LeonenCases CRIM

DECISIONS OF:
JUSTICE MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
CRIMINAL LAW
BAR BULLETIN NO. 31, S. 2022/DAY ONE (January 23, 2022)/Afternoon exam
REDUCTION OF BAR COVERAGE AND SHORTENING OF THE 2020/21 BAR EXAMINATION
ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

Ateneo de Davao University
(SPECIAL THANKS TO RV, ALEX AND CONDE)

OCTOBER 2013
G.R. No. 169588

JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE NORMA TAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF
THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 3, BAGUIO CITY, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG, “JOHN
DOES” AND “PETER DOES” RESPONDENTS.
October 07, 2013
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to
run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence
to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted,
or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the attendants of the
petitioner on the same day. These actions effectively commenced the running of the prescription
period.
For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from
the day of the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from the
discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The
prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court and
shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double
jeopardy.
APRIL 2014
G.R. No. 208007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO GUTIEREZ Y ROBLES ALIAS “ROD AND
JOHN LENNON”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 02, 2014
For a measly five- or ten-peso tip that a 10-year-old child would need for lunch money, a known
acquaintance of their family would destroy a child’s dignity by having illicit carnal knowledge of
her. This case involves an act that is so dastardly that it is punished by Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code as statutory rape which carries a sentence of reclusion perpetua.
Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes

1
of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman
below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not
relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal
knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her
own on account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed
incapacity to discern good from evil.
MAY 2014
G.R. No. 196735

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA,
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
May 05, 2014
It is in the hallowed grounds of a university where students, faculty, and research personnel
should feel safest. After all, this is where ideas that could probably solve the sordid realities in this
world are peacefully nurtured and debated. Universities produce hope. They incubate all our
youthful dreams.
Yet, there are elements within this academic milieu that trade misplaced concepts of perverse
brotherhood for these hopes. Fraternity rumbles exist because of past impunity. This has resulted
in a senseless death whose justice is now the subject matter of this case. It is rare that these cases
are prosecuted. It is even more extraordinary that there are credible witnesses who present
themselves courageously before an able and experienced trial court judge.
This culture of impunity must stop. There is no space in this society for hooliganism disguised as
fraternity rumbles. The perpetrators must stand and suffer the legal consequences of their
actions. They must do so for there is an individual who now lies dead, robbed of his dreams and
the dreams of his family. Excruciating grief for them will never be enough.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the
employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in the commission
of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of
law the act of one is the act of all. The foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that
"when two or more persons unite to accomplish a criminal object, whether through the physical
volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose evil will actively
contributes to the wrong-doing is in law responsible for the whole, the same as though performed
by himself alone." Although it is axiomatic that no one is liable for acts other than his own, "when
two or more persons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of
the others, done in furtherance of the agreement or conspiracy."
JUNE 2014
G.R. No. 208173

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OLIVER A. BUCLAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
June 11, 2014

2
To protect one's daughter is one of the noblest roles of a father. A father who defies this role is
afflicted with a dysfunctional character that borders on moral depravity. Even if this breach of
trust deserves the highest penalties in our legal order, it will never compensate for the daughter's
deepest scars and sorrows.
Rape is qualified when "the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." The elements of qualified rape are: "(1)
sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) [done] by force and without consent; ... (4) the victim is
under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim."
JULY 2014
G.R. No. 181843

MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
July 14, 2014
Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be deliberately sought to ensure the safety of the
accused from the defensive acts of the victim. Unexpectedness of the attack does not always
equate to treachery.
In murder or homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill. If there is no intent to kill on the
part of the offender, he or she is liable only for physical injuries.
“[I]ntent to kill . . . must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.” “[It] should not be drawn
in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt.”
The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence can be
upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
The requisites of treachery are:
(1) [T]he employment of means, method, or manner of execution which will ensure the
safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no
opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and
(2) [D]eliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution.
Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a penalty lower by one degree than that which
should be imposed for homicide may be imposed upon a person guilty of frustrated homicide.
The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that the penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime shall be the penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated crimes. The penalty next
lower in degree is prision mayor.
SEPTEMBER 2014
G.R. No. 207950

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK JASON CHAVEZ Y BITANCOR ALIAS “NOY”,

3
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
September 22, 2014
Every conviction for any crime must be accompanied by the required moral certainty that the
accused has committed the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must
prove “the offender’s intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time
when the homicide [was] actually carried out” in order to convict for the crime of robbery with
homicide. The accused may nevertheless be convicted of the separate crime of homicide once
the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt the accused’s culpability for the victim’s
death.
NOVEMBER 2014
G.R. No. 199402

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ENRIQUE QUINTOS Y BADILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 12, 2014
A person commits rape when he sexually assaults another who does not consent or is incapable
of giving consent to a sexual act. Children, either in chronological or mental age, are incapable of
giving consent to a sexual act.
Rape, as now defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, does not make a distinction with
regard to an accused's relationship with the victim. It only requires that sexual congress be forced
by a man upon another person. Moreover, Republic Act No. 9262 recognizes that wives, former
wives, co-parents, and sweethearts may be raped by their husbands, former husbands, co-
parents, or sweethearts by stating that committing acts of rape against these persons are
considered violence against women.
Lack of resistance may sometimes imply consent. However, that is not always the case. While it
may imply consent, there are circumstances that may render a person unable to express her
resistance to another’s sexual advances. Thus, when a person has carnal knowledge with another
person who does not show any resistance, it does not always mean that that person consented
to such act. Lack of resistance does not negate rape.
The term, “deprived of reason,” is associated with insanity or madness. A person deprived of
reason has mental abnormalities that affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and,
therefore, his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.
The term, “demented,” refers to a person who suffers from a mental condition called dementia.
Dementia refers to the deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning,
speaking, and social condition, which impairs one’s independence in everyday activities.
We are aware that the terms, “mental retardation” or “intellectual disability,” had been classified
under “deprived of reason.” The terms, “deprived of reason” and “demented”, however, should
be differentiated from the term, “mentally retarded” or “intellectually disabled.” An intellectually
disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that
they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical
age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and
practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment,
he or she does not meet the “socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social
responsibility.”
DECEMBER 2014
G.R. No. 211465

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SHIRLEY A. CASIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
December 03, 2014

4
With this sadly familiar question being used on the streets of many of our cities, the fate of many
desperate women is sealed and their futures vanquished. This case resulted in the rescue of two
minors from this pernicious practice. Hopefully, there will be more rescues. Trafficking in persons
is a deplorable crime. It is committed even though the minor knew about or consented to the act
of trafficking.
Background of Republic Act No. 9208
The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UN CTOC) was “adopted
and opened for signature, ratification and accession” on November 15, 2000. The UN CTOC is
supplemented by three protocols: (1) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children; (2) the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by
Land, Sea and Air; and, (3) the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in
Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition.
Elements of trafficking in persons
The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition under Section 3(a) of
Republic Act No. 9208, thus:
(1) The act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders.”
(2) The means used which include “threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another; and
(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “exploitation or the prostitution of
others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of organs.”
On January 28, 2013, Republic Act No. 10364 was approved, otherwise known as the “Expanded
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.” Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 was amended by
Republic Act No. 10364
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to
include the following acts:
(1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders;”
(2) The means used include “by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability
of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person”
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs” (Emphasis supplied)
Accused claims that AAA admitted engaging in prostitution even before May 2, 2008. She
concludes that AAA was predisposed to having sex with “customers” for money. For liability under
our law, this argument is irrelevant. As defined under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208,
trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent.

5
The entrapment would still be valid using the objective test. The police merely proceeded to D.
Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan. It was accused who asked them whether they wanted
girls. There was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for the accused to commit the crime.
JANUARY 2015
G.R. No. 211002

RICHARD RICALDE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
January 21, 2015
Even men can become victims of rape.
Before us is a criminal case for rape through sexual assault committed against a 10-year-old boy.
Accused Richard Ricalde (Ricalde) was charged with rape as described under the second
paragraph of Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, committed “[b]y any person who, under
any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person.”
People v. Bonaagua considers a woman’s private organ since most if not all existing jurisprudence
on rape involves a woman victim. Nevertheless, this interpretation can apply by analogy when
the victim is a man in that the slightest penetration to the victim’s anal orifice consummates the
crime of rape through sexual assault.
The gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victim’s dignity. The degree of penetration is
not important. Rape is an “assault on human dignity.”
MARCH 2015
G.R. No. 211159

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO OLOVERIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
March 18, 2015
Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance need not be felt only in the seconds before
the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no longer be
repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime.
For treachery to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven:
(a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted.
To be able to successfully plead the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the
accused must be able to prove the following elements:
(1) that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and
(2) that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of
the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.

6
JANUARY 2016
G.R. No. 209387

ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
January 11, 2016
Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities, although done without search
warrants, are not unreasonable searches per se. Constitutional provisions protecting privacy
should not be so literally understood so as to deny reasonable safeguards to ensure the safety of
the traveling public.
The Constitution safeguards a person's right against unreasonable searches and seizures. A
warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable. However, this court lays down the exceptions
where warrantless searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest; (2) seizure in "plain view"; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search;
(5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
G.R. No. 213215

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUBEN BARON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
January 11, 2016
No amount of remorse can change the fact that a seven-year-old girl is dead. There is no penalty
commensurate with the indignity and the suffering that this child endured in the fading moments
of her brief life. Nor is there any pecuniary equivalent to the loss of potential and the lifelong grief
of her family.
G.R. No. 201310

MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. REGINALD FUENTES ALIAS "REGIE," ROBERT
CALILAN ALIAS "BOBBY," AND ALAIN DELON LINDO, RESPONDENTS.
January 11, 2016
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance.
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:
(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
G.R. No. 209330

SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR STEWART ALLAN A. MARIANO, ASSISTANT
STATE PROSECUTOR VIMAR M. BARCELLANO AND ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR GERARD E. GAERLAN,
PETITIONERS, VS. MARIO JOEL T. REYES, RESPONDENT.
January 11, 2016
The Secretary of Justice has the discretion, upon motion or motu proprio, to act on any matter
that may cause a probable miscarriage of justice in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. This
action may include, but is not limited to, the conduct of a reinvestigation. Furthermore, a petition

7
for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the regularity of preliminary investigation becomes moot
after the trial court completes its determination of probable cause and issues a warrant of arrest.
JUNE 2016
G.R. No. 212186

ARIEL LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
June 29, 2016
To sustain a conviction for cattle-rustling, the identity of the stolen cattle must be proven with
certainty. Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The elements of cattle-rustling are:
(1) large cattle is taken; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the
owner or raiser; (4) the taking is done by any means, method or scheme; (5) the taking is done
with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with or without violence or
intimidation against persons or force upon things.
G.R. No. 208205

ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No.
208212] REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
June 01, 2016
Upon execution, this Court's decision cannot be amended by the trial court or the sheriff. Absent
an order of remand, we cannot allow attempts to substantially or materially alter the terms of our
final and executory judgment.
JULY 2016
G.R. No. 213529

JANET LIM NAPOLES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO
ARELLANO, AND SENIOR DEPUTY STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE M. VILLANUEVA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES
AS OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 150, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(NBI), ARTURO F. LUY, GERTRUDES K. LUY, ANNABELLE LUY-REARIO, AND BENHUR K. LUY, RESPONDENTS.
July 13, 2016
A decision convicting an accused moots any proceeding that questions the determination of
probable cause, either in the filing of the information in court or in the issuance of the warrant of
arrest. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt had then been established, and questioning whether a
lower quantum of proof exists, i.e., probable cause, would be pointless.
G.R. No. 208009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDILBERTO PUSING Y TAMOR, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
July 11, 2016
When a female minor alleges rape, "she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has
been raped."
Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 provides that "the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
period." The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period is 14 years, eight (8) months, and
one (1) day to 17 years and four (4) months.

