CASES

(1) The facts of the case

 
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven)
were married.Out of this union, two female children were born, Kyra Daniell and
Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner
filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order
(TPO) against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L.
Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with
respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her; that
Steven and respondents had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by
giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected
from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally
and physically; that respondents should be included as indispensable or necessary
parties for complete resolution of the case.

1. What are the remedies available to Sharica Mari under RA No. 9262?
2. Who are liable under this case?
3. Who must be charged in Court in each case that is to be filed?
4. Is conspiracy applicable in this case?
5. Draft a spot report stating the summary of the facts of the case.

(2) The Facts of the case

Private complainant VVV was born on March 24, 1984 in Mentalongon,

Dalaguete, Cebu to FFF and MMM.
 
On September 24, 1997, VVV's father, FFF, started leasing a portion of the
fishpond owned by Escolastico Ronquillo (Escolastico), located at Lajog,
Clarin, Bohol. FFF and his family occupied the house beside the fishpond
which was left by the former tenant.
 
On September 2, 2000 at around 7:00 in the morning, while VVV was cutting
grass in their yard, appellant arrived looking for FFF who was then at another
fishpond owned by Nilda Parilla located in Boacao, Clarin, Bohol. VVV knew
appellant because he is the husband of Bienvenida Ronquillo (Bienvenida), one
of the heirs of Escolastico. She noticed that appellant had a sanggot (sickle)
tucked in his waist.

Appellant then went to VVVs house and inquired from VVVs younger brother,
BBB, the whereabouts of the latter’s father. BBB did not answer but his
mother, MMM, told appellant that FFF was not around. Right then and there,
appellant told them to leave the place and started destroying the house with
the use of his sickle. As a result, appellant destroyed the roof, the wall and the
windows of the house.MMM got angry and told appellant that he could not just
drive them away since the contract for the use of the fishpond was not yet
terminated. VVV was then sent by MMM to fetch a barangay tanod. She did as
ordered but barangay tanod Nicolas Patayon refused to oblige because he did
not want to interfere in the problem concerning the fishpond. On her way back
to their house, VVV saw appellant coming from his shop with a gallon of
gasoline, headed to their house. Appellant warned VVV to better pack up her
family’s things because he would burn their house.
 
Upon reaching their house, VVV saw her brother, BBB, get a piece of wood
from the back of their house to defend themselves and their house from
appellant. However, appellant approached BBB, grabbed the piece of wood
from the latter and started beating him with it.At the sight, VVV approached
appellant and pushed him. Irked by what she did, appellant turned to her and
struck her with the piece of wood three (3) times, twice on the left thigh and
once below her right buttocks. As a result, the wood broke into several pieces.
VVV picked up some of the broken pieces and threw them back at appellant.
MMM restrained BBB, telling him not to fight back. After which, appellant left,
bringing with him the gallon of gasoline.
 
The medical certificate of the child states:
CONTUSION WITH HEMATOMA PROXIMAL
LATERAL PORTION OF THIGH, RIGHT
TIME TO HEAL: 3-4 DAYS, BARRING COMPLICATIONS
1. VVV is a minor, what case should be filed by him?
2. What are the circumstances that will make a case fall under RA No.
7610?
3. Who must be charged in Court?
4. Where is the venue of the criminal action?
5. Draft a spot report stating the summary of the facts of the case.

(3) Facts of the case:

The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and
Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined the evening procession for the
Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in
front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a
minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him “sissy”; that the petitioner
confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like “strangers” and
“animals”; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and
slapped Jayson on the face; that the petitioner then went to the brothers’
house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando
did not come out of the house to take on the petitioner; that Rolando later
brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident;
that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional Training
and Teaching Hospital; that the doctors who examined Jayson issued two
medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered the following contusions, to
wit: (1) contusion .5 x 2.5 scapular area, left; and (2) +1x1 cm. contusion left
zygomatic area and contusion .5 x 2.33 cm. scapular area, left.6 On his part,
the petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He
explained that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and
Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s
throwing stones at them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He
denied shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that
he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.

To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Rose testified that her
father did not hit or slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had
called her daughters “Kimi” and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann
Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling him a “sissy.” She insisted
that it was instead Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the
procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and protective father.

