Justice Velasco Rulings - Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW 1
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 164575
The elements to constitute malversation under Article 217
of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:
The elements common to all acts of malversation under
Article 217 are:
(a) that the offender be a public officer;
(b) that he had custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office;
(c) these funds were public funds or property for which he
was accountable; and
(d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
Article 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the
accused actually appropriated, took, or misappropriated
public funds or property. Instead, a presumption was
installed that upon demand
by any duly authorized officer, the failure of a public officer
to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property
with which said officer is accountableshould be prima
facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or
properties to personal use.
G.R. No. 157433
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall
be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prisin correccional in its maximum
period to prisin mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter
sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prisin mayor or reclusin
temporal, as the case may be;
x x x provided that in the x x x cases mentioned, the fraud be
committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
xxxx
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even
though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by
a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods,
or other property
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under Art.

315 1(b) are:
1. That the money, goods or other personal property be
received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
such receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to
the prejudice of another; and
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to
the offender.
All these elements are present in the case at bar. Petitioner
admitted having received in trust the amount of PhP
100,000 from Castro; the amount was misappropriated or
converted; such misappropriation or conversion was to the
prejudice of Castro; and Castro demanded payment from
petitioner.
G.R. No. 157433
Petitioner asserts that upon receipt of the amount, it was
transferred to her and she was not prohibited to use or
spend the same. The very same money cannot be returned
but only the same amount. This makes the transaction a
loan and not a trust agreement; thus, her liability is merely
civil and not criminal.
Petitioners arguments are not meritorious. Art. 315 1(b)
explicitly includes money in its scope. The nature of money,
that is, the exact bills and coins received in trust cannot be
returned, was already considered by the law. As long as the
money was received in trust, on commission, for
administration, or under an obligation to return, failure to
account for it upon demand is punishable under Art. 315
1(b). The Solicitor General added:
In a trust agreement, the transfer of the property to the
trustee is mere physical possession and not juridical
possession. Unlike in a contract of loan where the debtor
acquires juridical possession and is technically the owner of
the amount, in a trust, the obligation of the trustee is
fiduciary in nature, i.e. to take care of the thing strictly for
the benefit of the trustee in accordance with the purpose of
the express trust.
In the case at bar, the amount was received by the
petitioner for the sole purpose of using it as "show money"
to the bank. The money was entrusted to her for a particular
purpose. Hence, she did not acquire the right to dispose or
spend the amount as she sees fit; she had the obligation to
account for said amount.
G.R. No. 161455
Art.171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. RAL CASABAR
CRIMINAL LAW 2

or ecclesiastical minister.x x
xxxx
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
[as testified to by witnesses].
xxxx
concoct a story of sexual violation, or allow an examination

of their private parts and undergo public trial, if they are not
motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong
committed against them. Moreover, a rape victims
testimony against her father goes against the grain of
Filipino culture as it yields unspeakable trauma and social
stigma on the child and the entire family. Thus, great weight
is given to an accusation a child directs against her father.
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of

falsified documents.The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more
than 5,000 shall be imposed upon:
G.R. No. 169245
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the

falsification enumerated in the next preceeding article in
any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document;
The appellant attempted to show, [through a witness, his

brother-in-law], that he was at [his brother-in-laws]
birthday party held in Binangonan, Rizal on May 27, 1995.
Such fact, even if it were true, did not eliminate the
possibility of his traveling to Binalonan, Pangasinan anytime
after May 27, 1995. x x x
xxxx
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in
any judicial proceedings or to the damage of another or
who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of
the false documents embraced in the next preceeding
article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article
shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
Note that the last paragraph of Art. 172 does not specify
that the offending person is a public or private individual as
does its par. 1. Note also that the last paragraph of Art. 172
alludes to the use of the false document embraced in par. 2
of Art. 171 where it was made to appear that "persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in
fact participate." Patently, even a public officer may be
convicted under Art. 172.
The crime in Art. 171 is absorbed by the last paragraph of
Art. 172. Thus, Pactolins argument about being deprived of
his right to be informed of the charges against him when the
Sandiganbayan convicted him as a private person under Art.
172, is baseless.
The headings in italics of the two articles are not controlling.
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, or the
designation of the offense charged or the particular law or
part thereof allegedly violated, but the description of the
crime charged and the particular facts therein recited or the
recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
complaint or information.
G.R. No. 169245
To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the
penetration of the female organ. In this case, the conviction
of accused-appellant was anchored mainly on the testimony
of the minor victim, AAA. However, accused-appellant casts
doubt on AAAs credibility by tagging her as a disturbed
child who invented the accusation against him because he
maltreated her. This theory deserves scant consideration.
Rape victims, especially those of tender age, would not
The CA correctly disregarded accused-appellants defense of

alibi as follows:
xxxx
To be reliable, alibi must be supported by credible
corroboration, preferably from disinterested witnesses who
swear that they saw or were with the accused somewhere
else when the crime was being committed. In this case, the
appellants alibi, though corroborated by [his mother],
[niece] and [brother-in-law], was not credible for the
obvious reason that they were his close relatives, not
disinterested persons. Alibi is regarded as weak if it is
established wholly or mainly by the accused himself or his
relatives, and so should fail as a defense once the accused is
positively identified by the victim herself.
G.R. No. 172091
Conviction or acquittal in rape cases, more often than not,
depends almost entirely on the credibility of the
complainants testimony. For, by the very nature of this
crime, it is usually only the victim who can testify as to its
occurrence. The accused may be convicted solely on the
testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. And, in the
evaluation of the credibility of the complainants testimony,
the sound determination and conclusion by the trial court
are accorded much weight and respect.
The trial court correctly rejected accused-appellants selfserving and unsubstantiated pretense that BBB, AAAs
mother, harbored ill feelings towards him. We agree with
the CAs holding that he failed to substantiate his claim of ill
motive on the part of BBB, as it is unnatural for a mother to
use her offspring as a tool of malice, especially if it would
subject her daughter to embarrassment and even stigma.
Indeed, no mother would sacrifice her own daughter.
Anent AAAs alleged failure to accurately describe what a
male organ looks like, such minor error does not affect her
credibility. Considering her tender age, she cannot be
expected to accurately describe it. What prevails is AAAs
CRIMINAL LAW 3

