. x x x
imprisonment or a fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial xxxx
court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken
from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be In sharp contrast with Section 4 as amended by PD No. 1257, in its
deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal present form, Section 4 establishes a much narrower period during
of a pending appeal. In the latter case, however, if the application is which an application for probation may be filed with the trial court:
filed on or after the date of the judgment of the appellate court, said "after [the trial court] shall have convicted and sentenced a
application shall be acted upon by the trial court on the basis of the defendant and – within the period for perfecting an appeal –." As if to
judgment of the appellate court. provide emphasis, a new proviso was appended to the first paragraph
of Section 4 that expressly prohibits the grant of an application for
In view of the latest amendment to Section 4 of the Probation Law 2. When the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which
that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused was convicted and that the accused should only be liable
(2) that the appeal is only for reviewing the penalty imposed by the As regards the CA Decision convicting petitioner of the crime of Acts
lower court or the conviction should only be for a lesser crime of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, such conclusion
necessarily included in the crime charged in the information; and clearly contravenes the law and existing jurisprudence.
(3) that the accused-appellant is not seeking acquittal of the Petitioner was charged and convicted by the trial court with violation
conviction. of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 based on the complaint of
a sixteen (16)-year-old girl for allegedly molesting her by touching
To note, what Section 4 of the Probation Law prohibits is an appeal her breast and vagina while she was sleeping. The provision reads:
from the judgment of conviction, which involves a review of the
merits of the case and the determination of whether the accused is SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children,
entitled to acquittal. However, under the recommended grounds for whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
appeal which were enumerated earlier, the purpose of the appeal is consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
not to assail the judgment of conviction but to question only the syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
propriety of the sentence, particularly the penalty imposed or the conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
crime for which the accused was convicted, as the accused intends to other sexual abuse.
apply for probation upon correction of the penalty or conviction for
the lesser offense. If the CA finds it proper to modify the sentence, The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
and the penalty finally imposed by the appellate court is within the perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
probationable period, or the crime for which the accused is eventually
convicted imposes a probationable penalty, application for probation xxxx
after the case is remanded to the trial court for execution should be
allowed. (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other
It is believed that the recommended grounds for appeal do not sexual abus; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12)
contravene Section 4 of the Probation Law, which expressly prohibits years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
only an appeal from the judgment of conviction. In such instances, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
the ultimate reason of the accused for filing the appeal based on the the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case
afore-stated grounds is to determine whether he may avail of may be: Provided, That the penalty for lasciviousconduct when the
probation based on the review by the appellate court of the crime victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal I
and/or penalty imposed by the trial court. Allowing the afore-stated its medium period; x x x(Emphasis supplied)
grounds for appeal would give an accused the opportunity to apply for
probation if his ground for appeal is found to be meritorious by the The elements of sexual abuse are as follows:
appellate court, thus, serving the purpose of the Probation Law to
promote the reformation of a penitent offender outside of prison. 1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
On the other hand, probation should not be granted to the accused in
the following instances: 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to sexual abuse.
1. When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime where
the penalty imposed is within the probationable period or a fine, and 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.47
the accused files a notice of appeal; and
Under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610, a child is deemed
2. When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the merits of subjected to other sexual abuse when he or she indulges in lascivious
his conviction in issue, even if there is an alternative prayer for the conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.48 This statutory
correction of the penalty imposed by the trial court or for a conviction provision must be distinguished from Acts of Lasciviousness under
to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the crime in which Articles 336 and 339 of the RPC. As defined in Article 336 of the RPC,
he was convicted where the penalty is within the probationable period. Acts of Lasciviousness has the following elements:
SO ORDERED. Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, P.D. 968, the following
offenders cannot avail of the benefits of probation:
THIRD DIVISION
a) those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
G.R. No. 125108 August 3, 2000 imprisonment of more than six years;
ALEJANDRA PABLO, petitioner, b) those convicted of subversion or any crime against the
vs. national security or the public order;
HON. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO, Presiding Judge, Branch 43,
Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Dagupan City and c) those who have previously been convicted by final
PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, respondents. judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not
less than one month and one day and/or fine of not less
DECISION than two hundred pesos;
PURISIMA, J.: d) those who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree; and
At bar is an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e) those who are already serving sentence at the time the
excess of jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dagupan substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable
City, for denying petitioner’s application for probation and the motion pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
for reconsideration of two Orders dated March 25, 1996 and April 29,
1996, respectively. The National Probation Office denied petitioner’s application for
probation under Section 9 paragraph (c) P.D. 968 because a prior
The antecedent facts are as follows: conviction was entered against the petitioner on June 21, 1995 in
Criminal Case No. 94-0199, penalizing her with a fine of ₱4,648.00;
On January 12, 1994, petitioner Alejandra Pablo was charged with a thereby placing her within the ambit of disqualification from probation
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the under Section 9 paragraph (c) of P.D. 968.
Bouncing Checks Law, in three separate Informations, for issuing
three bad checks in the total amount of ₱2,334.00 each to Petitioner assails the denial of her application for probation; invoking
complainant Nelson Mandap. the ruling of this Court in several cases favoring liberal interpretation
of the provisions of P.D. 968 so as to afford first offenders a second
All three Informations alleged that on or about the 25th of May, 1993, chance to reform in consonance with the avowed purpose and
petitioner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally draw, objective of the Probation Law. She theorized that "previous
issue and deliver various checks to Nelson Mandap, in partial payment conviction" under Section 9 paragraph (c) should not be literally and
of a loan she obtained from him, knowing that at the time of the strictly interpreted but should rather be understood as referring to a
issuance of such checks, she did not have sufficient funds in or credit situation wherein the accused was previously convicted of a crime
with the bank. Subject checks were dishonored by the drawee bank that arose differently, or was done on a different date, from the
upon presentment for payment, it appearing that the current account conviction of a crime for which probation is applied for. It is
of petitioner had been closed, and she failed to pay the amount or contended by petitioner that Section 9 paragraph (c) should not refer,
make arrangements for the payment thereof, despite notice of as in her particular case, where several crimes arose out of a single
dishonor. act or transaction.
Docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 94-00197-D, 94-00198-D and 94- To buttress her stance, petitioner placed reliance on this Court’s
00199-D, respectively, the three cases were not consolidated. The ruling in Rura vs. Lopeña1 . In the said case, the accused was
first two were raffled and assigned to Branch 43 while the third case convicted of five counts of estafa committed on different dates. He
to Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court in Dagupan City. was able to consolidate the five cases in a single sala such that the
judgment of conviction against him in all the five cases was embodied
On June 21, 1995, Branch 41 of the said lower court rendered in a single decision entered on the same date. When the accused
judgment in Criminal Case No. 94-0199-D, convicting petitioner of the applied for probation, the same was denied but on appeal, this Court
crime charged and imposing upon her a fine of ₱4, 648.00. granted the application for probation; ratiocinating thus:
Precisely because of the aforecited ruling in Rura vs. Lopeña the The question which is raised is whether or not the petitioner is
petition under scrutiny cannot prosper. disqualified for probation.
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that if a statute is clear, In denying the application for probation, the respondent judge said:
plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without any interpretation.2 Not only that; in the matter of Though the five estafa cases were jointly tried and decided
interpretation of laws on probation, the Court has pronounced that by the court convicting the accused thereof, yet the dates of
"the policy of liberality of probation statutes cannot prevail against commission are different. Upon conviction he was guilty of
the categorical provisions of the law."3 said offenses as of the dates of commission of the acts
complained of. (Rollo, p, 58.)
Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain language, to the effect
that a person who was previously convicted by final judgment of an Upon the other hand, the petitioner argues:
offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos, is We beg to disagree. There is no previous conviction by final
disqualified from applying for probation. This provision of law is judgment to speak of. The five (5) cases of Estafa were tried
definitive and unqualified. There is nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c) jointly and there is only one decision rendered on the same
which qualifies "previous conviction" as referring to a conviction for a date—August 18. 1983. It could not be presumed that
crime which is entirely different from that for which the offender is accused-petitioner had been convicted one after the other
applying for probation or a crime which arose out of a single act or for the five cases of Estafa because the conviction in these
transaction as petitioner would have the court to understand. cases took place within the same day, August 18, 1983 by
means of a Joint Decision, and not in a separate decision.
In the case of Rura vs. Lopeña relied upon by petitioner, the Court
declared that "previous" refers to conviction, and not to commission Previous conviction, we submit, presupposes that there is a
of a crime. At the time Rura was convicted of the crime for which he prior sentence or that there was already a decision rendered
was applying for probation, he had no prior conviction. In the present which convicted the accused. In this instant cases, however,
case of petitioner, when she applied for probation in Criminal Cases there is only one decision rendered on the five (5) counts of
Nos. 94-00197-D and 94-00198-D, she had a previous conviction in Estafa which was promulgated on the same date. In other
Criminal Case No. 94-00199-D, which thereby disqualified her from words the effects of conviction does not retract to the date
the benefits of probation. of the commission of the offense as the trial court held. (Id.,
pp, 8-9.)
It is well-settled that the probation law is not a penal statute;4 and
therefore, the principle of liberal interpretation is inapplicable. And We hold for the petitioner. When he applied for probation he had no
when the meaning is clearly discernible from the language of the previous conviction by final judgment. When he applied for probation
statute, there is no room for construction or interpretation. the only conviction against him was the judgment which was the
subject of his application. The statute relates "previous" to the date of
WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. conviction, not to the date of the commission of the crime.
No pronouncement as to costs.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the respondent judge is
SO ORDERED. directed to give due course to the petitioner's application for
probation. No costs.
SECOND DIVISION
SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. L-69810-14 June 19, 1985
SECOND DIVISION
TEODULO RURA, petitioner,
vs. November 20, 2017
THE HON. GERVACIO A. LEOPENA, Presiding Judge of the 2nd
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tubigon-Clarin, Tubigon, Bohol G.R. No. 215748
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
ABAD SANTOS, J.: vs.
PAUL DURAN, JR. y MIRABUENO, Accused-appellant
This case involves the application of the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968,
as amended), more specifically Section 9 thereof which disqualifies DECISION
from probation those persons:
CAGUIOA, J.:
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of
an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one Before this Court is an appeal1 filed under Section 13, Rule 124 of the
month and one day and or a fine of not less than Two Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated June 2, 2014 (assailed
Hundred Pesos. Decision) of the Court of Appeals (CA), First Division in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 05496. The assailed Decision affirmed the Decision3 dated
Petitioner Teodulo Rura was accused, tried and convicted of five (5) February 22, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch
counts of estafa committed on different dates in the Municipal Circuit 88 (RTC), in Crim. Case No. 160-09, finding herein accused-appellant
Trial Court of Tubigon-Clarin, Tubigon, Bohol, denominated as Paul M. Duran, Jr. (Duran) guilty of the crime of Murder under Article
Criminal Case Nos. 523, 524, 525, 526 and 527. 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The five cases were jointly tried and a single decision was rendered The Information charging Duran with Murder states as follows:
on August 18, 1983. Rura was sentenced to a total prison term of
seventeen (17) months and twenty-five (25) days. In each criminal That on or about the 9th day of January, 2009, in the Municipality of
case the sentence was three (3) months and fifteen (15) days. Rosario, Cavite, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, using
Rura appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Bohol but said court an unlicensed firearm, employing treachery and nocturnity, did, then
affirmed the decision of the lower court. When the case was and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot GILBERT
remanded to the court of origin for execution of judgment, Rura GRIMALDO Y NERA on the back of his head and thereafter as the
victim lay helpless and wounded on the ground with abuse of superior
CRIM REV 1st Set Fulltext Page 19 of 74
strength shot him another three times, inflicting upon the latter admits having caused the injuries of the victim. The burden of proof
multiple gunshot wounds which cause (sic) his instantaneous death, then shifts on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the
to the damage and prejudice of the latter's heirs. confluence of the essential requisites for such a defense, namely: a.)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; b.) reasonable
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 necessity of the means employed and to prevent or repel it; and c.)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
Upon his arraignment, Duran entered a plea of "not guilty."5 himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not on the prosecution's, for even if the latter is weak, it cannot
The Facts be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing xxx.
The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Beverly C. This Court is convinced that there was no unlawful aggression.
Quilana (Quilana), eyewitness; Berly L. Grimaldo (Mrs. Grimaldo), the Assuming that Grimaldo and his unidentified companion really tried to
widow of the victim, Gilbert N. Grimaldo (Grimaldo), and Dr. Jocelyn hold-up Duran, the latter's testimony shows that the aggression had
Dignos (Dr. Dignos), the municipal health officer who performed the already ceased when he (Duran) was able to successfully take the
autopsy on the victim. gun from the possession of Grimaldo.
Quilana's testimony, as summarized by the RTC, is as follows: Having now the possession of the gun, there was obviously no reason
for him to shoot the victim successively because the unlawful
Beverly C. Quilana testified that on January 9, 2009 at around 1:48 in aggression from the victim has stopped. Duran by his own admission
the morning, she was awakened by someone calling for her, uttering stated that he shot Grimaldo four times. Hence, no unlawful
"Ninang". At that time she was inside her house located in Ligtong 3, aggression by the victim was shown. Be it remembered that the
Rosario, Cavite. She recognized the voice of the person as her godson presence of said primary requisite is a condition sine qua non of the
named Gilbert Grimaldo. She then asked why. Grimaldo replied from justifying circumstance of self-defense. Absent such, there could be
outside saying "Ninang tulungan mo ako yung taong ito ay no self[-] defense to speak of. The other two requisites need not be
kinukursunada ako," "kinukursunada ako ng taong ito, me dala siyang discussed.
baril". Then she opened the door for her godson. She then saw the
accused Paul Duran shot Grimaldo with a .38 caliber revolver from On the part of the prosecution, it clearly proved the presence of
behind at a distance of 2 1/2 feet. Grimaldo was hit at the nape, and intent to kill on the part of the accused. The fact that the shots fired
then fell to the ground lying with his face down. Duran then left the by the accused were directed to the vital body parts of the victim,
place passing between their houses. Moments later accused returned namely on the head and the chest, shows intent to kill.
and shot Grimaldo three more times to make sure that the latter was
dead. Witness then started shouting and asking for help. At this point In addition thereto, the testimony of eye witness Quilana is very
in time, witness saw the accused Duran ran away. They then called credible. Witness saw vividly how the shooting incident happened,
the police. According to this witness, Grimaldo was hit on the nape, who the victim was - Gilbert Grimaldo and the perpetrator of the
back and head. crime - herein accused Paul Duran.
Witness further clarified that Grimaldo did not know that Duran was xxxx
behind him because he was surprised when he was shot.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present in this case
Witness identified the accused in open court. She is familiar with the because accused shot the victim in a manner that the latter would not
accused for they were neighbors for six (6) years. She clarified, that be able to defend himself, and the location and severity of the
she was able to see the accused because the place was illuminated by wounds inflicted on the victim belies the claim of self-defense.11
a fluorescent bulb placed outside the house.6
Duran was further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim One Hundred
Mrs. Grimaldo's testimony was stipulated upon and dispensed with as Thousand (₱100,000.00) as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos
her testimony covered only her claim for damages.7 Dr. Dignos' (₱50,000.00) in exemplary damages.12
testimony regarding the autopsy, the findings as to the cause of
death and nature, location, and gravity of the injuries sustained by Duran appealed to the CA via Notice of Appeal13 dated March 12,
the victim, and the preparation and issuance of the death certificate, 2012. Duran then filed his Brief14 dated September 25, 2012, while
were also stipulated upon and admitted by the defense.8 the plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), filed its Brief15 dated February 4, 2013. Thereafter, the
Version of the Defense appeal was submitted for decision.16
COURT [(clarificatory questions for eyewitness Quilana)]: Finally, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta,54 the
Q What do you mean returned, you mean to say that after shooting damages awarded in the questioned Decision are hereby modified to
Gilbert Grimaldo this Paul Duran left away and then returned later on? civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages of
A Yes, your Honor, he made sure that this Gilbert was already dead. ₱50,000.00 each.
Q Where did Paul Duran go after shooting Gilbert Grimaldo at the
nape? WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court DECLARES
A In between our houses, your Honor. accused-appellant Paul M. Duran, Jr. GUILTY of HOMICIDE, for
xxxx which he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8)
Q Between your house and whose house? years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
A And my nephew's house, your Honor. years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
Q And how far is that spot from the place where he shot Gilbert maximum. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Gilbert N.
Grimaldo? Grimaldo the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as civil
A One step away only, your Honor. indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages, and
Q So Paul Duran made one step back and then moved forward again Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as temperate damages. All
to shoot Gilbert Grimaldo? monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent
A Yes, your Honor.47 (Emphasis supplied) (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid.
