1. Romorosa vs.

People of the position as an accounting clerk to

Philippines perpetrate the fraud.
G.R No. 191039
August 22, 2022 2. Leo Abuyo y Sagrit vs. People of
the Philippines
Q: The accused, Arlene Homol y G.R. No. 250495
Romorosa, was charged with estafa July 6, 2022
for defrauding her employer,
Natrapharm, Inc., by falsifying Q: Leo Abuyo was confronted by two
receipts and vouchers and men armed with a balisong and a gun.
misappropriating company funds Leo, on his motorcycle, swerved and
amounting to P1,057,000.00. The escaped the armed men and went to
accused claimed that she was merely his father’s home. Leo’s father, in
following the instructions of her trying to protect him, was stabbed in
immediate supervisor, who was also the left part of his chest. Leo, in
her co-accused, and that she did not retaliation, hacked and stabbed one of
benefit from the fraudulent the armed men. Leo surrendered
transactions. Is she liable for estafa? himself and claimed that he acted in
self-defense and defense of a relative.
A: YES. The Supreme Court held that Is Leo entitled to the justifying
she was liable as a principal by direct circumstance of self-defense and
participation in the crime of estafa. defense of a relative?
The Court applied the doctrine of
conspiracy, which means that the act A: Yes. The Supreme Court said that a
of one is the act of all, and that the person who is assaulted has neither
presence of one or more aggravating the time nor the sufficient tranquility
circumstances affecting one or some of mind to think, calculate and choose
of the conspirators may be the weapon to be used. For, in
appreciated against the others, unless emergencies of this kind, human
there is proof that anyone of them nature does not act upon processes of
endeavored to prevent the formal reason but in obedience to the
commission of the crime. The accused instinct of self-preservation; and when
acted in concert with her co-accused it is apparent that a person has
in executing the scheme to defraud reasonably acted upon this instinct, it
their employer, and that she did not is the duty of the courts to hold the
present any evidence to show that she actor not responsible in law for the
tried to prevent or report the illegal consequences. In this case, Leo used
acts. The Court also held that the reasonable means to defend himself
aggravating circumstance of abuse of and his father.
confidence was present, as the
accused took advantage of her 3. People vs. Jerrie Arraz y
Rodriguez
 of the police. Oligario pleaded not
G.R No. 252353 guilty and claimed that he was insane
July 6, 2022 at the time of the incident. He
presented a medical certificate stating
Q: The accused, Jerrie Arraz, was that he was diagnosed with
charged with trafficking in persons, schizophrenia and was under
rape, and violation of the Cybercrime medication. He also testified that he
Prevention Act of 2012 for exploiting heard voices telling him to take the car
AAA252353, a 16-year-old girl, for and that he did not know what he was
sexual purposes. The accused acted as doing. RTC and CA rejected such
the promoter, agent, and handler of claims and Turalba was found guilty of
AAA252353, and coerced her to committing carnapping. How will
engage in online chat, indecent shows, Oligario and his counsel prove insanity
and sexual intercourse with foreign to exempt him from liability?
customers, including Maurice Blose
and Patrick James Powell. The A: Insanity is an exempting
accused also raped AAA252353 several circumstance under the RPC, but the
times. Decide on the matter of WON burden of proof is on the accused to
the accused is guilty of the crimes establish complete deprivation of
charged. intelligence or discernment. To
establish insanity, the accused must
A: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed show a complete deprivation of
the conviction of the accused for intelligence, reason, or discernment at
trafficking in persons, rape, and the time of the commission of the
violation of the Cybercrime Prevention crime. Mere abnormality of the mental
Act of 2012. The Court ruled that the faculties is not enough to exclude
prosecution was able to prove the imputability. Insanity is in the nature
elements of the crimes beyond of a confession and avoidance, and
reasonable doubt, based on the the burden of proof shifts to the
testimonies of AAA252353, the medical accused to prove the defense. The
certificate, the documentary evidence, three-way test for insanity must be
and the admissions of the accused. applied: (1) insanity must be present at
the time of the commission of the
4. Turalba y Villegas vs. People of crime; (2) insanity, which is the
the Philippines primary cause of the criminal act,
G.R. No. 216453 must be medically proven; and (3) the
March 16, 2022 effect of the insanity is the inability to
appreciate the nature and quality or
Q: Oligario Turalba was charged with wrongfulness of the act. However,
carnapping under RA No. 6539 for even if insanity cannot completely
taking and driving away a Honda CRV absolve the accused of criminal
owned by Gregorio Calimag without liability, it may be considered as a
his consent. Gregorio was able to mitigating circumstance under certain
chase and catch Oligario with the help circumstances.
 as a generic aggravating
5. People vs. Navarro circumstance.
G.R. No. 252276
September 14, 2021 6. People vs. Diega Y Zapico
G.R. No. 255389
Q: Florante, while driving his September 14, 2021
owner-type jeep, was unsuspectedly
shot on his temple by a masked Q: The accused, Carlo Diega y Zapico,
assailant who was later identified by and three other unidentified persons,
witnesses as Jerrico Navarro. Said were charged with rape for taking
witnesses also testified that he took turns in having carnal knowledge with
Florante’s bag containing money and a 12-year-old girl, AAA, while she was
a gun. The swiftness and stealth of the sleeping inside her hut. The accused
attack showed that Florante, who was claimed that he was insane at the time
unarmed, had no opportunity to of the commission of the crime and
defend himself or retaliate. The presented a psychiatric evaluation
location of the gunshot wound likewise report stating that he was suffering
evinced that Florante was completely from schizophrenia. Is the accused
unaware of the danger that resulted in exempt from criminal liability by
his untimely demise, thus, ensuring the reason of insanity?
execution of the crime of robbery with
homicide. What is/are the attending
A: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed
circumstance/s, if any?