testimonyit being simple and straightforwardwhich the
offender would have no other recourse but to rebut as his
last ditch effort, by posing his insignificant defense, a trap
he had set up which he himself fell into. AAAs testimony
was strongly supported by the evidence of the prosecution
culled from the records that leaves no doubt as to her
credibility. And what reinforces the credibility of her
testimony is the fact that she was only six years old when
she testified and, indubitably, her statements rang true.
Weighed against the positive testimony of the complaining
witness, accused-appellants denial, unsubstantiated by
convincing evidence, loses evidentiary value.
G.R. No. 174098
Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of
rape. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the
gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through
force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her
consent. What is imperative is that the element of force or
intimidation be proven; and force need not always produce
physical injuries. Notably, force, violence, or intimidation in
rape is a relative term, depending on the age, size, strength,
and relationship of the parties.
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that
accused-appellant employed sufficient intimidation in order
to satisfy his lust against complainant. In her testimony,
complainant stated that accused-appellant dragged her into
a forested area with a knife pointed on her neck. As
correctly observed by the trial court, complainant submitted
to the will of accused-appellant because of fear for her life.
G.R. No. 177297
The failure of a rape victim to immediately report her ordeal
or to flee from the clutches of a sex fiend does not, standing
alone, affect the credibility of her testimony on the rape
incident, nor is it indicative of false accusation. In the case at
bench, the inaction of AAA is understandable and may even
be expected, scared as she was of her father and that she
had no place to go if she were to flee.
G.R. No. 181633
A rape victims testimony as to who abused her is credible
where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and
testify against the accused. Categorical and positive
identification of an accused, without any showing of ill
motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the
matter, prevails over denial and alibi, which are negative
and self-serving. We thus affirm the trial courts
appreciation of the testimonial evidence adduced. It is basic
that the trial courts evaluation of the testimonies of
witnesses should be accorded the highest respect as it has
the best opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of
witnesses on the stand and to establish whether they are
telling the truth.
G.R. No. 182348
The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are:

(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.
On the third element, we have held that the possession
must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus
possidendi existed with the possession or control of said
articles. Considering that as to this knowledge, a person's
mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we have
ruled that:
Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and
thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to
other evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state
of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by
taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts
of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its
existence may and usually must be inferred from the
attendant events in each particular case.
The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant
show that: he was inside the nipa hut at the time the buybust operation was taking place; he was talking to Boy Bicol
inside the nipa hut; he was seen holding a shotgun; when
PO1 Calanoga, Jr. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant,
the latter dropped his shotgun; and when apprehended, he
was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital weighing
scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines.
Accused-appellant later admitted that he knew what the
content of the seized plastic bag was.
Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed
to establish possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or
constructive sense, on the part of accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 182750
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances.The following are
mitigating circumstances:
xxxx
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating
circumstance or as an essential element of self-defense, the
reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the
offended party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating
anyone; it is not enough that the provocative act be
unreasonable or annoying; the provocation must be
sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful act and
should immediately precede the act.
G.R. No. 182750
This third requisite of self-defense is present:
(1) when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor;
(2) when, even if provocation was given, it was not
CRIMINAL LAW 4

sufficient;
(3) when even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not
given by the person defending himself; or
(4) when even if a provocation was given by the person
defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to
the act of aggression.
G.R. No. 182750
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances.The following are
mitigating circumstances:
xxxx
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed.
While intent to kill may be presumed from the fact of the
death of the victim, this mitigating factor may still be
considered when attendant facts and circumstances so
warrant, as in the instant case. Consider: Petitioner tried to
avoid the fight, being very much smaller than Tomelden. He
tried to parry the blows of Tomelden, albeit he was able,
during the scuffle, to connect a lucky punch that ended the
fight. And lest it be overlooked, petitioner helped carry his
unconscious co-worker to the office of the LIWADs general
manager. Surely, such gesture cannot reasonably be
expected from, and would be unbecoming of, one intending
to commit so grave a wrong as killing the victim. A bareknuckle fight as a means to parry the challenge issued by
Tomelden was commensurate to the potential violence
petitioner was facing.
G.R. No. 182750
Withal, with no aggravating circumstance and two
mitigating circumstances appreciable in favor of petitioner,
we apply par. 5 of Art. 64, RPC, which pertinently provides:
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain
three periods.In cases in which the penalties prescribed
by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible
penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one
of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of
Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
xxxx
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to
the number and nature of such circumstances.
G.R. No. 184050
One who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the
name of self-defense bears the burden of proving:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;

(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
claiming self-defense.
By invoking self defense, the burden is placed on the
accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly.
While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies
first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no
self-defense may be successfully pleaded.
G.R. No. 184050
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving
the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby
ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressors, and
without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.
G.R. No. 186129
Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases:
(1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the
crime of rape in which only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense.
Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape may be
solely based on the complainants testimony provided it is
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things.
G.R. No. 186129
To sustain such an alibi, the defense must establish the
physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. True it is
that his story was corroborated by additional witnesses.
These testimonies, however, did not show the physical
impossibility of Cruz to be present at AAAs home when she
was raped. Even if Cruz conducted the land survey on the
same day, he could have very easily committed the rape as
he was in the same city as AAA.
G.R. No. 173905
A trust receipt transaction is one where the entrustee has
the obligation to deliver to the entruster the price of the
sale, or if the merchandise is not sold, to return the
merchandise to the entruster. There are, therefore, two
obligations in a trust receipt transaction: the first refers to
money received under the obligation involving the duty to
turn it over (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise
sold, while the second refers to the merchandise received
under the obligation to "return" it (devolvera) to the owner.
CRIMINAL LAW 5

A violation of any of these undertakings constitutes Estafa
defined under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC, as provided in
Sec. 13 of PD 115, viz:
Section 13. Penalty Clause.The failure of an entrustee to
turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents
or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of
the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust
receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if
they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the
terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of
estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three
hundred fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three
thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise
known as the Revised Penal Code. x x x
G.R. No. 178062
The following elements must be established for a conviction
in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide:
1. The taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking is animo lucrandi; and
4. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
homicide is committed.19
Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of
a direct relation, an intimate connection between the
robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or
subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are
committed at the same time.
The prosecution was able to establish that accusedappellants committed robbery with homicide through the
totality of their evidence. The first three elements were
established when Oliva testified that he saw, and positively
identified, accused-appellants taking Gabuyas property by
force and both shooting Gabuya. Gabuyas death resulting
from their attack proves the last element of the complex
crime as duly confirmed by the post-mortem report.
G.R. No. 184599
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be established:
(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and
(2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug as evidence.
Records show that the chain of custody over the seized
substances was not broken, and that the drugs seized from
appellants were properly identified before the trial court.
lie, the following elements must be established:

