THE LAW ON OBLIGATIONS AND

CONTRACTS

FINALS
CASE 1
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 254251

iu>puhlic of tbe ~bilippine~

~npreme <!Conrt The Antecedents
;lJl!lanila
The case stemmed from an Information5 charging accused-
THIRD DIVISION appellant with Murder under Article 248 of the RPC for killing Reynaldo
Adlawany Antonio (Reynaldo). The accusatory portion reads:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 254251
That on or about the 24th day of February 2013, in the
Plaintiff-Appellee, Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
Present: within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with the use of a kitchen knife, with intent to kill did then
CAGUIOA, J, Chairperson, and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and
INTING, stab one Reynaldo Adlawan y Antonio, hitting on [sic] the chest,
- versus - thereby inflicting upon the latter [sic] stab wound which directly
GAERLAN,
caused his death, the offense having been attended by qualifying
DIMAAMPAO, and circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, which
SINGH, JJ qualify such killing to murder, aggravated by the circumstance of
nighttime.
Promulgated:
DANILO CONDE y MINA, CONTRARY TO LAW. xx x6 (Emphasis omitted)
Accused-Appellant. June 22, 2022
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~ ~~S-~'.!"~- - - - - - - - - -x charge. 7

DECISION Trial on the merits ensued.

INTING, J.: Version of the Prosecution

This is an appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated August 16, 2019 of The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses, namely: Jeffrey
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10475 that affirmed Atibagos (Jeffrey), accused-appellant's uncle-in-law and Reynaldo's
with modification the Decision3 dated July 4, 2017 of Branch 76, kumpare; Rogelio Cabangisan (Rogelio), Jeffrey's brother-in-law; and
Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case No. Mary Jane Cabangisan (Mary Jane), Jeffrey's sister and Rogelio's wife. 8
14604. The RTC found Danilo Conde y Mina (accused-appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised The following are the facts established by the prosecution:
Penal Code (RPC). 4
8. On February 24, 2013, at around 11 :50 in the evening,
Jeffrey Atibagos (Jeffrey) was at the house of his sister, Mary Jane
(Jingjing) in Patiis, San Mateo, Rizal drinking with Danilo Conde,
Reynaldo Adlawan (the deceased), and Rogelio Cabangisan (Roel).

I Rollo, pp. 25-26

2 Id. at 4-24; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concutTed in by Associate
Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong. 5
Rollo, p. 5.
3 CA rollo, pp. 52-57; penned by Presiding Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez. 6
Id.
4 Id. at 57. 7
ld.at5.
8 Id. at 5-6.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 254251 Decision 4 G.R. No. 254251

9. While they were drinking and having a casual

conversation, Jeffrey saw the accused-appellant, Danilo Conde, who paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 6 of
was seated beside him, suddenly and without provocation, stabbed RA 7659 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
[sic] the deceased who was seated beside the accused-appellant. Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of
Php 50,000.00 as death indemnity and Php 50,000.00 as moral
10. Roel, who was in front of the accused-appellant also saw damages. No pronouncement as to cost.
the latter leaning on his chair with his hands crossed while they
were casually conversing, when suddenly the accused-appellant Accused Danilo Conde y Mina is to be credited for the time
stabbed the deceased on [sic] the chest with a knife which the spent for his preventive detention in accordance with Article 29 of
accused-appellant had been secretly holding. the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.

11. Roel heard the deceased say, "Pareng Danny, bakit mo Accused Danilo Conde y Mina is hereby ordered committed
ako sinaksak." When Roel asked the accused-appellant why he to the National Bilibid Prisons [sic] in Muntinlupa City for service of
sentence.
stabbed the deceased, he also stabbed Roel but he was able to parry
the attack. ·
SO ORDERED. 12
12. Roel and Jeffrey brought the deceased to the St.
Matthews Hospital but the latter already expired. 9
The RTC brushed aside accused-appellant's plain denial. It held
that the prosecution witnesses positively identified accused-appellant as
Version of the Defense the person who stabbed Reynaldo on the chest; that the prosecution
witnesses' statements remained unrebutted by the defense; that the
On the· other hand, accused-appellant denied the charge against qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were
him; thus: proven; that it found that accused-appellant was in possession of a knife
when he suddenly attacked Reynaldo; and that the aggravating
5. Accused DANILO CONDE vehemently denied the charge circumstance of nighttime was not proven because the evidence revealed
against him and maintained that on 24 February 2013, around 11 to 12 that accused-appellant did not take advantage of the darkness of the
o'clock in the evening, [Jeffrey] told him to buy "pulutan" as they place to consummate the crime. 13
will have a drinking spree at the house of Rogelio together with
Reynaldo. The accused was able to buy said pulutan at a nearby
ihawan but was unable to return as the lady to [sic] whom he bought Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 14
the pulutan invited him to have a drinking spree at the said ihawan.
After consuming four (4) bottles of Red Horse and feeling drunk, the
accused fell asleep at the waiting shed. Thereafter, he was awakened The CA Ruling
by [Jeffrey] and Rogelio and told him that he stabbed Reynaldo_lO
In the assailed Decision 15 dated August 16, 2019, the CA denied
The RTC Ruling the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision but ruled that the prosecution
was only able to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery. 16
In its Decision11 dated July 4, 2017, the RTC found accused- Moreover, the CA increased the awards of civil indenmity and moral
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. The dispositive damages to Pl00,000.00 each and awarded another Pl00,000.00 as
portion of the Decision states: exemplary damages and P30,225.00 as actual damages, 17 thus:

WI-IEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. TI1e
Danilo Conde y Mina GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
12 Id. at 57.
cnme of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248, 13
Id. at 56-57.
14 Id. at 12.
9 Id. at 6.
10 Id.at?.
15
Rollo, pp. 4-24.
16
11 CA rollo, pp. 52-57. Id. at 17-20.
17 Id. at 22-23.
Decision 5 Decision 6
G.R. No. 254251 G.R. No. 254251

Decision dated 4 July 2017 of Branch 76 of the Regional Trial Court

of San Mateo, Rizal is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are increased to The 15sues
Pl00,000.00 each, plus an additional of PI00,000.00 as exemplary
damages. Accused Appellant Danilo Conde y Mina is also liable for
actual damages in the amount of P30,225.00 to Felicidad Adlawan. I.
All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from finality of this Judgment until fully paid.
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
so ORDERED. 18 TRIAL COURT'S DECISION GIVING WEIGHT TO THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES' STATEMENTS.
Hence, the instant appeal before the Court. 19
II.
Accused-appellant filed a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental
Briet)20 that he is adopting all the arguments raised in his appellant's
brief before the CA. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
General (OSG) similarly manifested that it will no ionger file a TRIAL COURT'S DECISION DISREGARDING THE
supplemental brief because it already discussed in the Brief for the ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND
Appellee all issues, facts, and arguments involved in the present case. 21 ALIBI.

In his Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 22 accused-appellant argues Our Ruling

that the RTC gravely erred in giving weight to the prosecution witnesses'
statements; that it is contrary to human experience for him to go with the
victim Reynaldo to a house of a close friend first, join a drinking session, The appeal is unmeritorious.
and just stab the latter without reason in front of their close friends; 23 and
that the RTC should have considered his defense of denial and frame-up It is settled that the factual findings of the trial court are entitled to
as the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing his guilt great weight and respect, especially when they are affrrmed by the
beyond reasonable doubt. 24 appellate court. 28 Findings of the trial court that are factual in nature and
that involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, if not
On the other hand, the OSG, in its Brief for the Plaintiff- finality, by the appellate court when no glaring errors, gross
Appellee,25 counters that the RTC correctly convicted accused-appellant misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported
of Murder; that the prosecution proved all elements of the crime of conclusions can be gleaned from such findings. 29 The trial court is in the
Murder beyond reasonable doubt; 26 and that the RTC correctly best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and their
disregarded accused-appellant's defense of alibi considering that the testimonies because of "its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
latter failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the locus first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
criminis at the time the crime was committed. 27 grueling examination."30

18 Id. at 23. After a judicious perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds
19 Id. at 25-26.
20
no compelling reason to depart from the uniform factual findings of the
See Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated June 21, 2021, id. at 34-35.
21 See Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated June 18, 2021, id. at 38-39. RTC and the CA. Thus the Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction
22
CArollo, pp. 37-50. for the crime of Tvlurder.
23 Id. at 43-47. ·
24 Id. at 47-49. 28 Villarba v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 227777, June 15, 2020.
25 Id. at 64-73. 29 Estrellav. People, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020, citing Peoplev. Aspa, 838 Phil. 302, 311-312
26 Id. at 69-70. (2018).
27 Id. at 71. 30 People v. Manzano, 827 Phil. 113, 126 (2018).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 254251 Decision 8 G.R. No. 254251

The RTC convicted accused-appellant of Murder qualified by

treachery and evident premeditation; 31 but the CA only appreciated Adlawan.
treachery. 32 Article 248 of the RPC states:
Q: When the stabbing happened, Mr. Witness what exactly was
Reynaldo Adlawan doing when he was stabbed?
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within A: None, ma'am, we were just drinking and having a conversation
the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of when he was suddenly stabbed by Danilo Conde.
murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant XX X x 35
circumstances:

I . With treachery, x x x Rogelio corroborated Jeffrey's statements; thus:

xxxx
5. With evident premeditation. Q: When they entered your house, Mr. Witness, what transpired next?
A: I offered them a seat then Jeffrey Atibagos and Reynaldo Adiawan
were talking about their work, ma'am.
The elements of Murder are the following: "(a) that a person was
killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended xxxx
by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (d)
that the killing is not parricide or infanticide." 33 Q: While they were already seated, Mr. Witness. what did you do
next, if any?
A: None, sir, I just listened to Reynaldo Adiawan and Jeffrey
Here, all the elements of Murder are present. Accused-appellant Atibagos' conversation and Danilo Conde was also silent, ma'am.
killed Reynaldo. There was treachery in the commission of the crime and
the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Q: You also said, Mr. Witness, that prior to their arrival you were
already have lsic] a drinking spree with your brother-in-law Jeffrey
Atibagos?
Three prosecution eyewitnesses: Jeffrey, Rogelio, and Mary Jane, A: Yes, ma'am, we just started.
positively identified accused-appellant as the person who suddenly
xxxx
stabbed Reynaldo on his chest. 34
Q: You said that they were already having a conversation between
Reynaldo Adlawan and Jeffrey Atibagos, Mr. Witness?
Jeffrey testified in part as follows: A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: While having a drinking spree at the house of your sister Mary Q: So what happened next, if there was any, Mr. Witness?
Jane alias Jingjing, what else happened, Mr. Witness, if there was A: Danilo Cond,: was leaning on his chair when he suddenly stabbed
any? Reynaldo Adlawan at [sic] his chest, ma'am.
A: Danilo Conde suddenly stabbed Reynaldo Ad]awan, ma'am.
Q: Where were you positioned when you saw Danilo Conde suddenly
Q: Was there any altercation, if any, between Reynaldo Adlawan and stabbed [sic] Reynaldo Adlawan?
Danilo Conde before Danilo Conde stabbed Reynaldo Adlawan? A: I was in front of them, sir.
A: There was none, ma'am, he just suddenly stabbed Reynaldo
XX X x 36

31
CA rollo, p. 57.
32
Rollo, pp. 17-20.
33 People v. Manansala, G.R. No.233104, September 2, 2020, citing People v. Casemiro, G.R. No.
231122,January 16,2019. 35 Id.atI0-11.
34 Rollo, p. I 0. 36 Id. at 12-13.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 254251 Decision 10 G.R. No. 254251

all that accused-appellant offered was the weak defense of denial and
Likewise, Mary Jane, Rogelio's wife, testified that she saw alibi. 41
accused-appellant stab Reynaldo, viz.:

Q: You said that you saw Danilo Conde, who you have just identified, Accused-appellant insists that it was illogical or irrational for him
stabbed [sic] Reynaldo Adlawan, where were you when you saw to have committed the criminal act. 42 His argument fails.
Danilo Conde stabbed [sic] him?
A: Beside Rogelio, ma'am.
To quote the ruling of the CA: "[C]riminals oftentimes behave
Q: And what were they doing when this incident happened? irrationally or illogically when they commit crimes, as in the case of
A: They were having a conversation, ma'am. heinous or gruesome crimes such as Murder or Rape." 43
Q: Why were you there while they were having a conversation?
A: Because I told them that they should finish their drinking session Likewise unmeritorious is accused-appellant's averment that he
because they still have a job to go to on the next day, ma'am. was invited by the lady selling ihaw-ihaw to have a drinking spree with
her and that he got drunk and fell asleep. 44
Q: After you stated those words, what, if any, happened?
A: I saw Danilo suddenly stabbed [sic] Reynaldo, ma'am.
The Court has ruled that "alibi and denial, if not substantiated by
Q: And what, if any, did Danilo use?
A: A knife, ma'am.
clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law." 45 The defense of denial and alibi should
XX X x 37 be considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only
because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily
fabricated and concocted. 46
In addition, Police Officer III Cornelio B. Giwao (PO3 Giwao)
stated38 that when accused-appellant was arrested, he was in possession
of the kitchen knife used in stabbing Reynaldo. 39 People v. Moreno 47 further explains:

Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh

From the clear, straightforward, and consistent statenients of the positive testimony. A categorical statement that has eannarks of truth
prosecution witnesses, there is no doubt that accused-appellant was the prevails over a bare denial which can easily be fabricated and is
one who stabbed Reynaldo to death. The view of Jeffrey, Rogelio, and inherently unreliable. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused
Mary Jane at the time of the stabbing incident was unobstructed by any must prove that he [or she] was at some other place at the time of the
object. They saw accused-appellant suddenly stab Reynaldo on his chest. commission of the crime[,] and [that] it was physically impossible for
him [or her] to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.
Likewise, there is no evidence that the prosecution witnesses were ill-
These requirements of time and place must be strictly met. 48
motivated to testify against accused-appellant. The rule is that when
there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive for
a prosecution witness to falsely testify against an accused, his or her In the case, the positive identification made by the prosecution
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. 40 witnesses pointing to accused-appeliant as the person who stabbed
Reynaldo to death prevails over accused-appellant's bare denial. In
On the other hand, the defense failed to refute the statements of the 41 Rollo, pp. 6-7.
prosecution witnesses. Against the factual backdrop of the instant case, 42 CA rol/o, pp. 43-44.
43 Rolio, p. I 0.
44
Id. at 7.
37 !d.atl4-15. 45 Gurro v. People. G.R. Nos. 22456~ & 2372 i 6, September 18,2019.
38 Stipulated testimony. CA mllo. pp. 53-54. 46 Artates v. People, G.R. No. 235724, March 11, 2020.
" Rollo, p. 16. 47 G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020.
40 See Peoplev. Lumahangy Tahsay. G.R. No. 218531, March '27, 2019. 48 Id.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 254251 Decision 12 G.R. No. 254251

addition, the defense failed to substantiate his defense of alibi. There is and the suddenness of the attack were employed by accused-appellant to
no shadow of proof that it was physically impossible for accused- ensure the killing of the unsuspecting, defenseless victim.
appellant to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity at the
time of the commission of the crime. In fact, the defense failed to present
Finally, the Court upholds the CA's findings that the qualifying
the woman who allegedly invited him in a drinking spree. Thus,
accused-appellant's conviction stands. 49 circumstance of evident premeditation was not present in the
commission of the crime.

Furthermore, the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance The elements of evident premeditation are: "(l) a previous
of treachery.
decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) overt act/acts
manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3)
Treachery is defined as "the swift and unexpected attack on the a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual
unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his [or her] part." 50 execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of
The essence of treachery is "the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor his acts." 56
on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend
himself [or herself! and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense In the case, the prosecution failed to establish the requisites of
without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended evident premeditation. There is no evidence that accused-appellant made
party might make." 51 The attack must be deliberate and without warning a previous decision to murder Reynaldo. Neither is there a showing that
and must be done in a swift and unexpected way, "affording the hapless, accused-appellant's acts manifestly indicate that he clung to his
unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." 52 For determination to kill Reynaldo. Lastly, there is no proof of the time when
treachery to be appreciated two conditions must concur, namely: first, accused-appellant resolved to commit the crime. 57
the assailant employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the
criminal act that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend
As for the penalty, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the
himself ( or herself) or to retaliate; and second, said means, methods, or
sentence of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 248 of the
forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the
RPC.
assailant. 53

Here, accused-appellant suddenly stabbed Reynaldo while the However, the Court modifies the awards imposed by the CA. The
latter was conversing with Rogelio and Jeffrey. The unexpectedness of award of 1"100,000.00 as civil indemnity, 1"100,000.00 as moral
the attack deprived Reynaldo of any chance to defend himself, thereby damages, and 1"100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be reduced to
ensuring the consummation of the offense without risk to accused- r'75,000.00 each to conform with the ruling in People v. Jugueta
appellant arising from the defense that Reynaldo might have made. 54 It is (Jugueta). 58
well to emphasize the fact that accused-appellant was in possession of a
knife when he went on a drinking session with Rogelio and Jeffrey. 55 In In Jugueta, the Court discussed:
other words, accused-appellant had the means to commit the crime that
directly ensured its execution. The weapon used, the time of execution, Again, for crimes where the imposable penalty is death in
view of the attendance of an ordinary aggravating circumstance but
due to the prohibition to impose the death penalty, t.'ie actual penalty
49 See rollo, p. 22. imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence pegs the
50 People" Antonio, G.R. No. 229349, January 29, 2020. amount of Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity and PJ00,0000.00 as
51 People v. Pitulan, G.R. No. 226486, January 22, 2020. moral damages. For the qualifying aggravating circumstance and/or
52 People v. Silvederio Ill, G.R. No. 239777, July 8, 2020, citing People" Albino, G.R. No. 229928, the ordinary aggravating circumstances present, t.'ie amount of
July 22, 2019, farther citing People" Watamana, 734 Phil. 673, 682 (2014).
53 People v. Dulin, 762 Phil 24, 40 (2015), citing People" Flores, 466 Phil. 683, 693-694 (2004). 56 People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 238455, December 9, 2020.
54 Seerollo, pp. 18-19. 57 See rollo, p. 20.
55 See id. at 20. 58 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 254251 Decision 14 G.R. No. 254251

r'l 00,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages aside from civil

indemnity and moral damages. Regardless of the attendance of
qualifying aggravating circumstance, the exemplary damages shall be
SO ORDERED.
fixed at r'l00,000.00. "[T]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic
societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over
time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the
incidence of heinous crimes XX x."

When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the

imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary
HE LB.INTING
aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the proper amounts
should be r'75,000.00 as civil indemnity, "!'75,000.00 as moral
damages and 1'75,000.00 exemplary damages, regardless of the
number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. 59 WECONCUR / I

In the case, there is no evidence of the existence of any ordinary

aggravating circumstance. The allegation ·of the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime was not proven by the prosecution
considering the absence of evidence that accused-appellant took
fFRED
advantage of the darkness to ensure the execution of the crime. 60
Clearly, the circumstances surrounding the case merely call for the
imposition of reclusion perpetua only and not death penalty. Thus, the
Court rules that the proper amounts should be 1"75,000.00 as civil
~
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and 1"75,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
S~lVIUli,;GAit'R:LAN B.DIM
Associate Justice

In addition, the CA correctly awarded actual damages for funeral

expenses in the amount of 1"30,225.00 as this was adequately supported
by evidence. 61 The imposition of a legal interest rate of six percent ( 6%)
interest per annum on all monetary awards from the finality of the
UAFii:OMOOA . SING
decision until full payment is likewise proper. 62
Associate Justice

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

August 16, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10475
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Danilo ATTESTATION
Conde y Mina is hereby sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Reynaldo Adlawan y Antonio I attest that the conclusions in the abov,
the award of 1"75,000.00 as civil indemnity, f75,000.00 as moral in consultation before the case was assig. e
damages, 1"75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and 1"30,225.00 as actual of the Court's Division.
damages. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality of the Decision until full payment.
59
A
Id. at 839-840.
6
° CA ro/lo, p. 57.
61 See rollo, p. 23.
62 See People v. Pitulan, supra note 51.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 254251

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
CASE 2
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 225607

WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed. The Decision dated

March 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06518,
holding Paul Anderson y Jeffrey guilty of the crimes of two (2) separate
counts of Rape through Sexual Assault and Acts of Lasciviousness, is
AFFIRMED. The amounts of damages awarded including the imposition
of the additional six percent ( 6%) legal interest per annum on all said
damages and costs so awarded are also AFFIRMED in toto. 3

SECOND DIVISION However, in a Manifestation and Undertaking with Motion to

Dismiss 4 dated July 26, 2017, Anderson's counsel informed the Court that
he had already died on April 21, 2007, as evinced by Anderson's Certificate
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 225607 of Death. 5 Notably, this means that Anderson had already passed away
PHILIPPINES, during the pendency of the criminal case against him, since the same was
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present: resolved by the Court only through the aforesaid Resolution dated April 26,
2017.
- versus - PERLAS-BERNABE, J.,
Chairperson,
Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, Anderson's death prior to his
PAUL ANDERSON y JEFFREY, HERNANDO,
final conviction by the Court should have resulted in the dismissal of the
ZALAMEDA,
Accused-Appellant. criminal case against him. Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides
ROSARIO, and
that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the accused, to
MARQUEZ, JJ.
wit:
Promulgated:
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. ~
Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
x----------------·-----------/- l. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
RESOLUTION death of the offender occurs before final judgment;

xxxx
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Likewise, the civil action instituted for the recovery of the civil
In a Resolution 1 dated April 26, 2017, the Court affirmed the liability ex delicto is also ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on the
Decision2 dated March 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. criminal action. The rationale behind this rule is that upon an accused-
CR-H.C. No. 06518 finding accused-appellant Paul Anderson y Jeffrey appellant's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is
(Anderson) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts Rape by deemed extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as
Sexual Assault and Acts of Lasciviousness, the pertinent portions of which the accused. 6
read:
Nonetheless, the Court clarified in People v. Culas 7 that in such an
After an exhaustive review of the allegations, issues and arguments instance, the accused's civil liability in connection with his acts against the
presented by the parties, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for victim may be based on sources other than delicts; in which case, the victim
failure to sufficiently prove that the CA committed a reversible error in its
assailed decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate
jurisdiction.
Id. at 77.
4
Id. at 79-82.
Rollo, pp. 77-78. 5
Id. at 92, including dorsal p011ion.
2 Id. at 3-51. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices 6
See People v. Culas, 810 Phil. 205,209 (2017).
Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring. 7 810 Phil. 205 (2017).

J
 Resolution 3 Resolution 4 G.R. No. 225607
G.R. No. 225607

may file a separate civil action against the accused's estate, as may be
warranted by law and procedural rules, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) SET ASIDE the Court's
Resolution dated April 26, 2017; (b) DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 04-
From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling herein: 7543, 04-7618, and 04-7619 before the Regional Trial Court ofMuntinlupa
City, Branch 207 by reason of accused-appellant Paul Anderson y Jeffrey's
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction supervening death prior to his final conviction; and (c) DECLARE this case
extinguishes his criminal liability[,] as well as the civil liability[,] based
solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of
CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.
the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and
only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding SO ORDERED.

the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates
these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as
a result of the same act or omission:
ESTELA M. ~~RNABE
a)Law
Senior Associate Justice
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts Division Chairperson
d)xxx
e) Quasi-delicts
WE CONCUR:
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2
above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of
filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may
be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is
based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of

his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where
during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the
private offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In
such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed EDA
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with
provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid
any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. 8

Therefore, had the Court been timely made aware of Anderson's ~~

J ~ A S P . MARQUEZ
supervening death in the interim, his conviction would not have been
affirmed as his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto in connection ~~ociate Justice
therewith had already been extinguished. In view of the foregoing, the Court
is constrained to set aside the Resolution dated April 26, 2017 issued in
connection with this case. Consequently, the Court hereby dismisses
Criminal Case Nos. 04-7543, 04-7618, and 04-7619 before the Regional
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 207 by reason of Anderson's
supervening death prior to his final conviction.

8
Id. at 208-209; citing People v. Layag, 797 Phil. 386, 390-391 (2016); further citations omitted.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 225607

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.

ESTELA M.~~RNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

. v~:~
A ~ G. GESMUNDO
Justice
CASE 3
5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496 5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496

informed everyone that he found Krishna face down and floating in the river. Emmanuel and Jomar then followed
Today is Thursday, May 04, 2023 Eboy to retrieve the body ofKrishna.10

After Eboy took the body of Krishna out of the river, Jomar shouted "Tiya Irma naheling namo," which meant that
the group already found Krishna. Accused-appellant then went out of her house and proceeded to the river where
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
she took Krishna's lifeless body from Eboy. Emmanuel commented that there was no way that Krishna could have
walked by herself to the river considering that she was still an infant.11

Gemma, on the other hand, testified that she was on her way to the house of a certain Honesto Temporosa
located at Barangay District 3, San Miguel, Catanduanes, when she was invited by Dolores Zambales12 (Dolly) to go
with her to the house of accused-appellant because she heard of the drowning incident. Upon reaching accused-
Manila
appellant's house, they saw the body of Krishna, lying on the floor mat wrapped in a white blanket. Further, Gemma
FIRST DIVISION testified that she saw wounds on both eyelids of Krishna. Gemma likewise averred that she had to wipe the mouth
of Krishna since blood was continuously coming out from her mouth. Thereafter, a relative of accused­ appellant, a
[ G.R. No. 255496. August 10, 2022 ] certain Cecilia,13 arrived and told accused- appellant to bring the body to the Rural Health Unit so that a death
certificate could be issued. They then brought Krishna to the said health unit.14
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. IRMA MAGLINAS Y QUINDONG, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT. For her part, Dr. Joson, then Municipal Health Officer of the Rural Health Unit of San Miguel, Catanduanes,
issued the Death Certificate15 indicating the cause of death as "Drowning, Freshwater, Accidental" since this was the
DECISION information relayed to her by the relatives of Krishna. She further testified that "if it is a community death, [they] don't
need to see the patient or the client or the victim. [They] based [their] cause of death merely from [their] interview of
GESMUNDO, C.J.: the relatives or from the one who brought the patient in the Rural Health Unit." Dr. Joson averred that "if it is not a
medico[-]legal case and it is accidental," she could sign the death certificate, as she did, but indicated with an "x" the
This is an Appeal1 from the September 8, 2020 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. portion that states "I have not attended the deceased x x x."16 Moreover, in the post-mortem examination, Dr. Joson
11476, which affirmed with modification the June 6, 2018 Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court of Virac, noted that there were two blisters on the right hand and a small abrasion at the corner of the right eye17 of Krishna.
Catanduanes, Branch 43 (RTC), finding Irma Maglinas y Quindong (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable According to the testimony of Dr. Joson, she recommended that an autopsy be conducted to rule out foul play due to
doubt of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Krishna.18
Antecedents Version of the Defense
In an Information dated September 9, 2015, accused-appellant was charged with Murder, committed as follows: On the other hand, the defense presented the following witnesses: accused-appellant, Eboy, and Arlene Tatel
(Arlene). Their testimonies tended to establish the following:
That at around 2:30 in the afternoon on May 15, 2015 at Barangay D1stnct 3, Municipality of San
Miguel, Province of Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the On April 22, 2015, Jenelyn and her daughter, Krishna, came to Catanduanes and stayed in the house of
above­ named ac used, with intent to kill, by taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there, accused-appellant. However, on May 13, 2015, Jenelyn left Krishna under the custody of accused- appellant to look
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflict physical injuries on the different parts of the body of KRISHNA for work in Legazpi City.19
DIZON, a [ONE-YEAR AND FOUR MONTH-OLD] CHILD, and thereafter drown the aforesaid Krishna
Dizon in Bator River, thereby causing the latter's death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the According to accused-appellant, who was a manicurist, on May 15, 2015, at around 7:00 a.m., she was
said victim and the general public. attending to a customer at their house while also taking care of Krishna. After her customer left, she attended to
Krishna, cooked their lunch, and fed Krishna. At around 1:30 p.m., accused­ appellant laid her down and slept with
xxxx her. However, at around 2:00 p.m., while Krishna was still asleep, accused- appellant went to the store of Arlene to
buy food for their dinner. Upon accused-appellant's return to her house at around 2:14 p.m., she noticed that the
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
door was already opened and Krishna was no longer in the place where she left her.20 Accused-appellant searched
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued thereafter. for Krishna within the premises and even at the workplace of her husband to check if the latter or any of their
children got Krishna. Accused-appellant then told her husband that Krishna was missing. Her husband directed her
Version of the Prosecution to look around as Krishna might have been taken and brought around.21

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Jenelyn Dizon5 (Jenelyn), Eufresina Teves6 (Eufresina), While accused-appellant was searching around the premises, she heard that her grandson, Eboy, was already
Gemma.Bernal (Gemma), Police Officer I Gelmar Domagtoy (POI Domagtoy), Emmanuel Tatel (Emmanuel), John around and so she asked the latter to help her look for Krishna. Eboy then proceeded to the river where he saw a
Cesar Ogena, Dr. Elva Joson (Dr. Jason), Senior Police Officer IV Juanito Tevar (SP04 Tevar), Loma Olalo (Olalo), pink-colored dress and diaper which made him think that it might be Krishna. When he went nearer, he saw
and Police Officer II Cathylene Taule. Their testimonies tended to establish the following: Krishna's hair and the child faced down as she was entangled with the rocks. Eboy immediately went to the house
of accused-appellant and told her that he found Krishna. Eboy then ran back to the river to retrieve the body of
On May 15, 2015, at around 9:30 a.m., in San Miguel, Catanduanes, Eufresina passed by the house of Krishna and handed her to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant blew air into the mouth of Krishna and blood
accused-appellant. Eufresina was about one and one-half meters away from the house of accused- appellant when oozed from her nose.22 Thereafter, accused-appellant brought Krishna to her house and changed her clothes. Later,
she heard a crying child and the voice of accused-appellant yelling "Tigil! Tigil!" Thereafter, Eufresina heard a loud they proceeded to the Rural Health Unit wherein Olalo, the Rural Sanitation Inspector, obtained the personal data of
sound of someone being whipped/slapped five times followed by the crying which even got louder. Eufresina knew Krishna23 and found the latter already lifeless.24
that the crying child was Krishna Dizon (Krishna), who was merely 1 year and 4 months old, since no other child
was living with accused-appellant. The RTC Ruling

Euftresina averred that there was nothing unusual with Krishna crying, thus, she just went home.7 In its June 6, 2018 Judgment, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. The dispositive portion of the decision, reads:
At around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, Emmanuel, Jomar Boiseng (Jamar), and Ernie Maglinas, Jr., alias
"Eboy"8 (Ebay) were on their way to the river when they met Jiboy Maglinas9 (Jiboy), son of accused- appellant. WHEREFORE, having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder, this
Jiboy asked the group of Emmanuel for help in looking for Krishna since the latter has been missing. Eboy directly Court, hereby, sentences IRMA MAGLINAS y QUINDONG to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the
proceeded to the river, which was about 100 meters away from accused-appellant's house, while Emmanuel and heirs of Krishna Dizon the amount of SEVENTY­ FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00) as civil indemnity,
Jomar went at the back of the house of accused-appellant. Shortly thereafter, Eboy returned to the house and

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 1/13 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 2/13

5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496 5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496

SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00) as moral damages, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS responsible for Krishna's death. The OSG emphasized that direct evidence is not the sole basis for establishing the
(Php75,000.00) as exemplary damages, and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php50,000.00) as temperate damages. guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.39

SO ORDERED.25 The Court's Ruling

The RTC held that the circumstances surrounding the incident lead to no other conclusion than that accused- The appeal is meritorious.
appellant could have intentionally hurt Krishna leading to her death. The RTC found that accused-appellant, while
pacifying Krishna from her incessant cries, may have used force by whipping/slapping her repeatedly, which could Accused-appellant is charged with the crime of murder under Art. 248 of the RPC which states:
have been fatal, rendering Krishna unconscious, worse, lifeless.26 In trying to hide what she did to Krishna, she
made it appear that Krishna accidentally drowned by bringing her to the river and placing her face down supported Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of [A]rticle 246 shall kill another,
by rocks to keep her from being washed down by the stream.27 shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
The CA Ruling
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
In its September 8, 2020 Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC, viz.: men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated June 6,
2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, in Criminal Case No. 5609, The elements of murder are as follows: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed that person; (c)
is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED in that the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 of the RPC; and (d) that
(6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. the killing is not parricide or infanticide.40

SO ORDERED.28 There is no need to dwell on the first and fourth elements. The death of Krishna, as evidenced by the Death
Certificate41 issued on May 18, 2015, was neither parricide nor infanticide. Thus, the Court will now determine the
The CA held that all the elements of the crime of murder were present: (1) Krishna died as evidenced by her presence of the second and third elements of the crime, particularly, that it was supposedly accused-appellant who
death certificate; (2) accused­ appellant killed her; (3) the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) the killing was killed Krishna.
not parricide or infanticide.29 It has been held that the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the
manner of assault is not shown, for the weakness of the victim due to his or her tender years results in the absence Presumption of innocence; circumstantial
of any danger to the accused.30 evidence

Hence, this appeal. The judicial determination of guilt or innocence of the person necessarily starts with the recognition of his or her
constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the charge he or she faces. Apropos is the case of People v.
Issues Lumikid,42 wherein the Court held:

Accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors m her Brief:31 While an accused stands before the court burdened by a previous preliminary investigation
finding that there is probable cause to believe that he committed the crime charged, the judicial
I. determination of his guilt or innocence necessarily starts with the recognition of his constitutional
right to be presumed innocent of the charge he faces. This principle, a right of the accused, is
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF enshrined no less in our Constitution. It embodies as well a duty on the part of the court to ascertain
MURDER DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. that no person is made to answer for a crime unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Its
primary consequence in our criminal justice system is the basic rule that the prosecution carries the
II. burden of overcoming the presumption through proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, a criminal case rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution's case, not on the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF weakness of the defense. Once the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence by
MURDER DESPITE HER DULY CORROBORATED TESTIMONY AND THE FAILURE OF THE proving the elements of the crime and the identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.32 doubt, the burden of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then test the strength of the
prosecution's case either by showing that no crime was, in fact, committed or that the accused could
On March 17, 2021, the Court issued a Resolution,33 which notified the parties that they may file their respective
not have committed or did not commit the imputed crime or, at the very least, by casting doubt on
supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its May 31, 2021 Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief),34 the Office the guilt of the accused.43
of the Solicitor General (DSG) manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the facts,
issues, and applicable laws and jurisprudence had already been thoroughly and exhaustively discussed in its To overcome this constitutional right in favor of the accused, the prosecution must hurdle two things: first, the
appellee's brief filed before the CA. In her June 28, 2021 Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief),35 accused- accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until final conviction; conviction requires no less than
appellant averred that she would no longer file a supplemental brief since she had sufficiently refuted all the evidence sufficient to arrive at a moral certainty of guilt, not only with respect to the existence of a crime, but, more
arguments raised in the appellee's brief. importantly, of the identity of the accused as the author of the crime. Second, the prosecution's case must rise and
fall on its own merits and cannot draw its strength from the weakness of the defense.44
In her Appellant's Brief36 filed before the CA, accused-appellant maintains that there is insufficiency of
circumstantial evidence to convict her of the crime of murder. Accused-appellant alleges that the Court should not Indeed, a crime is the doing of that which the penal code forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands.
decipher a pattern out of a single circumstance to support the conclusion that she killed Krishna. Particularly, the A necessary part of the definition of every crime is the designation of the author of the crime upon whom the penalty
fact that Eufresina testified that at around 9:30 a.m. on the day of the incident, she heard Krishna crying and the is to be inflicted.45 An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to
sound of someone being whipped or slapped could not lead to the conclusion that accused-appellant killed Krishna. convincingly prove the offender's identity. The constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not
From 9:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. when the lifeless body of Krishna was found, several hours had already passed and demolished by an identification that is full of uncertainties.46
this instance alone could not be the sole basis for accused­appellant's conviction.37 The lower court's observation
that accused­appellant's acts led to the death of Krishna was merely speculative.38 The crime charged against accused-appellant is murder. It is a serious offense where the prescribed penalty is
reclusion perpetua to death.47 In this case, there is no direct evidence to establish the author of the crime.
On the other hand, the OSG urges the Court to affirm accused­ appellant's conviction of murder. The OSG
emphasizes that the prosecution duly established the elements of the offense as charged. While it may be true that Evidently, there was no straightforward evidence to establish accused­ appellant's participation or authorship in
no one actually witnessed accused-appellant kill the victim, the pieces of evidence point to her as the person the commission of the crime charged. Nonetheless, direct evidence is not the only proof to establish the guilt of the

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 3/13 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 4/13

5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496 5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496

accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between "direct evidence of fact and mouth were half- opened and hands half-clenched. Stomach was bloated. Labia majora were well
evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred."48 coaptated.

As the Court held in Dungo v. People:49 B. EXTERNAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a 1. Abrasion, 0.5 x I cm at the comer of the right eye
conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct
evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an 2. Blister 0.5 cm x I cm, 4th digit, hand, right
accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may
resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in 3. Blister, I cm x I cm, 5th digit, hand, right
secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on
C. CAUSE OF DEATH
under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or
secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.50 Drowning freshwater
Circumstantial evidence is evenly accepted in criminal cases to establish the guilt of the accused beyond Abrasion and blisters secondary to alleged drowning
reasonable doubt. "Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a
contrary rule would render convictions virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature, are Remarks: Because of the effects of formalin in the body of the victim there was limitation in the
purposely committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses."51 Thus, our rules on evidence allow the conviction examination of the hymen. Suggest autopsy to rule out possible foul play.58 (Emphases supplied)
of an accused through circumstantial evidence alone, under certain conditions.
In Daayata v. People,59 the Court held that physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more
Section 4, Rule 13352 of the Rules of Court provides: eloquently than a hundred witnesses. They have been characterized as "that mute but eloquent manifestations of
truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence."60 Hence, in People v. Vasquez,61 the Court refused to
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for obtusely give credence to the incriminating asse1iions of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged mauling, and
conviction if: stated that "[t]his Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution's claim of perpetration of physical violence in the
(a) There is more than one circumstance; absence of any marked physical injuries on the various parts of the victim's face and body."62

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 1989 Revised Rules on The findings of Dr. Joson, the physician who examined the cadaver of Krishna, as reflected in the post-mortem
examination report, was confirmed when she testified before the trial court. She revealed that there was no basis to
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable conclude that Krishna was maltreated considering that there were no significant injuries that would support said
doubt. claim. As the following excerpt from Dr. Joson's cross-examination reveals:

Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. Q: Based on your experience doctor, if a person intends to drag a child like in this particular case,
what are the usual external injuries that may appear on his or her body?
Generally, "an accused may be convicted when the circumstances established f01m an unbroken chain leading
to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused - to the exclusion of all others - as the guilty person."53 A: It could be hematoma, the part of the body where the client was found or pressed to the water.

Here, the courts a quo heavily relied on the testimony of Eufresina as circumstantial evidence that accused- Q: Based on the [Post-Mortem] Examination Report, during the external physical
appellant purportedly maltreated Krishna on the day of the incident. Eufresina testified that, while she passed by the examination, there are abrasion and blisters, in this particular case are those injuries that you
house of accused-appellant, she heard Krishna crying and then the loud slapping or whipping sounds came from the referred earlier present in this particular case?
house of accused­ appellant. However, Eufresina admitted that she did not witness whether accused-appellant was
A: No, sir.63 (Emphasis supplied)
indeed hitting Krishna. Conversely, she even assumed that accused-appellant was merely scolding Krishna.54
During her redirect examination, Dr. Joson explained:
The prosecution's theory that in the morning of the incident, accused­ appellant was purportedly hitting Krishna,
correlated with the fact that Krishna was subsequently found dead in the river, could lead to the conclusion that it PROS. VALEZA
was accused-appellant who authored the crime. On the other hand, the RTC held that it is doubtful that accused-
appellant intentionally killed Krishna, but inferred that in trying to pacify Krishna, who cried incessantly, accused- Q: Dr. Joson, you mentioned that you were informed by a nurse of the death of the child in this
appellant whipped or slapped her several times, which could have been fatal rendering Krishna unconscious or, case, were you, likewise, informed of the nurse that the blood was continuously dripping from the nose
worse, lifeless.55 of the deceased?
However, the Court finds that there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt A: Yes, sir. There [was blood] but I was not informed that it was coming from the nose because
that accused-appellant was indeed the author of the crime regarding the death of Krishna. there was an abrasion here at the corner of the eye, so I thought the blood was coming from the
abrasion.
Medical findings
Q: Now that you were informed that the blood was continuously dripping from the nose of the victim
The records disclose that the cause of death of Krishna was "Drowning, Freshwater, Accidental."56Further, the and according to the one who brought the child to the clinic it started even when the child was still at
post-mortem examination of Krishna's body reveals that no substantial injury or wound was sustained, thereby the house and the child was brought at the clinic and then, the child [was] brought home. Now, for this
greatly negating the prosecution's theory that accused-appellant's acts of hitting the child caused her death. The case of drowning as deceased in this case, this continues dripping of the blood from the nose of the
said findings of Dr. Joson were reduced into writing, the Post-Mortem Examination Report57 which indicates: child is a symptom of accidental drowning?
Name of Victim: KRISHNA DIZON A: If the child fell prior to the drowning it could be possible. If the head hit a hard object that could
also be possible, there could be an internal bleeding that could cause the oozing of blood from the
xxxx nose.
A. DESCRIPTION OF CADAVER: Q: What is the possibility of that [continuous] dripping of the blood of the child being hit
intentionally by someone?
The victim is a child, female, graying in color, 86 cm in length wearing off white laced dress. She
was on the 5th day post-injection with formalin. The skin of the hands was corrugated, eyes and
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 5/13 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 6/13
5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496 5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496

A: That could be possible but I did not see any markings that could tell me that the current."71 Therefore, the Court, sans any significant physical injuries on the various parts of Krishna's face and
deceased was hit in her nose or at the back of her head, I even touched it and I did not find any body, cannot be persuaded by the prosecution's claim of perpetration of physical violence or maltreatment.
fracture but fracture cannot be seen.
Inconclusive proof that accused-appellant was
Q: So, doctor, what is, likewise, the possibility of the child hit by a hard object, supposing the author of the crime
that she fell on the river based on your examination to the child? A: When I saw the client, the
only thing was that I saw the abrasion and the blisters in her hand and I think if she hit a hard The Court notes the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses72 Gemma, Emmanuel, and SP04 Tevar,
object, there could be other visions on the face of the client or the head of the client if [she essentially stating that all of them saw the body of Krishna after the incident. Consistent with the medical findings,
fell].64 (Emphases and underscoring supplied) their testimonies reveal that there were no other injuries on the body of Krishna aside from an abrasion in her right
eye and blisters in her right hand. They could not firmly state that Krishna was maltreated to death by accused­-
This was reiterated by Dr. Joson during her re-cross-examination, viz.: appellant, instead of just merely drowning. Hence, the allegation that it was accused-appellant who maltreated and
killed Krishna, since there was no other person who purportedly hurt her, remains a mere speculation. Accused­-
Q: It was clear from your testimony during the [redirect] that there is no evidence appellant could not undeniably be considered as the author of the crime.
supporting the possibility that the victim's head was purposely hit, do you agree with me?
Notably, the prosecution has not completely ruled out the probability that another person, other than accused-
A: Yes, sir. appellant, may have committed the crime. The testimony of the investigating officer, SP04 Tevar, reveals:

Q: And the age of the victim in this particular case is 1 year and 4 months? Q: But you did not consider any other person other than the accused to ask or investigate them?