the conviction of the accused and held
that he failed to prove his insanity
A: There is treachery when the defense. The Court applied the
offender commits any of the crimes three-way test for insanity: (1) insanity
against persons, employing means, must be present at the time of the
methods, or forms in the execution commission of the crime; (2) insanity,
thereof which tend directly and which is the primary cause of the
specifically to insure its execution, criminal act, must be medically
without risk to himself arising from the proven; and (3) the effect of the
defense which the offended party insanity is the inability to appreciate
might make. The essence of treachery the nature and quality or wrongfulness
lies in the adoption of ways that of the act. The Court found that the
minimize or neutralize any resistance, accused did not satisfy any of the
which may be put up by the offended elements of the test. The Court noted
party. Treachery is not an element of that the accused’s actions before,
robbery with homicide nor does it during, and after the crime showed
constitute a crime specially punishable that he was aware of what he was
by law. Likewise, it is not inherent in doing and that he had a motive to
the crime of robbery with homicide. rape the victim. The Court also gave
Hence, treachery should be considered more weight to the testimony of the
municipal health officer who examined
 to commit robbery and the homicide
the accused shortly after his arrest must only be incidental. The killing
and found him to be sane and may occur before, during, or even
coherent. The Court further observed after the robbery. It is only the result
that the psychiatric evaluation report obtained, without reference or
was not conclusive and was based on distinction as to the circumstances,
the self-serving statements of the causes, modes, or persons intervening
accused. in the commission of the crime, that
has to be taken into consideration. It
7. People vs. Campos is immaterial that the death would
G.R. No. 252212 follow by mere accident; or that the
July 14, 2021 victim of homicide is other than the
victim of robbery; or that two or more
Q: Emeliza and Eric were having persons are killed; or that aside from
dinner while Marilou was about to use homicide, rape, intentional mutilation,
the telephone when an armed man or usurpation of authority, is
suddenly barged into the house and committed by reason of, or on the
took Emeliza's cellphone on top of the occasion of the crime. It is also of no
center table in the living room. Emeliza moment that the victim of homicide is
shouted to stop the man but the man one of the robbers. The crime is
pointed a gun to Emeliza and shot her Robbery with Homicide when the
in the chest causing her death and killing was committed to facilitate the
then quickly fled the scene. The taking of the property, or the escape
authorities arrested Roberto G. of the culprit; to preserve the
Campos and was charged with the possession of the loot to prevent the
complex crime of Robbery with discovery of robbery; or to eliminate
Homicide. The RTC held that Roberto witnesses in the commission of the
killed Emeliza after violently taking her crime.
personal property. The RTC gave
credence to Eric and Marilou's Specifically, the special complex crime
narration of the incident, and the of Robbery with Homicide has the
positive identification of Roberto as following elements, to wit: (1) the
the perpetrator of the crime. Roberto taking of personal property with
elevated the case to the CA but the CA violence or intimidation against
affirmed the RTC's findings. Were the persons; (2) the property taken
lower courts correct? belongs to another; (3) the taking was
done with animus lucrandi, and (4) on
A: Yes. Robbery with Homicide is a the occasion of the robbery, or by
composite crime with its own reason thereof, homicide was
definition and special penalty committed. All the elements are
provided for in Article 294 of the present in this case. Eric and Marilou
Revised Penal Code. In this kind of were certain that it was Roberto,
crime, the offender's original intent is armed with a gun, who barged into the
house and divested Emeliza of her
 Emerenciana Velasco. Recovered were
cellphone. Evidently, the taking was the marked money, amounting to
with intent to gain, and was P2,100.00, drug paraphernalia, and
accomplished with intimidation white crystalline substance inside six
against persons. Emeliza shouted to (6) big plastic sachets and two (2)
stop Roberto while Eric and Marilou small plastic sachets found on a table
froze upon seeing the incident. and on top of a cabinet inside Jasper's
Thereafter, Roberto pointed his gun to room. The sachets with white
Emeliza and shot her on the chest crystalline substance were delivered to
causing her death. Verily, the primary the crime laboratory for examination
objective of Roberto was to rob, and and all tested positive for shabu
the killing of the victim was only (methamphetamine hydrochloride).
incidental to prevent his apprehension For his part, Jasper offered the
and facilitate his escape. defense of denial and frame-up. The
RTC convicted the accused of the
8. Tan Y Sia vs. People charges against him.
G.R. No. 232611
April 26, 2021 Jasper filed an appeal before the CA
but the latter court affirmed his
Q: Two (2) Informations were filed conviction. He then filed this petition
against Jasper Tan y Sia (Jasper) arguing that the prosecution did not
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) comply with the rule on chain of
charging him with Illegal Sale and custody. In sum, he posits the seized
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs drugs are not admissible as evidence,
under Sections 15 and 16, Article III of and the buy-bust operation as well as
Republic Act (RA) No. 6425. During his arrest were illegal. Is the petition
trial, the prosecution presented two (2) meritorious?
witnesses who testified that they have
been conducting surveillance A: Yes. To determine the validity of a
operations against Jasper and that buy-bust operation, the Court has
the police officers applied for a search consistently applied the "objective
warrant with the Municipal Trial Court test". The "objective test" requires the
in Cities (MTCC) Branch 2. Thereafter, details of the purported transaction
a buy-bust operation was conducted during the buy-bust operation to be
where the police officers gave two (2) clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the
marked 100-peso bills to the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer who transacted with poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer
Jasper at the gate of the latter's to purchase the drug, and the promise
house. Said buy-bust operation was or payment of the consideration,
allegedly successful so the police payment using the buy-bust or
officers handcuffed Jasper, and marked money, up to the
served him a search warrant. consummation of the sale by the
Thereafter, they searched his room in delivery of the illegal drug subject of
the presence of Barangay Captain the sale whether to the informant
 buy-bust operation was turned over to
alone or the police officer. All these the police officers.
details must be subject to strict
scrutiny by courts to ensure that 9. Quiap Y Evangelista vs. People
citizens are not unlawfully induced to G.R. No. 229183
commit an offense. Here, the February 17, 2021
prosecution failed to clearly establish
the details of the purported sale. Q: PO2 Garcia received a tip from a
Nothing in the records shows the initial confidential informant that an alien
contact between the poseur-buyer and named "Kacho" was en route to
the seller, and the manner by which Laguna to buy shabu. The informant
the initial contact was made. specified they were traveling in a
jeepney with "Touch Mobile" signage
Also, The prosecution failed to headed to Calamba Crossing. They
establish an unbroken chain of described Kacho as a small, slightly
custody. In cases involving dangerous bald man sitting in front of them.
drugs, the confiscated drugs Acting on this information, an
constitute the very corpus delicti of entrapment team led by PO2 Garcia
the offense and the fact of their was assembled, including Police Senior
existence is necessary to sustain a Inspector Jefferson Parra-Ison, SPO1
judgment of conviction. The identity of Sales, and PO1 Ryan Virtrudes.
the seized drugs is established by
showing the duly recorded authorized The team intercepted the identified
movements and custody of seized jeepney and boarded it. PO2 Garcia
drugs from the time of seizure or identified Kacho as the man described
confiscation to receipt by the and prevented him from discarding a
investigating officer then turn-over to small object wrapped in electrical tape
the forensic laboratory up to out the window. Upon inspection, the
presentation in court. The preservation object revealed a plastic sachet
of the chain of custody applies containing white crystalline substance.
regardless of whether the prosecution PO2 Garcia seized the sachet and
is brought for a violation of RA No. arrested Kacho, later identified as
6425 or RA No. 9165, which always petitioner Leonides Quiap y
starts with the marking of the articles Evangelista. At the police station, PO2
immediately upon seizure. The Garcia marked the sachet and handed
marking serves to separate the it to SPO1 Sales, who prepared it for
marked articles from the corpus of all laboratory testing. SPO2 Macabajon
other similar or related articles from received the item and request, which
the time of the seizure until disposal was then analyzed by PSI Grace
thereby obviating the hazards of Bombasi. The substance tested
switching, "planting," or contamination positive for methamphetamine
of the evidence. In this case, it is hydrochloride. Based on these
unclear how the item subject of the findings, the RTC convicted Leonides
 and its implementing rules. The
of Illegal Possession of Dangerous operatives failed to provide any
Drugs. Was the conviction proper? justification showing that the integrity
of the evidence had all along been
A: No. In Illegal Possession of preserved. Moreover, the link between
Dangerous Drugs, the contraband the investigating officer and the
itself constitutes the very corpus forensic chemist was not established
delicti of the offense, and the fact of with certainty. The police officers did
its existence is vital to a judgment of not describe the precautions taken to
conviction. It is essential to ensure ensure that there had been no change
that the substance recovered from the in the condition of the seized item and
accused is the same substance offered no opportunity for someone not in the
in court. The prosecution must chain to have possession of the
satisfactorily establish the movement dangerous drug. The records show
and custody of the seized drug that SPO2 Macabajon received the
through the following links: (1) the specimen from PO3 Sales. Yet SPO2
confiscation and marking of the Macabajon did not testify on how the
specimen seized from the accused by seized item fell into the hands of the
the apprehending officer; (2) the forensic chemist PSI Bombasi. While
turnover of the seized item by the the law enforcers enjoy the
apprehending officer to the presumption of regularity in the
investigating officer; (3) the performance of their duties, this
investigating officer's turnover of the presumption cannot prevail over the
specimen to the forensic chemist for constitutional right of the accused to
examination; and (4) the submission of be presumed innocent, and it cannot
the item by the forensic chemist to the by itself constitute proof of guilt
court. Here, the records reveal a beyond reasonable doubt. The utter
broken chain of custody. disregard of the required procedures
created a huge gap in the chain of
The presence of the insulating custody. We reiterate that the
witnesses is the first requirement to provisions of Section 21, Article II of
ensure the preservation of the identity RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional
and evidentiary value of the seized aim to prevent the imprisonment of an
drugs. In this case, the absence of the innocent man. The Court cannot
required insulating witnesses during tolerate the lax approach of law
the inventory and photograph of the enforcers in handling the very corpus
seized item puts serious doubt as to delicti of the crime. Hence, Leonides
the integrity of the chain of custody. must be acquitted of the charge
Admittedly, there was no against him given the prosecution's
representative from the media and the failure to prove an unbroken chain of
Department of Justice, and any custody.
elected public official. Worse, there
was no attempt on the part of the 10. De Los Reyes vs People of the
buy-bust team to comply with the law Philippines
 the RTC. Kagawad Bulaun testified
G.R. No. 244545 that she never witnessed the actual
February 10, 2021 operation and that she was at the
police station only to certify that
Q: The Laoag City Police Station Reyes was a resident of Brgy. 12 at
planned a buy-bust operation after Magat Salamat. Also, the police
receiving information from a "police officers asked Kagawad Bulaun to
asset", that a certain Franklin Reyes sign the inventory/confiscation receipt
(Reyes) alias "idol", was peddling but she refused. Thus, Kagawad
illegal drugs. At the briefing, PO1 Bulaun merely certified that she saw
Lorenzo was designated as the the items in the room. RTC rendered
poseur-buyer while PO1 Corpuz and judgment in favor of the police and
other police officers acted as back-up. sentenced Reyes to life imprisonment.
At the site, the police asset introduced Unsatisfied, Reyes elevated the case
PO1 Lorenzo to Reyes. Afterwards, PO1 to the CA and the CA ruled that the
Lorenzo handed the marked P1,000.00 prosecution sufficiently established
bill to Reyes, who then pulled out a that Reyes was apprehended during a
rolled paper envelope from his pocket. buy-bust operation. Moreover, the
Reyes took out a small plastic sachet testimony of Kagawad Bulaun did not
containing white crystalline substance destroy the police officers' account of
and gave it to PO1 Lorenzo. Upon the custody and disposition of the
placing the sachet inside his pocket illegal drugs. Were the lower courts
the signal was executed. This led to correct?
the arrest of Reyes and the recovery
of the buy-bust money and three other A: No. In illegal sale and possession of
sachets. dangerous drugs, the prosecution
must satisfactorily established the
The buy-bust team brought Reyes to movement and custody of the seized
the police station and contacted drug through the following links: (1)
members of the media and barangay the confiscation and marking, if
officials but only Barangay (Brgy.) practicable, of the specimen seized
Kagawad Helen Bulaun (Kagawad from the accused by the apprehending
Bulaun) arrived. The police officers officer; (2) the turnover of the seized
marked and photographed the seized item by the apprehending officer to
items in the presence of Reyes and the investigating officer; (3) the
Kagawad Bulaun. After the inventory, investigating officer's turnover of the
PO1 Lorenzo and PO1 Corpuz specimen to the forensic chemist for
personally delivered the items to the examination; and, (4) the submission
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime of the item by the forensic chemist to
Laboratory. The specimens tested the court. Here, the records reveal a
positive for the presence of shabu. broken chain of custody. The absence
Accordingly, Reyes was separately of a representative of the National
charged with Illegal Sale and Prosecution Service or the media as
Possession of Dangerous Drugs before an insulating witness to the inventory
 of duty is tainted with irregularities,
and photograph of the seized item such presumption is effectively
puts serious doubt as to the integrity destroyed.
of the first link. The court emphasized
that the presence of the insulating The court reiterated that the
witnesses is the first requirement to provisions of Section 21 of RA No. 9165
ensure the preservation of the identity embody the constitutional aim to
and evidentiary value of the seized prevent the imprisonment of an
drugs. In People v. Lim, the court innocent man. The Court cannot
explained that in case the presence of tolerate the lax approach of law
any or all the insulating witnesses was enforcers in handling the very corpus
not obtained, the prosecution must delicti of the crime. Hence, Reyes must
allege and prove not only the reasons be acquitted of the charges against
for their absence, but also the fact him given the prosecution's failure to
that earnest efforts were made to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
secure their attendance.
11. People vs Ybañez
In this case, it was only Kagawad G.R. No. 242273
Bulaun who signed the inventory of November 23, 2020
evidence. Yet, the operatives failed to
provide any justification showing that Q: The Station Anti-Illegal
the integrity of the evidence had all Drugs-Special Operations Task Group
along been preserved. They did not planned a buy-bust operation against
describe the precautions taken to Nico based on information that he is
ensure that there had been no change selling drugs in Barangay La Paz,
in the condition of the item and no Makati City. After the briefing,
opportunity for someone not in the PS/Insp. Valmark C. Funelas
chain to have possession of the same. designated PO1 Amante as
The testimony of PO1 Lorenzo attested poseur-buyer, and PO1 Nathaniel
to the buy bust team's Maculi and PO1 Limjap, as back-ups.
non-observance of the required About midnight the following day, the
procedure creating a huge gap in the entrapment team together with the
chain of custody. It must be stressed informant went to Sunrise Street,
that while the law enforcers enjoy the Barangay La Paz, Makati City. Thereat,
presumption of regularity in the they saw two men and one woman
performance of their duties, this standing on the street. The informant
presumption cannot prevail over the identified and introduced Nico to PO1
constitutional right of the accused to as a buyer of P500 worth of shabu.
