THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
VENERANDO NEBREJA
203 SCRA 45. October 17, 1991

TOPICS : ( )

FACTS:

ISSUE: (BOLD)

Whether or not a corporation can be awarded moral damages.

RULING: (BOLD)

NO. (BOLD)

An artificial person like herein appellant corporation cannot experience physical

sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or
social humiliation which are basis or moral damages.
A Corporation may have a good reputation if besmirched, may also be a ground
for the award of moral damages. The same cannot be considered under the facts of this
case, however, not only because it is admitted that herein appellant had already ceased
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
ROBERTO NEGOSA alias JOVIN
G.R. No. 142856-57. August 25, 2003

TOPICS : (The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus which means “false in one
thing, false in everything”. It applied to the testimony of a witness who may be
considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have
testified falsely in one detail. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a
positive rule of law.)

FACTS:

The Regional Trial Court of Camiguin, Branch 28, convicted the appellant
Robert Negosa alias Jovin of rape and acts of lasciviousness for willfully, feloniously,
and unlawfully having sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter Gretchen Castao, who
was ten years old at the time of the commission of the crime.
Negosa and Castao's mother have lived together without the benefit of marriage.
The victim initially lived with her grandmother before moving in with her mother and
the appellant. On June 28, 1997, on the eve of their fiesta, the appellant sexually
molested the victim, warning her not to tell anyone. Gretchen kept the traumatic
experience to herself, and she occasionally faced sexual abuse from the appellant. She
quickly confessed her trauma to some of her friends, decided to write about it in the
pages of a notebook, tore it, and hid it in one notebook with her belongings. Castao's
aunt occurred to read about her niece's sexual assault by her stepfather on the shredded
pages of her journal, which she had tucked into her notebook. The victim wrote the
journal a year after the first sexual assault occurred. During a physical examination, the
doctor discovered abrasions on the vagina and bloody discharge at the cervical os. After
determining a prima facie case against the appellant for two charges of statutory rape,
two information were filed to the RTC.
Appellant denied the accusations, but was found guilty of rape in Criminal Case
No. 918 and simply of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 919. He was sentenced to:
(1) the death penalty for rape; and (2) an indeterminate penalty of six months of
arrestomayor maximum, as minimum, and four years and two months of prision
correccional medium, as maximum, for acts of lasciviousness. Appellant was also
ordered to pay the victim P50,000.00 in civil indemnity ex delicto for rape and
P25,000.00 for acts of lasciviousness.
The appellant challenges the decision, claiming that the lower court made grave
errors in: (1) giving credence to the victim's testimony despite the long delay in
reporting the rape incident, (2) finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, and (3) appreciating the aggravating circumstance of the
accused and complainant's stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as alleged in the
information when the accused is not legally married.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the victim’s testimony has a probative weight in court despite
the lapse of time in reporting the incident.

RULING:
 YES.

The victim’s testimony has a probative weight.

The fact that Gretchen started making entries in her diary only on September 2,
1998, more than a year after the first rapeincident occurred, does not lessen the
probative weight of the said entries. It bears stressing that Gretchen was only in Grade
V, barely eleven years old when the appellant raped her on June 28, 1997. At such a
young age, she could hardly be expected to act and react like an adult. Being subjected
to a vicious sexual assault was an emotional and psychological experience on the part of
the young victim. In People v. Aquino, this Court held that the range of emotions shown
by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is thus unrealistic to expect
information from rape victims.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled to the effect that "the workings of the
human mind placed under a great deal of emotional and psychological stress are
unpredictable, and different people react differently. There is no standard form of
human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, frightful or
traumatic experience -some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into
insensibility." Others may react differently. In this case, the information on file
indicates that the victim was a secretive and silent type who preferred not to confide in
her relatives.
The trial court disbelieved Gretchen’s testimony that on September 4, 1998, the
appellant managed to insert a small portion ofhis penis through the side of his
short pants and the side of the victim’s loose short pants and convicted the appellant
only of acts of lasciviousness. This, however, does not impair Gretchen’s credibility and
the probative weight of her testimony that she was raped by the appellant on
June 28, 1997.In People vs. Lucena, we ruled that the testimony of a witness
may be partly believed or disbelieved, depending on the corroborative evidence and
intent on the part of the witness to pervert the truth. The principle FALSUS IN
UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction.
The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals only with the weight of
evidence and is not a positive rule of law; the rule is not an inflexible one of universal
application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony
of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the
corroborative evidence presented at the trial. Thus, where the challenged testimony is
sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from
innocent lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be
relaxed.It is a rule that is neither absolute nor mandatory and binding upon the court,
which may accept or reject portions of the witness’ testimony based on its inherent
credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case. In this case, the trial court
believed Gretchen’s testimony that the appellant inserted his penis through the side
ofhis short pants and the side of her loose shorts, but disbelieved that part of her
testimony that a small part of his penis was able to penetrate her vagina. There is
no evidence that Gretchen intended to pervert the truth as to the extent of the sexual
abuse done to her on September 4, 1998. Neither can it be claimed that she prevaricated
when she testified that the appellant raped her on June 28, 1997.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
GUILLERMO NEPOMUCENO, JR.
G.R. No. 127818 November 11, 1998

TOPICS : (Corpus delicte is the body or substance of the crime. In its primary
sense, it refers to the fact that a crime was committed. As applied to a particular
offense, the term means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged.)

FACTS:

On May 2, 1994, Grace Guillermo was nagging and pestering his husband
Guillermo Nepomuceno, who was jobless at that time, to fund the postdated check that
she issued. Guillermo left home to avoid the nagging and tantrums throughout the day,
and when he went home that night, they had some arguments. Guillermo was desperate
to avoid the nagging, he decided to get a gun as if he would kill himself. The two then
grappled the gun and Grace was shot on her leg and then eventually died. Guillermo
Nepomuceno was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime parricide by the
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region (Manila, Branch 46).
Guillermo filed an appeal against the RTC decision contending that (1) the
killing was accidental;(2) he is not criminally liable as the killing was a result of simple
negligence;(3) his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

1.Whether or not Guillermo Nepomuceno intentionally killed Grace

Nepomuceno
2.Whether or not Guillermo is guilty of simple negligence

RULING:

YES.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding
Guillermo Nepomuceno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime parricide for
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident
premeditation, attack, assault and use of personal violence upon his spouse, Grace
Nepomuceno.
1. Guillermo contends that the incident was accidental and that he should
be exempt from criminal liability. For an accident to be exempting, presupposes
that the act done is lawful. Here, however, the act of accused-appellant of drawing a
weapon in the course of a quarrel, the same not being in self-defense, is unlawful —it at
least constitutes light threats (Article 285, par. 1, Revised Penal Code). There is thus
no room for the invocation of accident as a ground for exemption. He stated that they
were grappling the gun but the physical evidence shows that there have been no nitrates
in Grace’s hands, clear indication that she was not able to hold the gun. Furthermore,
the medico-legal officer opined that grappling for possession of the gun was
impossible because the trajectory of the bullet was going upwards and there were no
smudges or signs of close firing. The fact that the victim was not shot in the head, or
in any vital part of her body does not negate intent to kill. The extent of the
physical injury inflicted on Grace, as above proved, manifests intention to extinguish
life.
2. It has been held that a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially
inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. What qualifies an act of
reckless or simple negligenceor imprudence is the lack of maliceor criminal intentin
the execution thereof. Otherwise stated, in criminal negligence, the injury caused to
another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act done without
malice but with lack of foresight, or with carelessness or negligence, and which has
harmed society or an individual.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
ROBERTO NER Y FELICIANO
G.R. No. L-25504 July 31, 1969

TOPICS : ( Statements made y a person while a a startling occurrence is taking

place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, maybe given in evidence as a part of the RES GESTAE.)

FACTS:

The case involves the murder of Jose de Leon, for which Roberto Ner y
Feliciano was charged. The incident occurred on May 17, 1964, in Manila, Philippines.
Jose Lopea, Roberto Ner, and Valentino Villanueva were riding in a jeep along
Anacleto Street. They passed by the same street multiple times before parking in front
of the apartment building where Jose de Leon resided. Lopea talked to someone on a
bench while Ner and Villanueva entered the apartment. Ner went to the third floor of
the apartment and had a short conversation with Jose de Leon before leaving.
Shortly after, someone knocked on the door of the apartment, and when Jose de
Leon opened it, he was shot multiple times. Angelina Viray witnessed the shooting. Ner
ran out of the apartment, threw a firearm into the back seat of the jeep, and drove away.
Angelina Viray ran to the residence of Jose de Leon's parents, shouting that he had been
shot by "Bobby Pirate," which is Ner's nickname. Police Lieutenant de Leon arrived at
the scene and found Jose de Leon lying on the floor. He asked Jose de Leon who shot
him, and the latter weakly replied, "Bobby Pirate."
Jose de Leon was taken to the hospital but was pronounced dead upon arrival.
The prosecution presented testimonies from Lt. de Leon, Rodolfo Rosales, Leonardo
Bolea, and Patrolman Artemio Tiong to implicate Ner in the murder. Lt. de Leon
claimed that Jose de Leon made a dying declaration naming Ner as the assailant.
Rosales testified that he saw Ner run out of the apartment and throw something into the
jeep before driving away. Bolea corroborated Rosales' testimony and claimed that he
heard Jose de Leon mention "Pirate" as the assailant. Patrolman Tiong stated that
Angelina Viray identified Ner as the murderer. The defense presented testimonies from
Ernesto Pascual, Eduardo Benito, Rolando Raymundo, and Teodoro Villanueva to
challenge the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Pascual and Benito claimed that Rosales and Bolea were with them in a pool
hall during the time of the shooting. Villanueva testified that Lt. de Leon arrived at the
apartment more than twelve minutes after the last shot was fired. Raymundo stated that
he saw the men who came out of the apartment after the shooting, and none of them
was Ner. The court a quo found Ner guilty of murder and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
 On appeal, the Supreme Court modified the decision and increased the
indemnity from P6,000 to P12,000 but affirmed the conviction. Justice Castro
dissented, expressing doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the
lack of direct evidence linking Ner to the crime.

ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Roberto Ner
is guilty of the murder of Jose de Leon.

RULING:

YES.

The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence, although purely circumstantial,
was sufficient to establish Ner's guilt. The court relied on the dying declaration made by
Jose de Leon to Lt. de Leon, the testimonies of Rosales, Bolea, and Patrolman Tiong,
and the ballistic findings. The court found that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses did not undermine the overall credibility of their statements.
The court also noted the absence of a motive and the failure to link Ner to the
murder weapons but considered these factors as not indispensable in establishing guilt.
Justice Castro dissented, questioning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the
lack of direct evidence linking Ner to the crime. He argued that the evidence presented
by the defense cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
DIONY OPINIANO
G.R. No. 181474. July 26, 2017

TOPICS : ( Credibility of witness. The testimony of a single witness, if credible and

positive, is sufficient to produce a conviction.)

FACTS:

On November 30, 1997, at around 2:30 a.m., spouses Eladio Santos (Eladio)and
Leonor Santos (Leonor) were found dead in the garage of their house at No.
548Tahimik St., Brgy. Pag-ibig sa Nayon, Quezon City. Around 2:30 a.m. of November
30,1997, Estrella received a call from her sister that their parents were stabbed. She
andher husband hurriedly went to the store. They noticed policemen and reporters
waitingoutside the store. When she entered the garage, Estrella saw the bloodied and
deadbodies of her parents, while the police took pictures of the victims. She saw the
storeand the house in disarray. She noticed that cigarettes, lighters, coins, and bills
weremissing. Estrella remembered wrapping some coins and signing her initials on
them foreventual bank deposit.In the second floor, she found the master bedroom in
shambles, and noticed thatsome money and her mother's pieces of jewelry were
missing. The missing pieces ofjewelry were a watch worth P1,500.00, a ring with a big
diamond stone worth more thanP55,000.00, a ring with small diamonds worth at least
P15,000.00, a pair of earringswith a Russian diamond worth P5,000.00, and a pair of
pearl earrings worthP20,000.00. Estrella estimated that the total cash missing amounted
to P100,000.00.She also noticed that the kitchen knife was missing, it had a black
rubber band wrappedaround the handle. She later found the knife full of blood inside a
case of beer. Theknife was turned over to the La Loma police.Around 9:00 p.m. of the
previous day, November 29, 1997, PO2 Paule andSPO1 Eduardo Roderno (SPO1
Roderno) of the Caloocan police were traversing C-3Road aboard a police-marked
vehicle when they noticed a man carrying a heavy-looking bag. When they approached
him, the man ran away. After a brief chase, theman was cornered. PO2 Paule noticed
that he was nervous and sweating. His right legwas stained with blood and his right
waistline was bulging with an object, which turnedout to be a double bladed 9-inch mini
kris. He did not answer when asked about thebloodstain on his leg. Upon further
interrogation, Dela Cruz verbally confessed that heand his companions, whom he later
revealed as "Ango" or Lumayag, and Opiniano,"had just killed and robbed an old
couple." Opiniano appealed the Regional Trial Court's decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond

reasonable doubt.

RULING:

YES.

The accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The

eyewitness account of Dela Cruz, corroborated by the testimony and findings of Dr.
Arizala and Forensic Biologist Buan, suffices to convict accused-appellant Opiniano of
the crime charged. As a rule, findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness
will generally not be disturbed on appeal as it was the trial court which had the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness during trial. Hence, accused-
appellant Diony Opiniano y Verano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
RESTITUTO PABALAN
262 SCRA 574. September 30, 1996

TOPICS : ( Corroborative Evidence. It is necessary only when there are reasons to

warrant the suspicion that the eyewitness falsified the truth or that his
observations are incorrect. )

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Restituto Pabalan was charged with illegal recruitment in

large scale and three counts of estafa. The charges were based on the testimonies of
three complainants, Henry Luciano, June Barrera, and Manuel Garcia.
The complainants claimed that Pabalan deceived them into giving him money
for promised employment abroad. The complainants testified that they gave Pabalan
money for processing their passports and purchasing plane tickets. They were brought
to Saipan and Japan but were eventually deported back to the Philippines.
Pabalan denied the charges and claimed that he only helped the complainants as
tourists and did not receive any money from them. He argued that the absence of
receipts for the payments made by the complainants should acquit him of the charges.
The trial court found Pabalan guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and
estafa in all three counts.
Pabalan appealed the decision, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

Whether or not mere corroborative evidence would suffice to establish guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

YES.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The Court held that the absence of receipts does not warrant the acquittal of the
accused in a criminal case for illegal recruitment. As long as the witnesses positively
identify the accused as the person involved in the prohibited recruitment, the accused
may be convicted despite the lack of receipts. The testimony of a single prosecution
witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The non-presentation of additional evidence or witnesses does not
diminish the credibility of the witness. The Court found the testimonies of the
complainants to be credible and affirmed the trial court's findings.
Pabalan's arguments were rejected and his conviction for illegal recruitment in
large scale and estafa was upheld. However, the Court modified the penalties imposed
by the trial court.
The Court clarified that the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale is life
imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua. The Court also adjusted the minimum terms of
the indeterminate sentences for the estafa cases based on the amounts involved.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
LEOPOLDO PACAPAC
G.R. No. 90623 September 7, 1995

TOPICS : ( The maxim "falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus" does not lay down a
categorical test of credibility and should not be applied to portions of the testimony
corroborated by other evidence. )

FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellants Leopoldo Pacapac and Nestor Tranguia

who were charged with the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide. The incident
occurred on January 17, 1986, in Mandaue City, Philippines. The victim, Patrolman
Rogelio Collantes, was checking a bodega when his wife, Flora Collantes, heard sounds
of bottles breaking and footsteps. Flora saw Pacapac holding an unconscious man and
poking something at his face, while two other men flanked the unconscious man.
One of the men ran to the left side of the street, while the other pointed a gun at
Flora and ordered her to close the window. Flora heard a gunshot and someone shouting
"This is robbery, you have nothing to do with this." After the gunshot, Flora saw
Pacapac shouting to his companions to get the victim's necklace, ring, and wallet. The
three men left the scene and headed towards Consolacion. Faustino Collantes, the
victim's brother, was also present during the incident and was threatened by one of the
men. Domingo Semblante, another witness, heard the gunshot and saw Pacapac
pointing a gun at him and his companions.
The police arrived at the scene, and Pat. Ernesto Entise conducted an
investigation. Flora discovered that her husband's ring and wallet were missing, but the
necklace was later found under the victim's shirt.
The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, Mandaue
City, Branch 28.

ISSUE:

Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible and sufficient
to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

YES.

The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding accused-appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide.
The court sentenced accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua and ordered them
to pay civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.
The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the
highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear
showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances
of weight or substance.
Alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not
render their testimonies unworthy of belief, especially when the inconsistencies refer to
minor details.
The maxim "falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus" does not lay down a categorical
test of credibility and should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by
other evidence. The initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a
criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to
fear of reprisal do not affect their credibility.
Alibi is a weak defense and cannot prevail over positive identification by
prosecution witnesses who have no motive to testify falsely.
The judge who pens the decision is not required to be the same judge who
conducted the hearing, as long as the decision is based on the transcribed stenographic
notes taken during the trial.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
VICTOR P. PADIT
G.R. No. 202978. February 1, 2016.

TOPICS : ( Hearsay Evidence. Hearsay evidence is only inadmissible if the party

against whom the testimony is presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine
the person who made the statements. Moreover, the court is without the
opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the
demeanor of the person who made them. )

FACTS:

This case involves an appeal filed by accused-appellant Victor P. Padit, who

was found guilty of the crime of rape by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan,
Eastern Samar. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC with
modification. The case revolves around the rape of a four-year-old girl, referred to as
AAA, by accused-appellant.
On May 5, 2006, AAA went out of her house to buy bread when she was called
by accused-appellant, who is their neighbor and the uncle of her mother. Accused-
appellant brought AAA inside his house, brought her upstairs, and proceeded to rub his
penis against AAA's vagina. He threatened to hurt AAA with a knife if she told anyone
about the incident. AAA's mother noticed that AAA was missing and found her in
accused-appellant's yard. AAA then told her mother about the molestation. AAA's
parents filed a complaint with their Barangay Chairman and AAA underwent a
physical/medical examination, which showed slight hymenal abrasion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
accused-appellant is guilty of rape.

RULING:

YES.

The Court ruled in the affirmative, stating that the prosecution was able to
establish the elements of rape through the testimony of the victim and the medical
findings. The Court emphasized that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight
and credit, and AAA's testimony was consistent and detailed. The Court also rejected
accused-appellant's argument that there was no penetration, stating that even the
slightest penetration of the female genitalia constitutes rape. The Court noted that
AAA's testimony was corroborated by the findings of the physician who examined her.
The Court also dismissed accused-appellant's argument that AAA's mother's testimony
was hearsay, stating that the exclusion of hearsay evidence does not apply in this case.
The Court based its ruling on the following grounds:
a. Testimony of the victim: The Court gave full weight and credit to the
testimony of AAA, considering her young age and the consistency and detail of her
account. The Court emphasized that the testimony of child-victims should be given
special attention and should not be easily disregarded.
 b. Medical findings: The Court considered the medical examination conducted
on AAA, which showed slight hymenal abrasion, as corroborative evidence supporting
AAA's testimony. The Court noted that the findings of the physician further
strengthened the case against accused-appellant.

c. Definition of rape: The Court rejected accused-appellant's argument that there

was no penetration, stating that even the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
constitutes rape. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the
elements of rape have been proven, rather than the degree of penetration.

d. Hearsay evidence: The Court dismissed accused-appellant's argument that

AAA's mother's testimony should be considered hearsay. The Court explained that
hearsay evidence is only inadmissible if the party against whom the testimony is
presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine the person who made the statements.
In this case, AAA herself was sworn as a witness and was cross-examined by accused-
appellant's counsel. Therefore, the testimony of AAA's mother, which served to
corroborate AAA's testimony, was considered admissible.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
AMANTE PADLAN
G.R. No. 214880. September 6, 2017

TOPICS : (The court based its decision on the credible testimony of the victim,
supported by medical findings and other evidence presented during the trial. The
aggravating circumstances present in the case justified the imposition of the
maximum penalty, and the court awarded damages to the victim in accordance
with prevailing jurisprudence. .)