Quilana's testimony that Duran left and "returned" after shooting
Grimaldo is contradicted by her own testimony that Duran only made SO ORDERED.
one step. Duran could not have left the scene of the crime by only
taking one step backward. SECOND DIVISION
In this regard, Duran's testimony as to the manner in which he shot March 15, 2017
Grimaldo is more credible as it is corroborated by the Post Mortem
Report. Duran testified: G.R. No. 224900
Q So, after you got the 38 revolver, you shot this person? PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
A I was able to shoot him, Sir. vs
Q Where was he initially hit? NESTOR M. BUGARIN, Accused-Appellant
A I am not sure but it was frontal, Sir.
Q After you shot this person, what happened then? DECISION
A After shooting him twice, he turned around and then I shot him
again, Sir. PERALTA, J.:
COURT:
Q How many times? This case seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated July 31,
A Once only, your Honor. 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 01530.
Q So, all in all you shot Grimaldo 3 times? The CA affirmed and modified the Joint Judgment2 of the Regional
A 4 times, your Honor. Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 12, dated July 5, 2012 in
Q When did you fire the fourth shot? Criminal Case Nos. CBU-83610, CBU-83611, and CBU-83613, which
A 3 times frontally, your Honor. found accused-appellant Nestor Bugarin y Martinez guilty beyond
Q And one at the back? reasonable doubt of the crimes of double murder and attempted
A Yes, your Honor. murder.
Q And after firing him 4 times, what happened to Grimaldo?
A I saw him fall down, your Honor.48 (Emphasis and underscoring Informations were filed charging Bugarin with two (2) counts of
supplied) murder and one (1) count of attempted murder, which read:
Criminal Case No. CBU-83611 On the other hand, the prosecution alleged that the Pontanars and
the Bugarins had been harboring ill-feelings towards each other. On
For: Murder the evening of May 30, 2008, the spouses Esmeraldo and Maria Glen
were on their way to the house of their father, Cristito, which was
That on the 30th day of May 2008 at about 8:50 o'clock in the evening, likewise near the house of the Bugarins. When they were close to the
in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this house of the Bugarins, Esmeraldo's sister, Anecita, then started
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm throwing gravel and sand at them. Esmeraldo asked her to stop but
of undetermined caliber, after having just shot one Esmeraldo B. she refused to listen. Thereafter, Bugarin, Anecita' s husband, came
Pontanar with the use of said firearm for which the accused is also out of their house and suddenly shot Esmeraldo several times.
being separately charged with Murder, with deliberate intent, with Esmeraldo sustained two (2) gunshot wounds in the back and one (1)
intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, and without in his left side, which later took his life. Maria Glen immediately ran
regard to rank and age of victim did then and there suddenly and and hid behind a parked car to save herself. She then saw her father-
unexpectedly attack, assault and use personal violence upon one in-law, Cristito, running out of his house towards Esmeraldo's
CRISTITO C. PONTANAR, a 72-year old father-in-law of the accused, direction. Cristito raised his hands and begged Bugarin to stop
by shooting him with the use of said firearm when the latter came to shooting. But Bugarin also shot him, causing his death. Bugarin then
the rescue of his said son, Esmeraldo B. Pontanar, by pleading to the looked for Maria Glen and when he finally found her, he also shot her.
accused to stop the shooting, thereby hitting him on the abdomen as Fortunately, Maria Glen was only hit in her thigh.
a consequence of which said CRIS TITO C. PONT ANAR died [a] few
minutes thereafter due to "HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK SECONDARY TO On July 5, 2012, the RTC of Cebu City found Bugarin guilty beyond
GUNSHOT WOUND." reasonable doubt of double murder and attempted murder in Criminal
Case
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Nos. CBU-83610, CBU-83611, and CBU-83613, with the special
Criminal Case No. CBU-83613 aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm in all three
(3) cases, thus:
For: Attempted Murder
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
That on the 30th day of May 2008 at about 8:50 o'clock in the evening,
in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this 1. In Criminal Case No. CBU-83610, the court finds the accused
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm NESTOR MARTINEZ BUGARIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
of undetermined caliber, after having just shot one Esmeraldo B. offense of Murder defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised
Pontanar with the use of said firearm for which the accused is also Penal Code as amended by Sec. 6 of Republic Act 7659 as charged in
being separately charged with murder and frustrated murder, with the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
deliberate intent, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Esmeraldo
premeditation, did then and there suddenly and unexpectedly attack, B. Pontanar the sum of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death
assault and use personal violence upon one Maria Glen Neis Pontanar and ₱50,000.00 as Moral Damages for the pain and anguish suffered
by shooting her, thereby inflicting upon her the following injuries: by the heirs as a result of his death; Exemplary damages in the
amount of ₱25,000.00 and actual damages in the total sum of
"THROUGH & THROUGH GUNSHOT WOUND DISTAL THIRD, LEFT ₱245,490.00, all indemnifications are without subsidiary
THIGH thus, commencing the commission of the felony directly by imprisonment in case of insolvency.
overt acts but which nevertheless did not perform all the acts of
execution which would have produced the crime of murder by reason 2. In Criminal Case No. CBU-83611, the court finds the accused
of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, NESTOR MARTINEZ BUGARIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
that is, by the timely act of said Maria Glen Neis Pontanar in running the offense of Murder defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the
away and taking shelter inside a nearby house. Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 6 of Republic Act 7659 as
charged in the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Cristito C. Pontanar the sum of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity for his
Upon arraignment, Bugarin pleaded not guilty to the charges. He
death and ₱50,000.00 as Moral Damages for the pain and anguish
admitted having shot Esmeraldo, Cristito, and Maria Glen, all
suffered by the heirs as a result of his death, all indemnifications are
surnamed Pontanar, but insisted that he acted in self-defense. Hence,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
pursuant to Section 11 (e), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, a reverse
trial ensued. 3. In Criminal Case No. CBU-83613, the court finds the accused
NESTOR MARTINEZ BUGARIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
offense of Attempted Murder as charged in the Information, and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of an
Bugarin contended that what he had done was merely an act of
indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) years prision
selfdefense. At the time of the incident, he was watching television at
correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as
home when his wife, Anecita went out to walk their dogs. Then he
maximum to indemnify the offended party Maria Glen Neis Pontanar
heard her having an altercation with Maria Glen. At first, he did not
the amount of ₱l0,000.00 as
want to intervene but then he saw his brother-in-law and Maria Glen's
husband, Esmeraldo, approaching and carrying a 9 mm pistol, a .45
Moral damages; and actual damages in the amount of ₱30,909.48, all
caliber gun, and an M16 rifle. Then Esmeraldo started shouting in
indemnifications are without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
front of their house, challenging him to go out. Bugarin hesitated to
insolvency.
WHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court ADOPTS the The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, abuse of superior strength
findings and conclusions of law in the Decision dated July 31, 2015 of and disregard of age and sex also attended the commission of the
the Court of Appeal in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 01530 and AFFIRMS crime. The crime took place inside the house of the victim after [the]
with MODIFICATION said Decision finding accused-appellant Nestor accused gained unlawful entry [and] stabbed the sleeping victim,
[who was] a minor 14 years of age and a female.
Bugarin y Martinez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as follows:
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.3
1. In Criminal Case No. CBU-83610, Bugarin is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is sentenced to suffer This indictment was docketed as Criminal Case No. FC-08-0361 of the
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City.
ordered to pay Esmeraldo Pontanar's heirs ₱l00,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral damages, ₱100,000.00 as During his arraignment, the accused-appellant refused to enter any
exemplary damages,26 and actual damages in the amount of plea, hence the Court entered a plea of not guilty for him.
₱245,490.00;
In court, Amelita testified that she incurred the amount of about It is apt to recall x x x where this Court ruled that the professed
Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) for funeral expenses but was inability of the accused to recall events before and after the stabbing
only able to present receipts worth Twelve Thousand Six Hundred incident, as in the instant case, does not necessarily indicate an
Fifty Pesos (Php12,650.00). aberrant mind but is more indicative of a concocted excuse to
exculpate himself. It is simply too convenient x x x to claim that he
Meanwhile, on 02 December 2008, at around 5:00 o’clock in the could not remember anything rather than face the consequences of
morning, Angelo Banzuela (Angelo for brevity) was watching his terrible deed.
television while waiting for his sister to finish taking a bath when he
heard his mother asking him to close their front door since the latter The requirements for a finding of insanity have not been met by the
spotted the accused outside their house. defense. x x x The presumption of sanity has not been overcome
(People of the Philippines vs. Honoria Tibon y Dieso, G.R. No. 188320,
After closing the door, he (Angelo) went to check on the boiling pot in June 29, 2010).
the kitchen. It was at that time that he saw his sister Amean, with
blood all over her body, telling their mother that she was stabbed by Except for his self-serving testimony, no other corroborative, much
the accused less medical and/or expert, evidence was presented by the defense to
prove the professed mental aberration of the accused.5
Fearing that the accused might come back, Angelo locked the back
door while his mother was shouting for help. He then saw the accused With regard to the civil aspect of the case, the RTC held:
getting out of their house and into their yard. Thereafter, his other
sister Jeca brought Amean to the hospital for treatment. As to actual damages, the official receipts that the prosecution
presented showed experises that amounted to ₱12,650.00 only
Dr. James Margallo Belgira conducted an autopsy of Amean’s body. In (Exhibits F to F-3).
Medico Legal Report No. MLB-150-08, Dr. Belgira declared that the
cause of death is hemorrhagic shock secondary to a stab wound of ‘However, we have held that when actual damages proven by receipts
the trunk. He, likewise, found clear signs of blunt vaginal penetrating amount to less than ₱25,000.00, the award of temperate damages
trauma on her genitals. [amounting] to ₱25,000.00 is justified, inlieu of actual damages for a
lesser amount. This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE: anomalous and unfair to the heirs of the victim who tried but
succeeded only in proving actual damages of less than ₱25, 000. 00.
For his part, accused Loreto C. Dagsil interjected that although he They would be in a worse situation than another who might have
indeed stabbed Amean, he was, however, confused and did not know presented no receipts at all, but is entitled to ₱25, 000. 00 temperate
what he was doing at that time. In the early morning of 02 December damages (People of the Philippines [v]s. Alvin Del Rosario, G.R. No.
2008, the accused took a stroll in his yard and then went to the store 189580, February 9, 2011).
to buy cigarettes. On his way back to his house, he passed by
Amean's house and he remembered her taunting him that he was Thus, considering that expenses in the amount of ₱12,650.00 were
going to be killed and her threatening gestures at him. He was proven by Amean’s heirs, an award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate
suddenly overcome with confusion and he was not conscious of what damages in lieu of this lesser amount of actual damages, is proper.6
was going on.
The RTC thereafter disposed as follows:
Not really certain of what happened, the accused then found himself
seated inside his bedroom. When he saw the policemen, confusion ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the guilt of the accused having
prevailed over him and he started stabbing himself with the knife he been proved beyond peradventure of doubt, LORETO DAGSIL y
was holding. Thereafter, his bedroom door was forced open and he CARITERO is hereby found guilty of murder. Accordingly, he is hereby
was brought to the hospital. Afterwards, he was brought to the sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua without eligibility
precinct for processing.4 of parole, pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, and
ordered to indemnify the heirs of Amean Banzuela, the following
In rejecting the accused-appellant's argument that he should be amounts:
declared criminally exempt of the murder charge because he was in a
state of temporary insanity when he stabbed the now deceased (a) Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
Amean, the RTC ruled:
(b) Php50,000.00 as moral damages;
Accused, while admitting the commission of the act complained of,
wants to impress upon this court that he was somewhat not in his (c) Php25,000.00 as temperate damages; and
In addition, interest shall be imposed on all the monetary awards for The expectations of a person possessed with full control of his
damages assessed at the legal rate of six (6%) percent from the date faculties differ from one who is totally deprived thereof and is unable
of finality of this Decision until fully paid. to exercise sufficient restraint on his. Thus, it is but reasonable that
the actions made by the latter be measured under a lesser stringent
SOORDERED.12 standard than that imposed on those who have complete dominion
over their mind, body and spirit.
As already stated, given that the instant appeal before this Court is
anchored on the same ground as the appeal before the CA, a premise This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside
that the CA correctly spurned and rejected because it is utterly devoid the July 10, 2014 Decision1 and the December 15, 2014 Resolution2
of merit, it stands to reason that the instant appeal must now suffer of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35894 which affirmed
the same fate that befell it before the appellate court. the May 30, 2013 Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 03,
Tuguegarao City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 13283, finding accused
A simple reading of the aforequoted testimony of the accused- Solomon Verdadero y Galera (Verdadero) guilty beyond reasonable
appellant shows that he was hardly the mentally deranged or insane doubt of the crime of Homicide, defined and penalized under Article
(whether temporarily or permanently) person that he claimed he was 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
when he stabbed Amean Banzuela (Amean) to death. His answers to
the questions propounded to him by his counsel were intelligent, The Facts
responsive, and straightforward; they were not the answers of an
unintelligent person or nitwit that he says he is. In fact, he knew In an Information,4 dated September 9, 2009, Verdadero was
where he lives - at Sto. Domingo; he knew what he did when he woke charged with the crime of murder for killing Romeo B. Plata (Romeo),
up that morning when the incident happened - he took a stroll in the the accusatory portion of which reads:
yard; he knew that he has a wife who is still alive; he remembered chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
that after taking a stroll in the yard, he went to a store to buy
cigarettes; he recalled that after buying cigarettes, he went back That on or about March 12, 2009, in the municipality of Baggao,
home; he also mentioned that on the way home, he happened to Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
pass by the house of Amelita Banzuela (Amelita) who filed a rape Court, the said accused SOLOMON VERDADERO armed with a
case against him because he violated her daughter Amean; he Rambo knife, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and with
admitted that when he saw Amean, he felt "confused" and stabbed treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
the girl; he acknowledged that Amean was a daughter of Amelita; he attack, assault and stab ROMEO B. PLATA, thereby inflicting upon
stabbed Amean because she told him that he would be killed, and him stab wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his
even made the gesture of placing her hand across her neck; he knew death.
that the knife he used in the stabbing of Amean came from his
residence: he also recalled what transpired after the stabbing, i.e., he Contrary to law.5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
went back to his residence, and while inside his bedroom, he stabbed
himself using the same knife which he used in stabbing Amean; he On June 3, 2011, Verdadero was arraigned and pleaded "Not Guilty."
also recalled that the policeman forced open the door to his bedroom, During the pre-trial, he invoked the defense of insanity but did not
which he himself locked after entering; placed him in the porch, and consent to a reverse trial. Thereafter, trial ensued.6
thereafter took him to the municipal police station in Sto. Domingo,
Albay. Against this factual backdrop, which convincingly showed that Evidence of the Prosecution
he is an intelligent, cognitive, rational and thinking person at the time
of the stabbing, the accused-appellant's plea of insanity must be The evidence of the prosecution tended to establish the following:
rejected because it has no leg to stand on.
On March 12, 2009, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Maynard
It must be stated, however, that in view of the attendant Plata (Maynard) and his father Romeo were at the Baggao Police
circumstance of treache1y which qualified the killing to murder, as Station. Together with Ronnie Elaydo (Ronnie), they went there to
well as the presence of evident premeditation, and the ordinary report that Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable penalty would pump.7
have been death if not for the proscription for its imposition under
Republic Act No. 9346. 11ms, both the RTC and the CA correctly After a confrontation with Verdadero at the police station, the three
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant. men made their way home on a tricycle but stopped at a drugstore as
However, there is a need to modify the damages awarded. Pursuant Maynard intended to buy some baby supplies. Romeo proceeded
to People v. Jugueta,13 the awards for civil indemnity, moral towards a store near the drugstore while Ronnie stayed inside the
damages, and exemplary damages are increased to ₱100,000.00 tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw Verdadero stabbing
each.14 The award of temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages, Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of Ronnie.8
is a]so increased to ₱50,000.00.15 The interest of 6o/o per annum
imposed on all damages awarded is proper. Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the left side of the latter's upper back
with the use of a Rambo knife. He again struck Romeo's upper back,
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The June just below the right shoulder. Maynard tried to help his father but
19, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC. No. Verdadero attempted to attack him as well. He defended himself
05536, finding accused-appellant Loreto Dagsil y Caritero guilty using a small stool, which he used to hit Verdadero in the chest.9
beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusionperpetua is AFFIRMEDwith Meanwhile, Ronnie ran towards the police station to seek assistance.
furtherMODIFICATIONS that the awards for civil indemnity, moral The responding police officers arrested Verdadero, while Maynard and
damages, and exemplaiy damages are increased to ₱100,000.00 each Ronnie brought Romeo to a clinic but were advised to bring him to
On July 21, 2003, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was SO ORDERED.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
given medications to address his mental illness. Verdadero would
irregularly consult with his doctors as he had a lifelong chronic Verdadero moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by
disease. Then, in 2009, he was again confined for the fourth (4th) the CA in its resolution, dated December 15, 2014.
time at CVMC due to a relapse.
