Ismael v. People, G.R. Nos. 234435-36, [February 6, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

Ismael v. People

 G.R. Nos. 234435-36, [February 6, 2023]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Speedy disposition of cases; Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him 

An information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is charged except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were not charged in the information. 

 

The Municipality of Lantawanin, Basilan, has faced persistent arrears on unremitted GSIS premiums since 1997, aggravated by accumulated penalties during Mayor Ismael's term starting in 2001. Despite collection letters sent to the mayor's office for arrears from January 1999 to February 2003, the obligations remained outstanding, leading to the suspension of members' loan privileges. Vice Mayor Dalugdugan and others filed a complaint against petitioners for malversation of public funds, resulting in charges before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and violations of Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4, Rule III of the IRR of RA No. 8291. The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners. 

Petitioners attack the validity of the Informations as they alleged conspiracy but failed to implead the municipal accountant and budget officer, who are indispensable in consummating the offenses charged. Petitioners submit that they cannot be expected to discharge their respective duties in the remittance of the GSIS contributions without the issuance of the certificate of availability of funds and remittance vouchers by the municipal accountant and budget officer. Hence, for petitioners, such incomplete allegation in the

Informations violated their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them. They also argue that their right to speedy disposition of cases was also violated since the Informations were filed on June 5, 2005, but resolved only on August 2, 2017. They maintain that their failure to remit was due to several factors beyond their control, such as the terrorism activities in the area which disparaged their municipality for years, the arrearages left by the previous administration which inflated due to penalties, and the limited resources of the municipality to meet its fiscal demands. 

 

Whether or not the petitioners' right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them was violated. 

NO. The non-inclusion of other conspirators in the indictment does not violate the right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused. The Constitution mandates that the accused be informed of the accusation's nature and cause, as outlined in Section 14(2), Article III. Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court specifies necessary allegations in a criminal information, including the accused's name, offense designation, acts or omissions constituting the offense, offended party's name, approximate date of offense commission, and place of offense. Section 9 of the same Rule requires clear and concise language to inform the accused of the offense charged. In this case, the Informations against the petitioners sufficiently stated their failure to ensure the municipality's GSIS contributions' full and timely remittance. The indictment of purported conspirators and their roles is not necessary for the Informations' sufficiency. Tan, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan affirms that an information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is charged, although the court cannot pass judgment on co-conspirators not charged.

Whether or not the petitioners' right to the speedy disposition of cases was violated. 

NO. The mere delay in proceedings does not necessarily violate the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial. The determination of whether a delay is inordinate depends on the examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts assess whether the delay is reasonable considering the complexity of the case and the timely invocation of the accused's rights. In this case, although there was a lengthy delay in the proceedings, the petitioners were not blameless, as they contributed to the delay by not complying with procedural requirements. Their actions demonstrated a renunciation of their rights to speedy disposition of the case and speedy trial. Additionally, the delay did not result in significant prejudice to the petitioners, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness, vexation, or oppression in the delay. Therefore, the delay was not deemed unconstitutional as it was not objected to in a timely manner and did not cause substantial harm to the petitioners.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Quiap y Evangelista v. People, G.R. No. 229183 (Resolution), [February 17, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Quiap y Evangelista v. People

 G.R. No. 229183 (Resolution), [February 17, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Drug cases; Buy-bust Operation; Validity of Search warrant; Chain of Custody

 

The presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. RA 9165 Requires three (3) witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of pieces of evidence seized from a suspect, namely representatives from the DOJ, media, and public elective official - necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. 

 

PO2 Garcia received information from a confidential asset about a person named "Kacho" planning to buy shabu in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The authorities organized an entrapment operation and intercepted a passenger jeepney carrying Kacho and the asset. During the interception, Kacho attempted to discard a wrapped object, but PO2 Garcia prevented him. Upon inspection, the object contained a sachet of white crystalline substance. Kacho, later identified as petitioner Leonides Quiap, was taken to the police station where the sachet was marked and sent for laboratory examination. The examination confirmed it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Leonides challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest and the admissibility of the seized item, citing procedural lapses in handling the evidence. 

 

Whether or not the chain of custody was properly observed. 