FACTS:

The first incident occurred on August 7, 2005, at about 1:00 p.m., Padlan woke
her up and asked her to stand up. "AAA" stood up as she was told. Padlan then touched
her vagina and continued caressing ituntil he was fully aroused. Padlan then inserted his
penis inside "AAA's" vagina. According to "AAA," the insertion of appellant's penis
was only for a short time but the insertion was so painful that it caused her to shout
'Aray!' Padlan withdrew his penis and inserted his finger inside "AAA's" vagina instead.
"AAA" again exclaimed in pain, which caused Padlan to remove his finger. She did not
report the incident to her mother because of Padlan's threat to kill her mother if she did.
The second incident occurred in the evening of September 27, 2005 when
Padlan called "AAA" and told her that her mother, "BBB," wanted her to go to a certain
Ate Sharon to borrow money. When they reached anaratiles tree along the way, Padlan
stopped "AAA" and told her to lie down on the ground. Padlan then removed "AAA's"
shorts and underwear and inserted his penis inside her vagina. After Padlan was
finished satisfying his lust, "AAA" went home by herself.
The following day on September 28, 2005, "AAA" was sleeping in her sister's
bedroom while her mother was gathering kangkong outside. "AAA" quickly ran
towards her mother to prevent Padlan from going any further with his advances.
The next day, "AAA" complained to "BBB" about the pain she felt in her
vagina. "BBB" examined "AAA's" vagina and saw that it was swollen and had pus.
When asked who was responsible for her swollen vagina, "AAA" told her mother about
what Padlan had done to her. "BBB" then confronted Padlan about "AAA's" claims.
According to "BBB," Padlan admitted that he raped "AAA" twice

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused guilty of two counts of rape and one count of acts of
lasciviousness.

RULING:

YES.

Under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, rape is committed through the following
acts:
a. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances: i. Through force, threat, or intimidation ii. When the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious iii. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; and iv. When the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
In the present case, all the elements of statutory rape have been sufficiently
established in Criminal Case Nos. 2755-M-2005 and 2756-M-2005 since the
prosecution's evidence showed that on two separate occasions, Padlan had carnal
knowledge of "AAA," a woman under 12 years of age. The defense did not dispute the
fact that "AAA" was nine years old at the time of the incident. Her birth certificate,
which was presented during trial before the RTC, clearly stated that her date of birth is
August 20, 1996.In the present case, the Information in Criminal Case No. 275 7-M-
2005 specifically stated: (1) that "AAA" was a nine-year old minor at the time of the
incident; and (2) that Padlan committed acts of lasciviousness against "AAA" by
touching her vagina. Contrary to the ruling of the RTC which was affirmed by the CA,
we find that the elements of lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA
7610have been sufficiently alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
RODELO PALIJON
G.R. No. 123545 October 18, 2000

TOPICS : (Admissions by a conspirator.)

FACTS:

At around two oclock in the morning of August 27, 1993, Rodelo Palijon,[1]
Carlos Decena,[2] and Jim Mercene entered the yardof the residence in San Pablo City
of the spouses Gonzalo and Mellorequina Reyes. Both were elderly returnees
(balikbayans), recently arrived from the United States.
Decena entered the house by climbing a post and removing some glass panes
from the jalousy windows. Once inside, Decena and Mercene positioned themselves
near the couples bedroom door and waited for someone to open it so they could take
cash and jewelry from the bedroom. Palijon remained outside the house, as look-out.
Around four oclock A.M.,Mrs. Reyes came out the bedroom to go to the
bathroom. She did not notice the intruders. Decena then followed her to the toilet where
he kicked and boxed her. Mrs. Reyes managed to shout for help before she fainted. Mr.
Reyes rushed to assist his wife. Decena met him, with a steel-edged stool and struck
him hard several times. Mr. Reyes fell prostrate on the floor. The robbers ransacked the
house then escaped.
Prosecution witness Merly Reyes Alvero, a daughter of the Reyes couple, who
lived some distance away, was roused from her sleep by a phone call from her cousin,
Edith Bicomong. A hysterical Bicomong told Alvero that the latters parents were
hospitalized and in critical condition. Alvero dashed off to the hospital and was able to
talk to her mother. Alvero then proceeded to the house of her parents. An inspection of
the bedroom of the spouses Reyes revealed that cash amounting to P17,000.00 and
various pieces of jewelry belonging to her mother, worth P100,000.00 were missing.
At 10:55 A.M., Mr. Gonzalesdied from his injuries. The immediate cause of
death was cardio-respiratory failure caused by severe contusion hematoma of head
(right side, liver, and chest wall due to severe beatings, with suspicious multiple
fractures, ribs, 5th and 7th, right.)
In an Information dated October 14, 1993, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
San Pablo City charged Rodelo Palijon, Jim Mercene, Carlos Decena, Myra Pria, and
several John Does, with robbery and homicide, allegedly committed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimony of a conspirator may be admissible in evidence

against his co-conspirator?

RULING:

YES.

The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily a crime

against property and not against persons, the homicide being a mere incident of the
robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, it is essential that the
robbery itself be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The onus probandi is, thus, upon the
prosecution to prove the following: (1) the taking of personal propertywith violence or
intimidation against persons or by using force upon things; (2) that the property taken
belongs to another; (3) that the taking was characterized by animus lucrandi; and (4)
that on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed.
The prosecution presented both object and testimonial evidence that personal
property of the victims were taken. Alvero testified that she was familiar with her
mothers jewelry having borrowed some of the items on past occasions. After she
inspected her parents house she discovered cash and valuable pieces of jewelry missing.
Alvero also identified, in open court, the broken jewelry box, some pieces of fancy
jewelry and other items of her mother recovered at the crime scene. Under cross-
examination, Alvero was categorical in her account that the more expensive pieces of
jewelry of her mother were missing. The trial courts assessment of the credibility of
Alvero is entitled to great respect. It is binding on this court in the absence of any
showing that the trial courts finding was not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. We also note that the physical
evidence of the prosecution corroborated Alveros account that her parents had been
robbed. Physical evidence is mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth and rates
highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
It is appellant Prias contention that the prosecutions evidence implicating her is
weak and shaky. She points out that when herco-accused planned the robbery in
appellant Palijons house, she was some distance from them and could not have heard
their scheme. She also avers that she was sleeping at the time of the incident, and did
not participate in the robbery.
In the instant case, both prosecution witness Mercene and defense witness
Decena admitted the existence of a conspiracy to rob the victims. However, their
versions as to the participation of appellant Pria differ. Mercene testified that he and his
co-accused agreed to enter and rob the house of the Reyes couple during the wee hours
of the morning of August 27, 1993. According to Mercene it was appellant Pria who:
(1) informed them of the arrival of the Reyes spouses from abroad; (2) told them that
the balikbayans had a lot of money being; and (3) told them how to enter the house.
Decena, admits that Pria was present when they plotted the robbery,but vehemently
insists that she had no participation in its planning. Decena claims that Pria was there
only to attend to their child, and she was sleeping when he and Mercene broke into the
house of the victims.To buttress Decenas testimony, the defense presented three of his
letters to Pria, written in prison, clearing her of any knowledge or participation in the
crime.
After reviewing the transcripts and circumstances extant to the case, we find that
the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of Mercene. The latter
testified that Pria was only 1-1/2 meters away from them when they were plotting the
robbery.The house of Palijon where they hatched their plan is a small, one-room house
with an area of approximately twenty (20) meters only.Both facts clearly show that Pria
could easily participate in the discussion of the conspirators. Mercenes declarations are
positive testimonial evidence. They outweigh Decenas unsubstantiated denial of Prias
participation in the criminal conspiracy. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary
weight over the testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.
In our view, notwithstanding her absence from the actual crime scene, Pria, as a
conspirator, is as liable for robbery with homicide just as if she had participated in the
actual robbing and killing. At the instant that the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly,
to commit the crime and pursue it, each and every member of the conspiracy is
criminally liable for the felony committed by anyone of them.
Appellant Palijon denies he conspired with the others. He says the trial court
erred in convicting him on the basis of the testimonies of his alleged conspirators. Their
testimonies could not be taken against him under the principle of res inter alios acta
alteri nocere non debet as formulated in Sections 28[38] and 30,[39] Rule 130, of the
Rules of Court.
There is conspiracy to commit a crime, where at the time the malefactors of the
crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose to attain their illicit ends. One
who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts in effect the criminal design of his co-
conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
BIENVENIDO PARAGSA
G.R. No. L-44060 July 20, 1978
TOPICS : (Admission by silence)

