Case Digest: Go-tan vs. Tan

Sharica Mari Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan

G.R. No. 168852

September 30, 2008

Facts:

Petitioner Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against her husband,Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."

Respondents contend that they cannot be included in the charge since they are not among the personalities liable as enumerated under the said law by virtue of “expresio unius est exclusion alterius.”

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner with regard to the inclusion of the respondent spouses.

A provision of the said law expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC (Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262), which allowed legal principles developed in the RPC may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. 9262.

Citing jurisprudence, the court held that the “principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators”.

Furthermore, Section 5 of R.A. 9262 recognizes the acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender through another

The maxim "expressio unios est exclusio alterius" finds no application in the case at bar since it is only an

"ancillary rule of statutory construction” and not of universal application nor is it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent when not plainly indicated.

However, proving conspiracy is a matter of evidence and can be best decided after fullblown trial on the merits.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Siera

Robert Siera vs. People

G.R. No. 182941

July 3, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner was found guilty of qualified rape.

Ruling:

In the case bar, the issue is no longer with regard to petitioner’s guilt but on his entitlement of exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344 since petitioner’s act of invoking such entitlement carried with it the admission of guilt.

The Court held that petitioner’s minority during the commission of the crime and his not being a habitual criminal entitled him to the retroactive provisions of the said Act.

The Court held that the burden of proving the minority of the accused relied not on the prosecution but to him who sought to benefit from such proof. In assessing the records, the court appreciated the testimonies by petitioner and CCC, his mother, as sufficient proof of establishing petitioner’s age in lieu of  the required birth certificate as provided in Rule 30-A of the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 9344. There was also no showing of the prosecution’s objection nor was there a presentation of evidence to contradict said testimonies.

The petitioner, having been granted criminal liability exemption, was nevertheless civilly liable. The Court ordered the payment of civil damages to victim following the characterization of the crime of simple rape, for failure of the prosecution to establish the age of the victim to hold petitioner guilty of qualified rape.

Case against petitioner was dismissed without prejudice to the civil liability. The Court ordered his immediate release and referral to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer who shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9344. 

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Lalli

People vs. Lalli, et al

G.R. No 195419

October 12, 2011

Facts:

The respondents were found guilty in the consolidated case for Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case no. 21930) and Trafficking in Persons.

Ruling:

The Court ruled against respondents with respect to Criminal Case no. 21930 for Illegal recruitment, reasoning that the inconsistency of the testimonies of respondents was more substantive than that of Lolita’s which involved only minor discrepancies. The victim’s inconsistency was held to be indicative of her candidness which meant that her statements were not rehearsed. Conspiracy under Article 8 was also appreciated by the court in determining the liabilities incurred by respondents. In addition, the Court stated that the mere referral of one respondents of the victim to the other respondent is classified as an act of recruitment under Art 13(b) of the Labor Code.

In Criminal Case No 21908, charging respondents for the violation of RA 9208 or The Anti-trafficking in persons Act, the court likewise ruled against them. The Court gave no credence to the claims of respondents and their witnesses against victim. Furthermore, provided that their statements were true, such statements were immaterial in this case since the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victim’s consent or knowledge under Section 3(a) of RA 9208.

Respondents were found guilty of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.

The prohibition of double jeopardy was inapplicable in the case since there were several offenses to which they were punished and had not been done so repeatedly for the same offense.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Jacinto

G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HERMIE M. JACINTO,

Facts:

Appellant Hermie Jacinto was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the rape of the then 5-year-old victim. The crime was committed when appellant was only 17; Judgment was rendered when appellant was already 25.

Issue:

Whether or not, appellant may benefit from the provisions of RA9344 regarding criminal liability of an accused who was a minor during the commission of the crime and the suspension of sentence of one who is no longer a minor during the pronouncement of verdict.

Held:

The Court sustained the conviction of the appellant in view of the straightforward testimony of the victim and the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the defense witnesses.

The Court did not exempt accused of his criminal liability although he was only 17 during the commission of the crime since, in view of the circumstances to which accused committed the felony, it was proved that he acted with discernment. (Sec 6, RA 9344). There was showing that the accused understood the consequences of his action.

Applying,  the provision of RA 9346, the accused was meted with reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty.

As to the civil liability of accused, his minority also had no bearing to the decision of the Court, ordering accused to pay the victim for damages.

However, the Court afforded the accused the benefit of the suspension of his sentence provided in Section38 of RA 9344, which made no distinction to an accused found guilty of a capital offense. The Court stated that what was important was the intent of the Act to uphold the welfare of a child in conflict with the law. What was to be considered was the fact that accused committed the crime at a tender age.

The Court held that accused may be confined in an agricultural camp or any training facility in accordance with Sec 51 of RA 9344. The case was remanded to the court of origin to take appropriate action in accordance to the said provision.

Read More

Caase Digest: DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, PAUL E. DERBY, JR., DANIEL COLLINS and LUIS HIDALGO, vs. MONTEBUENO MARKETING, INC., LIONG LIONG C. SY and SABROSA FOODS, INC.

G.R. No. 136154        February 7, 2001
DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, PAUL E. DERBY, JR., DANIEL COLLINS and LUIS HIDALGO,  vs.
MONTEBUENO MARKETING, INC., LIONG LIONG C. SY and SABROSA FOODS, INC.

RULING:

The Court ruled the validity of the arbitration clause in the Contract between the contracting parties. However, the Court held that provisions in a contract are binding only between the contracting parties, their assigns and heirs. In the present case, arbitration as provided in the contract can therefore be called for only as to petitioners DMC-USA, Paul Derby and respondents MMI and Lily Sy, and not to other parties. Only the assigns and heirs can have the right to arbitrate.

Citing the case of Salas Jr. vs. Laperal RealtyCorporation, the splitting of the proceedings to arbitration as to some of the parties on one hand and trial for the others cannot be allowed. Otherwise, it would result in a multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay.

To effect a speedy and efficient resolution of the issues and claims of the parties, a full blown trial must be had. Only then can the interest of justice be served.

Read More

Case Digest: Sea-land Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, A.P. MOLLER/MAERSK LINE and MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), INC.

[G.R. No. 126212. March 2, 2000]

FACTS AND RULING:

Florex was suing in its complaint under the provisions of the bill of lading issued to it by the principal carrier (AMML) and not the bill of lading issued by petitioner as containership operator. Florex, therefore had a proper cause of action against AMML.

The Co-operation in the Pacific contract entered into by the parties provide, nevertheless, that the principal carrier, in case of suits, can seek damages and/or indemnity from petitioner as Containership Operator for whatever final judgment may be adjudged against it under the Complaint of Florex(clause 16.3 of the Agreement).

However, the court held that it is only through arbitration that the liability of the containership operator may be determined pursuant to the provision in the Agreement. The third party complaint by AMML thus cannot proceed without first going through arbitration. 

It was right for the Court to grant the petition and dismiss the third party complaint by AMML.

Read More

Case Digest: HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR vs, LAPERAL REALTY CORPORATION, et al

[G.R. NO. 135362.  December 13, 1999]

HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR vs, LAPERAL REALTY CORPORATION, et al

RULING:

The Court granted the petition by petitioners regarding the dismissal of the latter’s complaint for rescission of several sale transactions.

The court held that rescission is an arbitrable issue, thus arbitration was necessary before a suit could be filed in court. The Court likewise held that the respondents other than Laperal Realty Corporation were not bound by the Agreement (Owner-Contractor Agreement), the respondent lot buyers not being those contemplated as assignees of the rights of respondent Laperal Realty.  The respondent lot buyers where therefore not vested with the right to arbitrate. However, to impose that arbitration be had between petitioners and Laperal Realty and a trial for respondent lot buyers would result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay.

The Court therefore set aside the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint and directed that the case proceed in the interest of justice.

Read More

Case Digest: BF Corporation vs. CA

G.R. No. 120105 March 27, 1998

BF CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., RUFO B. COLAYCO, ALFREDO C. RAMOS, MAXIMO G. LICAUCO III and BENJAMIN C. RAMOS

RULING:

The court sustained the Court of Appeals decision against petitioner, BF Corporation. The court upheld the propriety of the filing of the special civil action of certiorari by respondent, reasoning that what was in question was the alleged premature assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court. In settling the issue, another had to be first determined: the existence of an ‘arbitration clause’.

As opposed to petitioner’s contention that there was no valid ‘Arbitration Clause’ in the contract with respondent because said contract only contained initials of the former’s representatives and none of the latter’s, the court held that failure of the respondents to affix their initial in the “Conditions of Contract” containing the arbitration clause did not affect the compliance with the formal requirements (RA 876, Sec4) for arbitration agreements. The Court held that the subject portion of the covenant between the parties was included by reference in the Articles of Agreement.

The Court also noted the attempt of respondent in pursuing arbitration through the July 12-conference and that the lapse of time from said conference to the day the respondent’s invoked the ‘arbitration clause’ was ‘reasonable’.

The Court therefore denied the petition for certiorari by BF Corporation.

Read More

Case Digest: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Cp., Ltd.

G.R. No. 169332

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Cp., Ltd.

FACTS:

ABS-CBN filed a petition for review an arbitrator’s decision in the Court of Appeals. Respondent, on the other hand, filed a petition for confirmation in the RTC.

RULING:

It is the Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance) that has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, including that of a petition to vacate an arbitral award provided the ground of its appeal fall under those which are enumerated under Section 24 of RA876. In cases other than that, a petition for review under Rule 43(questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law) or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (should the arbitrator have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of  jurisdiction) may be availed of in the Court of Appeals.

The Court, however, ruled that the petitioner cannot avail of the remedies alternatively or simultaneously. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright.

The Court added that although petitioner’s position on the judicial remedies available was correct, the latter’s attempt to avail of two remedies---that under Rule 43 and Rule 65--- is impermissible. It is not the duty of the Court to identify which rule the petition should fall.

The Court dismissed the petition.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Del Monte

G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008

People vs. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY alias “OBET”

Facts:

Accused-appellant questioned his conviction, contending that the evidence against him should have been rendered inadmissible for failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165.

Ruling:

Accused-appellants claim that police failed to take pictures of him with the evidence and that the police, who had initial custody, failed to conduct physical inventory was raised only during appeal.

The court held that it is already late for accused-appellant to do this.

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds.  However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him.  Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal.  In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value.  Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection.  Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. 

The Court also added that, non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.  

Afterall, all the elements necessary to prosecute sale of illegal drugs had been established. The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. 

The court sustained accused-appellant’s conviction.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Rivera

G.R. No. 182347

People vs. Emilio Rivera Y CABLANG ALIAS `BOY,'

October 17, 2008

Facts:

Accused-appelant questioned his conviction on the ground that prosecution only relied on the testimony of one witness and that there had been a gap in the seizure and custody of the alleged evidence for failure of the operatives to take inventory of the same.

Ruling:

This Court takes pride in upholding a most fundamental constitutional right which is the right of an accused in criminal prosecutions to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in order to justify the conviction of an accused, the prosecution must adduce that quantum of evidence sufficient to overcome this constitutional presumption of innocence.

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.  Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a conviction.

Truth is established not by the quantity of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony only needs to establish sufficiently: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

The categorical and convincing testimonies of the policemen, backed up by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated claim of ill-motive by appellant. Accused-appellant's guilt having been established beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in his favor is overturned.

The Court sustained the conviction of accused-appellant.

Read More

Case Digest: Go-Tan vs. Tan

Sharica Mari Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan

G.R. No. 168852

September 30, 2008

Facts:

Petitioner Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against her husband,Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."

Respondents contend that they cannot be included in the charge since they are not among the personalities liable as enumerated under the said law by virtue of “expresio unius est exclusion alterius.”

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner with regard to the inclusion of the respondent spouses.

A provision of the said law expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC (Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262), which allowed legal principles developed in the RPC may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. 9262.

Citing jurisprudence, the court held that the “principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators”.

Furthermore, Section 5 of R.A. 9262 recognizes the acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender through another

The maxim "expressio unios est exclusio alterius" finds no application in the case at bar since it is only an "ancillary rule of statutory construction” and not of universal application nor is it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent when not plainly indicated.

However, proving conspiracy is a matter of evidence and can be best decided after fullblown trial on the merits.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Agulay

G.R. No. 181747

People vs. Narciso Lopez Agulay

September 26, 2008

Facts:

Lower Courts found accused appellant guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Accused-appellants questioned the means and method the police undertook the operation and the credibility of the prosecution witness.

