ASG Law

Category: Criminal Law

  • Airport Frisking and Drug Transportation: Upholding Convictions Based on Reasonable Searches and Chain of Custody

    In People v. Hadji Socor Cadidia, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for transporting illegal drugs, emphasizing the validity of airport security procedures. The Court underscored that airport frisking is a reasonable search, balancing public safety with individual privacy expectations. Moreover, the ruling reiterated the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence, thereby solidifying the prosecution’s case.

    From Sanitary Napkin to Courtroom: How Airport Security Uncovered Drug Transportation

    The case originated on July 31, 2002, when Hadji Socor Cadidia was apprehended at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I while attempting to board a flight to Butuan City. During a routine frisking, a security personnel noticed an unusual bulge near Cadidia’s buttocks, which she initially attributed to a sanitary napkin. Unsatisfied with the explanation, the security personnel escorted Cadidia to a comfort room where a search revealed two sachets of shabu concealed within her underwear. This discovery led to her arrest and subsequent charge for violating Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically for transporting dangerous drugs.

    At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the airport security personnel involved in the arrest, Marilyn Trayvilla and Leilani M. Bagsican, and their supervisor, SPO3 Musalli I. Appang. These testimonies detailed the sequence of events from the initial frisking to the discovery and confiscation of the illegal drugs. The prosecution also presented forensic evidence confirming that the seized sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Despite some inconsistencies in the testimonies, the trial court found Cadidia guilty, a decision which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Cadidia then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the search and the integrity of the evidence presented against her.

    The accused-appellant raised two primary issues. First, she argued that the trial court erred in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt, citing conflicting testimonies from the prosecution witnesses. Second, she contended that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, thereby casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence. She pointed to minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the security personnel and questioned the handling of the seized drugs from the point of confiscation to their presentation in court.

    In addressing the inconsistencies in the testimonies, the Supreme Court emphasized that minor discrepancies do not negate the overall credibility of the witnesses. The Court reiterated the principle that law enforcement officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence to the contrary. This presumption holds significant weight, particularly in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Moreover, the Court noted that the evaluation of witness credibility is best left to the trial judge, who has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their truthfulness.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the critical issue of the chain of custody, which is essential in drug-related cases to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. The chain of custody refers to the sequence of individuals who handled the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Any break in this chain could raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence. According to Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:

    “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody [was] of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.”

    The Supreme Court, citing Mallillin v. People, highlighted the key requirements for establishing the chain of custody: (1) testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the item. In this case, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody. The Court noted that the seized drugs were properly marked, inventoried, and transmitted to the appropriate authorities for testing and safekeeping.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the constitutionality of airport searches, emphasizing the reduced expectation of privacy in such settings. The Court cited People v. Johnson and People v. Canton, explaining the rationale for the validity of airport frisking:

    Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure or their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack or subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures.  With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation’s airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage arc routinely subjected to x-ray scans.  Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are.  There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travellers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs  and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.

    Considering the gravity of the safety interests involved and the minimal intrusiveness of airport security procedures, the Court found the search conducted on Cadidia to be reasonable. The Court balanced the individual’s right to privacy against the state’s interest in ensuring public safety, particularly in preventing the transportation of illegal drugs and other harmful substances. The ruling reinforces the authority of airport security personnel to conduct thorough searches to safeguard the public from potential threats.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the accused was guilty of transporting illegal drugs and whether the evidence used against her was obtained legally and maintained with integrity. This involved assessing the validity of an airport search and the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
    Why was the airport search considered legal in this case? The airport search was deemed legal because airport security procedures necessitate a reduced expectation of privacy due to public safety concerns. The Court recognized the need for thorough searches to prevent the transportation of illegal substances, balancing individual rights with the state’s interest in ensuring safety.
    What is the chain of custody, and why is it important? The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of individuals who handle evidence, from seizure to court presentation. It is crucial to maintain the integrity and identity of the evidence, ensuring it has not been tampered with or altered.
    What did the prosecution need to prove to establish the chain of custody? The prosecution needed to provide testimony about every link in the chain, describing the precautions taken to ensure the evidence’s condition remained unchanged. They had to demonstrate that no one outside the chain had the opportunity to possess or alter the evidence.
    How did the Court address the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses? The Court reasoned that minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall credibility of witnesses, especially when they are law enforcement officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The focus was on the coherence and believability of the testimonies as a whole.
    What was the significance of the forensic evidence in this case? The forensic evidence confirming that the seized sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) was crucial in proving the nature of the illegal substance. This scientific confirmation strengthened the prosecution’s case against the accused.
    Can non-compliance with certain procedures invalidate the seizure of drugs? Not necessarily. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 state that non-compliance with procedural requirements does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
    What was the final outcome of the case? The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, upholding the conviction of Hadji Socor Cadidia for transporting illegal drugs. The Court found the search legal and the chain of custody adequately established.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Hadji Socor Cadidia reinforces the importance of airport security measures and the need to maintain an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases. This ruling serves as a reminder of the balance between individual rights and public safety, particularly in high-security environments like airports. It also highlights the critical role of law enforcement in preventing the transportation of illegal drugs, ensuring the safety and security of the community.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Cadidia, G.R. No. 191263, October 16, 2013

  • Estafa and Agency: Criminal Liability Cannot Be Extinguished by Contractual Novation

    In the case of Narciso Degaños v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed that novation does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court clarified that only the State has the authority to waive criminal action against an accused, and novation is relevant only when determining changes in the nature of an obligation before criminal prosecution begins. This decision underscores that while civil liabilities may be altered through contractual agreements, criminal responsibility for offenses like estafa remains a matter of public concern, prosecutable by the State irrespective of private settlements.

    From Commission to Crime: When a Sales Agreement Leads to Estafa Charges

    The case revolves around Narciso Degaños, who was charged with estafa for failing to remit proceeds from jewelry and gold items received from Spouses Jose and Lydia Bordador. The Bordadors claimed that Degaños received the items under an express obligation to sell them on commission and remit the proceeds or return the unsold items. The prosecution presented evidence showing a series of transactions documented in “Kasunduan at Katibayan” receipts, which outlined the terms of the consignment. According to Lydia Bordador, Degaños would receive jewelry to sell, and he was expected to either pay for the items after a month or return the unsold pieces.

    Degaños, however, argued that the agreement was one of sale on credit, not a consignment. He contended that his partial payments to the Bordadors novated the contract from agency to a loan, converting his liability from criminal to civil. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Degaños guilty, while the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, leading Degaños to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether the agreement constituted a sale on credit or an agency relationship, and if any subsequent novation could extinguish criminal liability for estafa.