(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug;
(3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug.
Notably, exclusive possession of the prohibited drug is not
required.
Possession under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused. On the other hand,
constructive possession exists when the drug is under
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
right to exercise dominion and control over the place where
it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.
The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband
is located, is shared with another.
G.R. No. 184805
Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into
the commission of the offense charged in order to
prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the
employment of such ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if
the offense was committed by the defendant, free from the
influence or instigation of the detective.
G.R. No. 184805
In order to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation,
this Court has consistently applied the "objective" test.
In applying the "objective" test, the details of the purported
transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly
and adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, and the
promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug
subject of the sale.
G.R. No. 184805
As can be gleaned from the language of the rule on Custody
and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, it is clear that the failure of the law
enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not
render appellants arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced
against him inadmissible.
G.R. No. 184599
What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and

the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused."
For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to
G.R. No. 186411
CRIMINAL LAW 6
Article 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:
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
G.R. No. 186411
Sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the
extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal
act already constitutes rape; without requiring proof that
the accused used force or intimidation in committing the
act. In this circumstance, what needs to be alleged in the
information and proven during trial are the facts of
appellants carnal knowledge of the victim, and the victims
mental retardation.
informing complainants; and that complainants were never

deployed abroad.
G.R. No. 188560
Pertinently, the elements of rape under par. 1(a) of Art. 266A of the Code are the following:
(1) that the offender is a man;
(2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
(3) that such act is accomplished by using force or
intimidation.
G.R. No. 188560
On the other hand, the elements of rape under par. 2 of Art.
266-A of the Code are as follows:
(1) that the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
(2) that the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting
his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice or by
inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person; and
(3) that the act of sexual assault is accomplished by using
force or intimidation, among others.
G.R. No. 191096
Probable cause is defined as "a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense charged."
G.R. No. 189834
G.R. No. 186411

Appellant was charged with rape through force and
intimidation. For conviction to lie, it is necessary for the
prosecution to prove two elements
1. that appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim and
2. that such act was done through force or intimidation.
G.R. No. 187730
The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused
defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by
means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable
of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person. Deceit is the false representation of a matter
of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have
been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal
injury.
All these elements are present in the instant case: the
accused-appellant, together with the other accused at large,
deceived the complainants into believing that the agency
had the power and capability to send them abroad for
employment; that there were available jobs for them in
Korea as factory workers; that by reason or on the strength
of such assurance, the complainants parted with their
money in payment of the placement fees; that after
receiving the money, accused-appellant and his co-accused
went into hiding by changing their office locations without
An accused may enjoy the mitigating circumstance of

voluntary surrender if the following requisites are present:
"1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the
latters agent; and 3) the surrender was voluntary.
We find that in the case of accused-appellant, all the
elements for a valid voluntary surrender were present.
Accused-appellant at the time of his surrender had not
actually been arrested. He surrendered to the police
authorities. His surrender was voluntary, as borne by the
certification issued by the police. There is, thus, merit to the
claim of accused-appellant that he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
G.R. No. 189834
Revised Penal Code provides under Article 13(3) the
mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
We held, "This mitigating circumstance addresses itself to
the intention of the offender at the particular moment
when the offender executes or commits the criminal act."
We also held, "This mitigating circumstance is obtaining
when there is a notable disparity between the means
employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the
resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at
the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from
CRIMINAL LAW 7

the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the
injury sustained by the victim."
G.R. No. 189981
Incomplete self-defense cannot be made as a justifying
circumstance, because the element of unlawful aggression is
absent
Art. 69 in relation to Art. 11 of the RPC explains when
incomplete self-defense is permissible as a privileged
mitigating circumstance, thus:
Treachery exists when "the offender commits any of the

crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising
from the defense which the offended party might make."
What is important in ascertaining the existence of treachery
is the fact that the attack was made swiftly, deliberately,
unexpectedly, and without a warning, thus affording the
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape the attack.
G.R. No. 193479
ART. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed

is not wholly excusable. A penalty lower by one or two
degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the
deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some
of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt
from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in
articles 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such
conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty
in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption present
or lacking.
ART. 310. Qualified Theft.The crime of theft shall be

punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than
those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail
matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (Emphasis
supplied.)
ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.The following do not

incur any criminal liability:
The elements of Qualified Theft committed with grave

abuse of confidence are as follows:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,

provided that the following circumstances occur:
1. Taking of personal property;
First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
2. That the said property belongs to another;

3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners consent;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the

person defending himself.
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or

intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
In order that incomplete self-defense could prosper as a

privileged mitigating circumstance, unlawful aggression
must exist.
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
G.R. No. 189981

According to Art. 14(3) of the RPC, an offense is aggravated
when it is committed with evident premeditation.
Evident premeditation is present when the following
requisites concur:
G.R. No. 193479

ART. 308. Who are liable for theft.Theft is committed by
any person who, with intent to gain but without violence,
against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without the latters
consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the

crime;
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to

deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to

his determination; and
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the

property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits
or objects of the damage caused by him; and
(3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and

execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of
his act.
G.R. No. 189981
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field

where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another
and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon
the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or
farm products.
CRIMINAL LAW 8
Thus, the elements of the crime of Theft are: (1) there was a
taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to
another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the
owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5)
the taking was accomplished without violence or
intimidation against the person or force upon things.
G.R. No. 197807
The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish
are (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed
him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not
parricide or infanticide.
G.R. No. 197807
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two
elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
G.R. No. 197807
Art. 265 of the RPC provides, "Any person who shall inflict
upon another physical injuries not described [as serious
physical injuries] but which shall incapacitate the offended
party for labor for ten (10) days or more, or shall require
medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of
less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor."
G.R. No. 199735
The essence of the chain of custody rule is to ensure that
the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same dangerous drug recovered from his
or her possession.
Since the "perfect chain" is almost always impossible to
obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as stated in
the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without
more, automatically render the seizure of the dangerous
drug void, and evidence is admissible as long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
G.R. No. 190814
Under Sec. 22(k) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or The Rule on
Violence Against Women and Their Children, a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.
G.R. No. 197307
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 - ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition

to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any
public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person,
in connection with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein the public officer
in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
G.R. No. 197307
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713 - "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees."
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to
acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of
any public official and employee and are hereby declared to
be unlawful:
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. Public officials and
employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly,
any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of their
official duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by
the functions of their office.
G.R. No. 206357
ACT NO. 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF
PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL
ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE
WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be
not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and
punishment. xxx.
RA 3019 is silent as to when the period of prescription shall
begin to run. This void, however, is remedied by Act No.
3326, Section 2 of which provides in part:
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be
not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and
punishment. xxx.
Based on the above, there are two reckoning points for the
counting of the prescription of an offense: 1) the day of the
commission of the violation of the law; and 2) if the day
whenthe violation was committed be not known, then it
shall begin to run from the discovery of said violation and
the institution of judicial proceedingsfor investigation and
CRIMINAL LAW 9