1. What case should be filed?

2. Who must be prosecuted in court?
3. Can there be separate offense under the RPC and special law?
4. Prepare a spot report with summary of the facts of the case.

(4) Facts of the case:

As alleged by the prosecution, in December 2006, the Pasig City Police received
reports of illegal drug activities of Holgado along C. Raymundo Street, Pasig
City.  After surveillance operations, a search warrant was issued against
Holgado. Acting on the search warrant, the Pasig City Chief of Police instructed
his officers to, if possible, first conduct a buy-bust operation before actually
enforcing the search warrant.

In the evening of January 17, 2007, police operatives went to No. 17, C.
Raymundo Street for the buy-bust operation.  PO1 Philip Aure, acting as
poseur-buyer and accompanied by the police informant, approached Holgado
who was then part of a drinking session with two (2) companions.  Holgado
asked the informant if he was buying drugs while at the same time offering him
a drink.  The informant accepted the drink and introduced PO1 Aure as a drug
user.  PO1 Aure then handed Holgado two (2) marked one hundred peso bills. 
Holgado asked PO1 Aure and the informant to wait as the drugs were with his
“kumpare” who was then in the restroom. Holgado called Misarez.  After some
time, co-accused Antonio Misarez stepped out of the restroom and asked who
was buying drugs.  PO1 Aure and the informant answered, “Kami.”  Misarez
then handed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO1
Aure.  PO1 Aure examined the sachet’s contents and took out his cellphone. 
This was the pre-arranged signal to the other police operatives that the sale of
drugs had been consummated.

The police operatives then approached PO1 Aure.  When PO1 Aure saw his
companions approaching, he seized Misarez’s hand, but the latter was able to
escape and lock himself inside the house.  Holgado, too, was able to flee into
the house and join Misarez. The police operatives managed to break open the
wooden door with a crowbar. By then, however, Holgado and Misarez had
managed to leave the house through a passageway in the ceiling leading to an
adjoining house.  PO3 Rolando Abuyme and PO2 Arnulfo Dancel managed to
get inside the adjoining house where they apprehended Holgado and Misarez.
The search warrant was then enforced “in coordination with a barangay official
and in the presence of some media people.”The search allegedly yielded several
drugs and drug paraphernalia.These items (i.e., other than the plastic sachet
containing a white crystalline substance supposedly sold to PO1 Aure) were the
subject of three (3) other cases.  These other cases have since been dismissed.

PO3 Abuyme prepared an inventory of the seized items, specifically with

respect to the plastic sachet which was the basis of the charge of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, PO1 Aure supposedly marked the plastic sachet handed to
him by Misarez with “RH-PA” at the site of the buy-bust operation.

1. What are the cases to be filed against the suspect?

2. What must be observed by the arresting team in order to preserve the
integrity of the seized items?
3. How are you going to preserve the chain of custody?
4. Is the lack of coordination with the PDEA makes the search illegal?
5. Is it mandatory to comply with section 21 of RA No. 9165?
6. Discuss the elements of each case applicable in this case.

(5) The facts of the case:

The prosecution presented as its lone witness complainant Alfredo Oculam. He

testified that: in 1989, spouses Adronic and Evangeline Ladonga became his
regular customers in his pawnshop business in Tagbilaran City,
Bohol;sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan
from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No.
284743, post-dated to dated July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the
last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga
spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB
Check No. 284744, post-dated to dated July 26, 1990 issued by
Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third
loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136,
post-dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced
upon presentment for the reason CLOSED ACCOUNT; when the Ladonga
spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a
criminal complaint against them.

While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there
was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses
claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an
agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature; and,
that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the
issuance thereof.

1. What case/s are you going to file?

2. Who are liable under this case?
3. What is the venue of the criminal action?
4. Is conspiracy applicable in this case?
5. What are the pre-requisites in filing the proper case?
6. Prepare a spot report with summary of the facts of the case.

(6) The Facts of the Case:

Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19, 1983 in
Ormoc City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in their house at
Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Ben's younger brother, Alex, and his wife lived with
them too. Sometime in 1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from Steban
Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived with their
two children, namely: John Marben and Earl Pierre.