    The Supreme Court disagreed with Degaños’s arguments, asserting that the transaction was indeed an agency, not a sale on credit. The Court emphasized the express terms of the “Kasunduan at Katibayan,” which stated that Degaños received the items to sell on behalf of the Bordadors, with his compensation being any overprice he obtained. According to the Court, this arrangement clearly indicated a consignment, where Degaños was obligated to account for the proceeds of the sale or return the unsold items. The Court quoted the agreement:

    KASUNDUAN AT KATIBAYAN
    x x x x

    Akong nakalagda sa ibaba nito ay nagpapatunay na tinanggap ko kay Ginang LYDIA BORDADOR ng Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan ang mga hiyas (jewelries) [sic] na natatala sa ibaba nito upang ipagbili ko sa kapakanan ng nasabing Ginang. Ang pagbibilhan ko sa nasabing mga hiyas ay aking ibibigay sa nasabing Ginang, sa loob ng __________ araw at ang hindi mabili ay aking isasauli sa kanya sa loob din ng nasabing taning na panahon sa mabuting kalagayan katulad ng aking tanggapin. Ang bilang kabayaran o pabuya sa akin ay ano mang halaga na aking mapalabis na mga halagang nakatala sa ibaba nito. Ako ay walang karapatang magpautang o kaya ay magpalako sa ibang tao ng nasabing mga hiyas.

    The Court contrasted this with a contract of sale, as defined in Article 1458 of the Civil Code, where one party obligates themselves to transfer ownership of and deliver a determinate thing, while the other party pays a price. As Degaños never gained ownership of the jewelry and gold, there was no sale on credit. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of novation, clarifying that partial payments and agreements to pay remaining obligations did not change the original agency relationship into a sale. Novation, as a concept, involves the extinguishment of an obligation by substituting a new one, either by changing the object or principal conditions, substituting the debtor, or subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.

    To extinguish an obligation, the extinguishment must be unequivocally declared or the old and new obligations must be entirely incompatible. The Supreme Court cited Quinto v. People to emphasize that novation is never presumed and must be clearly expressed by the parties or evident through their unequivocal acts. The decision highlighted the two ways novation could occur:

    • When it has been explicitly stated and declared in unequivocal terms.
    • When the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point.

    The Court noted that changes must be essential and not merely accidental to constitute incompatibility leading to novation. Degaños’s case only involved changes in the manner of payment, which was insufficient to extinguish the original obligation. The Supreme Court emphasized that novation is not a means recognized by the Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability, citing People v. Nery:

    The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state, only the latter can renounce it.

    According to the Supreme Court, novation’s role is limited to preventing criminal liability from arising or casting doubt on the nature of the original transaction. As such, because estafa is an offense against the state, only the state can waive the criminal action against the accused. The Court cited Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code, which list the grounds for extinguishing criminal liability, and noted that novation is not among them. Thus, novation is limited to the civil aspect of liability and is not an effective defense in estafa cases.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the agreement between Degaños and the Bordadors was a sale on credit or an agency relationship, and if the subsequent partial payments and proposal to pay the remaining balance amounted to a novation that extinguished criminal liability for estafa.
    What is estafa under Philippine law? Estafa is a form of fraud penalized under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which involves misappropriating or converting money or property received in trust or under an obligation to return it. This typically involves deceit, causing damage or prejudice to the offended party.
    What is novation, and how does it relate to contractual obligations? Novation is the extinguishment of an existing obligation by substituting it with a new one. This can occur by changing the object or principal conditions, substituting the debtor, or subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor, and it requires either an explicit declaration or complete incompatibility between the old and new obligations.
    Can criminal liability for estafa be extinguished by novation? No, criminal liability for estafa cannot be extinguished by novation. While novation can affect the civil aspect of the liability, it does not prevent the State from prosecuting the criminal offense, as the offense is against the State.
    What is the difference between a sale on credit and an agency relationship? In a sale on credit, ownership of the goods transfers to the buyer, who then owes the seller a debt. In an agency relationship, the agent does not acquire ownership but is tasked with selling goods on behalf of the principal, accounting for the proceeds.
    What was the court’s ruling on the type of agreement in this case? The court ruled that the agreement between Degaños and the Bordadors was an agency relationship. Degaños received the jewelry and gold items with the obligation to sell them on behalf of the Bordadors and remit the proceeds, thus making him an agent rather than a buyer on credit.
    What evidence did the court consider in determining the agreement type? The court considered the “Kasunduan at Katibayan” receipts, which expressly stated that Degaños received the items to sell on behalf of the Bordadors. The receipts detailed that Degaños was to remit the proceeds and would be compensated with any overprice he obtained, which indicated an agency agreement.
    What is the significance of the People vs. Nery case in relation to novation? The People vs. Nery case clarifies that while novation might alter the relationship between parties before a criminal information is filed, it cannot divest the State of its power to prosecute a criminal offense once legal authorities have taken cognizance of the crime.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Degaños v. People reaffirms the principle that criminal liability for estafa is a matter of public concern and cannot be compromised by private agreements. The ruling emphasizes that while parties may alter their contractual relationships, criminal liability for offenses like estafa remains prosecutable by the State, regardless of any civil settlements or arrangements. This ensures that individuals who commit fraudulent acts are held accountable under the law, maintaining the integrity of commercial transactions and protecting the public interest.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Narciso Degaños v. People, G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013

  • Mitigating Circumstances and the Downgrading of Criminal Liability: Voluntary Surrender in Homicide Cases

    In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Placer, the Supreme Court clarified that while a claim of self-defense was unsubstantiated, the presence of a mitigating circumstance—voluntary surrender—can lead to a downgrade in the charge from murder to homicide. This decision underscores the importance of proving treachery beyond reasonable doubt to secure a murder conviction. Furthermore, it highlights how acknowledging guilt and voluntarily surrendering to authorities can significantly affect the severity of the penalty imposed, even benefiting a co-accused who did not appeal.

    From Heated Altercation to Homicide: When Does Self-Defense Fail and Voluntary Surrender Mitigate?

    The narrative unfolds on June 24, 2001, in Sorsogon, when a near-collision between tricycles led to a fatal confrontation. Ramon Placer and his brother Virgilio were initially charged with murder for the death of Rosalino Gernale. The prosecution argued that the killing was attended by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. However, Ramon contended that he acted in self-defense after being attacked by Rosalino. This claim of self-defense shifted the burden of proof onto Ramon, requiring him to demonstrate that unlawful aggression originated from the victim, that there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the attack, and that there was a lack of sufficient provocation on his part.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense. As the Court explained in People v. Nugas:

    x x x. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

    In this instance, the evidence indicated that Ramon initiated the aggression, negating his claim of self-defense. The confrontation arose from the near-collision, escalating when Ramon and Virgilio blocked Rosalino’s tricycle. The Court determined that Ramon’s actions instigated the violence, thereby undermining any basis for self-defense.