NO. The failure to adhere to required procedures has resulted in a significant gap in the chain of custody. The absence of mandated witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized item casts doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody. There was no representation from the media or the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Additionally, the connection between the investigating officer and the forensic chemist was not definitively established, and precautions to prevent tampering were not adequately described. SPO2 Macabajon received the specimen but did not testify on its transfer to the forensic chemist. Due to these shortcomings, Leonides must be acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish a continuous chain of custody.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Tan y Sia v. People, G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), [April 26, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Tan y Sia v. People

 G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), [April 26, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Drug cases; Buy-bust Operation; Validity of Search warrant; Chain of Custody

 

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the "objective test" requires that the prosecution paint a clear picture of how the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher was made. It is not enough to show that there was an exchange of money and illegal drugs. The details that led to such exchange must be clearly and adequately accounted for. Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the veracity of the whole buy-bust operation.

 

Jasper Tan was arrested in a buy-bust operation after police officers conducted surveillance on him and obtained a search warrant for his house. During the operation, police officers observed Jasper conducting a drug transaction at his house, and later searched his room in the presence of Barangay Captain Emerenciana Velasco. Jasper challenges the validity of the search warrant, arguing that it lacked specific descriptions of the premises to be searched. He also claims his right to personally witness the search was violated as he was already arrested and his movement restricted when the search was conducted. Additionally, he claims that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. 

 

Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the buy-bust operation through the "objective test."

NO. The prosecution failed to establish the buy-bust operation through the "objective test." This test requires specific details of the transaction to be clearly presented, including the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller, the offer, payment, and delivery of the illegal drug. However, the prosecution did not adequately establish these elements. There is no clear indication of the initial contact, offer, or agreement on the purchase price. Additionally, there is a lack of direct observation of the drug sale by the police officer involved. Moreover, crucial witnesses, such as the poseur-buyer, were not presented to provide firsthand accounts of the transaction. As a result, Jasper's guilt regarding the illegal sale of drugs becomes doubtful based on these inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case.

 

Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

NO. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There are critical gaps in the chain of custody process, including uncertainties regarding how the item subject to the buy-bust operation was transferred to the police officers and what happened to the item while in the poseur-buyer's possession. Furthermore, there is no clear testimony regarding the marking of the seized items or their identification in court. These lapses raise doubts about the identity and integrity of the evidence recovered from Jasper. As a result, the evidence loses its evidentiary value due to the violation of mandatory legal requirements.

 

Whether or not the search conducted after Jasper's arrest was proper.

NO.  The search conducted was improper. The search warrant authorized the search of Jasper's room inside a house where he resides, but the transaction occurred at the gate of the same house. During the search, Jasper wasn't brought to his room to observe the search, as required by law. According to Section 8 Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, the search of a house or room should be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or witnesses. The absence of such presence renders the search unreasonable, and any evidence obtained becomes inadmissible. Since the confiscated shabu is the main evidence, its exclusion leads to the conclusion that there's insufficient evidence to convict Jasper, warranting his acquittal on both charges.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

People v. Mazo y Ybañez, G.R. No. 242273 (Resolution), [November 23, 2020]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Mazo y Ybañez

 G.R. No. 242273 (Resolution), [November 23, 2020]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Illegal Sale and Possesion of dangerous drugs; Buy-bust Operation;  Chain of Custody 

The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule outlined in RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of seized drugs as evidence. Provisions of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime.

 

On January 12, 2017, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group planned a buy-bust operation against Nico, based on information alleging drug selling activities in Barangay La Paz, Makati City. During the operation, PO1 Andrew O. Amante acted as the poseur-buyer, with PO1 Nathaniel Maculi and PO1 Stephanie Limjap as back-ups. Nico was identified by an informant and subsequently engaged in a transaction with the poseur-buyer, handing over sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Nico, Joey, and Joy were arrested, and the confiscated items were submitted for examination, resulting in positive drug identification. 