Hence, this present petition, raising the following
On March 12, 2009, Miriam proceeded to CVMC, after she heard of
the stabbing incident. There, she saw Verdadero removing the IV ISSUE
tubes connected to his body and, thereafter, locked himself inside the
comfort room. Eventually, Verdadero was given sedatives and was
transferred to an isolation room after Miriam informed the nurses of WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
the incident.11 AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION DESPITE THE
FACT THAT HIS INSANITY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT
On March 20, 2009, he was transferred to the Psychiatry Department WAS ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
after Dr. Leonor Andres-Juliana (Dr. Andres-Juliana) had diagnosed
that he was having difficulty sleeping. Dr. Andres-Juliana opined that Verdadero insists that he was able to fully support his defense of
Verdadero suffered a relapse, as evidenced by his violent behaviour. insanity. He claims that Maynard even admitted that he was not in
the proper state of mind when they were at the police station before
Acting on the January 4, 2011 Order of the RTC, Dr. Ethel Maureen the stabbing took place. Further, it appeared that Verdadero was
Pagaddu (Dr. Pagaddu) conducted a mental examination on having hallucinations after the stabbing incident as testified to by Dr.
Verdadero. She confirmed that as early as 1999, he was already Andres-Juliana. Verdadero notes that Dr. Pagaddu concluded that he
brought to CVMC and that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia on had a relapse at the time of the stabbing incident on March 12, 2009.
July 21, 2003. Dr. Pagaddu agreed with Dr. Andres-Juliana that
Verdadero had suffered a relapse on the day of the stabbing In its Comment,15 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended
incident.12 that the present petition presented a question of fact, which could not
be addressed in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
The RTC Ruling Court. Moreover, it asserted that the CA did not misapprehend the
facts as the evidence presented failed to completely establish
On May 30, 2013, the RTC rendered a decision finding Verdadero Verdadero's insanity at the time of the stabbing.
guilty for the crime of homicide. The dispositive portion of which
reads: In his Manifestation (in Lieu of Reply),16 Verdadero indicated that he
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary would no longer file a reply as his petition for review already
contained an exhaustive discussion of the issues.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused
SOLOMON VERDADERO y Galera GUILTY beyond reasonable The Court's Ruling
doubt of the felony of Homicide, defined and penalized under Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences
The present petition primarily assails the conviction despite his
him:
defense of insanity. Before delving into the merits of the case, a
discussion of the procedural issue is in order.
1. To suffer an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from twelve
(12) years of prision mayor [as maximum] as minimum to seventeen
Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as
Rule 45; Exceptions
maximum; and,
The OSG argues that the Court should not entertain Verdadero's
2. To pay the heirs of Romeo Plata the amounts of:
petition for review as it principally revolves around the issue of his
insanity � a question of fact which should no longer be addressed in
�� �a. P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
a petition for review. The Court disagrees.
�� �b. P50,000.00 as moral damages and
�� �c. P30,000.00 as stipulated actual damages; and,
Generally, questions of fact are beyond the ambit of a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as it is limited to reviewing
3. To pay the costs.
only questions of law. The rule, however, admits of exceptions
wherein the Court expands the coverage of a petition for review to
SO ORDERED.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
include a resolution of questions of fact. In Laborte v. Pagsanjan
The RTC ruled that the crime committed was only homicide, as the Tourism Consumers' Cooperative et al.,17 the Court reiterated the
prosecution failed to establish the presence of treachery and evident following exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be
premeditation to qualify the killing to murder. The trial court, however, raised under Rule 45, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded
opined that Verdadero failed to establish insanity as an exempting entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the
circumstance. The trial court posited that Verdadero was unsuccessful inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3)
in establishing that he was not in a lucid interval at the time he when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment
is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact
In People v. Isla,22 the Court elucidated that insanity must relate to Witness
the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission A: The accused was diagnosed schizophrenia, sir.
of the offense with which the accused is charged. Otherwise, he must
be adjudged guilty for the said offense. In short, in order for the Q: When for the first time Solomon Verdadero was diagnosed with
accused to be exempted from criminal liability under a plea of insanity, schizophrenia?
he must categorically demonstrate that: (1) he was completely A: It was on July 21, 2003, sir. xxx
deprived of intelligence because of his mental condition or illness; and
(2) such complete deprivation of intelligence must be manifest at the Q: As an expert witness tell the Honorable Court if a person who has
time or immediately before the commission of the offense. relapse of schizophrenia could distinguish his act?
A: This mental disorder influence (sic) the impulse. It could at the
In raising the defense of insanity, Verdadero admits to the time of the commission of the crime that the impulse control and
commission of the crime because such defense is in the nature of a judgment of an individual was affected sir.
confession or avoidance.23 As such, he is duty bound to establish with
certainty that he was completely deprived, not merely diminished, of Q: Could it be accurate to state that a person who has the relapse of
intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime. Failing which, schizophrenia could not distinguish any act from right or wrong?
Verdadero should be criminally punished for impliedly admitting to A: There is a possibility, sir.
have stabbed Romeo to death.
Court
Proving insanity is a tedious task for it requires an examination of the Q: Why did you say that Solomon Verdadero has the possibility of
Q: But definitely during the disorder of the patient, the relapse would xxx
somewhat be continued even when medications is administered to
him? Court
A: The symptom is controlled although there is a circumstances (sic) Q: You testified that you observed the accused not in his proper mind
that the patient may have relapse (sic) even with medication, sir. for the passed (sic) years before this incident was he also violent like
what happened on March 12, 2009?
Q: If a continuous medication was undertaken by the accused-patient
in this case could that have a long effect on his mental condition? Witness
A: Continuous medication could somehow control the symptom and A: Yes, your honor.
not absolutely eradicate the symptom.
Q: When you went to the police station you allegedly reported the
Q: On March 12 , 2009 the accused-patient was on a lucid interval, in stolen fan belt do I get you right that Solomon Verdadero was with
view of the medication undertaken as of January 19, 2009? you at the police station?
A: It's haphazard, sir. A: Yes, your honor.
xxx Q: When he was with you at the police station what did you
observe?
Court A: He was not again in his proper mind (sumro manen), your
Q: Madam witness what type of schizophrenia the accused was Honor.
diagnosed?
A: Undifferentiated, your honor.26 xxx
[Emphases Supplied]
Q: Can you describe his appearance?
Dr. Paggadu, without any reservations, stated that Verdadero was A: His eyes was (sic) very sharp and reddish.
suffering a relapse of his schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing
incident. In contrast, she was hesitant to opine that Verdadero might xxx
have been in a lucid interval because of the medications taken. Thus,
it is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the testimony of an Q: As far as his appearance is concern (sic) do you remember his
expert witness, that Verdadero was of unsound mind at the time he actuation or how he was reacting?
stabbed Romeo. A: Yes, your honor. He was somewhat drank (sic).
Further, the finding of Verdadero's insanity is supported by the Q: You said that he was not on his proper mind for the passed
observations made by Maynard, a witness for the prosecution. In his (sic) years?
testimony, Maynard gave his opinion on Verdadero's behavior and A: Yes, your honor.27cralawred
appearance when they met at the police station, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary [Emphases Supplied]
On cross examination Maynard was familiar with Verdadero as the latter was his neighbor
for a long time. He had observed that there were times that
Atty. Tagurama Verdadero appeared to be of unsound mind as he would sometimes
Q: Having made the report against Solomon Verdadero, do I (sic) become violent. On the day of the stabbing incident, Maynard
correct to say that you are familiar with Solomon Verdadero even perceived that Verdadero was again of unsound mind noting that he
before March 12, 2009? had reddish eyes and appeared to be drunk. Moreover, he was
A: Yes, sir. immediately transferred to the psychiatry department because of his
impaired sleep and to control him from harming himself and others.28
Q: Tell us why you are familiar to him even prior to March 12, 2009?
A: We are neighbors, sir. These circumstances are consistent with Dr. Paggadu's testimony that
drinking wine, poor sleep and violent behavior were among
Q: You are immediate neighbors? the symptoms of a relapse, the same testimony that was used as
A: Yes, sir basis for his previous diagnosis.29 The evidence on record supports
the finding that Verdadero exhibited symptoms of a relapse of
Q: Since you are neighbors with Solomon Verdadero you see him schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing incident. Thus, Dr. Pagaddu
almost a (sic) time? reiterated Dr. Andre-Juliana's conclusion that Verdadero was having a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, For his part, Umawid set up the defense of insanity, but did not,
vs. however, take the witness stand to attestto the same. Instead, he
ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, Accused-Appellant. presented the testimonies of Dr. Arthur M. Quincina (Dr. Quincina)
and Dr. Leonor Andres Juliana (Dr. Juliana) to bolster his claim. Dr.
RESOLUTION Quincina testified that he evaluated Umawid’s psychiatric condition in
May 2002, February 2003, and on March 24, 2003 and found that the
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: latter was manifesting psychotic symptoms. However, he could not
The CA Ruling With Umawid’s criminal liability having been established, the Court
now proceeds to examine whether or not treachery was correctly
In a Decision15 dated February 28, 2013, the CA affirmed Umawid’s appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for the crimes charged.
conviction. It held that by invoking the defense of insanity, Umawid
had, in effect, admitted the commission of the crimes but B. The Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery
nevertheless pleaded to be exonerated from criminal liability.
However, he failed to prove by clear and positive evidence that he Under Article 248 of the RPC, treachery qualifies the killing of a
was actuallyinsane immediately preceding the time of the commission person to the crime of Murder: Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not
of the crimes or during their execution. falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be
guiltyof murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death
Dissatisfied with the CA’s ruling, Umawid filed the instant appeal. if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
The Issue Before the Court 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid
of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of
The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not Umawid’s means or persons to insure or afford impunity; (Emphases and
conviction for the crimes of Murderand Frustrated Murder should be underscoring supplied)
upheld.
xxxx
The Court's Ruling
The concept of treachery in criminallaw is well-established – there is
Umawid’s appeal is bereft of merit. treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
A. The Defense of Insanity which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
Umawid’s plea of insanity as an exempting circumstance to exonerate make.20 Based on the foregoing, it may then be deduced thattwo (2)
himself from criminal liability rests on Article 12 of the RPC which conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated: first, the
provides: employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, second, the means
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.– The
of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.21
following are exempt from criminal liability:
In this relation, jurisprudence states that an unexpected and sudden
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during
attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a
a lucid interval.
defense is the essence of treachery.22 Likewise, it has been held that
the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner
Where the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which
of the assault is not shown because the weakness of the victim due to
the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.23
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
With these principles in mind, the Court agrees with the findings of
without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
the RTC and the CA that treachery was attendant in the killing of
Maureen. The facts of this case show that Umawid suddenly appeared
xxxx
at the terrace of Vicente’s house and started attacking Vicente with
As case law instructs, the defense of insanity is in the nature of panabas. However, the latter was able to evade Umawid’s attacks,
confession and avoidance because an accused invoking the same resulting in Maureen being inadvertently hit and killed in the process.
admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not While it was not shown that Umawid consciously employed treachery
guilty because of such insanity. As there is a presumption in favor of so as to insure the death of Maureen, who was then just two (2)
sanity, anyone who pleads the said defense bears the burden of years old at the time, it is well to reiterate that the killing by an adult
proving it with clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the of a minor child is treacherous,24 and thus, qualifies Maureen’s killing
evidence on this matter must relate to the time immediately to Murder.
In fine, therefore, the defense failed to present any convincing G.R. No. 200793 June 4, 2014
evidence of accused-appellant's mental condition when he committed
the crime in March 2007. While there is evidence on record of his PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
mental condition in 2001 and in 2012, the dates of these two vs.
diagnoses are too far away from the date of the commission of the MILAN ROXAS y AGUILUZ, Accused-Appellant.
offense in 2007, as to altogether preclude the possibility that
accused-appellant was conscious of his actions in 2007. Absent any DECISION
supporting evidence, this Court cannot sweepingly conclude that
accused-appellant was mentally insane for the whole 11-year period LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
from 2001 to 2012, as to exempt him criminal liability for an act
committed in 2007. It was the defense's duty to fill in the gap in This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R.
accused-appellant's state of mind between the 2001 diagnosis and CR.-H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011, which affirmed with
the 2012 diagnosis, and unfortunately, it failed to introduce evidence modification the Judgment2 of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC)
to paint a full picture of accused-appellant's mental condition when he of Quezon City dated December 11, 2007 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-
committed the crime in 2007. With that, the Court has no other 91967 to Q-00-91971 finding accused-appellant Milan Roxas y Aguiluz
option but to adhere to the presumption of sanity, and conclude that guilty of five counts of rape against AAA,3 a minor who was 9 years
when accused-appellant attacked the victim, he was conscious of old at the time of the first rape and 10 years old at the time of the
what he was doing, and was not suffering from an insanity. succeeding four rapes.
This conclusion is based not merely on the presumption of sanity, but Five Informations were filed against accused-appellant Roxas,
bolstered by the circumstances surrounding the incident.1âwphi1 As charging him as follows:
the prosecution correctly argued in its Appellee's Brief, there are
1. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967: That on or about the 9th
circumstances surrounding the incident that negate a complete
day of August 1998 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
absence of intelligence on the part of accused-appellant when he
named accused with force and intimidation did then and
attacked the victim. First, he surprised the victim when he attacked
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of
from behind. This is supported by the companion of the victim, who
sexual assault at knifepoint upon the person of [AAA] his
testified that while they were walking, they did not notice any danger
own niece a minor 10 years of age by then and there
when they saw accused-appellant standing near the trimobile. Second,
blindfolding her, then removed her shorts and underwear
accused-appellant's attempt to flee from the scene of the crime after
then accused inserted his penis inside her vagina and
stabbing the victim indicates that he knew that what he just
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and
committed was wrong. And third, when the police officers called out
without her consent.4
to accused-appellant to surrender, he voluntarily came out of the
house where he was hiding and voluntarily turned himself over to
2. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968:
them.
That on or about the 28th day of July 1998 in
The foregoing actions of accused-appellant immediately before,
Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
during, and immediately after he committed the offense indicate that
accused with force and intimidation did then and
he was conscious of his actions, that he intentionally committed the
That on or about the 16th day of September 1997 Accused-appellant then went to the terrace and dragged her to the
in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named bedroom of her grandparents. She could not run anymore nor shout
accused with force and intimidation did then and for help because aside from the fact that there was nobody else in the
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit room, accused-appellant was holding a pointed weapon.
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 9 years of While [AAA] and accused-appellant were inside the room, he
age by then and there laying her on the chairs blindfolded her, removed her shorts and underwear, and then laid her
inside the bathroom, then blindfolded her and then down the bed. Thereafter, he moved on top of her and inserted his
removed her shorts and underwear then accused penis in her vagina. Again, she did not report the incident because of
inserted his penis inside her vagina and thereafter accused-appellant’s threats should she report the incident to anybody.
had carnal knowledge of her against her will and
without her consent.6 Another incident of rape took place on 11 May 1998while [AAA] was
again at her paternal grandparents’ house. On the said date, she was
4. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970: alone in the living room on the second floor of the house when
accused-appellant called her. She did not accede to his bidding
That on or about the 20th day of March 1998 in because she was scared of him. Thereafter, he shouted at her and
Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named demanded that she come near him, so she went to him.
accused with force and intimidation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit He brought her inside her grandmother’s bedroom and upon reaching
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the the room, he immediately blindfolded her and poked a bladed weapon
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of on her neck. He turned her around three (3) times, removed her
age by then and there laying her down on a bed shorts and underwear, laid her down the bed, moved on top of her,
inside his grandparents’ room then blindfolded her, and inserted his penis in her vagina. Again, the accused-appellant
then removed her shorts and underwear, then threatened her so she did not report what had happened.
accused inserted his penis inside her vagina and
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her [AAA]’s ordeal did not stop there. She was raped for the fourth time
will and without her consent.7 on 28 July 1998 at her paternal grandparents’ house.1âwphi1 She
and the accused were incidentally alone in the living room on the
5. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971: second floor of the house. He asked her to go with him inside the
bedroom of her grandparents, but she did not get up from her seat.