On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after
receiving their salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer before heading
home. Arturo would pass Ben's house before reaching his. When they arrived
at the house of Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to
look for him. Ben went inside his house, while Arturo went to a store across it,
waiting until 9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner to place a bet. Arturo
did not see appellant arrive but on his way home passing the side of the
Genosas' rented house, he heard her say 'I won't hesitate to kill you' to which
Ben replied 'Why kill me when I am innocent?' That was the last time Arturo
saw Ben alive. Arturo also noticed that since then, the Genosas' rented house
appeared uninhabited and was always closed.

On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close friend and
neighbor living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to look after her pig
because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy check-up. Appellant likewise
asked Erlinda to sell her motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie Dayandayan who
unfortunately had no money to buy it.
That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was waiting for a
bus going to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of their house with her
two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking the gate and taking her
children to the waiting area where he was. Joseph lived about fifty (50) meters
behind the Genosas' rented house. Joseph, appellant and her children rode the
same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as Joseph noticed that
appellant did not want to talk to him.

On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about the foul
odor emanating from his house being rented by Ben and appellant. Steban
went there to find out the cause of the stench but the house was locked from
the inside. Since he did not have a duplicate key with him, Steban destroyed
the gate padlock with a borrowed steel saw. He was able to get inside through
the kitchen door but only after destroying a window to reach a hook that
locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom where the offensive
smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben lying on his side
on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with injuries at the
back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and sent word to
the mother of Ben about his son's misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada
Genosa, the mother of Ben, identified the dead body as that of [her] son.

Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then assigned
at the police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding the foul smell
at the Genosas' rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, SPO1 Colon, and
Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the house and went inside the
bedroom where they found the dead body of Ben lying on his side wrapped with
a bedsheet. There was blood at the nape of Ben who only had his briefs on.
SPO3 Acodesin found in one corner at the side of an aparador a metal pipe
about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning against a wall. The metal
pipe measured three (3) feet and six (6) inches long with a diameter of one and
half (1 1/2) inches. It had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain at
one end. The bedroom was not in disarray.

About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its stench, had
to be taken outside at the back of the house before the postmortem
examination was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of the police. A
municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases, Dr.
Cerillo found that Ben had been dead for two to three days and his body was
already decomposing. The postmortem examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the
findings quoted in the Information for parricide later filed against appellant.
She concluded that the cause of Ben's death was 'cardiopulmonary arrest
secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of the
occipital [bone].'
Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after work on
November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who was not home yet
might have gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin Ecel Araño,
appellant went to look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte
but did not find him there. They found Ben drunk upon their return at the
Genosas' house. Ecel went home despite appellant's request for her to sleep in
their house.

Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even challenging her
to a fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended to their children who
were doing their homework. Apparently disappointed with her reaction, Ben
switched off the light and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut the television
antenna or wire to keep her from watching television. According to appellant,
Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the bedroom, but he got hold of her
hands and whirled her around. She fell on the side of the bed and screamed for
help. Ben left. At this point, appellant packed his clothes because she wanted
him to leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly
flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards a drawer
holding her by the neck, and told her 'You might as well be killed so nobody
would nag me.' Appellant testified that she was aware that there was a gun
inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch
long blade cutter from his wallet. She however, 'smashed' the arm of Ben with
a pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant then 'smashed'
Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was about to pick up the blade and his
wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom.

Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by shooting
him. She supposedly 'distorted' the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben.
He did not die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom.

1. What case should be filed?

2. Who is liable?
3. Can the wife invoke “battered wife syndrome” as a defense?
4. When are the elements of BWS in order to properly invoke it?
5. Who can use the BWS as a defense?
6. Prepare a spot report with summary of the facts of the case.

(7) The facts of the case:

The presented evidence of the prosecution shows that on November 15, 2002,
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Officer (DENRO)
Felimon Balico (Balico) approached a truck loaded with lumber, which was
parked at a national highway in Dingalan, Aurora (Dingalan) The truck bore
the name "JEROME" with Plate No. TFZ-747.Balico requested from the truck
driver, Frederico, and the truck helper, Mostera, the lumber's supporting
documents but they failed to produce any.