8
AUGUST 2016
G.R. No. 174379

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. (ASSIGNEE OF INVENTORS CARINI, DUNCIA AND WONG), PETITIONER,
VS. DIRECTOR EMMA C. FRANCISCO (IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY OFFICE), DIRECTOR EPIFANIO M. EVASCO (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DHUECTOR OF THE BUREAU
OF PATENTS), AND THERAPHARMA, INC., RESPONDENTS.
August 31, 2016
A patent is granted to provide rights and protection to the inventor after an invention is disclosed
to the public. It also seeks to restrain and prevent unauthorized persons from unjustly profiting
from a protected invention. However, ideas not covered by a patent are free for the public to use
and exploit. Thus, there are procedural rules on the application and grant of patents established
to protect against any infringement. To balance the public interests involved, failure to comply
with strict procedural rules will result in the failure to obtain a patent.
GR. No. 196735

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA,
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN PROMULGATED: ALVIR,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
August 03, 2016
The inherent difficulty in the prosecution of fraternity-related violence forces the judiciary to be
more exacting in examining all the evidence on hand, with due regard to the peculiarities of the
circumstances. In this instance, we have thoroughly reviewed the arguments presented by
accused-appellants in their Motions for Reconsideration and have weighed them against the
evidence on hand. Unfortunately, their Motions have not given us cause to reconsider our May 5,
2014 Decision.
SEPTEMBER 2016
G.R. No. 205871

RUEL TUANO Y HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
September 28, 2016
This Court resolves to set aside its June 27, 2016 Resolution and dismiss this case.
The death of accused extinguishes his criminal liability. Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code provides:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment[.]
Likewise, the civil liability of the accused arising from his criminal liability is extinguished upon his
death. In People v. Bayotas:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death
of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in
senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of

9
the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) . . . .
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1,
Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be
enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on
the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
In People v. Paras, this Court rendered judgment in a criminal case without being informed earlier
that the accused had already passed away. Premised on the principle that the death of the
accused extinguishes his criminal liability, the Court set aside its decision and dismissed the
criminal case.
Considering accused's death pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability and civil liability ex
delicto, the criminal action must be dismissed since there is no longer a defendant to stand as the
accused.
Therefore, when accused died on March 1, 2015 during the pendency of his appeal and prior to
this Court's Resolution dated June 27, 2016, his criminal liability has already been extinguished.
From that point on, the criminal action had no defendant upon which the action is based.
G.R. No. 172507

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. MARGARITO ASOQUE AND TARCINIA ASOQUE,
RESPONDENTS.
September 14, 2016
Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution provides a substantive guarantee that private property
that is taken by the state for public use should be paid for with just compensation. If the state
does not agree with the property owner on a price, the state, through the competent government
agency, should file the proper expropriation action under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court.
JANUARY 2017
G.R. No. 206627

VAN CLIFFORD TORRES Y SALERA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
January 18, 2017
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national
comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the
Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3,
paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper
care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation,
and other conditions prejudicial to their development."
FEBRUARY 2017

10
G.R. No. 204990
RAMON AMPARO Y IBAÑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
February 22, 2017
Robbery is the taking, with the intent to gain, of personal property belonging to another by use
of force, violence or intimidation. Under Article 294 (5) in relation to Article 295, and Article 296
of the Revised Penal Code, robbery in band is committed when four (4) or more malefactors take
part in the robbery. All members are punished as principals for any assault committed by the
band, unless it can be proven that the accused took steps to prevent the commission of the crime.
Even if the crime is committed by several malefactors in a motor vehicle on a public highway, the
crime is still classified as robbery in band, not highway robbery or brigandage under Presidential
Decree No. 532. It is highway robbery only when it can be proven that the malefactors primarily
organized themselves for the purpose of committing that crime.
Under Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the imposable penalty for robbery
is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Article 295
of the same Code, however, qualifies the penalty to its maximum period if the robbery is
committed by a band. Thus, the proper penalty is prision mayor in its maximum period.
G.R. No. 187094

LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, AND RAFAEL V. MARIANO, PETITIONERS,
VS. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PALAYAN CITY, BRANCH 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR, ANTONIO LL. LAPUS, JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, AND EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ,IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS, AND RAUL M. GONZALEZ, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, RESPONDENTS.
February 15, 2017
Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must determine the existence or non-
existence of probable cause based on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor's report and its
supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an arrest warrant, or require the
submission of additional evidence. However, they cannot remand the case for another conduct
of preliminary investigation on the ground that the earlier preliminary investigation was
improperly conducted.
MARCH 2017
G.R. No. 212161

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO ENTRAMPAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
March 29, 2017
This is a tragic story resulting from an act of depravity: an 11-year old girl gave birth to a child
after she was repeatedly raped by the common-law husband of her biological mother.
Raping a daughter destroys the purity of a father-daughter relationship. It shatters her dignity. It
destroys her ability to trust her elders charged with her care. The selfish momentary pleasure of
the father will torment her for life. In this case, it will also aggravate with the existence of the child
of his daughter. This Court is at a loss for words to describe this evil. All it can do is to increase the
amounts awarded to AAA in the hope that she will remember that the law is on her side.
G.R. No. 205855

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. KING REX A. AMBATANG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
March 29, 2017
Treachery is present to qualify Vidal's killing to murder. As pointed out by the Regional Trial Court:
Accused employed treachery when he attacked the victim. This is shown by the suddenness of

11
the attack against the unarmed victim, without the slightest provocation on the latter's part and
opportunity to defend himself. Accused was a tall, young man with a sturdy physique. Armed with
a sharp bladed weapon, he attacked and repeatedly stabbed the victim who was at that time sixty
years old and inferior in size and built compared to him.
G.R. No. 195021

NICOLAS VELASQUEZ AND VICTOR VELASQUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
March 15, 2017
An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code
admits to the commission of acts, which would otherwise engender criminal liability. However,
he asserts that he is justified in committing the acts. In the process of proving a justifying
circumstance, the accused risks admitting the imputed acts, which may justify the existence of an
offense were it not for the exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused
fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances.
A person invoking self-defense (or defense of a relative) admits to having inflicted harm upon
another person - a potential criminal act under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, he or she makes the additional, defensive contention that even as he or
she may have inflicted harm, he or she nevertheless incurred no criminal liability as the looming
danger upon his or her own person (or that of his or her relative) justified the infliction of
protective harm to an erstwhile aggressor.
G.R. No. 205745

CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, AND BREGIDO MALACAT, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
March 08, 2017
Pride, when unchecked, can waste our youth and cause the forfeiture of all meaning in life, even
in the most inconsequential things: in this case, a basketball game.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of
establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's case must rise on its own merits, not merely on
relative strength as against that of the defense. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its
burden, acquittal must follow as a matter of course.
Conviction in criminal actions demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 133, Section 2 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence states:
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does
not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
APRIL 2017
G.R. No. 207776

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. GEORGE GACUSAN, RESPONDENT.
April 26, 2017
The abuse of moral influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the common-law
father of a minor.
"[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no standard form of
human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful

12
experience." One person may react aggressively, while another may show cold indifference. Also,
it is improper to judge the actions of children who are victims of traumatic experiences "by the
norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature people." From AAA's view, it
appeared that the danger of losing a family was more excruciating than physical pain.
Recent cases reiterating that moral ascendancy replaces violence or intimidation in rape
committed by a close-kin cited People v. Corpuz.
In Corpuz, the accused was the live-in partner of the victim's mother. The victim, AAA, was 13
years old when accused Corpuz started raping her. The repeated rape incidents made AAA
pregnant.
AAA's failure to openly verbalize Gacusan's use of force, threat, or intimidation does not adversely
affect the prosecution's case as long as there is enough proof that there was sexual intercourse.
G.R. No. 181489

STEVEN R. PAVLOW, PETITIONER, VS. CHERRY L. MENDENILLA, RESPONDENT.
April 19, 2017
The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is expressly given
personality by Section 9(b) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (the Anti-VAWC Law), to file a civil action
petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for her child. In filing such a petition, she avails
of a remedy that is distinct from the criminal action under Section 5 of the same law. The mere
filing of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of an information in court, does
not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance
of a protection order.
Republic Act No. 9262 specifies three (3) distinct remedies available to victims of acts of "violence
against women and their children": first, a criminal complaint; second, a civil action for damages;
and finally, a civil action for the issuance of a protection order.
A criminal complaint may be resorted to when the act of violence against women and their
children is committed through any, some, or all of the nine (9) means which Section 5 of the Anti-
VAWC Law specifies as constitutive of "[t]he crime of violence against women and their children."
If found guilty, the perpetrator shall suffer the penalties stipulated under Section 6, i.e.,
imprisonment and payment of a fine. In addition, he or she shall be made to undergo
psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment.
A civil action for damages may be resorted to pursuant to Section 36 of the Anti-VAWC Law:
Section 36. Damages. - Any victim of violence under this Act shall be entitled to actual,
compensatory, moral and exemplary damages.
Rule V, Section 35 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Anti-VAWC Law states that
when a criminal action is also available and is resorted to, "[t]he civil action for damages is deemed
instituted with the criminal action, unless an independent civil action for damages is filed."
A protection order is issued "for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against a
woman or her child . . . and granting other necessary relief;" thereby "safeguarding the victim
from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim's daily life, and facilitating the
opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life."
JUNE 2017
G.R. No. 210266

ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

13
June 07, 2017
The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered access device fraud and is
punishable by law. To successfully sustain a conviction for possession and use of a counterfeit
access device, the prosecution must present not only the access device but also any evidence that
proves that the access device is counterfeit.
Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, defines an
access device as:
any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number,
or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrumental identifier, or other means of
account access that can be used to obtain money, good, services, or any other thing of value or
to initiate a transfer of funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument).
Since a credit card is "any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for the purpose
of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or services or anything of value on credit," it is
considered an access device.
A counterfeit access device is "any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged,
or an identifiable component of an access device or counterfeit access device." Under Section 9(a)
and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an access device is not illegal. Rather,
what is prohibited is the possession and use of a counterfeit access device. Therefore, the corpus
delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but also any evidence that proves that it is
counterfeit.
G.R. No. 210654