However, critical procedural lapses emerged concerning the chain of custody of the seized drugs. First, there was ambiguity regarding where and when the confiscated items were marked. Although PO1 Andrew O. Amante testified to marking the sachets, details on the actual marking process were lacking, creating uncertainty about the integrity of the evidence. Second, the inventory and photograph of the seized items were conducted not immediately after the seizure but at the barangay hall, without justification for the delay. Moreover, the absence of representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory further undermined the integrity of the process. These lapses raised questions about the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, violating the chain of custody rule under RA 9165. 

 

Whether or not the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, as required by law, thus ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 

NO. The court acquitted Nico and Joey due to a broken chain of custody. It found that the prosecution failed to satisfy the essential requirement of proving the movement and custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation to their presentation in court. In illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offenses and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.20 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court.21 Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court.22 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide adequate explanations for deviations from these procedural requirements. The apprehending team failed to provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance with Section 21 Chain of Custody Rule, and they likewise failed to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite procedural lapses. Specifically, there were deficiencies in the marking, inventory, and witness presence during the seizure, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The police officers only made a general statement that the place of arrest was hostile without elaborating any threat on their security. The operatives also failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. Worse, it appears that the barangay official was absent when the drugs were seized. Lastly, no representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as an insulating were present to witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized items.

The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements to prevent the imprisonment of innocent individuals. Therefore, Nico and Joey were acquitted, and the resolution reversed and set aside, with immediate release ordered unless lawfully held for another cause.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

People v. Arraz y Rodriguez, G.R. No. 252353, [July 6, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Arraz y Rodriguez

 G.R. No. 252353, [July 6, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Cybercrime Prevention Act; Special penal Law; Rape; Trafficking in Persons 

Each crime has its own set of elements and factual basis, and thus, convictions must be based on separate and independent grounds. The concept of multiple convictions for distinct offenses; it underscores the importance of ensuring that each charge is supported by sufficient evidence and stands on its own merits, without unjustified merging or overlap with other offenses. 

 

Jerrie was charged with multiple offenses including trafficking in persons, rape, and violation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The case involved Jerrie allegedly exploiting AAA252353, enticing her with promises of a better life - whom he hired as a domestic helper, and then subjecting her to sexual exploitation, including live nude shows and intercourse, online prostitution, coerced sexual acts, and distribution of explicit content, which he facilitated through online platforms. Jerrie also allegedly arranged encounters with foreigners who engaged in sexual activities with AAA in exchange for money. The victims, including AAAand CCC, were brought from their hometown to Manila under false pretenses. 

The prosecution presented evidence including testimony from AAA and CCC, who detailed the abuse they suffered at Jerrie's hands, as well as digital evidence retrieved from Jerrie's residence, which included photos and videos of the victims engaged in compromising acts. Law enforcement officers conducted surveillance and an entrapment operation, leading to Jerrie's arrest. Jerrie denied the charges, claiming that the allegations were fabricated and that the victims willingly engaged in sexual activities with him and others. 

 

Whether or not Jerrie is guilty for trafficking in persons, rape, and violation of the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. 

YES. The court rendered a comprehensive ruling, affirming Jerrie's guilt on all charges. Regarding trafficking in persons, the court found Jerrie guilty based on the prosecution's evidence demonstrating his exploitation of AAA for commercial sex acts through force, coercion, and intimidation. For the rape charges, the court relied on AAA credible testimony detailing multiple instances of sexual assault perpetrated by Jerrie, rejecting his defenses of denial and questioning the victim's credibility. Additionally, Jerrie was found guilty of violating cybercrime laws by engaging in online exploitation and distributing lewd content for profit.

The court imposed appropriate penalties, including life imprisonment, hefty fines, and awards for damages to the victim, reflecting the gravity of the offenses and the need for deterrence and restitution. Ultimately, the court dismissed Jerrie's appeal, underscoring the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and upholding the rule of law in combating heinous crimes.

 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW TEXT

People v. Sualog, G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Sualog

 G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Murder; Qualifying Circumstance of treachery not proved - charged modified to homicide on appeal 

Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present, must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. In order for aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, they must be specifically alleged in the information and proven during trial. Likewise, it is insufficient for the prosecution to merely indicate the presence of qualifying circumstances without describing the acts that constitute those circumstance. Failure to do so may result in the disregard of such circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty. 