Balico reported the matter to SPO4 Ramil Gamboa (Gamboa) and SPO4 Romulo
Derit. Thereafter, he proceeded to the DENR office to report the incident. Some
of the DENROs represented that the transportation of the seized lumber had
the required permit but they, too, failed to produce any supporting document.

The DENRO group - composed of Balico, Tarcila Vivero (Vivero) and Rodolfo

Tumagan (Tumagan) - and the policemen, Gamboa and Romulo Derit, guarded
the truck loaded with lumber.

The DENRO group decided to transfer the truck and the lumber to the police
station at Poblacion. They transferred the lumber first from November 15 to
November 16, 2002, and left the truck at the national highway in Dingalan,
guarded by the DENROs and some police officers.

On November 16, 2002, accused Gatdula, Santiago, and petitioners Mesina,

Roxas, and Padiernos arrived at the place where the truck was being held in
custody.

Santiago, who claimed ownership of the truck, agreed with the DENROs and
the police officers to bring the truck to the police station. Santiago gave the
truck key to Mesina who volunteered to drive the truck; while Padiernos asked
Balico where the seized lumbers were.

Mesina started the engine and Roxas, Santiago, and Padiernos immediately got
on board at the front of the truck. The DENRO group also got on board at the
back of the truck. SPO2 Renato Mendoza (Mendoza) and his companion, PO1
John Fajardo (Fajardo) follow on a motorcycle.

Since the truck was then parked opposite the direction to the police station,
Balico thought that Mesina would maneuver the truck so that they could
proceed to the police station. To their surprise, Mesina increased the truck's
speed and headed towards the direction of Nueva Ecija, leaving behind their
two policemen escorts who chased the truck and fired three warning shots.

As the truck sped faster, Balico yelled "Saklolo! Saklolo!" but the truck
maintained its speed. SPO2 Mendoza corroborated this testimony; he and
Fajardo saw the three DENROs waving but could not hear what they were
saying.

When the truck had exited Dingalan, SPO2 Mendoza and Fajardo decided not
to pursue the truck anymore and simply reported the incident to the Philippine
Army stationed at Brgy. Tanawan.
The Philippine Army blocked the road with a 50-caliber machine gun and
flagged down the truck at Brgy. Bagting, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija.

As the truck passengers alighted, petitioner Padiernos uttered bad words to

them, saying that they had no right to apprehend the truck and the lumber.

Police officers Gamboa, Joemar Balmores, Sagudang, Fajardo, and Mendoza

immediately proceeded to Brgy. Bagting where they found the DENRO group,
Padiernos, and Roxas. The DENROs and the policemen proceeded back to
Dingalan, with police officer Gamboa driving the truck to the police station
compound.

1. Who are criminally liable in this case?

2. To what crime they are liable?
3. Can they be held liable for obstruction of justice?
4. Can they be charged for more than one offense?
5. Who should file a complaint against them?
6. Draft a spot report with summary of the facts of the case.

(8) The Facts of the Case:

On February 20, 1991 between 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, at

private complainants' residence at No. 24, Mabait St., Teachers Village, Quezon
City, private complainant Lalaine Yreverre saw appellant Aurora Engson in
front of their gate. Upon noticing Aurora, Lalaine went to the gate and asked
Aurora what is their purpose, as there were four (4) of them. Aurora then
inquired about Cynthia Yreverre, Lalaine's sister. The latter replied that
Cynthia was in the Japanese Embassy and asked Aurora if there was any other
person whom she wanted to talk to. It was then that Aurora told Lalaine that
she was from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). It was upon
said pretension that Lalaine offered herself to instead talk to her and allowed
her to enter their house. When they were already having a conversation, Aurora
asked Lalaine if she could use the telephone, which the latter acceded to and
handed her a cordless telephone. Lalaine noticed that Aurora seemed to keep
on dialing the telephone and even said that the person she was calling did not
know how to use the telephone. But still, Aurora kept on dialing the telephone.