be presumed innocent and it cannot Nico then instructed Joey to hand
by itself constitute proof of guilt over one sachet to PO1. It was at that
beyond reasonable doubt. The moment when PO1 signaled the rest of
presumption of regularity is disputable the team to arrest Nico, Joey, and Joy.
and cannot be regarded as binding
truth. Indeed, when the performance
 prosecution establish an unbroken
The police officers proceeded to the chain of custody for the seized items?
barangay hall where they conducted
an inventory and photograph of the A: No. The first stage in the chain of
seized items in the presence of custody is the marking of dangerous
Barangay Kagawad Christopher Cabo. drugs which is indispensable in the
After investigation, the suspects were preservation of their integrity and
identified as Nico Mazo y Ibanez @ evidentiary value. The marking
"Nico," Joey Domdoma y Abletes operates to set apart as evidence the
@"Joey," and Mary Joy Garcia y Vitug dangerous drugs from other materials,
@ "Joy." PO1 Amante then delivered and forestalls switching, planting, or
the confiscated items to PCI Ofelia contamination of evidence. In this
Lirio Vallejo of the Southern Police case, the prosecution failed to account
District Crime Laboratory Office for the details on how the confiscated
examination who then reported that items were marked. PO1 Amante
the examination yielded positive testified that he marked the sachet of
results for methamphetamine shabu he bought with "NICO," and the
hydrochloride. Nico, Joey and Joy two sachets he recovered during
were then charged with violations of frisking with "NICO­1" and "NICO-2."
Sections (Sec.) 5 and 11, Article II of Yet, there was no showing where and
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 before the when the seized drugs were marked.
Regional Trial Court (RTC). The three PO1 Amante simply stated in his
denied the accusations and proceeded affidavit that the drugs were "later
to provide alibis. The RTC however marked" without providing the details
convicted Nico and Joey of illegal sale surrounding the initial handling of the
of dangerous drugs. Also, it held Nico drugs. Neither was the issue clarified
guilty of illegal possession of during PO1 Amante's testimony in
dangerous drugs. The RTC gave open court. In other words, the place
credence to the prosecution's version of marking remains unknown.
as to the transaction that transpired Corollarily, lacking material details
between them and the poseur-buyer. regarding the marking of the seized
However, Joy was acquitted. Nico and drugs, the prosecution failed to
Joey elevated the case to the CA remove any suspicion of tampering,
arguing that no actual buy-bust switching, or planting of evidence.
operation transpired and that they
were framed-up. Moreover, the Similarly, the chain of custody rule
apprehending officers did not comply requires the conduct of inventory and
with the chain of custody requirement. photograph of the seized items
The CA however affirmed the RTC's immediately after seizure and
findings and ruled that the prosecution confiscation, which is intended by law
preserved the integrity and to be made immediately after, or at
evidentiary value of the dangerous the place of apprehension. If not
drugs. Thus, they elevated the case to practicable, the implementing rules
the Supreme Court. Did the allow the inventory and photograph as
 of duty is tainted with irregularities,
soon as the buy-bust team reaches the such presumption is effectively
nearest police station, or the nearest destroyed.
office of the apprehending team.In
this case, the inventory and 12. People vs Rodibiso
photograph of the confiscated items G.R. No. 244843
were not made immediately at the October 07, 2020
place of arrest but at the barangay
hall. The police officers only made a Q: Herminia Sonon y Bolantes
general statement that the place of (Herminia) and Marieta Dela Rosa y
arrest was hostile without elaborating Apelado (Marieta) were in a jeepney
any threat on their security. traversing along Dimasalang Road,
Sampaloc, Manila. Suddenly, a man
Similarly, the chain of custody rule boarded the jeepney, wielded an ice
requires the conduct of inventory and pick and declared a hold-up. The man
photograph of the seized items forcibly took Herminia and Marieta's
immediately after seizure and bags containing cash and personal
confiscation, which is intended by law items. Thereafter, the man
to be made immediately after, or at disembarked from the jeepney and
the place of apprehension. If not proceeded to the driver's seat of a
practicable, the implementing rules nearby tricycle where three other men
allow the inventory and photograph as were waiting. The man then started to
soon as the buy-bust team reaches the drive the tricycle away. One of the
nearest police station, or the nearest three men pointed a gun at the
office of the apprehending team. In jeepney and said "ano, hindi pa kayo
this case, the inventory and aalis?" The passengers alighted from
photograph of the confiscated items the jeepney and shouted for help. PO2
were not made immediately at the Joel Magno y Rivera (PO2 Magno) and
place of arrest but at the barangay Carlo Mijares y Zamora (Carlo) heard
hall. The police officers only made a the pleas and approached the jeepney.
general statement that the place of Immediately, the man drove the
arrest was hostile without elaborating tricycle back to the scene and one of
any threat on their security. The court his companions shot PO2 Magno in the
stresses that while the law enforcers forehead causing his death. The four
enjoy the presumption of regularity in robbers fled the scene. In a follow-up
the performance of their duties, this investigation, the Manila Police District
presumption cannot prevail over the received information that one of the
constitutional right of the accused to suspects was seen at Blumentritt
be presumed innocent, and it cannot Street, Sampaloc, Manila. The
by itself constitute proof of guilt authorities went to the target area
beyond reasonable doubt. The and the informant pointed to one of
presumption of regularity is disputable the men sitting on the street who was
and cannot be regarded as binding identified as Ronald Laguda y
truth. Indeed, when the performance Robidiso @ "Bokay" (Ronald).
 is committed by reason or, on the
The police arrested Ronald. occasion of the crime. It is also of no
Accordingly, Ronald was charged with moment that the victim of homicide is
the complex crime of robbery with one of the robbers. The word
homicide before the Regional Trial "homicide" is used in its generic sense
Court (RTC). Ronald pleaded not guilty and includes murder, parricide, and
but the RTC held that Ronald forcibly infanticide. As such, the crime is
took personal properties from robbery with homicide when the killing
Herminia and Marieta and that he was committed to facilitate the taking
conspired in killing PO2 Magno and of the property, or the escape of the
sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua culprit, to preserve the possession of
and to pay for damages. Ronald the loot, to prevent the discovery of
elevated the case to the CA robbery, or, to eliminate witnesses in
questioning his warrantless arrest and the commission of the crime.
maintained that he did not conspire in Specifically, the special complex crime
killing the officer. He claimed he was of robbery with homicide has the
merely an accomplice as opposed to a following elements, to wit:
principle as he was just the driver for
the tricycle. The CA affirmed the RTC's 1. the taking of personal property with
findings that Ronald conspired with his the use of violence or intimidation
companions in perpetrating the crime against the person;
of robbery with homicide. Were the 2. the property taken belongs to
lower courts correct? another;
3. the taking is characterized by intent
A: Yes. Robbery with homicide is a to gain or animus lucrandi; and,
composite crime with its own 4. on the occasion of the robbery or by
definition and special penalty. In this reason thereof the crime of homicide
kind of crime, the offender's original was committed
intent is to commit robbery and the
homicide must only be incidental. The All the elements are present in this
killing may occur before, during, or case. Herminia and Marieta were
even after the robbery. It is only the certain that it was Ronald who
result obtained, without reference or boarded the jeepney, wielded an ice
distinction as to the circumstances, pick and declared a hold-up. They also
causes, modes or persons intervening narrated how Ronald forcibly divested
in the commission of the crime, that them of their personal belongings.