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLO LUAD ARMODIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
June 07, 2017
The rape of a minor constitutes moral depravity of the highest order. This is an appeal from a
conviction for two (2) counts of rape of a child under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code
by a father, who twice fulfilled his desires on his own daughter.
The crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code consists of the twin
circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the perpetrator, both of which must
concur and must be alleged in the information. It is immaterial whether the relationship was
proven during trial if that was not specifically pleaded for in the information.
G.R. No. 200512

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELMER AVANCENA Y CABANELA, JAIME POPIOCO
Y CAMBAYA AND NOLASCO TAYTAY Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
June 07, 2017
In kidnapping for ransom, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements:
"[first,] the accused was a private person; [second,] he [or she] kidnapped or detained or in any
manner deprived another of his or her liberty; [third,] the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and
[fourth,] the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom."
JULY 2017
G.R. No. 214300

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL ESCOBAR, RESPONDENT.
July 26, 2017
Bail is the security given for the temporary release of a person who has been arrested and
detained but "whose guilt has not yet been proven" in court beyond reasonable doubt. The right

14
to bail is cognate to the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. In People v. Fitzgerald:
The right to bail emanates from the [accused's constitutional] right to be presumed innocent. It is
accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may, by reason of the presumption of
innocence he [or she] enjoys, be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee
his [or her] appearance before any court, as required under specified conditions. (Citations
omitted)
Bail may be a matter of right or judicial discretion. The accused has the right to bail if the offense
charged is "not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment" before conviction
by the Regional Trial Court. However, if the accused is charged with an offense the penalty of
which is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment—"regardless of the stage of the criminal
prosecution"—and when evidence of one's guilt is not strong, then the accused's prayer for bail
is subject to the discretion of the trial court.
In this case, the imposable penalty for kidnapping for ransom is death, reduced to reclusion
perpetua. Escobar's bail is, thus, a matter of judicial discretion, provided that the evidence of his
guilt is not strong.
Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no bearing on criminal proceedings.
But even if petitioner's arguments] were to be expanded to contemplate "res judicata in prison
grey" or the criminal law concept of double jeopardy, this Court still finds it inapplicable to bar
the reinvestigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.
G.R. No. 210615

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ABENIR BRUSOLA Y BARAGWA, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
July 26, 2017
There is never any justification for a husband to hit his wife with a maso (mallet).
The crime of parricide is punishable by the indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death.
With one mitigating circumstance, which is voluntary surrender, and no aggravating
circumstance, the imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and not the penalty of
death on appellant was thus proper.
G.R. No. 224102

RYAN MARIANO Y GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
July 26, 2017
The state of mind of the accused during an alleged act of self-defense, defense of a relative, or
defense of a stranger must be considered in determining whether his or her means of repelling
an aggressor were reasonable.
The reasonable necessity of the means employed in the defense, according to the jurisprudence
of courts, does not de[p]end upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such
injury.
Here, although the offended party was drunk, and therefore, was not able to land his blows, his
attacks were incessant. He had already attacked three (3) other persons—two (2) minors as well
as petitioner's common-law wife—and was still belligerent. While it may be true that Pamela, Pia,
and Yuki had already gone inside the house at the time of the stabbing, it then appeared to the
petitioner that there was no other reasonable means to protect his family except to commit the
acts alleged. It is unreasonable for courts to demand conduct that could only have been
discovered with hindsight and absent the stress caused by the threats that the petitioner actually
faced.

15
Finally, petitioner was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. The victim
himself, Natividad, testified that he had no issues with petitioner before the incident. Thus, all the
elements to invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger were present in this case.
G.R. No. 207765

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULITO DIVINAGRACIA, SR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
July 26, 2017
Child victims of rape by their very own fathers usually continue to live in an environment where
the perpetrators consistently underscore the weakness and worthlessness of their victims. In
addition to the continued economic dependence of the child victims, this ensures enormous
difficulty to find a safe space for them to reveal their ordeal and ensure protection. The animosity
and intolerable indignity that child victims experience often lead them to find the courage to seek
succor from someone who appears to have moral ascendancy over their perpetrator. This is often
their mother, although at times, it may also be a relative.
On the charge of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, Article 2(h) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any
person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade,
or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition
of the genitals or pubic area of a person[.]
As with the rape case, the parties in the case for acts of lasciviousness also affirmed BBB's minority
at the time of the assault and her relationship with Divinagracia.
G.R. No. 204544

MARLON BACERRA Y TABONES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
July 03, 2017
The identity of the perpetrator of a crime and a finding of guilt may rest solely on the strength of
circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are classifications of evidence with legal
consequences.
The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the relationship of
the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference does not relate to the
probative value of the evidence.
Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence,
on the other hand, "indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact-finder must draw an
inference or reason from circumstantial evidence."
The probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to
circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between "direct evidence of fact
and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred." The same
quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 206916

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOSEPH SAN JOSE Y GREGORIO AND JONATHAN SAN
JOSE Y GREGORIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
July 03, 2017

16
The prosecution has the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If it fails
to discharge this burden, courts have the duty to render a judgment of acquittal.
AUGUST 2017
G.R. No. 210802

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RENE BOY DIMAPILIT Y ABELLADO, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
August 09, 2017
A witness' inconsistency on minor details does not affect his or her credibility as long as there are
no material contradictions in his or her absolute and clear narration on the central incident and
positive identification of the accused as one (1) of the main assailants. Any inconsistency, which
is not relevant to the elements of the crime, "is not a ground to reverse a conviction."
To warrant a conviction of murder, the following elements should be proven:
(1) that a person was killed;

(2) that the accused killed him or her;
(3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and
(4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Treachery exists "when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
make." For treachery to be appreciated, two (2) elements should be proven:
(1) [T]he employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to
defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously
adopted.
As to evident premeditation, the following must concur to ascertain its presence:
(1) [T]he time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating
that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.
"The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded
by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment."
There is abuse of superior strength "whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and
purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime."
Abuse of superior strength means "to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person attacked." Thus, in considering this aggravating
circumstance, this Court looks into "the age, size and strength of the parties."
When treachery and abuse of superior strength coincides, abuse of superior strength is absorbed
in treachery. Given that there was neither any aggravating nor any mitigating circumstances that
attended Diego's killing, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua pursuant to
Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

17
G.R. No. 217764
ANTONIETA LUCIDO @ TONYAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
August 07, 2017
As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether it is habitual or
not. Petitioner's acts fall squarely within this definition.
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 punishes four (4) distinct offenses, i.e. (a) child abuse, (b)
child cruelty, (c) child exploitation, and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the
child's development. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the element that the acts must
be prejudicial to the child's development pertains only to the fourth offense.
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared to provide a strong deterrence against child abuse and
exploitation and to give a special protection to children from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. It must be stressed that the
crime under Republic Act No. 7610 is malum prohibitum. Hence, the intent to debase, degrade,
or demean the minor is not the defining mark. Any act of punishment that debases, degrades, and
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child constitutes the offense.
G.R. No. 199710

PEOPLE OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PO3 JULIETO BORJA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
August 02, 2017
Extortion done by police themselves amounting to kidnapping with ransom undermines the
government efforts to establish the rule of law in general and the proper prosecution against drug
traffickers in particular. Even the subsequent prosecution of the victim of extortion does not
negate the criminal liability of the accused for the crime the latter committed against the former.
SEPTEMBER 2017
G.R. No. 227863

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRITO ORDONA Y RENDON, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
September 20, 2017
To qualify the killing of a person to the crime of murder, evident premeditation must be proven
with reasonable certainty. Facts regarding "how and when the plan to kill was hatched" are
indispensable. The requirement of deliberate planning should not be based merely on inferences
and presumptions but on clear evidence.
It is indispensable for the prosecution to establish "how and when the plan to kill was hatched or
how much time had elapsed before it was carried out." In People v. Abadies, this Court
underscored this requirement, thus:
Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected,
which indicate deliberate planning. There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation
to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim.
Criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to
commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must
not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."
The essence of treachery, as stated in Abadies, is "the swift and unexpected attack on the
unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part." Two (2) requisites must be
established by the prosecution, namely: "(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
a position to defend himself [or herself], and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack employed by him [or her]."

18
G.R. No. 208625
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON FRANCICA Y NAVALTA, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
September 06, 2017
No amount, especially not the P50.00 paid by the accused for sexually abusing his 11-year-old
victim, will ever compensate for her trauma. The depravity of a grown man in taking advantage
of a child's trust and innocence and her family's poverty to repeatedly rape her rightfully deserves
condemnation and the most severe punishment that can be meted out under the law.
For a charge of rape under Article 266-A(1) to prosper, it must be proven that "(1) the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was
under 12 years of age or was demented."
On the other hand, rape under Article 266 A(2) is described in Ricalde v. People as "'instrument
or object rape,' 'gender-free rape,' or 'homosexual rape.' The gravamen of rape through sexual
assault is 'the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice.'"
Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) is also called statutory rape as "it departs from the usual modes of
committing rape." The child victim's consent in statutory rape is immaterial because the law
presumes that her young age makes her incapable of discerning good from evil. People v. Gutierez
explained the elements of statutory rape:
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the
accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or
intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done
through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and
that there was sexual intercourse.
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed in cases of rape stated in the first paragraph of Article 266-A where there are no
aggravating or qualifying circumstances present. This corresponds with Section 5(b) of Republic
Act No. 7610, which also provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua if the rape victim is below
12 years old
OCTOBER 2017
G.R. No. 209342

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. CRISENTE PEPAÑO NUÑEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
October 04, 2017
To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a positive identification
by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified
person matches the original description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime.
The unbiased character of the process of identification by witnesses must likewise be shown.
Criminal prosecution may result in the severe consequences of deprivation of liberty, property,
and, where capital punishment is imposed, life. Prosecution that relies solely on eyewitness
identification must be approached meticulously, cognizant of the inherent frailty of human
memory. Eyewitnesses who have previously made admissions that they could not identify the
perpetrators of a crime but, years later and after a highly suggestive process of presenting
suspects, contradict themselves and claim that they can identify the perpetrator with certainty
are grossly wanting in credibility. Prosecution that relies solely on these eyewitnesses' testimonies
fails to discharge its burden of proving an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

19
NOVEMBER 2017
G.R. No. 211053

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SEGFRED L. OROZCO, MANUEL D. OSIR, AND
ALBERTO B. MATURAN, ACCUSED, ERNIE N. CASTRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 29, 2017
Accused-appellant does not dispute being at the scene of the crime. He testified to taking a knife,
giving chase, and stabbing the decedent. There is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the
victim was subdued by the decedent and his companions. Thus, they employed means to weaken
the victim's defense, constituting treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the
employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Its existence may be inferred and proved through
acts that show a common purpose, a concert of action, and a community of interest.
G.R. No. 207805

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. CESAR BALAO Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 22, 2017
The testimony of a single eyewitness to a crime, even if uncorroborated, produces a conviction

beyond reasonable doubt as long as it is credible and positive. A considerable lapse of time
between the commission of the offense and the identification of the accused in open court, by
itself, would be insufficient to overturn a finding of guilt.
G.R. No. 207666

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. FLORIANO TAYABAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 22, 2017
We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified
under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented", however, should
be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually
disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that
they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical
age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and
practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment,
he or she does, not meet the "social-cultural standards of personal independence and social
responsibility."
G.R. No. 205576

MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR, EUGENE L. ALZATE, PERLA C. MAGLINTE, CESAR M. CAGANG, AND VIVENCIA S.
TELESFORO, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
November 20, 2017
Except with respect to civil cases impliedly instituted, the rule of conclusiveness of judgment has
no application in criminal law proceedings. For criminal procedure, it is not res judicata under Rule
39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, but res judicata in prison grey as double jeopardy, under Rule
117, Section 7.

