People v Famudulan (2015)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROD FAMUDULAN y FEDELIN
G.R. No. 2121944 July 6, 2015

Facts:
Appellant, a 42-year old man, was accused and charged with the crime of statutory rape against AAA. AAA, a 6-year old girl, testified that the appellant was her aunt’s neighbor.

The appellant cornered and ordered her to fellate him and he inserted his finger in her vaginal orifice and thereafter his organ. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody. She positively identified accused as her assailant in open court. The prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Adelaido Malaluan as its witnesses. Dr. Malaluan examined AAA and affirmed that he executed a Medico-Legal Report and that the injuries sustained by AAA may have been caused by a blunt object such as a hard penis.

Appellant in his defense, claimed that on January 1, 2010, noontime, he was not in the place where the crime happened for he was on a trip going to Batangas. The RTC gave credence to AAA’s testimony since she was a child of tender years. Moreover, the testimony was delivered in a spontaneous and straightforward manner. On the other hand, appellant’s defense of denial and alibi was left unsubstantiated by evidence. The RTC noted that Bansud is not too far from Banus. In light of the credible testimony and positive identification of the appellant, by AAA and appellant’s unsubstantiated defense, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC’s decision with modification for the award of damages. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

The Supreme Court stated that it has been held that when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Appellant’s defense of denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving, especially if uncorroborated. Denial cannot prevail over complainant’s direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. Furthermore, the court is constrained to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC and the CA. Article 266-B provides that in cases of qualified statutory rape the penalty imposed shall be death. 

However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9346 instead prescribes that the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole be imposed in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or the sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua. 

Dungo v People (2015)

DANDY DUNGO and GREGORIO SIBAL, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209464 July 1, 2015

Facts:

On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha Phi Omega Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers conducted initiation rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte was subjected to physical harm.
After the initiation rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's condition but he was ignored by Castillo. He then called co-accused Dungo for help. After Dungo arrived at the resort, they hailed a tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false name to the security guard as he heard that Dungo had done the same.

RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The CA ruled that the appeal of Dungo and Sibal was bereft of merit.

Issue:

Whether or not herein accused were guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Ruling:
Yes, they are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. From the said definition, the elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:
1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization;
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and 

3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

Classes of direct participants are: the first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser. The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.

Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein. 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)

People v Broniola (2015)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE BRONIOLA @ "ASOT"
G.R. No. 211027 June 29, 2015

Facts:
AAA, a Grade VI pupil, left her house for school in the morning of February 28, 2000. She did not return home that day. Her lifeless body was found on February 29, 2000 in a grassy lot near an uninhabited farm hut at Cotabato. The accused, armed with a bolo (Lagaraw), had a carnal knowledge with [AAA], minor, 13 years old, against her will, that after the occasion, accused with intent to kill, attack, assault, hack and use physical violence to the victim, thus inflicting upon her hack wounds on the different parts of her body, which is the direct and proximate cause of her death.

Issue: 
Whether or not, Abag, the accused, is guilty of rape with homicide

Ruling:
The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: 
(1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; 
(2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and 
(3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed the woman. 

Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. As the Court held in People v. Pascua: It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, the Court has held that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally not witnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. 

Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz:

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.

As regards the penalty imposed, R.A. No. 8353 provides:
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:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
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.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. 

On the other hand, Section 2 of R.A. No. 9346 or "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" provides:

SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Furthermore, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides, "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)

People v Miranda (2015)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BIENVENIDO MIRANDA y FELICIANO
GR. No. 209338 June 29, 2015

Facts:

The appellant was charged with crimes of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal sale and possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He was arrested by the police officer through a buy-bust operation. The appellant denied the offenses charged and gave a different version of story.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of shabu. Ruling:
Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present:

1. the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
   
2. the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.
   The prosecution duly established the identity of the buyer and the seller, appellant being the seller and P/CI Chica as the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction was a sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 

As to the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore, P/CI Chica categorically testified that he caught appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the shabu during a buy-bust operation.
It bears stressing that the sale of the illegal drugs in this case was brought about by a buy- bust operation – a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals.

In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, the elements are:

1. the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
   
2. suchpossessionisnotauthorizedbylaw;and
   
3. the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
   
   These elements are also present in this case. P/CI Chica testified that after the appellant sold him shabu, another plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was recovered by Chairman Cruz from appellant at the time of his arrest. This too was submitted to the crime laboratory for analysis, and was positively found to contain shabu. 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)

Dinamling v People (2015)

RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 19952 June 22, 2015

Facts:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of R.A. No. 9262. It is alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological violence upon a woman with whom he has two children, resulting to mental and emotional anguish and public humiliation by repeated verbal and emotional abuse consisting of several bad and insulting utterance directed against the victim. Dinamling pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262. 

Ruling:
The elements of the crime are;

(1)  The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children
(2)  The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode.
(3)  The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4)  The anguish is caused through the acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that thevictim is a woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling and had two common children. The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s physical and verbal abuse.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as the element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present a testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar, when the physical violence done, petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching, kicking and stripping her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of physical violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven that they resulted in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be proven. In this instance, the physical violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical violence translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's mental or emotional well-being. 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)

People v Rayos (2015)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JORIE WAHIMAN y RAYOS (EN BANC)
G.R. No. 200942 June 16, 2015

Facts:

On April 2, 2003, Buensuceso, the manager of Stanfilco-Dole, Phils. in Malaybalay City, was on his way back to the company staff house on board his Isuzu pick-up after attending a despedida for one of his employees. When he was about to enter the gate of the staff house, he was gunned down by persons riding in tandem on a black motorcycle. The guard on duty, David Azucena, who was then opening the gate identified one of the assailants as herein appellant. During trial, the prosecution submitted in evidence the extrajudicial confession of appellant taken during the preliminary investigation of the case, admitting the killing of Buensuceso.

However, when it was appellant’s turn to testify, he narrated that at the time of the killing, he was at Landing Casisang, Malaybalay City attending the birthday celebration of his brother-in-law. The RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA found no reason to depart from the trial court’s findings.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Revised Penal Code provides the elements of murder, to wit: 
(1) Person was killed; 
(2) Accused killed him; 
(3) Killing attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances – 
(b) in consideration of a price, reward or promise.

In the present case, the Court held that appellant’s contention that he lacked legal intervention and assistance during the taking of his extrajudicial confession was totally belied by the testimony of Atty. Dumlao that he rendered assistance to the appellant throughout the entire proceedings and carefully explained to the latter the consequences of his admission. He informed appellant of his rights and that anything he says may be used in evidence against him. Appellant then proceeded to narrate that he was hired by Laranjo and Canadilla, for and in behalf of a certain Alonzo who owns a quarry in San Isidro, Valencia, to kill the victim for a fee. Appellant then narrated how he met with Laranjo, Canadilla and Alonzo; how he received payments and instructions; how he planned the killing; and how he executed the plan. Appellant insisted on giving his extrajudicial confession.

Notwithstanding, it must be stressed that appellant’s conviction was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The prosecution likewise presented the eyewitness account of Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots, he saw appellant about five meters away from the Isuzu pick-up of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a black motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also confirmed that the slugs found at the crime scene were fired from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. Moreover, appellant was not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at the time of its commission.

Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)

People v Nuyok (2015)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUDY NUYOK
G.R. No. 195424 June 15, 2015

Facts:

The victim was 13 years old when the accused committed the rapes in June, July, August and September of 2005. She resided in the house of her grandmother wherein the accused, her
paternal uncle, also lived. On June 25, 2005, as the victim was about to sleep, the accused laid down beside her. She tried to escape, but he pulled her by the hair, slapped her, and punched her in the stomach, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she noticed that her panties had blood. The accused warned her not to reveal the incident to anyone, threatening to kill her and her family if she did so. The victim finally reported the four rapes to her mother in October 2005. The accused denied having raped and imputed ill motives to the victim insisting that the victim’s mother had wanted to get back at him after he had told his brother, the victim’s father, that he had caught the victim’s mother with a paramour. Both the RTC and CA found the accused guilty of four counts of rape.

Issue:

Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the minority of the offended party when the same was not indicated in the information.

Ruling:

No, the court a quo did not gravely err in appreciating the minority of the offended party.
The Revised Penal Code provides that Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 
(a) through force, threat, or intimidation; 
(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; 
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; 
(d) When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances above be present.

The failure to specify the exact date or time when the rapes were committed did not ipso facto render the information defective. Neither the date nor the time of the commission of rape is a material ingredient of the crime, for the essence of the crime is carnal knowledge of a female against her will through force or intimidation. Consequently, the date or the time of the commission of the rape need not be stated in the complaint or information with absolute accuracy, for it is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime was committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Secondly, the Prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges of rape against the accused. The victim positively identified the accused as her rapist. Her account of his crimes was candid, and her demeanor revealing. She could not control herself but cried in the course of her testimony whenever she was made to recall her traumatic experiences at his hands. The testimony of a rape victim that is consistent with the medical findings constitutes sufficient basis to conclude that carnal knowledge occurred.

Hence, the court a quo did not gravely err in appreciating the minority of the offended party. 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)

Ocampo v People (2015)

PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015

Facts:

On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use personal violence upon Mario De Luna. Petitioner fired his service firearm against the victim hitting the latter on the chest and other parts of the body. The wounds were the direct and immediate cause of his death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim to death, but claimed to have done so in self-defense. In support of this claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack upon accused-appellant. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of homicide and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner, but modified some of the monetary damages awarded.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and 
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.

In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the first element of self-defense. There was no showing of attack or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or actual danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is negated by the physical evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the victim’s body. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.
With regard to the second element of self-defense, the Court finds that the means employed by petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the victim's alleged unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds in his chest and different parts of his body. Indeed, the Advance Information prepared by the investigator of the case reveals that there was no mention of either a stabbing incident that happened or a knife that was recovered from the crime scene. Here, the wounds sustained by the victim clearly show the intent of petitioner to kill and not merely to prevent or repel an attack.

Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)