People v. Sarcia
G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009 FACTS: Sometime in 1996, five year old AAA together with her cousin and two other playmates were playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree. Appellant Richard Sarcia, 18 or 19 years old at the time appeared and invited AAA to go with him to the backyard of Saling Crisologos house, whereupon appellant removed AAAs shorts and underwear, made her lie on her back and after removing his own trousers and brief laid on top of AAA and made up-and-down movements which caused AAA to feel pain in her genital area and in her stomach. Unknown to appellant, AAAs cousin followed them and watched the whole incident from a distance. AAAs cousin reported such AAAs mother but was rebuffed. AAAs father was working in Manila at the time. On July 7, 2000, AAAs father filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness which upon review of evidence was upgraded to rape by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ligao, Albay. Medico-legal findings reported absence of introital vulval laceration nor scars but with perforated hymen. On January 17, 2003, the RTC Branch 13 of Ligao City found accused-appellant guilty of rape and fined PHP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 50,000 as moral damages and cost of suit. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision but modified the penalty to death and increased fines of civil indemnity to PHP 75,000, PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages and PHP 50,000 as moral damages. ISSUE: Is the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses which refer only to minor details do not affect the veracity of their testimonies when the principal occurrence and positive identification of accused is made and indeed proves that such inconsistencies speaks of spontaneity and the unrehearsed nature of such undertaking. Inability of the victim, AA, to recall the exact date of the incident cannot discredit credibility of victim since it is not an essential element of the crime. Neither is the delay in filing the crime a stain on the credibility of witnesses since it is common for rape victims to prefer silence for fear and lack of courage. