MEMORANDUM

For : BENEDICTO MALCONTENTO

Prosecutor General

From : OPG RESEARCH TEAM

Re : RESEARCH ON NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING

PROSECUTION

Date : 18 May 2022

This pertains to the compilation of new laws, Supreme Court issuances, and
jurisprudence affecting prosecution.

As an overview, the following are the new laws and Supreme Court issuances
concerning prosecution:

1. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11648 or the Act Raising the Age of Sexual Consent from
12 to 16
2. R.A. No. 11594 or the Law Increasing the Penalty for Perjury
3. R.A. No. 11646 or the Microgrid Systems Act
4. A.M. 08-8-7-SC or the Expedited Procedures in First Level Courts
5. A.M. No. 21-03- 13-SC or the Rule on Asset Preservation, Seizure, and Forfeiture
in Criminal Cases Under Republic Act No. 9160 as amended

I. LAWS

A. R.A. No. 11648

Act Raising the Age of Sexual Consent from 12 to 16 years of age
(Signed: 04 March 2022)

An Act Providing for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual

Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age for Determining the Commission of
Statutory Rape, amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise
known as “The Revised Penal Code”, Republic Act No. 8353. Also known as “The
Anti-Rape Law of 1997”, and Republic Act No. 7610, as amended, otherwise
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 2 of 17

known as the “Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and

Discrimination Act”.

This law amends Act No. 3815, or the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and R.A. No.
7610, or the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act. The passage of this law raises the age of sexual consent from 12 to
16 years of age.

Under the new law, rape is committed by a person who shall have carnal
knowledge of another person “when the offended party is under 16 years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.”

“Provided, that there shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person having
carnal knowledge of another person under 16 years of age when the age difference
between the parties is not more than three years, and the sexual act in question is
proven to be consensual, non-abusive, and non-exploitative: Provided, further, that if
the victim is under 13 years of age, this exception shall not apply,” it added.

As used in the Act, non-abusive shall mean the absence of undue influence,
intimidation, fraudulent machinations, coercion, threat, physical, sexual, psychological,
or mental injury or maltreatment, either with intention or through neglect, during the
sexual activities with child victim. On the other hand, non-exploitative shall mean there
is no actual or attempted act or acts of unfairly taking advantage of the child’s position
of vulnerability, differential power, or trust during sexual activities.

Qualified and Simple Seduction

R.A. No. 11648 also amended Article 337, or Qualified Seduction, of the RPC
which now reads: “The seduction of a minor, 16 and over but under 18 years of age,
committed by any person in public authority, priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian,
teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education of
custody of the minor seduced, shall be punished by prision correctional in its minimum
and medium periods.”

“The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon by any person who
shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not she is a virgin or over 18 years of
age,” the amended provision added.

The new law said seduction is committed “when the offender has carnal
knowledge of any of the persons and under circumstances described therein.”

Meanwhile, Simple Seduction under Article 338 is amended to read as: “The
seduction of a minor, 16 and over but under 18 years of age, committed by means of
deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.”
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 3 of 17

Under the new law, children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, “are deemed to be children
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.”

B. R.A. No. 11594

Law Increasing the Penalty for Perjury
(Approved: 29 October 2021)

An Act Increasing the Penalties for Perjury, amending for the Purpose Articles
183 And 184 of the Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal
Code"

R.A. No. 11594 increased the penalty for perjury, amending the penalty provided
in the Revised Penal Code.

