G.R. No.

222861, April 23, 2018

PO2 JESSIE FLORES Y DE LEON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

Private complainant France figured in a vehicular collision with a passenger jeepney. PO2 Flores
investigated the incident. The jeepney driver was told to go home while France was asked to remain at
the station. He was told to return to the station after two days and prepare the amount of P2,000.00 so
he can get back his driver's license. Sensing that something was not right, France went to the
headquarters of the PAOCTF in Camp Crame to file a complaint against PO2 Flores. Headed by PO2 Ilao,
the PAOCTF team proceeded to Station 10, Kamuning Police Station together with France. When France
entered the station, PO2 Flores asked him if he brought with him the money. He opened a drawer and
told France to drop the money inside. As soon as France asked for his driver's license, the PAOCTF team
suddenly materialized at the scene. They arrested PO2 Flores and confiscated the things inside his
drawer including the marked money.

The RTC found petitioner guilty of simple robbery (extortion). Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied.

Petitioner appealed before the CA. The CA denied the appeal.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON THE PROSECUTION SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
2. WON THE EXONERATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AUTOMATICALLY CAUSE THE DISMISSAL
OF THE CRIMINAL CASE.

RULING:

1. The prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged.

In the present case, there is no doubt that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of
the crime charged. France, the private complainant categorically testified that that petitioner demanded
and eventually received from him the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) in exchange for the
release of his driver's license. When the marked money was placed inside petitioner's drawer, who
counted it afterwards, he was deemed to have taken possession of the money. This amount was
unlawfully taken by petitioner from France with intent to gain and through intimidation. While
petitioner had the authority to confiscate the driver's license of traffic violators, nowhere in the law is he
authorized to keep an offender's license and receive any payment for its return.

The Court likewise agrees with the courts a quo that petitioner employed intimidation to obtain the
amount of P2,000.00 from France as the act performed by the latter caused fear in the mind of the
former and hindered the free exercise of his will.

2. Exoneration in an administrative case does not automatically cause the dismissal of the
criminal case
In the case at bar, the administrative case for grave misconduct filed against petitioner and the present
case for simple robbery are separate and distinct cases, and are independent from each other. The
administrative and criminal proceedings may involve similar facts but each requires a different quantum
of evidence. In addition, the administrative proceeding conducted was before the PNP-IAS and was
summary in nature. In contrast, in the instant criminal case, the RTC conducted a full blown trial and the
prosecution was required to proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure petitioner's conviction.
Furthermore, the proceedings included witnesses who were key figures in the events leading to
petitioner's arrest. Witnesses of both parties were cross examined by their respective counsels creating
a clearer picture of what transpired, which allowed the trial judge to have a better appreciation of the
attendant facts and determination of whether the prosecution proved the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 13, 2015 Decision and February 3, 2016 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36187 are AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007.

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS:

The case stems from an Information charging petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela (petitioner) and Jovy
Calderon with the crime of theft. Petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club by
Lorenzo Lago, a security guard. Lago saw petitioner, wearing an ID with the mark “Receiving Dispatching
Unit”, hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-known “Tide” brand. Petitioner unloaded
these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Thereafter, petitioner left the
parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where
Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the
vehicle. Lago proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked
petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago
fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered.

ISSUE/S:

WHETHER THE CRIME COMMITTED IS CONSUMMATED OR FRUSTRATED THEFT ONLY.

RULING:

We have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment
the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. And
long ago, we asserted in People v. Avila: x x x The most fundamental notion in the crime of theft is the
taking of the thing to be appropriated into the physical power of the thief, which idea is qualified by
other conditions, such as that the taking must be effected animo lucrandi and without the consent of
the owner; and it will be here noted that the definition does not require that the taking should be
effected against the will of the owner but merely that it should be without his consent, a distinction of
no slight importance.

