Criminal Law Cases

1. G.R. No. 228886 August 8, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

CHARLIE FLORES, DANIEL FLORES and SAMMY FLORES

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Elements of Murder: To successfully

prosecute the crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC, the following
elements must be established: 1. That a person was killed; 2. That the
person killed him or her; 3. That the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art 248 of the RPC; 4. And that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide. All the elements were proven by the
prosecution through the lone witness, Eduardo, which was able to
categorically identify accused-appellants during the pronouncement of his
testimony before the trial court.

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Qualifying circumstance; Abuse of

Superior Strength: Abuse of Superior Strength is present whenever there is
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for
the aggressor selected or taken advantage of him in the commission of the
crime. The prosecution was able to clearly establish that the accused-
appellants, taking advantage with their number, purposely resorted to
holding Larry by the armpit so all the accused-appellants would be free to
stab him. Moreover, in terms of numbers, Larry was with his lone
companion, Eduardo, while the assailants, totalling five, participated in the
attack. A disparity in strength and size was thus apparent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

2. G.R. No. 226485 June 6, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

BERNIE DELOCIEMBRE Y ANDALES and DHATS ADAM Y DANGA

Criminal Law; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act ; Article II Section 21:

The apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items
in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the
same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory within twenty-four hours from confiscation for examination. The
Court finds that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from
the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the
integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from
accused-appellants.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

3. G.R. No. 227421 July 23, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO OLARBE Y BALIHANGO

Criminal Law; Criminal Law; Self Defense: In order to establish self

defense, one must establish the following facts: (1) There must be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Arca armed with
both the gun and the bolo, not only disturbed Olarbe's peace but physically
invaded the sanctity of latter's home at midnight. Given that the aggression
by Arca was unprovoked on the part of Olarbe, and with no other person
disputing the latter's account, it is easily understood why Olarbe would feel
that he and his common law spouse's lives had been put in extreme peril.
Further, although Arca sustained several wounds the majority of the
wounds were lacerations whose nature and extent were not explained. The
lack of explanations has denied the SC the means to fairly adjudge the
reasonableness of the means adopted by Olarbe to prevent or repel Area's
unlawful aggression. Furthermore, the third element was present when
there is no sufficient evidence that Olarbe had provoked Arca or that he had
been induced by revenge, resentment or other evil.

BERSAMIN, J.:

4. G.R. No. 231664 June 27, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

MICHELLE PARBA-RURAL and MAY ALMOHAN-DAZA

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Elements of Kidnapping: In prosecuting
a case involving the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the following elements
must be established: (1) the accused was a private person; (2) he kidnapped
or detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (3) the
kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (4) the victim was kidnapped or
detained for ransom. the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the
above-mentioned elements. In her testimony, Nenita, narrated how she was
deprived of her liberty from the time she was forcibly taken by the
appellants and their companions inside a van for the purpose of extorting
money and jewelry from her until she relented to their demands.

PERALTA, J.:

G.R. No. 228886 August 8, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

CHARLIE FLORES, DANIEL FLORES and SAMMY FLORES

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Elements of Murder: To successfully

prosecute the crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC, the following
elements must be established: 1. That a person was killed; 2. That the
person killed him or her; 3. That the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art 248 of the RPC; 4. And that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide. All the elements were proven by the
prosecution through the lone witness, Eduardo, which was able to
categorically identify accused-appellants during the pronouncement of his
testimony before the trial court.

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Qualifying circumstance; Abuse of