    However, the Court found the prosecution’s charge of murder unsustainable, specifically concerning the element of treachery. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines murder, in part, as the unlawful killing of another person with treachery:

    Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

    1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

    The essence of treachery lies in the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court noted that the preceding altercations between the parties placed Rosalino on guard, negating the element of surprise necessary for treachery. The stabbing was not sudden or unexpected but followed a heated exchange, thus failing to meet the legal standard for treachery.

    Consequently, the Supreme Court reclassified the crime as homicide, punishable under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code:

    Article 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

    The Court also considered Ramon’s voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. The requisites for voluntary surrender are: (1) the accused has not been actually arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. Ramon met these conditions by surrendering to Barangay Chairman Rey Loilo, who then turned him over to the police, along with the weapon used in the stabbing. This act demonstrated Ramon’s intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities.

    The Supreme Court also extended the benefit of the downgraded charge to Virgilio, despite his having withdrawn his appeal. The court reasoned that a more lenient sentence should apply to Virgilio, aligning his punishment with the revised understanding of the crime as homicide rather than murder. By downgrading the charge, it correspondingly reduced Virgilio’s sentence to reflect his role as an accomplice in a homicide, not a murder, illustrating the principle that criminal liability should align with the gravity of the offense committed.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the crime committed was murder, which requires treachery, or the lesser crime of homicide, and whether voluntary surrender should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
    What is required to prove self-defense? To prove self-defense, the accused must show unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent the attack, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending themselves.
    What constitutes treachery in a murder case? Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
    What are the requirements for voluntary surrender to be considered a mitigating circumstance? The accused must not have been arrested, must surrender to a person in authority or their agent, and the surrender must be voluntary.
    Why was the charge against Ramon Placer reduced from murder to homicide? The charge was reduced because the element of treachery, which is necessary for a murder conviction, was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    How did Ramon Placer’s voluntary surrender affect his sentence? His voluntary surrender was considered a mitigating circumstance, which led to a lower penalty being imposed within the range prescribed for homicide.
    Did Virgilio Placer benefit from the Supreme Court’s decision, even though he did not appeal? Yes, Virgilio benefited because the Supreme Court downgraded the charge to homicide, which resulted in a lighter sentence for him as an accomplice.
    What is the penalty for homicide under the Revised Penal Code? The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, which ranges from twelve years and one day to twenty years.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Ramon Placer underscores the nuanced application of criminal law principles, especially concerning self-defense, treachery, and mitigating circumstances. This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of meticulously proving each element of a crime and carefully evaluating the circumstances surrounding it to ensure justice is served.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Placer, G.R. No. 181753, October 09, 2013

  • Chain of Custody: Safeguarding Drug Evidence in Philippine Law

    In People v. Guzon, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drug, casting reasonable doubt on the evidence. This ruling underscores the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence, emphasizing that the integrity of the corpus delicti must be preserved to ensure a fair trial and prevent wrongful convictions. The court emphasized that gaps in the chain of custody, coupled with procedural lapses, raise significant questions about the authenticity of the evidence. Ultimately, the prosecution’s failure to convincingly demonstrate that the substance presented in court was the same one seized from the accused led to the acquittal, reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases.

    Buy-Bust Gone Bust: When a Tainted Chain of Custody Leads to Acquittal

    Garyzaldy Guzon was charged with the illegal sale of shabu, a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation, where a police asset allegedly purchased shabu from Guzon. However, the Supreme Court found significant lapses in how the police handled the seized drug, specifically regarding the chain of custody. This case highlights the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and reliability of evidence in drug cases.

    The chain of custody, in essence, refers to the meticulous record of who handled the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This includes the authorized movements and custody of seized drugs, from confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, and ultimately, presentation in court for destruction. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that this rule is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard to ensure that the substance presented in court is the same one taken from the suspect. The chain of custody ensures the identity of the drug is established with unwavering accuracy, a necessity for a finding of guilt.

    To prevent any doubt or abuse in handling seized substances, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 lays down specific requirements for law enforcement officers. This section stipulates that:

    Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

    (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

    In this case, the Court identified several critical failures in adhering to these requirements. First, the police officers did not immediately mark the seized item after confiscating it from Guzon. The marking of seized drugs immediately after seizure is crucial because it serves as the starting point in the custodial link. The Supreme Court has stressed that:

    Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence.

    Instead of immediate marking, the officer marked the drug with his initials only upon arrival at the police station. Additionally, the required inventory of seized items was deficient. The law mandates that the inventory must be conducted in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. The Certification/Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items in this case only bore the signatures of the apprehending officers, failing to include the necessary witnesses. Furthermore, no photograph of the seized item, as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, was presented as part of the case records. These lapses, taken together, created significant doubt regarding the authenticity of the evidence.

    A significant discrepancy was found in the weight of the seized item. The inventory prepared by the police officers indicated that the item weighed approximately 0.01 gram, including the plastic material. However, the forensic chemist’s report stated that the specimen examined weighed 0.06 gram, excluding the plastic container. This variance in weight remained unexplained by the prosecution, casting further doubt on whether the substance examined was the same one seized from Guzon. Because of the above lapses, the Court then cited,

    As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

    Finally, the Court also noted the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer as a witness, emphasizing that this individual was crucial to proving that the sale of drugs actually occurred. Since the police officers were positioned some distance away from the alleged transaction, their testimony was based on conjecture and hearsay. The poseur-buyer’s absence meant that there was no direct eyewitness account of the sale, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

    In light of these multiple failures, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted Garyzaldy Guzon. The Court reiterated that a conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Guzon, underscoring the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair and just outcomes.

    FAQs

    What is the key issue in this case? The key issue is whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drug, which is essential to establishing the corpus delicti in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to do so, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
    What is chain of custody? Chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of individuals who handle evidence, from its seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by tracking its movement and custody.
    What are the requirements for chain of custody under R.A. 9165? R.A. 9165 requires that the seized drugs be immediately inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and a copy must be given to them.
    What happens if the chain of custody is broken? If the chain of custody is broken, it casts doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence. This can lead to the exclusion of the evidence and potentially the acquittal of the accused.
    Why is immediate marking of seized drugs important? Immediate marking of seized drugs is crucial because it serves as the starting point in the custodial link. It helps to differentiate the seized evidence from other similar substances and prevents switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
    What was the significance of the weight discrepancy in this case? The discrepancy between the weight of the drug seized and the weight of the drug examined by the forensic chemist raised doubts about whether the substance examined was the same one seized from the accused. The police reported a weight of 0.01 gram, while the forensic chemist reported 0.06 gram.
    Why was the poseur-buyer’s testimony important in this case? The poseur-buyer was the only direct witness to the alleged sale transaction. The police officers were too far away to hear or see the transaction clearly, making the poseur-buyer’s testimony essential to proving that the sale actually occurred.
    What is the presumption of regularity, and how does it apply here? The presumption of regularity assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties properly. However, this presumption is negated when there are significant lapses in following the required procedures, as was the case here, according to the Court.