punishment.
G.R. No. 209373
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is
presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the
thing subject to asportation. Actual gain is irrelevant as the
important consideration is the intent to gain.
G.R. No. 209373
ART. 310. Qualified Theft.The crime of theft shall be
punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than
those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence xxx
The accused in this case, it bears stressing, were guards and
drivers with access to the entrance and exit of the CEO
premises. In other words,they enjoyed the trust and
confidence reposed on them by their employer to have
access throughout the CEO premises on account of their
respective duties.
G.R. No. 209373
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Once
conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are
answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or
degree of their participation. It is common design which is
the essence of conspiracyconspirators may act separately
or together in different manners but always leading to the
same unlawful result.
civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there
exists in the former an issue that must be pre-emptively
resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever
the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative Juris et de Jure of the guilt or innocence of
the accused in the criminal case.
Its existence rests on the concurrence of two essential
elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;
and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed
G.R. No. 214865
Art. 70 of the RPC on successive service of sentences shall
apply. As provided:
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. xxx
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding,
the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be
more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to
the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted
after the sum total of those imposed equals the same
maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
G.R. No. 181633
Applying this doctrine in the case at bench, it can reasonably

be concluded that despite Laojans lack of physical
participation in hauling the items to Tangians truck and
bringing them to the junk shop, he can still be liable for
Qualified Theft via conspiracy.
Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by

inserting "any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person."
G.R. No. 210760
In offenses against property, the materiality of the

erroneous designation of the offended party would depend
on whether or not the subject matter of the offense was
sufficiently described and identified.
The foregoing narrationbased on the testimonies of the

two witnesses of the prosecution, even if given full faith and
credit and considered as established factsfailsto establish
that petitioner committed the crime of theft. If at all, it may
possibly constitute evidence that petitioner committed an
offense, but not necessarily theft.
In the case before the Court,the evidence presented by the
prosecution fails to establish the corpus delicti of theft. In
Tan v. People, this Court said:
Corpus delicti means the "body or substance of the crime,
and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime
has been actually committed. In theft, corpus delicti has two
elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
G.R. No. 208587
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a
G.R. No. 201620
An erroneous designation of the person injured is not

material because the subject matter of the offense, a check,
was sufficiently identified with such particularity as to
properly identify the particular offense charged.
G.R. No. 161032
To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest
are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for
libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that
while in general every discreditable imputation publicly
made is deemed false, because every man is presumed
innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false
imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a public person
in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In
order that such discreditable imputation to a public official
CRIMINAL LAW 10

may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact
or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment
is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then
it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as
long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.
G.R. No. 183457
The requisites of self-defense, prescribed by Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code, are:
(1) unlawful aggression;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
The burden of proving the elements of self-defense shifts to
the accused.
G.R. No. 183457
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least
a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. There
must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent
danger, which puts the defendants life in real peril.
It is evident that the incident began with mere jokes
between Ruperto and the victim while they were
intoxicated. When Ruperto struck the victim with a piece of
wood, the victim retaliated by pushing Ruperto, further
infuriating the latter. From Quijanos testimony, it was
Ruperto who struck first, not the victim.
G.R. No. 183457
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. (RA) 7659, murder is punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. With no generic aggravating
circumstance and one generic mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, the penalty imposable on accusedappellant, in accordance with Art. 63(3) of the Revised Penal
Code, should be the minimum period, which is reclusion
perpetua.
G.R. No. 148971
Moreover, the rule is well-settled that the prosecution need
not prove motive on the part of the accused when the latter
has been positively identified as the author of the crime.
Motive would not bar conviction of the accused as long as
the crime itself and the identity of the perpetrator had been
indubitably established.
G.R. No. 155153
In assessing the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by
the following principles:
(1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the
lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of
weight and substance that could affect the results of the
case;
(2) the findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of

witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it
had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they
testified on the witness stand; and
(3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive, and
convincing manner and remains consistent on crossexamination is a credible witness.
G.R. No. 155153
Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence
To sustain a conviction for the crime of homicide, it is
essential that the following elements be proven beyond
reasonable doubt:
(1) that a person was killed;
(2) that the accused killed him without any justifying
circumstance;
(3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed; and
(4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
In the present case, absent any allegation of any justifying
and qualifying circumstances, the prosecution had the
burden of proving the death of the victim and the
responsibility of the person who caused such death. Dr.
Baltazar testified to the fact of Salazars death. However,
petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish
that he was the malefactor. He argues that testimony of the
prosecutions lone witness to the crime is not credible.
We disagree. Petitioners conviction was based on the
positive and direct testimony of the prosecution eyewitness.
Absent any evidence of improper motive on her part to
testify as principal witness, her testimony deserves full
credit.
G.R. No. 155153
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the
accused was at some other place when the crime was
committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that
the accused could not have been physically present at the
place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its
commission.23 In considering the physical distance of the
accused from the crime scene, the Court has rejected alibi
where the two places are in the same municipality, where
they are easily accessible by any mode of public
transportation, where the distance can be covered by
walking for thirty minutes or by riding a vehicle for twenty
minutes,26 or even when it could be reached after
approximately an hour.
In the present case, the party was only 150 meters away
from the crime scene.
G.R. No. 175045
Clearly, (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. punishes not only public officers who commit
CRIMINAL LAW 11

prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those
who induce or cause the public official to commit those
offenses. This is supported by Sec. 9, which includes private
persons as liable for violations under Secs. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.In addition
to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions. x x x
G.R. No. 175045

In petitioners case, the finding of conspiracy is not
unfounded. In all three criminal cases, the prosecution was
able to establish that Ecleo, Jr. and Navarra approved of
overpayments made to Santillano.
The Sandiganbayan did not give much weight to their weak
defense of alibi.
Navarras alibi was also not enough to acquit her. She was
not precluded from signing the documents relating to the
subject projects while she was on leave. She also did not
establish any proof that her signatures were forged. Worse,
both Ecleo, Jr. and Navarra were parties to an agreement
that approved disbursement of funds for a bogus project
and they could not come up with a plausible justification for
it.
Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals.
What is more, it correctly ruled that the doctrine in Arias v.