That on or about the 11th day of May 1998 in So accused-appellant pulled her toward the bedroom. She tried to
Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named free herself, but he poked a pointed instrument at her.
accused with force and intimidation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit Accused-appellant committed the same acts he had perpetrated on
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the [AAA] during her three [previous] rape incidents: he removed her
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of shorts and underwear, laid her on the bed, moved on top of her and
age by then and there removing her shorts and thereafter, inserted his penis in her vagina. She was again threatened
underwear and inserting his penis inside her by the accused-appellant not to tell anybody about the incident or
vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her else he would cut her tongue and kill her and her mother.
against her will and without her consent.8
Accused-appellant Roxas entered a plea of Not The fifth and last incident of rape happened on 09 August 1998. At
Guilty to all the crimes charged.9 that time, [AAA] was at the terrace on the second floor of her
paternal grandparents’ house; and accused-appellant also happened
The prosecution’s factual account based on the testimony of AAA was to be there. He pulled her and brought her inside the room,
concisely stated by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee’s blindfolded her, and turned her around three (3) times. He employed
Brief, as follows: the same method in raping her: he removed her shorts and
underwear, laid her on the bed and moved on top of her. She tried to
On 16 September 1997, [AAA], who was then 9 years of age, was at push him and raise her shorts and panty, but she did not succeed
her grandmother [CCC]’s house located on [XXX], Quezon City. In the because he poked a pointed instrument on her neck. Thereafter, he
morning of said date, she was at the dirty kitchen with her aunt [ZZZ] inserted his penis in her vagina. Again, she did not report the incident
who was then washing clothes. Her aunt asked her if she had already to anyone because she was scared of his threats.10 (Emphases
taken a bath, she replied in the negative. supplied, citations omitted.)
Her uncle, accused-appellant, overheard their conversation so he In contrast, the defense presented four witnesses: AAA’s mother
volunteered to give [AAA] a bath. Subsequently, he brought her (BBB), AAA’s two brothers (DDD and EEE), and Dr. Agnes Aglipay,
upstairs to the bathroom. Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.
The defense’s statement of the antecedent facts as contained in the
While inside the bathroom, accused-appellant told [AAA] to turn Appellant’s Brief is reproduced here:
around. After she complied with his directive, he blindfolded her.
[AAA] started to wonder what the accused-appellant was doing so she Accused Milan Roxas denied having raped [AAA] on all the five (5)
told him that he was supposed to give her a bath. Accused-appellant counts of rape.
told her that they would play first for a while.
[DDD], brother of herein private complainant, testified that his aunt
He turned her around three (3) times and then, removed her shorts in the maternal side, [Tita YYY], induced him by giving toys if he
and underwear. After that, he sat on a chair, which was inside the would tell his father that the accused was raping his sister, [AAA].
bathroom, and raised both of her legs. Upon prodding of his maternal aunt, [DDD],who was only eight (8)
years old then, told his father that he saw the accused rape his sister.
Thereafter, she felt him on top of her. She also felt accused- His father ran amuck which led to the filing of the instant case.
appellant’s penis enter her vagina which she found painful.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not xxxx
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws. (Emphasis supplied.) The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability,
Section 6 clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
of one’s birth date, and not the mental age as argued by accused- offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
appellant Roxas. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. Only law spouse of the parent of the victim.
when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court
interpret or construe its true intent.19 The succeeding counts of rape were committed after the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 8353 on October 22,1997, which transported the
On the matter of the credibility of AAA, we carefully examined AAA’s rape provision of the Revised Penal Code to Title 8 under Crimes
testimony and found ourselves in agreement with the assessment of against Persons, and amended the same to its present wording:
the trial court and the Court of Appeals. As observed by the appellate
court: Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. — Rape is committed
—
We note that she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward,
spontaneous and frank manner, without any artificialities or 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any
pretensions that would tarnish the veracity of her testimony. She of the following circumstances:
recalled the tragic experience and positively identified accused-
appellant as the one who ravished her on five occasions. Her a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
testimony was unshaken by a grueling cross-examination and there is
no impression whatsoever that the same is a mere fabrication. For b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is
her to come out in the open and publicly describe her harrowing otherwise unconscious;
experience at a trial can only be taken as a badge of her sincerity and
the truth of her claims.20 c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
We further underscore that AAA was merely 14 years old at the time
she testified.21 We have repeatedly held that testimonies of child- d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of
victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says mentioned above be present.
in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature,
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired,
considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or
which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not
by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
death.
sincerity.22
xxxx
It is likewise axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the
credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying circumstances:
of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth.23 As
the trial court further observed, the defense witnesses were not 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
eyewitnesses. A witness can testify only to those facts which he offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
own perception, except as provided in the Rules of Court.24 AAA’s law spouse of the parent of the victim[.]
mother and brothers were not present when the five rapes allegedly
occurred, and therefore any testimony on their part as to whether or While it appears that the circumstance of minority under Article 335
not the complained acts actually happened is hearsay. (old rape provision) and Article 266-B was sufficiently proven, the
allegation of the relationship between AAA and accused-appellant
We shall now discuss the criminal liability of accused-appellant Roxas. Roxas is considered insufficient under present jurisprudence. This
As stated above, the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion Court has thus held:
perpetua for each count of rape.
However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant
The first rape incident was committed in July 1997, and therefore the is an uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the
law applicable is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by same did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the
Republic Act No. 7659 which provides: Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is
a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is
ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the
having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following same manner, it is irrelevant that "AAA" testified that appellant is her
circumstances: uncle. We held in People v. Velasquez:
1. By using force or intimidation; However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on
accused-appellant, applying Section 11 of Republic Act No.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
7659.1âwphi1 We have consistently held that the circumstances
unconscious; and
under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the
attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the single
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying
demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the
perpetua.
information. Even in cases where such circumstances are proved, the
death penalty cannot be imposed where the information failed to
allege them. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying
circumstance which has not been alleged in the information would
JERWIN DORADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, The prosecution presented the victims, Ronald, Ronald's brother,
Respondent. Robert Bonion (Robert), Raniel Parino (Raniel) and Dr. Ronaldo Artes
(Dr. Artes), as its witnesses. Their combined testimonies tended to
DECISION establish the following:
Evidence of the Defense 2. In Criminal Case No. 127785, CICL Jerwin Dorado y Felipe,
accused Julius Ramos y Labanero, Jeffrey Confessor and
The defense presented the accused Dorado and Ramos; Gloria Jayson Cabiaso are ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable
Confessor and Jessie Confessor, the mother and brother of accused doubt. No costs.
Confessor; Mark Matuguina; Jeffrey Quijano; Aurin Reyes, and Ofelia
Ramos (Ofelia) as its witnesses, who collectively narrated the SO ORDERED.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
following:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOn April 15, 2004, between 8:00 o'clock Aggrieved, Dorado elevated an appeal before the CA.
and 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Dorado was at home watching
television with his siblings and his mother. Suddenly, the barangay The CA Ruling
tanods arrived and blamed him for the shooting of Ronald. Dorado
denied any participation in the incident and did not go with the tanods. In its assailed decision, dated August 8, 2014, the CA affirmed the
No sumpak was taken from his house. He also denied that he was a RTC decision, finding that Dorado committed the crime of frustrated
gang member and that he went into hiding. murder because he had the intent to kill Ronald when he fired his
sumpak hitting the portion between the two eyes of the victim. It
The witnesses for Ramos, Confessor and Cabiaso testified that they noted that Ronald would have died were it not for the timely medical
were not present in the crime scene when Ronald was shot. attention. The appellate court also agreed with the RTC that Dorado's
act of waiting for Ronald to come out of the talipapa, where the latter
Ofelia, on the other hand, testified that on April 15, 2004, between was hiding, indicated evident premeditation.
10:00 and 10:30 o'clock in the evening, she was on her way to see
her friend when she noticed five persons running in the opposite The CA did not give credence to Dorado's defense of alibi because his
direction. Four of them entered an alley, while one stayed and shot house was merely one block away from the talipapa. It opined that it
the face of another teenager. She added that she would be able to was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the
recognize the assailant, but it was not Dorado. time in question.
The RTC Ruling Dorado moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied by the
CA in its assailed resolution, dated January 29, 2015.
On July 5, 2010, the RTC rendered its decision. In Criminal Case No.
127784, the trial court found Dorado guilty beyond reasonable doubt Hence, this petition.
of the crime of frustrated murder; while in Criminal Case No. 127785,
accused Dorado, Ramos, Confessor and Cabiaso were all acquitted as SOLE ISSUE
the crime was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that
their participation in the crime was limited to the throwing of stones WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
and bottles and there was no indication that they Singled out Ronald AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER FOR
as their target. The RTC also acquitted all the accused for the charge THE CRIME CHARGED.8
of violation of R.A. No. 7610 because the prosecution failed to
establish Ronald's minority.
In finding Dorado guilty of frustrated murder, as defined under Article Dorado argues that his defenses of alibi and denial should be fully
248, in relation to Article 6, paragraph 2, of the RPC, the RTC gave appreciated by the Court as there was enough evidence to support
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that it was them; that he was at his home at the time of the incident; that
Dorado who shot Ronald with a sumpak. The trial court considered defense witness Ofelia testified that he was not the one who shot
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation because of the Ronald; and that the barangay officials did not find the sumpak in his
following: Dorado's group had an ongoing feud with Ronald's group; possession.
when the assault began, Dorado was already holding a sumpak; after
Ronald fled, Dorado waited intently for an opportunity to shoot him; In its Comment,9 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered
and when Ronald came out, Dorado shot him on the face. The RTC, that Dorado had the intent to kill when he fired the sumpak and hit
nevertheless, appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of Ronald between the eyes; that the felony would have caused the
minority in Dorado's favor as he was still a minor at the time of the death of the victim, were it not for the timely medical intervention;
incident. It, however, stated that Dorado was not entitled to a and that Dorado's defenses of denial and alibi could not overcome the
suspension of sentence because he was above twenty-one (21) years positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
old at the time of the pronouncement of guilt. Thus, it disposed the
case in this wise: In his Reply,10 Dorado reiterated that his defense was supported by
Ofelia's testimony and that the CA committed a misapprehension of
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary facts when it did not consider his defenses.
WHEREFORE, taking all the foregoing into consideration, it is hereby The Court's Ruling
adjudged that:
The Court finds merit in the petition.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. In Criminal Case No. 127784, CICL Jerwin Dorado y Felipe is Dorado was a minor at the
hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime time of the commission of
of Frustrated Murder, defined and penalized under Article the crime
248, in relation to Article 6, 2nd paragraph, 2nd phrase of
the Revised Penal Code and, taking into consideration the A perusal of the records will readily show that Dorado was a sixteen
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, is sentenced (16) year old minor at the time of the commission of the crime on
to suffer the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of March 15, 2004. The Informations filed against him consistently
prision correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of stated his minority.11 For said reason, he must benefit from the
prision mayor, as maximum, with all the effects thereof as provisions of R.A. No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
provided" by law. He is further ordered to pay the victim 2006, as amended. Even though the said law was enacted on April 28,
Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php50,000.00 by way of 2006, the same must still be retroactively applied for the benefit of
moral damages; and to pay the costs, at the legal rate of Dorado pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law �
interest from the time of the filing of the Information until favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda (penal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect).12chanrobleslaw
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not The President: Beyond 15 up to below...
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.14 Senator Pangilinan: Up to below 18, yes, Mr. President.
Consequently, under R.A. No. 9344, only a child above fifteen (15) Senator Pimentel: Which means, Mr. President, in actual law practice,
years but below eighteen (18) years of age who acted with that the prosecutor is under obligation to establish by competent
discernment shall not be exempted from criminal responsibility.15 evidence that this accused who is above 15 but below 18 acted with
Nevertheless, the said child does not immediately proceed to trial. discernment as a separate circumstance.
Instead, he or she may undergo a diversion, which refers to an
alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility Senator Pangilinan: That is correct.
and treatment of the CICL without resorting to formal court
proceedings. If the diversion is unsuccessful or if the other grounds The President: All right.19 [Emphases supplied]
provided by law16 are present, then the CICL shall undergo the
appropriate preliminary investigation of his or her criminal case, and
trial before the courts may proceed. Based on the above-cited discussion, when a minor above fifteen (15)
but below eighteen (18) years old is charged with a crime, it cannot
Once the CICL is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall be presumed that he or she acted with discernment. During the trial,
not immediately execute its judgment; rather, it shall place the CICL the prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance
under suspended sentence. Notably, the suspension shall still be that the CICL committed the alleged crime with discernment.
applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his or her guilt. During the Notably, R.A. Np. 9344 was enacted while Dorado's trial was pending
suspension, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition before the RTC. Consequently, Resolution No. 03-2006, dated July 11,
measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in 2006, of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Council (JJWC)20 must apply in
Conflict with the Law. If the disposition measures are successful, then the present case. It established the guidelines for the implementation
the court shall discharge the CICL. Conversely, if unsuccessful, then of the transitory provisions of R.A. No. 9344 and it stated that one of
the court has the following options: (1) to discharge the child, (2) to the duties of the prosecution during the trial regarding the CICL was
order execution of sentence, or (3) to extend the suspended sentence as follows:
for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum
age of twenty-one (21) years.17chanrobleslaw chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In other words, aside from increasing the minimum age of criminal 4. For above 15 but below 18 years old at the time of the
responsibility, R.A. No. 9344 also provides for alternative measures to commission of the alleged offense, with pending case but
address the criminal tendencies of a minor. The law endeavors that a released on bail or on recognizance or under detention
minor should be given several opportunities to mend his or her ways
without resorting to detention and incarceration. A judgment for
"The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from On the contrary, the Solicitor General insists that discernment and
criminal liability of a minor x x x who commits an act prohibited by intent are two different concepts. We agree with the Solicitor
law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right General's view; the two terms should not be confused.
and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts and The word "intent" has been defined as:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
circumstances accorded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of "(a) design; a determination to do a certain things; an aim the
said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such
also after and even during the trial."21chanrobleslaw intent; . . .; the design resolve, or determination with which a person
acts." (46 CJS Intent, p. 1103.)
"The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an It is this intent which comprises the third element of dolo as a means
essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence of committing a felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two.
is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to On the other hand, We have defined the term "discernment," as used
distinguish a licit from an illicit act. On the other hand, discernment is in Article 12(3) of the RPC, in the old case of People vs. Doquena, 68
the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and Phil. 580(1939), in this wise:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
wrong."22 As earlier stated, the "prosecution is burdened to prove that
the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical "The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine,
commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to
surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew understand the difference between right and wrong ..." (italics Ours)
what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes p. 583
the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and
shrewdness."23 In an earlier case, it was written: From the foregoing, it is clear that the terms "intent" and
"discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the
desire of one's act while the latter relate to the moral significance that
For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is person ascribes to the said act. Hence, a person may not intend to
burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent
circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning act which may cause injury to the same person in .negligently
that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such handling an air rifle. It is not correct, therefore, to argue, as
circumstantial evidence may include the utterances of the minor; his petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below
overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done.
relative thereto; the nature of the weapon used in the commission of He may negligently shoot his friend, thus, did not intend to shoot him,
the crime; his attempt to silence a witness; his disposal of evidence and at the same time recognize the undesirable result of his
or his hiding the corpus delicti.24 negligence.
Going through the written arguments of the parties, the surfacing of a Considering that there was no determination of discernment by the
corollary controversy with respect to the first issue raised is evident, trial court, the Court cannot rule with certainty that Dorado was
that is, whether the term "discernment," as used in Article 12(3) of criminally responsible. As earlier stated, there can be no presumption
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent." It is the of discernment on the part of the CICL. In the absence of such
position of the petitioner that "discernment" connotes "intent" (p. 96, determination, it should be presumed that the CICL acted without
Rollo), invoking the unreported case of People vs. Nieto, G.R. No. discernment. This is in accordance with Section 3 of R.A. No. 9344, to
11965, 30 April 1958. In that case We held that the allegation of wit:
"with intent to kill..." amply meets the requirement that discernment
should be alleged when the accused is a minor between 9 and 15 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
years old. Petitioner completes his syllogism in saying that:
Section 3. Liberal Construction of this Act. � In case of doubt, the
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary interpretation of any of the provisions of this Act, including its
implementing rules and regulations (IRRs), shall be construed
"If discernment is the equivalent of 'with intent', then the allegation in liberally in favor of the child in conflict with the law.
the information that the accused acted with discernment and willfully
The crime of murder is committed when there is an unlawful killing of Lastly, Dorado did not have a cool thought and reflection when he
any person, which is not parricide or infanticide, and any of the shot Ronald. The RTC observed that there was an ongoing feud
qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the RPC exists. On the between Dorado's group and Ronald's group.33 Certainly, Dorado
other hand, a felony is in its frustrated stage when the offender would not have a calm and reflective mind - from the time Ronald's
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as group hid inside the talipapa market until they moved out of hiding -
a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason as he was obscured by the heat or anger of the moment. The essence
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.28chanrobleslaw of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
The prosecution witnesses positively identified Dorado as the person out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
who shot Ronald between the eyes with a sumpak. The crime was not calm judgment.34chanrobleslaw
consummated as Ronald survived because of the medical assistance
provided to him after he was immediately brought to the hospital by The OSG itself, in its Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee (With
his friends. Dr. Artes testified that without the timely medical recommendation for reduction of penalty)35 filed before the CA,
intervention, the shooting of Ronald could have led to his death. submitted that "the shooting of Ronald was not attended by evident
Accordingly, the CA and the RTC properly ruled that the crime premeditation.36 For said reason, the crime committed was only
committed was at its frustrated stage. frustrated homicide.
The Court is of the view, however, that the prosecution was unable to Civil Liabilities
establish the element of evident premeditation to qualify the crime to
frustrated murder. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the Pursuant to the recent case of People v. Jugueta,37 the crime of
following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time frustrated homicide entails the following awards of damages:
when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages. In
manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and addition, the damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of
(3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution 6% per annum from date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.29 For this
aggravating circumstance to be considered, it is indispensable to WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The judgment of conviction
show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time of Jerwin Dorado is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE by reason of
had elapsed before it was carried out.30chanrobleslaw the exempting circumstance of minority. He is hereby referred to the
local social welfare and development officer of the locality for the
In this case, evident premeditation was not established because, first, appropriate intervention program.
the prosecution evidence only referred to the matters that happened
during the incident, and not to the preparations undertaken by He is also ordered to pay the private complainant, Ronald B onion,
Dorado beforehand to kill Ronald. There was no evidence on record civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 and moral damages in
which would indicate how and when Dorado hatched his plan to kill the amount of P30,000.00.,
Ronald. The mere fact that Dorado was seen with a sumpak at the
beginning of the . altercation does not unequivocally establish that he The amounts of damages awarded shall have an interest at the rate
earlier devised a deliberate plot to murder Ronald. In order to be of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not
merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident Let copies of this decision be furnished the two houses of Congress
premeditation."31chanrobleslaw for their information and guidance in future legislation regarding
children in conflict with the laws.
Second, the prosecution failed to show a sufficient lapse of time
between such determination and execution to allow Dorado to reflect SO ORDERED.
upon the circumstances of his act. Raniel simply testified that:
THIRD DIVISION
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 197925, November 09, 2015
Q: Jerwin Dorado only? Did he had (sic) companions?
A: Also Jeffrey Confessor, Jayson Cabiaso, and I don't know the other PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN
who came, ma'am. DALAWIS Y HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.
Q: Where did you hide? In an Information filed with the RTC, Branch 84, of Batangas City,
A: We hide (sic) at the back of the talipapa, ma'am. appellant Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo was charged with Violation of
Article II of RA No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which
Q: After you hid, what happened? reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Case Offense Court Date of In the afternoon of November 1, 2004, appellant stated that he was
No. Conviction at his house in Villa Anita when he heard a commotion nearby. He
peeped through the door and saw that the commotion was coming
from outside the house of Fe Abag. He then approached the persons
5061 Viol, of Sec. 8 Art. II, RA RTC-8 March 3, 1992 thereat and uttered the words "putang ina niyo, ano gang gulo yan?"
6425 All of a sudden, a man turned his back and poked a gun at him. He
panicked and retreated to his house, realizing that the persons at the
commotion were policemen. He was then called upon by one of them
10477 Viol, of Sec. 15 Art. II, RA RTC-8 June 19, 2000 to go out of his house. He went out and apologized. However, a
6425 policeman cursed at him saying, "putang ina ka, gusto mo pa yatang
harangin ang paghuli namin dito kay Fe."8
The policemen then forcibly took appellant into custody, together with
the other arrested persons, one of whom was the notorious drug
CONTRARY TO LAW.3ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary pusher, Robert Lagmay, and brought them first, to the barangay hall,
cralawlawlibrary and then next, to the police headquarters. Inside the intelligence
section, appellant was asked if he had any previous involvement in
illegal drugs, to which he replied in the positive.9 Appellant then
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. overheard the conversation of the police with Lagmay, wherein they
Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.4 said that since Lagmay is the son of Sgt. Lagmay and the brother of a
certain Liklik, they would file a lesser charge so as to enable him to
The factual antecedents, as narrated by the witnesses of the post bail, while they would instead file the case against appellant.
prosecution, are as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Thereafter, the policemen brought out two (2) plastic sachets
containing a white substance, which appellant claimed he has never
At around 4 o'clock in the afternoon of November 1, 2004, an asset of seen before. They asked appellant and Lagmay to point to the plastic
PO2 Christian Boy Garcia Aranza arrived at the police station with sachet while they took a photograph thereof. Afterwards, appellant
information that shabu could be purchased from a certain Edwin and Lagmay were put in jail. On cross-examination, appellant
Dalawis of Barangay (Brgy.) Sta. Clara, Batangas City. Acting on said admitted that he had been twice convicted of offenses involving illegal
information, Aranza, together with SPO4 Delfm Alea, PO3 Nestor drugs.10
Dimaano, PO3 Jayn Gonda, PO2 Villas, PO2 De Chavez and PO2
Lindbergh Yap, formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. Upon Appellant's testimony was corroborated by his neighbors, Julius Javier
the orders of Alea, Aranza marked a P500 bill with his initials "CGA" and Lorna Catipan, who were watching from inside their respective
to be used as the marked money for the operation. They then houses, particularly as to how appellant was forcibly brought out of
proceeded to Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, with Aranza, Alea, his house by the policemen.11
Dimaano, De Chavez, Yap and the asset, aboard a tinted van, while
Villas and Gonda were on motorcycles. Their departure was recorded In its Decision dated May 23, 2006, the trial court gave credence to
in the police blotter.5 the testimonies of the police officers as they were given in a direct
and positive manner, replete with details as to the manner in which
At Brgy. Sta. Clara, Aranza frisked the asset to ensure that he did not the offense was committed. It took note of the fact that the police
have anything illegal in his possession, gave him the marked money, were in a clear position to witness the transaction, being merely
and told him to walk towards the place where he would meet the seven (7) meters away, and also found that the custody and chain of
appellant, a Shell Gasoline Station. The policemen followed the asset delivery up to the Police Crime Laboratory were duly established. On
thereto, and watched from the opposite portion of the station in the the contrary, the RTC was not impressed with appellant's defense
tinted van. Aside from appellant who was already thereat, they also that he was forcibly abducted from his residence in view of the fact
saw the notorious drug pusher named Robert Lagmay operating that the witnesses did not report such a serious offense to the proper
under the alias "Tagpi" coming out from Villa Anita. Thereafter, at a authorities. It, therefore, disposed of the case as
distance of more or less seven (7) meters, the policemen saw the follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
asset hand the marked money to appellant who, in turn, handed a
small transparent plastic sachet they suspected to contain shabu. WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
Their asset, then, signalled to the policemen the consummation of the DOUBT of the offense charged he is hereby sentenced to suffer life
transaction by scratching his head. Upon seeing the signal, they imprisonment to be served by him at the National Penitentiary
immediately alighted from the van to apprehend the appellant. PO2 Muntinlupa City with recommendation of no parole for habitual
Aranza confiscated the marked money from appellant's right hand, delinquency and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
while his asset turned over to him the plastic sachet. At the same (P500,000.00).
time, PO2 De Chavez was also able to confiscate a sachet filled with
what they suspected was shabu from the notorious drug pusher, The shabu subject matter of this case consisting of one (1) plastic
Lagmay.6 sachet shall be delivered by Branch Sheriff Rolando D. Quinio to the
PDEA, Quezon City within fifteen (15) days from today.
The policemen then informed appellant and Lagmay of their
constitutional rights and brought them to the barangay hall of Sta. SO ORDERED.12ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Clara where their arrest was recorded in the barangay blotter. From cralawlawlibrary
there, they proceeded to the police station where appellant and
Lagmay, together with the marked money and confiscated plastic
sachet, were presented to the desk officer, SPO1 Martin Calingasan. Appellant appealed his conviction arguing that: (1) the existence of
SPO1 Calingasan recorded the buy-bust operation in the police blotter, the marked money prior to the alleged buy bust was not duly proven
prepared the complaint sheet, and turned over the suspects and in court as the police officer who recorded the pre-operation events
seized items to the duty investigator, PO2 Santiago Matibag, Jr. In made no mention of any marking on the buy-bust money; (2) the
the latter's presence, PO2 Aranza marked the plastic sachet with his
Apart from the foregoing allegations, appellant proceeded to impute (b)� Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the
additional lapses in the buy-bust operation. According to him, the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to
existence of the marked money prior to the alleged buy bust was not the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
duly proven in court as the police officer who recorded the pre- periods; and
operation events made no mention of any marking on the buy-bust
money. Moreover, appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced
prove the legitimacy of the operation considering the absence of any to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty
document that would prove that there was indeed a report by the and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
confidential informant of the police officers. Yet, nowhere in his to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
appellant's brief did he provide any basis, jurisprudential or otherwise,
to support his conclusions that these alleged lapses are fatal to his Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
prosecution. In fact, as aptly ruled by the CA, the recording of penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith,
marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the shall in no case exceed 30 years.
elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. Neither is it
required that the confidential informant put his tip down in writing. For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
For as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven, habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the
the recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
necessarily lead to an acquittal.24 less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
It must be emphasized, at this point, that for a successful prosecution time or oftener.28cralawlawlibrary
of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, all of the following
elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the It is clear, therefore, that habitual delinquency is considered only with
seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the respect to the crimes specified in the aforequoted Article. In the
delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Succinctly stated, the instant case, appellant was charged with violation of the Dangerous
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the Drugs Law, the same crime adjudged in his two (2) prior convictions,
marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust and not of crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the hurto, estafa or falsification, as required by the RPC. Hence, the law
transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court on habitual delinquency is simply inapplicable to appellant.29
of the corpus delicti, as evidence.25cralawred
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the foregoing requisites were The Decision dated January 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
sufficiently met. As aptly found by the courts below, evidence for the G.R. CR-HC No. 02438 is hereby AFFIRMED.
prosecution adequately established beyond reasonable doubt the
identity of the seller and buyer as well as the exchange of the plastic SO ORDERED.
sachet of shabu and the marked money. There was direct proof that
the sale of shabu actually transpired, the chain of custody having SECOND DIVISION
been duly preserved, establishing the corpus delicti in court. This
Court, therefore, finds no compelling reason to diverge from the trial G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016
court's findings, especially since such were affirmed by the appellate
court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REYNALDO ABAYON
Y APONTE, Appellant.
It is a well-entrenched rule that the findings of facts of the trial court,
as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, RESOLUTION
absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if BRION, J.:
considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome
We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Reynaldo Abayon y
of the case.26 Since prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely
Aponte (Abayon) assailing the July 20, 2012 decision1 of the Court of
depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the
Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03195. The CA
buy-bust operation, reliance may be made on the findings of fact of
decision affirmed the July 31, 2007 decision2 of the Regional Trial
the trial court, which is in a better position to decide the question,
Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las Pi�as City, and ordered him to pay
having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
death indemnity to the heirs of Lourdes Chokilo, Aiza Delos Angeles,
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.27 Thus, in view
and Zenaida Velos.
of the clear and straightforward evidence of the prosecution vis-a-vis
appellant's unsubstantiated defenses, this Court shall accord a high
THE CASE
degree of respect to the factual findings of the courts below.
"That on or about the 26th day of July 2002, in the City of Las Pi�as, On appeal, Abayon assailed the RTC decision on the ground that there
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the was no direct evidence showing that he had started the fire that
above-named accused, with intent to cause damage to property, did burned down the house.
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and deliberately
burn or set fire to the house and/or dwelling of ROBERTO IGNACIO Y In its July 20, 2012 decision, the CA upheld Abayon's conviction
ANTONIO and TEODORO DELOS ANGELES Y GOIS causing it to be based on the RTC's appreciation of the circumstances proven by the
burned and turned into ashes and as a result of said fire, victims prosecution. The CA held that the proven circumstantial evidence
Lourdes Chokilo, Zenaida Velos and Aiza Delos Angeles who were sufficiently pointed to Abayon as the perpetrator of the crime charged.
then sleeping inside the said house were also burned to death. The CA included an award of death indemnity worth P50,000.00 each
in favor of the heirs of the three (3) victims.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Abayon filed the present appeal to challenge the CA decision.
Abayon entered a plea of not guilty when he was arraigned on August
20, 2002. OUR RULING
Trial on the merits followed the pre-trial where Abayon entered into
stipulations regarding specified documentary evidence presented by We affirm the conviction of Abayon and order him to pay civil
the prosecution. damages on top of the death indemnity.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that in the evening of July There is no complex crime of arson with (multiple) homicide.
25, 2002, Abayon and his wife, Arlene, quarreled outside their
residence. Since they rented an apartment adjacent to others, their In People v. Malngan,6 we held that there is no complex crime of
neighbors witnessed the entire incident. When Arlene shouted for help arson with homicide because the crime of arson absorbs the resultant
because Abayon was strangling her, Corazon Requitillo (Corazon) and death or is a separate crime altogether, to wit:
her husband pacified them. Thereafter, Corazon took Arlene's two (2)
children and offered them the safety of her apartment as Abayon was chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAccordingly, in cases where both burning
still drunk. and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were
perpetrated - whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder,
At around 11:00 P.M. of the same day, Abayon's neighbors heard a it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a)
hissing sound and smelled leaking gas. When they came out of their if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but
houses to check, they saw Abayon holding an LPG gas tank outside death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is
his apartment. Robert Ignacio Antonio (Robert), one of his neighbors simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the
and his best friend, approached Abayon to ask what he was doing. He other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person who may
heard Abayon say, "Putang ina, wala pala ako silbi! Inutil pala ako!"4 be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
He also noticed that Abayon was holding an unlit cigarette inserted accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c)
between his left index and middle fingers, that a match was on his if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the
left palm, and that his right hand was turning on and off the gas tank. offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to
When he figured out what Abayon was trying to do, Robert scolded cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes
him and said, "Putang ina mo, Boy! Magsusunog ka, idadamay mo pa committed � homicide/murder and arson.
kami!"5 After that, he turned off the regulator of the gas tank and
brought it to Corazon's house for safekeeping. From the body of the information filed, Abayon is charged with the
crime of arson because his intent was merely to destroy his family's
At past midnight of July 26, 2002, the house (containing the units apartment through the use of fire. The resulting deaths that occurred,
where Abayon and his neighbors live) started to catch fire. The therefore, should be absorbed by the crime of arson and only
neighbors came out of their respective units because of the thick increases the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua to death,
smoke and the heat coming from the fire. As a result, the house was pursuant to Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613.
completely burned down along with the personal effects of the
residents. Three (3) persons also died because of the fire,-namely: The prosecution established the elements of the crime of
Lourdes Chokilo, the owner of the house; Aiza Delos Angeles; and simple arson through circumstantial evidence.
Zenaida Velos.
Simple arson, defined and punished under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613,
Expectedly, Abayon denied that he had caused the fire and raised the is essentially the destruction of property by fire that is not under the
defense of alibi. He admitted that he had an altercation with his wife circumstances enumerated under Article 320 of the Revised Penal
and that he had left after he was pacified by his neighbors. When he Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. In prosecuting arson, whether
came back, Abayon realized that his wife and children were not at destructive or simple, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by
home, so he decided to look for them at his sister-in-law's place at proof that a fire occurred, and that it was intentionally
Trece. Before he left, he brought inside his apartment the LPG tank caused.7chanrobleslaw
and the kitchen stove that had been placed outside. When Abayon
saw Robert, he asked him to look after his house while he searched We point out that no one among the prosecution's witnesses actually
for his family. saw Abayon start the fire. The lower courts had to resort to
circumstantial evidence since there was no direct evidence proving his
Abayon allegedly left for Trece at around 9 p.m. only to find out when guilt.
he got there that his family was not there. He then proceeded to his
sister's house in Makati at around 4 a.m. Again, he did not find his It is settled that in the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial
family there. He opted to stay at his sister's place until 8:00 p.m. of evidence may be sufficient to sustain a conviction provided that: "(a)
July 26, 2002. He was arrested later when he showed up at his there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
residence. inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of
all the circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to
In its July 31, 2007 decision, the RTC found Abayon guilty beyond the exclusion of all others, is the one who has committed the crime.
reasonable doubt of the crime of arson resulting in multiple homicide, Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the
defined and punished under Sec. 1, in relation to Sec. 5 of P.D. No. combination of circumstances must be interwoven in a way that
1613, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The trial court held that the would leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
prosecution successfully established the elements of the crime accused."8chanrobleslaw
charged through circumstantial evidence. It gave no credence to
Abayon's denial because his neighbors � especially his best friend � In the present case, the RTC enumerated the following circumstances
As the RTC and the CA did, we view Abayon's denial to be self-serving LEONEN, J.:
and undeserving of any credence in view of the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses' categorical, positive, and forthright identification of him Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities, although
the night the burning incident happened. done without search warrants, are not unreasonable searches per se.