Crime Old Penalty New Penalty Under RA 11594

Article 183. False Arresto Mayor in its Prision Mayor in its minimum period
Testimony in other cases maximum period to to Prision Mayor in its medium
and perjury in solemn Prision Correction in period.
affirmation its minimum period
New Aggravating: If the person
responsible for the commission is a
public officer or employee, the
penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period

Fine
Article 184. Offering False Arresto Mayor in its Prision Mayor in its minimum period
Testimony in Evidence. maximum period to to Prision Mayor in its medium
Prision Correction in period.
its minimum period
Aggravating: If the person
responsible for the commission is a
public officer or employee, the
penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period

C. R.A. No. 11646

MICROGRID SYSTEMS ACT
(Signed: 21 January 2022)
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 4 of 17

An Act Promoting the Use of Microgrid Systems to Accelerate the Total

Electrification of Unserved and Underserved Areas Nationwide

Summary: The law aims to accelerate total electrification and ensure the provision of
quality, reliable, and secure electricity service at reasonable rates in unserved and
underserved areas through the installation of microgrid systems by accredited Microgrid
Service Providers (MGSPs). The MGSPs will be allowed to operate in any area where
there is no electricity access or where the power connection does not provide 24/7
electricity supply. The law also mandates the Department of Energy to declare unserved
and underserved areas for electrification and service by prospective MGSPs.

Prohibited Acts
SEC. 23 – Prohibited Acts – Any person, natural or juridical, is prohibited from
the following acts:
(a) Refusal to allow the installation of any microgrid system by an MGSP:
Provided, That the requirements under Section 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of this Act
are complied with;
(b) Refusal to turn over the provision of integrated power generation and
distribution services to an MGSP or distribution services and connection
supply of electricity to a DU (Distribution Utility), whichever is applicable;
(c) Refusal to allow a DU to acquire a microgrid system pursuant to Section
17 of this Act;
(d) Imposition of new contractual terms and charges on the end-user which
are not part of the MSC or not approved by the ERC, whichever is
applicable; and
(e) Failure to comply with the functions, responsibilities, and time frames in
Sections 5 to 19 of this Act.

Penal Clause
SEC. 24 – Criminal and Administrative Penalties – The responsible officers and
employees of any private corporation or government agency who shall commit
the following prohibited acts shall, upon conviction, suffer the following
penalties:
(a) Violation of Section 23(a), (b), and (c) – Imprisonment of six (6) years to
eight (8) years, or a fine ranging from a minimum of Seventy-five million
pesos (P75,000,000.00) to One hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00),
upon the discretion of the court;
(b) Violation of Section 23(d) – Imprisonment of four (4) years to six (6)
years, or a fine ranging from a minimum of Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) to Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00), upon
the discretion of the court; and
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 5 of 17

(c) Violation of Section 23(e) – Imprisonment of two (2) years to four (4)
years, or a fine ranging from a minimum of Twenty-five million pesos
(P25,000,000.00) to Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00), upon the
discretion of the court.

Any person who willfully aids or abets the commission of these prohibited acts or
who causes the commission of any such act by another shall be liable in the
same manner as the principal. In cases of an association, partnership, or
corporation, the penalty shall be imposed on the member, partner, president,
chief operating officer, chief executive officer, director, or officer responsible for
the violation.

Without prejudice to the aforementioned criminal liabilities, any government

officer or employee who violates Section 23(e) of this Act shall be held
administratively liable, as follows:
(a) First offense - Thirty (30) days suspension without pay and mandatory
attendance in Values Orientation Program;
(b) Second offense – Three (3) months suspension without pay; and
(c) Third Offense – Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public
service, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.

II. SUPREME COURT ISSUANCES

A. A.M. 08-8-7-SC
RULES ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
(Promulgated: 01 March 2022; Effective: 11 April 2022)

A.M. 08-8-7-SC, or the Expedited Procedures in First Level Courts, harmonized the
coverage of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and the 2016 Revised Rules
on Small Claims Cases.