Sandiganbayan could not be used by Ecleo, Jr. to escape
liability, as the documents he had to approve were not so
voluminous so as to preclude him from studying each one
carefully and he should have examined all the project
documents, as a good deal of taxpayers money was
involved.
xxxx
G.R. No. 176744
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce

or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses
defined in Section 3 hereof.
Anguac has failed to disprove the allegations of AAA with his

mere denial of the charges against him. The rule is that
denials are self-serving negative evidence which cannot
prevail over the positive, straightforward, and unequivocal
testimony of the victim. We have ruled time and again that
the sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to
convict.
While the afore-quoted provision does not contain a

reference to private individuals, it must be read in
conjunction with the following sections also of RA 3019:
Section 9. Penalties for violations.(a) Any public officer or

private person committing any of the unlawful acts or
omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act
shall be punished x x x
G.R. No. 175045
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court on circumstantial evidence
applies to this case. It states:
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.
A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute
an unbroken chain that leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, as the guilty person, that is, the circumstances
proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with
the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same
time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of
guilty.
G.R. No. 176744

The character of the crime is determined neither by the
caption or preamble of the information nor by the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the recital of
the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information.
Consequently, even if the designation of the crime in the
information was defective, what is controlling is the
allegation of the facts in the information that comprises a
crime and adequately describes the nature and cause of the
accusation against the accused.
Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 or the Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
refers to engaging in or promoting, facilitating, or inducing
child prostitution. Sec. 5(b), on the other hand, relates to
offenders who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse. The informations charged
accused with having sexual congress with AAA through
force, threats, and intimidation. These allegations more
properly fall under a charge under Sec. 5(b).
CRIMINAL LAW 12

G.R. No. 178770
G.R. No. 180512
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the determination of

credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the
trial court as it is in the best position to observe their
demeanor.
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the

crimes against the person, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly or
specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
G.R. No. 178770

As against Jonathans straightforward and convincing
testimony, the alibi of Fernando that he was asleep in his
house and the denial of Hector that they confronted and
assaulted Jonathan and Edison miserably fail. Alibi is the
weakest of all defenses and as against positive identification
by prosecution witnesses, alibi is worthless. Just as alibi is an
inherently weak defense, so is denial since these are selfserving negative evidence that cannot be accorded much
evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a
credible witness.
In the case at bar, the victim was unarmed and unsuspecting

when accused-appellant suddenly stabbed him. Treachery
was clearly present in accused-appellants method.
G.R. No. 178770
G.R. No. 182193
There is conspiracy when the separate acts committed,

taken collectively, emanate from a concerted and associated
action, albeit each circumstance, if considered separately,
may not show confabulation.
On the alleged impossibility of inflicting immediate harm on

AAA since accused had no deadly weapon at the time of the
rape incidents, we held that it is common for a young victim
of tender age to be fearful in the face of the mildest threat
against her life.
In this case, to reiterate, the CA observed that (1) Fernando

and his group blocked Jonathan and Edison as the two were
on their way home; (2) they all participated in the attack on
Jonathan and Edison; (3) when Jonathan had a chance to
flee, Hector dragged him back; and (4) Hector and Jayson
exchanged blows with Jonathan and Edison as Fernando
viciously hit Edison with a steel chair causing the demise of
Edison.
All these constitute circumstances that lead to the
conclusion that all the accused conspired to harm their prey.
These, taken with the eyewitness testimonies and the
physical evidence supported by the medico-legals findings,
establish without doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants.
G.R. No. 180512
Accused-appellants alternative claim of passion or
obfuscation likewise deserves no credit.
To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following
elements must be present:
(1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such condition of mind; and
(2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.
There was no evidence of unlawful aggression or any act on
the part of the victim that could have caused accusedappellant to act with passion or obfuscation. He failed to
present any witness or proof that would support his claim.
Thus, the trial and appellate courts were correct in
overruling the claim for said mitigating circumstance.
G.R. No. 182193

It is not unnatural then for AAA to have kept silent during
the rape for fear for her personal safety. The failure of the
victim to shout for help does not negate the commission of
rape.
Although not alleged in the informations, the moral

ascendancy of accused over his victim as her uncle was
more than sufficient to cow her into submission, even
without use of a deadly weapon.
G.R. No. 182420
The essential elements in a prosecution for sale of illegal
drugs are:
(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti
of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited
drug; proof of its identity, existence, and presentation in
court are crucial.
A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent
doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the
prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty.
Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale
are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed
and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in
court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same
degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty
verdict.
G.R. No. 182420
The latest jurisprudence on illegal drugs cases shows a
growing trend in acquittals based on reasonable doubt.
These "reasonable doubt acquittals" underscore the lack of
strict adherence that law enforcement agencies and
CRIMINAL LAW 13

prosecutors have shown with regard to the chain of custody
rule.
In People v. Sanchez, the accused was acquitted since the
prosecution did not make known the identities of the police
officers to whom custody of the seized drugs was entrusted
after the buy-bust operation. Likewise absent from the
evidence is any testimony on the whereabouts of the drugs
after they were analyzed by the forensic chemist.
In People v. Garcia, the conviction was overturned due in
part to the failure of the state to show who delivered the
drugs to the forensic laboratory and who had custody of
them after their examination by the forensic chemist and
pending their presentation in court.
G.R. No. 182420
The chain of custody requirements that must be met in
proving that the seized drugs are the same ones presented
in court:
(1) testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence; and
(2) witnesses should describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the item.
G.R. No. 182687
In the instant case, the place where the alleged rape was
committed and the river where the accused was tending his
motor pump at the time of the alleged incident was just
separated by a 50 meter distance and the accused admitted
that it would not take five minutes to reach his house by
normal walking at an average speed. Thus, it was not
physically impossible for accused to be at the crime scene.
Moreover, positive identification of an eyewitness prevails
over the defense of alibi. Hence, accuseds attempt to
exculpate himself through alibi must fail.
G.R. No. 182792
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
if the victim is demented, the element of force becomes
immaterial and absence of consent is presumed. Thus, only
sexual intercourse must be proved in order to convict an
accused. For this reason, if the mental age of a woman
above 12 years old is that of a child below 12 years old, even
if she voluntarily submits herself to the bestial desires of the
accused, or even if the circumstances of force or
intimidation are absent, the accused would still be liable for
rape.
If the victim, however, is above 12 years old and has normal
psychological faculty at the time of the crime, sexual
intercourse and the attendant circumstance of force,
violence, intimidation, or threat must be proved.
G.R. No. 182792
In this case, the Information alleged that AAA is mentally