has to be taken into consideration. It Thereafter, Ronald alighted from the
is immaterial that the death would jeepney and drove the tricycle where
supervene by mere accident; or that his three companions were waiting.
the victim of homicide is other than Evidently, the taking was with intent to
the victim of robbery, or that two or gain and was accomplished with
more persons are killed or that aside intimidation against persons. Also,
from the homicide, rape, intentional Carlo recounted that he was talking
mutilation, or usurpation of authority, with PO2 Magno when they heard
 sachet containing shabu to PO2 R,
someone shouting "[t]ulong, may who acted as the poseur-buyer. The
hold-up." They approached the scene back-up team rushed to the area,
and it was then that Ronald searched B and her companion, S, and
maneuvered the tricycle and his recovered another sachet of shabu
companion shot PO2 Magno in the from Simbulan. Because of the heavy
head. Verily, Ronald's primary rain in the area the seized items were
objective was to rob the jeepney marked and inventoried at the police
passengers and the killing of PO2 station, and the specimens were sent
Magno was only incidental to prevent to the crime laboratory for
the apprehension of the robbers and examination. B denied the charges
facilitate their escape. and claimed that she and S were
forced by three men to get into a van
There is conspiracy when two or more and were brought to the police station
persons come to an agreement where they were investigated and
concerning the commission of a felony forced to admit to selling drugs. Has
and decide to commit it.Proof of the the police officer erred in handling the
actual agreement to commit the crime evidence?
need not be direct because conspiracy
may be implied or inferred from their A: Yes. The Supreme Court acquitted B
acts. Further, to be a conspirator, one due to the prosecution's failure to
need not have to participate in every establish an unbroken chain of
detail of the execution; neither did he custody for the seized drugs. The
have to know the exact part Court emphasized that the
performed by his co-conspirator in the prosecution must prove the identity of
execution of the criminal acts. In this the dangerous drug beyond
case, the implied conspiracy between reasonable doubt and establish the
Ronald and his three companions is unbroken chain of custody. In this
evident from the mode and manner in case, the marking and inventory of the
which they perpetrated the crime. seized items were not done in the
presence of the required witnesses,
13. PEOPLE v. ROWENA BUNIEL Y and there was no explanation for their
RAMOS absence. The Court also noted that
G.R. No. 243796 there was no evidence showing how
Sep 8, 2020 the seized items were handled after
they were received by the forensic
Q: B and S were arrested in a buy-bust chemist. The breaches in the
operation conducted by the city police procedure provided by law and the
officers. According to the prosecution's unexplained irregularities
version of events, a confidential compromised the integrity and
informant made a deal with B for the evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
delivery of sample shabu. A buy-bust
operation was organized, and during The Court's decision was based on the
the operation, Buniel sold a plastic requirement that the prosecution must
establish an unbroken chain of A: No. The Supreme Court ruled that
custody for seized drugs. This means as an affirmative defense, the
that the prosecution must prove that "sweetheart" theory must be
the dangerous drug presented in court supported by convincing evidence,
is the same drug that was seized from such as mementos, love letters, notes,
the accused. The marking and and photographs. However, XXX's
inventory of the seized items must be theory of consensual sex is barren of
done in the presence of required probative weight. He failed to
witnesses to ensure the integrity and substantiate his claim and offered only
authenticity of the evidence. In this self-serving assertions. Further, the
case, the prosecution failed to comply testimony of the accused's close
with these requirements. The absence relative is necessarily suspect and
of the required witnesses during the cannot prevail over AAA's unequivocal
marking and inventory of the seized declaration that XXX "did not court
items, as well as the lack of evidence her" and "was not even her boyfriend."
on how the seized items were handled Even assuming that they have a
after they were received by the relationship, XXX cannot force AAA to
forensic chemist, created doubts on have sex against her will. A "love
the identity and integrity of the seized affair" neither justifies Rape nor
drugs. As a result, the Court granted B serves as license for lust.
appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals'
decision, and ordered her immediate The offended party AAA, although 29
release from detention. years old at the time of the alleged
incidents, had the mental age of a
14. People vs. XXX1 six-year old, as attested to by a
G.R. No. 243988 psychologist, who observed AAA and
Aug 27, 2020 conducted tests on her. The
psychologist further explained that
Q: AAA, a 29 yrs old woman with a because of her mental disability, AAA
mental age comparable to a 6 years could not sense danger to her person
old was raped and got pregnant by and was easily lured or threatened.
XXX her distant relative and long time Her physical observation of AAA
neighbor. In his defense XXX claimed readily showed that the latter had
that he has a romantic relationship such a disability. This belies the
with AAA and that he was willing to allegations of the accused and his
marry her, but the latter's father witness that they never knew that AAA
refused. Furthermore the parents of was mentally retarded, despite the
XXX claimed that AAA is not mentally fact that AAA was a relative and a
retardate because she spoke well and neighbour. Indeed, even the court
can perform basic household chores, could discern from the way AAA spoke
such as laundry, gardening and and behaved when she testified, that
baby-sitting. Is the defense of XXX she had the mind of a child. AAA's
tenable? manner and behaviour, even at first
 In this case, the Court found that there
impression, indicated her disability was a broken chain of custody. The
and it was impossible for the accused required insulating witnesses, such as
not to have known that. a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice, and any
15. People v. Balbarez y Hernandez elected public official, were not
G.R. No. 246999 present during the inventory and
Jul 28, 2020 photograph of the seized items. The
police officers also failed to provide
Q: M was arrested in a buy-bust any justification for their
operation conducted by the municipal non-compliance with the law and its
police. He was ranked second on the implementing rules. Furthermore, the
list of the top ten drug personalities in link between the investigating officer
the municipality. During the operation and the forensic chemist was not
the police asset acted as the established with certainty. Therefore,
poseur-buyer and allegedly the Court concluded that the
purchased a plastic sachet containing prosecution failed to prove an
white crystalline substance from M. unbroken chain of custody, and M was
The police then arrested M and acquitted of the charge against him.
recovered two more plastic sachets The Court emphasized the importance
from him. During the operation of strict compliance with the
insulating witnesses during the prescribed procedures in drug cases to
inventory and photograph of the prevent the imprisonment of an
seized items were not present. The innocent person.