FACTS:

The complainant was a 12 ½ year old girl. It was stated in the complaint that she
was threatened bythe accused with a knife and then raped her on July 13, 1971.
The accused admitted having sexual intercourse with Mirasol, the complaining
witness, but he stoutly denied that he did so by employing force or intimidation against
Mirasol. He claims he and Mirasol were sweethearts; that on the day of the incident, it
was Mirasol who invited him to the latter's house where they had sexual intercourse
after kissing each other; and that the intercourse they had that afternoon was, as a matter
of fact, their third sexual intercourse.
Mirasol did not bother at all to rebut the testimony of the appellant and his
witnesses to the effect that the accused and Mirasol were actually sweethearts; and that
they had had two previous sexual communications before July 13, 1971, one of which
happened on June 29, 1971 in the house of the accused, where Mirasol and the accused
slept together in the evening of the same day after the mother of the accused and
Mirasol had returned from the town fiesta of Bantayan.
Both RTC and the CA convicted the accused for rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the failure of Mirasol to rebut constituted as an admission by

silence.

RULING:

YES.

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the

truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before
the silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is said, it must appear:

(1) that he heard and understood the statement;

(2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
(3) that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he
was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer;
(4) that the facts were within his knowledge; and
(5) that the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be
material to the issue (IV Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1973
ed., p. 316).

These requisites of admission by silence all obtain in the present case. Hence, the
silence of Mirasol on the facts asserted by the accused and his witnesses may be safely
construed as an admission of the truth of such assertion.
The appellant Bienvenido Paragsa is hereby acquitted.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
JEROME PASCUA
G.R. No. 227707, October 08, 2018

TOPICS : (Chain of custody in general)

FACTS:

On December 4, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty

of the crime of illegal sale of shabu. The RTC supported the constitutionality of the
buy-bust operation and accorded more confidence to the testimony of the prosecution's
witnesses than to appellant's denial, finding no ill motive on the part of the police
officers to unjustly accuse him. The RTC determined that the statements of Rogelio and
Reynald did not help the appellant's defense of denial since Rogelio evidently only
witnessed what happened after the arrest, but Reynald's testimony did not invalidate the
fact that a buy-bust operation was undertaken on the specified date. The RTC further
determined that the prosecution has established the chain of possession for the seized
objects.
However, on the accusation of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the
RTC decided to acquit appellant and Manilyn due to inadmissibility of the evidence.
The RTC explained, that since appellant was already handcuffed, the possibility him
getting a weapon or any contraband in the room was remote. As a result, the search of
the room incidental to the arrest was invalid. As for Manilyn, the RTC determined that
there was insufficient evidence to indicate that she was appellant's live-in partner or that
she had control and jurisdiction over the room where the seized paraphernalia were
discovered.
On October 9, 2015, the CA rendered a Decision affirming the RTC
Decision. The CA ruled that there was a valid buy-bust operation based on the evidence
presented. Although there was no prior surveillance, the CA explained that it was not a
prerequisite for a valid buy-bust operation. The CA also found that the Chain of
Custody Rule was complied with and that the failure of forensic chemist PI Baligod to
indicate the actual markings on her reports was adequately explained. The CA further
said that the non-presentation of the confidential informant was not fatal to the case.
What is important was that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu were duly
established by the evidence presented by the prosecution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution complied with the Chain of Custody Rule, which
is crucial in establishing the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

RULING:

NO.

The court ruled in favor of Pascua and acquitted him on reasonable doubt.
The court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the Chain of Custody
Rule, as there were only two witnesses present during the physical inventory and
photography of the seized items, instead of the required three witnesses.
 The absence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an
elected public official, as required by law, was not adequately explained by the
prosecution.
The court emphasized the importance of the Chain of Custody Rule, which is
embodied in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
The rule requires the presence of three witnesses during the physical inventory
and photography of seized items. The absence of these witnesses does not automatically
render the confiscated items inadmissible, but the prosecution must provide a justifiable
reason for their absence and show that earnest efforts were made to secure their
attendance.
In this case, the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for the absence
of the necessary witnesses and did not demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to
secure their presence.
As a result, the court reversed Pascua's conviction and ordered his immediate
release.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
RODOLFO PATEÑO
G.R. No. 209040, December 09, 2015

TOPICS : (Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime)

FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellant Rodolfo Pate o y Dayapdapan who was

found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of rape by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bais City, Branch 45. AAA related that she was only four years old when her
parents left her to the care of her aunt, BBB. AAA started living with accused-appellant
only in 2000 in a two-bedroom house. On 25 March 2002 at around 10:00 p.m., AAA,
then 14 years old, was awakened by accused-appellant... who removed her short pants
and underwear. Accused-appellant likewise took off his clothes. He threatened AAA
with a scythe and ordered her to stay quiet. He then mounted her and made pumping
motions. After satisfying his lust, accused-appellant left without saying a word. He
proceeded to perform this bestial act on AAA for the four succeeding nights.
Accused-appellant confirmed that AAA started staying with him in March
2002 but added that there were five of them living in the house of his nephew, Rene
Pateño (Rene). He denied raping AAA and claimed that AAA is taking revenge because
during a beauty contest in April of that... year, he pinched AAA in front of her fellow
contestants and barangay councilors.[10] Accused-appellant's nephew, Rene testified
that accused-appellant lived with him but AAA was living with his sister. Rene's sister
Arly corroborated Rene's statement that AAA was living with her on the dates of the
alleged rape incidents. Both witnesses speculated that AAA wrongfully accused her
father of rape because she harbored a grudge towards accused-appellant who would
always scold her.
On 27 April 2007, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of five counts of rape.
On 23 May 2013, the CA rendered the assailed judgment affirming with
modification the trial court's decision.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five

counts of rape.

RULING:

YES.