20
[R]es judicata is a doctrine of civil law. It thus has no bearing in the criminal proceedings before
the Sandiganbayan. Second, it is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public official
or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for violation of duty or for a wrongful act or
omission. This simply means that a public officer may be held civilly, criminally, and
administratively liable for a wrongful doing. Thus, if such violation or wrongful act results in
damages to an individual, the public officer may be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured
party. If the law violated attaches a penal sanction, the erring officer may be punished criminally.
Finally, such violation may also lead to suspension, removal from office, or other administrative
sanctions. This administrative liability is separate and distinct from the penal and civil liabilities.
Thus, the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily bar the filing of a criminal
prosecution for the same or similar acts, which were the subject of the administrative complaint.
G.R. No. 206958

PERSONAL COLLECTION DIRECT SELLING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA L. CARANDANG, RESPONDENT.
November 08, 2017
Judges must act with cautious discernment and faithfully exercise their judicial discretion when
dismissing cases for lack of probable cause. An order granting the withdrawal of an information
based on the prosecutor's findings of lack of probable cause must show that the judge did not rely
solely on the prosecution's conclusions but had independently evaluated the evidence on record
and the merits of the case.
G.R. No. 210568

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BENJAMIN AUSTRIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 08, 2017
A stepfather's moral ascendancy or influence over his stepdaughter, who grew up knowing him
as the only father she has ever had, supplants the element of violence or intimidation in a charge
of rape. In this case, such influence over the stepdaughter is the reason why she silently endured
years of sexual abuse without fighting back or confiding in anyone.
Rape by sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge by a man of a woman under any of the
circumstances enumerated in Article 266-A(1)(a-d). Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) is also called
statutory rape "as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape." The child victim's consent
in statutory rape is immaterial because the law presumes that her young age makes her incapable
of discerning good from evil. People v. Gutierez explained the elements of statutory rape:
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the
accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or
intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done
through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and
that there was sexual intercourse.
DECEMBER 2017
G.R. No. 188493

VIVIAN B. TORREON AND FELOMINA F. ABELLANA, PETITIONERS, V. GENEROSO APARRA, JR., FELIX
CABALLES, AND CARMELO SIMOLDE, RESPONDENTS.
December 13, 2017
Lack of documentary evidence is not fatal to a claim for the deceased's lost earning capacity.
Testimony from a competent witness familiar with his salary is a sufficient basis to determine the
deceased's income before his death.
JANUARY 2018

21
G.R. No. 225735
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BELEN MEJARES Y VALENCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
January 10, 2018
This Court affirms with modification the conviction of accused- appellant Belen Mejares y Valencia
(Mejares) for the crime of qualified theft. While this Court finds no reversible error in the ruling
that she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds it necessary to modify the penalty
initially imposed upon her. In light of the recently enacted Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted
the amounts of property and damage on which penalties are based, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, and considering the prosecution's failure to establish the precise values of the
stolen items, accused-appellant must be ordered released on time served.
G.R. No. 210161

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BIENVINIDO UDANG, SR. Y SEVILLA, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
January 10, 2018
A single act may give rise to multiple offenses. Thus, charging an accused with rape, under the
Revised Penal Code, and with sexual abuse, under Republic Act No. 7610, in case the offended
party is a child 12 years old and above, will not violate the right of the accused against double
jeopardy.
APRIL 2018
G.R. No. 201414

PEDRO PEREZ PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
April 18, 2018
Inserting a finger in a 12-year-old girl's vagina and mashing her breasts are not only acts of
lasciviousness but also amount to child abuse punished under Republic Act No. 7610.
Under Section 5(b), the elements of sexual abuse are:
(1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct[;]
(2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse[; and]
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
[T]he second element is that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse. To meet this element, the child victim must either be exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. In Quimvel v. People, the Court held that the
fact that a child is under the coercion and influence of an adult is sufficient to satisfy this second
element and will classify the child victim as one subjected to other sexual abuse.
Correlatively, Sec. S(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution
wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers
not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through
coercior., intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence,
the law punishes not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against children
G.R. No. 214886

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERNIE CONCEPCION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
April 04, 2018

22
The facts as found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals show that after raping
AAA, accused-appellant continued to detain her and refused to release her even after raping her.
Thus, although the initial abduction of AAA may have been absorbed by the crime of rape, the
continued detention of AAA after the rape cannot be deemed absorbed in it. Likewise, since the
detention continued after the rape had been completed, it cannot be deemed a necessary means
for the crime of rape.
Thus, the felony of slight illegal detention has four (4) elements:
(1) That the offender is a private individual.
(2) That he kidnaps or detains another, or m any other manner deprives him of his liberty.
(3) That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.
(4) That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated
in Art. 267. (Emphasis in the original)
JUNE 2018
G.R. No. 202408

FAROUK B. ABUBAKAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 202409]
ULAMA S. BARAGUIR PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 202412]
DATUKAN M. GUIANI PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
June 27, 2018
The rules on competitive public bidding and those concerning the disbursement of public funds
are imbued with public interest. Government officials whose work relates to these matters are
expected to exercise greater responsibility in ensuring compliance with the pertinent rules and
regulations. The doctrine allowing heads of offices to rely in good faith on the acts of their
subordinates is inapplicable in a situation where there are circumstances that should have
prompted the government officials to make further inquiries.
G.R. No. 200630

KIM LIONG, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
June 04, 2018
The right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness is a basic fundamental constitutional
right. However, this is personal to the accused, who can waive the right.
JULY 2018
G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458

CESAR MATAS CAGANG, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, QUEZON CITY; OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 210141-42] CESAR
MATAS CAGANG, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, QUEZON CITY; OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
July 31, 2018
Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases. Inordinate delay
in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation will result in the dismissal of the
case against the accused. Delay, however, is not determined through mere mathematical
reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each case.
Courts should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent
and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case.
Nonetheless, the accused must invoke his or her constitutional rights in a timely manner. The
failure to do so could be considered by the courts as a waiver of right.

23
G.R. No. 207711
MARIA C. OSORIO PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONDENT.
July 02, 2018
Persons who receive money for investment in a particular company but divert the same to
another without the investor's consent may be held criminally liable for other deceits under
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in scope
intended to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the
Revised Penal Code.
In the present case, the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is
necessarily included in the crime of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code. Therefore, petitioner may be convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of
the Revised Penal Code.
The imposable penalty for other deceits under paragraph 1 of Article 318 of the Revised Penal
Code has been retained by Republic Act No. 10951. Accordingly, petitioner should suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor and pay a fine, which should neither be less than nor more than twice
the amount of the damage caused. The amount of damage caused against private complainant in
this case is P200,000.00.
As a final note, the defense that private complainant eventually consented to the investment in
PMIAM deserves scant consideration. Records show that private complainant asked petitioner for
a refund of her initial investment when she discovered that her investment was placed in PMIAM.
The ratification allegedly given by private complainant hardly qualifies as genuine consent. When
private complainant discovered the transaction, her insurance policies had already lapsed. She
was trapped in a difficult situation where she could potentially lose another investment. Thus, she
had no other choice but to agree to the placement. The lack of genuine consent is further
evidenced by private complainant's repeated requests for a refund of her initial investment even
after she received the first tranche of interest income.
AUGUST 2018
A.C. No. 12174

ALFRED LEHNERT, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DENNIS L. DIÑO, RESPONDENT.
August 28, 2018
This Court continues to state that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct
and violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates all members of
the bar "to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law." Issuance of worthless checks
also violates Rule 1.01 of the Code, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Thus, this Court has imposed the penalty of one (1)-year suspension from the practice of law for
a cavalier attitude toward incurring debts. This Court has imposed a higher penalty of two (2)-
year suspension on a lawyer who issued worthless checks and also disregarded the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines' orders in administrative proceedings.
SEPTEMBER 2018
G.R. No. 193236

FLORENCIA GARCIA-DIAZ PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT. [G.R. Nos. 193248-49] JOSE
G. SOLIS, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
September 17, 2018
Co-conspirators are liable collectively and equally for the common design of their criminal acts.

24
When a contract that is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government is entered
into, the persons involved—whether public officers or private persons—may be charged for
violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and suffer the same penalty if found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 186403

MAYOR "JONG" AMADO CORPUS, JR. AND CARLITO SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE RAMON D.
PAMULAR OF BRANCH 33, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, MRS. PRISCILLA ESPINOSA,* AND NUEVA ECIJA
PROVINCIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FLORO FLORENDO, RESPONDENTS.
September 05, 2018
An allegation of conspiracy to add a new accused without changing the prosecution's theory that
the accused willfully shot the victim is merely a formal amendment. However, the rule provides
that only formal amendments not prejudicial to the rights of the accused are allowed after plea.
The test of whether an accused is prejudiced by an amendment is to determine whether a defense
under the original information will still be available even after the amendment is made and if any
evidence that an accused might have would remain applicable even in the amended information.
OCTOBER 2018
G.R. No. 208114

MELKY CONCHA AND ROMEO MANAGUELOD, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
October 03, 2018
An out-of-court identification such as a police show-up is inadmissible if it is tainted with improper

suggestions by police officers.
NOVEMBER 2018
G.R. No. 217542

CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ Y MEDINA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
November 21, 2018
This is an extraordinary case involving the application of doctrines on violations of Republic Act
No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act.
The courts must stay true to its mandate of protecting the welfare of children. In Araneta v.
People, this Court emphasized:
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national
comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the
Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3,
paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper
care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation,
and other conditions prejudicial to their development." This piece of legislation supplies the
inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised
Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As a statute
that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse and
exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a means by which child
traffickers could easily be prosecuted and penalized. Also, the definition of child abuse is
expanded to encompass not only those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but
includes also "other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial
to the child's development[."]
DECEMBER 2018

25
G.R. No. 220721
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NADY MAGALLANO, JR. Y FLORES AND ROMEO
TAPAR Y CASTRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
December 10, 2018
"The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the
slightest provocation on his part." For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance,
two (2) things must be proven: (1) that during the attack, the victim could not have defended
himself or herself from the offender; and (2) that the offender deliberately chose a form of attack
which would render him or her immune from risk or retaliation by the victim.
To sustain a conviction under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove
the following beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused-
appellants killed the victim; (3) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide; and (4) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248.
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[a] conspiracy exists when two (2) or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."
Conspiracy may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence that show a "common design or
purpose" to commit the crime.
JANUARY 2019
G.R. No. 217978

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ A.K.A. "ZOY" OR "SOY"
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
January 30, 2019
In People v. Casio, this Court enumerated the elements that must be established to successfully
prosecute the crime:
The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition under Section 3 (a) of
Republic Act No. 9208, thus:
(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders."
(2) The means used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another["]; and
(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of
others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of organs."
Republic Act No. 9208 has since been amended by Republic Act No. 10364 on February 6, 2013.
In recognition of the amendments to the law, Casio clarifies that crimes prosecuted under
Republic Act No. 10364 must have the following elements:
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to
include the following acts:
(1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders[";]

26
(2) The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability
of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person"[;]
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs[.]" (Emphasis in the original)
Here, accused-appellant was charged with having violated qualified trafficking in relation to
Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9208, which provides that it is unlawful for anyone "[t]o maintain
or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography[.]"
FEBRUARY 2019
G.R. No. 223405

CARLOS L. REYNES, PETITIONER, V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), LUCRESIA M. AMORES, AND
MARIBEL HONTIVEROS, RESPONDENTS.
February 20, 2019
Determining probable cause for the filing of a criminal information is an executive function.
Resolutions made by public prosecutors in exercise of this function shall generally not be
disturbed by courts. However, determinations that arbitrarily disregard the jurisprudential
parameters for determining probable cause are tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Such
iniquitous determinations are correctible by certiorari. A public prosecutor who does not merely
disregard, but even grossly misinterprets to the point of distorting evidence and the Revised Penal
Code's standards for liability, turning a blind eye to palpable indicators of criminal liability,
commits grave abuse of discretion.
G.R. No. 210731

SIMEON LAPI Y MAHIPUS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
February 13, 2019
The right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused, assisted by counsel,
fails to object to its validity before arraignment.
MARCH 2019
G.R. No. 221139

HA DATU TAWAHIG (RODERICK D. SUMATRA), TRIBAL CHIEFTAIN, HIGAONON TRIBE, PETITIONER, VS. THE
HONORABLE CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR I LINETH LAPINID, CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR II FERNANDO
GUBALANE, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ERNESTO NARIDO, JR., CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR NICOLAS
SELLON, AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 12, CEBU CITY ESTELA ALMA
SINGCO, RESPONDENTS.
March 20, 2019
The Philippine legal system's framework for the protection of indigenous peoples was never
intended and will not operate to deprive courts of jurisdiction over criminal offenses. Individuals
belonging to indigenous cultural communities who are charged with criminal offenses cannot
invoke Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997, to evade prosecution
and liability under courts of law.
G.R. Nos. 212491-92

MARIA SHIELA HUBAHIB TUPAZ, PETITIONER, V. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
VISAYAS; ATTY. FERNANDO ABELLA, REGISTER OF DEEDS; AND MACRINA ESPINA, RESPONDENTS.
March 06, 2019

27
Public prosecutors must address the different dimensions of complaints raised before them.
When they provide well-reasoned resolutions on one (1) dimension, but overlook palpable
indications that another crime has been committed, they fail to responsibly discharge the
functions entrusted to them. This amounts to an evasion of positive duty, an act of grave abuse
of discretion correctible by certiorari
APRIL 2019
G.R. No. 225696

ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
April 08, 2019
For a notary public to be found guilty of falsifying a notarial will, the prosecution must prove that
he or she has falsified or simulated the signatures of the testator or the instrumental witnesses
to make it appear that they participated in the execution of the document when they did not.
Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court, however, provides:
SECTION 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered
therein.
All other writings are private. (Emphasis supplied)
Notarization confers a public character upon private documents so that, for the purposes of
admissibility in court, no further evidence is required to prove the document's authenticity. The
notary public swears to the truth of the document's contents and its due execution. In Antillon v.
Barcelon:
The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public
certifies the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal he thereby gives
such a document the force of evidence.
In falsification of public documents under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the
prosecution must prove that these elements exist:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position.
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act
or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
Respondent [notary public] was . . . negligent when he notarized the deed with unfilled spaces
and incomplete entries, making uncertified and fraudulent insertions easy to accomplish.

28
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public
interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
JUNE 2019
G.R. No. 229862

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ZZZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
June 19, 2019
Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases. Circumstances in which the
recantation was made are thoroughly examined before the evidence of retraction can be given
any weight.
JULY 2019
G.R. No. 240475

JONATHAN DE GUZMAN Y AGUILAR, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
July 24, 2019
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands moral certainty. The prosecution's reliance on nothing
more than the lone testimony of a witness, who is faulted with a vendetta and illegal activities
allegedly committed against the accused, hardly establishes moral certainty.
G.R. No. 228828

July 24, 2019
In the absence of direct evidence, a resort to circumstantial evidence is usually necessary in

proving the commission of rape. This is because the crime "is generally unwitnessed and very
often only the victim is left to testify for [him or] herself. It becomes even more difficult when the
complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify."
G.R. No. 228000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONALD PALEMA Y VARGAS, RUFEL PALMEA Y
BAUTISTA, LYNDON SALDUA Y QUEZON, AND VIRGO GRENGIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
July 10, 2019
In the prosecution of robbery with homicide, the State must prove that the offender's original
intent was to commit the crime of robbery. The killing of the victim must only be incidental.
Nevertheless, the act of taking the victim's life may occur before, during, or even after the
robbery. So long as the homicide was committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery,
the offense committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
G.R. No. 237553

BDO UNIBANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO CHOA, RESPONDENT.
July 10, 2019
When a demurrer is granted in a criminal case, the private complainant can file a Rule 65 petition
on the civil aspect of the case, as long as he or she can show that the trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer.

29
G.R. No. 213760
REYNALDO SANTIAGO, JR. Y SANTOS, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
July 01, 2019
Human beings are not chattels whose sexual favors are bought or sold by greedy pimps. Those
who profit in this way by recruiting minors are rightfully, by law, labeled as criminals. They should
be the subject of aggressive law enforcement, prosecuted, tried, and when proof beyond
reasonable doubt exists, punished.
In the prosecution of the crime of trafficking in persons, the confidential asset or the informant's
testimony is not indispensable. It is enough that there is proof that "the accused has lured,
enticed[,] or engaged its victims or transported them for the established purpose of exploitation."
SEPTEMBER 2019
G.R. No. 194469

HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, PETITIONER, VS. NBI DIRECTOR MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA, FORMER NBI
DIRECTOR CARLOS S. CAABAY, FORMER NBI DIRECTOR NESTOR M. MANTARING, DR. RENATO C.
BAUTISTA, DR. PROSPERO CABANAYAN, ATTY. FLORESTO P. ARIZALA, JR., ATTY. REYNALDO O.
ESMERALDA, ATTY. ARTURO FIGUERAS, ATTY. PEDRO RIVERA AND JOHN HERRA, RESPONDENTS.
September 18, 2019
Criminal contempt is a “conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or
a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring
the court into disrepute or disrespect.” On the other hand, civil contempt is one’s failure to fulfill
a court order in a civil action that would benefit the opposing party. It is, therefore, an offense
against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made.
NOVEMBER 2019
G.R. No. 227880

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUTH DELA ROSA Y LIKINON A.K.A. "SALLY,"
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 06, 2019
The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a
prostitute without one's consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different
strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the
crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of
exemplary damages is likewise justified. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
However, in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, this Court may not award exemplary
damages.
JANUARY 2020
G.R. No. 231013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PIO SALEN, JR. Y SENA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
January 29, 2020
Finally, for the crime of robbery with rape, the law does not distinguish whether the rape was
committed before, during, or after the robbery, but only that it punishes robbery that was
accompanied by rape. The facts do not bear out that the robbery was a mere afterthought,
considering that AAA testified that accused-appellant "took time to disable her and then got away

30
with her personal belongings."
G.R. No. 229349

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
January 29, 2020
An admission of self-defense or defense of a relative frees the prosecution from the burden of
proving that the accused committed the act charged against him or her. The burden is shifted to
the accused to prove that his or her act was justified:
It is settled that when an accused admits [harming] the victim but invokes self-defense to escape
criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he [harmed] the
victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense,
the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
G.R. No. 226486

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GLECERIO PITULAN Y BRIONES, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
January 22, 2020
In homicide, the prosecution's failure to present the weapon is not fatal to its case. An eyewitness'
credible testimony on the fact of the crime and the assailant's identity is sufficient to prove the
corpus delicti. Moreover, the prosecution's failure to conduct paraffin and ballistic testing has no
effect on the evidentiary value of an eyewitness' positive identification of the accused as the
assailant. The accused's bare denial, on its own, cannot outweigh the eyewitness' positive
identification.
G.R. No. 221457

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GILBERT SEBILLENO Y CASABAR, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
January 13, 2020
Just because a community outside of Mindanao is predominantly Muslim does not mean that it
should be considered presumptively "notorious." It is this type of misguided, unfortunately
uneducated, cultural stereotype that has caused internal conflict and inhumane treatment of
Filipinos of a different faith from the majority.
G.R. No. 208162

DEVIE ANN ISAGA FUERTES, PETITIONER, VS. THE SENATE OF PHILIPPINES, HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES, THE
OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ), DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG),
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF TAYABAS
CITY (QUEZON PROVINCE), THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 30, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) OF
LUCENA CITY, AND HEIRS OF CHESTER PAOLO ABRACIA, RESPONDENT.
January 07, 2020
Section 14 , paragraph 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law, which provides that an accused's presence during
a hazing is prima facie evidence of his or her participation, does not violate the constitutional
presumption of innocence. This disputable presumption is also not a bill of attainder.
FEBRUARY 2020

31
G.R. No. 231144
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION) AND
LEONARDO B. ROMAN, RESPONDENTS.
February 19, 2020
While the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases, this
constitutional right is not a magical invocation which can be cunningly used by the accused for his
or her advantage. This right is not a last line of remedy when accused find themselves on the
losing end of the proceedings. The State's duty to prosecute cases is just as equally important and
cannot be disregarded at the whim of the accused, especially when it appears that the alleged
violation was raised as a mere afterthought.
G.R. No. 229209

February 12, 2020
In determining a victim's credibility in rape cases, however, courts should be wary of adopting
outdated notions of a victim's behavior based on gender stereotypes. Regardless of such
preconceptions, conviction may be warranted based "solely on the testimony of the victim,
provided of course, that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things."
MARCH 2020
G.R. No. 230626

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. EDWARD SUMAYOD Y OSANO AND ELISEO SUMAYOD Y
LAGUNZAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
March 09, 2020
Behavioral psychology teaches us that, even among adults, people react to similar situations
differently, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted
with a startling or frightful experience. Let it be underscored that these cases involve victims of
tender years, and with their simple, unsophisticated minds, they must not have fully understood
and realized at first the repercussions of the contemptible nature of the acts committed against
them. This Court has repeatedly stated that no standard form of behavior could be anticipated of
a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully
comprehend the ways of an adult.
JUNE 2020
G.R. No. 232192

AlEJANDRO C. MIRANDA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
June 22, 2020
The accused's failure to object to the legality of their arrest or to the absence of a preliminary
investigation, before entering their plea, will not negate their conviction when it is duly proven by
the prosecution.
G.R. No. 243653

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONATHAN WESTLIE KELLEY, A.K.A. "DADDY
WESTLIE," CARLOTA CERERA DELA ROSA, A.K.A. "MOMMY LOTA," CHERRIE NUDAS DATU, A.K.A. MOMMY
CHERRIE," REY KELLEY ALIAS "BUROG," ALIAS DADDY KELLEY," AND GLENDA L. JIMENEZ, ACCUSED,
JONATHAN WESTLIE KELLEY, CARLOTA CERERA DELA ROSA, AND CHERRIE NUDAS DATU, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
June 22, 2020
When there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motive, her positive

32
and categorical declarations on the witness [stand under the" solemnity of an] oath deserved full
faith and credit (Pangonoram vs. People, 455 SCRA 211). Further, in the case of Sonia v. [Court of
Appeals] 175 SCRA 518 it was held that testimonies of witnesses are worthy of full faith and credit
as there was no evidence of improper motive on their part to testify against Sonia.
G.R. No. 227777

OMAR VILLARBA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
June 15, 2020
A formal amendment does not change the crime charged or affect the accused's theory or
defense. It adds nothing crucial for a conviction as to deprive the accused of the opportunity to
meet the new information. When an amendment only rectifies something that was already
included in the original information, it is but a formal amendment. A second arraignment,
therefore, is no longer necessary.
Moreover, the information need not reproduce the law verbatim in alleging the acts or omissions
that constitute the offense. If its language is understood, the constitutional right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused stands unviolated.
G.R. No 247661
DEEPAK KUMAR, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
June 15, 2020
The remedy facilitated by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is appeal by certiorari. For any petition for
review on certiorari to prosper and warrant attention by this Court, it must satisfy the basic
procedural requisites imposed by Rule 45. Among others, it must not only raise pure questions of
law but also questions of such substance as to be of distinctly significant consequence and value.
A Rule 45 petition that fails to readily demonstrate "special and important reasons[,]" as required
by Rule 45, Section 6, may be denied due course, and disposed without further action by this
Court.
G.R. No. 230825

PASCASIO DUROPAN AND RAYMOND NIXER COLOMA, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
June 10, 2020
An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not comply with the overt act test is constitutionally infirm.
Two elements must concur, the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that
he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and that
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
July 2020
G.R. No. 231984

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEO IBAÑEZ Y MORALES, ACCUSED-APELLANT.
July 06, 2020
The presence of lacerations is not an element of the crime of rape. This court previously
characterized the presence or absence of lacerations as a "trivial or inconsequential [matter] that
does not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape." The presence of lacerations is,
therefore, not necessary to sustain a conviction. An accused may be found guilty of rape
regardless of the existence or inexistence of lacerations. The absence of lacerations is not a
sufficient defense.
Lack of resistance may sometimes imply consent. However, that is not always the case. While it
may imply consent, there are circumstances that may render a person unable to express her
resistance to another's sexual advances. Thus, when a person has carnal knowledge with another

33
person who does not show any resistance, it does not always mean that that person consented
to such act. Lack of resistance does not negate rape.
G.R. Nos 204978-83

IGNACIO C. BAYA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), THE OFFICE OF
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
July 06, 2020
The right to speedy disposition of cases is a relative and flexible concept. It is also waivable and
must be seasonably raised. When considered appropriate, the assertion of the right ultimately
depends on the peculiar circumstances of the case; hence, citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan will not
automatically result in a dismissal on the ground of inordinate delay.
G.R. No. 211962

JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
July 06, 2020
At the core of sexual harassment in the workplace, as penalized by Republic Act No. 7877,
otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, is abuse of power by a superior over
a subordinate. Sexual harassment engenders three-fold liability: criminal, to address the wrong
committed against society itself; civil, to address the private wrong against the offended party;
and administrative, to protect the public service. Courts and administrative bodies should not
hesitate to penalize insidious acts of sexual harassment, especially when committed by high-
ranking public officers.
G.R. No. 214326

ALASTAIR JOHN KANE, PETITIONER, VS. PATRICIA ROGGENKAMP, RESPONDENT,
July 06, 2020
An acquittal from a charge of physical violence against women and their children is not a bar to
the filing of a civil action for damages for physical injuries under Article 33 of the Civil Code if an
acquittal was due to reasonable doubt, without any declaration that the facts upon which the
offense arises are nonexistent.
August 2020
G.R. No. 219116

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAYMARK DAGUMAN Y ASIERTO, ALIAS "MARK,"
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
August 26, 2020
Police officers are generally presumed to have regularly performed their duties and their
testimonies in criminal cases are given credence. Their extensive training and the gravity of their
sworn duty to protect the peace give weight to their observations in the field. The presumption,
however, can be overturned when there is evidence to the contrary.
The elements of robbery with homicide are: "(l) the taking of personal property with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done
with animo lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was
committed.
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery,
with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before during or
after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has
to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless

34
imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and
homicide, must be consummated.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide
is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on
the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the
robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on
the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible
felony of robbery with homicide. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus,
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance,
it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the
possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery;
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between
the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs
of the robbery.
Thus, robbery with homicide is committed when the robbers kill their victims, or bystanders who
attempt to thwart the robbery, or responding police officers. In People v. Barut, this Court found
the assailants guilty of robbery with homicide when the shootout between them and a rescue
party resulted in the deaths of one of the assailants and one of the rescue party members. This
Court reasoned that, in robbery with homicide, the victim of the robbery did not need to be the
victim of the homicide:
September 2020
G.R. No. 219964

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO ACUIN Y DIONALDO AND
SALVACION ALAMARES Y COSTELO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
September 02, 2020
Under Sections 3(a) and 4 of R.A no. 9208, "trafficking in persons" is not only limited to
transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking. Mere
recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation is considered "trafficking in persons". When the trafficked person is a child or a
person below 18 years of age, it is considered qualified trafficking in persons and ay person found
guilty thereof suffers the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two Million Pesos
but not more than Five Million Pesos.
G.R. No. 205099

HEIRS OF BONDSMAN BASILIO NEPOMUCENO, NAMELY: DELSA N. TRASMONTE, MARILOU N. DECENA,
AND FE VALENZUELA; AND HEIRS OF BONDSMAN REMEDIOS CATA-AG, NAMELY AMELIA CATA-AG
TUMAKIN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LAURO A.P. CASTILLO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 8TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 12 IN ORMOC CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
September 02, 2020
An order of forfeiture is different from a judgment on the bond. It is interlocutory and merely
compels the bondsperson to show cause why judgment should not be issued against them for the
amount of bond. On the other hand, a judgment on the bond ultimately ascertains their liability
under the bond that when it becomes final, execution may promptly issue.
"Bail [is] the security given by an accused who is in the custody of the law for [their] release to
guarantee [their] appearance before any court as may be required[.]" It is furnished by either the

35
person in custody of the law or the bondspersons, which may be in the "form of corporate surety,
property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance."
To be released on bail means that the accused is delivered "in contemplation of law, yet not
commonly in real fact, to others who become entitled to [their] custody and responsible for [their]
appearance when and where agreed." Upon accepting a bail obligation, the bondspersons
"become in law the jailers of their principal." They must then ensure that the accused is under
their close monitoring—a duty that would remain until the bond is canceled or the surety is
discharged.
First, the non-appearance by the accused is cause for the judge to summarily declare the bond as
forfeited. Second, the bondsmen, after the summary forfeiture of the bond, are given thirty (30)
days within which to produce the principal and to show cause why a judgment should not be
rendered against them for the amount of the bond. It is only after this thirty (30)-day period,
during which the bondsmen are afforded the opportunity to be heard by the trial court, that the
trial court may render a judgment on the bond against the bondsmen. Judgment against the
bondsmen cannot be entered unless such judgment is preceded by the order of forfeiture and an
opportunity given to the bondsmen to produce the accused or to adduce satisfactory reason for
their inability to do so.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3681-RTJ]

SHARON FLORES-CONCEPCION, COMPLAINANT, V. JUDGE LIBERTY O. CASTANEDA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 67, PANIQUI, TARLAC, RESPONDENT.
September 02, 2020
Death is a far graver and more powerful judgment than anything that this Court has jurisdiction
to render.
Hence, when the respondent in a pending administrative case dies, the case must be rendered
moot. Proceeding any further would be to violate the respondent's fundamental right to due
process. Should it be a guilty verdict, any monetary penalty imposed on the dead respondent's
estate only works to the detriment of their heirs. To continue with such cases would not punish
the perpetrator, but only subject the grieving family to further suffering by passing on the
punishment to them.
G.R. No. 197335

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), PETITIONER, VS.
HEIRS OF JOSE C. TUPAZ, IV, NAMELY: MA. CORAZON J. TUPAZ, MA. JEANETTE T. CALING, MA. JUNELLA T.
AVJEAN, MARIE JOSELYN T. DEXHEIMER, JOSE NIÑO T. TUPAZ, V, AND JON FERDINAND T. TUPAZ, AND/OR
EL ORO INDUSTRIES, INC., AND THE NATIONAL LIBRARY, REPRESENTED BY ADORACION MENDOZA¬-
BOLOS, DIRECTOR, AND THE CHIEF OF THE PUBLICATION AND SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY, RESPONDENTS.
September 07, 2020
The copyright of a derivative work solely belongs to the person who fixes an idea into a tangible
medium of expression. The law on copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea
itself. Thus, one who merely contributes concepts or ideas is not deemed an author.
Copyright is "the right granted by statute to the proprietor of an intellectual production to its
exclusive use and enjoyment[.]" It "may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects
and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute." Copyright is a purely
statutory right. Only classes of works falling under the statutory enumeration are entitled to
protection.
Copyright has two rationales: the economic benefit and social benefit. The economic benefit is
reaped by the author from his work while the social benefit manifests when it creates impetus for
individuals to be creative. Copyright, like other intellectual property rights, grants legal protection