    The People v. Guzon case serves as a reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality but a critical protection against wrongful convictions. Law enforcement officers must diligently follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the integrity and reliability of drug evidence. Failure to do so can have serious consequences, as demonstrated by Guzon’s acquittal, and can undermine the pursuit of justice.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GARYZALDY GUZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 199901, October 09, 2013

  • Treachery and Premeditation: Establishing Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Murder Cases

    In People v. Galicia, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Aldrin M. Galicia for murder, emphasizing the weight given to trial court findings when supported by evidence. The decision clarifies how inconsistencies in witness testimonies are treated and underscores the importance of positive identification in establishing guilt. It also discusses the application of treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying and aggravating circumstances, respectively, impacting the final penalty and damages awarded to the victim’s heirs. This case reinforces the principle that factual findings of lower courts, when well-supported, are conclusive, and it highlights the nuances of assessing witness credibility and the appreciation of aggravating circumstances in criminal law.

    When Eyewitness Accounts and Circumstantial Evidence Converge: Resolving Discrepancies to Establish Criminal Intent

    The case of People of the Philippines vs. Aldrin M. Galicia revolves around the fatal shooting of Judge Voltaire Rosales. Aldrin Galicia was accused of driving the motorcycle while his accomplice, Jun Asuncion, shot and killed the judge. The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts from Maricel Flores and Ramil Enriquez, who placed Galicia at the scene. Flores saw Galicia with another man before and after the shooting, while Enriquez claimed to witness the shooting itself, identifying Galicia as the driver. Galicia’s defense centered on alibi and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The trial court convicted Galicia of murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, addressed the core issue of conflicting testimonies. It emphasized the established principle that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive when supported by the evidence. Citing People v. Barde, the Court reiterated its restraint in interfering with the trial court’s assessment of witnesses’ credibility, absent any indication of overlooked material facts or grave abuse of discretion. As the court stated:

    factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.

    The Court underscored that only a showing of a significant oversight could warrant a reversal. The defense highlighted discrepancies between the testimonies and affidavits of Flores and Enriquez, challenging their credibility. For example, Flores initially identified Galicia as the man driving the motorcycle but later contradicted herself, while Enriquez provided inconsistent details about the location and description of the motorcycle in his sworn statement.

    The Court addressed these inconsistencies by invoking the principle established in People v. Villadares, which states that discrepancies between a witness’ affidavit and testimony do not necessarily impair credibility. This is because affidavits are often taken ex parte and may lack the thoroughness of in-court examinations. The critical factor, according to the Court, is whether the trial court’s findings and conclusions are supported by the overall evidence. Flores’ testimony placed Galicia at the scene before and after the shooting, while Enriquez provided details about the actual shooting. The Court found that the combined testimonies of Flores and Enriquez, supported by physical evidence and the medico-legal report, established Galicia’s culpability.

    The testimony of Flores put the accused at the scene. She positively identified Galicia as one of the motorcycle riders present before and after the shooting. She recounted that Galicia’s companion approached her, standing merely 3 to 4 meters away, while Galicia remained on the motorcycle. She had a clear view of both men and was able to describe their physical features, identifying Galicia in court. The fact that Flores did not witness the actual shooting was not seen as a hindrance, as her testimony, combined with Enriquez’s account, created a coherent picture of the events.

    The inconsistencies cited by the defense, such as the color of Galicia’s clothes, the type of motorcycle, and his height, were deemed trivial and insufficient to undermine the witnesses’ credibility. The Court reiterated the importance of the trial court’s direct observation of witnesses’ demeanor, allowing them to determine the truthfulness of testimonies. The Court further held that any variance in the testimonies of Flores and Enriquez was natural, and the witnesses’ failure to immediately disclose what they witnessed was inconsequential. The significant factor was the categorical identification of Galicia as responsible for the crime.

    The Court also considered the absence of ill motive on the part of the witnesses. Citing People v. Nogra, the Court stated that when there is no evidence of improper motive, the witnesses’ positive declarations deserve full faith and credence. This principle underscores the importance of assessing potential biases that could influence testimony. The defense’s alibi was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, further weakening their case. The Court agreed with the lower courts that treachery attended the killing of Judge Rosales. The attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim without an opportunity to defend himself.

    The Court further addressed the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, disagreeing with the CA’s finding. The essence of evident premeditation is the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The time that elapsed while the accused waited for their victim was indicative of cool thought and reflection. As such, the Court was convinced that the elements of evident premeditation were established. Given that the crime was already qualified as murder by treachery, the Court appreciated evident premeditation as a generic aggravating circumstance.

    Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, murder qualified by treachery carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. In this case, with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, the death penalty would have been appropriate. However, due to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the lower courts correctly sentenced Galicia to reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the award of damages. It increased moral damages from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00, recognizing the emotional pain and anguish experienced by the victim’s family. The Court also increased civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00, in line with its ruling in People v. Halil Gambao, et al. Additionally, exemplary damages of P100,000.00 were awarded, and interest at the legal rate of 6% was imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses were significant enough to cast doubt on Galicia’s guilt, and whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were properly appreciated.
    What is the legal significance of witness inconsistencies? The Supreme Court clarified that discrepancies between a witness’ affidavit and testimony do not automatically discredit them, especially if the core of their testimony remains consistent and credible. This is because affidavits are often incomplete and lack the thoroughness of in-court examinations.
    How did the court address the issue of conflicting statements? The court emphasized that minor inconsistencies are natural and do not necessarily impair credibility, focusing instead on the overall coherence of the witnesses’ accounts and their alignment with physical evidence. It is more important to look at the totality of the statements.
    What is treachery and how did it apply in this case? Treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the attacker. The Court agreed with the lower courts that treachery was present because the attack on Judge Rosales was sudden and gave him no chance to defend himself.
    What is evident premeditation and how did it affect the outcome? Evident premeditation requires planning and preparation, showing a cool and reflective assessment of the crime before its execution. Though the Court agreed the circumstances warranted evident premeditation it considered the fact that treachery already qualified the crime and instead used premeditation as an aggravating circumstance.
    What damages were awarded to the victim’s family? The Supreme Court ordered Galicia to pay the heirs of Judge Voltaire Rosales P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest from the finality of the decision. This was an increase from the lower court’s award for civil and moral damages.
    Why wasn’t the death penalty imposed? Although the crime, with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, could have warranted the death penalty, Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits its imposition in the Philippines, leading to a sentence of reclusion perpetua.
    What is the significance of positive identification in this case? Positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses is crucial for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the eyewitnesses’ accounts, despite minor inconsistencies, positively identified Galicia as being involved in the crime.