Constitutional provisions protecting privacy should not be so literally
The proper penalty and the awarded indemnities understood so as to deny reasonable safeguards to ensure the safety
of the traveling public.
The penalty for arson resulting to death under Section 5 of P.D. No.
1613 is reclusion perpetua to death. Since there was no aggravating For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the
circumstance alleged in the information, the CA correctly sentenced Decision2 dated September 28, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated
Abayon to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only. August 23, 2013 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.4 The Court of
Appeals affirmed5 the trial court’s Judgment6 finding petitioner Erwin
We also point out that the CA awarded P50,000.00 death indemnity in Libo-on Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
favor of the heirs of the three (3) victims. We increase this award to possessing unlicensed firearms under Commission on Elections
P75,000.00 pursuant to People v. Jugueta;14 we also direct Abayon to Resolution No. 77647 in relation to Section 2618 of Batas Pambansa
further pay the victim's heirs P75,000.00 as moral damages and Blg. 8819 during the 2007 election period.10
P75,0000.00 as exemplary damages.15chanrobleslaw
Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island vessel.11 He
The records show rough estimates of the properties the families lost frequently traveled, "coming back and forth taking a vessel."12 At
during the fire.16 In the absence of a showing that these estimated around 12:00 noon of May 11, 2007, Dela Cruz was at a pier of the
amounts had been actually expended in a manner capable of Cebu Domestic Port to go home to Iloilo.13 While buying a ticket, he
substantiation by any document or receipt, the valuation remains a allegedly left his bag on the floor with a porter.14 It took him around
mere estimate, and could not be the measure of an award for actual 15 minutes to purchase a ticket.15
damages.17 The failure to present competent proof of actual damages
should not deprive Abayon's neighbors of some degree of indemnity Dela Cruz then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed
for the substantial economic damage and prejudice they had his bag on the x-ray scanning machine for inspection.16 The operator
suffered.18chanrobleslaw of the x-ray machine saw firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag.17
(d) Reynaldo Abayon is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of That on or about the 11th day of May 2007, at about 12:45 p.m. in
six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
until fully paid, Honorable Court, the said accused, with the deliberate intent and
without being authorized by law, did then and there possess and
SO ORDERED.c carry outside his residence one (1) Cal. 38 Simith [sic] & Wesson
revolver without serial number; one (1) .22 Smith & Wesson Magnum
SECOND DIVISION revolver without serial number; one (1) North American Black Widow
magnum revolver without serial number and four rounds of live
January 11, 2016 ammunitions for cal. 38 without first securing the necessary license to
possess and permit to carry from the proper authorities.
G.R. No. 209387
CONTRARY TO LAW.33
ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,
vs. Subsequently, another Information was filed charging Dela Cruz with
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. the violation of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in
relation to Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881:34
One (1) cal. .22 Smith & Wesson Magnum revolver without SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis in the original)
serial number;
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
One (1) North American Black Widow magnum revolver Judgment.53 It held that the defense failed to show that the
without serial number and four (4) rounds of live prosecution witnesses were moved by improper motive; thus, their
ammunitions for cal. 38. testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.54 The acts of
government authorities were found to be regular.55
CONTRARY TO LAW.35
The Court of Appeals did not find Dela Cruz’s defense of denial
Dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to both charges during meritorious.56 "Denial as a defense has been viewed upon with
arraignment.36 disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be
concocted."57 Dela Cruz did not present any evidence "to show that
After trial, Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City found he had authority to carry outside of residence firearms and
Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Gun Ban ammunition during the period of effectivity of the Gun Ban [during]
under Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to election time."58 The prosecution was able to prove Dela Cruz’s guilt
Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 in Criminal Case No. CBU beyond reasonable doubt.
80085.37 Dela Cruz was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1)
year with disqualification from holding public office and the right to The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision provides:
suffrage.38
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED.
According to the trial court, the prosecution was able to prove beyond The assailed January 27, 2010 Consolidated Judgment of the Regional
reasonable doubt that Dela Cruz committed illegal possession of Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12 of Cebu City in Criminal Case CBU-
firearms.39 It proved the following elements: "(a) the existence of 59434 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs on accused-appellant.
the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or
possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the SO ORDERED.59 (Emphasis in the original)
same."40 The prosecution presented the firearms and live
ammunitions found in Dela Cruz’s possession.41 It also presented Dela Cruz filed a Motion for Reconsideration,60 which was denied by
three (3) prosecution witnesses who testified that the firearms were the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated August 23, 2013.61
found inside Dela Cruz’s bag.42 The prosecution also presented a
Certification that Dela Cruz did not file any application for license to Dela Cruz filed this Petition on November 4, 2013.62 In the
possess a firearm, and he was not given authority to carry a firearm Resolution63 dated December 9, 2013, this court required respondent,
outside his residence.43 through the Office of the Solicitor General, to submit its Comment on
the Petition. Respondent submitted its Comment64 on March 6, 2014,
The trial court also held that the search conducted by the port which this court noted in the Resolution65 dated March 19, 2014.
authorities was reasonable and, thus, valid:44
Dela Cruz claims that he was an on-the-job trainee for an inter-island
Given the circumstances obtaining here, the court finds the search vessel.66 He was "well[-]acquainted with [the] inspection scheme [at
conducted by the port authorities reasonable and, therefore, not the] ports."67 He would not have risked placing prohibited items such
violative of the accused’s constitutional rights. Hence, when the as unlicensed firearms inside his luggage knowing fully the
search of the bag of the accused revealed the firearms and consequences of such an action.68
ammunitions, accused is deemed to have been caught in flagrante
delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section According to Dela Cruz, when he arrived at the port on May 11, 2007,
5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The firearms and he left his luggage with a porter to buy a ticket.69 "A considerable
ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid search are thus time of fifteen minutes went by before he could secure the ticket
admissible as evidence against [the] accused.45 while his luggage was left sitting on the floor with only the porter
standing beside it."70 He claims that someone must have placed the
The trial court did not give credence to Dela Cruz’s claim that the unlicensed firearms inside his bag during the period he was away
firearms were "planted" inside his bag by the porter or anyone who from it.71 He was surprised when his attention was called by the x-
could have accessed his bag while he was buying a ticket.46 ray machine operator after the firearms were detected.72
According to the trial court, Dela Cruz’s argument was "easy to
fabricate, but terribly difficult to disprove."47 Dela Cruz also did not Considering the circumstances, Dela Cruz argues that there was no
show improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to voluntary waiver against warrantless search:73
discredit their testimonies.48
In petitioner’s case, it may well be said that, with the circumstances
The trial court dismissed the case for violation of Republic Act No. attending the search of his luggage, he had no actual intention to
8294.49 It held that "Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal relinquish his right against warrantless searches. He knew in all
possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed honest belief that when his luggage would pass through the routine x-
‘no other crime.’"50 Dela Cruz, who had been charged with illegal ray examination, nothing incriminating would be recovered. It was
possession of firearms, was also charged with violating the Gun Ban out of that innocent confidence that he allowed the examination of his
under Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764.51 luggage. . . . [H]e believed that no incriminating evidence
w[ould] be found. He knew he did not place those items. But what
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Consolidated Judgment is strikingly unique about his situation is that a considerable time
reads: interval lapsed, creating an opportunity for someone else to place
inside his luggage those incriminating items.74 (Emphasis in the
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable original)
doubt of violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 7764 in relation to
Section 261 of BP Blg. 881 in Criminal Case No. CBU-80085, and Respondent argues that there was a valid waiver of Dela Cruz’s right
hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment for a period of one to unreasonable search and seizure, thus warranting his conviction.75
First, whether petitioner Erwin Libo-on Dela Cruz was in possession of The law applicable is Section 2(a) of Commission on Elections
the illegal firearms within the meaning of the Commission on Resolution No. 7764, which provides:
Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881; SECTION 2. Prohibitions. During the election period from January 14,
2007 it shall be unlawful for:
Second, whether petitioner waived his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures; and a. Any person, including those possessing a permit to carry firearms
outside of residence or place of business, to bear, carry or transport
Lastly, assuming that there was no waiver, whether there was a valid firearms or other deadly weapons in public places including any
search and seizure in this case. building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance. For the
purpose firearm includes airgun, while deadly weapons include hand
We deny the Petition. grenades or other explosives, except pyrotechnics[.]
The present criminal case was brought to this court under Rule 45 of Section 261. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be guilty of an
the Rules of Court. The penalty imposed on petitioner by the trial election offense:
court is material in determining the mode of appeal to this court. A
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must be differentiated ....
from appeals under Rule 124, Section 1384 involving cases where the
lower court imposed on the accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua, (q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. – Any
life imprisonment, or, previously, death.85 person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries
any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the
In Mercado v. People:86 election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission:
Provided, That a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be
Where the Court of Appeals finds that the imposable penalty in a considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof. (Par.
criminal case brought to it on appeal is at least reclusion perpetua, (l), Id.)
death or life imprisonment, then it should impose such penalty,
refrain from entering judgment thereon, certify the case and elevate This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers
the entire records to this Court for review. This will obviate the while in the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature
unnecessary, pointless and time-wasting shuttling of criminal cases of their official duties, profession, business or occupation habitually
between this Court and the Court of Appeals, for by then this Court carry large sums of money or valuables.
will acquire jurisdiction over the case from the very inception and can,
without bothering the Court of Appeals which has fully completed the For a full understanding of the nature of the constitutional rights
exercise of its jurisdiction, do justice in the case. involved, we will examine three (3) points of alleged intrusion into the
right to privacy of petitioner: first, when petitioner gave his bag for x-
On the other hand, where the Court of Appeals imposes a penalty less ray scanning to port authorities; second, when the baggage inspector
than reclusion perpetua, a review of the case may be had only by opened petitioner’s bag and called the Port Authority Police; and third,
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 where only errors or when the police officer opened the bag to search, retrieve, and seize
questions of law may be raised.87 (Emphasis supplied, citations the firearms and ammunition.
omitted)
III
It is settled that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of
law are reviewed by this court.88 The rule that only questions of law The first point of intrusion occurred when petitioner presented his bag
may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 is based on for inspection to port personnel—the x-ray machine operator and
sound and practical policy considerations stemming from the differing baggage inspector manning the x-ray machine station.94 With regard
natures of a question of law and a question of fact: to searches and seizures, the standard imposed on private persons is
different from that imposed on state agents or authorized
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the government authorities.
correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or
when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative In People v. Marti,95 the private forwarding and shipping company,
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being following standard operating procedure, opened packages sent by
admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference accused Andre Marti for shipment to Zurich, Switzerland and detected
CRIM REV 1st Set Fulltext Page 54 of 74
a peculiar odor from the packages.96 The representative from the e) To enforce rules and regulations promulgated by the
company found dried marijuana leaves in the packages.97 He Authority pursuant to law. (Emphasis supplied)
reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation and
brought the samples to the Narcotics Section of the Bureau for In 1992, the Cebu Port Authority was created to specifically
laboratory examination.98 Agents from the National Bureau of administer all ports located in the Province of Cebu.109 The Cebu Port
Investigation subsequently took custody of the illegal drugs.99 Andre Authority is a "public-benefit corporation . . . under the supervision of
Marti was charged with and was found guilty of violating Republic Act the Department of Transportation and Communications for purposes
No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.100 of policy coordination."110 Control of the ports was transferred to the
Cebu Port Authority on January 1, 1996, when its operations officially
This court held that there was no unreasonable search or seizure.101 began.111
The evidence obtained against the accused was not procured by the
state acting through its police officers or authorized government In 2004, the Office for Transportation Security was designated as the
agencies.102 The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between "single authority responsible for the security of the transportation
individuals; it cannot be invoked against the acts of private systems [in] the country[.]"112 Its powers and functions included
individuals:103 providing security measures for all transportation systems in the
country:
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant
must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of b. Exercise operational control and supervision over all units
constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or of law enforcement agencies and agency personnel
initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and providing security services in the transportation systems,
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention except for motor vehicles in land transportation, jointly with
of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and the heads of the bureaus or agencies to which the units or
seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not personnel organically belong or are assigned;
the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts c. Exercise responsibility for transportation security
committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of operations including, but not limited to, security screening
alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.104 of passengers, baggage and cargoes, and hiring, retention,
training and testing of security screening personnel;
Hence, by virtue of Marti, items seized pursuant to a reasonable
search conducted by private persons are not covered by the d. In coordination with the appropriate agencies and/or
exclusionary rule.105 instrumentalities of the government, formulate, develop,
promulgate and implement comprehensive security plans,
To determine whether the intrusion by the port personnel in this case policies, measures, strategies and programs to ably and
was committed by private or public persons, we revisit the history decisively deal with any threat to the security of
and organizational structure of the Philippine Ports Authority. transportation systems, and continually review, assess and
upgrade such security plans, policies, measures, strategies
Port security measures are consistent with the country’s aim to and programs, to improve and enhance transportation
develop transportation and trade in conjunction with national and security and ensure the adequacy of these security
economic growth. In 1974, the Philippine Ports Authority was created measures;
for the reorganization of port administration and operation
functions.106 The Philippine Ports Authority’s Charter was later e. Examine and audit the performance of transportation
revised through Presidential Decree No. 857. The Revised Charter security personnel, equipment and facilities, and, thereafter,
provided that the Authority may: establish, on a continuing basis, performance standards for
such personnel, equipment and facilities, including for the
after consultation with relevant Government agencies, make rules or training of personnel;
regulations for the planning, development, construction, maintenance,
control, supervision and management of any Port or Port District and f. Prepare a security manual/master plan or programme
the services to be provided therein, and for the maintenance of good which shall prescribe the rules and regulations for the
order therein, and generally for carrying out the process of this efficient and safe operation of all transportation systems,
Decree.107 including standards for security screening procedures, prior
screening or profiling of individuals for the issuance of
The Philippine Ports Authority was subsequently given police authority security access passes, and determination of levels of
through Executive Order No. 513,108 which provides: security clearances for personnel of the OTS, the DOTC and
its attached agencies, and other agencies of the government;
Sec. 2. Section 6 is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to
read as follows: g. Prescribe security and safety standards for all
transportation systems in accordance with existing laws,
Section 6-c. Police Authority – The Authority shall have such police rules, regulations and international conventions;
authority within the ports administered by it as may be necessary to
carry out its powers and functions and attain its purposes and h. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the DOTC,
objectives, without prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the issue Transportation Security Regulations/Rules and amend,
Bureau of Customs and other law enforcement bodies within the area. rescind or revise such regulations or rules as may be
Such police authority shall include the following: necessary for the security of the transportation systems of
the country[.]113 (Emphasis supplied)
a) To provide security to cargoes, port equipment, structure,
facilities, personnel and documents: Provided, however, The Cebu Port Authority has adopted security measures imposed by
That in ports of entry, physical security to import and export the Office for Transportation Security, including the National Security
cargoes shall be exercised jointly with the Bureau of Programme for Sea Transport and Maritime Infrastructure.114
Customs;
The Cebu Port Authority is clothed with authority by the state to
b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within oversee the security of persons and vehicles within its ports. While
the port, of persons and vehicles, as well as movement there is a distinction between port personnel and port police officers
within the port of watercraft; in this case, considering that port personnel are not necessarily law
enforcers, both should be considered agents of government under
c) To maintain peace and order inside the port, in Article III of the Constitution. The actions of port personnel during
coordination with local police authorities; routine security checks at ports have the color of a state-related
function.
d) To supervise private security agencies operating within
the port area; and In People v. Malngan,115 barangay tanod and the Barangay
Chairman were deemed as law enforcement officers for purposes of
There was probable cause that petitioner was committing a crime Consequently, we find respondent’s argument that the present
leading to the search of his personal effects. As the trial court found: petition falls under a valid consented search and during routine port
security procedures meritorious. The search conducted on petitioner’s
Given the circumstances obtaining here, the court finds the search bag is valid.
conducted by the port authorities reasonable and, therefore, not
violative of the accused’s constitutional rights. Hence, when the VI
search of the bag of the accused revealed the firearms and
ammunitions, accused is deemed to have been caught in flagrante The consented search conducted on petitioner’s bag is different from
delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section a customs search.