We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

G.R. NO. 163437 : February 13, 2008

ERNESTO PIDELI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS:

Placido Cancio and Wilson Pideli entered into a verbal partnership agreement to subcontract a rip-
rapping and spillway project in favor of ACL Construction. Petitioner Ernesto Pideli, offered the duo the
use of his credit line with the Mt. Trail Farm Supply and Hardware (MTFSH). With the said arrangement,
Wilson and Placido, with the assistance of petitioner, were able to secure an assortment of construction
materials for the rip-rap and spillway contract. The final payment due to Placido and Wilson were
released, amounting to P222,732.00. Petitioner, however, advised the two to first settle their
accountabilities for the construction materials taken from the hardware store. Placido and Wilson did as
told and entrusted the full amount to petitioner, with express instructions to pay MTFSH and deliver the
remaining balance to them. Unexpectedly, petitioner informed Placido that nothing was left of the
proceeds after paying off the supplier. Despite repeated demands, petitioner refused to give Placido his
share in the net income of the contract. Alarmed over the sudden turn of events, Placido lodged a
complaint for theft against petitioner Ernesto Pideli.

The RTC handed down a judgment of conviction for the crime of theft.

The CA affirmed the trial court disposition.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

WHETHER THE CRIME COMMITTED IS THEFT OR ESTAFA.

RULING:

There is, here, a confluence of the elements of theft. Petitioner received the final payment due the
partners Placido and Wilson under the pretext of paying off their obligation with the MTFSH. Under the
terms of their agreement, petitioner was to account for the remaining balance of the said funds and give
each of the partners their respective shares. He, however, failed to give private complainant Placido
what was due him under the construction contract.

When appellant received the disbursement, he had only physical custody of private complainant's
money, which was supposed to be applied to a particular purpose, i.e. settle the account with the
supplier. Appellant's failure to do so or to return the money to the private complainant renders him
guilty of the crime of theft. We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that appellant had
but the material/physical or de facto possession of the money and his act of depriving private
complainant not only of the possession but also the dominion (apoderamiento) of his share of the
money such that he (the appellant) could dispose of the money at will constitutes the element of
"taking" in the crime of theft.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED in full.

G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013

CARLOS L. TANENGGEE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

On different occasions, appellant caused to be prepared promissory notes and cashier’s checks in the
name of Romeo Tan, in connection with the purported loans obtained by the latter from the bank.
Appellant approved and signed the cashier’s check as branch manager of Metrobank Commercio
Branch. Appellant affixed, forged or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as endorser and payee of
the proceeds of the checks at the back of the same to show that the latter had indeed endorsed the
same for payment. He handed the checks to the Loans clerk, Maria Dolores Miranda, for encashment.
Once said documents were forged and falsified, appellant released and obtained from Metrobank the
proceeds of the alleged loan and misappropriated the same to his use and benefit.

The RTC found petitioner guilty of estafa thru falsification of commercial document/s.

The CA affirmed with modifications the RTC decision. It denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON PETITIONER’S WRITTEN STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

2. WON THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL
DOCUMENTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION.

RULING:

1. Petitioner’s written statement is admissible in evidence.

The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in
violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG, is
applicable only in custodial interrogation.

Here, petitioner’s written statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his
employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his
employment. No error can therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in evidence and in
giving due consideration to petitioner’s written statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its
admissibility.

2. Elements of falsification of commercial documents established.

All the elements of estafa were established in this case. First, petitioner is a private individual. Second,
the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner’s (1) counterfeiting or imitating the handwriting or
signature of Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true and genuine in all respects; and (2)
causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did not in fact so
participate. Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes and checks which are commercial
documents.

Falsification as a necessary means to commit estafa.

Taken in its entirety, the proven facts show that petitioner could not have withdrawn the money
without falsifying the questioned documents. The falsification was, therefore, a necessary means to
commit estafa, and falsification was already consummated even before the falsified documents were
used to defraud the bank. The conviction of petitioner for the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document by the lower courts was thus proper.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 23653 dated December 12, 2006 and September 6, 2007, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence to be imposed upon the
petitioner should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.

G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015

CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

Sometime in February 2005, the petitioner offered for sale to Eric Naval portions of land located in
Matina Aplaya, Davao City. The petitioner told Naval that the title to the land she was selling had no
problems. The petitioner also informed Naval that the area subject of the proposed sale would "still be
segregated from the mother title." The parties executed an Agreement to Buy and Sell a portion of the
petitioner's share in the estate of her deceased father, Nicolas Estrellado. Naval built his house on the
subject land. On June 3, 2005, representatives from JS Francisco & Sons, Inc. demolished Naval's house.
It was only then that Naval discovered that the lot sold to him had been the subject of a dispute
between the petitioner's family and JS Francisco. Naval demanded from the petitioner the return of the
amount he paid for the land, as well as to pay the value of the house demolished, but the latter refused
to heed these demands.