The following are the amendments to the Rules on Summary Procedure:

1. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, regardless of the amount to be

recovered. Attorney’s fees, if awarded, shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (PHP100,000.00);

2. All civil actions, except probate proceedings, admiralty and maritime actions and
small claims where the claim does not exceed Two Million Pesos
(PHP2,000,000.00).
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 6 of 17

3. Complaints for damages where the claims do not exceed Two Million Pesos
(PHP2,000,000.00);

4. Cases for enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and

arbitration award where the money claim exceeds One Million Pesos
(PHP1,000,000.00), provided that no execution has been enforced within six (6)
months from the settlement date or receipt of award or the date when the
obligation becomes due and demandable;

5. Cases solely for the revival of judgment of any first level court;

6. The civil aspect of violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), if no criminal
action has been instituted.

7. With respect to criminal cases, violation of BP 22 is explicitly included, and the

penalty threshold of all other criminal cases is increased to imprisonment not
exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PHP50,000.00), or both, and a fine not exceeding One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (PHP150,000.00) for offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence. If the prescribed penalty consists of imprisonment and/or a
fine, the prescribed imprisonment shall be the basis for determining the
applicable procedure. Arraignment and pre-trial shall be scheduled and
conducted in accordance with the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases.

In cases of appeal, any judgment, final order, or final resolution of the first level
courts on summary procedure may be appealed to the appropriate Regional Trial Court
(RTC) exercising jurisdiction over the territory under Rule 40 for civil cases and Rule
122 for criminal cases. The judgment of the RTC on the appeal shall be final, executory,
and unappealable.

Meanwhile, the following are the significant amendments on to the Rules on

Small Claims:

1. The threshold amount in small claims cases is now One Million Pesos
(PHP1,000,000.00), regardless of whether the case is filed within or outside
Metro Manila. This covers claims or demands for money owed under contracts of
lease, loan and other credit accommodations, services, and sale of personal
property.

2. Recovery of personal property, unless it is made subject of a compromise

agreement between the parties, are excluded from the operation of the new
Rules. Nevertheless, the enforcement of barangay amicable settlement
agreements and arbitration awards where the money claim does not exceed One
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 7 of 17

Million Pesos (PHP1,000,000.00) are included, provided that no execution has

been enforced within six (6) months from the settlement date or receipt of
award or the date when the obligation becomes due and demandable.

3. Joinder of two or more separate small claims against a defendant is allowed,

provided that the total amount claimed does not exceed One Million Pesos
(PHP1,000,000.00).

4. If more than five (5) claims are filed by one party within the calendar year,
additional filing fee of Five Hundred Pesos (PHP500.00) shall be paid for every
claim filed after the fifth (5th) claim and an additional One Hundred Pesos
(PHP100.00) or a total of Six Hundred Pesos (PHP600.00) for every claim filed
after the tenth (10th) claim and another One Hundred Pesos (PHP100.00) or a
total of Seven Hundred Pesos (PHP700.00) for every claim filed after the
fifteenth (15th) claim, progressively and cumulatively

5. Service of summons through the plaintiff is allowed if it is returned unserved by

the sheriff or proper court officer, or if it shall be served outside the judicial
region of the court where the case is pending. If the plaintiff misrepresents that
the defendant was served, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiff shall be declared in indirect contempt and/ or be meted a fine of Five
Thousand Pesos (PHP5,000.00).

6. If a case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve summons, it may now
be re-filed with a fixed filing fee of Two Thousand Pesos (PHP2,000.00) within
one year from notice of dismissal.

7. Any amount pleaded in counterclaim in excess of One Million Pesos

(PHP1,000,000.00) shall be deemed waived.

8. The period to set the hearing was increased to sixty (60) calendar days in small
claims cases where one of the defendants reside or hold business outside the
judicial region of the court. Otherwise, the hearing shall be set within thirty (30)
calendar days.

9. The hearing will still be held in one (1) day, with the judgment to be rendered
strictly within twenty-four (24) hours from its termination.

10.The Small Claims Forms have also been updated and improved for ease of use,
with translations in Filipino.

Videoconferencing hearings through Microsoft Teams for both summary

proceedings and small claims cases is allowed at any stage of the proceedings.
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 8 of 17

Likewise, the first level courts may also make use of alternative platforms or instant
messaging applications with video call features for their videoconferencing hearings.