5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The firearms and
Customs searches, as exception to the requirement of a valid search
ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid search are thus
warrant, are allowed when "persons exercising police authority under
admissible as evidence against [the] accused.146
the customs law . . . effect search and seizure . . . in the enforcement
Similar to the accused in People v. Kagui Malasugui147 and People v. of customs laws."154 The Tariff and Customs Code provides the
Omaweng148 who permitted authorities to search their persons and authority for such warrantless search, as this court ruled in Papa, et
premises without a warrant, petitioner is now precluded from claiming al. v. Mago, et al.:155
an invalid warrantless search when he voluntarily submitted to the
The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section
search on his person. In addition, petitioner’s consent to the search at
2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search
the domestic port was not given under intimidating or coercive
any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling
circumstances.149
house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft
This case should be differentiated from that of Aniag, Jr. v. and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board, or
Commission on Elections,150 which involved the search of a moving stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected
vehicle at a checkpoint.151 In that case, there was no implied of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced
acquiescence to the search since the checkpoint set up by the police into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a
authorities was conducted without proper consultation, and it left search warrant in said cases.156 (Citation omitted)
motorists without any choice except to subject themselves to the
The ruling in Papa was echoed in Salvador v. People,157 in that the
checkpoint:
state’s policy to combat smuggling must not lose to the difficulties
It may be argued that the seeming acquiescence of Arellano to the posed by the debate on whether the state has the duty to accord
search constitutes an implied waiver of petitioner’s right to question constitutional protection to dutiable articles on which duty has not
the reasonableness of the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the been paid, as with a person’s papers and/or effects.158
firearms.
Hence, to be a valid customs search, the requirements are: (1) the
person/s conducting the search was/were exercising police authority
In August 2005, the Spouses Alapan borrowed ₱400,000.00 from I. WHETHER PETITIONER MAY ASSAIL THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE
petitioner Brian Victor Britchford (petitioner) with a promise that they JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION;
would pay the said amount within three (3) months. To secure the
indebtedness, respondent issued eight (8) postdated checks. II. WHETHER RESPONDENT MAY UNDERGO SUBSIDIARY
IMPRISONMENT FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FINE.
When the checks matured, petitioner deposited then at the Philippine
National Bank (PNB), Olongapo City branch. One week thereafter, Petitioner argues that Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the
PNB informed petitioner that the checks were dishonored for the Administrative Code is applicable only in cases wherein the
reason that the account against which the checks were drawn was government or any of its branches or instrumentalities is directly
closed. Petitioner immediately informed respondent of the dishonor of involved; that the said law does not cover matters wherein it is the
the checks. interest of the private complainant that is directly affected; and that
Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 expressly states that there is no
On their part, the Spouses Alapan averred that their account was legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
closed only on the last week of October 2005 because they suffered provisions on subsidiary imprisonment should only a fine be imposed
business reverses. They nonetheless stated that they were willing to and the accused be unable to pay the fine.8
settle their monetary obligation.
In his comment, respondent counters, citing Gonzales v. Chavez, 9
The MTC Ruling that it is mandatory upon the OSG to represent the Government of
the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and
In a decision,1 dated 4 February 2009, the Municipal Trial Court, San agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring
Felipe, Zambales (MTC), convicted respondent of eight (8) counts of the services of a lawyer; that it is only the State, through its
violation of B.P. Big. 22. It imposed a penalty of fine instead of appellate counsel, the OSG, which has the sole right and authority to
imprisonment considering that respondent's act of issuing the institute criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals or the
bounced checks was not tainted with bad faith and that he was a Supreme Court;10 that the imposition or the non-imposition of
first-time offender. On the other hand, the MTC acquitted Myrna subsidiary penalty is a matter that involves the interest of the State,
because she did not participate in the issuance of the dishonored thus, the private offended party is without legal personality to bring
checks. The fallo reads: an appeal on the criminal aspect of the case; and that the imposition
of subsidiary imprisonment must be clearly stated in the judgment.11
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the evidence of the prosecution to have
established the guilt of Accused Salvador Alapan of the eight (8) In his reply, petitioner avers that Administrative Circular No. 13-2001
counts of Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and imposes upon the aforenamed categorically implies that subsidiary imprisonment could be resorted
accused to pay a fine of ₱30,000.00 for each case or total of to even if the penalty provided by the trial court is limited only to fine;
₱240,000.00 and to indemnify the offended party, Mr. Brian Victor and that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment would emphasize
Britchford the sum of FOUR HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND the gravity of the offense committed by respondent and would serve
(₱411,000.00) Philippine Currency, representing the face value of the as a deterrent to others not to emulate this malicious act.12
dishonored checks, with legal interest per annum commencing from
March 8, 2006, when demand was made, until fully paid, and to pay OUR RULING
attorney's fees of ₱15,000.00 and to pay the costs.2
Petitioner lacks legal standing to question the trial court's
After the MTC judgment became final and executory, a writ of order.
execution was issued. The writ, however, was returned unsatisfied.
Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty3 for In the appeal of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals or the
respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC. Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely
in the Solicitor General. This power is expressly provided in Section
In its Order,4 dated 24 September 2010, the MTC denied the motion 35, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 of the Revised Administrative
on the ground that subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was Code.13 Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the
not imposed in the judgment of convicion. People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.14
Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Trial Court, Jurisprudence has already settled that the interest of the private
Branch 69, Iba, Zambales (RTC). complainant is limited only to the civil liability arising from the
crime.1âwphi1 Thus, in Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 15 the Court
The RTC Ruling ruled:
In a decision,5 dated 25 January 2011, the RTC dismissed the appeal Thus, the Court has definitively ruled that in a criminal case in which
for lack of jurisdiction. It held that respondent could not be made to the offended party is the State, the interest of the private
undergo subsidiary imprisonment because the judgment of conviction complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil
did not provide for such penalty in case of non-payment of fine. The liability arising therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial
RTC further opined that the MTC decision which already attained court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may
finality could no longer be altered or modified. It disposed the case in be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the State through
this wise: the solicitor general. As a rule, only the Solicitor General may
represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private
IN VIEW THEREOF, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.6 offended party or complainant may not undertake such appeal.16
Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
stated in the judgment of conviction. unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of
a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct
Another reason which militates against petitioner's position is the lack erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true
of provision pertaining to subsidiary imprisonment in the judgment of whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by
conviction. People v. Fajardo, 18 in relation to Republic Act. No. 5465 the highest court in the land. The orderly administration of justice
which amended Article 39 of the RPC, discusses the rationale behind requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the
the necessity for expressly imposing subsidiary imprisonment in the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by
judgment of conviction, viz: the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all.
This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which
The first paragraph of article 39 of the Revised Penal Code reads as there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to
follows: this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the
power of adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle, must
ART. 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the convict has no property with immediately be struck down. Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness
which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments
preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability of what are ordinarily known as courts, but extends to all bodies upon
at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following which judicial powers had been conferred.
rules: ...
The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments
Article 78 of Chapter V of the same Code, in its pertinent part, which are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro
deals with the execution and service of penalties, provides: tune entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void
Judgments.20
ART. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. - No penalty
shall executed except by virtue of a final judgment. There is no doubt that the MTC decision has long attained finality and
that none of the aforementioned exceptions finds application in this
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that case. Hence, the MTC decision stands and any other question
prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than involving the said decision must now be put to rest.
those expressly authorized thereby.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 22 November 2011
It is a fundamental principle consecration in section 3 of the Jones Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118333 is
Law, the Act of Congress of the United States of America approved on AFFIRMED.
August 29, 1916, which was still in force when the order appealed
from was made, that no person may be deprived of liberty without SO ORDERED.
due process of law. This constitutional provision was in a sense
incorporated in article 78 of the Revised Penal Code prescribing that FIRST DIVISION
no penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. As
the fact show that there is no judgment sentencing the accused to G.R. No. 201092 January 15, 2014
suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvent to pay the fine
imposed upon him, because the said subsidiary imprisonment is not PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -Appellee,
stated in the judgment finding him guilty, it is clear that the court vs.
could not legally compel him to serve said subsidiary imprisonment. A JOEL AQUINO y CENDANA @ "AKONG," Accused-Appellant.
contrary holding would be a violation of the laws aforementioned.
That subsidiary imprisonment is a penalty, there can be no doubt, for, DECISION
according to article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, it is imposed upon
the accused and served by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to pay LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
on account of insolvency. There is not a single provision in the Code
from which it may be logically inferred that an accused may Before this Court is an appeal from a Decision1 dated July 29, 2011 of
automatically be made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in a case the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04265, entitled People
where he has been sentenced merely to pay a fine and has been of the Philippines v. Joel Aquino y Cendana alias Akong, which
found to be insolvent. Such would be contrary to the legal provisions affirmed with modifications the Decision2 dated September 18 2009
above-cited and to the doctrine laid down in United States vs. of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12 which
Miranda (2 Phil., 606, 610), in which it was said: "That judgment of convicted appellant Joel Aquino y Cendana alias Akong for the felony
the lower court fails to impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal
insolvency for indemnification to the owner of the banca, but only Case No. 483-M-2003 and for the crime of violation of Republic Act
imposes subsidiary punishment as to the costs. In this respect the No. 6539 otherwise known as the Anti-Camapping Act of 1972 in
judgment is erroneous and should be modified." Criminal Case No. 484-M-2003.
We, therefore, conclude that an accused who has been sentenced by The pertinent portion of the lnformation3 dated December 9, 2002
final judgment to pay a fine only and is found to be insolvent and charging appellant with Murder in Criminal Case No. 483-M-2003 is
could not pay the fine for this reason, cannot be compelled to serve reproduced here:
the subsidiary imprisonment provided for in article 39 of the Revised
Penal Code. [emphasis supplied]19
Upon reaching the said nipa hut, Jesus Lita, appellant and his [Appellant] does not know either Ma. Theresa Lita, his son Jefferson,
companions had a shabu session while Jefferson was watching TV. or the victim Jesus Lita. Also, he does not know a certain Noynoy
After using shabu, Noynoy Almoguera demanded from the victim to Almoguera and alias Rodnal. Likewise, he denied using illegal drugs
pay Five Hundred Pesos (₱500.00), but the victim said that he had no (i.e., shabu).
money. Appellant shouted at the victim demanding him to pay. Bing
suggested to her companions that they leave the nipa hut. Thus, the [Appellant] knew SPO3 Cabading because the former had served as a
victim mounted his tricycle and started the engine. Noynoy police aide to him since he was seventeen (17) years old. He had no
Almoguera and John Doe rode in the tricycle behind the victim while misunderstanding with the police officer. He cannot think of any
appellant and Rodnal rode in the sidecar with Jefferson [sitting] at the reason why Ma. Theresa Lita and Jefferson pointed to him as one of
toolbox of the tricycle. Inside the tricycle, appellant pointed a knife at the perpetrators of the subject crimes.
Jefferson while Noynoy Almoguera stabbed the victim’s side. After the
victim was stabbed, he was transferred inside the tricycle while Paul Maglague (Paul) corroborated [appellant’s] testimony. On
appellant drove the tricycle to his friend’s house where they again September 6, 2002, a Friday, [appellant] was working with him,
stabbed the victim using the latter’s own knife. Then they loaded the together with Roldan Lozada and Oweng Cendana, at Area C,
victim to the tricycle and drove to a grassy area where appellant and Dasmariñas, Cavite, in the construction of Boy Cendana’s house,
his companions dumped the body of the victim. Thereafter, they Paul’s brother-in-law. Paul was the cement mixer while [appellant],
returned to appellant’s residence. Jefferson told the sister of appellant being his partner, carries it to wherever it is needed. Their work ends
about the death of his father but the sister of appellant only told him at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon. After their work, they just stayed in
to sleep. their barracks located within their workplace. [Appellant] was their
cook. They usually sleep at around 8:00 o’clock to 9:00 o’clock in the
The next day, Jefferson was brought to the jeepney terminal where evening. They get their pay only during Saturdays. Hence, they would
he rode a jeepney to get home. Jefferson told his mother, Ma. go home to Bulacan every Saturday.
Theresa Calitisan-Lita, about the death of his father.
At around 6:00 o’clock to 7:00 o’clock in the evening of September 7,
In the meantime, SPO3 Servillano Lactao Cabading received a call 2002, they left Cavite and went to their respective homes in Bulacan.
from Barangay Captain Danilo Rogelio of Barangay San Rafael IV, San
Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan thru the two (2) way radio, that the On the night of September 5, 2002, [appellant] slept together with
body of a male person with several stab wounds was found dead on a Paul and their other co-workers inside their barracks. Paul woke up in
grassy area beside the road of the said barangay. Immediately, SPO3 the middle of the night to urinate and was not able to see whether
Cabading together with a police aide proceeded to the area. Thereat, the accused was there, as there were no lights in the place where
they found the dead body whom they identified thru his Driver’s they were sleeping. The following morning, [appellant] was the one
License in his wallet as Jesus Lita, the victim. Also recovered were a who cooked their food.7 (Citations omitted.)
big stainless ice pick about 18 inches long including the handle and a
tricycle key. The police officers brought the body of the victim to the
By fair intendment, the legal precepts and opinions here Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's
collected funnel down to one positive conclusion: The term civil action for damages was to be considered instituted
final judgment employed in the Revised Penal Code means together with the criminal action still, since both
judgment beyond recall. Really, as long as a judgment has proceedings were terminated without final adjudication, the
not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said that civil action of the offended party under Article 33 may yet
defendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged against be enforced separately.
him.
In Torrijos, the Supreme Court held that:
Not that the meaning thus given to final judgment is without
reason. For where, as in this case, the right to institute a xxx xxx xxx
separate civil action is not reserved, the decision to be
rendered must, of necessity, cover "both the criminal and It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability
the civil aspects of the case." People vs. Yusico (November 9, follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89,
1942), 2 O.G., No. 100, p. 964. See also: People vs. Moll, only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its
68 Phil., 626, 634; Francisco, Criminal Procedure, 1958 ed., only basis. Stated differently, where the civil liability does
Vol. I, pp. 234, 236. Correctly, Judge Kapunan observed not exist independently of the criminal responsibility, the
that as "the civil action is based solely on the felony extinction of the latter by death, ipso facto extinguishes the
xxx xxx xxx The accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for
the funds improperly disbursed although he has no criminal
In the above case, the court was convinced that the civil liability (U.S. vs. Elvina, 24 Phil. 230; Philippine National
liability of the accused who was charged with estafa could Bank vs. Tugab, 66 Phil. 583).
likewise trace its genesis to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the
Civil Code since said accused had swindled the first and In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the dismissal of
second vendees of the property subject matter of the the appeal of the deceased Sendaydiego insofar as his
contract of sale. It therefore concluded: "Consequently, criminal liability is concerned, the Court Resolved to
while the death of the accused herein extinguished his continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over his possible
criminal liability including fine, his civil liability based on the civil liability for the money claims of the Province of
laws of human relations remains." Pangasinan arising from the alleged criminal acts
complained of, as if no criminal case had been instituted
Thus it allowed the appeal to proceed with respect to the civil liability against him, thus making applicable, in determining his civil
of the accused, notwithstanding the extinction of his criminal liability liability, Article 30 of the Civil Code . . . and, for that
due to his death pending appeal of his conviction. purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this Court within
ten (10) days of the names and addresses of the decedent's
To further justify its decision to allow the civil liability to survive, the heirs or whether or not his estate is under administration
court relied on the following ratiocination: Since Section 21, Rule 3 of and has a duly appointed judicial administrator. Said heirs
the Rules of Court 9 requires the dismissal of all money claims or administrator will be substituted for the deceased insofar
against the defendant whose death occurred prior to the final as the civil action for the civil liability is concerned (Secs. 16
judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI), then it can be inferred and 17, Rule 3, Rules of Court).
that actions for recovery of money may continue to be heard on
appeal, when the death of the defendant supervenes after the CFI Succeeding cases 11 raising the identical issue have maintained
had rendered its judgment. In such case, explained this tribunal, "the adherence to our ruling in Sendaydiego; in other words, they were a
name of the offended party shall be included in the title of the case as reaffirmance of our abandonment of the settled rule that a civil
plaintiff-appellee and the legal representative or the heirs of the liability solely anchored on the criminal (civil liability ex delicto) is
deceased-accused should be substituted as defendants-appellants." extinguished upon dismissal of the entire appeal due to the demise of
the accused.
It is, thus, evident that as jurisprudence evolved from Castillo to
Torrijos, the rule established was that the survival of the civil liability But was it judicious to have abandoned this old ruling? A re-
depends on whether the same can be predicated on sources of examination of our decision in Sendaydiego impels us to revert to the
obligations other than delict. Stated differently, the claim for civil old ruling.
liability is also extinguished together with the criminal action if it were
solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto. To restate our resolution of July 8, 1977 in Sendaydiego: The
resolution of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action
However, the Supreme Court in People v. Sendaydiego, et al. 10 can proceed irrespective of the latter's extinction due to death of the
departed from this long-established principle of law. In this case, accused pending appeal of his conviction, pursuant to Article 30 of the
accused Sendaydiego was charged with and convicted by the lower Civil Code and Section 21, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
court of malversation thru falsification of public documents.