    The Galicia case serves as a reminder of the complexities in evaluating evidence and witness credibility in criminal trials. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of deferring to the factual findings of lower courts when supported by evidence and highlights the impact of qualifying and aggravating circumstances on the determination of penalties and damages. Understanding the nuances of this case is essential for legal professionals and anyone interested in the intricacies of Philippine criminal law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Galicia, G.R. No. 191063, October 09, 2013

  • The Credibility of a Rape Victim: Overcoming Delay in Reporting and Lack of Medical Evidence

    In rape cases, a victim’s testimony can be enough to convict the accused, even without immediate reporting or medical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle, emphasizing that a victim’s credible testimony is sufficient. This means survivors who delay reporting due to fear or lack immediate medical examination can still seek justice, as the court prioritizes their testimony when found convincing and consistent.

    When Silence Speaks: The Fear Factor in Rape Cases

    The case of People of the Philippines vs. Florentino Galagar, Jr. revolves around the alleged rape of AAA by Galagar. AAA testified that Galagar, armed with a knife, forcibly entered her home and sexually assaulted her. She initially kept silent due to fear for her family’s safety, reporting the incident only after her husband returned home. The central legal question is whether AAA’s delayed reporting and the absence of a medical examination undermine her credibility as a rape victim, especially when weighed against the accused’s alibi.

    The accused-appellant presented an alibi, claiming he was on duty as part of the Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO) at the time of the alleged rape. He presented witnesses to corroborate his claim. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Galagar guilty, giving credence to AAA’s testimony. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, adding an award for exemplary damages. Galagar then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower courts’ assessment of AAA’s credibility and the strength of his alibi.

    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of the victim’s testimony. The Court noted that both the RTC and CA found AAA’s testimony to be straightforward, convincing, and consistent. The court acknowledged AAA’s initial silence, stating, “[I]t is well entrenched that delay in reporting rape cases does not by itself undermine the charge, where the delay is grounded in threats from the accused.’ Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief.” This recognition acknowledges the psychological and emotional factors that often prevent victims from immediately reporting sexual assault.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court addressed the absence of a medical report. Citing People v. Dion, the Court reiterated that a medical examination is not essential to prove rape. The Court clarified:

    “The medical examination of the victim and the corresponding medical certificate are merely corroborative pieces of evidence.”

    This means that while medical evidence can support a rape allegation, it is not indispensable. The victim’s testimony alone, if credible, can suffice for a conviction. This is particularly significant in cases where victims may not have immediate access to medical care or may choose not to undergo examination due to personal reasons.

    The Court contrasted AAA’s credible testimony with the weaknesses in Galagar’s alibi. The RTC and CA noted inconsistencies between Galagar’s and his witness’s testimonies. Furthermore, the defense failed to present other members of the CVO who could have corroborated Galagar’s presence at the outpost. The Court found that the proximity of the outpost to AAA’s house undermined the alibi’s credibility. This illustrates the importance of a strong, consistent alibi in challenging a rape accusation. The court also stated that, “for alibi to prosper it must be so convincing so as to preclude any doubt of the accused-appellant’s physical presence at the crime scene at the time of the incident.”

    Regarding the appropriate penalties and damages, the Supreme Court referenced People v. Macapanas to clarify the sentencing guidelines for rape under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Since the accused used a deadly weapon, it qualified as a qualified form of rape. The Court then modified the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals.

    “Under the present law, an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. This is exclusive of the award of moral damages of P50,000.00, without need of further proof.”

    The Court reduced civil indemnity and moral damages to P50,000 each, while maintaining exemplary damages at P30,000. The Court also emphasized that the accused is not eligible for parole.

    The Supreme Court also added that the amounts awarded to the victim shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. This detail is essential to ensure that the victim receives appropriate compensation, and the accused is not eligible for parole. This detail underscores the court’s commitment to providing comprehensive justice to the victim.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the victim’s delayed reporting of the rape and the lack of medical evidence undermined her credibility and the prosecution’s case.
    Did the court require medical evidence to prove the rape? No, the court stated that medical evidence is not essential to prove rape. The victim’s credible testimony alone can be sufficient for a conviction.
    Why did the victim delay reporting the rape? The victim delayed reporting the rape due to fear for her and her family’s safety, as she was threatened by the accused.
    What was the accused’s defense? The accused presented an alibi, claiming he was on duty with the Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO) at the time of the rape.
    How did the court assess the accused’s alibi? The court found the alibi to be weak and inconsistent, noting contradictions in the testimonies of the accused and his witnesses.
    What penalties and damages were imposed? The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages. He is not eligible for parole.
    What is the significance of the People v. Macapanas case? People v. Macapanas was referenced to clarify the sentencing guidelines for rape under the Revised Penal Code, especially when a deadly weapon is used.
    What interest rate applies to the awarded damages? The damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the resolution until fully paid.

    This case underscores the Philippine legal system’s recognition of the trauma and complexities surrounding rape cases. By affirming that a victim’s credible testimony can be sufficient for conviction, the Court provides a crucial safeguard for survivors. This ruling highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case, particularly the psychological impact on the victim, rather than relying solely on immediate reporting or medical evidence.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People vs. Galagar, G.R. No. 202842, October 09, 2013

  • Guilt Beyond Doubt: Circumstantial Evidence in Philippine Murder Convictions

    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ricardo Dearo and Wilfredo Toledo for three counts of murder, emphasizing the validity of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court underscored that even without direct witnesses, a combination of interconnected circumstances can sufficiently prove the accused’s involvement in the crime. This ruling reinforces the principle that the prosecution’s case can stand strong on the consistent and logical links between events, solidifying the foundation of justice in cases where direct proof is absent.

    From Land Disputes to Deadly Conspiracy: Unraveling Murder Through Circumstantial Evidence

    This case revolves around the tragic deaths of Emeterio Santiago, Porferia Luague Guardario, and Analiza Guardario in Bugay, Bayawan, Negros Oriental. The victims were attending a fiesta celebration before seeking shelter at Jose Jaro’s house, where they were fatally attacked. Central to the prosecution’s case was the theory that a land dispute fueled the violence. Specifically, Paulino Luague, brother of Porferia, was embroiled in a heated disagreement over their inherited land. Emeterio, as the overseer of the land and with a prior confrontation with Luague, and Porferia, due to the land dispute, became targets.

    The prosecution presented a series of interconnected events that led the court to infer the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The foundation of this was the rule on circumstantial evidence. Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, elucidates the standard for circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction, stating:

    SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

    (a)
    There is more than one circumstance;
    (b)
    The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
    (c)
    The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

    The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances must be consistent with each other, support the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and be inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused is innocent. As the Supreme Court noted, “Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.”