The MTCC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of other forms of swindling under Article
316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision in toto. The RTC denied her motion for reconsideration.
The CA dismissed the petition. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED UNDER ART. 316, PAR. 2 OF THE RPC.
2. WON PETITIONER’S VIOLATION OF ART. 316, PAR. 1 OF THE RPC CAN BE PROVEN.

RULING:

1. No.

What brings about criminal liability is the deceit in selling the property. Corollarily, the deed must have a
statement of warranty that is false in order to commit the offense. The petitioner's passive attitude
regarding the presence of an adverse claim (she assumed that Naval became aware of this inscription
after showing to him a copy of TCT No. T-19932 and "never complained") is not sufficient to constitute
fraud within the meaning of the law. The fraud and/or deceit by misrepresentation contemplated by law
must be the result of overt acts; they cannot be implied or presumed.

2. No.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner did not pretend to be the owner of the
property sold. From the very start, the petitioner made it clear to Naval that the subject property was
still under the name of her father; and that the area subject of the sale would still be segregated from
the mother title. Naval also admitted that he saw the front page of the land's title showing Nicolas to be
its registered owner. The element of deceit - central to prosecutions for swindling - is therefore wanting.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, in the light of these considerations, we GRANT the petition, and SET ASIDE the resolutions
of the Court of Appeals dated November 28, 2007, and July 29, 2008, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No.
00429. Accordingly, we ACQUIT petitioner Clarita Estrellado-Mainar of the crime of other forms of
swindling under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

G.R. No. 225730, February 28, 2018

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JULIA REGALADO ESTRADA, ACCUSED-

APPELLANT.

FACTS:

Private complainants Noel Sevillena, Albert Cortez, and Janice A. Antonio, separately met Estrada on
various dates where Estrada represented herself as having power and authority to deploy persons
abroad for overseas employment. After their respective meetings, Estrada offered private complainants
various jobs in Dubai. However, even after undergoing PDOS, payment of the fees required, and
submission of the documentary requirements, Estrada still failed to deploy them abroad. Estrada
repeatedly promised them that their plane tickets were still being processed. Estrada, however, failed to
deliver on her promised deployment of the private complainants; thus, they were prompted to file
criminal cases against Estrada.
The RTC found Estrada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale
and three (3) counts of estafa under Article 315(2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

WON ESTRADA IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE AND THREE (3) COUNTS OF
ESTAFA.

RULING:

Elements constituting illegal recruitment in large scale sufficiently established

First, it is not disputed that Estrada is not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas
placement. During the trial, the defense admitted the POEA Certification which stated that Estrada is not
included among the list of employees submitted by ABCA for POEA acknowledgment. Second, the
prosecution was able to sufficiently demonstrate that Estrada promised and recruited private
complainants for employment abroad for a fee. Finally, it is clear that Estrada committed illegal
recruitment activities against the three (3) private complainants. Thus, the trial and appellate courts
properly convicted Estrada of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Elements constituting Estafa sufficiently established

In this case, testimonial evidence established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that Estrada falsely
represented herself as possessing power to deploy persons for overseas placement. By these pretenses,
Estrada deceived the private complainants into believing that she would provide them their desired jobs
in Dubai. This active representation of having the capacity to deploy the private complainants abroad
despite not having the authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit - the first element
of estafa. Moreover, because of her assurances, the private complainants parted with their money in
order to pay Estrada the various fees which they thought were necessary for their deployment abroad
resulting in damage to each of the private complainants - the second element of estafa.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The 20 August 2015 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 06771, which affirmed the 5 December 2013 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-278205-07 and 10-278208, is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION

G.R. No. 185282, September 24, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN BRAVO Y ESTABILLO, ACCUSED-

APPELLANT.

FACTS:
Mauro, was lying in bed inside his bedroom when he heard gunshots. He then heard appellant calling for
him to come down. When Mauro did not heed appellant’s call, the latter went up the stairs, pointed a
gun at Mauro, and demanded that he bring out the akusan, apparently an object used in witchcraft.