Superior Strength: Abuse of Superior Strength is present whenever there is
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for
the aggressor selected or taken advantage of him in the commission of the
crime. The prosecution was able to clearly establish that the accused-
appellants, taking advantage with their number, purposely resorted to
holding Larry by the armpit so all the accused-appellants would be free to
stab him. Moreover, in terms of numbers, Larry was with his lone
companion, Eduardo, while the assailants, totalling five, participated in the
attack. A disparity in strength and size was thus apparent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: The victim Larry Parcon and Eduardo Mabini were on their way
home aboard a motorcycle when it ran out of fuel in front of a videoke bar.
Eduardo decided to buy fuel while Larry went inside the videoke bar.
However, when Eduardo was about to go he heard a commotion and
decided to go inside the bar. There he saw Larry pacifying Sammy and
Daniel, who were fighting. Suddenly, Rodel ran towards Larry and stabbed
him. Eduardo asked why he stabbed his boss Larry, but Sammy, Daniel and
Rodel turned to him to punch him. They even tried to stab him, however
they failed because he fell on the stairs. The accused-appellants, went back
to Larry and took turns in stabbing him with their knife, while Charlie held
the victim by his armpits and Gary stab the victim on his head. Larry was
pronounced dead on arrival. On the accused’s defense, they claimed that
they were not in the place of the incident when it happened. The RTC
rendered the decision against the accused stating that there was an abuse
of superior strength which qualified the crime to murder. The accused
appealed before the CA assailing their identification by the lone witness for
the prosecution, and they also imputed that there was an error on the
decision of the trial court for having qualified the crime as murder after it
had ruled that they abused their superior strength, but the latter affirmed
the decision of the RTC.

ISSUES:Whether or not the accused are guilty for the crime of murder?

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. Under Article 248 of the RPC it states that: Any
person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances: (1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of
means or persons to insure or afford impunity. Thus, to successfully
prosecute the crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC, the following
elements must be established: (1) That a person was killed; (2) That the
person killed him or her; (3) That the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art 248 of the RPC; (4) And that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide.

In this case, all the elements were proven by the prosecution through
the lone witness, Eduardo, which was able to categorically identify accused-
appellants during the pronouncement of his testimony before the trial court.
Further, the SC stated that mo ill motive was also shown for the said lone
eyewitness to testify against accused-appellants. Thus, the Court found no
error in the affirmance by the appellate court to the regional trial court's
finding of guilt of the accused-appellants based on the sole testimony of the
prosecution witness who positively identified the perpetrator.

Accordingly, this case is qualified by Abuse of superior strength which

is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of
by him in the commission of the crime. The evidence must establish that the
assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate
intent to use this advantage. The prosecution was able to clearly establish
that the accused-appellants, taking advantage with their number, purposely
resorted to holding Larry by the armpit so all the accused-appellants would
be free to stab him. Moreover, in terms of numbers, Larry was with his lone
companion, Eduardo, while the assailants, totalling five, participated in the
attack. A disparity in strength and size was thus apparent.
G.R. No. 226485 June 6, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

BERNIE DELOCIEMBRE Y ANDALES and DHATS ADAM Y DANGA

Criminal Law; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act ; Article II Section 21:

The apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items
in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the
same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory within twenty-four hours from confiscation for examination. The
Court finds that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from
the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the
integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from
accused-appellants.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS: On April 7, 2010, a buy bust team led by Senior Officer II (SO II)
Christopher Macairap, was organized to conduct an entrapment operation
against Bernie alias “Axe”, who was reportedly operating a sale of illegal
drugs within the area of Quezon City. During the conduct of operation, IO1
Avenido who acted as a poseur-buyer, was able to buy shabu from accused-
appellants and the arrest was subsequently effected. The team then
proceeded to the PDEA office, where the requisite marking and inventory of
the seized illegal drugs were done in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad,
and the accused-appellants, while SO II Macairap is documenting the same.
For their defense, Bernie and Dhats claimed that they were at their home
when they were invited to PDEA office to ask the whereabouts of certain
“Axe. The RTC ruled that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt in
violation of Section 5, Art. 2 of RA 9165 for sale of illegal drugs. The
accused then appealed the case to the CA. In affirming the decision of the
RTC, CA stated that that while certain requirements under Section 21 of RA
9165 were not complied with, the prosecution nevertheless established an
unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which were preserved from
the time of seizure to receipt by the forensic laboratory to safekeeping up to
presentation in court. Hence, this case before the SC contending that the
police officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedures in the
handling and disposition of the seized drugs as provided under Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to comply with the requirements in Sec. 21,
Art. 2 of RA 9165 render the case dismissible ?

