2022 Case Doctrine

Joel P. Masiglat

People vs Sergio

Remedial Law - Deposition

Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although
the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the Court holds that it
may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason.

The Court finds no reason to depart from its practice to liberally construe procedural rules for
the orderly administration of substantial justice. A strict application of the procedural rules will defeat
the very purpose for the grant of reprieve by the Indonesian authorities to Mary Jane. Mary Jane's
testimony, being the victim, is vital in the prosecution of the pending criminal cases that were filed
against Cristina and Julius.

Hence, the taking of testimony of Mary Jane through a deposition by written interrogatories is in
order. Similarly, the deposition by written interrogatories will not infringe the constitutional right to
confrontation of a witness of Cristina and Julius. True, Cristina and Julius have no opportunity to confront
Mary Jane face to face in light of the prevailing circumstance. However, the terms and conditions laid
down by the trial court ensure that they are given ample opportunity to cross-examine Mary Jane by way
of written interrogatories so as not to defeat the first purpose of their constitutional right.

Finally, it must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of the recognized exceptions to
the right to confrontation. In the case at bar, it will not be amiss to state that Mary Jane's deposition
through written interrogatories is akin to her dying declaration. There is no doubt that Mary Jane will be
answering the written interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending death - or execution by a
firing squad to be exact.

Horca vs People

Criminal law and Remedial Law – Estafa & theft

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that a notary public is disqualified from
performing a notarial act if he is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized. [38]
Given that the petition lacks a proper verification, it ought to be treated as an unsigned pleading.

The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in
estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may
be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or
physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft,
but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement
or estafa.

The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him on the civil
aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil
liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. However,
the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where
the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.

People vs Evangelista

Criminal law – Drugs

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

The rule on chain of custody establishes the identity of the object of the sale or the item
possessed by the accused without authority. The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity. [82] It
must be shown that the items presented and identified in court during trial are the very same items that
were sold and seized from the accused during the buy-bust operation.

People vs Mariano

Criminal law – Drugs

Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven
as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the
apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in
their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the
seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is
miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.

Barlin vs People

Criminal – Estafa & trust receipt

 The Information clearly and categorically charged her with Estafa under Article 315 paragraph (1)
(b) for violating the trust receipt agreements she had entered into with Gacayan. It must be stressed that
a violation of trust receipt agreements would make the accused criminally liable for estafa under
paragraph (1)(b) of Article 315 of the RPC as expressly provided in Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law.

The prosecution had proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa.
The element of damage was sufficiently established when Gacayan parted with her goods and failed to
recover the proceeds of the sale thereof or the unsold items despite repeated demands. Petitioner
herself admitted that she tried to turn over the proceeds of the sale under the TRAs through the
issuance of post-dated checks which were however dishonored.

The elements of estafa under Article 315 paragraph (1)(b) of the RPC are: (a) that money, goods,
or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the
same; (b) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a
denial of the receipt thereof; (c) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender

Chua vs Sec. of Justice

Criminal law – Trust Receipts law & novation

The law punishes the entrustee's failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods
covered, or to return the goods themselves if not sold. Under Section 13 of the law, such failure shall
constitute the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC. 71 The Court emphasizes
that the of the Trust Receipts Law is malum prohibitum: mere failure to turn over the proceeds of the
sale, or to return the goods themselves if not sold, amounts to the violation. 72 Intent to defraud is
immaterial.

In this regard, there is no reason Us to disturb the conclusion that the new schedule of payments
is not incompatible with the original obligation. The new agreement expressly recognized the old
obligation; the former did not completely obliterate the latter. The object — payment of the amount
owed under the trust receipts — is retained, continues to exist, and is in fact extended by the new
schedule of payments by prolonging the period for payment of the amount owed; petitioners are still
liable under the trust receipts, but were given time to pay under the schedule of payments. This means
that there is no incompatibility in the objects, causes, and principal conditions of the two agreements,
despite the points of incompatibility petitioners posit.

In other words, the new schedule of payments is merely modificatory and supplementary to the
original obligation. The CA is correct in stating that the new agreement precisely revives the unpaid
original obligation whose term already expired.

CICL vs People of the Philippines

Criminal law – Chain and Custody of Drugs

 Based on the chain of custody rule, the following links should also be established: "first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer; third, the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Here, the links are riddled with abnormalities, as the apprehending officer (PO2 Paule) did not
mark the seized items immediately after seizure at or near the place of arrest. Instead, PO2 Holanda, the
investigating officer was the one who marked the evidence even if he was not present during the actual
seizure. In the same way, it is not clear if PO2 Holanda properly turned over the seized items to the crime
laboratory. According to the request for laboratory exam, a certain "Relos" (assuming that this was a
person's name) received the specimens from PO2 Holanda in the crime laboratory. Yet, "Relos" was not
presented as a witness and his or her identity was not ascertained by the prosecution. Additionally, there
is doubt if PI Mangalip followed procedure when he surrendered the illicit items for safekeeping until
these were presented to the trial court.

Other irregularities tainted the police operation. As previously mentioned, a video was
supposedly recorded when all of the accused were rounded up at the basketball court, even when it was
not required under RA 9165. However, the footage was not presented in open court or submitted as
evidence. Furthermore, PI Mangalip testified that there were three sachets of marijuana, as opposed to
the police officer’s claim that there were only two. Also, petitioners and Jonathan were not informed of
the results of their drug tests.