The Supreme Court found accused-appellant guilty for each count of rape and
sentenced him to five reclusion perpetuas without eligibility for parole. The Court also
ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as
moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
The Court held that AAA's uniform testimony regarding the manner by which
she was raped does not diminish her credibility. The Court explained that accused-
appellant's repeated acts of rape were not surprising, as men are creatures of habit and
tend to repeat successful actions. The Court also considered AAA's youth and the
emotional stress she experienced, which partly accounted for her failure to escape
accused-appellant's abuse. The Court emphasized that the findings of the lower courts
with respect to the credibility of the rape victim are conclusive. The Court rejected
accused-appellant's claim that AAA was taking revenge, stating that no woman in her
right mind would fabricate charges of this nature and severity. The Court also upheld
the trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship, as accused-appellant admitted to being AAA's father and the prosecution
presented evidence of AAA's age through a certification and the UCCP Membership
Book. The Court modified the damages awarded, following its ruling in People v.
Gambao, and ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count
of rape, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until
fully paid.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
GILBERT PENILLA
G.R. NO. 189324 : March 20, 2013

TOPICS : (Evidence of character of the offended party)

FACTS:

On October1999, the complainant, known as AAA, rented a room at a boarding

house owned by Penilla's grandmother. Penilla entered AAA's room while she was
sleeping and chastised her for the loud volume of her television. Penilla was naked and
carrying a kitchen knife. He pushed AAA onto the bed and pressed himself against her,
invading her vagina with his penis. He also instructed AAA to perform oral sex on him.
AAA filed a rape report four days later.
During the trial, Penilla rejected the rape charges and stated that the sexual
contact was consensual. He claimed that AAA expressed interest in him and began the
sexual action. He further stated that AAA manufactured the rape story in order to settle
a financial issue with his grandma.
Using AAA's testimony, the RTC convicted Penilla guilty of rape and
condemned him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals confirmed the RTC's
ruling.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Penilla raped AAA.

RULING:

YES.

The court ruled in favor of AAA and convicted Penilla of rape. The Court of
Appeals upheld the RTC's verdict, and Penilla's appeal was denied.
The court's decision said that the reliability of the complainant's testimony is
critical in rape cases. Even when cross-examined, AAA's testimony was consistent and
persuasive. She explained in detail how Penilla entered her room, threatened her with a
knife, and then forced himself on her. The court deemed her testimony trustworthy and
in line with human nature and the usual order of events.
The court ruled that the reliability of the complainant's evidence is critical in rape trials.
Even after being cross-examined, AAA's evidence remained consistent and persuasive. She
explained in detail how Penilla entered her room, threatened her with a knife, and pressed
himself against her. The court determined that her testimony was believable and compatible with
human nature and the natural course of events.
Based on the evidence and AAA's testimony, the court concluded that Penilla
did rape AAA. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, and Penilla's appeal
was denied.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
ABDULWAHID PUNDUGAR
1G.R. No. 214779, February 7, 2018

TOPICS : (Corpus delicti; Chain of Custody)

FACTS:

At approximately 4:30 p.m. On May 24, 2008, a police informant came to the
Muntinlupa City Anti-illegal narcotics Office and reported that a certain "Tatay" (later
identified as appellant Abdulwahid Pundugar) was distributing illegal narcotics at
Purok 7, Brgy. Alabang, Muntinlupa City. After learning of this information, a team
was organized to conduct surveillance and a probable buy-bust operation, with PO2
Domingo Julaton III (PO2 Julaton) serving as the designated poseur-buyer. After
coordinating their plot with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency[3] (PDEA), PO2
Julaton was given five 100-peso bills to utilize as buy-bust money.
 PO2 Julaton and the informant went to the target area, while PO2 Elbert
Ocampo (PO2 Ocampo) was assigned as "back-up." From a distance of 10 meters, they
noticed appellant chatting with two associates. When the informant approached them,
he introduced PO2 Julaton to appellant as a seaman looking to score. Appellant asked
PO2 Julaton how much he would buy, and the latter replied 500 pesos. After PO2
Julaton handed over the buy-bust money, appellant gave him a packet of shabu. During
their transaction, PO2 Julaton observed appellant give a plastic sachet to each of the
latter's friend. PO2 Julaton scratched the back of his head as the pre-arranged signal to
his back-up that the sale transaction had been consummated. When PO2 Ocampo
arrived, PO2 Julaton immediately held the hand of appellant, introduced himself as a
police officer and arrested him. PO2 Julaton ordered appellant to bring out the contents
of his pocket. Appellant obliged and PO2 Julaton retrieved four more plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance and the buy-bust money. PO2 Ocampo arrested
appellant's companions and confiscated from them two pieces of plastic sachets.
Appellant and his companions together with the confiscated items were brought to the
police station for investigation. Thereat, PO2 Julaton immediately placed the marking
"AB" for the item sold and the markings "AB-1," "AB-2," "AB-3," and "AB-4" for the
items retrieved from appellant's pocket.[4] He took photographs of the items in front of
appellant and an inventory of the drugs seized was made.[5] Thereafter a request for
laboratory examination was prepared[6] and PO2 Julaton and PO2 Ocampo brought
appellant to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crim Laboratory together with the
confiscated drugs and the request for laboratory examination.

Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Mark Alain B. Ballesteros (PSI Ballesteros),

Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory based in Camp Crame Quezon City
personally received the specimen from PO2 Julaton together with the request tor
laboratory examination. In his Chemistry Report No. D-219-08[7] prepared by PSI
Ballesteros the specimen recovered from appellant gave positive result for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Appellant was thereafter
charged for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 before the RTC of
Muntinlupa City.[8

Appellant denied having sold shabu to a poseur-buyer or having in his

possession sachets of shabu. According to him, at around 4:00 p.m. of May 24, 2008,
he was attending to his store together with his daughter Noramida "Lily" Pundugar
(Noramida) when he heard people shouting that policemen were coming. When he went
out, he was suddenly handcuffed and brought to the police station. At the police station,
he was shown plastic sachets containing shabu and was told to give P600,000.00
otherwise he will be charged and remain in jail.Noramida corroborated the narration of
his father regarding the latter's arrest. She also maintained that nothing was recovered
from her father as well as from inside their store after a search was made by the
policemen.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the guilt of Pundugar for illegal sale and possession of
dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt

RULING:

YES.
 The Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions.
Convictions for the illegal sale and possession of hazardous substances were
confirmed.
The prosecution proved elements of criminal sale and possession of hazardous
substances beyond a reasonable doubt.
The lower courts upheld the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. There is
no reason to question the seized medications' integrity or evidential value. There was no
reason for the police officers to fraudulently testify against Pundugar.
An unbroken line of custody for the seized pharmaceuticals was created,
preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
Deviations from approved procedures for labeling and inventorying confiscated
objects were noted, but strict adherence was not required as long as integrity and
evidentiary value were retained.
Pundugar's defense of denial and frame-up was rejected as weak, without solid
proof. Penalties imposed on Pundugar were affirmed as appropriate for the crimes
committed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
LEONARDO QUIAPO
G.R. No. 218804. August 6, 2018

TOPICS : ( Alibi, denial; Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime.)

FACTS:

Appellant Leonardo Quiapo was accused with six counts of rape under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges were predicated on separate instances
involving two victims, AAA and MMM. The occurrences took place in Zamboanga del
Norte in 1996. The prosecution presented the testimony of AAA and MMM, both of
whom stated that the appellant sexually molested them.
Appellant Leonardo Quiapo was accused with six counts of rape under the
Revised Penal Code's Article 335. The charges stemmed from two distinct occurrences
involving AAA and MMM. The events occurred in Zamboanga del Norte in 1996. The
prosecution presented the evidence of AAA and MMM, both of whom claimed that
appellant sexually molested them.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimonies of AAA and MMM are credible and
sufficient to establish appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:

YES.

The AAA and MMM testimonies are credible and adequate to prove appellant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The lower courts correctly dismissed the appellant's
denial and alibi arguments. The delay in reporting the incidents does not weaken AAA
and MMM's credibility. The differences in the dates, locations, and times of the
episodes do not constitute grounds for acquittal.
The Court agrees with the CA that appellant should be held liable for statutory
rape in Criminal Case Nos. L-0098 and L-0099. The Court finds no compelling reason
to deviate from the findings of the CA affirming that of the trial court.
The Court modifies the amount of damages awarded by the CA.
The prison term for attempted rape in Criminal Case No. L-0100 is sustained, but the
award of damages is modified.
The problem of witness credibility is best addressed by the trial court, and the
reviewing court is generally bound by its findings, especially if no major facts or
circumstances are demonstrated to have been neglected or ignored.
The date of the rape is not an essential part of the crime, and contradictions in
information unrelated to the elements of the crime do not provide grounds for acquittal.
Delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence,
cannot be taken against the victim and does not cast doubt on the credibility of the
complainant. A mere denial, without strong evidence to support it, cannot overcome the
positive declaration of the victim regarding the identity and involvement of the accused.
Motives such as resentment, hatred, or revenge do not affect the credibility of a minor
rape victim's testimony.
The elements of statutory rape are carnal knowledge of a woman and the
woman being under 12 years of age or demented.
The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, while the penalty for
simple rape is also reclusion perpetua. The amount of damages awarded should be
modified in line with recent jurisprudence.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
FELIPE RAMA
G.R. No. L-34886, August 22, 1931

TOPICS : ( Cumulative evidence and corroborative evidence.)

FACTS:

Roger Rama was convicted of kidnapping an infant child, Joyce Ann Cabiguin,
based on the testimony of a five-year-old witness, Roxanne.
The incident occurred on January 1, 1998, at the Dagupan public plaza.
Roxanne testified that Rama called her and promised her a biscuit if she brought
her cousin, Joyce Ann, to him.
Roxanne carried Joyce Ann to Rama, who then ran away with the child.
Roxanne's testimony was corroborated by Pierre Torio, who saw Rama acting
suspiciously at the plaza.
Other children also witnessed the incident but did not testify due to safety
concerns

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant be considered a habitual delinquent despite his

voluntary confession of guilt during the trial

RULING:

NO.

The court ruled that the defendant cannot be considered a habitual delinquent in
the strict sense of the law.
The court modified the judgment and imposed the penalty of the medium period
of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, or at least three months and
eleven days.
When alleging habitual delinquency, the information must include not only the
dates of the accused's final sentence and release, but also the dates of his earlier crimes.
This is to avoid any concerns about whether the accused is a recidivist.
A person is not deemed a recidivist if, at the time of his trial for one crime, he had not
previously been convicted by final judgment of another crime with the same title under
the Revised Penal Code.
In this case, the information lacked a specific allegation of the dates of the
defendant's previous crimes.
As a result, the defendant cannot be called a recidivist under the strictest legal
definition.
The court also considered the fact that the defendant voluntarily confessed his
guilt prior to the presentation of any evidence against him.
As a result, only one recidivism should be taken into consideration against the
defendant, which is offset by his voluntary confession.
The court modified the judgment and imposed the penalty of the medium period of
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, or at least three months and eleven
days.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

 vs.
GERALD ARVIN ELINTO RAMIREZ
G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018

TOPICS : ( Procedure in the handling of seize drugs, Importance of Marking the

Evidence.)

FACTS:

Belinda Galienba Lachica and Gerald Arvin Elinto Ramirez were charged with
illegally selling shabu. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found them guilty and
sentenced them to life in prison and a Php500,000 fine apiece. The Court of Appeals
(CA) upheld the RTC's decision.
The case has now been referred to the Supreme Court for final assessment.
The prosecution's evidence revealed that a confidential informant informed the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) that Lachica was involved in illegal drug
activity.
The PDEA planned a buy-bust operation, during which Lachica and Ramirez
were apprehended. The confiscated items were delivered to the barangay hall for
inventory and photos before being transported to the PDEA laboratory for evaluation.
The chemistry study verified that the confiscated products contained shabu.
Lachica and Ramirez contested the charges, claiming that they had been
wrongfully apprehended by PDEA agents.
They claimed to be on their way to the parking lot when one of the operatives
inquired about Linda.
They were forced to get into the automobile and were later transported to
Quezon City, where they were imprisoned.

ISSUE:

Whether or not he prosecution was able to establish the guilt of Lachica and
Ramirez beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of shabu.

RULING:

NO.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Lachica and Ramirez and
acquitted them due to gaps in the chain of custody and failure to comply with proper
procedures in handling the seized drugs.
The Court underlined the need of establishing the deadly drug's identity beyond
reasonable doubt, as well as proving that the item confiscated during the buy-bust
operation is the identical thing given in evidence.
The Court cited Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), which requires the physical inventory and photography
of seized items to be performed in the presence of the accused or their representative, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official.
The Court determined that the PDEA operatives violated Section 21's criteria.
The marking of the seized items was not done immediately after confiscation
but was done in Quezon City, almost an hour away from the crime scene.
This break in the chain of custody cast serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized drugs.
The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity of performance of
official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and
cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the gaps in the prosecution's evidence
created reasonable doubt as to the existence of the corpus delicti for the illegal sale of
shabu.
Lachica and Ramirez were acquitted and ordered to be immediately released
from detention unless they are legally confined for another cause.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
GIL RAMIREZ
G.R. No. 218701, February 14, 2018

TOPICS : ( Direct and Circumstantial Evidence; Conviction by Circumstantial

Evidence.)

FACTS:

Gil Ramirez y Suyu was found guilty of rape, violation of Republic Act No.
7610, and attempted rape. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding
Ramirez guilty of rape but acquitting him of the remaining offenses.
The Supreme Court heard the matter on appeal.
The Court of Appeals convicted Ramirez of rape based on circumstantial
evidence. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to
prove Ramirez's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The victim, aged seven at the time of the alleged rape, testified in the case.
The Supreme Court considered the victim's testimony to be untrustworthy.
This significantly undermined the prosecution's case against Ramirez.
The Supreme Court reversed Ramirez's rape conviction. The Court of Appeals'
decision was overturned. Ramirez was acquitted of rape. The prosecution failed to
establish Ramirez's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The claims against Ramirez were based on assumptions and supposition rather
than real evidence. The absence of tangible proof damaged the prosecution's case.
As a result of the reversal of the conviction, Ramirez was acquitted of rape.
He was ordered to be released from detention, unless held for other lawful
cause. This means that Ramirez would be freed from custody, unless there were other
legal reasons for his continued detention.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the appellant's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of rape, violation of RA 7610, and attempted
rape.