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. As outlined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, “the

apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items
in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same,
and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory
within twenty-four hours from confiscation for examination”.

The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may
not always be possible. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165, which is now crystallized into statutory law with the
passage of RA 10640, provides that the said inventory and photography may
be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, under justifiable grounds,
will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized
items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.

In this case, the Court finds that the police officers committed unjustified
deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into
question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized
from accused-appellants. An examination of the records reveals that while
the requisite inventory of the seized drugs was conducted in the presence of
accused-appellants and an elected public official, the same was not done in
the presence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ. More
significantly, the apprehending officers failed to proffer a plausible
explanation why they dispensed the presence of DOJ officer and Media
member in conducting the physical inventory and taking of photographs.

G.R. No. 227421 July 23, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO OLARBE Y BALIHANGO

Criminal Law; Criminal Law; Self Defense: In order to establish self

defense, one must establish the following facts: (1) There must be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Arca armed with
both the gun and the bolo, not only disturbed Olarbe's peace but physically
invaded the sanctity of latter's home at midnight. Given that the aggression
by Arca was unprovoked on the part of Olarbe, and with no other person
disputing the latter's account, it is easily understood why Olarbe would feel
that he and his common law spouse's lives had been put in extreme peril.
Further, although Arca sustained several wounds the majority of the
wounds were lacerations whose nature and extent were not explained. The
lack of explanations has denied the SC the means to fairly adjudge the
reasonableness of the means adopted by Olarbe to prevent or repel Area's
unlawful aggression. Furthermore, the third element was present when
there is no sufficient evidence that Olarbe had provoked Arca or that he had
been induced by revenge, resentment or other evil.

BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS: The accused and his wife were sleeping in their house when they
were suddenly awakened by the sound of a gunshot and shouting Romeo
Arca who appeared to be drunk. Arca was holding his rifle, an airgun
converted to Calibre .22 and shouted “mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin
ko kayo”. Then Arca forcibly entered the house and aimed his gun at them,
but Olarbe was able to wrest the gun away from Arca. Nevertheless, Arca
still managed to grab the bolo from his waist and continued to attack them,
but Olarbe was able to wrestle the bolo again and thereby inflicting hacking
wounds on different parts of his body which resulted to his instantaneous
death. After the killing incident, Olarbe voluntarily surrendered to the
police authorities and invoked Self defense. The RTC reject Olarbe’s plea of
self defense on the ground that the incident is not in accord with the natural
order of things because the injury in the head had already weakened and
subdued Arca thereby he has no longer strength to further his aggression,
and that the killing was treacherous because Olarbe hacked the unarmed
and weakened victim. The accused appeal the case to the CA, however the
same was denied. Hence, the accused’s appeal on the ground that the
decision of the lower court and CA was erroneous to reject his pleas of self-
defense because he had killed Arca to save himself and his common-law
wife from the latter's unlawful aggression; that his use of the victim's gun
and bolo to repel or stop the unlawful aggression was necessary and
reasonable; and that the killing was consequently legally justified.

ISSUE: Whether or not Olarbe has clearly and convincingly established Self
Defense and defense of a stranger under justifying circumstances?

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. An accused who pleads any justifying circumstance

in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of his
crime. It thus become his burden to prove the justifying circumstance with
clear and convincing evidence. In order to establish an act of self defense
the following requisites must be established: (1) there must be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
 The indispensable requisite for this justifying circumstance is that the
victim must have mounted an unlawful aggression against the accused.
Without such unlawful aggression, the accused is not entitled to the
justifying circumstance. In this case, Arca armed with both the gun and the
bolo, not only disturbed Olarbe's peace but physically invaded the sanctity
of latter's home at midnight. Given that the aggression by Arca was
unprovoked on the part of Olarbe, and with no other person disputing the
latter's account, it is easily understood why Olarbe would feel that he and
his common law spouse's lives had been put in extreme peril. In addition,
Olarbe's conduct of voluntarily surrendering himself to the police
authorities immediately after the killing bolstered his pleas of having acted
in legitimate self-defense.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed must be assumed that

