People of the Philippines vs.
Javier Cañaveras
G.R. No. 193839 November 27, 2013
Sereno, CJ.:
Facts:
Cañaveras was drinking liquor with 3 unidentified persons in the house of Oriel
Conmigo when the victim Claro Sales came and asked them if Judas was there, Oriel
answered that Judas was not there. He came back and asked again but this time, the
accused answered that they were in fact Judas. He then left but they followed him, the
unidentified persons punched him and when he is about to escape, Cañaveras struck
him on the head with a grande beer bottle. The examination found that contusions and
hematoma actually caused his death. The RTC found the accused guilty of murder with
qualifying circumstances of treachery and taking advantage of superior strength. The
decision was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not taking advantage of superior strength attended the commission of
the crime?
Ruling:
No, taking advantage of superior strength is not present in the commission of the
crime. Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the qualifying circumstance
of taking advantage of superior strength. When appreciating this qualifying
circumstance, it must be proven that the accused simultaneously assaulted the
deceased. In this case, the unidentified companions of appellant punched Claro first. He
was already about to escape when he was struck by appellant on the head with a beer
bottle. Thus, the attack mounted by the unidentified persons had already ceased when
appellant took over. Also, the fact that Claro would have been able to escape showed
that the initial attack was not that overwhelming, considering that there were three of
them attacking. Clearly, there was no blatant disparity in strength between Claro, on the
one hand, and appellant and his companions on the other.
The Supreme Court found the accused guilty of the crime of Homicide.
People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Velasco
G.R. No. 190318 November 27, 2013
Leonardo – De Castro, J.:
Facts:
The accused had carnal knowledge of his 14 years old step-daughter, Lisa for 3
consecutive days from December 27, 2001 to December 29, 2001. They were alone in
their house when the incidents happened, he also threatened her not to tell anyone
otherwise he would kill her and her mother. A year thereafter, at midnight, when the
other members of the family were asleep, appellant attempted to insert his penis into
Lisa’s vagina while the latter was sleeping on her folding bed, he only succeeded in
touching and kissing her because he is afraid of getting caught. The RTC found the
accused guilty with the crime of rape on three counts and with the crime of acts of
lasciviousness. The CA affirmed with modifications.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in giving weight and credence to the victim’s
testimony?
Ruling:
No, the RTC did not err in giving weight and credence to the victim’s testimony. It
is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The Supreme Court is n
full agreement with the CA that no fact or circumstance exists to warrant a reversal of
the trial court’s assessment that the victim’s testimony is credible and worthy of belief.
The alleged discrepancies in the victim’s testimony were not significant enough to
successfully tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused. Therefore, the Supreme
Court affirmed with modifications.
People of the Philippines vs. Marissa Castillo
G.R. No. 190180 November 27, 2013
Leonardo – De Castro, J.:
Facts:
The Eastern Police District received information from confidential informant (CI)
about the illegal activity of the accused and one alias Ompong. They conducted a buy-
bust operation, the CI introduced PO2 Santos and PO1 Chavez as potential buyers to
the accused. After the sale has been consummated, the Police Officers grabbed her left
hand and recovered Php 200 buy-bust money and 2 plastic sachets of suspected
shabu. The RTC found the accused guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
9165 in Criminal Case No. 15167-D and of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165
for possessing shabu. The CA affirmed the ruling of RTC. Hence, she filed an appeal
wherein the RTC and CA failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crimes charged?
Ruling:
Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime charged. The testimony of PO2 Santos
and PO1 Chavez survived the scrutiny of both the trial court judge and the defense
counsel and was adjudged to be credible and worthy of belief not only by the trial court
but also by the appellate court. This is significant considering that we have stated in
jurisprudence that the successful prosecution of drug cases is dependent, in large part,
to the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. The
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA.
People of the Philippines vs. Welmo Linsie
G.R. No. 199494 November 27, 2013
Leonardo – De Castro, J:
Facts:
AAA was resting in their house when someone knocked on the door, thinking it
was her husband, she opened it but she saw Linsie instead. He asked her if Edna was
there to which she answered no. The accused knew she was alone, he pushed and
closed the door, drew a knife and pointed it to the center of AAA’s neck while his left
hand is covering her mouth. She fought back but the accused punched her on the
stomach. She tried resisting but the accused successfully had carnal knowledge of her.
The RTC found the accused guilty with the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, 1st
paragraph in relation to Art. 266-B 2nd paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by RA 8353 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua without the eligibility of Parole. The decision was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in finding the accused guilty based only on the
testimony of the private complainant?
Ruling:
No, the RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the victim. It is
settled in jurisprudence that in reviewing rape convictions, we are guided by three
principles, namely (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult
for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to
disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape as involving two
persons, the rapist and the victim, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. The trial court concluded that AAA’s version of events is more
credible than what appellant narrated after having had the opportunity to observe the
deportment and manner of testifying of both parties. The same conclusion was likewise
firmly upheld by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed with
modifications.
People of the Philippines vs. Asir Gani and Normina Gani
G.R. No. 198318 November 27, 2013
Leonardo – De Castro, J.:
Facts:
Special Investigator Saul received information from a confidential informant that
Normina Gani was looking for a shabu buyer. They went to Jollibee near NBI
Headquarters, the informant introduced Saul to the accused as interested buyer of
shabu. The accused offered 500 grams of shabu but later on agreed on the sale of 100
grams for Php 150,000.00 to be done on the following day. Saul arrived earlier in their
arranged meeting place while the accused got there at around 4pm riding on tandem
with Asir Gani. Saul handed over the buy-bust money and the defendants gave him in
exchange 2 plastic sachets of white crystalline substance which has been later on
confirmed that it is indeed shabu. After the transaction had been consummated, when
the buy-bust team members are approaching, Saul grabbed Asir’s hands and
introduced himself as an NBI agent. The inventory of the items recovered including the
2 plastic sachets of shabu was done in the presence of the 2 accused and 2 barangay
officials. The RTC found the two accused guilty of the offense of violation of Section 5,
Article II, of Republic Act 9165 and are both hereby sentenced to LIFE
IMPRISONMENT. It was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the two accused guilty of the crime charged against them?
Ruling:
Yes, they are guilty. The combined testimonial, documentary, and object
evidence of the prosecution produced a detailed account of the buy-bust operation
against accused-appellants and proved all the essential elements of the crime charged
against them. The elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are present in the case at
bar. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of
the substance seized as evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision
of the CA.
People of the Philippines vs. Allan Niegas
G.R. No. 194582 November 27, 2013
Leonardo – De Castro, J.:
Facts:
Mila Fernandez testified that they were outside the house when Niegas,
Augusto’s driver, offered to take them to Jollibee to pacify James Agusto Manikis. From
there, she thought that the accused was driving them home but he kept on driving and
stopped to allow an unknown man to board the vehicle. Then two other men boarded
the vehicle and forced Mila to wear covered shades so she could not see anything.
According to James’ father, Augusto, he received wherein the caller demanded him to
produce 10 million pesos. He was able to produce 1.7 million pesos and the kidnappers
settled for it and agreed to meet with Augusto. The next day after the delivery of ransom
money, Mila and James were found at the Metropolis Mall. Mila testified that Niegas
was one of the kidnappers, she asked him to help them but he punched her stomach.
The RTC found the accused guilty of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to
Reclusion Perpetua. The CA affirmed the decision in toto.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of kidnapping?
Ruling:
Yes, the accused is guilty of kidnapping. The testimonies of Fernandez and
Augusto, which were believed by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, clearly
attribute all the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention to accused-
appellant Niegas and his companions, collectively. Specifically, Fernandez’s and
Augusto’s testimonies proved that the offenders detained Fernandez, a female, and
James, a minor, for more than three days, for the purpose of extorting ransom. The
Supreme Court affirmed with modifications of damages awarded to the victims.
People of the Philippines vs. Hermenigildo Maglente and Rolando Velasquez
G.R. No. 201445 November 27, 2013
Reyes, J.:
Facts:
Maglente was standing at the corner of the streets, holding a revolver then a
white Nissan safari van passed and had its path blocked by a red Toyota Corolla car.
Maglente and two other armed men then went to the front of the van and simultaneously
riddled it with bullets at a close range, the van’s driver lost control of the van causing it
to head towards an apartment and destroy its fence. The victims Victor Chua and Pepe
Mendoza were brought to the hospital but the former was pronounced dead while the
latter was immediately operated. The RTC found the accused guilty with the crimes of
Murder and Frustrated Murder qualified by treachery defined and penalized in Articles
248 and 250 of the Revised Penal Code and there being the aggravating circumstance
of evident premeditation to be considered. The CA affirmed however modified and ruled
that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated.
Issue:
Whether or not evident premeditation is present in the commission of the crime?
Ruling:
No, evident premeditation is not present. To properly appreciate evident
premeditation as an aggravating circumstance, it is indispensable that the fact of
planning the crime be established. Particularly, evidence must show how and when the
plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. Absent
such proof, evident premeditation cannot prosper. In this case, the records are bereft of
evidence proving how and when the plan to attack the victims was hatched up. The
decision of the CA is affirmed.
People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Garcia
G.R. 206095 November 25, 2013
Mendoza, J.:
Facts:
3-year old AAA testified that her neighbour Garcia often called and gave her
bread. Sometime in 2004, the two of them were the only people outside the house when
Garcia took off her panties and shorts then he inserted his finger inside her vagina. After
the incident, AAA just stood there and later went home. It was only when Garcia and his
wife left that she told her mother about it. When she urinated, blood oozed out of her
vagina which prompted her mother to bring her to the hospital. The RTC held that the
accused committed object rape when he inserted his finger inside her vagina by force
and intimidation. The accused was found guilty of Simple Rape. The CA found the
accused guilty of Qualified Rape. According to the CA, the RTC erred in not
appreciating the qualifying circumstance that “the victim is a child below seven (7) years
old.”
Issue:
Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of minority is present in the case at
bar?
Ruling:
No, qualifying circumstance of minority was not proven. The prosecution did not
adduce any independent and competent documentary evidence indicating her date of
birth, to show that the commission of the crime was attended by the subject qualifying
circumstance of minority. The prosecution also failed to establish that the documents
referred to above were lost, destroyed, unavailable, or otherwise totally absent. Her
mother or any member of her family, by affinity or consanguinity, never testified on her
age or date of birth. Further, there is no showing that the testimony of AAA as to her
age at the time of the commission of the crime was expressly and clearly admitted by
Garcia. In the light of the foregoing, the subject qualifying circumstance cannot be
appreciated against Garcia. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the
Supreme Court rule that the crime committed by Garcia is Simple Rape by Sexual
Assault and the penalty should be prision mayor.
People of the Philippines vs. Natalio Hilarion
G.R. No. 201105 November 25, 2013
Brion
People of the Philippines vs. P/Supt. Artemio Lamsen, et al.
G.R. No. 198338 November 13, 2013
Perlas – Bernabe, J.:
Facts:
People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Alcober
G.R. No. 192941 November 13, 2013
Leonardo – De Castro, J.:
Facts:
, J.:
Facts:
In the afternoon of November 15, 2002, Hilarion inserted his penis into the 6
years old AAA’s vagina in a grassy area. She cried but she cannot resist the accused,
he also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise he would kill her
parents. The RTC found the accused guilty of rape under Article 266-A, in relation to
Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code. It was affirmed by the CA. The accused
claimed in his brief that the victim’s age had not been proven with certainty.
Issue:
Whether or not the victim’s minority had been proven?
Ruling:
No, the prosecution adduced no evidence to establish her minority. It had not
been previously established that the certificate of live birth or other similar authentic
document such as the baptismal certificate or school records have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable. The court cannot, however, sustain the appellant’s
conviction for statutory rape since the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the victim’s
age. The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications. The accused was found guilty of
simple rape.
People of the Philippines vs. Jonas Guillen
G.R. No. 191756 November 25, 2013
Del Castillo, J.:
Facts:
AAA was playing cards inside her room while waiting for her common-law
husband when someone knocked at the door. When she opened it, her neighbor Guillen
entered the room and poked balisong on her neck. He turned off the lights, removed
their clothes and inserted his penis inside her private parts. After he succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of her, he left the room. The RTC found the accused guilty of
rape. It was affirmed by the CA. The accused claims that AAA’s testimony is not
sufficient to establish his guilt.
Issue:
Whether or not the victim’s testimony is sufficient to establish the defendant’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling:
Yes, the victim’s testimony is sufficient. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
specifically provides that rape may be committed by a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman through force, threats or intimidation. In this case, “AAA”
categorically testified that appellant forcibly undressed her, poked a knife at her neck,
and inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent and against her will. Thus, all
the elements of the crime of rape were duly established from the testimony of “AAA”.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications.
People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Villarmea
G.R. No. 200029 November 13, 2013
Villarama, JR., J.:
Facts:
Witness Jaime Candelada and Arnaldo Diez were buying something and when
they walked out of the store, seven persons followed them. The accused boxed him, he
fell down with Diez since they had their arms around each other’s shoulder. He was
again hit several times at the back and when he is finally able to regain his composure,
he saw the group ganging up on and stabbing Diez. The RTC found the accused guilty
of murder. It was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission
of the crime?
Ruling:
Yes, treachery attended the crime committed. Under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246, shall kill another with any of the enumerated qualifying circumstances –
including treachery and conspiracy. There is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Clearly, there was
treachery in the case at bar. The victim was utterly defenseless, unarmed and taken by
surprise by the sudden and unexpected attack from his assailants. The numerical
superiority of the assailants also gave him no opportunity to retaliate. The Supreme
Court affirmed with modification.
