Arriola vs People FACTS:

G.R. No. 199975

Equipoise Rule The RTC convicted accused Luis T. Arriola (Arrioh) of Estafa
under ‘Section 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The prosecution
alleged that sometime in 2001, private complainant Del Rosario
met accused Arriola, a real estate broker of real properties
located in Tagaytay City. At that time, Del Rosario had already
bought a lot in Tagayiay City owned by one Emestio Marcely
(Marcelo). Arriola informed Del Rosario that the bot adjacent
to Marcelo’s land was also for sale. He
showed her a letter purportedly from the subject let owner,
Paciencia Candelaria , authorizing him to sell it in her stead, Del
Rosario decided to buy Candelaria's lot and gave Arriots
P100,000.00 . Aside from the Authorization Letter, Artiola also
showed Del Rosario a certified copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 33184 proving that the lot was in
Candelasia's name and a fax transmittal from Candelaria, who
allegedly was then in Australia, authorizing Arriola to transact
and receive the purchase price in her behalf. Del Resario paid
the balance of the purchase price in the amount of
337,000.00. Del Rosario signed a Deed of Absolute Sale
(Deed) prepared by Amols and purportedly signed by
Candelaria and one Sister Adela Arabia of the St. Benedict as
her witness. However, accused Arriola failed to deliver
the original of the Deed and TCT to Del Rosario. The lattes
asked Arriola to return the total amount of P437,000,00; bul the
check Arriola issued was dishonored for having been drawn
from a closed account. Det Rosario was able to
contact Candelaria, who told Dei Rosasio that she was not
selling the subject Property, nor had she authorized Arriola to
sefl it. On July 11, 2002, Arriola issued Del Rosario another
check in the amount of P$24,000.00 plus P$,000.00 cash.
Again, the check was dishonored, this time due to insufficient
funds. Del Rosario then filed the Estafa case against Arriola.

Issues I the court of appeals x x x erred in giving credence to

the hearsay evidence of the prosecution. Ii the court of
appeals erred in not finding good faith on the part of the
petitioner when he assumed to return the purchase price plus
interest and actually paid the private complainant x x x the
amount demanded to him by the trial court. Iii the court of
appeals x x x erred in failing to give credence to the defense of
the petitioner UNDER THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is

relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the
hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown.
As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement
is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the
existence of such a fact. Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed
to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts,
omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or
equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in
damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another. The differences between the
signatures are too blatant to further require the assessment of a
handwriting expert. The "P" at the beginning of the signature on
the Authorization is boxy and seem to have. been drawn with a
hesitant hand; slanting, triangular, and terminating beyond the
intersection of the lower and upper loops in the fax
transmission; and then rounded and surprisingly upright in the
Deed of Absolute Sale. The "g" in the Authorization is small and
slides to the lower loop without closing the upper loop; large,
elongated, and indented upper loop before proceeding to the
equally-large second loop in the fax transmission; full
unindented first loop while still rounded and upright in the Deed
of Absolute Sale. While the copy of the fax transmission
appended in the records is too blurred to further make out the
"Candelaria" in the signature thereon, the same parts in the
Authorization and the Deed of Absolute Sale remain
decipherable. A prima facie evaluation thereof, even by an
untrained eye, reveals discrepancies that are too dubious to be
simply ignored. When cross-examination is not and cannot be
done or completed due to causes attributable to the party
offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby
rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence. From the
record, Arriola had been granted sufficient opportunities to
complete his cross-examination. He had been fairly warned and
notified in the September 5, 2006 Order of the RTC that his
cross-examination shall be reset for the last time, and that
another failure to appear for cross-examination shall be cause
for the striking off of his direct testimony. Good faith is "an
elusive idea, taking on different meanings and emphases as we
move from one context to another." It is, in general, a state of
mind consisting in honesty in belief or purpose, faithfulness to
one's duty or obligation, observance of reasonable commercial
standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, absence
of intent to defraud or seek unconscionable advantage, or a
belief in one's legal title or right. Being malum in se, and
depending on the proven circumstances, good faith and lack of
criminal intent are indeed available defenses against a
prosecution for Estafa. The equipoise rule finds application if
 the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty,
arid does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the
needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime
charged is found lacking. Decisions WHEREFORE, the Petition
is DENIED.
People vs Facts: PO3 Lawas, Jr. formed a buy-bust team to conduct
Lagahit a buy-bust operation against the appellant. PO3 Lawas, Jr., the
GR No. 200877 team leader, designated his trusted informant to act as the
Buy-bust poseur-buyer while he and the two barangay tanodwere to
operations; serve as back-ups. A P20.00 peso bill buy-bust money with
presumption of markings "ABL," representing the initials of PO3 Lawas, Jr.,
regularity in the was given to the trusted informant. Thereafter, the buy-bust
performance of team proceeded to the target area of its buy-bust operation, i.e.,
official duties near the stairway of the flyover that is close to the barangay hall
of Barangay Lahug. The trusted informant handed the P20.00
peso bill marked money to the appellant and the latter, in turn,
gave four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes to the
former. After the appellant was handcuffed, PO3 Lawas, Jr.
recovered from the pocket of the former eight more sticks of
handrolled marijuana cigarettes.

The appellant was, thereafter, brought to the barangay hall and

was later transferred to the Mabolo Police Station. All the
seized items remained with PO3 Lawas, Jr. until they reached
the police station. Upon arrival thereat, Barangay Tanod Nicor
marked the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which
were the subjectof the sale transaction.

Issue: Is the corpus delicti properly established?

Held: No. "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 of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and
use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 23

In People v. Gatlabayan citing People v. Kamad, this Court

 enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the
chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.

A careful perusal of the records shows that while the identities

of the seller and the buyer and the consummation of the
transaction involving the sale of illegal drug on 29 August 2003
have been proven by the prosecution through the testimony of
PO3 Lawas, Jr.,this Court, nonetheless, finds the prosecution
evidence to be deficient for failure to adequately show the
essential links in the chain of custody, particularly how the four
sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes subject of the
saletransaction came into the hands of PO3 Lawas, Jr. from the
trusted informant, who was the designated poseur-buyer.

Labosta vs
People
G.R. No. 243926
Proof of self-
defense/ clear
and convincing
People vs Facts: The complainant here was raped by her father twice.
Tundag The first was on September 5, 1997 and the second was on
G.R. No. 135695- November 7, 1997. The first incident happened while she was
96 sleeping. She was threatened by his father using a knife. The
Judicial second raped happened after washing the dishes. Afterwards,
Notice/age of she told about it to her neighbor and was advised to seek the
victim help of the police. She was 13 years old back then. The
prosecution was not able to obtain birthcertificate and she
herself doesnt know her exact age. The Defense agree with the
judicial notice. The RTC convicted him for two counts of rape
and sentenced him to death.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC correctly took judicial notice

about her age.

Held: No. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts

which judges may properly take and act on without proof
because they already know them. Under the Rules of Court,
judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary.
 With respect to other matters not falling within the mandatory or
discretionary judicial notice, the court can take judicial notice of
a fact pursuant to the procedure in Section 3 of Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court which requires that —

SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the

trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party,
may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter
and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and
before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own
initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter
is decisive of a material issue in the case.

In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper,

despite the defense counsel’s admission thereof, acceding to
the prosecution’s motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129,
as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required
before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally,
the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal
certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing
that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other
documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose

People vs Del Facts:  A confidential informant reported to SPO1 Naredo that

Rosario accused was engaged in illegal drug activities at Barangay
GR No. 235658 Pansol, Calamba City. Thus, the police officers formed a buy
Evidence/ Chain bust team. On the evening, the buy bust team proceeded to the
of custody rule brgy hall of Pansol. The informant acted as the pouser buyer.
SPO1 Naredo positioned himself about five (5) meters away
from the confidential informant. SPO1 Naredo saw the
confidential informant hand to appellant the marked money
amounting to P200.00. Appellant then gave the confidential
informant a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance. After
the confidential informant gave the pre-arranged signal, SPO1
Naredo approached appellant and introduced himself as a
police officer. He arrested appellant and recovered the marked
money. SPO1 Naredo conducted a preventive search by
instructing appellant to empty the contents of his pocket.
Appellant subsequently brought out three (3) small plastic
sachets with white crystalline substance. the plastic sachets
confiscated and bought from accused were positive for shabu.

the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The RTC ruled
that the testimony of SPO1 Naredo carried with it the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions. the RTC further ruled that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved
notwithstanding the lack of physical inventory and
photographing of the seized evidence. On appeal to the CA, the
CA affirmed appellant's conviction.

Issue: WON the buy bust team complies with the chain of
custody rule?

Ruling: NO

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized

movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage,
from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic
laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court

In People v. Kamad40 and People v. Dahil,41 this Court

enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the
chain of custody of a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.

This Court finds that the second, third, and fourth links in the
chain of custody were not established by the prosecution in the
case at bar.

2nd link-, the name of the investigator was neither identified nor
mentioned by the prosecution. SPO1 Naredo failed to specify
the person to whom he turned over the seized items upon
reaching the police station. It was merely stated that "the police
officers prepared a request for laboratory examination and drug
testing.

3rd link- SPO1 Naredo testified that he was with PO1 Cruz when
the latter delivered the seized items to SPO1 Agustin of the
crime laboratory. Thus, there was an apparent transfer of the
seized items from SPO1 Naredo to PO1 Cruz. As can be
gleaned from SPO1 Naredo's testimony, however, no
informative details were provided as to how, and at what point,
the seized items were handed to PO1 Cruz, who was not even
 a member of the buy-bust team. Further, there was no
documentary evidence indicating SPO1 Agustin's actual receipt
of the seized items and how the latter handled the same upon
his receipt thereof before transmitting the same to FC Rodrigo
for forensic examination.

4th link- there was no testimonial or documentary evidence on

how FC Rodrigo kept the seized items while it was in her
custody and in what condition the items were in until it was
presented in court.

Thus, del rosario was ACQUITED

People vs Edgar Facts: Allan was charged with four counts of rape in RTC,
Allan Corpuz Pangasinan when accused, by means of force, feloniously have
GR No. 201813 sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old, with a mental age of
DNA a 5 year old child, against her will and without her consent, to
test’evidence her damage and prejudice.
During trial, Dr. Araos-Liberato issued the Medico Legal
Certificate, which stated that AAA was 14 years old when she
was examined. Her findings provided: Healed hymenal
lacerations at 11:00, 5:00 and 2:00 o'clock position; Hymenal
orifice admits two fingertips; Pregnancy test corresponds to 3 to
4 months age of gestation.
Allan denied the accusations and insisted that all the charges
against him were merely fabricated by AAA's father, FFF. He
allegedly sacked FFF as a truck driver in his sand and gravel
business for allowing his son to drive the truck that led to an
accident.

Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of rape under Article

266-A 1(d), RPC.

Ruling: Yes, the sexual congresses between Allan and AAA

were clearly established by the victim's testimony.
To warrant a rape conviction under Article 266-A 1(d), it should
be shown that "a man had carnal knowledge with a woman, or a
person sexually assaulted another who is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented.
In this case, AAA was 14 years old when she had her
neuropsychiatric examination with Tablizo. The examination
revealed that at the time of examination, AAA's Intelligence
Quotient was 42 and her level of intelligence was equal to
Moderate Mental Retardation. Also, she had a mental age of a
five (5)-year-and-eight (8)-month-old child. Further, the defense
did not even contest her condition.
Ratio Decidendi: Sexual intercourse with an intellectually
disabled person is rape since proof of force or intimidation
becomes needless as the victim is incapable of giving consent
to the act.
Gist: This Court resolves this appeal filed by Edgar Allan from
the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Which affirmed the RTC’s
ruling that Allan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4)
counts of Simple Rape of AAA, a mental retardate.