36
by prohibiting the unauthorized reproduction of the author's work. It "create[s] a temporary
monopoly on varying types of knowledge, allowing their owners to restrict and even prevent,
other from using that knowledge." By eliminating fear of other's appropriation and exploitation
of an author's work, intellectual creation is incentivized.
When the concept of copyright emerged, it was primarily concerned with the advancement of a
common social good and not so much about the author's rights. Copyright statutes were initially
crafted for the reading public and to encourage education through the production of books.
The Stationer's Company eventually lost its power when the Licensing Act expired in 1694. Failing
to convince the Parliament to extend its powers, the Stationer's Company lobbied for the interests
of authors over publishers. In 1710, the Statute of Anne, the first copyright act, was enacted. The
Statute of Anne granted the Stationer's Company the remedies they needed to maintain their
existing publication rights. However, it removed the Stationer's Company's monopoly by allowing
anyone, whether an author or a publisher, to obtain copyright by mere registration. The law
further provided a limited term of copyright instead of the former perpetual monopoly. It granted
14 years for the work's publication which is renewable for another 14 years, if the author was still
alive.
While the Statute of Anne was seen as an anti-monopoly trade regulation, it mainly focused on
the author's social contribution and the advancement of education through the production of
books. It is not mainly after the "recognition of any pre-existing authorial right, nor...the
regulation of the booksellers' market[,]" but the promotion of "the free market of ideas[.]"
The Statute of Anne only covered books, but succeeding laws added other subjects as new
technology emerged, such as engravings, sculptures, paintings, drawings, photographs, sound
recordings, and motion pictures. The first copyright law of the United States, the Act of 1790, was
modeled after the Statute of Anne. It initially covered books, maps, and charts and similarly
required a formal registration and granted a 14-year copyright renewable for another 14-year
term. In its subsequent amendments, the period was extended to 28 years and it expanded
copyright to other works such as historical and other prints, dramatic works and its public
performance, photographs, visual art, and musical compositions. It later included the right to
create derivative works and the prohibition on copyright protection in government publications.
Broadly defined, a derivative work refers to a work that is "based on...one or more already existing
works." The author of a derivative work borrows expressive content from an existing work and
transforms it into another work. Through this process, the author of a derivative work does not
simply copy the existing work but creates an original work entitled to a separate copyright.
Although the expression in the derivative work is "intermingled with the expression from the
underlying work," the derivative author contributes original expression to the new work making
it distinct from the underlying work.
G.R. No. 213130

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION & INSURANCE COMMISSION, PETITIONERS, VS. COLLEGE
ASSURANCE PLAN PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 218193, September 9, 2020] INSURANCE
COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.
September 09, 2020
The doctrine of immutability of judgment does not apply whenever circumstances transpire after
the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
G.R. Nos. 207340 and 207349

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION), OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND MAJ. GEN. CARLOS F. GARCIA (RET.),
RESPONDENTS.
September 16, 2020

37
As the government's law office, the Office of the Solicitor General is given broad powers to be
able to fully perform its function of representing the government. However, its power of
representation is neither absolute nor limitless, as its mandate under the Administrative Code
must be harmonized with statutes which also endow other government bodies with the power to
represent the government. Further, allowing the Solicitor General to question the prosecutorial
discretion exercised by the Special Prosecutor, with the approval of the Ombudsman, impliedly
grants a statutory authority supervision over a Constitutional organ. This cannot be
countenanced.
The Office of the Solicitor General's authority to represent the Government is not plenary or all-
encompassing. Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Section 35(11) of the Administrative Code does not
give it carte blanche authority to swoop in at any time and in any circumstance simply because it
believes that the people's welfare and the ends of justice require its intervention, especially if the
government is already represented by the appropriate agency.
The mandate to represent the government in proceedings before the Sandiganbayan generally
lies with the Office of the Ombudsman, with the Office of the Solicitor General allowed to
prosecute a case before the Sandiganbayan in Marcos ill-gotten wealth cases and only in
representation of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. The present case does not
involve Marcos ill-gotten wealth, thus, the Office of the Ombudsman rightfully represented the
government in the plunder case against private respondent Garcia before the Sandiganbayan.
More importantly, the Office of the Solicitor General, which is a statutory creation, cannot be
expressly or impliedly allowed to have personality or the power of supervision or control over the
actions of the Special Prosecutor and the Office of the Ombudsman which is a constitutional body.
To allow the Office of the Solicitor General to cherry-pick its jurisdiction under the pretext that it
believes its intervention is warranted by the greater good and the ends of justice, would be to
impliedly give it supervisory powers or even control over other agencies with a similar mandate
of representing the government in different courts and fora. This cannot be allowed, as the Office
of the Solicitor General's broad mandate under the Administrative Code to represent the
Government does not involve the power of control or even supervision over other agencies which
also represent the government.
G.R. No. 211851

ROBERTO ESTACIO Y SALVOSA, PETITIONER, VS. MA. VICTORIA ESTACIO Y SANTOS, RESPONDENT.
September 16, 2020
A stay-away directive in a protection order may cover members of the household, including a
couple's common children, if it is shown that the offender commits violence against the victim
through the household members.
Republic Act No. 9262 is a social legislation enacted as a measure to address domestic violence.
It acknowledges that in situations where abuse happens at home, women are the likely victims.
This is largely due to the unequal power relationship between men and women, and the
widespread gender bias and prejudice against women which have historically prevented their full
advancement, forcing them into subordination to men.
The law specifically protects women from violence committed in the context of an intimate
relationship, which can be physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, or economic
abuse. This also includes those committed against the woman's child.
This law's constitutionality was challenged in Garcia v. Drilon, There, a woman sought a temporary
protection order for herself and her minor children against her husband, who committed physical,
emotional, psychological, and economic abuse against her. At one point, the physical abuse
caused some bruises, hematoma, and bleeding. The husband also had an extramarital affair and
even boasted his sexual relations to their house help. He would also turn his ire on their daughter,

38
whom he beat on the chest and slapped many times, because he thought she was the one who
discovered his extramarital affair. All these had driven the wife to attempt suicide. When the
husband learned of this, he simply fled the house instead of taking his wife to the hospital. He
also never bothered to visit her in the hospital during the one week that she was confined.
Petitioner's harassment of respondent through their children is a classic case of coercive control.
Although not expressly mentioned, coercive control is recognized as a form of psychological

violence under Republic Act No. 9262.
G.R. No. 243987

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BBB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
September 23, 2020
The clear, straightforward, and categorical testimony of a rape victim, who is a minor, prevails
over the defenses of alibi and denial.
November 2020
G.R. No. 246499

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 04, 2020
An uncle's moral ascendancy or influence over his minor niece supplants the element of violence
or intimidation in a charge of rape. In this case, such influence, together with his reputation for
violence, was why the victim did not shout or struggle while her uncle sexually abused her.
Finally, rape is qualified when the victim is a minor and the accused is related to the victim by
affinity or consanguinity within the third civil degree. It is not disputed that accused-appellant is
the brother of AAA's father, making him AAA's uncle-a relative by consanguinity within the third
civil degree. The prosecution likewise established that AAA was a minor when she was raped by
accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 221981

RAUL OFRACIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
November 04, 2020
The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply when only one of the parties was negligent. For
the doctrine to apply, it must be shown that both parties were negligent but the negligent act of
one was appreciably later in time than that of the other. It may also apply when it is impossible
to determine who caused the resulting harm, thus, the one who had the last opportunity to avoid
the impending harm and failed to do so will be held liable.
G.R. No. 219243

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO PINGOL @ ANTON, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
November 04, 2020
An accused's bare invocation of the sweetheart defense can never suffice without proof
establishing the purported romantic relationship with the victim.
Nevertheless, AAA's actuations after the incident bolstered her case against accused-appellant.
The victim's demeanor immediately following a purported sexual assault is important in
ascertaining the truthfulness of their claims. "For instance, the victim's instant willingness, as well
as courage, to face interrogation and medical examination could be a mute but eloquent proof of
the truth of her claim." Here, when AAA was brought home to Laguna, she immediately
underwent a medical examination and consequently filed a complaint against accused-appellant.

39
Lastly, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides
that rape under Article 266-A(1) is punishable by reclusion perpetua. In consonance with People
v. Jugueta, we modify the Court of Appeals' award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each.
G.R. No. 235573

REYNALDO VALENCIA Y VIBAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
November 09, 2020
The prosecution must show the direct causal connection between a motorist's negligence and the
injuries sustained to substantiate a charge for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. Further,
mere negligence will not suffice because it is the motorist's willful and wanton act done in utter
disregard of the consequence of his or her action, which criminalizes an imprudent or negligent
act.
G.R. No. 214444

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LITO PAÑA Y INANDAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
November 17, 2020
The standard of legal insanity, which is complete deprivation of intelligence, is a concept born out
of the narrow view that rejects the psychodynamic nature of human psychology. It fails to
acknowledge that mental illnesses exist in a spectrum and its all-or-nothing notion of mental
illnesses reflects a detachment from established and contemporary concepts of mental health.
Persons who suffer from mental illnesses are no longer viewed as wild beasts who are absolutely
devoid of mental faculties. The diagnosis and studies on mental illnesses and disorders have
progressed since. Attitude and views towards mental health have significantly evolved. Tests have
been recalibrated and reformulated to better deal with the peculiarity and contours of insanity
defense cases-tests whose merits are now recognized by this Court.
We clarify the guidelines laid down in People v. Formigone and now apply a three-way test: first,
insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; second, insanity, which is
the primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven; and third, the effect of the
insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act.
G.R. No. 229010

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, ROEL P. GASPI, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE MARIA CLARISSA L. PACIS-
TRINIDAD, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA CITY,* RESPONDENT.
November 23, 2020
The nationality principle is not applied when determining the extrinsic validity of an alien's last
will and testament. When it comes to the probate of an alien's will, whether executed here or
abroad, the alien's national law may be pleaded and proved before the probate court. Otherwise,
Philippine law will govern by default.
G.R. No. 246017

MARIA CONSUELO MALCAMPO-REPOLLO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
November 25, 2020
A teacher's physical maltreatment of her minor student constitutes child abuse. The specific
intent of demeaning, degrading, and debasing the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child is not an
essential element for all forms of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The
prosecution is only required to prove this specific intent when it is alleged in the information or
required by a specific provision of law.