retarded. It, however, contained also an allegation that
sexual intercourse was committed against AAA through
force and intimidation and without her consent. The trial
court convicted Pepito after finding that sexual congress
through force and intimidation had been sufficiently
established. It did not consider the mental condition of AAA
because it was no longer necessary. As correctly ruled by
the CA, AAAs mental retardation was inconsequential
because the conviction of the accused was based on the use
of force and intimidation.
G.R. No. 182792
Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it
largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as
the size, age, strength, and relation of the parties.
Notably, however, the act of holding a knife by itself is
strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and
threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a
woman to submission. And the victim does not even need to
prove resistance. To appreciate force or intimidation, it is
enough to show that such force or intimidation was
sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the
malefactor against the victim. Such was determined in this
case.
G.R. No. 183457
There is no homicide since there was the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Abuse of superior strength is present when the attackers
cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their
combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. It
is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressors, assessing a
superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressors which is selected or taken advantage of by them
in the commission of the crime. Such aggravating
circumstance was perpetrated by Ruperto and his two sons
in chasing the victim with bolos. The unarmed victim did not
stand a chance against these three men.
Although the presence of abuse of superior strength alone
qualifies the killing to murder, in the presence of both
treachery and abuse of superior strength, the latter is
absorbed by treachery. We also find Rupertos voluntary
surrender as a mitigating circumstance, since he gave
himself up to the police when the latter arrived at his house.
G.R. No. 183565
The only elements of rape that are relevant to the instant
case are
(1) carnal knowledge of a woman and
(2) this was committed by using force, threat, or
intimidation.
We held that in rape cases, the material fact or
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape,
not the time of its commission. The date or time the rape
CRIMINAL LAW 14

was committed is not an essential ingredient as it is the
carnal knowledge through force and intimidation that is the
gravamen of the offense. It is, thus, sufficient that the date
of commission alleged is as near as possible to the actual
date.
Thus, while the informations allege that the rapes were
committed on or about the months of February and March
2000, the lack of particularity in time or date does not affect
the outcome of the instant case.
G.R. No. 183566
To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the
following elements must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt:
(1) that a person was killed;
(2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying
circumstance;
(3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed; and
(4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the
acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is
mortal and could cause the death of the victim without
medical intervention or attendance.
the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby

ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressors, and
without the slightest provocation on the victims part.
We find that circumstances do exist to justify the finding of
treachery in this case. The prosecution alleged and
sufficiently proved that Ahlladin was too drunk to fight off
any aggression from his four assailants, at least two of them
armed. His killers took advantage of his condition and
attacked him without considerable difficulty, as plainly seen
in the post mortem report on Ahlladins body. What the trial
court wrote indubitably indicated treachery.
G.R. No. 185163
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited
drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following
elements must concur:
(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of
the substance seized as evidence.
The essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows:

(1) The offender performs all the acts of execution;
(2) all the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
(3) but the felony is not produced; and
(4) by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
As shown in Bilasons testimony, a buy-bust operation took

place. Being the poseur-buyer, he positively identified
accused-appellants as the sellers of a sachet containing a
white crystalline substance for a sum of PhP 6,000. The
sachet was confiscated and marked with the initials "CAA"
and was subsequently taken to the crime laboratory for
examination, where a chemical analysis on its contents
confirmed that the substance is indeed
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Moreover,
the testimonies of the other members of the buy-bust team,
PO3 Lagasca and MADAC operative Flores, substantially
corroborated Bilasons testimony.
G.R. No. 183566
G.R. No. 185163
From the evidence presented to the trial court, it is very

much clear that accused-appellant was able to perform all
the acts that would necessarily result in Adrians death. His
intention to kill can be presumed from the lethal hacking
blows Adrian received. His attack on Adrian with a bolo was
not justified. His claim of self-defense was not given
credence by both the trial and appellate courts. Neither are
there any of the qualifying circumstances of murder,
parricide, and infanticide.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal

possession of dangerous drugs are:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug;
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.
G.R. No. 183566
The circumstances, thus, make out a case for frustrated

homicide as accused-appellant performed all the acts
necessary to kill Adrian; Adrian only survived due to timely
medical intervention as testified to by his examining
physician.
G.R. No. 184792
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving
In the instant case, a brown bag was found inside the car of
accused. It yielded a plastic sachet of shabu wrapped in red
wrapping paper, small plastic sachets, and an improvised
plastic tooter.
Considering that during the sale to Bilason, it was from the
same bag that accused Austriaco took the sachet of shabu,
per order of accused Aure, the owner-possessor of said bag
and its contents is no other than accused Aure, who has not
shown any proof that he was duly authorized by law to
possess them or any evidence to rebut his animus
possidendi of the shabu found in his car during the buy-bust
CRIMINAL LAW 15

operation.
and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate

the commission of the crime.
G.R. No. 185163

A bare denial is an inherently weak defense for it can be
easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common
standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from
violations of RA 9165.
It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely

used excessive force that is "out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the person attacked." The victim
need not be completely defenseless in order for the said
aggravating circumstance to be appreciated.
Denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not

enough to engender reasonable doubt particularly where
the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt.
G.R. No. 185717
In the absence of any intent on the part of the police

authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
stands. Especially here, where an astute analysis of MADAC
operative Bilasons testimony does not indicate any
inconsistency, contradiction, or fabrication.
The prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite

chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody"
means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.
G.R. No. 185285

Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend to bolster, rather
than weaken, the credibility of the witness, for they show
that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.
G.R. No. 185285
For insanity to be appreciated in favor of the accused, there
must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of
reason or there is a complete absence of the power to
discern or a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality
of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
Accused was not deprived of reason at all and can still
distinguish right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust,
he threatened AAA not to tell anybody about what he had
done; otherwise, she would be killed. This single episode
irresistibly implies that accused knew what he was doing,
that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. And for
another, it indicated that the crime was committed during
one of accuseds lucid intervals. In this regard, no less than
his father admitted in open court that there were times
when his son was in his proper senses
From the testimony of the doctor, it is clear therefore that
the mental disorder of accused is only temporary in
character and can be treated. Moreover, although the
probability is high that in year 2000 when the rape incident
took place accused was already suffering from
schizoaffective disorder, said doctor has not come up with
any categorical findings yet relative to the sense of
discernment of the accused when it comes to what is RIGHT
and what is WRONG.
G.R. No. 185390
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors
that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors
Non-Compliance with the Rule on Chain of Custody
The testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia were bereft

of any assertion on how the seized shabu in a heat-sealed
sachet was duly passed from PO2 Ibasco, the chosen
poseur-buyer, who allegedly received it from accused, to
forensic chemist Engr. Jabonillo, who conducted the forensic
examination. While the testimony of Engr. Jabonillo was
dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense it is likewise
bereft of any assertion substantially proving the custodial
safeguards on the identity and integrity of the shabu
allegedly received from accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 186120
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale
of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the
following elements:
(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and
G.R. No. 186233
The allegation of accused which pictured Ramon as
purportedly pulling out a knife and attempting to stab the
accused came uncorroborated, although several onlookers
were at the situs of the crime. And while claiming to have
grappled for some time with Ramon for the possession of
the knife, accused managed to stay unscathed, which in
itself is incredible. And lest it be overlooked, accused failed,
without explanation, to present the knife purportedly used
by the victim. Jurisprudence teaches that the failure to
account for the non-presentation of the weapon allegedly
wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of self-defense.
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real
danger to life or personal safety. There must be an actual,
sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger, and
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
CRIMINAL LAW 16