B. A.M. No. 21-03-13-SC

RULE ON ASSET PRESERVATION, SEIZURE, AND FORFEITURE IN
CRIMINAL CASES
(Effective: 31 May 2021)

Recognizing the benefit of the preservation, seizure, and forfeiture of assets in

preventing and restraining the commission of crimes or offenses penalized under the
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended, and other penal laws, the Supreme
Court recently approved A.M. No. 21-03-13-SC, or the Rule on Asset Preservation,
Seizure, and Forfeiture in Criminal Cases Under Republic Act No. 9160 , as amended.

The Rule applies to all criminal actions before any court involving crimes or offenses
defined as “unlawful activity” under Section 3(i), or “money laundering offenses” under
Section 4, of RA 9160.

Under the Rule, the prosecution may pursue the remedy of asset forfeiture by an
allegation in the criminal information that it will proceed against the subject of the
crime or offense, proceeds or fruits of the crime of offense, or any property used as the
means of committing a crime or offense.

III. JURISPRUDENCE

People of the Philippines v. Romeo Sulayao y Masindan

(G.R. No. 225926, 06 December 2021)

Facts: Accused was charged with Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs. According to the Prosecution, the police received a phone call from a confidential
informant involving accused in the illegal sale of drugs in Addition Hills, Mandaluyong
City. A buy-bust operation was organized. The buy-bust team proceeded to Tumbok
billiard hall, where the sale would take place. The poseur-buyer, who saw the accused
with three companions, approached them and said, “Miong, pabili naman baka pwede
na itong P60.00 kulang kulang pera eh bawi na lang ako sa susunod.” Accused turned
downed the offer but agreed after some haggling. After the completion of the
transaction, and after the poseur-buyer removed his cap signifying the consummation
of the sale, the police approached accused and arrested him. The police recovered from
accused a bladed weapon and two more plastic sachets suspected shabu. For his
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 9 of 17

defense, the accused denied the charges. Accused said that he was just walking along
Nueve de Pebrero when several individuals frisked him and took his money and cellular
phone. Accused was boarded inside the vehicle and taken to the Mandaluyong City
Police Station.

The trial court found accused guilty. The trial court ruled that the absence of
coordination with the PDEA was not fatal to the cause of the prosecution since it is not
a condition sine qua non for a successful buy-bust operation. The Court of Appeals
sustained the findings of the trial court.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled to acquit the accused of the charges against him on
the ground of reasonable doubt. While the prosecution satisfactorily established all the
elements of the crime, the same is not true with respect to compliance with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which safeguards the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items until their presentation as evidence in court.
The Supreme Court noted that the police officers failed to observe the procedural
requirements under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and even more, failed to
justify their noncompliance. They did not even attempt to offer any plausible
explanation. The prosecution did not present the inventory report signed by the
accused, a representative from the media and DOJ, and an elected public official. The
lack of an inventory creates a vacuum and breaks the chain of custody.

Francis D. Malaki and Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin-Malaki v. People of the

Philippines
(G.R. No. 221075, 15 November 2021)

Facts: Records show that Francis and Jacqueline were charged with bigamy on 20
November 2006. In her complaint, Francis’ wife Nerrian claimed she and Francis were
married under the religious rites of Iglesia ni Cristo on 26 March 1988 in Panabo City,
Davao del Norte, and have two children. Nerrian said that in 2005, Francis went to
Tagum City in search of work, but eventually abandoned the family. Nerrian then
discovered that Francis had been living with Jacqueline, and that they married on 18
June 2005, solemnized by a municipal trial court judge. While Francis and Jacqueline
admitted that they got married while the former’s marriage to Nerrian was still
subsisting, they claimed that they were immune from bigamy as they converted to
Islam prior to getting married.