Sendaydiego's death supervened during the pendency of the appeal Article 30 of the Civil Code provides:
of his conviction.
When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil
This court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal
Sendaydiego's appeal but only to the extent of his criminal liability. proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil
His civil liability was allowed to survive although it was clear that such case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be
claim thereon was exclusively dependent on the criminal action sufficient to prove the act complained of.
already extinguished. The legal import of such decision was for the
court to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the entire Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend support to the
appeal, passing upon the correctness of Sendaydiego's conviction ruling in Sendaydiego. Nowhere in its text is there a grant of
despite dismissal of the criminal action, for the purpose of authority to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the
determining if he is civilly liable. In doing so, this Court issued a accused's civil liability ex delicto when his death supervenes during
Resolution of July 8, 1977 stating thus: appeal. What Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil
action which may be brought to demand civil liability arising from a
The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil criminal offense independently of any criminal action. In the event
liability survived Sendaydiego because his death occurred that no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of
after final judgment was rendered by the Court of First said civil case, the quantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal
Instance of Pangasinan, which convicted him of three act will have to be that which is compatible with civil liability and that
complex crimes of malversation through falsification and is, preponderance of evidence and not proof of guilt beyond
ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total sum of reasonable doubt. Citing or invoking Article 30 to justify the survival
P61,048.23 (should be P57,048.23). of the civil action despite extinction of the criminal would in effect
merely beg the question of whether civil liability ex delicto survives
The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly upon extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accused
instituted with the criminal action in the absence of express during appeal of his conviction. This is because whether asserted in
waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex delicto
111 of the Rules of Court). The civil action for the civil is extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on
liability is separate and distinct from the criminal action appeal. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is clear on this matter:
(People and Manuel vs. Coloma, 105 Phil. 1287; Roa vs. De
la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8). Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. —
Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
When the action is for the recovery of money and the
defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
manner especially provided in Rule 87 of the Rules of Court extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs
(Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). before final judgment;
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in the City of Legazpi,
his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and otherwise use any regulated drug and without the corresponding
only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the license or prescription, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." feloniously have, in his possession and under his control and custody,
one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as VOP
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the 03/21/16- l G containing 0.084 [gram] of white crystalline substance,
death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of which when examined were found to be positive for
obligation other than delict. 19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code Methamphetamine Hydrocloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil
liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: CONTRARY TO LAW.4
a) Law 20 On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to
Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement,5 praying to withdraw his not
b) Contracts guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment,
c) Quasi-contracts Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs)
with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time
d) . . . offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his
possession. He argued that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1)
e) Quasi-delicts the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2)
the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5),
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) the principle of
an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the
filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the government.
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil
action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or In its Comment or Opposition6 dated June 27, 2016, the prosecution
the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon moved for the denial of the motion for being contrary to Section 23 of
which the same is based as explained above. R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be justified by the Congress'
prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea bargaining.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his Later, in a Comment or Opposition7 dated June 29, 2016, it
right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where manifested that it "is open to the Motion of the accused to enter into
during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, plea bargaining to give life to the intent of the law as provided in
the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil paragraph 3, Section 2 of [R.A. No.] 9165, however, with the express
action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is mandate of Section 23 of [R.A. No.] 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining,
deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, [it] is left without any choice but to reject the proposal of the
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 21 of the Civil Code, that accused."
should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of
right by prescription. 22 On July 12, 2016, respondent Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, issued an Order
Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death denying Estipona's motion. It was opined:
of appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil
liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. The accused posited in his motion that Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165, which
Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification. prohibits plea bargaining, encroaches on the exclusive constitutional
power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure
WHEREFORE, the appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas is DISMISSED because plea bargaining is a "rule of procedure." Indeed, plea
with costs de oficio. bargaining forms part of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly
under Rule 118, the rule on pre-trial conference. It is only the Rules
SO ORDERED. of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its
constitutional rule-making power that breathes life to plea bargaining.
EN BANC It cannot be found in any statute.
August 15, 2017 Without saying so, the accused implies that Sec. 23 of Republic Act
No. 9165 is unconstitutional because it, in effect, suspends the
G.R. No. 226679 operation of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court insofar as it allows plea
bargaining as part of the mandatory pre-trial conference in criminal
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, Petitioner, cases.
vs.
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial The Court sees merit in the argument of the accused that it is also
Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, and PEOPLE OF THE the intendment of the law, R.A. No. 9165, to rehabilitate an accused
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. of a drug offense. Rehabilitation is thus only possible in cases of use
While basic is the precept that lower courts are not precluded from Bearing in mind the very important and pivotal issues raised in this
resolving, whenever warranted, constitutional questions, the Court is petition, technical matters should not deter Us from having to make
not unaware of the admonition of the Supreme Court that lower the final and definitive pronouncement that everyone else depends for
courts must observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional enlightenment and guidance.17 When public interest requires, the
questions. Upon which admonition, it is thus not for this lower court Court may brush aside procedural rules in order to resolve a
to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional given the constitutional issue.18
potential ramifications that such declaration might have on the
prosecution of illegal drug cases pending before this judicial station.8 x x x [T]he Court is invested with the power to suspend the
application of the rules of procedure as a necessary complement of its
Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in an power to promulgate the same. Barnes v. Hon. Quijano Padilla
Order9 dated July 26, 2016; hence, this petition raising the issues as discussed the rationale for this tenet, viz. :
follows:
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as
I. mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict
and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, WHICH frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
PROHIBITS PLEA BARGAINING IN ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE SAID LAW, eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The power to
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be
final, x x x.
II.
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT ENCROACHED UPON THE POWER OF THE of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and
SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES OF PROCEDURE. again, this Court has consistently held that rules must not be applied
rigidly so as not to override substantial justice. 19
III.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AS PRESIDED BY HON.
FRANK E. LOBRIGO, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION Rule-making power of the Supreme
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT Court under the 1987 Constitution
REFUSED TO DECLARE SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.10 Section 5(5), A1iicle VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
We grant the petition. Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
General (OSG), contends that the petition should be dismissed constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
outright for being procedurally defective on the grounds that: (1) the the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
Congress should have been impleaded as an indispensable party; (2) assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
the constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall
attacked collaterally; and (3) the proper recourse should have been a be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
petition for declaratory relief before this Court or a petition for increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
certiorari before the RTC. Moreover, the OSG argues that the petition courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
fails to satisfy the requisites of judicial review because: (1) Estipona disapproved by the Supreme Court.
lacks legal standing to sue for failure to show direct injury; (2) there
is no actual case or controversy; and (3) the constitutionality of The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is
Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is not the lis mota of the case. now Our exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive
and Legislative departments.20 In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,
On matters of technicality, some points raised by the OSG maybe 21 then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Reynato S. Puno traced
correct.1âwphi1 Nonetheless, without much further ado, it must be the history of the Court's rule-making power and highlighted its
underscored that it is within this Court's power to make exceptions to evolution and development.
the rules of court. Under proper conditions, We may permit the full
and exhaustive ventilation of the parties' arguments and positions x x x It should be stressed that the power to promulgate rules of
despite the supposed technical infirmities of a petition or its alleged pleading, practice and procedure was granted by our Constitutions to
procedural flaws. In discharging its solemn duty as the final arbiter of this Court to enhance its independence, for in the words of Justice
constitutional issues, the Court shall not shirk from its obligation to Isagani Cruz "without independence and integrity, courts will lose that
determine novel issues, or issues of first impression, with far-reaching popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their vigor as
implications.11 champions of justice." Hence, our Constitutions continuously vested
this power to this Court for it enhances its independence. Under the
Likewise, matters of procedure and technicalities normally take a 1935 Constitution, the power of this Court to promulgate rules
backseat when issues of substantial and transcendental importance concerning pleading, practice and procedure was granted but it
are present.12 We have acknowledged that the Philippines' problem appeared to be co-existent with legislative power for it was subject to
2. Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Currently, the pertinent rules on plea bargaining under the 2000
Cooperative, Inc. 28 - The Cooperative Code provisions on notices Rules37 are quoted below:
cannot replace the rules on summons under Rule 14 of the Rules.
RULE 116 (Arraignment and Plea):
3. RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from
Payment of Legal Fees; 29 Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - At arraignment, the
Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Hon. Judge Cabato-Cortes;30 In Re: accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor,
Exemption of the National Power Corporation from Payment of may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense
Filing/Docket Fees; 31 and Rep. of the Phils. v. Hon. Mangotara, et al. which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After
32 - Despite statutory provisions, the GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead
are not exempt from the payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty.
of the Rules. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (Sec. 4,
Cir. 38-98)
4. Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division)33 - The first
paragraph of Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770, which prohibits courts RULE 118 (Pre-trial):
except the Supreme Court from issuing temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin an investigation SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In all criminal cases
conducted by the Ombudsman, is unconstitutional as it contravenes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
Rule 58 of the Rules. Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and
Considering that the aforesaid laws effectively modified the Rules, this within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
Court asserted its discretion to amend, repeal or even establish new over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for
rules of procedure, to the exclusion of the legislative and executive in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial
branches of government. To reiterate, the Court's authority to conference to consider the following:
promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is exclusive
and one of the safeguards of Our institutional independence.34 (a) plea bargaining;
Plea bargaining, as a rule and a practice, has been existing in our (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
jurisdiction since July 1, 1940, when the 1940 Rules took effect.
Section 4, Rule 114 (Pleas) of which stated: (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
SEC. 4. Plea of guilty of lesser offense. - The defendant, with the (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge
consent of the court and of the fiscal, may plead guilty of any lesser but interposes a lawful defense; and
offense than that charged which is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the complaint or information. (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case. (Sec. 2 & 3, Cir. 38-98)
When the 1964 Rules became effective on January 1, 1964, the same
provision was retained under Rule 118 (Pleas).1âwphi1 Subsequently, Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure
with the effectivity of the 1985 Rules on January 1, 1985, the
provision on plea of guilty to a lesser offense was amended. Section 2, The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal
Rule 116 provided: procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive rights,
i.e., the former should not diminish, increase or modify the latter.38
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - The accused with the "Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are
not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is cognizable by established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law,
a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for
the complaint or information is necessary. (4a, R-118) their invasions."39 Fabian v. Hon. Desierto40 laid down the test for
determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural in nature.
As well, the term "plea bargaining" was first mentioned and expressly
required during pre-trial. Section 2, Rule 118 mandated: It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn between those
rules or statutes which are procedural, hence within the scope of this
SEC. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. - The pre-trial conference shall Court's rule-making power, and those which are substantive. In fact,
consider the following: a particular rule may be procedural in one context and substantive in
another. It is admitted that what is procedural and what is
(a) Plea bargaining; substantive is frequently a question of great difficulty. It is not,
however, an insurmountable problem if a rational and pragmatic
(b) Stipulation of facts; approach is taken within the context of our own procedural and
jurisdictional system.
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or
modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really
(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial. (n) regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights
and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering
The 1985 Rules was later amended. While the wordings of Section 2, remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule
Rule 118 was retained, Section 2, Rule 116 was modified in 1987. A takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a
second paragraph was added, stating that "[a] conviction under this right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive
plea shall be equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing
purposes of double jeopardy." right then the rule deals merely with procedure.41
When R.A. No. 8493 ("Speedy Trial Act of 1998 ') was enacted,35 In several occasions, We dismissed the argument that a procedural
Section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules was substantially adopted. Section 2 rule violates substantive rights. For example, in People v. Lacson, 42
of the law required that plea bargaining and other matters36 that will Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules on provisional dismissal was held as
promote a fair and expeditious trial are to be considered during pre- a special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State to
trial conference in all criminal cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial prosecute, making the time-bar an essence of the given right or as an
CRIM REV 1st Set Fulltext Page 72 of 74
inherent part thereof, so that its expiration operates to extinguish the conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies
right of the State to prosecute the accused.43 Speaking through then against the judgment.
Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., the Court opined:
It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court
In the new rule in question, as now construed by the Court, it has diminishes or modifies the substantive rights of petitioners. It only
fixed a time-bar of one year or two years for the revival of criminal works in pursuance of the power of the Supreme Court to "provide a
cases provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
and with a priori notice to the offended party. The time-bar may cases." This provision protects the courts from delay in the speedy
appear, on first impression, unreasonable compared to the periods disposition of criminal cases - delay arising from the simple
under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in fixing the expediency of nonappearance of the accused on the scheduled
time-bar, the Court balanced the societal interests and those of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction.46
accused for the orderly and speedy disposition of criminal cases with
minimum prejudice to the State and the accused. It took into account By the same token, it is towards the provision of a simplified and
the substantial rights of both the State and of the accused to due inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases in all
process. The Court believed that the time limit is a reasonable period courts47 that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. As a way
for the State to revive provisionally dismissed cases with the consent of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea
of the accused and notice to the offended parties. The time-bar fixed bargaining is considered to be an "important," "essential," "highly
by the Court must be respected unless it is shown that the period is desirable," and "legitimate" component of the administration of
manifestly short or insufficient that the rule becomes a denial of justice.48 Some of its salutary effects include:
justice. The petitioners failed to show a manifest shortness or
insufficiency of the time-bar. x x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the
advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penalty are
The new rule was conceptualized by the Committee on the Revision of obvious - his exposure is reduced, the correctional processes can
the Rules and approved by the Court en banc primarily to enhance begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are eliminated.
the administration of the criminal justice system and the rights to due For the State there are also advantages - the more promptly imposed
process of the State and the accused by eliminating the deleterious punishment after an admission of guilt may more effectively attain
practice of trial courts of provisionally dismissing criminal cases on the objectives of punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce
motion of either the prosecution or the accused or jointly, either with judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for those cases in
no time-bar for the revival thereof or with a specific or definite period which there is a substantial issue of the defendant's guilt or in which
for such revival by the public prosecutor. There were times when such there is substantial doubt that the State can sustain its burden of
criminal cases were no longer revived or refiled due to causes beyond proof. (Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 [1970])
the control of the public prosecutor or because of the indolence,
apathy or the lackadaisical attitude of public prosecutors to the Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads to prompt
prejudice of the State and the accused despite the mandate to public and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of
prosecutors and trial judges to expedite criminal proceedings. the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement
for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public
It is almost a universal experience that the accused welcomes delay from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal
as it usually operates in his favor, especially if he greatly fears the conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time
consequences of his trial and conviction. He is hesitant to disturb the between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the
hushed inaction by which dominant cases have been known to expire. rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately
imprisoned. (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 [1971])
The inordinate delay in the revival or refiling of criminal cases may
impair or reduce the capacity of the State to prove its case with the The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the
disappearance or nonavailability of its witnesses. Physical evidence anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of
may have been lost. Memories of witnesses may have grown dim or his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in
have faded. Passage of time makes proof of any fact more difficult. realizing whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges
The accused may become a fugitive from justice or commit another and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The public is
crime. The longer the lapse of time from the dismissal of the case to protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal
the revival thereof, the more difficult it is to prove the crime. offenses who are at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal
proceedings. (Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 [1977])
On the other side of the fulcrum, a mere provisional dismissal of a
criminal case does not terminate a criminal case. The possibility that In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a process
the case may be revived at any time may disrupt or reduce, if not whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
derail, the chances of the accused for employment, curtail his satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval."49
association, subject him to public obloquy and create anxiety in him There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining.50 The
and his family. He is unable to lead a normal life because of essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the
community suspicion and his own anxiety. He continues to suffer defense make concessions to avoid potential losses.51 Properly
those penalties and disabilities incompatible with the presumption of administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief
innocence. He may also lose his witnesses or their memories may virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the
fade with the passage of time. In the long run, it may diminish his accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.52
capacity to defend himself and thus eschew the fairness of the entire
criminal justice system. Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage,53 the rules on
plea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right.
The time-bar under the new rule was fixed by the Court to excise the Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing right by
malaise that plagued the administration of the criminal justice system regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
for the benefit of the State and the accused; not for the accused recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy
only.44 and redress for a disregard or infraction of them.
Also, We said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al. 45 that Section The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the
6, Rule 120 of the Rules, which provides that an accused who failed defendant's appraisal of the prosecution's case against him and by
to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea be
the remedies available against the judgment, does not take away offered and accepted.54 In any case, whether it be to the offense
substantive rights but merely provides the manner through which an charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a "serious and sobering
existing right may be implemented. occasion" inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the fundamental
rights to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, to be
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take away per se heard by himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses face to face, to
the right of the convicted accused to avail of the remedies under the bail (except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
Rules. It is the failure of the accused to appear without justifiable perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to be convicted by proof
cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of beyond reasonable doubt, and not to be compelled to be a witness
against himself.55
The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,
which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which
is necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes
an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the
accused to make such plea.61 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in
mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually
charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or
compromise for the convenience of the accused.62