    The specific circumstances highlighted by the court include Luague’s dispute with Porferia, Emeterio’s role as overseer, Dearo’s threat to kill Emeterio three days prior, the sound of a gunshot followed by Luague’s incriminating statement, the cries for help and subsequent gunfire, the emergence of Dearo and Toledo carrying firearms, and the discovery of the victims with gunshot wounds. The ballistic examination further confirmed that the recovered fragments matched the M-16 rifles that Dearo and Toledo carried. The court found that these circumstances, when considered together, convincingly pointed to the guilt of the accused.

    Dearo and Toledo raised arguments regarding the lighting conditions at the scene, suggesting that it was insufficient for positive identification. However, the Court dismissed this claim, emphasizing that Jose and Rolly clearly recognized the appellants. The court pointed out that the witnesses were familiar with the accused, further substantiating the reliability of their identification. Dearo, as the barangay captain, Toledo, as a CAFGU member, and Luague, as Jose’s close friend, were all well-known figures to the witnesses, solidifying their positive identification.

    The defense also tried to discredit Jose’s testimony, pointing out that he initially did not name any suspects when interviewed by the Bayawan police. The Court gave credence to the CA’s observation that Jose initially did not want to get involved and only told his relatives about what he saw, and was scared for his life, considering that the killing took place in his house, that he moved from Bugay, Bayawan, Negros Oriental, after the incident. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings, emphasizing that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution met the required threshold for conviction.

    The Court also found that the crime was aggravated by treachery, noting that the victims were asleep and unable to defend themselves when the attack occurred. “There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.” The Court highlighted that treachery is present when an assailant takes advantage of a victim who is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened.

    Moreover, the Court determined that evident premeditation was also present, as evidenced by Luague’s grudge against Porferia and Dearo’s prior threat against Emeterio. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. These findings led the Court to uphold the original conviction of murder. Because of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, the court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the guilt of Ricardo Dearo and Wilfredo Toledo for the murder of Emeterio Santiago, Porferia Luague Guardario, and Analiza Guardario was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
    What is circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies a fact, from which a court can infer other facts. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, there must be more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived must be proven, and the combination of all the circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
    What is treachery? Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. It is present when the victim is attacked while asleep or otherwise unable to defend themselves.
    What is evident premeditation? Evident premeditation is a qualifying circumstance where the execution of a criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during a sufficient period to arrive at a calm judgment. This implies that the accused had time to consider their actions before committing the crime.
    What was the sentence imposed on the accused? Ricardo Dearo and Wilfredo Toledo were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each of the three counts of murder.
    What damages were awarded to the victims’ heirs? The Court ordered Dearo and Toledo to pay the heirs of each victim P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages, and P25,000 as temperate damages, plus legal interest at the rate of 6% from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
    Why was the death penalty not imposed? The death penalty was not imposed because it has been prohibited in the Philippines by Republic Act No. 9346, which took effect on June 24, 2006.
    How does a land dispute relate to the murders in this case? The land dispute between Paulino Luague and his sister Porferia Luague Guardario served as a motive for the crime, as Emeterio Santiago was the overseer of the disputed land, leading to animosity and threats. The land dispute and prior threats helped establish premeditation and motive in the case.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder of the power and validity of circumstantial evidence in the Philippine legal system. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that a conviction can be sustained even in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, provided that the circumstances form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This ruling highlights the importance of thorough investigation and meticulous presentation of evidence in prosecuting complex criminal cases.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO DEARO, ET AL., G.R. No. 190862, October 09, 2013

  • Dismissal for Drug Use: Upholding Integrity in the Judiciary

    The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Reynard B. Castor, an Electrician II, for grave misconduct after testing positive for methamphetamine (shabu). This decision underscores the judiciary’s strict stance against drug use among its personnel, emphasizing that such actions undermine public trust and violate the norms of conduct expected of public servants. The Court emphasized that drug use constitutes grave misconduct, warranting dismissal even for a first offense, to maintain the integrity and accountability of the judicial system.

    Shabu in the System: Can a Court Employee’s Vice Justify Dismissal?

    This case originated from Reynard B. Castor’s frequent absences, which prompted a medical evaluation. The evaluation included a random drug test that revealed Castor’s use of methamphetamine. While Castor admitted to using the drug due to personal problems and sought leniency, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) recommended a six-month suspension for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, the Supreme Court took a more stringent view, ultimately finding Castor liable for grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal.

    The central legal question revolved around the severity of the misconduct committed by Castor. The OAS initially characterized it as simple misconduct, while the Supreme Court determined it to be grave, considering the violation of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165, which prohibits the use of dangerous drugs. The Court emphasized that as an employee of the judiciary, Castor’s actions had a direct impact on the institution’s integrity. The court in OCA v. Reyes stated:

    “The Court is a temple of justice. Its basic duty and responsibility is the dispensation of justice. As dispensers of justice, all members and employees of the Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly to the laws of the land, one of which is Republic Act (R.A.) 9165, which prohibits the use of dangerous drugs.”

    The Court referenced Section 36, paragraph (d) of R.A. 9165, which mandates random drug testing for officers and employees in both public and private sectors, with positive results leading to administrative consequences, including suspension or termination. Moreover, the Court’s Memorandum Order No. 18-2005 and A.M. No. 06-1-01-SC established a drug prevention program and guidelines within the Judiciary.

    The Supreme Court distinguished between simple and grave misconduct, clarifying that grave misconduct involves elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard established rules. While Castor argued unintentional drug use, the Court considered his positive drug test as substantial evidence of a flagrant violation, thus constituting grave misconduct. Furthermore, Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 13, series of 2010, explicitly states that any official or employee found positive for dangerous drug use shall face dismissal from service, even for the first offense.

    The Court cited Section 46(A)(3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), which classifies grave misconduct as a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense. This legal framework, combined with the specific guidelines for drug-free workplaces in the bureaucracy, solidified the basis for Castor’s dismissal.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust, requiring public officers and employees to be accountable, responsible, and act with integrity. The Court stressed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the Judiciary, stating that any conduct that diminishes this faith cannot be tolerated. As mentioned in Office of the Court Administrator v. Reyes:

    The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat. The conduct of a person serving the Judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the Judiciary.