The trial court found Francis and Jacqueline guilty of bigamy beyond reasonable doubt
on 7 May 2012. The trial court said that the Muslim Code did not govern the
circumstances of Nerrian, Francis, and Jacqueline because Nerrian is not a Muslim. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that unless the first
marriage was dissolved and finalized under the Civil Code, any party’s subsequent
marriage makes them liable for bigamy.
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 10 of 17

Ruling: The Supreme Court pointed to Article 13 of the Muslim Code, which says that
the Civil Code of the Philippines applies to marriages between a Muslim and a non-
Muslim. There is no conflict with general law here. The nature, consequences, and
incidents of Francis’ prior and admittedly subsisting marriage to Nerrian remain well-
within the ambit of the Civil Code, and its counterpart penal provisions in the Revised
Penal Code.

Further, the Supreme Court held that whether Francis converted to Islam before or
after his marriage with Jacqueline, their subsequent marriage still consummated the
crime of bigamy. Francis cannot successfully invoke the exculpatory clause in Article
180 of the Muslim Code, considering that the Muslim Code finds no application in his
then subsisting marriage with Nerrian, the marriage recognized by law that bars and
penalizes a subsequent marriage.

People of the Philippines v. Samiah S. Abdulah

(G.R. Nos. 243941, 11 March 2020)

Facts: Abdulah and another accused, a child in conflict with law identified as "EB,"
were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On 20 November
2014, a confidential informant went to the District Anti-Illegal Drug of the Eastern Police
District in Pasig City, reporting that two (2) girls were selling illegal drugs on Singkamas
Street in Tumana, Marikina City. The informant introduced PO3 Temporal to "Erika" and
"Lalay"—later identified as EB and Abdulah—as a potential buyer of shabu. However,
PO3 Temporal was advised to just return the following day, as they had no shabu at
that time. PO3 Temporal reported the incident, and Superintendent Ogbac formed a
buy-bust team accordingly.

On 21 November 2014, the buy-bust team went to the target area where they saw EB
and Abdulah. At first, the girls hesitated approaching PO3 Temporal as he was with PO2
Gayatao, so PO3 Temporal advised the other to distance himself. Abdulah then
approached PO3 Temporal and inquired about his order. The officer handed her the
marked P500.00 bill, which she then passed to EB. In turn, EB placed the money in a
sling bag and retrieved from it a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance, which she handed to the officer. Believing that the area was unsafe for
being "a Muslim area," the team brought Abdulah and EB to the barangay hall where
they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items. The proceeding was
witnessed by Barangay Tanod Reynaldo Garcia, Barangay Kagawad Francisco delos
Santos, Abdulah, and EB.

The team then proceeded to the Eastern Police District headquarters. There, SPO1
Garcia prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination while PO3 Temporal prepared
the Chain of Custody Form. PO3 Temporal later brought the request and the seized
items to the Crime Laboratory and passed them to PO3 Altarejos, who then gave the
items to Chief Inspector dela Cruz-Alviar for examination. The test results revealed that
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 11 of 17

the confiscated items tested positive for shabu. RTC convicted Abdulah, and CA upheld
the conviction.

Ruling: The Supreme Court acquitted Abdulah. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides
that the apprehending team shall immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
of the accused, or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative
of
the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures.
Strict observance of the chain of custody requirements ensures the seized items'
integrity. When the integrity of the seized items cannot be trusted—as when there are
procedural lapses in the chain of custody—the prosecution has failed to establish
the corpus delicti. Noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.

The Court denounced the prosecution’s reasoning that the target area was a “notorious
Muslim community” to justify non-compliance with Section 21. Islamophobia, the
hatred against the Islamic community, can never be a valid reason to justify
an officer’s failure to comply with Section 21. No form of religious discrimination
can be countenanced to justify the prosecution’s failure to comply with the law.