 

John Francis Sualog was charged with three counts of murder for the deaths of Amado Chavez Maglantay, Eppie U. Maglantay, and Jessa Amie U. Maglantay. The incidents occurred on October 12, 2003, in the Municipality of Libertad, Province of Antique, Philippines. The charges were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Culasi, Antique, with each count alleging that John Francis, armed with a bolo, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, hacked, and stabbed the victims, causing their instantaneous deaths. The prosecution asserted the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstances, including evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of nighttime, and superior strength, with the commission of the offenses characterized by cruelty and adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime. John Francis pleaded guilty to the charges, and the RTC convicted him of three counts of murder, imposing the death penalty for each case. 

 

Whether or not the killings qualify as murder and whether the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution were properly proven. 

NO. While the killings were initially charged as murder with qualifying aggravating circumstances, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently alleged in the Information. The Court ruled out treachery due to a lack of clear evidence on how the attack commenced and developed. The prosecution also did not establish with moral certainty that the three victims were utterly oblivious to the impending attack or that they had no opportunity to mount a meaningful defense. Inarguably, there was reasonable doubt on how the aggression started, developed, and ended.

Likewise, evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of when John Francis decided to commit the crime and had sufficient time to reflect on its consequences. The Court discounted evident premeditation because there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was decided, and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.The aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and ignominy were also disregarded due to insufficient evidence. Therefore, John Francis was found guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder.

Considering his plea of guilt, the Court applied the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal for each count. Civil liability was also modified, with John Francis directed to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages for each count, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The grant of exemplary damages was deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.

 

 

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

People v. Leocadio y Labrador, G.R. No. 227396, [February 22, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Leocadio y Labrador

 G.R. No. 227396, [February 22, 2023]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Rape with Homicide; Exempting Circumstance of Accident; Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt 

The court emphasized that for accident to be considered an exempting circumstance, there must be a complete absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused. In this case, the court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, that constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion, that points to the accused's guilt to the exclusion of all others. Despite the absence of direct witnesses to the crime, the court found the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to be sufficient for conviction.

 

On March 26, 2002, AAA, a 12-year-old girl, was sent by her parents, BBB and CCC, to collect payment from their neighbor, Milo Leocadio y Labrador (Milo), for rice cakes. AAA did not return home, causing her parents to search for her. The next day, they reported her disappearance to the police. It was later discovered that AAA's lifeless body was found in Milo's house. She was found under Milo's bed with a cloth wrapped around her mouth and nose, hands tied behind her back, and signs of sexual assault and multiple injuries. 

During the trial, Milo admitted to killing AAA but claimed it was accidental. He stated that he was sleeping when AAA suddenly touched his shoulder, causing him to unconsciously throw a punch that led to her death. Milo denied any sexual assault and maintained that he did not rape AAA. He asserted that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a single blow he delivered, which led to her accidental death. 

 

Whether or not Milo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rape with homicide. 

YES. The Court affirms the decision finding Milo guilty of rape with homicide. Despite Milo's claim of accidental killing, the circumstances do not support the exemption from criminal liability due to accident. The court emphasized that accident requires the absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused, and Milo's actions did not meet this standard.

In crimes against persons, such as rape with homicide, the intent to kill is presumed if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the perpetrator. The court noted that AAA's death, caused by asphyxia and multiple injuries, indicated a deliberate and intentional act by Milo. The extent and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim suggested an intent to kill, which belies Milo's claim of accidental killing.

The defense of accident is struck down due to Milo's failure to establish it with clear and convincing proof. Additionally, circumstantial evidence convincingly links Milo to the rape and murder of AAA. In this case, the prosecution presented a chain of events and medical findings that pointed to Milo's guilt. Despite the absence of direct witnesses to the rape and murder, the circumstantial evidence, including AAA's disappearance after visiting Milo's house and the nature of her injuries, formed a solid basis for conviction. Hence, Milo is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without parole and ordered to pay various damages to the victim's heirs with legal interest. 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Knutson v. Sarmiento-Flores, G.R. No. 239215, [July 12, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Knutson v. Sarmiento-Flores

 G.R. No. 239215, [July 12, 2022]

EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V

 

VAWC Law; Father can apply for protection orders; Mothers can be offenders under RA 9262 

It is the legislative intent of RA 9262 to protect both women and children from violence, and the use of the gender-neutral term "person" in the law includes offenders of either sex. RA No. 9262 covers a situation where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child.

 

In 2005, Randy Michael Knutson (Randy), an American citizen, married Rosalina Sibal Knutson (Rosalina) in Singapore, and they had a daughter named Rhuby Sibal Knutson (Rhuby). Randy and Rosalina became estranged after he discovered her extra-marital affairs, but Randy supported Rosalina and Rhuby. 

Rosalina got hooked in casinos and incurred large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit, and vehicles that Randy provided for the family. Rosalina rented an apartment and got herself a boyfriend. Randy advised Rosalina to be discreet in her illicit affairs because it is not good for Rhuby to see her mother with another man. Randy discovered later that Rosalina hurt Rhuby by pulling her hair, slapping her face and knocking her head. One time, Rosalina pointed a knife at Rhuby and threatened to kill her. Rosalina even texted Randy about her plan to kill their daughter and commit suicide. The neighbors of Rosalina complained about noisy parties and pot sessions in her apartment. The lessor even terminated the lease after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premise. Randy reported these incidents to the police, but no assistance was provided for domestic issues. 

On December 7, 2017, Randy, on behalf of minor Rhuby, filed against Rosalina a petition under RA No. 9262 for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders before the RTC. Randy averred that Rosalina placed Rhuby in a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Randy's petition for protection and custody orders under RA No. 9262, reasoning that the law did not cover a situation where a mother committed violence against her child. 

 

Whether the father can avail remedies under RA No. 9262, on behalf of his minor child, against the mother's violent and abusive acts.

YES. The law criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children perpetrated by women’s intimate partners, i.e., husband; former husband; or any person who has or had sexual or dating relationship with the woman, or with whom the woman has a common child. However, the Court in Garcia emphasized that the law does not single out the husband or father as the culprit. The statute used the gender-neutral word “person” as the offender which embraces any person of either sex. Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.

RA No. 9262 allows the father of the offended party to apply for protection and custody orders. In Garcia vs. Drilon, Section 9(b) of RA No. 9262 explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders. The statute categorically used the word “parents” which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. There is no question that the offended party is Rhuby, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT HERE

Turalba y Villegas v. People, G.R. No. 216453, [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Turalba y Villegas v. People

 G.R. No. 216453, [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Carnapping; Psychosis as Mitigating Circumstance; Insanity Defense 

Anyone who pleads insanity bears the burden to prove it with clear and convincing evidence since the accused invoking the affirmative defense admits to have committed the crime, but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The burden of proof on the issue of insanity rests on the accused, and mere abnormality of mental faculties is insufficient to exclude imputability. With respect to mitigating circumstance, insanity was recognized only when there was a showing of some impairment of mental faculties but not a complete loss of intelligence or consciousness.

 

Oligario was charged with carnaping for stealing a 1996 model CRV Honda Wagon belonging to Gregorio Calimag. The incident occurred on November 20, 2007, in Olongapo City. Oligario pleaded not guilty, and during the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including testimonies establishing the elements of the crime. Oligario raised the defense of insanity, supported by the testimony of Dr. Ma. Lourdes Labarcon Evangelista, who assessed him with psychosis due to alcohol and methamphetamine use. In defense, Dr. Evangelista testified and narrated that she first met Oligario on October 24, 2007 at the Mariveles Mental Hospital for evaluation and management of his mental condition. After tests, Dr. Evangelista assessed Oligario with psychosis ("nawawala sa sarili") due to use of alcohol and methamphetamine. She prescribed medication and scheduled a follow-up checkup, but Oligario was not able to come back as he was already detained for the carnapping incident. Oligario contends that his mental condition should either completely absolve him of criminal liability or, at the very least, be considered as a mitigating circumstance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Oligario, finding all elements of carnaping present, while the CA affirmed the conviction, rejecting the insanity defense. The case involves the petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision in convicting Oligario for Carnapping. 

 

Whether or not Oligario's alleged insanity is a valid defense for Carnapping in this case. 