    Ultimately, the Court’s decision to dismiss Castor was rooted in the need to uphold the integrity of the Judiciary and to send a clear message that drug use will not be tolerated. This ruling has significant implications for all employees of the Judiciary, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the highest standards of conduct and accountability.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Reynard B. Castor’s positive drug test constituted grave misconduct warranting dismissal from his position in the Judiciary.
    What drug was Castor found to have used? Castor tested positive for methamphetamine, commonly known as shabu, a prohibited drug under Philippine law.
    What was the initial recommendation by the OAS? The OAS initially recommended a six-month suspension for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
    Why did the Supreme Court increase the penalty? The Supreme Court determined that Castor’s actions constituted grave misconduct due to the violation of R.A. 9165 and the established guidelines for a drug-free workplace in the Judiciary.
    What is the penalty for grave misconduct in the civil service? Under Section 46(A)(3), Rule 10 of the RRACCS, grave misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal, even for the first offense.
    What is the basis for mandatory drug testing in the Judiciary? The basis is Section 36(d) of R.A. 9165, along with the Court’s Memorandum Order No. 18-2005 and A.M. No. 06-1-01-SC, which established a drug prevention program and guidelines.
    What was Castor’s defense? Castor admitted to using prohibited drugs unintentionally due to emotional and financial problems. He asked for leniency and promised it would not happen again.
    What does the Constitution say about public office? The Constitution mandates that public office is a public trust, requiring public officers and employees to be accountable, responsible, and act with integrity.
    What are the implications of this ruling for Judiciary employees? The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the highest standards of conduct and accountability, with zero tolerance for drug use.

    This case underscores the unwavering commitment of the Philippine Supreme Court to maintaining the integrity and accountability of the Judiciary. The strict enforcement of drug-free workplace policies serves as a deterrent and reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, demanding the highest standards of conduct. The decision serves as a reminder to all public servants of their responsibility to uphold the law and maintain the public’s trust.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED USE OF PROHIBITED DRUG (“SHABU”) OF REYNARD B. CASTOR, ELECTRICIAN II, MAINTENANCE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES., A.M. No. 2013-08-SC, October 08, 2013

  • Protecting Childhood: Upholding Conviction in Statutory Rape Case Despite Lack of Fresh Physical Evidence

    In People v. Rodolfo de Jesus, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for statutory rape, emphasizing the vulnerability of child victims and the reliability of their testimonies. The Court underscored that the absence of fresh physical evidence does not negate the crime when the victim’s testimony is credible and corroborated. This decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to children and affirms the principle that their accounts of abuse are of paramount importance in judicial proceedings.

    Justice for the Helpless: How the Testimony of a Child Led to the Conviction of a Sex Offender

    This case revolves around Rodolfo de Jesus, who was accused of raping an 11-year-old girl, referred to as “AAA,” at the Pasig public market. The prosecution presented “AAA” as a witness, detailing how De Jesus forcibly took her to the fourth floor of a nearby parking plaza, where the crime occurred. Her testimony was corroborated by a security guard, Michael Boca, who witnessed the assault. The defense, led by De Jesus himself, denied the charges, claiming he was merely standing nearby when “AAA” was urinating and that the security guard’s testimony was fabricated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found De Jesus guilty, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The central legal question is whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially considering the defense’s challenge to the credibility of the victim and the absence of fresh physical evidence.

    The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which was deemed consistent and convincing. The Court noted that the testimony of child victims is given significant weight, particularly when they recount the events with clarity and consistency. As the Court articulated,

    Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA could not have invented a horrible story. x x x

    The testimony of the security guard, Michael Boca, served as crucial corroboration of “AAA’s” account. Boca’s presence at the scene and his detailed description of the events provided additional support for the prosecution’s case. His testimony aligned with “AAA’s” narrative, further strengthening the evidence against De Jesus. Boca stated:

    I heard a child shouting “hwag po.”… When I [heard] the child, I went where they were located, and I saw Rodolfo de Jesus na naka angkla po si de Jesus kay “AAA”… Her shorts, I saw that it was removed by the accused and the accused forcibly placed his organ [into] her.

    The defense argued that the medical examination results, which indicated old healed lacerations, contradicted the claim of recent sexual assault. The Court, however, dismissed this argument, citing established jurisprudence that the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate the occurrence of rape. The Court emphasized that medical examinations serve as corroborative evidence but are not indispensable to proving the crime. The presence of any blunt penetrating force is enough to show that sexual abuse happened. It’s important to note that the Court referenced People v. Amistoso stating that the fact that the examining doctor found healed lacerations “does not negatively affect AAA’s credibility nor disprove her rape.”

    The ruling also addressed the elements of statutory rape as defined in the Revised Penal Code. Article 266-A defines rape, and Article 266-B prescribes the penalties. The Court clarified that statutory rape occurs when the victim is under twelve years of age, and the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether force, threat, or intimidation is present. The prosecution successfully established both elements, proving that “AAA” was 11 years old at the time of the incident and that De Jesus had carnal knowledge of her. Specifically, the Court cited the following:

    Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –

    1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

    d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;

    Art. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of damages, affirming the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the lower courts. The Court further awarded exemplary damages to “AAA,” underscoring the need to deter such heinous acts and to provide additional compensation to the victim for the trauma she endured. The Court cited the following about damages,

    There is no longer any debate that the victim in statutory rape is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. The award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Similarly, the award of moral damages of P50,000.00 is mandatory, and made without need of allegation and proof other than that of the fact of rape, for it is logically assumed that the victim suffered moral injuries from her ordeal. In addition, exemplary damages of P30,000.00 are justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set an example for the public good and to serve as deterrent to those who abuse the young.

    The Court found the appellant’s defense to be unconvincing, citing the improbability of an 11-year-old child urinating near the stairs of a public market in plain view of others. This implausibility further undermined the credibility of the defense’s narrative and supported the prosecution’s case. In essence, the decision underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable members of society, particularly children, from sexual abuse.

    The case highlights the critical role of witness testimony, particularly from victims and credible witnesses, in proving the elements of the crime. It also reinforces the principle that medical evidence is not the sole determinant in rape cases and that the totality of evidence must be considered. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a strong message against child abuse and affirms the legal system’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and well-being of children.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Rodolfo de Jesus committed statutory rape against an 11-year-old girl, despite the defense’s claims and the lack of fresh physical evidence.
    What is statutory rape? Statutory rape is defined as carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 12. This is regardless of whether force, threat, or intimidation is present.
    Why was the testimony of the child victim so important in this case? The testimony of the child victim was crucial because courts give significant weight to the accounts of child victims, recognizing their vulnerability and the unlikelihood of fabricating such traumatic experiences. In this case, “AAA’s” testimony was found to be consistent, credible, and convincing by the court.
    What role did the security guard’s testimony play? The security guard’s testimony played a crucial role in corroborating the victim’s account of the rape. His independent eyewitness account strengthened the prosecution’s case.
    How did the Court address the issue of the old lacerations found during the medical examination? The Court addressed the issue by stating that the absence of fresh lacerations does not disprove rape. The medical examination is considered corroborative and not indispensable.
    What damages were awarded to the victim? The victim was awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. The Court also ordered that all damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
    What is the significance of exemplary damages in this case? Exemplary damages are awarded to set an example for the public good and to serve as a deterrent to those who abuse the young. In this case, it underscores the Court’s condemnation of the act and its commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse.
    Can a person be convicted of statutory rape even without physical evidence of the crime? Yes, a person can be convicted of statutory rape even without physical evidence, especially when the victim’s testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence. The Court emphasizes that the totality of evidence must be considered, not just the medical results.