People of the Philippines v. Roberto Rey E. Gabiosa

(G.R. No. 24895, 29 January 2020)

Facts: P/Supt Ajero, the Officer-in-Charge of the Kidapawan City, Police Station,
applied for the issuance of a search warrant against Gabiosa before Executive Judge
Balagot. In support of his application, P/Supt Ajero attached the Affidavit of his witness,
PO1 Geverola. Judge Balagot conducted a preliminary examination to PO1 Geverola and
issued a search warrant after finding probable cause. Gabiosa questioned the validity of
the search warrant issued against him. The RTC ruled against Gabiosa's contention that
the search warrant was invalid as the judge did not examine the complainant but only
his witness. The RTC explained that the judge was not mandatorily required to examine
both the complainant and his witness. The RTC added that "[w]hat is important is the
existence of probable cause and the witness has personal knowledge of the fact as
basis for the court or judge in issuing the search warrant.” In other words, the RTC
opined that the judge need not examine the complainant if the probable cause was
already established upon examination of one of the witnesses.
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 12 of 17

On appeal, the Court of Appeals declared the search warrant null and void and
reasoned that the text of the Constitution used the word "and" instead of "or" or
"and/or," which thus "shows its clear intent to really require both applicant and the
witness to be personally examined by the issuing judge." The CA added that for a
search warrant to be valid, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce must be personally examined by the judge. The CA likewise ruled that the
search warrant was invalid because Judge Balagot, the judge who issued the warrant,
supposedly failed to propound probing and searching questions to the witness.
According to the CA, the questions propounded were superficial and perfunctory.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and upheld the validity of
the search warrant. The fundamental protection given by the search and seizure clause
is that between person and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate
clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest. In
turn, a warrant that justifies the intrusion, to be valid, must satisfy the following
requirements: (1) it must be issued upon "probable cause;" (2) probable cause must be
determined personally by the judge; (3) such judge must examine under oath or
affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and (4) the warrant
must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.

The Court explained that ultimately, the purpose of the proceeding is for the
judge to determine that probable cause exists. Thus, there is no need to
examine both the applicant and the witness/es if either one of them is
sufficient to establish probable cause. If, despite the use of "and," the
examination of the applicant or complainant would suffice as long as probable cause
was established, then the Court does not see any reason why the converse — the judge
examined the witness only and not the applicant — would not be valid as well. Again,
the purpose of the examination is to satisfy the judge that probable cause exists.
Hence, it is immaterial in the grander scheme of things whether the judge examined
the complainant only, or the witness only, and not both the complainant and the
witness/es. The primordial consideration here is that the judge is convinced
that there is probable cause to disturb the particular individual's privacy. 

Cezar T. Quiambao v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 195957, 15 January 2020

Facts: Four criminal complaints for estafa were filed by Star Infrastructure
Development Corporation (SIDC) against Quimbao before the OCP-Pasig. The OCP-
Pasig issued a Consolidated Resolution finding probable cause to charge Quimbao with
two (2) counts of estafa. Crim. Case Nos. 135413-14-PSG was thereafter filed before
the RTC. Quimbao filed a Petition for Review before DOJ.
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 13 of 17

Quimbao moved to quash the Informations involving Crim. Case Nos. 135413-14-PSG
for merely stating the date of commission of the offenses as "[s]ometime between 1997
to 2004." Agreeing that the phrasing of the date is so broad and general, but such
defect is merely in form that is curable by amendment, the RTC issued an Order
directing the prosecution to specify the approximate months or years from 1997 to
2004 when the acts causing the total defraudation stated in the information were
committed. Thereafter, the OCP-Pasig issued two Amended Informations that replaced
the phrase "[s]ometime between 1997 to 2004" with 72 specific dates.