seized items were marked and
forwarded for laboratory examination, 16. People vs. Flores Y Casero
which confirmed that they contained G.R. No. 246471
methamphetamine hydrochloride. June 16, 2020
Does the absence of the insulating
witness breaks the chain of custody? Q: The Muntinlupa City Police Station's
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations
A: Yes. The Court emphasized that in Task Group conducted a buy-bust
illegal possession cases, the operation targeting Diego, who was
contraband itself is the corpus delicti allegedly selling shabu to jeepney
of the offense, and its existence is vital drivers. During the buy bust, due to
to a judgment of conviction. The the gathering crowd, including Diego's
prosecution must establish an relatives, the team swiftly transported
unbroken chain of custody of the him to the police station. The police
seized drugs, which includes the conducted an inventory and took
confiscation and marking of the photographs of the seized items only
specimen, turnover to the in the presence of a representative
investigating officer, turnover to the from the City Drug Abuse Prevention
forensic chemist for examination, and and Control Office. Diego was charged
submission to the court. under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
 whom such items were confiscated
9165 before the Regional Trial Court and/or seized, or his/her
and was later convicted based on representative or counsel, a
these proceedings. Was the conviction representative from the media and the
proper? Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be
A: No. In illegal sale of dangerous required to sign the copies of the
drugs, the contraband itself inventory and be given a copy thereof.
constitutes the very corpus delicti of
the offense and the fact of its The presence of the insulating
existence is vital to a judgment of witnesses is the first requirement to
conviction. It is essential to ensure ensure the preservation of the identity
that the substance recovered from the and evidentiary value of the seized
accused is the same substance offered drugs. In one case it has been held
in court. The prosecution must that the corpus delicti cannot be
satisfactorily establish the movement deemed preserved absent any
and custody of the seized drug acceptable explanation for the
through the following links: (1) the deviation from the procedural
confiscation and marking of the requirements of the chain of custody
specimen seized from the accused by rule.
the apprehending officer; (2) the
turnover of the seized item by the In this case, the court acknowledged
apprehending officer to the that there was a threat to the security
investigating officer; (3) the of the entrapment team which forced
investigating officer's turnover of the them to immediately proceed to the
specimen to the forensic chemist for nearest police station since at that
examination; and, (4) the submission time, a crowd was forming and their
of the item by the forensic chemist to presence might cause a commotion.
the court. Here, the records reveal a Moreover, Diego could potentially
broken chain of custody. The alleged resist arrest with help from his
crime happened before R.A. No. relatives. Nevertheless, the absence of
1064016 amended R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the required insulating witnesses
the original provisions of Section 21 during the inventory and photograph
and its IRR shall apply, to wit: of the seized items puts serious doubt
as to the integrity of the chain of
Section 21, paragraph l, Article II of custody. Here, there was no
RA 9165 representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any
(1) The apprehending team having elected public official. Admittedly, the
initial custody and control of the drugs buy-bust team no longer waited for
shall, immediately after seizure and the required witnesses so they could
confiscation, physically inventory and timely deliver the suspected drugs to
photograph the same in the presence the crime laboratory. Thus, a
of the accused or the person/s from representative from the City Drug
 its existence is vital to a judgment of
Abuse Prevention and Control Office conviction. It is essential to ensure
signed the inventory. This is that the substance recovered from the
unacceptable considering that accused is the same substance offered
members of the buy-bust team have in court. The prosecution must
ample opportunity to prepare and satisfactorily establish the movement
make necessary arrangements to and custody of the seized drug
observe the rigidities of Section 21 of through the following links: (1) the
R.A. No. 9165. This non-compliance of confiscation and marking of the
the required procedure created a specimen seized from the accused by
serious gap in the chain of custody. the apprehending officer; (2) the
The provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. turnover of the seized item by the
9165 embodies the constitutional aim apprehending officer to the
to prevent the imprisonment of an investigating officer; (3) the
innocent man. The Court cannot investigating officer's turnover of the
tolerate the lax approach of law specimen to the forensic chemist for
enforcers in handling the very corpus examination; and, (4) the submission
delicti of the crime. Hence, Diego must of the item by the forensic chemist to
be acquitted of the charge against the court. Here, the records reveal a
him given the prosecution's failure to broken chain of custody.
prove an unbroken chain of custody.
In this case, the absence of a
17. People vs. Padua Y Cequeña representative of the National
G.R. No. 244287 Prosecution Service or the media as
June 15, 2020 an insulating witness to the inventory
and photograph of the seized item
Q: The conviction of Jemuel Padua for puts serious doubt as to the integrity
Illegal Sale and Possession of of the chain of custody. To be sure,
Dangerous Drugs is the subject of only an elected public official signed
review in this appeal assailing the the inventory of evidence at the place
Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision of arrest. Worse, the items were
affirming the RTC’s decision photographed at the police station
convicting the accused of Illegal Sale without the presence of any insulating
and Illegal Possession of Dangerous witness. However, the operatives failed
Drugs. Here, after the accused was to provide any justification for
arrested, the entrapment team non-compliance showing that the
conducted an inventory of the seized integrity of the evidence had all along
items in the presence of a barangay been preserved. They did not describe
official. Was the conviction proper? the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the
A: No. In Illegal Sale and Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, the contraband condition of the item and no
itself constitutes the very corpus opportunity for someone not in the
delicti of the offenses and the fact of chain to have possession of the same.
 starting to cause a commotion. The
The utter disregard of the required police officers then proceeded to
procedures created a huge gap in the Greater Lagro Barangay Hall where
chain of custody. While the law they conducted an inventory and
enforcers enjoy the presumption of photograph of the seized item.
regularity in the performance of their Afterwards, the marked item was
duties, this presumption cannot prevail personally delivered to the Quezon
over the constitutional right of the City District Crime Laboratory. After
accused to be presumed innocent and examination, the substance tested
it cannot by itself constitute proof of positive for methamphetamine
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The hydrochloride. Zainodin, Jenelyn, and
presumption of regularity is disputable Nurodin were then charged and
and cannot be regarded as binding convicted of Section 5, Article II of
truth. When the performance of duty is R.A. No. 9165. Was the conviction
tainted with irregularities, such proper?
presumption is effectively destroyed.
The provisions of Section 21 of RA No. A: No. In Illegal Sale and Possession of
9165 embodies the constitutional aim Dangerous Drugs, the contraband
to prevent the imprisonment of an itself constitutes the very corpus
innocent man. The Court cannot delicti of the offenses and the fact of
tolerate the lax approach of law its existence is vital to a judgment of
enforcers in handling the very corpus conviction. It is essential to ensure
delicti of the crime. Hence, Jemuel that the substance recovered from the
must be acquitted of the charges accused is the same substance offered
against him given the prosecution's in court. The prosecution must
failure to prove an unbroken chain of satisfactorily establish the movement
custody. and custody of the seized drug
through the following links: (1) the
18. People v. Gandawali y Mawarao confiscation and marking of the
G.R. No. 242516 specimen seized from the accused by
June 08, 2020 the apprehending officer; (2) the
turnover of the seized item by the
Q: The District Anti-Illegal Drugs apprehending officer to the
Special Operations Task Group of investigating officer; (3) the
Camp Karingal, Quezon City investigating officer's turnover of the
conducted a buy-bust operation specimen to the forensic chemist for
against Zainodin, Jenelyn, and examination; and, (4) the submission
Nurodin based on a tip that they are of the item by the forensic chemist to
selling shabu. The operation was the court. Here, the records reveal a
conducted in the SM Fairview food broken chain of custody. The absence
court. In the course of the operation, of a representative of the National
the mall security guard requested the Prosecution Service or the media as
team to leave the area because a an insulating witness to the inventory
crowd is forming and their presence is and photograph of the seized item
 given the prosecution's failure to prove
puts serious doubt as to the integrity an unbroken chain of custody.