Thereafter, appellant Aurora asked for a cigarette. After Lalaine gave Aurora
the cigarette, the four (4) other men outside the gate, who were with Aurora,
suddenly came inside the house. The four (4) men stood behind Aurora who
was still dialing the telephone. When Aurora told that she could not contact the
person she was calling, she asked Lalaine if she could use the comfort room,
which the latter again permitted. Aurora stood up, put down the telephone, got
her bag and went to the comfort room. When Aurora came back, she sat down
again but in crossed-legs as she said she was having a menstrual period. Upon
saying that, Lalaine's attention was focused on her. At this juncture, accused
Edgardo Cacal poked a gun at Lalaine's neck and announced that it was a
hold-up. While appellant Edgardo Cacal was poking a gun at Lalaine's neck,
accused Danilo Cuanang and the two (2) other men proceeded to the kitchen.
In the kitchen, Danilo and his two (2) other companions herded their maids,
private complainant's niece and cousin inside the bodega.

Accused Cacal who was still poking the gun at Lalaine's neck, thereafter,
pulled Lalaine's hair and dragged her upstairs and brought her inside
Cynthia's room. The gun still being poked at Lalaine, Cacal looked around the
room and when he spotted upon the vault he dropped Lalaine, opened the door
and called for his companions to come along. Accused Cuanang came up and
the two (Cacal and Cuanang) carried the vault and brought it downstairs. But
before they went downstairs, they threatened Lalaine not to follow them and to
just stay in the room, but Lalaine opened the door and followed them.

When Lalaine was halfway downstairs, accused Cacal turned his back and saw
her. Accused Cacal then brought her inside her room. Inside the room, Cacal
pushed her towards her bed and she fell. Cacal told her to just stay, and then
he searched the room. Lalaine managed to stand up but Cacal slapped her.
While sitting, accused Cuanang came and tied her arms at her back. While she
was being tied, appellant Aurora Fransdilla peeped inside the room. It was also
at the time that accused Cacal and Cuanang searched the entire room and
took all the jewelries and things they saw.

When Cuanang and Cacal left the room, Lalaine followed them. While in the
middle downstairs, she saw Cacal, Cuanang and their two other companions
tucking their guns around their waists. Appellants and their co-accused then
left the house on board two (2) cars that were waiting for them just outside the
house, and one of which, a black Colt Mirage, was driven by accused Manuel
Silao, together with appellant Edgardo Silao who was seated at the front
passenger seat.

At this point, Lalaine shouted for help, thereafter, a relative came by to help
and untied her. Lalaine then called her sister Cynthia and related the incident.
Cynthia reported the incident to the police authorities. Not too long thereafter,
the police investigated the incident.

In relation thereto, Lalaine executed her sworn statement on February 20,

1991 (Exhibit "J"). After said investigation, Lalaine underwent medical
examination at the East Avenue Medical Center as her hands were bruised
when she was tied by her hands and her face being slapped by one of the
accused. A medical certificate was issued in relation thereto (Exhibit "N").
 1. What case should be filed?
2. Who are the persons liable?
3. Is there conspiracy in this case?
4. What is the liability of each person when there is conspiracy?
5. When is there conspiracy?
6. Is the crime committed a continuing crime?
(9) The facts of the case:

The victim in these cases[,] “AAA[,]” testified that at noon time of April 8, 1999,
she was x xx playing x xx with her playmates whereupon she wandered by the
house of accused which x xx was just below their house.  “AAA” clarified during
her cross–examination that there was a vulcanizing shop owned by her father
located in their house x xx and where accused was employed.  While “AAA” was
at the house of accused, she claimed that her genitals and buttocks were
burned with a lighted cigarette by the said accused.  “AAA” testified further
that her clothes were taken off by the same accused who also took his clothes
off after which he allegedly placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis and
proceeded to have illicit carnal knowledge [of] the then six (6) year old girl. (TSN
May 29, 2001, pp. 5–9; TSN Aug. 7, 2001, pp. 10–12.)

“BBB,” father of “AAA,” presented in court his daughter’s birth certificate

(Exhibit “B”) which stated that she was born on April 4, 1993 (TSN Sept. 25,
2001, p. 4).  On the other hand, Dr. Emmanuel Reyes the Medico–Legal Officer
who examined “AAA” identified his Medico–Legal Report (Exhibit “M”) and
testified that the victim indeed had two (2) third degree burns in the perianal
region.  Dr. Reyes testified that it was possible that the said burns were caused
by a lighted cigarette stick being forced on the victim’s skin.  Moreover, Dr.
Reyes confirmed that there was a loss of virginity on the part of the victim and
that the same could have been done 24 hours from the time of his examination
which was also on April 8, 1999. (TSN Nov. 7, 2001 pp. 11–17)

“CCC” [aunt of “AAA”] testified that x xx she x xx assisted the mother of “AAA”
in bringing the victim to the Pasig General Hospital and thereafter to Camp
Crame where a doctor also examined “AAA” and confirmed that the latter was
indeed a victim of rape.  “CCC” testified that they then proceeded to the
Women’s [D]esk to file the instant complaint against the accused. (TSN August
5, 2003 pp. 4–8)

1. What case should be filed and for how many counts?

2. Is there an aggravating circumstance/s?
3. How is rape under RPC committed?
4. How is sexual assault committed?
5. When is rape qualified?
 6. Prepare a spot report.

(10) G. R. No. 231989, PP. vs. ROMY LIM y MIRANDA

Version of the Prosecution

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at
Regional Office X of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based on
a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been engaged
in the sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro
City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to
gather for a buy-bust operation. During the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan,
and IO1 Carin were assigned as the team leader, the arresting officer/back-
up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively. The team prepared
a ₱500.00 bill as buy-bust money (with its serial number entered in the PDEA
blotter), the Coordination Form for the nearest police station, and other related
documents.

Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office about15 minutes
before 10:00 p.m. and arrived in the target area at 10:00 p.m., more or less. IOI
Carin and the CI alighted froin the vehicle near the comer leading to the house
of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other team members disembarked a few
meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe. IOI Carin and
the CI turned at the comer and stopped in front of a house. The CI knocked at
the door and uttered, "ayo, nong Romy." Gorres came out and invited them to
enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching the television. When
the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to
get one inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he
came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who then took one piece of
heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1
Carin paid him with the buy-bust money.

After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1
Orellan, which was the pre-arranged signal. The latter, with the rest of the
team members, immediately rushed to Lim's house. When they arrived, IO1
Carin and the CI were standing near the door. They then entered the house
because the gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents
and informed Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for
selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on their heads
and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them.
Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body search on both. When he frisked
Lim, no deadly weapon was found, but something was bulging in his pocket.
IO1 Orellan ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket were the buy-bust
money and a transparent rectangular plastic box about 3x4 inches in size.
They could see that it contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for
Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized.

IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic
sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. 101 Carin turned over to
him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1
Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the
attendance of the representative from the media and barangay officials, nobody
arrived to witness the inventory-taking.

The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with
IO1 Orellan in possession of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the
two accused and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory examination
on the drug evidence and for the drug test on the arrested suspects as well as
the documents for the filing of the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the
Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and
Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected public official and the
representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses.
Pictures of both accused and the evidence seized were taken.

The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug
specimens to Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in
possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional office to the crime lab. PSI
Caceres, who was a Forensic Chemist, and Police Officer
2 (P02) Bajas  personally received the letter-requests and the two pieces of
7

heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.

PSI Caceres got urine samples from Lim and Gorres and conducted screening
and confirmatory tests on them. Based on her examination, only Lim was
found positive for the presence of shabu. The result was shown in Chemistry
Report No. DTCRIM-I96 and I97-2010. With respect to the two sachets of white
crystalline substance, both were found to be positive of shabu after a
chromatographic examination was conducted by PSI Caceres. Her findings
were reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-228-2010. PSI Caceres, likewise, put
her own marking on the cellophane containing the two sachets of shabu. After
that, she gave them to the evidence custodian. As to the buy-bust money, the
arresting team turned it over to the fiscal's office during the inquest.

QUESTIONS:

1. What cases should be filed and against whom?

2. What should be done with the confiscated items to preserve the integrity
of the same?

3. What should be done before, during, and after the operation?

4. Who should be witnesses to the inventory?

5. What are the cases to be filed?