Appellant was accusing Mauro of putting a curse on the latter’s father, who at that instance, was sick.
Mauro remained tight lipped prompting appellant to turn around. On his way down the stairs, appellant
supposedly uttered: “I will burn you all. All of you will die.” About 15 seconds thereafter, Mauro saw a
big fire on the second floor coming from the northwest, in particular, the room of Shirley and Jerickson.

Appellant was found guilty by the trial court of arson.

The appellate court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court and agreed that the circumstantial
evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had set the houses on fire.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

WON APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF ARSON.

RULING:

The occurrence of the fire was established by the burnt house, the charred bodies of the two fire victims
and testimonies of prosecution witnesses. As to the identity of the arsonist, no direct evidence was
presented. However, direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

We fully agree with the Court of Appeals that the following circumstances form an unbroken chain that
point to no other than that appellant is the arsonist, to wit:

Prior to the burning incident, the Bravos blamed the witchcraft to be the cause of the illness of the
father of the accused. A week after, their house got burned downed. The accused was present at the
scene of the crime. The accused was heard uttering “all of you will die. I will burn your house”. Barangay
councilman saw a fire to the north about a kilometer away from where he was. He rushed towards the
place of the fire. Midway, he encountered Benjamin Bravo running from the opposite direction and
carrying a long firearm.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision finding appellant BENJAMIN BRAVO y ESTABILLO guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of arson and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, REPRESENTED BY MEDIATRIX

CARUNGCONG, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILLIAM
SATO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS:

Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate
estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit for
estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato. Her complaint-affidavit read:

“William Sato, through fraudulent misrepresentations, was able to secure the signature and thumbmark
of my mother on a Special Power of Attorney whereby my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato, was made her
attorney-in-fact, to sell and dispose 4 valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. Said Special Power of
Attorney, was signed and thumbmarked by my mother because William Sato told her that the
documents she was being made to sign involved her taxes. At that time, my mother was completely
blind, having gone blind almost 10 years prior to November, 1992.

On the basis of the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney, William Sato found buyers for the property and
made my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign 3 deeds of absolute sale. Demands have been made for
William Sato to make an accounting and to deliver the proceeds of the sales to me as Administratrix of
my mother's estate, but he refused and failed, and continues to refuse and to fail to do so, to the
damage and prejudice of the estate of the deceased Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzales and of the heirs
which include his six (6) children with my sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato.”

The City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed the complaint. On appeal, however, the Secretary of
Justice reversed and set aside the resolution and directed the City Prosecutor to file an Information
against Sato

Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his mother-in-
law, was an exempting circumstance.

The trial court granted Sato's motion and ordered the dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which dismissed it. The appellate court
denied reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON the relationship by affinity created between the husband and the blood relatives of his
wife (as well as between the wife and the blood relatives of her husband) dissolved by the death
of one spouse, thus ending the marriage which created such relationship by affinity?
2. WON the beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification?

RULING:

1. No.
Thus, for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, we hold that the relationship by affinity
created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death
of either party to the marriage which created the affinity.

2. No.

The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. The coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with
another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 9, 2007 and the resolution
dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 95260 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The case is remanded to the trial court which is directed to try the accused with dispatch for the
complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.

G.R. No. 177438, September 24, 2012

AMADA RESTERIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

The petitioner was charged with a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 through the information that
alleged as follows:

That on May, 2002, the above-named accused, did make, draw and issue ChinaBank Check in the
amount of P50,000.00 payable to the order of Bernardo T. Villadolid to apply on account or for value,
the accused fully knowing well that at the time of the issuance of said check that she does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; or the accused having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when she make/s
or draw/s and issue/s a check but she failed to keep sufficient funds or maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check, which check when presented for encashment was dishonored by the drawee bank
for the reason “ACCT. CLOSED” or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason ordered the bank to stop payment, and despite notice of dishonor and
demands for payment, said accused failed and refused and still fails and refuses to redeem the check or
to make arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after
receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the aforenamed private complainant,
in the aforestated amount and other claims and charges allowed by civil law.

The MTCC found the petitioner guilty as charged.

The RTC affirmed the conviction.