of the first link. The presence of the
insulating witnesses is the first 19. Sullano y Santia vs. People
requirement to ensure the G.R. No. 232147
preservation of the identity and June 8, 2020
evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Q: Petitioner Arturo Sullano is charged
In this case, only an elected public with violation of the gun ban during
official signed the inventory of the 2010 election period pursuant to
evidence. There was no attempt on the Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 881,
part of the buy-bust team to comply in relation to Commission on Elections
with the law and its implementing (COMELEC) Resolution No. 87142. The
rules. The operatives likewise failed to trial court convicted Arturo Sullano
provide any justification showing that and sentenced him guilty beyond
the integrity of the evidence had all reasonable doubt of violating the
along been preserved. They did not Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881)
describe the precautions taken to as amended by Republic Act No. 7166
ensure that there had been no change in relation to Comelec Resolution No.
in the condition of the item and no 8714 (Gun Ban). On appeal, the Court
opportunity for someone not in the of Appeals affirmed Arturo’s
chain to have possession of the same. conviction. This prompted Arturo
While the law enforcers enjoy the Sullano to file this petition.
presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties, this Arturo contends that he cannot be
presumption cannot prevail over the held criminally liable under COMELEC
constitutional right of the accused to Resolution No. 8714 since the issuance
be presumed innocent and it cannot is an administrative resolution, which
by itself constitute proof of guilt cannot be a source of penal liability.
beyond reasonable doubt. The The accused's right to be informed of
presumption of regularity is disputable the accusation against him was
and cannot be regarded as binding violated when he was convicted of a
truth. When the performance of duty is crime that was not charged under the
tainted with irregularities, such information. Arturo maintains that the
presumption is effectively destroyed. conduct of the checkpoint was illegal,
The provisions of Section 21 of RA No. and that it was irregularly done
9165 embodies the constitutional aim because the police officers failed to
to prevent the imprisonment of an put up the necessary signage and
innocent man. The Court cannot warning to the public. Consequently,
tolerate the lax approach of law Arturo's arrest was illegal and the
enforcers in handling the very corpus items seized from him are inadmissible
delicti of the crime. Hence, Zainodin, as evidence against him. On the other
Jenelyn, and Nurodin must be hand, the Office of the Solicitor
acquitted of the charge against them General (OSG) argues that Arturo's
 adduce evidence that the accused is
exempt from the COMELEC Gun Ban
guilt was sufficiently proven. The lies with the accused. Given the
findings of the trial court, affirmed by overwhelming evidence of the
the CA, should be accorded great prosecution, Arturo counters only with
respect. There is no question that, at the defense of denial; thus, his
the time Arturo was found in self-serving assertions, unsupported
possession of a firearm, a gun ban by any plausible proof, cannot prevail
was enforced pursuant to COMELEC over the positive testimonies of the
Resolution No. 8714. The facts attested prosecution witnesses. The defense of
to by the prosecution witnesses enjoy denial is inherently weak because it
the presumption of regularity in the can easily be fabricated. Denials, as
performance of official duties. Thus, negative and self-serving evidence, do
Arturo is estopped from assailing any not deserve as much weight in law as
irregularity with regard to his arrest positive and affirmative testimonies.
since he failed to raise them before his
arraignment. Lastly, Arturo's defense
of denial does not deserve credit 20. Brozoto Y De Leon vs. People
against the testimony of the G.R. No. 233420
prosecution witnesses, especially, April 28, 2021
when the witnesses were not actuated
by ill motive. Is the OSG correct? Q: Wilbert Brozoto y De Leon
(petitioner) was indicted in two (2)
A: Yes. The trial court obtained separate Informations, both dated
jurisdiction over him, and any February 7, 2012, in Criminal Case Nos.
supposed defect in his arrest was 17296- 17297, for violation of Sections
deemed waived. It is then too late for 3(a) and 4(a), in relation to Sections
Arturo to question the legality of his 6(a) and 10(c) of Republic Act (R.A.)
warrantless arrest at this point. The No. 9208 and Sections 3 and 5 par. a(1)
Court has consistently held that any of R.A. 7610, respectively. The RTC
objection by an accused to an arrest convicted petitioner of the crimes
without a warrant must be made charged based on the sole testimony
before he enters his plea, otherwise, of AAA, which the RTC found to be
the objection is deemed waived. candid, straightforward, and
unequivocal. The CA affirmed the
The petitioner is liable for illegal conviction of petitioner, ruling that the
possession of firearm during a gun lone uncorroborated testimony of the
ban. The prosecution was able to offended victim, so long as it was
establish the elements of the crime - clear, positive, and categorical, may
the existence of a firearm, and the prove the crimes as charged.
fact that the accused who owned or Petitioner’s Motion for
possessed the firearm does not have Reconsideration was also denied by
the corresponding license or permit to the Court of Appeals. Thus, the
possess the same. The burden to petitioner brought the case on appeal
 [they] testified is not true." "Indeed,
before the Supreme Court. Petitioner leeway should be given to witnesses
asserts mainly that the who are minors, especially when they
uncorroborated testimony of AAA was are relating past incidents of
not sufficient to establish that there abuse." "The revelation of innocent
was prostitution. Hence, it cannot be child[ren] whose chastity has been
concluded that petitioner committed abused deserves full credit as [they]
trafficking in persons and child abuse. could only have been impelled to tell
Is the contention of the petitioner the truth, especially in the absence of
correct? proof of ill motive." Lamentably, the
medical findings of the examining
A: No. The petitioner is guilty of physician did corroborate AAA's claim
qualified trafficking in persons. The that she engaged in sexual congress,
existence of the elements of qualified as borne by the fact that there were
trafficking in persons was established lesions found in her hymen.
by the prosecution witness, AAA, Jurisprudence holds that when a
during trial. Her lone testimony proved victim's testimony is corroborated by
that the petitioner recruited her for the medical findings of the examining
the purpose of prostitution. The physician, the same is sufficient to
offense is qualified trafficking in sustain a verdict of conviction. All told,
persons because AAA, at that time, AAA's testimony, substantiated by
was a minor. The criminal Information medical findings, confirmed that
filed specifically alleged that AAA, was petitioner persuaded AAA, who was
only 14 years old at the time of the only 14 years old at that time, to have
commission of the offense, having sexual intercourse with a man to earn
been born on May 1, 1997, as a commission from such arrangement,
evidenced by her birth certificate. The which made him liable for qualified
trafficked victim's testimony that she trafficking in persons.