RULING:

NO.

The Supreme Court reverses and set aside the Court of Appeals' ruling. The
appellant was acquitted of rape because the prosecution failed to show his guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. The Court concludes that the circumstantial evidence given by the
prosecution was insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. As a result, the appellant is
ordered to be released immediately, unless there is another valid reason for his
incarceration.
The Court emphasizes that in rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's
testimony is crucial. However, in this case, the Court finds that the complainant's
testimony created doubt as to whether rape was actually committed and as to the
identity of the perpetrator. The circumstances relied upon by the Court of Appeals
failed to sufficiently link the appellant to the crime. The Court reiterates that
speculation and probabilities cannot replace the proof required to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving
the appellant's guilt, and his acquittal is warranted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
WILSON RAMOS
G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018

TOPICS : ( Effect of Non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165; Prosecution of

Burden of Proof.)

FACTS:

Wilson Ramos y Cabanatan, the accused appellant, was convicted of Illegal Sale
of Dangerous Drugs. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) carried out a
buy-bust operation against Ramos, a prominent drug seller.
During the operation, the poseur-buyer demanded to view the drugs first, so
Ramos displayed five sachets of suspected shabu.
After the exchange of money and drugs, Ramos was arrested and the seized
items were subjected to inventory and photography in the presence of a barangay
official.
The seized items were later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Ramos's conviction

for the crime charged.

RULING:

NO.

The police officers made unwarranted departures from the chain of custody
regulation, jeopardizing the integrity and evidential value of the seized substances. The
inventory and picture of the confiscated objects were not done in front of
representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, as required by
law.
The prosecution failed to establish justifiable reasons for this noncompliance.
During the investigation by two forensic chemists, there was a weight mismatch
between the seized specimens, which the prosecution failed to explain.
These procedural lapses and the failure to justify them compromised the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Strict adherence to the chain of custody rule is critical to preserving the integrity
and evidential value of confiscated pharmaceuticals. However, strict compliance may
not always be feasible in a variety of field settings. In such cases, the prosecution must
provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance and prove that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
In this case, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the absence
of representatives from the DOJ and the media during the inventory and photography.
Additionally, the prosecution did not explain the discrepancy in the weight of the seized
specimens.
As a result, the Court acquitted Ramos and emphasized the duty of prosecutors
to prove compliance with the chain of custody procedure.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
SABAS RAQUEL
G.R. No. 119005 December 2, 1996

TOPICS : ( Admissions by a Conspirator.)

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Sabas Raquel and Valeriano Raquel were accused with

robbery and murder. The crime allegedly occurred on July 4, 1986, in Barangay Osias,
Kabacan, Cotabato. The victims were Agapito Gambalan, Jr. and his wife Juliet
Gambalan.
Juliet testified that her husband was shot by armed men who declared a hold-up.
She was not able to identify the assailants, but she saw one person fall beside
their water pump and two others running away.
Witness George Jovillano also saw three persons passing by but could not
recognize them.
Accused Amado Ponce, who was wounded and found near the crime scene,
implicated the Raquel brothers as his co-perpetrators.

ISSUE:

Whether or not prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused-
appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

NO.

The court acquitted Sabas Raquel and Valeriano Raquel of the crime charged.
The court ruled that the extrajudicial statement of Amado Ponce implicating the
appellants was inadmissible as evidence against them.
The court highlighted that extrajudicial statements made by an accused
implicating a co-accused must be repeated in open court.
The statement was made without the help of counsel, which makes it
inadmissible. The court applied the res inter alios rule, which states that an extrajudicial
confession is exclusively binding on the confessant and cannot be utilized against his
co-accused. The prosecution failed to prove the appellants' identities and participation
beyond reasonable doubt.
Extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused are inadmissible
unless repeated in open court.
Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation without the
assistance of counsel are inadmissible.
An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and not
admissible against his co-accused.
A conviction in a criminal case must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty
of guilt.
Every reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the
accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
RODRIGO SALAFRANCA y BELLO
 G.R. No. 173476. February 22, 2012

TOPICS : (The term res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances which
are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible
when illustrative of such act." The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the
res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to
be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.)

FACTS:

Bolanon was stabbed near the Del Pan Sports Complex in Binondo, Manila. His
assailant fled, but Bolanon was able to walk to his uncle Rodolfo B. Estaño's house to
seek help. His uncle rushed him to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab. On the
way to the hospital, Bolanon informed Estaño that Salafranca had stabbed him. Bolanon
died at the hospital at 2:30 a.m., despite receiving medical attention;... Augusto
Mendoza, a 13-year-old kid who was in the complex at the time, personally witnessed
Bolanon's stabbing.
Salafranca fled after stabbing Bolanon. He evaded arrest for a long period,
despite the warrant for his arrest being issued. He was finally arrested on April 23,
2003, and detained at the Manila City Jail.
The RTC convicted Salafranca, stating that the evidence is clear that Rodrigo
Salafranca delivered two (2) stabbing blows to the victim while holding Johnny
Bolanon with his left arm encircled around Bolanon's neck and stabbing the latter with
his right hand in the right subcostal area... Which resulted in Bolanon's death. Augusto
Mendoza's testimony was supported by Rodolfo Estaño, the victim's uncle who
accompanied Bolanon to the hospital. Estaño stated in court that he assisted Bolanon on
their journey to the hospital. The latter was having difficulty breathing, and victim
Bolanon was able to claim that Rodrigo Salafranca stabbed him.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the RTC, citing the
dying declaration made to his uncle pointing to Salafranca as his assailant, and
Salafranca's positive identification as the culprit by Mendoza.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a statement made to another person by a victim of murder before

he died is admissible as evidence.

RULING:

YES.

An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder, homicide, or paricide that

meets the conditions of admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent
jurisprudence is admissible either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestrae, or
both.
Generally, dying declaration is inadmissible as evidence being hearsay,
however, it may be admitted when the following requisites concur:
(a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances
of the declarant’s death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.

All the requisites were met. Bolanon communicated his statements, identifying
Salafranca as the person who had stabbed him; that at the time of his declaration, he
was conscious of his impending death. Bolanon died in the emergency room a few
minutes after admission, which occurred under three hours after the incident.
Furthermore, a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and is admissible in
evidence when the following requisites concur:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise;
and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.
The requisites for admissibility as part of the res gestae concur herein. That
when he gave the identity of the assailant, Bolanon was referring to a startling
occurrence, and had no time to contrive his identification. His utterance was made in
spontaneity and only in reaction to such startling occurrence. The statement was
relevant because it identified Salafranca as the perpetrator.
Hence, such circumstances are qualified as both a dying declaration and a part
of res gestae for having borne the requisites of the both principles.