one who is assaulted cannot have sufficient calmness of mind to think,
calculate and make comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of
reason. Although Arca sustained several wounds the majority of the wounds
were lacerations whose nature and extent were not explained. The lack of
explanations has denied the SC the means to fairly adjudge the
reasonableness of the means adopted by Olarbe to prevent or repel Area's
unlawful aggression. The courts ought to remember that a person who is
assaulted has neither the time nor the sufficient tranquility of mind to think,
calculate and choose the weapon to be used. Lastly, the third element was
present when there is no sufficient evidence that Olarbe had provoked Arca
or that he had been induced by revenge, resentment or other evil.
G.R. No. 231664 June 27, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

MICHELLE PARBA-RURAL and MAY ALMOHAN-DAZA

Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Elements of Kidnapping: In prosecuting

a case involving the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the following elements
must be established: (1) the accused was a private person; (2) he kidnapped
or detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (3) the
kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (4) the victim was kidnapped or
detained for ransom. the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the
above-mentioned elements. In her testimony, Nenita, narrated how she was
deprived of her liberty from the time she was forcibly taken by the
appellants and their companions inside a van for the purpose of extorting
money and jewelry from her until she relented to their demands.

PERALTA, J.:

FACTS: Nenita Marquez was forcibly abducted by appellants and boarded

in a Ford Fiesta van. There were 6 persons inside the car and stayed there
for 2 hours. The said persons repeatedly demanded from Nenita that she
give them her jewelry and money in exchange for her freedom, otherwise
they will hurt her and her family. Thereafter, they alighted from the vehicle
and went to the victim’s house wherein she took her pieces of jewelry. Ana,
her daughter believing that the accused-appellants were her mother’s
officemates left at their living room returned to her chore. Afterwards, they
went to the Philippine National Bank and was entertained by Mel, the bank
officer, to pre-terminate her time deposit account and to release the
deposited money and while waiting for the approval of the pre-termination
she saw her daughter, Ana, together with the 2 police officers which
prompted her to seek for help. The 2 appellants were arrested. In their
defense, they claimed that it was Nenita who reached them to seek for help
because she’s feeling weak and dizzy at that time. The RTC ruled that the
accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the ground that the
prosecution was able to prove all the elements of kidnapping for ransom.
This decision of the lower court was affirmed by the CA, thus a motion for
reconsideration was submitted by the accused, however the same was
denied. Hence the appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of kidnapping ?

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Court has stated that in prosecuting a case

involving the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the following elements must
be established: (1) the accused was a private person; (2) he kidnapped or
detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (3) the
kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (4) the victim was kidnapped or
detained for ransom. Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him
from captivity. No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the
felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is intended as a
bargaining chip in exchange for the victim's freedom.

In this case, the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the
above-mentioned elements. In her testimony, Nenita, narrated how she was
deprived of her liberty from the time she was forcibly taken by the
appellants and their companions inside a van for the purpose of extorting
money and jewelry from her until she relented to their demands. Further,
there was nothing inconsistent in her testimony, contrary to the arguments
of the accused-appellants that the victim’s testimony was incredible and
inconsistent. In fact, it was well detailed and was corroborated by other
witnesses like her daughter Ana, who clearly saw accused-appellants when
they accompanied her mother, Nenita to their house because she believed
that they were just her officemates; and Mel, the bank officer at PNB, who
also positively identified the accused-appellants in open court as the ones
who closely guarded Nenita while attempting to withdraw money from the
bank.

The Supreme Court reiterated the ruling of the RTC and CA stating that,
accused-appellants' defense that they were just being good Samaritans to
Nenita is absurd and distrustful. It is unacceptable for a person to ask a
complete stranger to accompany her inside her house, wait for her to rest
and then accompany her to the bank. More so, it is dumbfounding that
Nenita would prefer the two accused-appellants to accompany her to a bank
instead of her own daughter to terminate her account and then withdraw
such a huge amount of money.