G.R. No. 186497
G.R. No. 187075
On the other hand, in the prosecution for illegal possession

of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proved
with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in possession of
the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2)
that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
It is settled that the non-presentation of the weapon used in

the commission of rape is not essential to the conviction of
the accused. The testimony of the rape victim that appellant
was armed with a deadly weapon when he committed the
crime is sufficient to establish that fact for so long as the
victim is credible.
It bears stressing that this crime is mala prohibita, and as

such, criminal intent is not an essential element. Further,
possession, under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused. Constructive
possession, on the other hand, exists when the drug is
under the dominion and control of the accused or when he
has the right to exercise dominion and control over the
place where it is found.
G.R. No. 187155
G.R. No. 186497
In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that

full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not
required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry
into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without
rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
conviction for rape.
Similarly, the defense of frame-up is also easily fabricated

and commonly used in buy-bust cases.
In order for the Court to appreciate such defenses, there
must be clear and convincing evidence to prove such
defense because in the absence of any intent on the part of
the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against
accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty stands.
G.R. No. 186539
Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the principle that in
order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with
homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proved as
conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.
Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the
robbery, the killing of the victim would be classified either
as a simple homicide or murder, depending upon the
absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not
the crime of robbery with homicide.
In the present case, the evidence is insufficient to sustain
the conviction of the accused for the crime of robbery with
homicide. Aside from the testimony of Rosemarie that she
saw accused and Elarcosa search the wooden chest in their
house after shooting the victims, no other evidence was
presented to conclusively prove that the cash and the
registration certificate of large cattle were inside the said
wooden chest and that accused and Elarcosa actually took
them.
G.R. No. 187075
It is not necessary that the victim should bear marks of
physical violence sustained by reason of the persistence of
the sexual attacker, nor is the exertion of irresistible force
by the culprit an indispensable element of the offense.
To sustain a conviction for rape, there must be proof of the

penetration of the female organ. As established by
jurisprudence, when the victims straightforward testimony
is consistent with the physical finding of penetration,
sufficient basis exists for concluding that that sexual
intercourse did take place.
G.R. No. 187494
G.R. No. 187742

Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout
for help does not negate rape. Even the victims lack of
resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into
submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent.
G.R. No. 187742
Accused-appellant claims that AAA bears a grudge against
him. He theorizes that he was wrongfully charged of rape
after he spanked AAA and earned her resentment. It was
natural for AAA to harbor ill feelings against accusedappellant but that factor alone would not affect her
credibility. It is quite incredible for a young girl to publicly
and falsely accuse her stepfather of rape in retaliation for a
minor disciplinary measure.
The burden of going through a rape prosecution is grossly
out of proportion to whatever revenge the young girl would
be able to exact. The Court has justifiably thus ruled that a
girl of tender age would not allow herself to go through the
humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what
has happened.
G.R. No. 188569
Where the girl is below 12 years old, as in this case, the only
subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place.
Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary, since
none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a
conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when
the rape victim is below the age of twelve.
CRIMINAL LAW 17

G.R. No. 188847
G.R. No. 191254
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science.

Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the

civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.
Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under

RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing,
and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a
serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of
drugs in a buy-bust operation.
We have thus emphasized that what is essential is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."
G.R. No. 189818
Accused-appellant was charged with two offenses, rape
under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, and
rape as an act of sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2.
Accused-appellant was charged with having carnal
knowledge of AAA, who was under twelve years of age at
the time, under par. 1(d) of Art. 266-A, and he was also
charged with committing "an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person" under the second paragraph of
Art. 266-A.
Two instances of rape were indeed proved at the trial, as it
was established that there was contact between accusedappellant's penis and AAA's labia; then AAA's testimony
established that accused-appellant was able to partially
insert his penis into her anal orifice. The medical
examination also supports the finding of rape under Art.
266-A par. 1(d) and Art. 266-A par. 2, considering the
extragenital injuries and abrasions in the anal region
reported.
G.R. No. 190317
The elements of the crime of murder are: (1) that a person
was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that
the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Treachery was alleged in the information as qualifying
circumstance for the charge of murder.
The trial court noted that Mitchell Santonia and Carandang,
the prosecution witnesses, both gave a thorough account of
the incident at Perezs house. Their testimonies on how
accused-appellant shot Santonia from behind materially
corroborated each other.
G.R. No. 191266

After the seized item was properly marked by PO2 Ruiz, it
was turned over to the investigator and thereafter to the
crime laboratory for examination. The seized item and
documentary evidence showing that the item had been
forwarded and stamped received by the PNP Crime
Laboratory were presented to and offered as evidence in
the RTC. These were properly marked and admitted.
In addition, the members of the buy-bust team executed
their Joint Affidavit of Apprehension immediately after the
operation and arrest. From the foregoing circumstances, it is
unmistakable that there is no break in the chain of custody
of the seized dangerous drug from the time that it came to
the possession of PO2 Ruiz. At the same time, the seized
item was likewise positively identified by PO2 Ruiz in court
when it was presented. Clearly, there is no doubt that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug
were properly preserved by the apprehending officer, in
compliance with what the law requires.
G.R. No. 191721
In the case at bar, it was clearly shown that Estose was
deprived of any means to ward off the sudden and
unexpected attack by accused-appellant. The evidence
showed that accused-appellant hid behind a coconut tree
and when Estose passed by the tree, completely unaware of
any danger, accused-appellant immediately hacked him with
a bolo. Estose could only attempt to parry the blows with his
bare hands and as a result, he got wounded.
Furthermore, when Estose tried to retreat, stumbling in the
process, accused-appellant even took advantage of this and
stabbed him resulting in his death. Evidently, the means
employed by accused-appellant assured himself of no risk at
all arising from the defense which the deceased might
make. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a
manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and
unable to retaliate. Without a doubt, treachery attended the
killing.
G.R. No. 191913
The means employed by the person invoking self-defense is
reasonable if equivalent to the means of attack used by the
original aggressor. Whether or not the means of selfdefense is reasonable depends upon the nature or quality of
the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size
and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those
of the person who invokes self-defense; and also the place
and the occasion of the assault.
In the instant case, the lone wound inflicted on the victim
supports the argument that petitioner feared for his life and
CRIMINAL LAW 18