Hence, as to the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti due to the broken chain of
custody.

Debuque vs Nilson

Criminal law and Remedial law – Probable cause

The circumstances of the instant case are quite distinct: the appeal with respect to the finding of
probable cause has yet to be resolved, however, the merits of the case has already been decided by the
trial court resulting to an acquittal. It is well settled that "the prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling
granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused as it is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the
prosecution can sufficiently prove that the court's action is attended with grave abuse of discretion." [87]
And as mentioned, the CA has already affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the criminal case.

Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal action, is defined as such facts as are sufficient
to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably
guilty thereof. It does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure
conviction. Only prima facie evidence is required or that which is, on its face, good and sufficient to
establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense; and which,
if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. [97] (Citations omitted)
 Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, does not require absolute
certainty or guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A well-founded belief that a crime was committed and that
the individual charged is probably guilty of committing the crime suffices. The merits of the parties'
respective accusations and defenses and admissibility of testimonies and defenses are better ventilated
in the trial proper before the courts than during the preliminary investigation level.

The determination of probable cause is essentially executive in nature, though reviewable by the
courts if the determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion: The task of determining probable
cause is lodged with the public prosecutor and ultimately, the Secretary of Justice.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts have no right to directly decide matters over
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government. Thus,
we have generally adopted a policy of non-interference with the executive determination of probable
cause. Where, however, there is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion, courts are allowed to reverse
the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on matters of probable cause.

Estores vs People

Criminal law – Mala prohibita (drugs)

This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However,
the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession.

Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the
accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and
control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it
is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.

The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place
where the contraband is located, is shared with another.

Marzan vs People

Criminal law – Graft and Corrupt Practices

The elements of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 are:

(i) The offender is a public officer;

(ii) The offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act or the
offender allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an act;
(iii) The act performed by the other public officer or committed by the offender constitutes a
violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duty of the latter.

Firstly, it is undisputed that Marzan was a public officer at the time of the commission of the
crime. The parties have stipulated that Marzan was a Senior Jail Officer 3.
 Secondly, the law is clear that the second mode merely requires that the offender who allowed
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced, is a public officer, such as Marzan.

Lastly, Marzan unlawfully released Cyrus and Pascua. To stress, Cyrus and Pascua were lawfully
detained pursuant to a duly issued commitment order of a court of law and yet they were released
pursuant to an improperly issued Recognizance, without an accompanying Court Order, in violation of
the law and BJMP rules and regulation

SEC. 15. Recognizance. Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the Court may release a person
in custody on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person.

The instances when an accused may be released on recognizance were identified in Torrevillas v.
Navidad, [35] thus: The accused may be released on recognizance under Republic Act No. 6036[,] P.D.
No. 603[,] and P.D. 968, as amended. Also, Section 16 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
explicitly provides, "A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the
principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at
the discretion of the court."

Pulido vs People GR 220149 July 27, 2021

Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is NOT necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab
initio marriage in a bigamy case.

The court in this case abandons its earlier rulings and hold that a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case.
Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second second marriages
presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time
within which they are secured.

Retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage in criminal prosecutions for bigamy.

The court stressed out that the nullity of a void ab initio marriage, being inexistent under the
eyes of the law can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material,
either direct or collateral, in any civil court between parties at any time, whether before of after death
of either or both the spouses. A void marriage is ipso facto void without need of any judicial declaration
of nullity. This requirement is necessary under Art. 40, where the law treated a void ab initio marriage
as valid for purposes of remarriage.

Thus, being inexistent from the beginning, the void first marriage does not qualifies nor satisfies
one of the essential elements of bigamy which requires the existence of a prior valid marriage. Logically,
there is no first marriage to begin with. As for the retroactive effect of a void ab initio marriage, there is
nothing to annul nor dissolve as the judicial declaration of nullity merely confirms the inexistence of
such marriage. This also explains why the second element of bigamy which requires that the former
marriage has not been legally dissolved or annulled is wanting in the case of void ab initio prior
marriage. The RPC provision regarding bigamy pertains to contracting a subsequent marriage when a
voidable or valid first marriage is still subsisting.
 In the same vein, when the accused contracted a subsequent void ab initio marriage, which is
void other than it being bigamous, it has the effect of not having entered into a subsequent marriage at
all because the same is inexistent from the beginning. Thus, negates existence of one of the elements of
bigamy which requires that the accused contracts a second or subsequent marriage. A subsequent
judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the second marriage merely confirms its inexistence.

In both instances, the accused may validly raised the defense of a void ab initio marriage without
a judicial declaration of nullity.

Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity for purposes of
remarriage but not as a defense in bigamy.

The Court clarifies that the requirement under Art. 40 (Final judgment requiring the previous
marriage void) need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. The word "solely" under Art. 40
qualifies the "final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" and not "for purposes of
remarriage".

In effect, the judicial declaration of absolute nullity may be invoked in other instances for
purposes other than remarriage. Nonetheless, other evidence, testimonial or documentary, may also
prove the absolute nullity of the previous marriage in the said instances. Hence, such previous void
marriage need not be proved solely by an earlier judgment of court declaring it void. For purposes of
remarriage, the only evidence to prove a void marriage is the final judgment declaring its absolute
nullity. In other cases, the absolute nullity of a marriage may be proved by evidence other than such
judicial declaration.