The CA found the petition to be without merit, and denied the petition for review.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

WON ALL THE ELEMENTS OF A VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 WERE ESTABLISHED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

RULING:

The existence of the first element of the violation is not disputed. The State likewise proved the
existence of the third element.

Given petitioners’ denial of receipt of the demand letter, it behooved the prosecution to present proof
that the demand letter was indeed sent through registered mail and that the same was received by
petitioners. This, the prosecution miserably failed to do. Instead, it merely presented the demand letter
and registry return receipt as if mere presentation of the same was equivalent to proof that some sort of
mail matter was received by petitioners. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not prove
themselves; they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.

Having failed to prove all the elements of the offense, petitioners may not thus be convicted for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on
December 4, 2006, and ACQUITS petitioner AMADA RESTERIO of the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
as charged for failure to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE MIRANDILLA, JR., DEFENDANT AND
APPELLANT.

FACTS:

AAA narrated her 39-day ordeal in the hands of Mirandilla. They repeatedly detained her at daytime,
moved her back and forth from one place to another on the following nights, where she was locked up
in a cell-type house and was raped repeatedly on the grassy field right outside her cell, then to Camalig,
where they caged her in a small house in the middle of a rice field. She was allegedly raped 27 times.

One afternoon, AAA succeeded in opening the door of her cell. Seeing that Mirandilla and his
companions were busy playing cards, she rushed outside and ran. AAA was in foul smell, starving and
sleepless. Evelyn Guevarra gave her a bath and the police gave her food. When the police presented to
her pictures of suspected criminals, she recognized the man's face - he was Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., the
police told her. The doctor discovered hymenal lacerations in different positions of her hymen,
indicative of sexual intercourse. Foul smelling pus also oozed from her vagina - AAA had contracted
gonorrhoea.

The RTC convicted Mirandilla of kidnapping, four counts of rape, and one count of rape through sexual
assault.
On review, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, convicting Mirandilla. It found him guilty of
the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual
assault.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON the sweetheart theory may be admitted as defense in favor of accused

2. What is the appropriate crime charged against accused?

RULING:

1. No.

This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative
defense that needs convincing proof; after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie
case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse
was consensual.

Mirandilla with his version of facts as narrated above attempted to meet the prosecution's prima facie
case. Taken individually and as a whole, the defense witnesses' testimonies contradicted each other and
flip-flopped on materials facts, constraining this Court to infer that they concocted stories in a desperate
attempt to exonerate the accused.

2. We find Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with
rape.

It having been established that Mirandilla's act was kidnapping and serious illegal detention (not forcible
abduction) and on the occasion thereof, he raped AAA several times, We hold that Mirandilla is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
rape. Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these
composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts
with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter
how many times the victim was raped, like in the present case, there is only one crime committed - the
special complex crime of kidnapping with rape.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-HC No. 00271 is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape under the last
paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, by R.A. No. 7659, and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the offended party
AAA, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
 G.R. No. 234018, June 06, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. EVANGELINE DE DIOS Y BARRETO, ACCUSED-

APPELLANT.

FACTS:

AAA was only 16 years old when she was peddled for sexual trade by De Dios to Rugielito Gay and two
other male customers in Marikina City. De Dios approached Gay and asked him "kung gusto ko daw ba
gumimik?” which meant having sex with a girl for P500.00. Gay handed to her the amount of P500.00;
De Dios then called three girls who were standing by steel railings. Gay was allowed to choose from
among the girls, and then selected AAA. It turned out that Gay and his companions were mere poseur
customers, and that De Dios was the subject of an entrapment operation of the Anti-Human Trafficking
Division (AHTRAD) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

The trial court rendered judgment finding De Dios guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
qualified trafficking in persons.

The CA rendered its Decision that affirmed the conviction of De Dios.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:

WON the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons

RULING:

The Court dismisses the appeal. It affirms the conviction of De Dios for the crime of Qualified Trafficking
in Persons under Section 3(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No.
10364.

AAA, then still a minor, was among the girls offered in the illicit sexual trade upon the promise of
financial gain for their services. It was De Dios who approached and proposed a "gimik" to Gay, and
when the latter pretended to accede to the proposal, De Dios readily accepted prepared marked money
as consideration for the service.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 12, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR HC No. 07879 is AFFIRMED.