    This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights and welfare of children, especially in cases of sexual abuse. It highlights the importance of giving credence to the testimonies of child victims and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The ruling provides a strong precedent for future cases involving statutory rape and emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to evidence evaluation.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO DE JESUS Y MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 190622, October 07, 2013

  • Intent to Kill: Assessing the Elements of Frustrated Homicide in Philippine Law

    In Fe Abella y Perpetua v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for frustrated homicide, emphasizing that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the location of the wound, and the circumstances of the attack. The Court underscored that the hacking of a vital area, such as the neck, with a dangerous weapon sufficiently demonstrates homicidal intent, even if the victim survives due to timely medical intervention. This ruling reinforces the principle that the accused’s actions, not the eventual outcome, determine the severity of the charge in cases of attempted or frustrated crimes. The decision clarifies how Philippine courts evaluate intent in violent crimes, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for actions that could have resulted in death.

    Scythe to the Neck: Proving Intent in a Frustrated Homicide Case

    This case revolves around an incident on September 6, 1998, where Fe Abella hacked his younger brother, Benigno Abella, with a scythe. The prosecution presented evidence that Fe, after a quarrel with others, arrived at Alejandro’s house armed with two scythes. When Benigno tried to prevent Fe from entering the house, Fe struck him in the neck with one of the scythes. Benigno survived the attack and received medical treatment. The central legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved that Fe Abella acted with intent to kill, thereby justifying the conviction for frustrated homicide.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Fe of frustrated homicide, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the award of damages. Fe then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill and that his actions should only amount to less serious physical injuries. The petitioner argued that the single hacking blow was accidental and that he had no motive to kill his brother. He pointed out that after the incident, he chased after others, suggesting that his primary intent was not to kill Benigno. He also cited a previous Supreme Court case, Pentecostes, Jr. v. People, where a conviction was downgraded due to the absence of homicidal intent.

    The Supreme Court, however, found no reversible error in the CA’s decision. The Court reiterated the principle that intent to kill is a key element in frustrated homicide and that this intent can be inferred from various factors. These include the motive of the accused, the nature of the weapon used, the nature and number of wounds inflicted, the manner the crime was committed, and the words uttered by the offender at the time of the injuries. Citing the CA’s decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that:

    Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) the words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.

    In this case, the Supreme Court found that the use of a scythe, a deadly weapon, directed at the victim’s neck, a vital part of the body, sufficiently established intent to kill. The Court distinguished this case from Pentecostes, Jr. v. People, where the victim was shot in a non-vital area, indicating a lack of intent to kill. The High Court acknowledged that the wounds sustained by Benigno were extensive and potentially fatal. The testimony of Dr. Ardiente, who treated Benigno, confirmed that the wounds could have resulted in death without timely medical intervention.

    The Court underscored the importance of the location and nature of the wound in determining intent to kill. The fact that Fe Abella struck Benigno’s neck with a scythe, a dangerous weapon, was a critical factor in establishing his intent. The single hacking blow, delivered with such a weapon to a vital area, demonstrated a clear intent to cause serious harm, if not death.

    The Supreme Court also addressed Fe Abella’s argument that he did not repeatedly hack Benigno, indicating a lack of intent to kill. The Court reasoned that the initial blow was potentially fatal, and the absence of further attacks did not negate the intent behind the first strike. The Court highlighted that the crime was frustrated because Benigno survived due to medical intervention, which was a cause independent of Fe Abella’s will. The Court emphasized that:

    [T]he offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.

    The Court then turned to the issue of damages. The CA had modified the RTC’s award, deleting the consequential damages due to the absence of supporting evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s decision. In the absence of proof of actual damages, the Court awarded temperate damages to Benigno. It acknowledged that Benigno suffered injuries, was hospitalized, and underwent medical treatment, which justified the award of damages. The Court stated that:

    Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the Court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.

    The Supreme Court also found that Benigno was entitled to moral damages. The Court reasoned that the wounds inflicted on Benigno would naturally cause physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock. In summary, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Fe Abella for frustrated homicide, emphasizing the significance of the weapon used and the location of the wound in determining intent to kill. The Court modified the award of damages, granting temperate and moral damages to the victim.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved that Fe Abella acted with intent to kill when he hacked Benigno Abella with a scythe, justifying the conviction for frustrated homicide. The Supreme Court focused on whether the intent to kill was adequately demonstrated by the evidence presented.
    What is frustrated homicide? Frustrated homicide is committed when the offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the crime of homicide, but it is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The main element is the accused’s intent to take his victim’s life.
    How is intent to kill determined in frustrated homicide cases? Intent to kill can be inferred from factors such as the motive of the accused, the nature of the weapon used, the nature and number of wounds inflicted, the manner the crime was committed, and the words uttered by the offender. The location of the wound is also a significant factor.
    Why was the use of a scythe significant in this case? The use of a scythe, a deadly weapon, was significant because it indicated the accused’s intent to cause serious harm or death. The Court emphasized that striking a vital area like the neck with such a weapon demonstrated a clear intent to kill.
    What is the difference between actual, temperate, and moral damages? Actual damages are compensation for actual losses that can be proven with receipts and other documents. Temperate damages are awarded when pecuniary loss is suffered, but the exact amount cannot be proven. Moral damages are compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
    Why were consequential damages not awarded in this case? Consequential damages were not awarded because there was no sufficient evidence presented to prove the specific losses incurred as a result of the crime. The Court required concrete evidence, such as receipts, to support a claim for consequential damages.
    What was the significance of the victim surviving the attack? The victim’s survival, due to timely medical intervention, meant that the crime was frustrated homicide rather than consummated homicide. The medical intervention was a cause independent of the accused’s will, preventing the completion of the crime.
    How did this case differ from Pentecostes, Jr. v. People? This case differed because in Pentecostes, Jr., the victim was shot in a non-vital area, suggesting a lack of intent to kill. In contrast, in Abella, the victim was struck in the neck with a deadly weapon, indicating a clear intent to cause serious harm.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of proving intent in criminal cases, particularly in frustrated crimes. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that the nature of the weapon used and the location of the wound are critical factors in determining whether an accused acted with intent to kill. The ruling also highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims for damages in civil cases.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: FE ABELLA Y PERPETUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 198400, October 07, 2013