had been sexually exploited was
"material to the cause of the 21. Umpa vs. People
prosecution." Relative to this principle, G.R. Nos. 246265-66
it is likewise settled that the March 15, 2021
testimonies of child-victims are given
full weight and credit, since "youth and Q: Petitioner Maybel Umpa received
immaturity are generally badges of P20,000.00 as research fee and
truth." P620,000.00 to facilitate the release of
the documents that were needed in
"When the offended part[ies are] of
order to obtain a certificate of title
tender age and immature, courts are
over Fernando Mamaril’s property
inclined to give credit to their account
from private complainant Lory D.
of what transpired, considering not
only [their] relative vulnerability but
Malibiran. However, Umpa failed to
also the shame to which [they] would
deliver any document. This prompted
be exposed if the matter to which
Malibiran to file a complaint with the
 Such manifest inconsistency tends to
Land Registration Authority (LRA), erode his credibility and raise doubt
which was later on withdrawn and on the veracity of the prosecution
instead Mabiliran filed another evidence. Is Umpa correct?
complaint before the Ombudsman
where probable cause was found to A: No. The high court finds no
indict Umpa and Castillo for the crimes substantial matter that would warrant
of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the the reversal of the Sandiganbayan's
RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of disposition. Petitioner merely adopted
R.A. No. 3019. The RTC rendered a the arguments that she raised before
Joint Decision finding Umpa to be the Sandiganbayan to her appeal
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of before the Supreme Court. These
committing estafa as defined and arguments, however, have already
penalized under Article 315(2)(a) of the been squarely discussed and
RPC and for violating Section 3(e) of exhaustively passed upon by the
R.A. No. 3019. The RTC found that Sandiganbayan in its Decision. The
Umpa employed fraudulent ruling of the courts a quo is in
representations prior to or at least accordance with law and recent
simultaneously with Malibiran's jurisprudence. Petitioner seeks to be
delivery of the sum of Six Hundred absolved of all the charges just like her
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P620,000.00). co-accused Castillo. Malibiran,
Aggrieved, Umpa filed an appeal with however, executed an Affidavit of
the Sandiganbayan, which rendered Desistance before he testified before
its Decision dated December 20, 2018, the RTC. He explicitly stated in his
affirming the ruling of the RTC. Thus, affidavit that he is no longer
Umpa filed a Petition for Review on interested in prosecuting the case
Certiorari under Rule 45. Umpa against Castillo. Here, Malibiran's
asseverates that the prosecution failed affidavit does not partake of a
to prove the elements of the crime recantation, as he has yet to testify in
of Estafa under paragraph 2(a) of court. All the same, Malibiran's
Article 315 of the RPC and violation of unequivocal declaration that he will no
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. She longer testify against Castillo
points out that the RTC and the precluded the prosecution from
Sandiganbayan both relied on the effectively obtaining the required
testimony of Malibiran. The matters evidence to sustain his conviction. On
that he alleged in his Complaint that account, the RTC dismissed the
Affidavit, however, is inconsistent with criminal case against Castillo.
the matters he stated in his Affidavit
of Desistance. That is, Malibiran did Petitioner seeks to discredit the
not distinguish their participation in testimony of Malibiran by arguing that
defrauding him. While in his Affidavit there is an inconsistency between his
of Desistance, Malibiran retracted his Complaint-Affidavit and his Affidavit
statement and claimed that Castillo of Desistance. Settled is the rule that
took no part in the fraudulent scheme. testimonies given in open court are
 out of the bar and performing sexual
given greater weight than sworn services, were charged a "bar fine" of
statements taken ex parte because PHP 1,800.00. Rosario acts as their
the latter are invariably incomplete pimp and Jocelyn constantly checks
and oftentimes inaccurate. This Court on them. Meanwhile, Kenneth collects
concurs with the courts a quo that money everyday from the cashier.
there is no inconsistency between the
two affidavits that were executed by During the course of the trial, Kenneth
Lory Malibiran. The difference died, which resulted in the dismissal of
between the two affidavits, if any, the cases against him. The RTC
pertains solely to Castillo's adjudged Rosario guilty of eight
participation in the alleged fraud. counts of qualified trafficking in
Malibiran was unwavering in his persons. The trial court found that she
allegations against the petitioner, acted as a pimp by recruiting the
which is also consistent with the victims to engage in prostitution. This
testimonies of the other prosecution was accomplished through the "bar
witnesses and petitioner's admissions. fine" scheme wherein customers will
The fact remains that petitioner took pay PHP 1,800.00 to take a girl out of
advantage of Malibiran's false the bar for sexual services. However,
impression that she had the authority the prosecution failed to prove the
to process his requested documents. guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the
There was no showing that she even accused Rosario S. Craste, thus, she
tried to correct him. Instead, was acquitted. On appeal, Rosario
petitioner asked Malibiran to pay her claimed that the RTC erred in
the total sum of Six Hundred Forty convicting her of the charges because
Thousand Pesos (P640,000.00) by she was merely instigated by the
giving false assurances that she would police officers to commit the crime
deliver the requested documents. which led to her arrest. Was the
conviction proper?
22. People vs. Graham
G.R. No. 253287 A: Yes. Rosario was not instigated to
July 6, 2022 commit human trafficking; the arrest
was made after a valid
Q: Criminal charges for the crime of entrapment/rescue operation.
Qualified Trafficking in Persons
against Rosario and her co-accused Instigation means luring the accused
Kenneth John Graham (Kenneth) and into a crime that he, otherwise, had no
Jocelyn Ordinaryo (Jocelyn) were filed. intention to commit, in order to
They recruited minors and forced them prosecute him. On the other hand,
to engage in prostitution and made entrapment is the employment of
them dance wearing only their ways and means in order to trap or
underwear, specifically panties and capture a lawbreaker. Instigation
bra. Customers who avail of a girl's presupposes that the criminal intent to
service, which includes taking them commit an offense originated from the
 denial that she was merely pointed to
inducer and not the accused who had by the victims as their mamasang
no intention to commit the crime and upon instructions of Mommy Lai. To be
would not have committed it were it sure, instigation and denial cannot be
not for the initiatives by the inducer. In invoked simultaneously as defenses.
entrapment, the criminal intent or
design to commit the offense charged –NOTHING FOLLOWS–
originates in the mind of the accused;
the law enforcement officials merely
facilitate the apprehension of the
criminal by employing ruses and
schemes. In instigation, the law
enforcers act as active co-principals.
Instigation leads to the acquittal of
the accused, while entrapment does
not bar prosecution and conviction.

The court found that the police

operatives conducted a valid
entrapment operation. Rosario, as the
mamasang of private complainants,
was predisposed to commit the
offense of trafficking even before the
police officers initiated contact with
her. The victims testified that she
regularly dealt with customers
regarding their bar fine. Her act of
transacting with the customers who
pay the bar fine when taking the
victims out for sexual services was
first revealed to the police operatives
during the surveillance operation,
which enabled them to secure the
search warrant implemented during
the entrapment. More importantly,
instigation is a positive defense that is
in the nature of a confession and
avoidance. This means that Rosario, in
effect, admitted the commission of the
act — except that she claims that the
criminal intent originated from the
mind of the inducer or the law
enforcer. For this reason, instigation is
incompatible with Rosario's defense of