A: Yes, sir. A: I conducted investigation and asking possible witness including the [Punong Barangay] but
nobody saw the actual crime.
Q: If there was a deliberate intention to hit the head, there must be fractures even to this young
bone or skull? A: Yes, sir.65 (Emphases supplied) Q: So, it means that aside from those persons that [you investigated], were all witnesses but not a
suspect to the crime?
While Dr. Joson also testified that she indicated in the death certificate that the cause of death of Krishna was
drowning, since this was the information relayed to her by the relatives of Krishna and that she recommended the A: I investigated them and Irma Maglinas as a witness that time.
conduct of an autopsy,66 it does not erase the indisputable fact that there was no significant external injury on the
body of Krishna. Neither can it be assumed that Krishna suffered from an internal injury as Dr. Joson admitted that Q: She was the only one you investigated as a suspect in that particular crime?
internal bleeding could occur if the head hit a hard object, but she did not see any markings that could lead to the
conclusion that Krishna was indeed hit in the head.67 Dr. Joson categorically admitted that there is no evidence A: No, ma'am. I investigated Irma Maglinas during that time as a witness[,] not [as] a suspect.73
supporting the possibility that the victim's head was purposely hit.
Q: You mentioned a while ago that the river where the body of the child was recovered is more or
Accordingly, the medical findings equivocally negate the theory of the prosecution, which was sustained by the less 100 meters away from the house of the accused, correct?
trial court, that in the morning of the incident, accused-appellant was hitting and slapping Krishna, based on the
circumstantial evidence from Eufresina's testimony, and that Krishna's lifeless body was subsequently taken by A: Yes, ma'am.
accused-appellant to the river to make it appear that Krishna drowned. Again, Dr. Joson testified that there were no
Q: And that is very far and would you agree with me that if the accused would carry something
alleged signs of hitting, slapping or whipping in the parts of Krishna's body or head. The examination report
heavy she might have difficulty in reaching that place?
contained no significant signs of exte1nal physical injuries, particularly on the face and on the head, if accused-
appellant allegedly hit Krishna as recounted by witness Eufresina. If it were true that Krishna was hit hard and that A: Not much, ma'am because the slope is only fifty (50) degrees, she can reach the river.
caused her death, there should have been some evidence of substantial physical violence on Krishna's body or
head. This belies the prosecution's theory that Krishna was maltreated before she was drowned or placed in the Q: Would you agree with me that the accused[,] if she would have a child carried with her
river by accused-appellant. while going to a fifty (50) degrees slope, its is almost impossible to pass by that slope?
In People v. Vasquez,68 the Court explained that in forensic medicine, the appearances of drowning are similar A: Yes, ma'am.
regardless of its cause, to wit:
Q: If ever that a person passed by, let's say the accused pass by there, there could have been a
It is true that the study of forensic medicine tells us that the appearances of drowning are the possibility that she might have accidentally fall down there?
same whether the deceased fell in ([i.e.], accidental drowning), jumped in ([i.e.], suicidal drowning)
or was thrown into the water (homicidal drowning). So, the circumstances of the case will decide the A: [If you are carrying a child weighing more or less 7 kilos but not more than 10 kilos, you would
question as to the real cause of death when one's body is fished out of a body of water. Telltale not get into an accident by that. We can all certainly do that.] (Kung ang karga mo ay isang bata, more
external evidence decides whether injuries were inflicted before drowning or the drowning was the or less 7 kilos not more than 10 kilos, hindi ka naman maaksidente don. Kayang-kaya naman natin
cause of death.69 yon).

Indeed, the physical evidence showed that there was no purported maltreatment of Krishna. The only injuries on Q: It depends on the built of a person. There is a person who can carry 10 to 20 kilos[,] but
Krishna's body was the abrasion at the corner of her right eye and blisters on her right hand. But Dr. Joson did not considering the built of the accused, she could not have possibly passed by [in that 50-degree slope
consider those findings significant enough. She categorically stated that she did not see any markings that would carrying] a child?
indicate that the deceased was hit in her nose or at the back of her head. The findings of Dr. Joson are given great
weight considering that she is the medical expert that could properly determine the injuries suffered by the child- A: Hindi naman siguro dahil dinadaanan yon ng mga tao kasi doon naglalaba. Yong residente ng
victim and whether these injuries are sufficient to cause the death of Krishna. It must likewise be emphasized that barangay District III doon dumadaan. Kung maaaksidente sila doon hindi na sila dadaan doon.
the photographs of Krishna70 reveal that there was indeed no other abrasions or blisters, other than those noted in
the post­mortem examination report. Q: You mentioned that some of the residents there took laundry in the area. However, when
Irma Maglinas, let's say she went there, no one saw her there at that time? A: No, ma'am,
In the present case, since the physical evidence on record opposes the theory of the prosecution, presumptions walang pumunta doon pero kung mayroon mang nakakita ayaw magtestigo. 74 (Emphases
as to physical evidence should prevail. The Court reiterates in People v. Vasquez that "physical evidence is that supplied)
mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. Injuries of the
victim other than those testified to by the prosecution witnesses, if at all, could have been caused by stones or other From the foregoing narration of SP04 Tevar, it can be gleaned that there was a 50-degree slope going to the
hard objects along the river which the victim's body could have bumped into as a result of the river's river from accused-appellant's house and it may be difficult for her, albeit not entirely impossible, to go to the river

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 7/13 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 8/13

5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496 5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496

carrying a child. However, SP04 Tevar also narrated that the place where the lifeless body was found is not a Indeed, while "appellant's defenses of alibi and denial are admittedly weak, the same being easy of fabrication
remote area; instead, some residents usually go there to do laundry. But on the date of the incident, nobody saw or concoction. There are nonetheless settled pronouncements of this Court to the effect that where an accused sets
accused-appellant take the lifeless body of the victim to the river. SP04 Tevar merely inferred that either nobody up alibi, or denial for that matter, as his [or her] line of defense, the courts should not at once look upon the same
indeed saw accused­ appellant carry the victim to the river, or that somebody saw accused-appellant but was not with wary eyes for, taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to reverse the outcome of the
willing to testify in court. Again, this is another inference of guilt against accused- appellant that the Court cannot case as found by the trial court and thereby rightly set him [or her] free again."78
sustain.
In the vast realm of possibilities, it may be probable that accused­ appellant committed the crime. But based on
The fact that accused-appellant was purportedly heard as the last person who was with Krishna in the morning the evidence presented in court, it is equally probable that someone else, other than accused- appellant, committed
of the incident is not conclusive proof that she was the author of the crime. Significantly, accused­ appellant testified the crime. This nagging and inescapable possibility that a different individual, other than the person charged, is the
that on the day of the incident, she left Krishna sleeping alone in her house to go to a nearby store to buy their author of the crime escapes the moral certainty required to convict accused-appellant of the crime of murder.
dinner. Arlene corroborated accused-appellant's testimony that she went out of the house to buy food at around 2:00
p.m. Arlene was the storekeeper who attended to accused- appellant at the time she bought from the store. Conclusion

Indeed, the gap between the time accused-appellant left the house and the time she returned and found Krishna In criminal cases, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but
missing, could not discount the possibility that some other person may have taken Krishna to the river. whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his or her guilt. If there exists even one iota of doubt, the Court is
under a longstanding legal injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of the accused.79
Again, even the prosecution has not completely ruled out the probability that another person, aside from
accused-appellant, may have committed the crime considering that other persons from the community usually go to In this case, the prosecution's theory that accused-appellant continuously hit and slapped Krishna because of
the river to do their laundry. Hence, there may be some other persons who may have been near the river at the time her incessant crying, which may have led to her death, and that accused-appellant merely placed Krishna's body in
of the incident. Glaringly, SP04 Tevar could not point to the cause of death of the victim he merely surmised that it the river to make it appear that she drowned, was based on a singular circumstantial evidence - that while Eufresina
was not drowning even though he could not even observe any significant physical injury on the body of the victim. passed by the house of accused-appellant, she heard Krishna crying and the loud slapping or whipping sounds
The testimony of SP04 Tevar provides: coming from the house of accused-appellant. However, the Rules of Court explicitly state that before circumstantial
evidence may sustain a conviction, it must consist of more than one circumstance.80
Q: And after your investigation, SP04 Tevar[,] based on the evidence, as well as the information
that you gathered from the witnesses, as well as from inspection of the place where the crime More importantly, it is required that the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
supposedly happened, what was your conclusion with respect to the death of Krishna Dizon? beyond reasonable doubt.81 However, as pointed out earlier, the medical findings refute that Krishna was indeed
repeatedly hit and slapped by another person, and it is unlikely that she suffered from either an external or internal
A: My conclusion is that, in the pictures there were no bruises, so [she] was not drowned. injury which would have caused her death. Further, the prosecution's evidence showed that it may be possible that
other persons, aside from accused-appellant, were present at the river considering that it is used as laundry area by
Q: You mentioned that Irma Maglinas was investigated not [as] a suspect but as a witness, after the members of the community. Thus, the horrific act of killing Krishna cannot solely be attributed to accused-
your investigation[,] what was your conclusion, SP04 Tevar? appellant as its author.
A: After the investigation, I concluded that she is the suspect of the crime. The inference made by the trial court that accused-appellant whipped or slapped Krishna several times, as what
Eufresina heard, which may have resulted to the death of Krishna, cannot be sustained. When dealing with
Q: And this is based on?
circumstantial evidence, an inference cannot be based on another inference.82 Moreover, inferring that accused-
appellant is immediately guilty without sufficient proof is against the presumption of innocence. The case of People
A: Based on the evidence, sir at yang kanyang pabago-bago ng statement.75
v. Lumikid83 is instructive:
Notably, SPO4 Tevar initially treated accused-appellant as a witness. However, she became a suspect of the
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused by relying
investigation simply because she gave conflicting statements, even though, as explained earlier, the evidence
on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an
presented were not credible. Evidently, the Court cannot find accused­ appellant guilty of the crime of murder just
accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of
because she gave conflicting statements during the investigation of the police. It is the State, through the
the Constitution but, similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary
prosecution, that has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
is proven." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden
The prosecution's evidence is miserably tainted with inherent improbabilities in the testimonies of the principal upon the prosecution." Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
witnesses bearing on essential details of the murder charged against accused-appellant. The evidence cannot course, that an accused must be acquitted. 84
categorically and conclusively point to accused-appellant as the true author of the crime. The prosecution cannot
resolve the loose ends in its theory that accused-appellant repeatedly hit and slapped Krishna, which led to her While the Court firmly condemns the senseless and gruesome crime and sincerely commiserate with the
death. suffering and emotional stress suffered by the bereaved family of the victim, the Court, nevertheless, finds the
pieces of circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of accused­ appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
Defense of alibi in light of the prosecution s circumstantial evidence presented do not pass the requisite moral certainty, as they admit of the different
weak evidence presumption that other persons, not necessarily the accused-appellant, may have perpetrated the crime. Where the
evidence admits of two interpretations, one which is consistent with guilt and the other with innocence, the accused
For accused-appellant's part, she essentially gave a defense of alibi. She stated that on the date of the incident, must be acquitted. Indeed, it would be better to set free ten persons who might be probably guilty of the crime
at around 2:00 p.m., while Krishna was still asleep, she went to the store of Arlene to buy food for their dinner. charged than to convict one innocent person for a crime he or she did not commit.85
Again, Arlene corroborated accused-appellant's testimony that, indeed, accused-appellant went to the store at
around 2:00 p.m. and bought food for their dinner. Upon accused-appellant's return to her house at around 2:14 It is heartbreaking and inconceivable that Krishna, who was merely 1 year and 4 months old, senselessly lost
p.m., she noticed that the door was already opened and Krishna was no longer in the place where she left her innocent life. No amount of reason can justify her death. But her demise does not warrant the unbridled license
her.76 Thus, according to accused­ appellant, it was not possible for her to commit the crime as she was not at the to haphazardly throw away the life of another just to satisfy the meaningless death of a child. This is not the justice
river at the time of the incident. contemplated by the courts. Indeed, the presumption of innocence of the accused was exactly placed in the
fundamental law as a safeguard so that We will not act as Gods among humans in indiscriminately condemning an
Considering the weakness in the prosecution's case, the alibi of accused-appellant bears credence and equally breathing and living person. Only when the moral certainty of guilt has been fulfilled, may the laws of mortals
importance. While alibi is a weak defense and the rule is that it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, the
1aшphi1
warrant the punishment of a transgressor.
said rule has never been intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases. Otherwise, an absurd situation
will arise wherein the accused is put in a more difficult position where the prosecution evidence is vague and weak Nevertheless, the acquittal of accused-appellant of the crime of murder does not signify that the Court affirms
as in the present case.77 The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove that accused-appellant was her absolute innocence of the charge. It simply means that the prosecution failed to present sufficient amount of
responsible for the killing. evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This task of absolving the accused, where the evidence

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 9/13 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 10/13

5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496 5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496
23
presented is suspect, is resolutely exercised by the Court in its constitutional order to abide by the unceasing and CA rollo, p. 61.
everlasting.fiat of the rule of law.
24
Id. at 66.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 8, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA- G.R.
25
CR-HC No. 11476, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Irma Maglinas y Quindong is Id. at 73-74.
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against her for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
26
reasonable doubt. Id. at 72.
27
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City Id.
is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless she is being lawfully held in
28
custody for any other reason, and to INFORM the Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt Rollo, pp. 16-17.
of this Decision. 29
Id. at 15.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
30
Id.
SO ORDERED.
31
CA rollo, pp. 38-55.
Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ. concur.
32
Id. at 40.
33
Rollo, pp. 24-25.
Footnotes 34
Id. at 28-32.
1
Rollo, pp. 18-21. 35
Id. at 34-38.
2
Id. at 4-17; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concun-ed in by Associate Justices 36
CA rollo, pp. 38-55.
Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of the Court) and Walter S. Ong.
37
3 Id. at 48.
CA rollo, pp. 56-74; penned by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras.
38
4 Id. at 49.
Records, p. I.
39
5 Id. at 104.
Also referred to as "Jennilyn Dizon" and "Jennylyn Dizon" in some parts of the rollo and records (see CA
rollo, p. 65; TSN, July 18, 2017, p. 4). 40
People v. Kalipayan, 824 Phil. 173, 183 (2018).
6
Also referred to as "Eufrecina Teves" in some parts of the rollo (see CA rollo, p. 57). 41
Records, p. 27. 42 G.R. No. 242695, June 23, 2020.
7
CA rollo, p. 57. 43
Id.
8
Also referred to as "Iboy" in some parts of the records (see TSN, July 25, 2017, p. 4). 44
Casilag v. People, G.R. No. 213523, March 18, 2021, citing People v. Mingming, 594 Phil. 170, 185 (2008). 1a⍵⍴h!1

9
Also referred to as "Jeboy" in some parts of the rollo (see rollo, p. 10). 45
Ching v. The Secretary of Justice, 517 Phil. 151, 177 (2006).
10
CA rollo, pp. 58-59. 46
People v. libunao, G.R. No. 247651, March 24, 2021.
11
Id. at 59. 47
REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 248, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; see Republic Act No. 9346
12 (2006), or the "Anti-Death Penalty Law," which prohibited the imposition of the penalty of death.
Also referred to as "Dolores Sambales" in some parts of the rollo (see CA rollo, p. 66).
48
13 Bacerra v. People, 812 Phil. 25, 35 (2017).
Also referred to as "Ate Celia" in some parts of the rollo (see rollo, p. 5).
49
14 762 Phil. 630(2015).
CA rollo, p. 60.
50
15 Id. at 678-679.
Records, p. 27.
51
16 People v. Pentecostes, 820 Phil. 823, 833(2017).
Id.
52
17 As amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, entitled "2019 Amendments to the Evidence," effective May 1,
Id. at 28.
2020.
18
CA rollo, pp. 61-62. 53
People v. Pentecostes, supra note 51.
19
Id. at 65. 54
TSN, May 23, 2016, pp. 11-12.
20
TSN, July 18, 2017, pp. 8-9. 55
CA rollo, p. 72.
21
CA rollo, pp. 65-66. 56
Records, p. 27.
22
TSN, December 6, 2017, pp. 4-8.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 11/13 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 12/13
5/4/23, 12:32 PM G.R. No. 255496
57
Id. at 28.
58
Id.
59
807 Phil. 102 (2017).
60
Id. at 114.
61
345 Phil. 380 (1997).
62
Id. at 395.
63
TSN, September 27, 2016, p. 3.
64
Id. at 8-9.
65
Id. at 12-13.
66
Id. at 7.
67
Id. at 8-9.
68
Supra note 61.
69
Id. at 395.
70
Records, pp. 214-215.
71
Supra note 61.
72
See TSN, June 27, 2016, p. 12; TSN, August I, 2016, p. 14; TSN, November 22, 2016, pp. 19-20.
73
TSN, November 22, 2016, p. 17.
74
Id. at 17-19.
75
Id. at 19-20.
76
TSN, July 18, 2017, p. 8.
77
People v. De Guzman, 690 Phil. 70 I, 717(2012).
78
People v. Vasquez, supra note 61 at 399-400.
79
Suarez v. People, G.R. No. 253429, October 6, 2021.
80
RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 4(a).
81
Id. Rule 133, Sec. 4(c).
82
Id. Rule 133, Sec. 4, par. 2.
83
Supra note 42.
84
Id.
85
See People v. Ortillas, 472 Phil. 723, 747-748 (2004).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/aug2022/gr_255496_2022.html 13/13
CASE 4
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 252353

[1. R-OZN-15-00619-CR - Violation of RA No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in

Persons Act of 2003), as amended by RA No. 10364 (Expanded
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of2012)].

That on or about March 2014 up to on or about the end of June 2014,

ll\epnbltc of tbe lJ3lJiltppine% in Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused JERRIE ARRAZ y RODRIGUEZ[,] acting as
$>upre1ne <!Court promoter, agent and handler of [AAA252353], by means of force,
intimidation, coercion and taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
j)l!lanila
latter, did then and there for profit, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and
feloniously procure, recruit, hire, maintain, provide, harbor and obtain the
said victim for the purpose of sexual exploitation, such as prostitution in
SECOND DIVISION exchange for money, profit or any other consideration, with said victim's
participation thereof being caused or facilitated by means of intimidation or
other forms of coercion, fraud, deception, while taking advantage of the
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 252353 victim's vulnerability, by offering, peddling, promoting and advertising her
PHILIPPINES, through the internet, including "online chat" with accused' [sic]
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present: customers/clients, first making a representation through indecent shows or
pornographic photographs of the said victim through online chats or
messaging with foreigners, and later coercing the victim to be used by the
LEONEN, SAJ., Chairperson, foreigners, including persons known to her as "Gunter", "John" and
LAZARO-JAVIER, "Patrick James Powell" [Patrick] in exchange for money, profit or any other
- versus - LOPEZ, M., consideration, to the victim's damage and prejudice.
LOPEZ, J., and
KHO, JR., JJ. That the offense committed is qualified trafficking, the same having
been committed against victim [AAA252353] for over a period of sixty (60)
or more days.
JERRIE ARRAZ y
RODRIGUEZ, P romulgated: [CONTRARY TO LAW.] (Emphases supplied)

Accused-Appellant. iL_. _
! L_
_u_ v _6_2_0_2_
2 _~
~ [2. R-QZN-15-00620-CR- Violation of RA No. 9208, as amended by RA
No. 10364]
x----- ---- ----- - ------- ------ - --- - ---------- ---- ------ - - - - ----------- - - ---- -------- - - - - - --x
That or about March 2014 up to on or about the end of June 2014, in
DEC I SION Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused JERRIE ARRAZ y RODRIGUEZ[,] acting as
promoter, agent handler of [AAA252353], by means of force, intimidation,
M. LOPEZ, J.: coercion and taking advantage of the vulnerability of the latter, did then and
there for profit, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously procure,
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the June 18, 2019 Decision I of recruit, hire, maintain, provide, harbor and obtain the said victim for the
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09413, which affirmed the purpose of exploitation, such as pornography or the production of
conviction of Jerrie Arrazy Rodriguez (Jerrie) for trafficking in persons, rape, pornography or other forms of sexual exploitation, in exchange for money,
profit or any other consideration, or with said victim's participation thereof
and violation of the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012." 2
being, caused or facilitated by any means of intimidation or other forms of
coercion, fraud, deception, while taking advantage of the victim's
ANTECEDENTS vulnerability, by offering, peddling, promoting and advertising her through
the internet, including '·online chat" with accused' [sic] customers/clients,
Jerrie was charged with trafficki ng in persons, rape, and violation of the making a representation through indecent shows or whatever means, of the
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012" against AAA252353 3 in six separate said victims having engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or
any representation of the sexual parts of the victim primarily for sexual
lnformations: 4

CA ro/lo. pp . 146- 188. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with the concurrence of Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes, (1992); RA No. 9262, An Act
Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, J r. and Myra V. Garcia,Fernandez. Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims,
Republic Act (RA) No. IO 175. Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes, (2004); Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC,
Any information to estab lish or compromise the ide:·1tity of the victim, as we ll as those of thei r Rule on Violence Against Wornell and Their Children, (2004); and People v. Caba/quinto, 533 Phil. 703
immed iate or household fam ily members, shall be withheld, ,rnd fictitious names are used, pursuant to (2006).
Re p"b lie Act (RA) No. 76 I 0, A" Aet Pcovid iog foe Strnogec Detmeoce aod Special Prntectioo Agaiost ( CA rollo, pp. 76- 78, (Appendix ''A").

r
Decision 3 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 4 G.R. No. 252353

purposes, and further engaging the said victim to perform other acts of Honorable Court, the above-named accused JERRIE ARRAZ [y
exploitation, including a live nude show, indecent show, wherein the said RODRIGUEZ], engaging in willful maintenance, control or operation of
victim was made to remove her clothes including her underwear and appear lascivious exhibition of sexual organs of and sexual activity with
fully naked before the web cam and pose in different angles by standing, [AAA252353] by means of or with the aid of a computer system consisting
sitting and bending over (tu wad) in different positions, including front, back of a digital camera, laptop computer and through the employment of online
and side view while being naked and directing the victim, through coercion, or internet connection, transmitting live video/nude show or still
to engage in sexual intercourse with the accused for the online viewing photographs of such sexual activities with or sexual organs of victim
and/or satisfaction of the sexual pleasures and desires of the [accused's] [AAA252353] for profit or in exchange of favor or consideration from
customers/clients/friends/chatmates, including foreigners, two of whom foreign customers by offering, peddling, promoting and advertising her
were known to victim as Maurice Blose [Maurice] and [Patrick], in through the internet, including "online chat" with accused' [sic]
exchange for money or consideration to the victim's damage and prejudice. customers/clients, making representation through indecent shows or
whatever means of the said victim having engaged in real and or simulated
That the offense committed is qualified trafficking, the same having explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of the
been committed against victim [AAA252353} for over a period of sixty (60) victim primarily for sexual purposes to the victim's damage and prejudice.
days.
[CONTRARY TO LAW]. (Emphases supplied)
[CONTRARY TO LAW.] (Emphases supplied)
The cases were consolidated upon motion of the prosecution. Jerrie
[3 . R-OZN-15-00621-CR - Violation of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997]
pleaded not guilty to the charges. 5
That on or about June 2014, or on dates prior, in Quezon City, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused AAA252353, from a poor family in Surigao Del Sur, testified that she
JERRIE ARRAZ y RODRIGUEZ[,] by means of force, threat and went to Manila to work as a domestic helper on January 7, 2014. Her sister
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and BBB252353, who was entrusted by their parents to Jerrie, called her and
feloniously had carnal knowledge of [AAA252353], despite the latter's invited her to work for Jerrie. Enticed by the prospect of a better life,
refusal and despite accused's knowledge that victim was then four (4)
AAA252353 joined Jerrie's household on March 1, 2014. She did household
months pregnant, to her damage and prejudice.
chores and watched over the child of Jerrie. AAA252353 claimed that she saw
[CONTRARY TO LAW.) (Emphases supplied) Jerrie stripping BBB252353 and having sexual intercourse with her but she
kept silent.6
[4. R-QZN-15-00622-CR - Violation of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997]
In the second week of March, Jerrie called AAA252353 into his room
That on or about June 2014, or on dates prior, in Quezon City, and
while he was chatting with a foreigner on his laptop and told her to take off
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
JERRIE ARRAZ y RODRIGUEZ[,] by means of force, threat and her clothes. AAA252353 complied out of fear. Jerrie directed AAA252353 to
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and pose naked in front of the camera, ordered her to perform oral sex on him, and
feloniously had carnal knowledge of [AAA252353J, while the latter was forced her to have intercourse. He also took photos of the sexual acts he
intoxicated or semi-conscious, to her damage and prejudice. performed with AAA252353. The foreigner watched while fondling his penis.
AAA252353 wept after Jerrie left the room. She did not tell BBB252353 what
[CONTRARY TO LAW.] (Emphases supplied)
happened because she did not want her sister to be upset. Jerrie received
[5. R-OZN-15-00623-CR - Violation of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997] payment from the foreigner through a local money remittance center.7

That on or about June 2014, in Quezon City, and within the Sometime in April, Jerrie brought AAA252353 to a hotel in Makati to
jurisdiction of this Honorable Comi, the above-named accused JERRIE meet his foreigner friend, Gunter. While in the hotel room, Jerrie placed
ARRAZ y RODRIGUEZ[,] by means of force, threat and intimidation, did AAA252353 's hand in the crotch of Gunter and directed her to stroke it. Jerrie
then and there, willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously had carnal
left AAA252353 with Gunter who had sexual intercourse with AAA252353.
knowledge of [AAA252353), by having inserted his penis into the anal
orifice of the victim, to her damage and prejudice. When Jerrie returned, Gunter offered him P6,000.00 as payment for the
encounter with AAA252353 . .le1Tie refused. Gunter increased the amount to
[CONTRARY TO LAW.] (Emphases supplied) P12,000.00, which he gave to AAA252353. AAA252353 gave the sum to
Jerrie. Jerrie gave AAA252353 Pl ,000.00 to buy a pair of sandals and kept the
[6. R-OZN-15-03829-CR - Violation of the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of rest of the money. From the hotel, Jerrie and AAA252353 went to a bar to
2012"]
Id. at 79.
That on or about March 2014 to June 2014[,] or on dates prior or 6
Id. at 80; 128-129: and 153.
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Id. at 80-81; l 29; and I53 .

r r
Decision 5 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 6 G.R. No. 252353

meet Jerrie's friend, Ramil. AAA252353 got drunk. Jerrie and Ramil took Children Protection Unit of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
turns having intercourse with a heavily intoxicated AAA252353 without her (WCPU-CIDG). PO3 Malcontento conferred with their chief, Police Senior
consent in Jerrie's home. 8 Superintendent Harris R. Fama (PSS Fama), due to the complexity of the
case. PSS Fama ordered the conduct of surveillance and entrapment
In the first week of June, Jerrie was chatting with another foreigner, operations against Jerrie. 11
Maurice, online. He called AAA252353 into his room and told her to undress
in front of the laptop. AAA252353 refused. Jerrie and his ward Mark, a minor, On November 3, 2014, cyber investigator PO3 Bernadette Teodosio
forcefully undressed AAA252353. Maurice ordered Mark to have intercourse Garcia (PO3 Garcia) received a request for investigative assistance regarding
with AAA252353 while Jerrie inserted his penis into AAA252353's anus. a cyber pornography case. PO3 Garcia met with confidential informant
AAA252353 sobbed and tried to fight Mark and Jerrie off. While being Franklin, who gave her the passwords to his email:
assaulted, AAA252353 saw Maurice fondling his penis on the laptop screen. timmy.franklin.09({z)gmail.corn and Facebook accounts. PO3 Garcia handled
the accounts beginning November 10, 2014. She saw 11 emails from Jerrie
In the same month, Jerrie dressed AAA252353 and CCC252353, who used the email address [email protected]. The emails did not contain
another minor under Jerrie's care, in provocative clothes and brought them to messages, merely attachments containing photos of naked women and sexual
a hotel in Manila. They met John, a foreigner. After drinking wine in a bar, acts in jpeg format. The last email, sent on November 14, 2014, was sent 44
they went to John's room. Jerrie directed AAA252353 and CCC252353 to lie times. Franklin and Jerrie also had conversations via Facebook. In one of the
on the bed. John had sexual intercourse with AAA252353 while Jerrie forced conversations, Jerrie gave Franklin his mobile number: 09201170632. Jerrie
CCC252353 to have sex with him; John and Jerrie swapped partners after. told Franklin via text messages that he can provide children for sex for a
John gave Jerrie money. Jerrie gave AAA252353 and CCC252353 Pl ,000.00 price. 12
each and left them in the hotel. Before the month ended, JeITie called
AAA252353 and asked her to face the laptop. On the day of the entrapment operation, PO3 Christopher Gartuz (PO3
Gartuz) went inside a cabinet in the hotel room of the foreigner assets, one of
Jerrie was chatting with Patrick, an Australian. While Patrick was whom was Franklin, to listen to their conversation with Jerrie. The other
watching, Jerrie and Mark undressed AAA252353 despite her protests. Mark members of the team were in the adjoining room. Jerrie arrived with two girls,
had sexual intercourse with AAA252353 while JeITie watched and fondled his CCC252353, a minor, and DDD252353, oflegal age. He boasted that the girls
penis. Jenie forced AAA252353 to have intercourse after. AAA252353 were very pliant and can expertly perform oral sex. The foreigner assets can
became pregnant. She claimed that Jerrie was aware of her pregnancy yet he do anything they want to the girls after intoxicating them and drugging them
continued to abuse her. AAA252353 did not know who the father of her baby with "Ajinomoto." They can have sex with the girls at the same time or they
was because she had intercourse with her boyfriend in February, and with can watch Jerrie have sex with the girls. Jerrie told the foreigner assets that he
Jerrie, Mark, and several foreigners from March to June.9 has nude photos of the girls, which he shared and can continue to share online.
Jerrie asked the foreigner assets for money for viagra and condoms. The
In July, Jerrie sent AAA252353 and BBB252353 away for no reason. foreigner assets ordered food for the girls after Jerrie left. Jerrie returned 30
AAA252353 and BBB252353 found a new household to work in through the minutes later with vitamins, chocolates, condoms, and liquor. PO3 Artuz went
help of their neighbor. Jenie tried to persuade the sisters to return to his home out of the closet as the members of the team ran into the room. They arrested
but AAA252353 already decided to file a case against Jerrie. It took Jerrie and rescued the two girls. 13
AAA252353 several months to complain to the authorities because she and
BBB252353 had no place to go. Jerrie did not pay AAA252353 a salary CCC252353 and DDD252353 were interviewed with the assistance of
except for the P2,500.00 he gave her when she arrived in March 2014. social workers. They narrated that they were persuaded by Jerrie to leave their
AAA252353 did not have money to go home to the province or relatives to hometown in Surigao. He promised to find them foreigner husbands who can
turn to in Manila. 10 lift their status in life. However, Jerrie abused them when they arrived in
Manila. CCC252353 and DDD252353 confirmed PO3 Gartuz's testimony
On October 16, 2014, AAA252353 went to Camp Crame to file a about what happened during the entrapment operation. 14
complaint against Jerrie and his foreigner friends for raping and exploiting her
and CCC252353 using the internet. The case was assigned to Police Officer
III May Ann Malcontento (PO3 Makontento), a member of the Women and
11
Id. at 84.
8 Id.; and 153- 154. 12
Id. at 85- 86; and Original Record, Vol. I, p. 20.
9 13
ld.at81-82; 129--! 30;and 154-- 155. Id. at 79-80.

I
10 14
Id.at82; 130;and 155- 156. Id. at 84.

I
Decision 7 G .R. No. 252353 Decision 8 G .R. No. 252353

A warrant, directing law enforcement to search the residence of Jerrie Franklin in his hotel. Jerrie talked with Franklin and gave him tips on how to
in Quezon City, was issued. Several pieces of evidence were seized from meet girls in the Philippines. Jerrie volunteered to buy food from outside the
Jerrie's house: six hard drives, three memory cards, and two USB flash drives. hotel to save Franklin money; they ate when Jerrie returned. After eating,
The pieces of evidence were brought to WCPU-CIDG, Camp Crame and were Franklin's friends wanted to separate the girls and offered Jerrie P20,000.00.
forwarded by PSS Fama to the Digital Forensic Laboratory of the Anti-Cyber Jerrie got angry and told them that the girls were not prostitutes. Franklin's
Crime Group for examination. 15 Non-uniformed Personnel Nerissa Salcedo friend got mad and people stormed into the room. Someone pointed a gun at
(NUP Salcedo), an expert digital forensic examiner from the Digital Forensic Jerrie's temple and announced that it was an entrapment. Jerrie was confused
Laboratory, examined the evidence and prepared a Digital Evidence why there was entrapment but he told everyone to cooperate. 20
Examination Report. She found the pictures seen by PO3 Garcia plus other
pictures and videos of girls in compromising positions, alone or with men, and Jerrie denied taking the photos of naked women and lascivious acts.
of persons' private parts. 16 While he recognized some of the women in the photos, he did not know who
took the photos. He claimed that the gadgets found in his home belonged to
BBB252353, AAA252353's younger sister, related her own ordeal BBB252353. He preferred to use the cellphones and gadgets of BBB252353
under Jerrie. Jerrie brought BBB252353 to Manila in March 2010 at the age of as he did not want to buy his own. He claimed that he had one computer and
12. BBB252353 went with Jerrie, the son of a police officer in their province, the central processing unit (CPU) was in the repair shop. 21 He admitted that
because she felt safe with him. He promised to send her to school. Jerrie began he knew how to operate a computer, that he used Skype to chat with his
to abuse BBB252353 in July 2011. BBB252353 was afraid to go home to the foreigner friends, and that he interacted with foreigners looking for dates and
province because her parents would learn what happened to her. 17 In 2013, marriage on the website Filipino cupid. He also used Facebook actively and
Jerrie changed BBB252353 's name to Sheree Arraz. He claimed that he-blot accepted friend requests from people he had never met. When friends, like
was-blot BBB252353 's father and executed an affidavit authorizing her to use Franklin, wanted to meet, he met with them. He worked as a freelance tourist
his surname. 18 guide from 2006 to 2014. He provided what the foreigners needed and was
given the moniker "paracetamol." He said that he brought girls to hotels to
Jerrie denied the charges and claimed that they were only trumped up. meet his foreigner friends but not AAA252353. While lascivious photographs
He admitted that AAA252353 began to live in his house in March 2014. were sent to Franklin using his email [email protected], it was BBB252353
AAA252353 begged him to save her from her employer. Jerrie told and AAA252353' s mother-in-law, who knew his password, who sent them.22
AAA252353 to tell her employer that she wanted to leave; she was made to
reimburse the P2,500.00 fare from Surigao to Manila. He did not hire Mei C. Doria (Mei), one of Jerrie's tenants, testified that AAA252353
AAA252353 as a domestic helper yet he provided her with shelter, food, and and the other girls in the house were free to come and go from Jerrie's house
clothing. Over time, they had a sexual relationship. They had seven sexual but they never asked for help or complained about the alleged acts committed
contacts, all at the initiative of AAA252353 . Jerrie never forced himself on by Jerrie. When Mei visited Jerrie's home, she did not sense any problems.
AAA252353. Jerrie asked AAA252353 and BBB252353 to leave his house Mei heard that Jerrie asked AAA252353's mother-in-law to leave his home
on July 2, 2014 because he got fed up with their laziness. AAA252353 and because she failed to remit the rentals owing to him. She circulated stories
BBB252353 only used their mobile phones and did not help with the about Jerrie's supposed bad character after.23
household chores. Jerrie believed that AAA252353 filed the complaint at the
behest of the mother of CCC252353 and AAA252353 's husband. She wanted Philinda Arraz (Philinda), Jerrie's sister, testified that the charges were
to get even with Jerrie because he warned her against flirting with his untrue. She met AAA252353 and her parents in 2010 when they asked for
foreigner guest Patrick. 19 help to send AAA252353 and BBB252353 to school. Jerrie told
AAA252353's parents that he could only afford to help one child,
Jerrie admitted that Patrick and Maurice were his good friends and they BBB252353. In March 2014, AAA252353 went to Jerrie's house and asked
communicated through the internet. Jerrie also admitted that he met with him for P2,500.00. She returned after a few days and took care of Jerrie's
Franklin days before the entrapment; Franklin was devastated because of the child. Philinda knew everything that happened in the house of Jerrie because
supposed deceitfulness of Filipinos. On the day of the entrapment, Franklin she cooked there four to five hours a day, seven days a week. The girls
sent Jerrie a text message requesting a meeting. Jerrie had just returned from a downloaded the pictures from the internet for foreigners. Jerrie asked
vacation in Puerto Galera with CCC252353 and DDD252353 , so they met AAA252353 to leave because she fed his child spoiled milk. Philinda
surmised that AAA252353 filed the complaint because foreigners sent Jerrie,
15
Id . at 87-88 .
16
Id. at 86-87 . 20 Id. at 50; and 88- 89.
17 21
fd. at 82. Id. at50-5l.
18
Id. at 83 . 22
Jd. at 89- 90.

(
19 2
Id. at 48--49; and 88 . Id. at 90-9 l.

f
'
Decision 9 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 10 G.R. No. 252353

and not AAA252353, P40,000.00. The sum was for reimbursement of money the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php75,000 as moral
spent by foreigners coming to the Philippines. 24 damages and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages;

(4) In R-QZN-15-00622-CR for Rape under Article 266 -

Ruling of the RTC A(l)(B) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by Republic Act 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and hereby sentences
In its Judgment 25 dated May 24, 2017, the Regional Trial Court, him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Too, said accused is hereby
Quezon City, Branch 100 (RTC), found Jerrie guilty beyond reasonable doubt ordered to pay private complainant, [AAA252353], the amount of
of two counts of the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of2003," three counts Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php75,000 as moral damages and
Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
of "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," and with violation of the "Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012." (5) In R-QZN-15-00623-CR for Rape under Article 266 - A(2)
in relation of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353 and
The RTC found that Jerrie maintained and hired AAA252353 for hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate prison term of four (4)
sexual exploitation. He took advantage of AAA252353's defenselessness. years of pr ision correccional in its medium period as minimum to nine (9)
Since the acts were committed over a period of 60 days, he is guilty of years of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum. Further, said
accused is hereby ordered to pay private complainant, [AAA252353], the
qualified trafficking. Jerrie is also guilty of rape. He admitted that he had amount of Php25,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php25,000 as moral damages
sexual congress with AAA252353 seven times and he failed to prove his and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
claim that they were boyfriend-girlfriend. AAA252353 's testimony, which
was categorical and spontaneous, deserves great weight. Finally, Jerrie is (6) In R-QZN-15-03829-CR for Violation of Section 4 (c)
guilty of violating the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012." He exhibited paragraph (1) of Republic Act No. 10175 or otherwise known as the
AAA25 23 5 3 's sexual organs and sexual activities with him with the aid of a Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and hereby sentences him to suffer the
indeterminate prison term of four (4) years of prision correccional in its
computer, thus:
medium period as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor in its
medium period as maximum. Further, said accused is hereby ordered to pay
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused private complainant, [AAA252353], the amount of Php25,000.00 as civil
JERRIE ARRAZ [y] RODRIGUEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of indemnity; Php25,000.00 as moral damages and Php25,000.00 as
the following offenses: exemplary damages;

(1) In R-QZN-15-00619-CR for violation of Section 4 (a), (e) In addition, interest at the rate of 6% per annum should be imposed
and in relation to Sections 3 (a), (c), (h), and Sections 6 (h) and l O (e) of on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until
Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as fully paid.
amended by Republic Act 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2012) and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life No pronouncement as to costs.
imprisonment. Likewise, said accused is hereby ordered to pay private
complainant, [AAA252353], the amount of Php500,000.00 as moral SO ORDERED.26 (Emphases in the original and citation omitted)
damages and Phpl00,000.00 as exemplary damages;

(2) In R-QZN-15-00620-CR for Violation of Section 4 (a), (e)

and in relation to Sections 3 (a), (h) and (i), and Section[s] 6 (h) and 10 (e) Aggrieved, Jerrie elevated the case to the CA. 27 He claimed that
of Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as AAA252353 's credibility was doubtful. He maintained that AAA252353 took
amended by Republic Act 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons erotic photos of herself. His arrest was invalid as he was a victim of
Act of 2012) and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life instigation. The RTC erred in disregarding his defense of denial. 28
imprisonment. Moreover, said accused is hereby ordered to pay private
complainant, [AAA252353], the amount of Php500,000.00 as moral Ruling of the CA
damages and Phpl00,000.00 as exemplary damages;

(3) In R-QZN-15-00621-CR for Rape under Article 266 - On June 18, 2019, the CA affirmed Jerrie's conviction with
A(l)(A) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended modification as to the amount of civil indemnity and damages. The CA found
by Republic Act 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and hereby sentences no reason to depart from the RTC's findings. AAA252353 candidly narrated
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole. In addition, her distressing experiences in the hands of Jerrie and his clients. She
said accused is hereby ordered to pay private complainant, [AAA252353], recounted the several incidents of rape and trafficking, and identified the

26
Id. at l 13-114.
21
' Id . at 91. ~7 Id. at 10- 13.
25

(
Jd. at 76-1 !4. Penned by Presiding Judge Editha G. Mii'ia-Aguba. 28
ld. at51-74.

r
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 12 G.R. No. 252353

persons involved. AAA252353's failure to immediately ask for help does not (6) ln R-QZN-15-03829-CR, for Violation of Section 4 (c)(l) of
erode her credibility. Lastly, Jerrie engaged in the business of sending lewd Republic Act No. 10175, and is sentenced to suffer an indetenninate
photos and videos to foreign clients for money and gadgets,29 thus: penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional in its medium period as
minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor in its medium period as
maximum, and ordered to pay [AAA252353], the amount of THIRTY
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Appeal is DENIED. THOUSAND (P30,000.00) as civil indemnity; THIRTY THOUSAND
The 24 May 2017 Judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED with (P30,000.00) as moral damages; and, THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00)
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Jerre Arraz is found GUILTY as exemplary damages.
beyond reasonable doubt of the following offenses:
The fine and the damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the
(1) In R-QZN-15-00619-CR, for Violation of Section 4 (a), (e) rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this
in relation to Sections 3 (a), (c), (h), Section 6 (h) and Section 10 (e) of decision until their full satisfaction.
Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to SO ORDERED.30 (Emphases in the original and citation omitted)
pay a fine of FOUR MILLION PESOS (P4,000,000.00). He is further
ordered to pay [AAA252353], the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) as moral damages and ONE Hence, this recourse.31 Jerrie opted not to file a supplemental brief
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Pl 00,000.00) as exemplary damages; considering that all issues were exhaustively discussed in his brief before the
CA.32
(2) In R-QZN-15-00620-CR, for Violation of Section 4 (a), (e)
in relation to Section 3 (a), (h), (i), Section 6 (h), and Section 10 (e) of The appeal is without merit.
Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to
pay a fine of FOUR MILLION PESOS (P4,000,000.00). He is further Jerrie was charged with two counts of trafficking under Section 4(a)
ordered to pay [AAA252353], the amount of FIVE HUNDRED and (e)33 in relation to Section 3(a), (c), (h), and G), 34 qualified under Section
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) as moral damages and ONE
30
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Pl00,000.00) as exemplary damages; Id. at 184- 187.
3I
Id. at 240.
(3) In R-QZN-15-00621-CR for Rape under Article 266 - Rollo, pp. 55-57.
33
A(l)(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended SEC. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to
by Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of commit any of the following acts:
reclusfon perpetua without parole and ordered to pay [AAA252353], the (a) To recruit obtain, hire, provide, offer, transpo11, transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive a person
amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P l 00,000.00) as civil by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation;
indemnity; ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Pl00,000) as moral damages;
xxxx
and, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Pl00,000.00) as exemplary
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
damages; 34
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
(4) In R-QZN-15-00622-CR for Rape under Article 266 -
transportation, transfer, mainta ining, harboring, or receipt of persons w ith or without the victim's consent
A(l )(b) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of
by Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
reclusion perpetua without parole and ordered to pay [AAA252353], the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Pl00,000.00) as civil person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum,
indemnity; ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Pl00,000.00) as moral the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
damages; and, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Pl 00,000.00) as services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
exemplary damages; The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose
of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes
(5) In R-QZN-15-00623-CR, for Rape under Article 266 - A(2) shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in
in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by the preceding paragraph.
Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty xxxx
of imprisonment of four (4) years of pris ion correccional in its medium (c) Prostitution - refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by
period as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor in its medium period another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other
as maximum, and ordered to pay [AAA252353], the amount of THIRTY consideration.
THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as civil indemnity; THIRTY xxxx
THOUSAND (PJ0,000.00) as moral damages; and, THIRTY THOUSAND (h) Sexual Exploitation --- refers to participation by a person in prostitution, pornography or the
(P30,000.00) as exemplary damages; and production of pornography, in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration or where the
participation is caused or facilitated by any means of intimidation or threat, use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction. fraud, <lecept1011, debt bondage, abuse of power or of position or of legal process,
9
" Id. at 146-- 188. taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
Decision 13 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 14 G .R. No. 252353

6(h), 35 and penalized under Section 10(e)36 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9208, AAA252353 testified that Jerrie began to exploit her a week after she
as amended by RA No. 10364. Under RA No. 10364, the elements of moved to his home:
trafficking in persons are as follows:
xxxx
xxxx
Q: Could you tell us what is this unusual incident that happened to you?
SEC. 3.xxx: A: It was on the second week of March 2014 when he was chatting with
his friend who is a foreigner and then he called me " [AAA252353],
(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, halika dito," and then he told me to take off my clothes and
providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or introduced me to the foreigner, sir.
receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within
or across national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms xxxx
of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or Q: [S]o, what happened when he called you while chatting with this
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having foreigner?
control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes A: Tapos pinapunta niya ako sa harapan niya tapos pinahubad niya
at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of po ako sabi ko sa kanya bakit po tapos sabi niya maghubad ka.
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the Hinubad ko po ang damit ko at pinaikot-ikot niya po ako sa
removal or sale of organs.37 (Italization supplied) harapan ng foreigner.

xxxx
In her testimony, AAA252353 narrated that Jerrie hired her as a
domestic helper in March 2014. Jerrie took advantage of her lack of money Q: How was this, Ms. Witness, because you said that he was just
and relatives in Manila, and used force and intimidation to compel her ( 1) to chatting with the foreigner using what? When he was chatting
remove her clothes and exhibit her naked body before a web camera for the with this foreigner, what was Jerrie Arraz using, what
viewing and enjoyment of foreign clients, (2) to have intercourse and to particular gadgets or anything?
perform other lascivious acts with Jerrie and Mark in front of a web camera A: Laptop, sir.
while foreign clients were watching, and (3) to have intercourse and to Q: Do you know that this laptop has a webcam installed in it?
perform other sexual acts with foreign clients for money and other A: Yes, sir.
consideration from March to June 2014. Jerrie also took sensitive photos
and/or videos of AAA252353 and emailed them to clients for money.38 Q: Now, you were asked by Jerrie Arraz to take off your clothes and he
asked you to turn around while naked. Did you comply?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why did you accede?

achieve the consent of a person having control over another person; or in sexual intercourse or lascivious
A: I got scared because he is a male person, sir.
conduct caused or facilitated by any means as provided in this Act.
Q: What happened when you were turning around naked?
xxxx
U) Pornography - refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition, cinematography,
A: Pagkatapos niya po pinaikot, ginalaw niya po ako tapos
indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or simulated
nakipagtalik po siya sa akin. Pinasok niya yung ari niya sa ari ko.
explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual
Q: And what happened to this foreigner he was chatting?
purposes.
35 SEC. 6. Qual{fied Trajficking in Persons. - Violations of Section 4 of this Act shall be considered as A: Tapos po nakita ko po yungforeigner na ginagalaw galaw niya po
qualified trafficking: yung ari niya. Nakita ko po sa skype na ginalaw ni;va po yung ari
xxxx niya.39 (Emphases supplied)
(h) When the offender commits one or more vioiations of Section 4 over a period of sixty (60)
or more days, whether those days are continuous or not[.] The first incident was followed by other occasions of prostitution and
xxxx other forms of sexual exploitation. AAA252353 testified that Jerrie brought
36 SEC. I0. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for
the offenses enumerated in this Act:
her to a hotel in Makati City in April 2014. He introduced her to a foreigner
xxxx named Gunter and directed her to have sexual intercourse with him and to
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life perform other sexual acts for money:
imprisonment and a fine of nor less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00)[.] xxxx
x xxx
37 See People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 217978, January 30, 2019. 891 SCRA 528,536.
39
38
CA rollo, pp. 80-82; and 153-i55. Id. at 170.

r r
Decision 15 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 16 G.R. No. 252353

Q: Anyway, when you reached the hotel in Makati, what did you do? xxxx
A: I was just sitting down, sir.
Q: Now, what happened, Ms. Witness, when you reached that hotel in
Q: Where did you sit? Manila?
A: In the room of Gunter, sir. A: After that he went to his friend named John, sir.

Q: And who is Gunter, Ms. Witness? xxxx

A: The friend of Jerrie Arraz who is a foreigner, sir.
Q: And then, what happened after that?
Q: Then what happened next? A: Jerrie and John instructed us to undress and to take a bath in the
A: Jerrie Arraz called me and asked me to sit beside Gunter, sir. shower, sir.

Q: And what happened next? Q: You mentioned that you are also with [CCC252353], Ms.
A: fPagkatapos po kin ult a ni Jerrie Arraz ang kamay ko tapos Witness?
pinahawak-hawakan niya ang kamay ko sa ari ni Gunter./ A: Yes, sir.

xxxx [x xx x]

Q: When you said "/gina/aw ka ni Gunte,J," what do you mean Q: Now, Ms. Witness, what happened after you and [CCC252353]
exactly, Ms. Witness? were asked to take a bath?
A: [Nakipagtalik po sa akin si Gunter. Pinasok niya yung ari niya A: After we took a bath, John told us to lay on the bed, sir.
sa ari koj.
xxxx
[x xx x]
Q: And then, what happened after that?
Q: And then what happened next? A: /Pagkatapos po noon ay una pong pumatong sa akin ay sij John,
A: Gunter gave Jerrie Arraz P6,000.00, sir. sir.

Q: And, if you know, why did Gunter give Jerrie Arraz Q: What do you mean by that, Ms. Witness, when you said that
[P]6,000.00? "fang unang pumatong sa iyo ay sij John?"
A: Because he was selling me and it was the exchange, sir. A: [Pinasok niya po yung ari niya sa ari koj, sir.

Q: And then what happened next'? Q: And then you mentioned that you were with [CCC252353] also on
A: Jerrie Arraz did not accept the [P]6,000.00 then Gunter gave that bed, now, if you know [what] was [CCC252353] do?
me [PJ12,000.00. Gunter told me that [the] [P]S,000.00 is to A: ["Pinahiga ni Jerrie Arraz tapos pumatong si Jerrie, pinasok ang
buy a cellphone, sir. ari ni Jerrie Arraz sa ari ni} [CCC252353], sir."

x x xx Q: And was this happening at the same time as where this John is on
top of you?
Q: So, what did you do with the rest of the money? A: Yes, sir.
A: I gave the [P] 12,000.00 to Jerrie when we are in the taxi. I
know that he will give me money, sir. Q: And then what happened after that, Ms. Witness?
A: ["Pagkatapos po ni/ John, fsij Jerrie fnaman. Pinapasok niya
xxxx ang ari niya sa ari koj, sir."

Q: Did Jerrie Arraz give you money? Q: And how about [CCC252353], Ms. Witness?
A: No. sir. He just bought me a pair of sandals worth [P] 1,000.00, A: ["Si John naman po, Pumatong sa kanya, pinasok niya po ang ari
sir. 40 (Emphases supplied and citation omitted) ni John sa ari ni} [CCC252353], sir."

Jerrie also brought AAA252353 and CCC252353, a minor, to a hotel in [x xx x]

Manila to meet another foreigner named John in June 2014. John had
intercourse with AAA252353 while Jerrie had sex with CCC252353 . John and Q: Now, would you known [sicJ if this John paid Jerrie Arraz any
Jerrie exchanged partners after. .John paid Jerrie for the services of money?
A: Yes, sir.
AAA252353 and CCC252353:
Q: How do you know that John paid .Jerrie A rraz money?

(
40
Id. at 97- 98. A: I saw John paid Jerrie Arrnz.

i
Decision 17 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 18 G.R. No. 252353

[x xx x] intimidation, or b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise

unconscious, or c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
Q: And, Ms. Witness, if you know, why did John pay Jerrie? authority, or d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented." 45
A: l''Sa pambubugaw niya po sa akin at pambababoy po], sir."

Q: Now, Ms. Witness, you said that Jerrie Arraz left and you stayed in To substantiate the first charge of rape through sexual intercourse
that hotel, what happened next? (accomplished through the use of force or intimidation), AAA252353
A: Jerrie gave us [P]l,000.00 each. testified that Jerrie was chatting with an Australian, Patrick, on his laptop in
June 2014. He called AAA252353 and told her to undress. When
[x xx x]
AAA252353 refused to follow Jerrie's order, Jerrie and Mark undressed her.
Q: To your knowledge, what was [the] [P] 1,000.00 for, if you know?
Mark had intercourse with AAA252353 against her will. After, Jerrie had
A: As payment to us, sir. 41 (Emphases supplied and citation omitted) carnal knowledge of AAA252353 through force and intimidation and despite
Jerrie's knowledge that she was around four months pregnant. Patrick
Jerrie repeatedly compelled AAA252353 to take off her clothes. At watched the lascivious acts committed by Mark and Jerrie against
times, Jerrie took AAA252353 's clothes off himself with the assistance of AAA252353. AAA252353, however, failed to prove that Jerrie was aware of
Mark and paraded AAA252353's naked body in front of the computer for the her pregnancy when he had carnal knowledge ofher.46
enjoyment of foreigners who patronized pornography. There were also
instances when Jerrie forced AAA252353 to perform sexual acts on him, had In support of the second charge of rape through sexual intercourse
intercourse with AAA252353 against her will, alone or with another man, ( committed while the victim was intoxicated and semi-conscious),
while foreign clients watched through web cameras. 42 From the foregoing, AAA252353 narrated that after having intercourse with Gunter in his hotel,
the prosecution was able to establish that Jerrie committed two counts of she and Jerrie went to a bar to meet Jerrie's friend, Ramil. The three of them
trafficking in persons against AAA252353 qualified by the fact that the crime drank liquor and AAA252353 got drunk. Jerrie and Ramil brought
was committed for over 60 days. AAA252353 to Jerrie' s house. Jerrie and Ramil took off AAA252353 's
clothes and Jerrie had canial knowledge of AAA252353 while she was
Jerrie was also charged with three counts of rape under Articles heavily intoxicated and deprived of reason:
266-A(l)(a), 266-A(l)(b); and 266-A(2)43 in relation to Article 266-B 44 of
xxxx
The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 8353, on October 22, 1997.
Q: And then after he gave you drink, liquor, what happened next?
"[T]o sustain a conviction for rape through sexual intercourse [under A: I got drunk and they brought me to the house of Jerrie Arraz, sir.
Art. 266-A(l)], the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond
reasonable doubt, x x x: (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the Q: And then what happened next?
victim; and (ii) that said act was accomplished a) through the use of force or A: They brought me to the third floor and at that time, I was
totally drunk then Jerrie Arraz and Ramil took my clothes off,
sir.
1
• Id. at 98-99.
42 Id. at 81 - 82; and 130. Q: And then what happened next?
43
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is Comm itted - A: {Nakipagtalik po si Jerrie sa akin. Gina/aw niya po ako. Kung
! . By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: anu-ano ang ginawa niya sa katawan ko].
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; xxxx
xxxx
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph I hereof, shall commit
Q: And when did this happen?
an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
A: Third week of April, Your Honor. After we go to the place of
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
44
Gunter, Your Honor.'' 7 (Emphases supplied)
ART. 266-B. Penalties . - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by
reclusion perperua.
xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumsta;ices:
xxxx
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the
15
crime. · People v. XXX, G.R. No. :24044 l, December 4, 2019, 927 SCRA 35, 50.

(
46
X XX X CA ro/lo, pp. 8 l -82.
7
Rape under paragraph 2 of"the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor. ' Jd. at 104.

7
 Decision l9 G .R. No. 252353 Decision 20 G .R. No . 2 52353

"[T]he following are the elements of Rape by Sexual Assault under Q: And after Maurice gave instructions to Jerrie f"na galawin
Article 266-A(2) of the RPC": ka''), what happened next?
A: They forced me to undress me, sir.
(1) [t]hat the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
Q: And what was your reaction when they forced to undressed
you, Ms. \-Vitness'?
(2) [t]hat the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following
A: I refused while I was standing, sir.
means:
Q: What did you do, Ms. Witness, if any?
(a) [b ]y inserting bis penis into another person's mouth or anal
A: ["Noong nakatayo po ako tapos po pinasok po ni Mark [y]ung
orifice; or
ari niya sa ari ko tapos po si Jerrie Arraz po nasa pwet ko po,
sir. "l
(b) [b]y inserting any instrument or object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person; or
xxxx
(3) [t]hat the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the
Q: How did you feel?
following circumstances:
A: I cried, sir.
(a) [b Jy using force and intimidation;
Q: Why did you cry?
A: ["'Kasi po sabay po nila pinasok yung ari nila sa ari ko, sir. "]5°
(b) [ w]hen the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
(Emphases supplied)
unconsc10us;
[x xx x]
(c) [b]y means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
We sustain the ruling of the courts a quo that Jerrie is guilty beyond
(d) [w]hen the woman is under 12 years of age or reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. AAA252353 candidly narrated her
demented.48 (Emphases supplied) harrowing experience in the hands of Jerrie, and established that Jerrie had
carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation, and while she was
To prove the charge of rape by sexual assault, AAA252353 testified heavily intoxicated and deprived of reason. AAA252353 gave her statement
that Jerrie chatted with Maurice, another foreigner, on his laptop in June 2014. in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner during trial.
At Maurice's order, Mark had intercourse with AAA252353 against her Consequently, the RTC accorded AAA252353's testimony great weight and
wishes while Jerrie inserted his pems into AAA252353 's anus credence. 51 The CA affirmed the RTC's findings on AAA252353 's
simultaneously: 49 credibility. We find no reason to disturb the findings of the lower courts.
Settled is the rule that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of
xxxx witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at
times even finality, unless there appears certain facts, or circumstances of
Q: What did you exactly see in the laptop, Ms. Witness?
A: I saw Maurice Blose in the laptop looking at me, sir. weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and
which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.52
Q: And then, what happened after that, Ms. Witness?
A: After that, sir, Jerrie asked me to undress with Mark, who was 15 Lastly, Jerrie was charged with violation of Section 4(c)(l) of RA No.
years old at that time. 10175, or the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012." 53 The Act seeks to
xxxx 511
Id. at 172-173.
51
People v. XXX, G .R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020,
Q: And then, what happened after that, Ms. Witness? <https ://el ibrary .judiciary .gov.ph/thebuok;;hd f/ docmcnth/Sep/2020/ I>.
A: ["Pagkatapos po inutusan pa po ni} Maurice [si] Jerrie [na 52
People v. Dechoso, G.R. No. 243530, ~1arch 3, 2021,
galawin po nila, sir'}. <https://el ibrnry.judiciar:,, .gov.ph/thebooksheif/ciocmonth/Mar/202 I/ I>.
53
SEC. 4 . Cybercrime Offenses. -- The followi11g <1cl~ constitute the offonse of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:
xxxx
(c) Content-related Offenses:
(1) Cybersex. - The willjitl enf{ag;;ment, maintenance, contra( or operation, directly or
48
People v. HHH, G .R. No. 248245, August 26, 2020, indirectly, o/any lasrivious t?xhibitio,1 ofs<"-xu.:d organs or sexual aclivily, with the aid of
<https://el ibrary.j udiciary.g,w.ph/theh0okshelf/docmontb/Aug/2020/ I>. a computer syst.,111, forfa vor er consideration. (ltalizatiou supplied)
49
CA rollo, p . 81. xxxx

J
Decision 21 G.R. No. 252353 Decision G.R. No. 252353

punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pmnography for favor and of truth on the one hand and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the fonner is
consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by generally held to prevail. 60
webcam. "[T]he element of 'engaging in a business' is necessary to constitute
the illegal cybersex." 54 Three elements must be established to successfully Finally, Jerrie contends that his arrest was invalid as he was a victim of
prosecute the crime of cybersex: ( 1) engagement, maintenance, control, or instigation. In instigation, law enforcement officials lure the accused into
operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs committing a crime that he had no intention to commit in order to prosecute
or sexual activity; (2) with the aid of a computer system; and (3) for favor or him. In entrapment, law enforcement officials merely employ ways and means
consideration.55 to trap or capture a lawbreaker. rnstigation presupposes that the criminal intent
to commit an offense originated from the inducer; the accused had no
The prosecution was able to prove Jerrie's guilt beyond reasonable intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it if not for the
doubt of the crime of cybersex through the testimony of AAA252353, the initiatives of the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to
report of NUP Salcedo that the hard drives, memory cards, and USB flash commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law
drives seized from the house of Jerrie contained pictures and videos of naked enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by
girls in compromising positions, alone, or with men, and of persons' private employing ruses and schemes. 61
parts, 56 and the testimony of PO3 Garcia that Jerrie sent photos of a similar
nature to Franklin via email. 57 It was established that Jerrie distributed the Contrary to his claims, we find that Jenie was apprehended through a
lewd photos and videos of AAA252353 to Patrick who paid him via local valid entrapment operation conducted by the WCPU-CIDG and Inter-Agency
money transfer. 58 Jerrie' s bare claim that AAA252353 took erotic pictures of Council Against Trafficking of the Department of Justice. Jerrie, given his
herself deserves scant consideration. history of pimping AAA252353 and CCC252353 to his foreign friends, had
the predisposition to commit trafficking in persons even before he meet the
Jerrie likewise claims that the lower courts gravely erred in convicting operatives. The entrapment_was organized precisely because AAA252353
him considering the incredible nature of AAA252353 's testimony and her went to Camp Crame to file a complaint against Jerde for exploiting her for
questionable behavior during and after the alleged trafficking and rape. Jerrie prostitution and pornography. PO3 Garcia also learned during an investigation
claims that AAA252353 ' s failure to ask for help and to run away despite conducted prior to the entrapment that Jerrie told Franklin via text messages
having the opportunity, her lack of animosity, or ill will toward Jerrie, and her that he can provide children for sex for a price. Hence, the arrest of Jerrie
willingness to go with Jerrie to bars and hotels militate against her claim of through the entrapment operation was valid.
exploitation and rape. But as found by the CA, AAA252353 was able to
explain that she was afraid to defy Jerrie because she had nowhere to go in the Anent the penalties, Section I0( e) of RA No. 9208 punishes qualified
event Jerrie turns her away. She had no money and relatives in Manila. trafficking with life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00
AAA252353 's supposed lack of animosity toward Jerrie and her alleged but not more than P5,000,000.00. With respect to the damages, the Court in
willingness to go with Jerrie to bars and hotel cannot defeat her cases for rape Brozoto v. People62 awarded P500,000.00 moral damages and Pl00,000.00
and trafficking. The Court has long recognized the lack of uniformity in the exemplary damages to the victim of qualified trafficking because the offense
manner of behavior of rape victims during or after a rape incident. 59 At any is analogous to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, and other lascivious
rate, Section 3(a) of RA No. 9208 is explicit that the crime of trafficking in acts which cause the victim physical and mental suffering, besmirched
persons can exist even with the victim's consent. reputation, moral shock, and social humiliation. In People v. Dela Cruz, 63 the
Court increased from P200,000.00 to P500,000.00 the moral damages
Jerrie further argues that the court erred in disregarding his defense of awarded to the victims of qualified trafficking, in addition to the Pl 00,000.00
denial and in relying solely on the prosecution's evidence. It is worthy to exemplary damages.
stress that denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the
positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused Here, the CA correctly sentenced Jerrie to suffer l(fe imprisonment and
committed the crime. As between a categorical testimony which has the ring to pay a fine of P4,000,000.00 for each count of qualified trafficking.
Moreover, the CA properly ordered Jen-ie to pay AAA252353 P500,000.00

54
Disini, Jr. v. The Secretary of.J11s1ice, 727 Phil. 28, 105 (20 14).
55 Section 4 (c) ( l ) , ·'Cybercrime Prevention Act of2012:'
5 c, CA rolio, pp. 86--87.
57
ld. at 107- 109 . r,u People v. Hapa, G.R. No. 233694, January 29, 20?0, (_Resoiution).
61
58
Id. at 177. People v. San Miguel, G.R. No. 247956 October 7. 2020, <https.//sc.judiciary.gov.ph/16212/>.
62
59
People v. Dechoso, G.R. No. 248530. March 3., 2021, G.R. No. 233420. April 28, 2021, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/21008/>.
<https ://cl ibrary .j udic iary. gov.ph/lhebookshelf/docmonth.1i"1ar/20'.2 I/ I>. :;:, G.R. No. 238754, June 16, 202!, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/23880/> .
Decision 23 G .R. No. 252353 Decision 24 G.R. No. 252353

moral damages and Pl 00,000.00 exemplary damages for each count pursuant lower in degree than that prescribed, or prision correccional which ranges
to prevailing jurisprudence.64 from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the CA correctly
imposed the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years ofprision correccional, as
Whereas, Article 266-B of the RPC, penalizes rape through sexual minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Also, the CA
intercourse with reclusion perpetua. In this case, the CA imposed the penalty properly awarded P30,000.00 civil indemnity, P30,000.00 moral damages,
of "reclusion perpetua without parole" 65 for each count of rape. The CA and P30,000.00 exemplary damages.
correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, the phrase
"without parole" must be clarified. The Court explained that there is a need to The awards of moral and exemplary damages are justified. Civil
qualify that the accused is not "eligible for parole" only in cases where the indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the
imposable penalty should have been death were it not for the enactment of RA offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and
No. 9346 or the "Anti-Death Penalty Law."66 As discussed earlier, Jerrie is apart from other proven actual damages, which itself, is equivalent to actual,
guilty only of simple rape penalized with reclusion perpetua. Thus, there is no or compensatory damages in civil law. This award stems from Article 100 of
need to indicate that he was ineligible for parole. Jerrie is ipso facto ineligible The Revised Penal Code which states that "[e]very person criminally liable
for parole because he was sentenced to suffer an indivisible penalty. Similarly, for a felony is also civilly liable." 70 Article 2217 of the Civil Code provides
the Court deems it proper to modify the award of damages. In People v. that moral damages may be awarded if a victim suffers physical suffering,
Jugueta, 67 we held that when the circumstances call for the imposition of mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
reclusion pcrpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Article 2219
the victim is entitled to P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral further provides that it may be awarded in cases of seduction, abduction, rape,
damages, and P75,000.00 exemplary damages. and other lascivious acts. Article 2229 of the Civil Code also states
"[e]xemplary or damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for
On the other hand, rape through sexual assault is punished with prision the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
mayor. Absent any modifying circumstance, the maximum term of the compensatory damages."
indeterminate sentence must be within the medium period of the prescribed
penalty or eight (8) years and one ( 1) day to ten ( 10) years. The minimum term ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals'
of the indeterminate sentence must be within the penalty next lower in degree Decision dated June 18, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09413 is AFFIRMED
than that prescribed, or prision correccional, which ranges from six (6) with MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
months and one (I) day to six (6) years. Thus, the CA correctly imposed the
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of pris ion correccional, as minimum, (1) In R-QZN-15-00619-CR, the accused-appellant Jerrie Arraz y
to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Likewise, the CA properly Rodriguez is found GUILTY of Qualified Trafficking in Persons in violation
awarded P30,000.00 civil indemnity, P30,000.00 moral damages, and of Section 4 (a), (e), in relation to Section 3 (a), (c), (h), Section 6 (h) and
P30,000.00 exemplary damages m accordance with prevailing Section 10 ( e) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No.
jurisprudence.68 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking Act of 2012). The accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
As regards the offense of cybersex, Section 8 of RA No. 10175 69 P4,000,000.00. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay AAA252353
provides the penalty of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two Hundred P500,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) but not exceeding One Million Pesos
(Pl,000,000.00) or both. Absent any modifying circumstance, the maximum (2) In R-QZN-15-00620-CR, the accused-appellant Jerrie Arraz y
term of the indeterminate sentence must be within the medium period of the Rodriguez is found GUILTY of Qualified Trafficking in Persons in violation
prescribed penalty, or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. The of Section 4 (a), (e), in relation to Section 3 (a), (h), (i), Section 6 (h), and
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence must be within the penalty next Section 10 (e) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No.
10364. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
64
People v. Daguno, G.R. No. 235660, March 4, 2020, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/l 4246/>; People v. imprisonment and to pay a fine of P4,000,000.00. Accused-appellant is
Hirang, 803 Phil. 277 (2017); People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458 (20 l4); and People v. Lalli, 675 Phil. 126
(20 I l).
further ordered to pay AAA.252353 P500,000.00 as moral damages and
65
CA rol!o, p. 186. Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages;
66
Approved on June 24, 2006. See also Pcup!e v. Ba!!Ja, G.R. No. 246586, October 6, 2021, (Resolution),
<https://sc.j ud iciary .gov. ph/24920/>.
67
783Phil.806(2016).
68
People v. Tulagan, G .R. No. 227363. March 12, 2019,

j
<https://el ibrary ._iudiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/docmonth/Mar/20 ! 9/ I>.
69

(
70
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012," Septe1nher l 2, 2012. People v. .Jugueta, supra note 67.
Decision 25 G.R. No. 252353 Decision 26 G.R. No. 252353

(3) In R-QZN-15-00621-CR and R-QZN-15-00622-CR, the WE CONCUR:

accused-appellant Jerrie A.rrazy Rodriguez is found GUILTY of two counts
of Rape through Sexual Intercourse in violation of Article 266-A (1) (a), in
relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 8353. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
/~/,~1fl'-__
MARVI<:YM.V.F. LEONEN - ------~
reclusion perpetua for each count and is ordered to pay AAA252353 Senior Associate Justice
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 Chairperson
as exemplary damages for each count;

(4) In R-QZN-15-00623-CR, the accused-appellant Jerrie Arraz y ,iJll f _ .

Rodriguez is found GUILTY of Rape through Sexual Assault in violation of Aefc:Z:RO-JAVIER JHOSE~OPEZ
A1iicle 266-A (2), in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as Associate Justice Associate Justice
amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer

-- ---
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional, as
mmunum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. --::=:_,,....,.,.,-...,,.- - ., . ~. '-. . . . .
Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay AAA252353 P30,000.00 as civil ,,,.,,.,,...-- ANTONIO T. KHO, JR:--.
indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary .
A ssoc1ate J ust1ce
. --........ . .
damages; and

(5) In R-QZN-15-03829-CR, the accused-appellant Jerrie Arraz y

Rodriguez is found GUILTY of the "Cybersex Prevention Act of 2012," in ATTESTATION
violation of Section 4 (c) (1) of Republic Act No. 10175. Accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay AAA252353 P30,000.00 as civil Court' s Division.
indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages;
.,/
--/~.,.
-»,,. ~AI
(6) All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate MAR IC M.V.F. LEONEN
of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
SO ORDERED.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court' s Division.
CASE 5
5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651 5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651

vehicle but fell to the ground after the car sped away, and that he did not move at all nor opened his eyes.12 She
Today is Thursday, May 04, 2023
testified on cross-examination that she did not see the driver while the car was fleeing from the scene as the same
was tinted.13

Liton, another MMDA Enforcer, testified that she was also on duty at the Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA)
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
northbound in front of the Farmers Market in the morning of December 19, 2014; that at around 9:45 a.m., she
heard a noise, from a distance of three meters, as if someone fell on the ground (kumalabog). When she turned
around, she saw Acosta lying on the pavement with head injuries and a red maroon wagon speeding away from the
incident.14 She did not know what actually happened as she only saw the back of the vehicle and the window was
tinted.15

Montipio testified that in the morning of December 19, 2014, while he was working as a barker for public buses at
the EDSA, Farmers Plaza bus loading bay, northbound lane, he saw Traffic Enforcer Acosta apprehend a maroon-
colored Isuzu Sportivo with Plate No. AAB 4197 for illegally entering the bus lane.16 Acosta first made a salute
gesture and after that, he knocked on the window of the vehicle which prompted the driver to pull down his window
and the two talked to each other.17 Acosta then asked for the driver's license of appellant, but the latter pushed aside
Acosta's hand (hinahawi-hawi).18 Acosta then put his hand inside the subject vehicle, but the vehicle suddenly sped
away dragging the former. Acosta fell down hitting the top of his head which rendered him unconscious.19 Montipio
FIRST DIVISION was just five steps away from the vehicle. He identified appellant as the driver of the subject vehicle in a police line-
up and later inside the courtroom by tapping his shoulder.20 He later learned that Acosta passed away on December
[ G.R. No. 247651, March 24, 2021 ] 23, 2014.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK IAN LIBUNAO Y MARIANO, ACCUSED- In an Order21 dated June 26, 2015, the RTC granted appellant's motion for bail and was allowed to post bail in the
APPELLANT. amount of P100,000.00 subject to certain conditions. In the same Order, the RTC resolved the issue of the
appellant's identification and found that the People was able to discharge such burden as witness Montipio
DECISION declared, in no uncertain terms, that he saw appellant driving the maroon colored Isuzu Sportivo with plate number
AAB 4197; that Montipio was able to see the driver despite the vehicle being tinted because he was so near the said
PERALTA, C.J.: vehicle. The RTC did not find the presence of the qualifying circumstance of the use of vehicle since it was
established that the parties had a chance encounter only on that fateful day and there was no evidence that
Before us is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 9, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) issued is CA-G.R. CR
appellant premeditated and planned to hurt Acosta prior to and during their meeting.
No. 40234, which affirmed the Judgment2 dated February 16, 2017 and the Order3 dated June 23, 2017 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100 (RTC), convicting appellant of the crime of homicide. Also assailed Appellant filed a motion for reduction of bail, while Dante Borguete, the registered owner of the Sportivo, filed a
is the CA Resolution4 dated January 11, 2019 denying reconsideration thereof. motion for release of his vehicle, which were both denied by the RTC in its Order22 dated September 10, 2015.
Appellant was charged with murder in an Information5 dated January 5, 2015, the accusatory portion of which reads: The prosecution then continued with the presentation of its evidence. It adopted the evidence already presented
during the bail hearing. It subsequently presented the testimonies of Rechille Acosta (Rechille), wife of the
That on or about the 19th day of December, 2014, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, deceased; PCI Erlito Trinidad Renegin (PCI Renegin), Chief of the District Traffic Enforcement Unit, Sector 3, who
qualified by means of motor vehicle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag the victim SONNY investigated the case; and Dr. Maria Cecilia F. Lim (Dr. Lim), forensic pathologist, who performed the autopsy on the
DELA CRUZ ACOSTA, an MMDA Traffic Enforcer, by then and there hitting/bumping him with the use of an Isuzu body of Acosta.
Sportivo Wagon, bearing Plate No. AAB-4197 after the accused was apprehended for a traffic violation along EDSA,
in front of Farmer's Market, Bgy. Socorro, Cubao, this City, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal injuries Rechille testified that the deceased was her husband and the breadwinner of their family; and that they have three
which were the direct and proximate cause of his death on December 23, 2014, to the damage and prejudice of the children. On December 19, 2014, she received a text message from an unfamiliar number asking her to go to St.
heirs of the said victim. Luke's Hospital because her husband had an accident. She then went with her father to the hospital and found her
husband in a critical condition and unconscious at the emergency room.23 Her husband was confined for 4 days and
That accused planned the commission of the crime prior to its execution and consciously adopted the means and
died on December 23, 2014 of head injury due to the accident that happened.24 She spent P72,000.00 for funeral
methods of execution of the crime which was done suddenly and unexpectedly and he purposely took advantage of
expenses, as shown by the official receipts and the medical expenses were paid by the MMDA.25
the fact that the victim was not aware that he was going to hit him with the use of a motor vehicle, to ensure [the]
commission of the crime without risk to himself from any defense that victim might make thereby committing the PCI Renegin testified that on December 19, 2014, he received reports from MMDA Traffic Enforcers Tongco and
attendant circumstances of use of motor vehicle. Liton about a vehicular accident involving Acosta. After taking their statements and conducting an investigation, he
then verified with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Plate No. AAB-4197 which was given by the witnesses and
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
found that the vehicle was under the name of Dante Borguete of San Miguel, Bulacan. He formed a tracking team
Upon his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty7 to the crime charged. and went to San Miguel, Bulacan and they found the subject vehicle at the residence of Borguete which was being
driven by appellant. He invited appellant to their office in Quezon City to answer the complaint of hit and run against
Appellant filed a Motion for Bail8 on the main argument that he was not the one who committed the alleged crime him. He later learned that appellant's driver's license had already expired in 2013 as certified to by the LTO.26 While
and was only wrongfully identified. The RTC set the case for the reception of the prosecution's evidence to prove at the Traffic Sector in Quezon City, appellant admitted to him that he was the authorized driver of the subject
that the guilt of the appellant was strong. vehicle on December 19, 2014,27 however, it was only after appellant made such admission that he was informed of
his constitutional right.28
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Liberty Tongco (Tongco), Lourdes S. Liton (Liton) and Rommel P.
Montipio (Montipio). Dr. Lim declared that Acosta's cause of death was craniocerebral injuries following a motor vehicular accident; that
he had extensive skull structures at the back of his head associated with a lot of bleeding into and on the brain; and
Tongco, a Traffic Constable of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) assigned at Farmers Market that such would cause an increase in the pressure within the skull which will cause pressure in the brain and cause
northbound loading bay, testified that at around 9:35 a.m. of December 19, 2014, she was with Liton, Acosta (the the brain to not function well.29 He had severe head injuries and would not have survived another minute if not for
deceased victim), and two others performing their duties when Acosta apprehended a maroon colored vehicle with the medical attention given to him and he also had lots of contusions and bruises.30 Her findings was contained in
Plate No. AAB-4197 for illegally entering a lane reserved only for the loading and unloading of buses.9 Later, she the Final Anatomic Diagnosis.31
saw the vehicle sped away and Acosta fell near the gutter and sustained injuries on his head.10 She was about
seven meters from Acosta when the latter fell on the ground.11 She declared that Acosta was not bumped by the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 1/8 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 2/8
5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651 5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651

Teresita F. Octubre's testimony was dispensed with after the defense admitted the authenticity, execution and 2019 stating that it no longer desires to file a supplement to its appellee's brief filed in the CA, considering that the
genuineness of the certificate of employment and compensation issued by the MMDA establishing that Acosta had a issues in their case had already been sufficiently and exhaustively discussed and argued therein. Appellant failed to
monthly income of P12,401.00 prior to his death.32 file its supplemental brief as of this time; thus, we deem waived the filing of the same, and refer to his brief filed with
the CA.
Appellant then filed a Motion for Waiver of Presentation of Evidence for the Defense with Motion to Admit Attached
Memorandum for the Defense.33 Appellant insists that his identity had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He claims that it was highly
improbable for Montipio to have seen the driver of the vehicle when the same was tinted and his position was
On February 16, 2017, the RTC rendered its judgment34 convicting appellant of homicide, the fallo of which reads: oblique from the driver side of the car.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused MARK IAN LIBUNAO y MARIANO guilty A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of two things: the identification of the author
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Homicide and hereby sentences him to suffer the of the crime and his actual commission of the same. An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if
indeterminate prison term of seven (7) years of prision mayor in its minimum period, as minimum, to the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender's identity. The constitutional presumption of innocence
Ꮮαwρhi৷

fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an identification that is full of uncertainties.40

Likewise, said accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased, the following: The RTC declared that it had resolved the issue of the identification of the appellant in its Order granting appellant's
motion for bail where it found that witness Montipio declared, in no uncertain terms, that he saw appellant driving the
1. The amount of Php71,000[.00 as actual damages; maroon-colored Isuzu Sportivo with plate number AAB 4197; and that he was able to see the driver despite the
vehicle being tinted because he was so near the said vehicle. The CA affirmed the RTC's findings.
2. The amount of Php50,000[.00 as civil indemnity;
It is a basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a
3. The amount of Php50,000[.00 as moral damages; and witness and of the witness' testimony is accorded the highest respect because the trial judge's unique opportunity to
observe directly the demeanor of the witness enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or
4. P2,093,784.84 as reparation for the loss of earning capacity.
not.41 Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances of weight
have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition
Accused is also ordered to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of the
finality of this decision until fully paid, to be imposed on the aforementioned damages. of the case.42 In this case, a review of the records shows that the lower courts had overlooked significant
circumstances that would affect the decision.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Montipio testified in his direct examination that he saw the appellant as the driver of the maroon-colored Isuzu
SO ORDERED.35 Sportivo that dragged and killed Acosta on December 19, 2014 because he was just 5 steps away from the car.
However, his testimony on cross-examination created doubts as to his positive identification of the appellant, to wit:
The RTC ruled that the matter of appellant's identification was already settled in its Order dated June 26, 2015
which granted and fixed the latter's bail; and that all the elements of the crime of homicide are present. Appellant Q You mentioned, Mr. Witness, that you are a barker. What do you do as a barker?
had already admitted the fact and cause of death; that there was intent to kill when appellant unceremoniously left
A I call passengers to ride in the bus, sir.
the place knowing that Acosta's hand was still inside the vehicle and dragging him in the process; that appellant
went on driving his car until Acosta was left sprawled on the ground unconscious; and that appellant's flight was Q So, where in particular?
indicative of his guilt.
A In Farmer's Cubao, sir.
Anent appellant's claim of illegal arrest, the RTC found that he never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before
his arraignment, even pleaded not guilty upon arraignment and actively participated in the trial; thus, he had Q Do you go there everyday?
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and waived his right to question the validity of his arrest.
A Yes, sir.
Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order36 dated June 23, 2017.
Q So in performing your work, where do you usually take your position?
Appellant filed an appeal with the CA. After the filing of the parties' respective pleadings, the case was submitted for
decision. A In the second lane, [northbound], going to Fairview, sir.
On May 9, 2018, the CA issued its assailed Decision denying the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Q You mentioned in your affidavit that you were there on December 19, 2014 and you witnessed this incident
Judgment and Order. involving the good officer Sonny Acosta. What is your particular position when you witnessed the incident?
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which the People filed its Comment. Private complainant Rechille A I was on the right side and I was five steps away from the Sportivo, sir.
Acosta, wife of the deceased, filed a Motion to Release Vehicle37 in view of the termination of the separate civil
action resulting from the instant criminal action she filed against Dante F. Borguete, the owner of the subject vehicle, Q So, you were at the right side. So, meaning to say at the passenger's side?
in the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 122, docketed as Civil Case No. C-23954.
A No, sir. On the right side, sir.
On January 11, 2019, the CA issued a Resolution, the decretal portion of which reads:
Q So, you are in front of Farmers Plaza, am I right?
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused-appellant is
DENIED for utter lack of merit. The Motion to Release Vehicle filed by private complainant Rechille R. A Yes, sir. I was in front of Farmers Plaza.
Acosta is GRANTED. Accordingly, the subject vehicle is hereby ORDERED RELEASED from custodia
legis into the possession of the owner thereof, Dante F. Borguete. Q So, the side where you are, is in between the Sportivo and the Farmers Plaza, is that right?

SO ORDERED.38 A Nasa tapat po ako ng Sportivo. Limang talampakan lang ang layo ko.

Hence, appellant filed the instant appeal. ATTY DELACRUZ: We move to strike, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, please answer the question, Were you m between
the Sportivo and Farmers Plaza?
In a Resolution39 dated July 31, 2019, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs if they
so desire within 30 days from notice. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation dated October 25, COURT: Excuse me. I will just require the witness to do a sketch. Do you know how to make a sketch?

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 3/8 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 4/8

5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651 5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651

WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. ATTY. DELA CRUZ: So you mentioned, Mr. Witness, that you saw the driver rolled (sic) down the window of the
Sportivo, how is that possible, Mr. Witness?
COURT: Could you sketch where you are when the incident happened?
WITNESS: Nung hinuli na po yung driver, sumaludo muna po tapos binaba po yung bintana, sir.
WITNESS: (Witness is making a sketch indicating the place and the positions of the Sportivo, TC Sonny Acosta and
the witness himself) ATTY DELA CRUZ: Where was the good officer Sonny Acosta there (sic) at that time?

ATTY. DELA CRUZ: Just for the record, Your Honor, the witness has drawn a sketch indicating his exact position. It WITNESS: He was at the driver's side.
is apparent, your Honor, that the witness is in between Farmers Plaza and the Sportivo. Which direction is this, Mr.
Witness? COURT INTERPRETER: Witness is indicating a cross on the driver's side of the Sportivo and placing the name of
Traffic Enforcer Sonny Acosta in the sketch.
COURT INTERPRETER: Counsel is asking and pointing a portion in the sketch.
ATTY. DELA CRUZ: So, technically the vehicle is in between you and the good officer, Sonny Acosta, So the vehicle,
WITNESS: It is the second lane going to Fairview, [northbound], sir. the Sportivo is in between your position and that of Mr. Sonny Acosta's position?

ATTY DELA CRUZ: Mr. Witness, how would you describe the vehicle, the Sportivo? Were the windows closed at WITNESS: Yes, sir.
that time on your side. (interrupted)
COURT: Next question.
COURT: What time?
ATTY. DELA CRUZ: And considering that, as you mentioned, that the window of the Sportivo is tinted, it is dark
ATTY DELA CRUZ: At the time he witnessed the incident, Your Honor. when you looked inside the vehicle?

Q Was it tinted? WITNESS: When you are near, you can see what is inside, sir.

WITNESS: Yes, sir. It is tinted. Q And you mentioned, Mr. Witness, that you were five steps away from the vehicle based on your affidavit?

Q So, on your side when you looked at the vehicle, what you have seen is a tinted window? A Yes, sir.43

A Yes, sir. Clearly, it was established that the vehicle's window was tinted and dark as Montipio declared that it was only when
you are near that you can see what is inside the vehicle. Montipio also testified that he was at the right side of the
COURT: How was it tinted? Sportivo which was .the passenger side and which window was not rolled down, and he was five steps away from
the vehicle. We find that the distance of five steps away from a closed, dark, tinted window of the vehicle was not
WITNESS: Kapag malapit po kayo, makikita ninyo po ang loob. (If you are near, you can see what is inside the near enough to be able to see the identity of the person in the driver seat.
vehicle).
Montipio also admitted that he was performing his job as a barker at that time, i.e., calling the passengers to board
COURT: Put that in the vernacular. Next. the bus which was behind the Sportivo, which could had also disrupted his focus and attention on the incident.
Hence, the distance of Montipio from the tinted vehicle as well as his divided attention to the crime incident, cast
ATTY. DELA CRUZ: And during the incident, you said that you were performing your job as a barker, right? doubts on his identification of the driver of the Isuzu Sportivo considering the short period of time that the incident
transpired.
WITNESS: Yes, sir. I was on duty at that time.
Moreover, we note that nowhere in the records was it shown that Montipio had made any prior description of the
Q So, where were you facing then when the incident happened?
driver of the Isuzu Sportivo until the appellant was presented to him on December 26, 2014, i.e., 7 days from the
A I was facing the Sportivo, sir. incident, in a police line-up where he identified him as the driver of the vehicle.

Q Why were you facing the Sportivo? Considering the doubt that is created in the identification of the driver of the Isuzu Sportivo, such doubt should be
considered in favor of the appellant. In People v. Rodrigo,44 the Court had the occasion to instruct that great care
A Because I was at the second lane calling passengers, sir. should be taken in considering the identification of the accused, especially when this identification is made by a sole
witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the identification.
COURT: Because this second lane are for buses going to Fairview, that is why you were at the second lane?
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 9, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 11, 2019 of
WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.CR No. 40234 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Mark
Ian Libunao y Mariano is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. He is
Q Are you saying that passengers will cross the first lane before they could ride a bus going to Fairview? ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.

A Yes, Your Honor. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for his
immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to REPORT to this Court within
ATTY. DELA CRUZ: So, during at (sic) that time, was there a bus behind the Sportivo at that time? five days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.
WITNESS: Yes, sir. There is one bus. SO ORDERED.
Q So, as a barker, you are calling the passengers to board that bus? Caguioa, Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
A Yes, sir.

Q And definitely, in doing so, your attention is with the passengers and the bus?
Footnotes
A No, sir. 1
Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L.
xxxx Hernando (now a member of the Court), and Pedro B. Corales; rollo, pp. 3-14.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 5/8 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 6/8
5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651 5/4/23, 12:35 PM G.R. No. 247651
2 35
Per Judge Editha G. Mina-Aguba; Docketed as Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-00049-CR; CA rollo, pp. 118- Id. at 127.
127.
36
Id. at 54-55.
3
Id. at 54-56.
37
Id. at 364-367.
4
Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B.
38
Corales and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of this Court); Id. at 417-421. Id. at 420.
5 39
Records, pp. 1-2. Rollo, pp. 21-22.
40
6
Id. at 1. People v. Tumambing, 659 Phil. 544, 547 (2011).
7 41
Id. at 25. Atizado, et al. v. People, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2020.
8 42
Id. at 28-30. Id.
43
9
TSN, February 11, 2015, pp. 13-16. TSN, February 25, 2015, pp. 18-25.
10 44
Id. at 17. 586 Phil. 515 (2008).
11
Id. at 28-29.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
12
Id. at 31; as appearing in the TSN, "Hindi po sya bumangga. Bale paglagpas ng sasakyan, nakita ko po
nahulog si Acosta sa sahig, na yun na bumulagta na, sir. Hindi man lang gumalaw [o] dumilat yung mata."
13
TSN, February 11, 2015, p. 32.
14
TSN, February 18, 2015, pp. 5-9.
15
Id. at 10-11.
16
TSN, February 25, 2015, pp. 7-8.
17
Id. at 9.
18
Id. at 10.
19
Id. at 11.
20
Id. at 13-14.
21
Records, pp. 141-147.
22
Id. at 172-175.
23
TSN, September 16, 2015, pp. 6-8, 11-13.
24
Id. at 17-18.
25
Id. at 20-21.
26
TSN, October 21, 2015, pp. 5-15; records, p. 187.
27
Id. at 17-18.
28
Id. at 23.
29
TSN, February 3, 2016, pp. 5-8.
30
Id. at 9-10.
31
Id. at 10.
32
Records, pp. 181-182.
33
Id. at 335-350.
34
CA rollo, pp. 118-127.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 7/8 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_247651_2021.html 8/8

CASE 6
5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895 5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895

While Honorio was eating, Mario Lalap entered the house through the kitchen's door and immediately stabbed
Today is Thursday, May 04, 2023 Honorio from behind. Honorio stood up but Mario tried to pull the former outside of house. Alter failing to pull him
outside. Mario stabbed Honorio for the second time in his belly. While Honorio was being stabbed. Mario shouted at
Honorio saying. "Putangina mo, papatayin kita. Tsismoso ka." Joy begged Mario to stop by shouting "Tama na
po" but Mario ignored her plea. The whole incident lasted for [nine (9)] minutes.
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
After Mario left, Honorio was brought by his family to the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Hospital where he was treated
before he died after ten (10) days.7

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. He asserted self-defense, thus:

On August 4, 1997, at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, MARIO LALAP ("accused") was in Barangay San Gabriel,
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, where he worked as a helper in a house construction, having a drinking session with
Honorio, two (2) other persons, and the owner of the house. During the drinking session, accused had an altercation
with Honorio because the latter was spreading gossips that his (accused) sister was "nanlalalaki". Honorio left
ahead of the group, and after about an hour and a half (1 ½ ), the accused headed home. As the accused was
passing by Honorio's house, the latter called the accused and told him that he was hurt during their altercation and
THIRD DIVISION grabbed the accused by his collar. Out of anger and as the accused could no longer control his emotions, he drew
his knife and stabbed [Honorio] on the right side of his body then went home, while [Honorio] was brought to the
[ G.R. No. 250895, June 16, 2021 ]
hospital.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIO LALAP, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
The accused learned from his wife, after the latter monitored the condition of Honorio that he was getting better and
DECISION was about to be discharged from the hospital, however. Honorio suddenly suffered a cardiac arrest and died as a
consequence.8
INTING, J.:
The RTC Ruling
This is an appeal1 assailing the Decision2 dated May 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 9
09221 which affirmed the Decision3 dated June 24, 2015 of Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC), City of Calapan, The RTC rendered its Decision dated June 24, 2015 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Oriental Mindoro in Criminal Case No. C-5407. The RTC found Mario Lalap (accused-appellant) guilty beyond murder. The dispositive portion states:
reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused Mario Lalap y Vergara guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by
The Antecedents direct participation of the crime of Murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery which is penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
The case stemmed from an Information4 charging accused-appellant with Murder under Article 248 of the RPC, penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties as provided for by law. The accused is hereby
which reads: directed to indemnify the heirs of the victim Honorio Villanueva the amount of P4,051.60 as actual damages spent
on medical expenses wherein which said amount is supported by receipts: the amount of P75,000.00 as civil
That on or about the 4th day of August, 1997, at 10:00 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Barangay San indemnity which is consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence: the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages also in
Gabriel, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this accordance with prevailing rules: the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation and while armed New Civil Code since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established in the instant case and
with a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one HONORIO likewise, the accused is hereby directed to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate
VILLANUEVA, who was then unarmed and defenseless, inflicting upon the latter mortal wound on his body which damages on the reasonable assumption that when death occurs, the family of the victim incurred expenses for the
cause[d] his early death. wake and funeral of the victim.

That in the commission of the crime of murder, the aggravating circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation The indemnity for loss of earning capacity to the victim's heirs could not be awarded because no documentary
were attendant. evidence was presented by the prosecution to substantiate this claim.

Contrary to Law.5 SO ORDERED.10

At the arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6 The RTC brushed aside accused-appellant's plea of self-defense. According to the RTC, accused-appellant failed to
prove all the requisites of self-defense, namely: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim: (2) reasonable
Trial on the merits ensued. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself or herself. It held that the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant was the
Version of the Prosecution unlawful aggressor when he suddenly entered the victim's house and stabbed the victim on the right side of his body
and belly.11 It appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery, but discounted the circumstance of evident
The prosecution presented Joy Villanueva (Joy), the daughter of Honorio Villanueva (victim); and Angelica premeditation as it was not adequately proven.12
Villanueva (Angelica), the widow of the victim.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The following are the facts established by the prosecution, to wit:
The CA Ruling
On August 4, 1997[,] around ten o'clock in the evening, Joy Villanueva, who was then sixteen (16) years old, was in
their house at Brgy. San Gabriel, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro studying her lesson in the small kitchen of the house. 13
In the assailed Decision dated May 29, 2018, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RFC Decision, but
Nearby about a meter away was Joy's father Honorio Villanueva who was then taking his meal on a separate table. increased the awards of moral and exemplary damages to P75,000.00, respectively, thus:
Joy's mother Angelica Villanueva was then upstairs attending to Joy's brother Leo, then four (4) years old, who was
about to sleep. With them was Joy's other sibling Shieley, then seventeen (17) years old, who was also studying. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed 24 June 2015 Decision of the RTC is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as the amounts of moral damages and exemplary

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 1/9 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 2/9

5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895 5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895

damages, which are hereby ordered increased to P75,000.00, respectively. Accordingly, appellant is WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION CONVICTING THE
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following: ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF MURDER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE CRUCIAL LINK BETWEEN THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY
1. P75,000.00 as moral damages; THE VICTIM AND THE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH.

2. P75,000.00 as civil indemnity: Our Ruling

3. P75,000.00 as exemplary damages: The appeal is unmeritorious.

4. P4,051.60 as actual damages; and Well settled is the rule that the matter of ascribing substance to the testimonies of witnesses is best discharged by
the trial court, and the appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court in this
5. P20,000.00 as temperate damages. respect.28 Findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are
accorded with respect, if not finality by the appellate court, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts,
The aforementioned damages shall be subject to interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.29 The reason is quite
annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. simple: the trial judge is in a better position to ascertain the conflicting testimonies of witnesses after having heard
them, and observed their deportment and mode of testifying during the trial.30 The task of taking on the issue of
SO ORDERED.14
credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court.31 Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate evidence
The CA upheld the RTC Decision and ratiocinated that accused-appellant failed to prove the elements of self- that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court.32
defense. It affirmed the RTC's findings that accused-appellant's plea of self-defense was uncorroborated; thus, it
deferred to the RTC's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and findings of fact.15 However, it increased the After judicious perusal of the records of the instant appeal, the Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the
awards of exemplary and moral damages to P75,000.00 each.16 RTC and CA's uniform factual findings. The Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction.
ℒαwρhi৷

Accused-appellant failed to
Hence, the instant appeal before the Court.
prove self-defense.
17
Accused-appellant filed a manifestation that he is adopting all the arguments raised in his appellant's brief. On the
Accused-appellant invokes self-defense and argues that the unlawful aggressor during the incident was the victim.
other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) similarly manifested that for purposes of expediency, it will no
In raising the plea of self-defense, accused-appellant admitted that he killed the victim due to the victim's
longer file a supplemental brief, considering that it has already made an exhaustive and extensive discussion in its
aggression.
appellee's brief before the CA.18
An admission of self-defense frees the prosecution from the burden of proving that the accused committed the act
In his Brief for the Accused-Appellant,19 accused-appellant argues that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him of
charged against him or her.33 The burden is shifted to the accused to prove that his or her act was justified.34
the crime of Murder despite the absence of the link between the injuries sustained by the victim and the cause of
death; that the stab wound sustained by the victim was not the immediate cause of his death;20 that the prosecution In People v. Guarin,35 the Court discussed:
failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery; that there was no showing that he deliberately chose the
method of assault with the particular objective of accomplishing the alleged killing of the victim;21 that all the Considering that self-defense is an affirmative allegation and totally exonerates the accused from any criminal
elements of self-defense are present; that it was the victim who grabbed him by his collar which made him angry liability, it is well settled that when it is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove it by credible,
and could no longer control his feelings;22 and that it was the victim who was the unlawful aggressor and not clear, and convincing evidence. The accused, claiming self-defense, must rely on the strength of his own evidence
accused-appellant. and not on the weakness of the prosecution. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by
independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.36
On the other hand, the OSG, in its Appellee’s Brief,23 counters that accused-appellant's guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt; that it was accused-appellant who was the unlawful aggressor during the incident; that if In order to prove self-defense, the following essential elements must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on the
accused-appellant's version of the incident were true, the conduct of the victim cannot constitute unlawful part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack
aggression contemplated by law to justify the accused-appellant to kill the victim;24 and that the incontrovertible of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself.37 To successfully invoke self-
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses dispute accused-appellant's claim that it was the victim who was the defense, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who
unlawful aggressor during the incident.25 was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.38
Furthermore, the OSG agrees with the RTC's findings that treachery attended the commission of the crime; that the The claim of self-defense must rely, first and foremost, on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the
suddenness and unexpectedness of accused-appellant's act of attacking the victim effectively denied the latter of victim.39 Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self- defense; if
the ability to defend himself or retaliate against the former;26 and that the stab wound inflicted by the accused- there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.40 If no unlawful
appellant is the proximate cause of the victim's death.27 aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.41
Issues In the instant case, it is evident that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. On the contrary, it
was accused-appellant who was the aggressor based on the evidence presented. Joy vividly recalled that at the
I. time of the incident, the victim, his father, was taking his meal, while she was studying just beside the table where
his father was, thus:
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF ALL THE (Direct Examination by Prosecutor Humilito Dolor)
ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE.
xxx
II.
PROS. DOLOR:
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF MURDER QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY Q: You said that Mario Lalap entered your house. Upon entering what did he do?
OF EVIDENCE.
A: He stabbed my father's back while my father was taking his meal, sir.
III.
Q: What part of your house did Mario Lalap use as an entry?

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 3/9 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 4/9

5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895 5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895

A: Through the door of our small kitchen, sir. choice of entry to the house of the victim by using the kitchen door instead of the main door were employed by
accused-appellant to ensure the killing of the unsuspecting victim.
COURT:
The stab wound is the
Q: By the way, at what time was that when according to you, the accused stabbed your father at the back while your proximate cause of the victim's
father was eating meal? death.

A: More or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, Your Honor. Accused-appellant also argues that the CA and the RTC overlooked the fact that the stab wound allegedly sustained
by the victim was not the immediate and direct cause of his death.49 He maintains that based on the records, the
Q: How far were you from and when you saw that Mario Lalap, the accused in this case stabbed your father? immediate cause of the victim's death, which occurred nine days after the stabbing incident is cardiorespiratory
arrest.50
A: Barely ore (1) meter, Your Honor.
Accused-appellant's argument holds no water.

In Quinto v. Andres,51 the Court discussed that a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and
xxx
logical consequences resulting therefrom unless there was an efficient intervening active force that intervened
Q: And how many times, did you see the accused stabbing your father at the back? between the felony committed and the resulting injury, thus:

A: The accused first delivered one stabbing blow at the back of my father then another stabbing blow after the Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting
accused pulled my father outside. therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. "Natural'" refers to an occurrence
in the ordinary course of human life or events, while "logical" means that there is a rational connection between the
Q: Do you mean that after stabbing your father at the back, the accused hauled your father outside the house? act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the
resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient
A: Yes, Your Honor. intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. The proximate legal
cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all
Q: And did the accused able to pull out your father outside your house? constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor.
A: Not anymore, because the accused stabbed my father on the right side of his belly.42
There must be a relation of "cause and effect," the cause being the felonious act of the offender, the effect being the
Simply told, it was accused-appellant who was the aggressor. It was accused-appellant who suddenly entered the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim. The "cause and effect" relationship is not altered or changed because of
house and stabbed the victim while the latter was eating his meal beside his children. Considering that the element the pre-existing conditions, such as the pathological condition of the victim (las condiciones patologica del
of unlawful aggression was not proven by accused-appellant, self-defense cannot be considered a justifying lesionado), the predisposition of the offended party (la predisposition del ofendido); the physical condition of the
circumstance in the case at bench. The RTC ruling, as affirmed by the CA, was correct in giving more credence to offended party (la constitucion fisica del herido); or the concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the negligence
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who pointed to accused-appellant as the aggressor and the person or fault of the doctors (la falta de medicos para sister al herido); or the conditions supervening the felonious act such
who stabbed the victim. as tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene.

Treachery was clearly proven The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
by the prosecution.
(a) there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the
Accused-appellant likewise asserts that the RTC erred in ruling that treachery attended in the commission of the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
crime because there is supposedly no proof that he deliberately chose the method of attacking the victim.43 He
insists that there is no proof that he made preparations to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution (b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
of the crime.
If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a
Accused-appellant's argument fails to persuade. consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes
cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and methods or act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim.52 (Italics in the original and supplied.)
forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and especially ensure its execution, without risk to himself or
herself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.44 For treachery to be appreciated two While the immediate cause of the victim's death as reflected in the Medical Certificate53 is cardiorespiratory arrest,
conditions must concur, namely: first, the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the the stab wound that accused-appellant inflicted on the vital part of the victim's body is the proximate cause of the
criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or herself or to retaliate; and second, victim's death. The stab wound is the cause which in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient
said means, methods, or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.45 intervening cause, produces the victim's death, and without which the result would not have occurred. Logically,
there is a rational connection between the act of accused-appellant stabbing the victim and the resulting death.
The essence of treachery is "the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving Without the stab wound, the victim could not have been hospitalized and late died therefrom.
the latter of any chance to defend himself [or herself] and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without
risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make."46 Treachery is defined as "the Moreover, there is no evidence that an efficient intervening active force, not connected with or absolutely foreign to
swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his [or her] part.”47 The the stab wound, intervened during the nine-day period which could have caused the victim's death. Thus, even if
attack must be deliberate and without warning which must be done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the there was another factor but such is not an efficient intervening cause, accused-appellant is still criminally liable for
hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.48 the death of the victim because his act of stabbing the victim accelerated or contributed to the victim's death. The
Medical Certificate does not indicate the occurrence of any efficient intervening cause which broke the relation of the
Here, accused-appellant suddenly entered the door of the victim's kitchen and immediately stabbed the victim while felony committed by accused-appellant and the resulting death. ℒαwρhi৷

the latter was having his meal. The unexpectedness of the attack deprived the victim of any chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring the consummation of the offense without risk to accused-appellant arising from the Furthermore, even for argument's sake that the victim was previously suffering a disease or ailment, accused-
defense that the victim might make. It is well to emphasize the fact that accused-appellant was already armed with a appellant is still liable because his act of stabbing the victim hastened or accelerated the victim's death. Thus,
bladed weapon when he entered the victim's house using the kitchen door is a clear indication that such mode of in Garcia v. People54 the Court said:
attack was preconceived by accused-appellant. In other words, accused-appellant employed means in the
ℒαwρhi৷

commission of the crime which directly ensured its execution. The weapon used, the time of execution, and the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 5/9 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 6/9
5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895 5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895
19
x x x although the assaulted party was previously affected by some internal malady, if, because of a blow given with CA rollo, pp. 32-48.
the hand or the foot, his death was hastened, beyond peradventure he is responsible therefor who produced the
20
cause for such acceleration as the result of a voluntary and unlawfully inflicted injury.55 Id. at 41.
21
As for the penalty, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 248 of the Id. at 43.
RPC.
22
Id. at 45.
The award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages
23
are pursuant to People v. Jugueta56 (Jugueta). Likewise, both the RTC and the CA correctly awarded actual Id. at 94-108.
damages for hospitalization expenses of P4,051.60 as this was adequately supported by evidence. However, the 24
award of temperate damages or wake and burial expenses should be increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 to Id. at 101.
conform with Jugueta.57 The imposition of 6% interest per annum on all monetary awards from the finality of the 25
decision until full payment is likewise proper.58 Id. at 102.
26
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Id. at 103.
CR-HC No. 09221 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Mario Lalap is sentenced to suffer 27
Id. at 103-106.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and he is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as civil damages;
P75,000.00 as moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; P4,051.60 as actual damages; and P50,000.00 28
Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020.
as temperate damages. These amounts shall earn an interest of 6% per annum from finality of this Decision until
fully paid. 29
Id., citing People v. Aspa, Jr., G.R. No. 229507, August 6, 2018, further citing People v. De Guzman, 564
Phil. 282, 290 (2007).
SO ORDERED.
30
Id., citing People v. Villamin, 625 Phil. 698, 713 (2010).
Leonen, (Chairperson), Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
31
Hernando, J., on official leave. Id.
32
Id.
33
See People v. Antonio, G.R. No 229349, January 29, 2020.
Footnotes
34
Id.
1
Rollo, pp. 133-134.
35
2
G.R. No. 245306, December 2, 2020.
Id. at 115-124; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De
Leon and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of the Court), concurring. 36
Id. Citation omitted.
3
Id. at 50-60; penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes. 37
Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, February 17, 2020.
4 38
Rollo, p. 4. Id., citing People v. Tica, 817 Phil 588, 398 (2017).
5
Id. 39
People v. Guarin, supra note 35.
6
Id. at 5. 40
Id., citing People v. Tica, 817 Phil. 588, 595-596 (2017).
7 41
Id. Id.
8
Id. at 6. 42
TSN, September 27, 2007 pp. 7-11.
9
CA rollo, pp. 50-60. 43
Rollo, p. 43.
10 44
Id. at 59-60. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
11
Id. at 56-57. Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:
12
Id. at 57-58. xxx
13
Rollo, pp. 3-12. 16. That the act be committed with treachery.
14
Id. at 11-12. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or formsin the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
15
Id. at 9. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
16
Id. at 10. xxx
17 45
See Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated July 8, 2020, id. at 19-21. People v. Dulin, 762 Phil 24, 40 (2015), citing People v. Flores, 466 Phil. 683, 693-694 (2004).
18 46
See Manifestation and Motion dated August 20, 2020. id. at 25-27. People v. Pitulan, G.R. No. 226486, January 22, 2020.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 7/9 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 8/9