40
Child abuse, as penalized under Republic Act No. 7610, is malum prohibitum, where intent is not
the defining mark in the offense:
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared to provide a strong deterrence against child abuse and
exploitation and to give a special protection to children from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. It must be stressed that the
crime under Republic Act No. 7610 is malum prohibitum. Hence, the intent to debase, degrade,
or demean the minor is not the defining mark. Any act of punishment that debases, degrades, and
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child constitutes the offense. (Citations omitted)
In other words, intent is not an indispensable element to sustain all convictions under Section
10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Generally, in mala prohibita, the defense of lack of criminal intent
is irrelevant. As long as all the elements of the offense have been established beyond reasonable
doubt, conviction ensues.
The act of debasing, degrading, or demeaning the child's intrinsic worth and dignity as a human
being has been characterized as a specific intent in some forms of child abuse. The specific intent
becomes relevant in child abuse when: (1) it is required by a specific provision in Republic Act No.
7610, as for instance, in lascivious conduct; or (2) when the act is described in the information as
one that debases, degrades, or demeans the child's intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.
February 2021
G.R. No. 213815

MA. SHARMAINE R. MEDINA/RACKEY CRYSTAL TOP CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. GLOBAL QUEST
VENTURES, INC., RESPONDENT.
February 08, 2021
A certificate of registration accords the registrant a prima facie presumption of their ownership
of the mark. However, this presumption may be rebutted by proof that the registration was
obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code.
The Intellectual Property Code defines trademark as "any visible sign capable of distinguishing the
goods ... of an enterprise[.]" It is "any distinctive word, name, symbol, emblem, sign, or device, or
any combination thereof, adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant on his goods to
identify and distinguish them from those manufactured, sold, or dealt by others." It is an
intellectual property which is protected by law.
The rights in a mark are acquired through registration made in accordance with the Intellectual
Property Code. Once registered, the certificate of registration constitutes "a prima facie evidence
of the validity of the registration, the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's
exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or services and those that are related
thereto specified in the certificate."
G.R. No. 239138

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSELITO SALAZAR Y GRANADA, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
February 17, 2021
People react differently to distressing situations. In rape cases, victims are not burdened to show
physical resistance when they are intimidated. Intimidation is addressed to the victim's
perception and is, therefore, subjective. This Court will not burden victims of rape of proving
physical resistance, especially when their assailants assaulted them and coerced them with a
lethal weapon.
It is settled that once a woman cries rape, she is saying all that is necessary to show that rape was
indeed committed. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, such is sufficient to convict the

41
accused. The credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue to hurdle.
In this regard, the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the complainant,
having personally heard her and observed her deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial. Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or that the judge acted
arbitrarily, the trial judge's assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court's highest
respect.
[M]ere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genital,
even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is sufficient to consummate rape. The absence
of fresh hymenal laceration does not disprove sexual abuse, especially when the victim is a young
girl[.] (Citation omitted)
Even an intact hymen will not negate the commission of rape. Moreover, proof of physical injuries
is not an element of rape. In ZZZ:
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily
negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime
of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. What
is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not
the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to
convict.
March 2021
G.R. No. 229103

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD PUGAL Y AUSTRIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
March 15, 2021
Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, considers as
destructive arson the malicious burning of buildings and structures, both public and private,
including a storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials, by any person or group
of persons. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence
of the fire and its intentional causation.
Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, considers as
destructive arson the malicious burning of buildings and structures, both public and private,
including a storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials, by any person or group
of persons. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence
of the fire and its intentional causation.
Intent, being a mental act, is deduced from the external acts performed by a person. There is a
presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his act. Here, it was shown that
accused-appellant deliberately lit a mother rocket, which was directed and flew towards the
fireworks displayed at the store and caused an explosion that burned the building to the ground.
For accused-appellant's claim of lack of intent to commit "so grave a wrong" as a mitigating
circumstance to be appreciated, there must be a "notable and evident disproportion between the
means employed... and its consequences."
In one case, the Court refused to consider this mitigating circumstance because the acts employed
by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the
victim. In that case, the single stab wound -- by reason of its location and severity - was found
sufficient to kill the victim, as in fact it did kill him.

42
G.R. No. 216933
PAQUITO TOH BUSTILLO @ KITS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
March 15, 2021
[T]he findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity
afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Consequently, appellate
courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. Said rule finds an
ever more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA, as in the case at
hand[.]
Nevertheless, the rule admits several exceptions. Thus:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are
not disputed by the respondents; and
(10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and is contradicted by the evidence on record.
As ruled in Villamor v. People, illegal gambling paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged and the concomitant failure to establish this element raises doubts as to its origins. The
inconsistency and absurdity of the arresting officers' conduct from the handling and marking of
the evidence, until its identification before the trial court, cast doubt on the veracity of their
claims. This shows the prosecution's failure to establish the commission of crime.
Even considering the other pieces of evidence, We find it questionable that a masiao agent will
only have a meager collection of P146.00. If petitioner was indeed a masiao agent, it should have
been considerably higher.
All told, reasonable doubt persists in the finding of guilt against petitioner. Contrary to the
conclusions of the trial and appellate courts, the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses'
testimonies are not immaterial as they put into question the commission of the crime. Without
demonstration and proof that petitioner possessed the masiao paraphernalia, we find no strong
basis for his conviction.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established in criminal cases to secure a conviction. The
prosecution bears the burden to establish this quantum of evidence and, in doing so, it must rely
on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of accused's defense. Failure to
dispense with this evidentiary requirement constrains this Court to acquit the accused.

43
G.R. No. 238875
SENATORS FRANCIS "KIKO" N. PANGILINAN, FRANKLIN M. DRILON, PAOLO BENIGNO "BAM" AQUINO IV,
LEILA M. DE LIMA, RISA HONTIVEROS, AND ANTONIO 'SONNY' F. TRILLANES IV, PETITIONERS, VS. ALAN
PETER S. CAYETANO, SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, TEODORO L. LOCSIN, JR., AND SALVADOR S. PANELO,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 239483, March 16, 2021] PHILIPPINE COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT (PCICC), LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, DR. AURORA CORAZON A. PARONG, EVELYN BALAIS-
SERRANO, JOSE NOEL D. OLANO, REBECCA DESIREE E. LOZADA, EDELIZA P. HERNANDEZ, ANALIZA T. UGAY,
NIZA CONCEPCION ARAZAS, GLORIA ESTER CATIBAYAN-GUARIN, RAY PAOLO "ARPEE" J. SANTIAGO,
GILBERT TERUEL ANDRES, AND AXLE P. SIMEON, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
REPRESENTED BY HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED
BY HON. ALAN PETER CAYETANO, AND THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
TO THE UNITED NATIONS, REPRESENTED BY HON. TEODORO LOCSIN, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No.
240954, March 16, 2021] INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REPRESENTED BY HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY HON. ALAN PETER CAYETANO AND THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS, REPRESENTED BY HON. TEODORO LOCSIN, JR.,
RESPONDENTS.
March 16, 2021
Treaties may effectively implement the constitutional imperative to protect human rights and
consider social justice in all phases of development—but so can a statute, as Republic Act No.
9851, the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other
Crimes Against Humanity, does.
The president, as primary architect of our foreign policy and as head of state, is allowed by the
Constitution to make preliminary determinations on what, at any given moment, might urgently
be required in order that our foreign policy may manifest our national interest.
Absent a clear and convincing showing of a breach of the Constitution or a law, brought through
an actual, live controversy and by a party that presents direct, material, and substantial injury as
a result of such breach, this Court will stay its hand in declaring a diplomatic act as
unconstitutional.
On March 15, 2018, the Philippines announced its withdrawal from the International Criminal
Court. On March 16, 2018, it formally submitted its Notice of Withdrawal through a Note Verbale
to the United Nations Secretary-General's Chef de Cabinet. The Secretary General received this
communication the following day, March 17, 2018.
G.R. No. 236305

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LOUIE C. VILLENA @ ISIT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
March 17, 2021
Rape of an intellectually disabled person whose mental age is below 12 years old is statutory rape
punishable under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
APRIL 2021
G.R. No. 234514

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEOPOLDO VIÑAS Y MANIEGO AND MARICEL
TORRES Y GONZALES ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
April 28, 2021
A trial court's factual findings, especially on the credibility of a rape survivor, are accorded great
weight and respect. A conviction for rape may be upheld based on the survivor's testimony when
it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things.

44
G.R. No. 244051
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO CANILLO AND ANTHONY CANILLO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
April 28, 2021
Treachery must be present at the inception of an attack to qualify a killing to murder. A

treacherous act that happens during an attack or subsequent to it cannot be appreciated as a
qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
G.R. No. 233437

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), AND
LAURO L. BAJA, RESPONDENTS.
April 26, 2021
Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an
acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused's constitutional
right against double jeopardy.
MAY 2021
G.R. No. 234317

VIRGILIO EVARDO Y LOPENA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
May 10, 2021
A warrantless, intrusive search of a moving vehicle cannot be premised solely on an initial tip. It
must be founded on probable cause where "[t]here must be a confluence of several suspicious
circumstances." As the cause for the search, each such circumstance must occur before the search
is commenced. Further, they must each be independently suspicious. Thus, when law enforcers
are predisposed to perceive guilt—as when specific persons are the targets of checkpoints,
patrols, and similar operations—their subjective perception cannot anchor probable cause.
The rule requiring warrants is, however, not absolute. Jurisprudence recognizes exceptional
instances when warrantless searches and seizures are considered permissible:
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest ...;

(2) Seizure of evidence in "plain view," ...;
(3) Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity;
(4) Consented warrantless search;
(5) Customs search;
(6) Stop and frisk; and
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.

45

LeonenCases CRIM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LeonenCases CRIM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECISIONS OF:

JUSTICE MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

(SPECIAL THANKS TO RV, ALEX AND CONDE)

G.R. No. 169588

G.R. No. 208007

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 196735

G.R. No. 208173

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 181843

The requisites of treachery are:

(2) [D]eliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution.

G.R. No. 207950

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 199402

G.R. No. 211465

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

Background of Republic Act No. 9208

Elements of trafficking in persons

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 211002

Even men can become victims of rape.

G.R. No. 211159

For treachery to be appreciated, the following elements must be proven:

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 209387

G.R. No. 213215

G.R. No. 201310

The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:

3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

G.R. No. 209330

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 212186

The elements of cattle-rustling are:

G.R. No. 208205

G.R. No. 213529

G.R. No. 208009

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 174379

GR. No. 196735

G.R. No. 205871

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 172507

G.R. No. 206627

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 187094

G.R. No. 212161

G.R. No. 205855

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 195021

G.R. No. 205745

G.R. No. 207776

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 181489

G.R. No. 210266

ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, JD, MBA

G.R. No. 210654

G.R. No. 200512

G.R. No. 214300