only shot the victim to defend himself. The lone gunshot
was a reasonable means chosen by petitioner in defending
himself in view of the proximity of the armed victim, his
drunken state, disobedience of an unlawful order, and
failure to stand down despite a warning shot.
G.R. No. 192251
"Even negative findings of the paraffin test do not
conclusively show that a person did not fire a gun," and that
"a paraffin test has been held to be highly unreliable." This is
so since there are many ways, either deliberately or
accidentally, that the residue of gunpowder nitrates in the
hands of a person who fired a handgun can be removed.
G.R. No. 192251
It must be pointed out that prosecution witnesses Liezl and
Angelita knew accused-appellants well since they were
neighbors. Thus, they have attained a high level of
familiarity with each other.
Once a person gains familiarity with another, identification
becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance.
Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants
create a lasting impression on the victim and eyewitness
minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.
Their positive identification of accused-appellants as the
perpetrators of the crime charged was categorical and
consistent; hence, We cannot cast any doubt on their
credibility as prosecution witnesses.
G.R. No. 192251
Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of
the plan and acquiescence thereto are not sufficient
grounds to hold a person as a conspirator. x x x Lacking
sufficient evidence of conspiracy and there being doubt as
to whether appellant acted as a principal or just a mere
accomplice, the doubt should be resolved in his favor and is
thus held liable only as an accomplice.
G.R. No. 194379
As to the penalty, Art. 266-B of the RPC provides that
"[w]henever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon x x x, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death
G.R. No. 195665
From the testimonies of Rommel and Aladino, there was no
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If there was
any, it came from accused-appellant himself for having
unsuspectingly attacked the victim, who was peacefully
engaged in a conversation with Rommel during the stabbing
incident.
G.R. No. 204481
The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement
requires
(1) that the inducement be made with the intention of

procuring the commission of the crime; and
(2) that such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission by the material executor.
Here, the Sandiganbayan ruled that petitioner is guilty as
principal by inducement considering the attendant
circumstances clearly indicating that petitioner's
bodyguards would not have fired their guns at SPO2 Santos
and Domingo had he not ordered them to do so.
G.R. No. 206357
The following guidelines in the determination of the
reckoning point for the period of prescription of violations
of RA 3019, viz:
1. As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date
of the commission of the offense.
2. If the date of the commission of the violation is not
known, it shall be counted form the dateof discovery
thereof.
3. In determining whether it is the general rule or the
exception that should apply in a particular case, the
availability or suppression of the information relative to the
crime should first be determined.
G.R. No. 211703
Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) provides:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition
to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross in excusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions.
For accused to be found liable under Section 3(e) of RA
3019, the following elements must concur:
1) The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions; 2) He must have
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
3) That his action caused undue injury to any party,
including the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
CRIMINAL LAW 19

G.R. Nos. 147773-74
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.--When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
G.R. Nos. 147773-74
ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary
or ecclesiastic minister.--The penalty of prision mayor and a
fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of
his official position, shall falsify a document by committing
any of the following acts:
xxxx
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in any act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
To convict for falsification of a public document under Art.
171, paragraph 4 of the RPC, the following requisites must
concur:
(1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements
in a narration of facts;
(2) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth
of the facts narrated;
(3) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false;
and
(4) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.
G.R. Nos. 147773-74
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).--Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall
be punished by x x x.
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
xxxx
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.
representations as to his power, influence, qualifications,

property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary
transactions;
(2) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were
made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud;
(3) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations
constitute the very cause which induced the offended party
to part with his money or property; and
(4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
G.R. Nos. 163957-58 & 164009-11
Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property
Presumption of Malversation. Any public officer who, by
reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take
or misappropriate or consent, or through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such funds
or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty
of the misappropriation of such funds or property, shall
suffer:
xxxx
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal uses.
The elements of Art. 217 are:
(1) the offender is a public officer,
(2) he or she has custody or control of the funds or property
by reason of the duties of his office,
(3) the funds or property are public funds or property for
which the offender is accountable, and, most importantly,
(4) the offender has appropriated, taken, misappropriated
or consented, or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
The last and most important element of malversation was
not proved in this case. There is no proof that Pescadera
used the GSIS contributions for his personal benefit. The
prosecution merely relied on the presumption of
malversation which we have already disproved due to lack
of notice. Hence, the prosecution should have proven actual
misappropriation by the accused. Pescadera, however,
emphasized that the GSIS premiums were applied in the
meantime to the salary differentials and loan obligations of
Sulu, that is, the GSIS premiums were appropriated to
another public use. Thus, there was no misappropriation of
the public funds for his own benefit. And since the charge
lacks one element, we set aside the conviction of Pescadera.
The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 of

the RPC are:
(1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent

Justice Velasco Rulings - Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Velasco Rulings - Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW 1

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under Art.

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

concoct a story of sexual violation, or allow an examination

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of

G.R. No. 169245

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the

The appellant attempted to show, [through a witness, his

The CA correctly disregarded accused-appellants defense of

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are:

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

lie, the following elements must be established:

G.R. No. 184599

What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and

For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to

G.R. No. 186411

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed.

informing complainants; and that complainants were never

G.R. No. 186411

An accused may enjoy the mitigating circumstance of

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

Treachery exists when "the offender commits any of the

ART. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed

ART. 310. Qualified Theft.The crime of theft shall be

ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.The following do not

The elements of Qualified Theft committed with grave

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,

1. Taking of personal property;

First. Unlawful aggression;

2. That the said property belongs to another;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or

In order that incomplete self-defense could prosper as a

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

G.R. No. 189981

G.R. No. 193479

(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to

(2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the

(3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and

3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

Applying this doctrine in the case at bench, it can reasonably

Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by

G.R. No. 210760

In offenses against property, the materiality of the

The foregoing narrationbased on the testimonies of the

G.R. No. 201620

An erroneous designation of the person injured is not

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

(2) the findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (2006-2016)

G.R. No. 175045

Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals.

What is more, it correctly ruled that the doctrine in Arias v.

G.R. No. 176744