In another Motion to Quash with Motion to Dismiss, Quiambao alleged that the insertion
of various dates was a substantial amendment requiring the conduct anew of a
preliminary investigation, contending that the prosecution failed to comply with the
directive to formally amend the Information. The RTC denied the motions ruling that
the Amended Information merely alleged with particularity the months and years the
defraudation was committed and that Quiambao remains charged with the same
offense.
In another Omnibus Motion to quash the Amended Information for allegedly charging
multiple offenses, Quiambao assailed the prosecution's theory of Quiambao being
charged with a continuing crime of estafa committed from 1997 to 2004 which the RTC
allegedly failed to address in its order. This time, ruling that each misappropriation and
conversion is an independent complete felony and not the result of a single criminal
intent to defraud, the RTC issued an Order directing the quashal of the two Amended
Informations for charging multiple offenses.

Court of Appeals ruled that the RTC directed the city prosecutor to make only formal
amendments. It held that the amendments were not new facts because they were
based on the same documentary evidence presented during the preliminary
investigation. Furthermore, it pointed out that the RTC is not subservient to the findings
of the DOJ and is mandated to make its own determination of probable cause.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, saying that the
amendments to the information were not substantial and not prejudicial to Quaimbao’s
rights such that a new preliminary investigation would be necessary to accord him due
process. Although the precise date of the commission of the offense is not required to
be stated in the information unless it is a material ingredient—and the time of
occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime of estafa, Quiambao's concern was
well-taken by the RTC. Further, RTC did not grant the motion to quash as it is clearly
provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure that if the motion to quash is based on an
alleged defect in the information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall
order the amendment to be made.

Amendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged in the
original one; or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise
to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are considered
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 14 of 17

merely as formal amendments. Furthermore, Quiambao has not yet entered his plea;
hence, the Amended Information could still be further amended.

Gina Villa Gomez v. People of the Philippines

(G.R. No. 216824, 10 November 2020)

Facts: An Information for corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised
Penal Code was filed with the RTC against Gomez certified by ACP Paggao. The RTC
issued an Order, without any motion from either Gomez or the Prosecution,
perfunctorily dismissing the criminal case because ACP Paggao had no authority to
prosecute the case as the Information he filed does not contain the signature or any
indication of approval from City Prosecutor Aspi himself; and ACP Paggao's lack of
authority to file the Information is "a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured."
Aggrieved, the Prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied.
OSG filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. CA granted the petition
and held that OCP’s resolution was signed by City Prosecutor Aspi.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the lack of signature and approval of the
provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information does not divest
the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

[A] handling prosecutor who files an Information despite lack of authority but without
any indicia of bad faith or criminal intent will be considered as a mere de facto officer
clothed with the color of authority and exercising valid official acts. In other words, the
lack of authority on the part of the handling prosecutor may either result in a valid filing
of an Information if not objected to by the accused or subject the former to a possible
criminal or administrative liability—but it does not prevent the trial court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the accused.

All told, the handling prosecutor's authority, particularly as it does not appear on the
face of the Information, has no connection to the trial court's power to hear and decide
a case. Hence, Sec. 3(d), Rule 117, requiring a handling prosecutor to secure a prior
written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor before
filing an Information with the courts, may be waived by the accused through silence,
acquiescence, or failure to raise such ground during arraignment or before entering a
plea. If, at all, such deficiency is merely formal and can be cured at any stage of the
proceedings in a criminal case.

Henceforth, all previous doctrines laid down by this Court, holding that the
lack of signature and approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor
on the face of the Information shall divest the court of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal action, are hereby
abandoned. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint, as
the case may be, that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 15 of 17

recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the
provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of
R.A. No. 5180 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

People of the Philippines v. Erwin Batino

(G.R. No. 254035, 15 November 2021)