5/4/23, 12:36 PM G.R. No. 250895
47
People v. Antonio, supra note 33.
48
See People v. Silvederio III, G.R. No. 239777, July 8, 2020, citing People v. Albino, G.R. No.
49
CA rollo, p. 41.
50
Id.
51
493 Phil. 643 (2005).
52
Id. at 652-653.
53
Records, p. 12.
54
614 Phil. 40 (2009).
55
Id. at 53, citing U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil. 22, 25 (1912). Emphasis omitted.
56
783 Phil. 806, 826 (2016).
57
Id.
58
People v. Pintulan, supra note 46.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_250895_2021.html 9/9
CASE 7
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 252212
July 14, 2021

ANTECEDENTS

On April 20, 2003, at about 8:00 p.m., Emeliza P. Empon (Emeliza)

was inside her house with her boyfriend Eric Sagun (Eric) and neighbor
Marilou Zafranco-Rea (Marilou). At that time, Emeliza and Eric were having
dinner while Marilou was about to use the telephone when an armed man
3&epublic of tbe flbilippines suddenly barged into the house and took Emeliza' s cellphone on top of the
center table in the living room. Emeliza shouted to stop the man while Eric
~upreme QCourt and Marilou froze upon seeing the incident. Thereafter, the man pointed a gun
:iffilanila to Emeliza and shot her on the chest causing her death. The man quickly fled
the scene. 3

SECOND DIVISION Immediately, Eric and Marilou reported the matter to the police station
and described the suspect as "[ m ]edyo malaki katawan. " 4 The police officers
then received an information that the suspect was seen at Mangahan St. Pasig
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 252212 City. The authorities went to the target area and saw a man who matched the
PHILIPPINES, description. The police officers approached the man who tried to run. The
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present: authorities an-ested the man and recovered from him a .38 caliber firearm. The
man was identified as accused-appellant Roberto G. Campos (Roberto). 5 At
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., around 3:00 a.m. the following day, Eric and Marilou confirmed in a police
Chairperson, lineup that Robe1io was the one who robbed and killed Emeliza. 6
LAZARO-IAVIER, Accordingly, Roberto was charged with the complex crime of Robbery with
- versus - M. LOPEZ, Homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch
ROSARIO, and 73, docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-25467, to wit:
J. LOPEZ,'' JJ
That on or about the 20th day of April 2003 , in the C ity of Antipolo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Cou1i , the
above-named accused, while armed with a gun, by means of violence and
intimidation, with intent to gain, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
ROBERTO G. CAMPOS, Promulgated: and feloniously, take, rob and carted away a Nokia 3610 cellphone worth
Accused-Appellant. P8,000.00, of one EMELIZA P. EMPON and by reason [of] or on [the]
occasion thereof, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot said Emeliza P. Empon, thereby
inflicting upon the latter mortal gunshot wound on the chest, which directly
caused her death.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
DECISION
Roberto pleaded not guilty. At the trial, Roberto denied the accusation
M. LOPEZ, J.: and claimed that on the night of April 20, 2003, he was at his friend ' s house
in Santolan, Pasig City. At 12:00 midnight, three (3) police officers arrested
The validity of the out-of-court identification made during a police him, placed a plastic on his head, punched him, and forced him to confess that
lineup is the core issue in this appeal I assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) he committed a crime. 8
Decision2 dated August 5, 2019 in C.A. G.R. CR-HC No. 09642, which
affirmed the judgment of conviction for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
3
T SN , June 20, 2007, pp. 4-6; and February 3, 2006, pp. 2-4.
1
• Designated additional me mber pe r Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021. ' TSN, October 10, 2012, p. 3.
1 5 T SN, July 12, 201 2, pp. 4-5 .
CA rollo, pp. 120- 122.
2 6
Rollo, pp. 3- 15. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, wi th the concurrence of TSN, February 3, 2006, p. 6; and TSN. November 26, 2008, p. 4.
7
Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Ed win D. Sorongon. CA ro//o, p. 54.
8
TSN, December 9, 201 5, pp. 4-8.

I f
Decision 3 G.R. No. 252212 Decision 4 G.R. No. 252212
July 14, 2021 July 14, 2021

In a Decision9 dated February 9, 2017, the RTC convicted Roberto of RTC e1Ted in not giving credit to his alibi.
the crime charged. The RTC held that Roberto killed Emeliza after violently
taking her personal property. The RTC gave credence to Eric and Marilou's RULING
narration of the incident, and the positive identification of Roberto as the
perpetrator of the crime. The RTC rejected Roberto's self-serving and The appeal is unmeritorious.
unsubstantiated alibi, thus:
Witnesses, during criminal investigations, assist law enforcers in
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, accused Roberto G. naiTowing their list of suspects. In many instances, the perpetrator is not
Campos is hereby fow1d GUILTY as charged beyond reasonable doubt and personally known to a witness but can be reasonably identified. One mode of
sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. out-of-court identification is the police lineup where the witness selects a
suspect from a group of persons. 13 It is undisputed that Eric and Marilou
In addition thereto, accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of the
victim, the amount of Php 75,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php 50,000.00 as identified Roberto through a lineup at the pol ice station. In determining the
moral damages; Php 30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and Php 30,000.00 admissibility and reliability of their out-of-court identification, the Court must
as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, [ with interest] all at the rate look at the totality of the circumstances and consider the fol lowing factors,
of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid. namely: (]) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the
crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any
so ORDERED. IO prior description given by the witness; (4) the length of time between the
crime and the identification; (5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the
Roberto elevated the case to the CA docketed as C.A. G.R. CR-HC
witness at the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification
No. 09642 assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 11 On August
procedure. 14 These rules assure fairness as well as compliance with the
5, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings that Roberto perpetrated the
constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court
crime and explained that the eyewitnesses' positive identification prevails
identification, and prevent the contamination of the integrity of in-court
over the uncorroborated alibi of Roberto. The CA found no irregularity in
identification. 15 Here, the eyewitnesses' out-of-court identification of
the police lineup, and noted that the lack of specific description does not
Roberto, satisfied the totality of the circumstances test.
lead to erroneous identification. The CA maintained Roberto's conviction for
Robbery with Homicide but increased the award of moral and exemplary
damages, viz. : First, the Court recognizes that Eric and Marilou had a good view of
the gunman. There was close proximity between the witnesses and the
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The 9 February pe1petrator. They personally observed the incident and narrated how the
2017 Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED WITH assailant barged into the house, took personal property, and shot the victim.
MODIFICATION. Roberto is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery Second, Eric and Marilou's corroborating testimonies indicate a high degree
with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. of attention. They have total focus on the sole perpetrator of the crime and no
Roberto is ordered to pay the heirs ofEmeliza the amounts of P75,000.00 as competing event took place to draw their attention from the incident. The
civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary
witnesses even froze because of the unusual acts of violence committed right
damages, and P30,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards for
damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the before their eyes. Nothing in the records show the presence of any distraction
finality of this judgment until fully paid. that could have disrupted the witnesses' attention at the time of the shooting
incident, or that could have prevented them from having a clear view of the
SO ORDERED. 12 face of the gunman.

Hence, this appeal. Robe1io questions Eric and Marilou's out-of-court Third, Eric and Jvfarilou immediately described the assailant as
identification absent sufficient description of the suspect. Roberto also "[m]e«_vo malaki katawan" before the authorities. The description admittedly
points out Eric's failure to respond to the situation which is inconsistent with is generic and referred to the perpetrator's built rather than his face. Yet, the
his being a member of the Philippine Marine Corps. Roberto likewise argues Court has been lenient in testing the condition as to the accuracy of any prior
that reasonable doubt, as to his guilt, exists when the prosecution did not description. In Lumanog v. People, i n the Corn1 allowed discrepancies
present the paraffin test result. Lastly, Robe1io insists that the CA and the
- - - - ----- - - ··-··- - - - -··--·
13
S<!e Dissenting Opinion of Assllciate Justice Marvic Mario v;cior F. Leonen in People v. f'epi,w. 777 Phi!.
9
CA roilo, pp. 54-62. Penned by Acting Pres iding Judge Leili Cruz Suarez. 29. 68 (2016}.
10 14
Id. at 62. Peopie V . Teehi.1n/\ ee, Jr., :, l 9 Phi!. i n , 180 {l 995).
11 15
Id. at 42-43. People v. Gamer, 383 Phi l. 557, 568-560 (20(10).

r
12 16
Rollo, p. l 4. 644 Phil. 296 (201 0).

/'
Decision s G.R. No. 2522 12 Decision 6 G.R. N o. 2522 12
July 14, 2021 July 14, 2021

between the description provided by the prosecution witness in an affidavit Palompon, Leytc ;mc.1 residing at Mangahan SL Bgy Mangahan,
executed immediately after the crime, and the actual appearance of the Pasig City[.) 2 1
suspects. 17 In this case, the description that Eric and Marilou gave to the
[Marilou's Testimony in CourtJ
police investigators matched the physique of the suspect during the lineup.
Absent any inconsistency, there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the Q: This Roberto Campos, were you able to see him again?
description as to the perpetrator' s physiological feature. In People v. A: The following day, we were able to see him at the police station.
Bacero,18 the Court rejected the contention that the victim's description of the
assailant as "a man having long hair" is wanting the highest degree of Q: Is he in Court right now?
ce1tainty. The Court ruled that "[t]he lack of a detailed description of the A: Yes, sir, that one. (witness pointed to a person who gave his name as
Roberto Campos.) 22
assailants should not lead to a conclusion that the identification was
erroneous.'' The Comt added that although the victim was unable to describe [Eric's Testimony in Court!
in detail the appearances of the assailants, she was able to immediately
identify the appellant when she saw him two (2) days after the incident. 19 Q: Relate the same.
A : While we were eating, my girlfriend was on my right side when
someone entered the house and got the cellphone from the center table
Fourth, there is only a time lapse of seven hours between the
at the sala.
commission of the crime and the out-of-court identification. The crime
happened on April 20, 2003 , at about 8:00 p.m., meanwhile, Eric and xxxx
Marilou identified Roberto in a police lineup at around 3 :00 a.m. the
following day. The Court has considered an identification made two (2) days Q: And who was this person who entered your house?
after the commission of a crime acceptable, 20 The present case, in A: Roberto Campos. x x x
comparison, involves a shorter passage of time. Hence, it can hardly be said
xxxx
that the length of time rendered the positive identification flawed. Fifth, Eric
and Marilou vividly recalled the incident and were unyielding in their Q: After seeing this Roberto Campos enter your house and took the
identification of the perpetrator. In their statements at the initial investigation, cellphone, what happened next?
and testimonies during the trial, they exhibited a high level of certainty that A: HeshotEmily. 23
Roberto was the one who robbed and killed Emeliza. Sixth, there was no
evidence that the police officers had supplied, or even suggested to Eric and
[Marilou's Statement before the Investigators]
Marilou that Roberto was the suspected gunman. We quote from the records:
6. Na, ngayong ika-2 1 ng Abril 2003 sa ganap na ika-3:00 ng madaling
[Eric's Statement before the Investigators] araw ay n[a] gtungo kami ni Eric Sagun sa Himpilan ng Pulisya ng
Anti polo City at dito ay muli kong nakita itong lalaki na nagnakaw ng
T: Tumingin ka dito sa ilang kalalakihan na nandito sa loob ng cellphone ni Emeliza Sagun at bumaril din sa kaniya at ito ay nakilala
Investigation Room ng Antipol o CPS mayroon ka bang ko na si ROBERTO CAMPOS y GAUT, 29 taong gulang,
namumuk[h]aan dito sa mga narito na mayroong kaugnayan sa may-asawa, Const Worker at nakatira sa Mangahan St[. ,"I Mangahan,
pagkakabruil sa girlfriend mong si EMELIZA EMPON? Pasig C ity[.] 24

S: Opo, siya po and bumaril sa girlfriend ko matapos niyang kunin and

[ang] cellphone. (Affiant pointing lo one ROBERTO CAMPOS y [Eric's Testimony in Court]
GAU T, 29 years old, married, construction worker, native of
Q: Why did you positively say that Roberto Campos shot Emelita
Empon?
A: Because f was there.
17 Id. at 400-40 I. The Court stated that er-timate of age cannot be made acc urately. It was possible that the
accused was exposed to sunlight due w his occuparion, which was why he appeared to the witness older than xxxx
his actual age. The mzjority also :.1cc:.:pted the explanation of the prosec:ution that the reason why the other
accused was fair-skinned, contra1) ' to the ,nitial description of the witness that he was dark-skinned, was
because of the prolonged incarceration of the acc used befo1 " trial.
8
; 790 Phil. 745 (2016).
19 Id. at 762. The Court explained that ··rvJictims of violent crimes have varying reactions to shocking events . 21
Records. p. 5 .
Juiiet cannot be expected tc immediately remember the detailed features of the assailants' faces as she was 22
TSN, Febrnary 3, 2006, p. 6.
still in a state of shuck." 2
~ TSN, June 20, 2007. pp. 4-5 .
20

t
See People v. Tcehanla::e, Jr., s1,pra nc,re 13, at i 46-1 49. 24
Records, p. 8.

r
Decision 7 G.R. No. 2522 12 Decision 8 G.R. No . 252212
July 14, 2021 July 14, 202 1

Q: If Roberto Campos is in Couri, can you identify him? Eric's reaction is just natural and cannot be rendered incredible for the sole
A: Yes, sir, that one. (vvitness pointing to a person who gave his name as reason that he should not have acted the way he did in view of his
Roberto Campos). 25
occupation. 32 Finally, the prosecution's non-presentation of the paraffin test
Q: Why were you not able to use the telephone?
result is already irrelevant considering the positive identification of Roberto
A: Because Roberto Campos immediately entered the house of by the witnesses. The procedure is even unreliable and serves to establish
E melisa and got her eel Iphone placed on the center table. only the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites but is inconclusive as to its
xxxx source. In any event, a paraffin test is not indispensable in proving the guilt
of the accused. 33
Q: How did Roberto Campos enter the house?
A: lt was very sudden, and he immediately grabbed the cellphone.
Anent Roberto's criminal liability, Robbery with Homicide is a
xxxx composite crime with its own definition and special penalty. Apropos is
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, viz.:
Q: What happened after that?
A: The suspect was about to go out of the door, he again pointed the gun ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidarion ofpersons
at Emelisa and shot her. - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
agair._st or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
Q: You said the person grabbed the cellphone, was he able to get the
cellphone? 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on
A : Yes, ma'm. x x x 26 occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed;
XX X.

Taken together, there is no ground to discredit Eric and Marilou's

In this kind of crime, the offender's original intent is to commit
out-of-court and in-court identifications. The Court fails to see any ground
robbery and the homicide must only be incidental. The killing may occur
that would invalidate the eyewitnesses' positive identification of Roberto. On
before, during, or even after the robbery. 34 "[I]t is only the result obtained,
this point, we stress that the CA and the RTC's assessment on the credibility
without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or
of the prosecution witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies are given
persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be taken into
the highest degree of respect,2 7 especially if there is no fact or circumstance
consideration." 35 It is immaterial that the death would follow by mere
of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied,
accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery; or
which could affect the result of the case. 28 To be sure, the prosecution
that two or more persons are killed; or that aside from homicide, rape,
witnesses harbored no ill motive to falsely testify against Roberto. 29
intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason of,
Corollarily, Roberto's uncon-oborated denial and alibi cannot prevail over
or on the occasion of the crime. It is also of no moment that the victim of
the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses. These negative
homicide is one of the robbers. The word ' homicide' is used in its generic
defenses are self-serving and undeserving of weight in law absent clear and
sense which includes murder, paiTicide, and infanticide. 36 As such, the crime
convincing proof. 30 Notably, Roberto did not adduce evidence that he was
is Robbery with Homicide when the killing was committed to fac ilitate the
somewhere else when the crime was committed, and that it was physically
taking of the property, or the escape of the culprit; to preserve the possession
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene, or its immediate vicinity
of the loot to prevent the discovery of robbery; or to eliminate witnesses in
at the time of its commission. 3 1
the commission of the crime. 37 Specifically, the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide has the following elements, to wit: (1) the taking of
Similarly, Roberto cannot capitalize on Eric's failure to respond
personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the
consistent with his being a member of the Philippine :t-vfarine Corps. As the
property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with animus
CA aptly observed, human nature suggests that people react differently on a
lucrandi; and ( 4) on the occasion of the robbery, or by reason thereof,
particular situation. There is no standard human behavioral response when
one is confronted with an unusual , strange) or frightful experience. Thus,
32
See Kummer v. People, 7 ! 7 Phii. 670 , 682-683 (201 3); see a lso People v. Poblu, 41.5 Phil. 242, 255
25 (2001 ); and People v. Rance:.!, 338 Phil. 749, 75 5 ( 1997).
T SN. June 20. 2007, pp. > 4
26 33 People v. D e Guzman, 320 Phii i58, i69 ( i99S), llisan vs. Pt?nple, 649 ~-hil. 151 , 16 1- 162 (2010); and
CA rollo, pp. 58-60.
27 People vs. Cajumocan, 474 Phil. 349, 357 (2004).
P,wple v. Mutignas, 42 8 Phil. 834, 868-869 (:2002 ) .
28 34
People v. Oroscu. 757 Phil. 299, 3 IO (2015 ). People v. Pa/emu, G.R. ·i--.:o. 228000, July 10, 2019, ciiing People v. De Je,1us , 473 Phil. 405, 427-428
29
See People v. A h,ierra, 833 Phil. '276, 290 ( ?U18). (2004). See a lso Pw pfe v. /11/ancao, G. R. No. 22895 I, Ju iy 17, 20 19.
30 35
Peuple v. Togaha,;., 551 Phil. 997, IO L<- i 0 l 4 ( 200 7). People' v. ,'vtungulabnan, G .R. No. L-8 9 19. September 28, i 956.
1 36
~ People v. Espina, 383 Phil. 6 56. 663 (2000) Fevple v. Baniel, 341 Phil. 47 1, 48 i (1997); People v. f'cople v. Ebet, 649Phil. 18 1, 189(20!0).
37
Pataw aran, 274 SCRA 130. l 39 (1997) ; and People v h"e•1so11, 337 Phil. 318, 324 ( 1997). People v. [Jbane:r] , 7 10 Phil. 728, 744 (201 31, citing People v. De Leoi1, 608 Phi l. 70 1. 718 (2009).

f
Decision 9 G.R. No. 252212 Decision 10 G.R. No. 252212
July 14, 2021 July 14,2021

homicide was committed.38 WE CONCUR:

All the elements are present in this case. Eric and Marilou were
certain that it was Roberto, armed with a gun, who barged into the house and
divested Emeliza of her cellphone. Evidently, the taking was with intent to ESTELA M ~ ~-BERNABE
gain, and was accomplished with intimidation against persons. Emeliza Senior Associate Justice
shouted to stop Roberto while Eric and Marilou froze upon seeing the Chairperson
incident. Thereafter, Roberto pointed his gun to Emeliza and shot her on the
chest causing her death. Verily, the primary objective of Roberto was to rob,
and the killing of the victim was only incidental to prevent his apprehension
and facilitate his escape. A RICA
Associate Justice
To conclude, the crime of Robbery with Homicide carries the penalty
of reclusion p erpetua to death. Absent any aggravating circumstance, the CA
and the RTC appropriately imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. In line with current JHOSE~OPEZ
jurisprudence, the CA correctly increased the amount of moral and Associate Justice
exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each. Also, the Court finds it proper to
increase the award of temperate damages to P50,000.00 considering that no
documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses was submitted in court. 39 ATTESTATION
Finally, the Court directs Roberto to return the stolen item, or to pay its
monetary value in the amount of P8,000.00, if restitution is no longer I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
possible. 40 consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of
Appeals' Decision dated August 5, 2019 in C.A. G.R. CR-HC No. 09642 is wJ/'
hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Roberto G. Campos is found ESTELA M.~·RLAS-BERNABE
GUILTY of Robbery with Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Senior Associate Justice
reclusion perpetua. He is also DIRECTED to pay the heirs of Emeliza P. Chairperson
Empon the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75 ,000.00 as moral
damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate
damages, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% p er annum from the finality
of judgment until full payment. 41 Lastly, Roberto G. Campos is ORDERED
CERTIFICATION
to pay the monetary value of the stolen item in the amount P8,000.00 if
restitution is no longer possible.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
SO ORDERED. Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

38
People v. Madrelejos, 828 Phi l. 732, 737(2018).
39
See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 846-847(2016).
40
People v. Paran, G.R. No. 241322. September 8, 2020; and People v. Bacyaan, G.R. No. 23 8457,
Septe mber 18, 2019.
41
Nacar v. Galle1y Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (201 3).