Ruling:

The dissent maintains that the chain of custody rule "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 x x x." This means that all persons who came into contact with the seized drugs should testify in court; otherwise, the unbroken chain of custody would not be established.

The Court disagree. Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. 

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The accused-appellant in this case bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.

After a thorough review of the records of the case, the court found that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation of witnesses of other persons such as the evidence custodian and the officer on duty was not a crucial point against the prosecution.  Unless there was proof to the contrary, the entries in the documents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated and they need not testify thereon.

The Court found accused appellant guilty of the illegal sale of drugs but not of the possession of dangerous drugs on account of the second and third sachets alleged to have been retrieved from him after the sale of the first since it could not be done so without being properly charged therewith.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs Dela Cruz; People vs. Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 181545

People vs. Mark Dela Cruz

October 08, 2008

Facts:

Appellant Mark Dela Cruz was found guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 after he allegedly sold prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer. The prohibited drugs were handed to appellant by companions identified to be an alias Amay and an alias Tabo. Appellant denied the charge and said that he was arrested after refusing to give information about Amay, whom the police were after. His testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.

Lower court gave weight to the testimony by the poseur-buyer and upheld the presumption of regularity in the operation conducted by the officers.

Appellant appealed, questioning the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him in view of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 (inventory of seized drugs) and Section 21 (3) of the same law(certification of the forensic laboratory examination results).

Ruling:

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

Citing jurisprudence, the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raised doubt as to its origins.

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. TheCourt believed that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets, containing shabu from the time they were first allegedly received until they were brought to the police investigator. There were no records to show that the procedural requirements in Section 21 were complied with.

The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional right of presumption of evidence in view of the circumstances. “The presumption of regularity is merely just that--a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.”

The appellant was acquitted.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Dela Cruz; People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz

G.R. No 182348

People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz

November 20, 2008

Facts:

Accused- appellant Carlos Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11(2) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Accused-appellant was arrested together with a certain Boy Bicol, who was subject to a warrant of arrest. The two were talking in a nipa hut hideout when the warrant of arrest against Boy Bicol was served. Having been on the scene, accused-appellant was also arrested. On the scene were shabu and firearms, found atop the table and in drawers.

Accused-appellant denied that the guns and drugs were in his possession. Accused-appellant was acquitted for illegal possession of firearms but was convicted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

Accused appellant  appealed, claiming that the presence of all the elements of the offense of possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual and constructive possessions were not proved. 

Ruling:

The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted the accused-appellant

In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive possession of illegal drugs since they were shown to enjoy dominion and control over the premises where these drugs were found.

Citing jurisprudence, accused-appellant couldn’t have been in constructive possession of the items since he is not he owner of the nipa hut subject to the warrant nor did he exercise dominion or control over the said hut.

Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol's nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid by virtue of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest (Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.)

His arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any offense.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs.Ted Miguel Batoon and Melchor Miguel Batoon

G.R. No 184599

People vs.Ted Miguel Batoon and Melchor Miguel Batoon

November 24, 2010

Facts:

Accused-appellants Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon were found guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 after they sold a sachet to a poseur-buyer in a buy-operation and after 3 more sachets were found in their possession.

Teddy and Melchor appealed the decision, questioning the chain of custody over the alleged confiscated prohibited drugs and Melchor’s conviction for illegal possession of shabu. 

Ruling:

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

The Court held that the buy-bust operation was valid and that there had been no showing in the records that the chain of custody was broken.

For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Although the three sachets containing shabu were found solely in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had knowledge of its existence. Records regarding the transaction between the poseur-buyer, Teddy and melchor showed that the accused-appellants conspired in the illegal-business of drugs.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellants were held to have been successfully adduced. 

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Macabare

G.R. No. 179941

People vs. Lito Lopez Macabare

August 24, 2009

Facts:

Accused appellant Lito Macabare, a detention prisoner, was found guilty of violation of  Section 16 of RA 6425, as amended, after a 410.6 grams of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu was found in his Cell (in which he was the sole occupant) during a surprise check by the police.

Macabare denied ownership of the item found in his cell. He further claimed that the ‘coleman’ where the shabu was found in could have been owned by somebody else since there had been various inmates who also sleep in his cell. Macabare contended that he shouldn’t be convicted based on mere circumstancial evidence.

Lower courts found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of 5million which was reduced to 500,000.

Ruling:

                Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision.

To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person.

The circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to conclude that Macabare indeed owned the contraband. Moreover, the prosecution was able to show Macabare’s liability under the concepts of disputable presumption of ownership(The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence) and constructive possession(when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found).

The Court also held that although it is true that the presumption of innocence assumes primacy over the presumption of regularity, it cannot be applied in the case at bar since the circumstantial evidence imputing animus posidendi to Macabare over the prohibited substance found in his kubol coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions constitutes proof of guilt of Macabare beyond a reasonable doubt

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Sembrano

G.R. No. 185848

People Vs. Michael Castro Sembrano

August 16, 2010

Facts:

In a buy-bust operation and after a follow up search, Accused Appellant was arrested and charged with the violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) and Section 11, Article II (illegal possession) of R.A. 9165. He was then found guilty by the lower courts.

Accused-appellant appealed the lower court’s ruling, contending that the arrest made on him was illegal and thus the alleged evidence seized during such warrantless arrest shouldn’t have been admitted (‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”). He further averred that he had been framed by the police officers.

Ruling:

The court held that the arrest made was legal. Appellant was arrested during an entrapment operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest is made during an entrapment operation, it is not required that a warrant be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests.

The contention of frame-up in the case at bar could not be looked upon by the Court with favor in light of straightforward and positive testimony of poseur-buyer identifying him as the seller of shabu. Moreover, the accused-appellant failed to prove that there had been ill-motive on the part of the officers to impute such crimes. Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for illegal possession of 0.27 grams of shabu.  For illegal sale of drugs, regardless of quantity, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) PESOS; 

Read More

Case digest: People vs. Alcuizar

G.R. No 189980

People vs. Alberto Bacus Alcuizar

April 6, 2011

Facts:

Appellant Alcuizar was charged with violation of Sections 5 (illegal sale), 6 (maintaining a drug den), 11 (illegal possession) and 12 (illegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165 a buy bust operation and a search on his home by virtue of a warrant led by a SPO1 Agadier.

Present during the search were appellant, appellant’s sister-in-law, one barangay captain, one barangay tanod, and several photographers.

In the RTC, appellant was acquitted in all charges except for his violation of Section 11 or illegal possession of dangerous drug as evidenced by the stic packs of shabu found in his room.

Appellant questions the veracity of the seized item by virtue of the Chain of Custody rule. Appellant cites the failure of the police in marking the evidence immediately after purportedly taking it from him as well as the failure of the police officers to give or leave a copy of the inventory receipt upon the accused or any of his family members.

CA finds the appellant’s contention meritorious.

Ruling:

The gaps in the chain of custody (i.e the transfer of custody, control and custody of the shabu, and the marking of the shabu) affected the identity of the corpus delicti.

To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

The doubt created by the gaps in the custody, the testimonies and the lack of witnesses to prove that the prohibited drugs were found in appellant’s home constrained the Court to acquit appellant.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Noque

G.R. No. 175319

January 15, 2010

People vs. Joselito Noque y Gomez

Facts:

Appellant Joselito Noque Gomez was subject to a buybust operation, from which articles alleged to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) were seized. The seized articles were taken to the police station and submitted to the crime laboratory for examination to determine the chemical composition of the crystalline substance, which positively resulted to be ephedrine, a regulated drug.

Lower Courts prounounced appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425 that define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs.

Joselito appealed contending that the lower courts erred in convicting him despite the information, alleging methamphetamine hydrochloride as the seized item when the drug actually seized was ephedrine. Joselito contends that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the lower courts decision that the designations and allegations in the information are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine is a regulated drug, pursuant to Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988. Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. Appellant’s right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.

The Court also affirmed the CA’s decision regarding the penalty imposed on appellant in relation to the amount of shabu seized (in this case, 0.060 grams and 2.754 grams. It held that in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances in this case, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, ranging from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, as maximum.)

As to the violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 was imposed on the appellant for the possession of 339.6075 grams  of prohibited drugs without license or prescription.

Read More