Facts: Batino was charged of one count of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 and two
counts of violation of Section 11 of RA 9165. Information from a confidential agent
about the illegal drug activities of Batino prompted the PNP of Bay, Laguna to conduct a
buy-bust operation. At the same time, the police officers were able to procure a search
warrant from the RTC of San Pablo City to search the house of Batino. Pre-operation
procedures were conducted such as the coordination with the PDEA and briefing of the
team members. During the briefing, PO1 Bassig was designated as the poseur buyer.
PCI Banaag provided the buy-bust money—a P500.00 bill marked with "JMB" below the
serial number. The team conducted the buy-bust operation on 14 April 2016 at around
7:30 p.m. PO1 Bassig then carried out their pre-arranged signal by pulling out the key
of Batino's motorcycle and he identified himself to be a police officer, while PO1 Tan
approached them and arrested Batino, informing the latter of his rights and nature of
the offense. PO1 Bassig subsequently conducted a preventive search on the body of
Batino; he inspected the small metal box and found three more plastic sachets
containing suspected illegal drugs. He immediately marked the seized items at the place
of the arrest as follows: "EB-BB" for the sachet subject of the sale; "EB-1" to "EB-3" for
the three sachets inside the metal container; and, "EB" for the metal container itself.
The marking was witnessed by barangay chairman Dungo and media representative
Chavez. An inventory was prepared by the police officers and was thereafter signed by
the witnesses.
The police officers together with Batino and the witnesses proceeded to Batino's house
to implement the search warrant. The search yielded 11 more plastic sachets containing
suspected illegal drugs. PO1 Bassig immediately marked the items in the presence of
the witnesses, Batino, and Batino's relatives. The 11 sachets were marked as "EB-4" to
"EB-14.” Another inventory was prepared by the police officers for the items from the
search of the house. This was also signed by the barangay chairman and media
representative as witnesses. Batino also signed a document on good conduct search.

Batino described the testimony of PO1 Bassig as incomplete, unbelievable and

full of loopholes. He claimed that he was arrested in a different place far from the place
stated by the prosecution. He was of the belief that the chain of custody of the seized
items was broken; there was no mention of who received the seized items for
laboratory examination. He likewise questioned the regularity of the issuance of the
search warrant and alleged that the search was conducted while he was already in jail.
He also claimed that the illegal drugs were planted.

RULING: The Supreme Court found Batino guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 16 of 17

drugs. The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are as follows: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and, (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In a buy-bust operation, the receipt
by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller
of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. What matters is
the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.

On the other hand, the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
are as follows: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

The prosecution was able to establish the consummation of the sale of dangerous
drugs. The evidence clearly shows that there was an exchange of dangerous drugs and
marked money between PO1 Bassig as poseur-buyer and Batino. Also, the preventive
search conducted after the buy-bust sale established that Batino was further in
possession of dangerous drugs with intent to possess and without authority of law.
Therefore, there is no dispute that Batino sold to PO1 Bassig and was in possession of
dangerous drugs.

As for the compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the Supreme Court found that
there was compliance. The rule on chain of custody establishes the identity of the
object of the sale or the item possessed by the accused without authority. The purpose
of this rule is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous
drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity. It must be shown that the items
presented and identified in court during trial are the very same items that were sold
and seized from the accused during the buy-bust operation.

Section 21, as amended, provides that the marking, taking of photographs, and
inventory of the seized items must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation
of the items in the presence of two witnesses (as compared with the previous
requirement of three witnesses): an elected public official, and a representative from
the National Prosecution Service or the media. The provision allows for the marking,
taking of photographs, and inventory be conducted in the nearest police station or
office if practicable in case of warrantless seizures. It further provides that the seized
items must be immediately brought to the forensic laboratory for examination. In the
instant case, the Court is convinced that the requirements of chain of custody were
sufficiently observed.

- Nothing follows -
NEW LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AFFECTING PROSECUTION Page 17 of 17

Respectfully submitted,

ALSON PAUL BACANI HEGEL JASPER BALDERAMA

Prosecution Attorney Prosecution Attorney

JOMILA MAY B. FUGABAN LYRA CARISSA M. PROFUGO

Prosecution Attorney Prosecution Attorney

MARIA FRAULAINE MAY L. RAPAL

Prosecution Attorney