NO. The Supreme Court denied Oligario's petition for lack of merit. The Court held that Oligario failed to establish his mental state, particularly his insanity, with clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof on the issue of insanity rests on the accused, and mere abnormality of mental faculties is insufficient to exclude imputability. Thus, the accused must prove the following: first, that the insanity constitutes a complete deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and second, the insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the commission of the crime.

The Court stressed that Oligario did not present witnesses or evidence to demonstrate his abnormal or bizarre behavior immediately before or simultaneous with the commission of the crime. The Court rejected Oligario's insanity defense considering that the manner by which he perpetrated the offense suggests full consciousness of his criminal act. Dr. Evangelista's medical assessment was rendered inconclusive and insufficient proof of the mental condition of Oligario. While Oligario asserted insanity, the Court found it insufficient to warrant exemption from criminal liability.

Regarding the argument for considering insanity as a mitigating circumstance, Oligario failed to establish his mental state, much less his insanity. As held in jurisprudence, insanity was recognized as a mitigating circumstance only when there was a showing of some impairment of mental faculties but not a complete loss of intelligence or consciousness. While it can be true that there was some impairment of Oligario's mental faculties, due to psychosis, the Court held that such impairment was not so complete as to deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts.

Moreover, Oligario was charged with violation of RA No. 6539, a special law, which is not governed by the rules of penalties under the RPC. The penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was deemed correct. Consequently, Oligario was found guilty of Carnapping and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

 

 

 

People v. Begino y Rogero, G.R. No. 251150, [March 16, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Begino y Rogero

 G.R. No. 251150, [March 16, 2022]

THIRD, LOPEZ, M.V 

large-scale Illegal recruitment; Estafa 

For an offense to be considered large scale illegal recruitment, the prosecution must establish that: (1) The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2)The offender undertakes recruitment activities or practices prohibited by law; (3) The offender commits acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

 

In September 2011, Milagros Osila received a phone call about job opportunities in Canada from Regina Begino and Darwin Arevalo. Milagros traveled to Tabaco City, where she met Regina and Darwin, who were allegedly conducting interviews for jobs abroad. Regina and Darwin claimed to be looking for apple-pickers to be deployed in Canada. Milagros, along with her nieces Maelene Canaveral and Geraldine Ojano, and her friend Gloria Mape, attended interviews and paid various fees for the supposed job placements. Regina received payments for processing fees, terminal fee, additional processing fee, and surety bond, all recorded on index cards. However, none of them were able to leave for Canada, and they did not get their money back. 

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Regina Begino of large scale illegal recruitment and three counts of estafa. The court found that Regina represented having the authority to send the complainants abroad, and her promises never materialized. The recovered index cards with payment notes established that Regina received various fees from the complainants, causing them damage. Regina's assurances induced the victims to part with their money. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Regina's guilt for large scale illegal recruitment.

 

Whether or not Regina Begino is guilty of large scale illegal recruitment and Estafa. 

YES. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that all elements of large scale illegal recruitment were present, as Regina engaged in recruitment activities without the required license or authority. Regina's active role in the recruitment process, her receipt of payments, and her lack of authority all contributed to her liability. The prosecution established that Regina engaged in recruitment activities and gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work. Regina directly transacted with the complainants regarding the job prospect in Canada and personally assisted them in completing the requirements for deployment. Regina received money from the complainants as placement fees and gave assurances that they will earn high compensation for their purported jobs abroad. Furthermore, Regina had no authority to engage in recruitment activities. Finally, there are four (4) complainants who testified against Regina which qualified the offense to economic sabotage. Thus, Regina was properly sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P5,000,000.00 for large scale illegal recruitment.

However, the Court cited errors in the computation of penalties. Nonetheless, the penalties in the three (3) counts of estafa can no longer be corrected, even if erroneous, because the judgment of conviction has become final and executory after Regina chose not to appeal these cases. An erroneous judgment, as thus understood, is a valid judgment. Whatever mistake the trial court committed in the computation of penalties was merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. The mistake did not affect the intrinsic validity of the decision and can no longer be rectified on appeal no matter how obvious the error may be.

 

 

 CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT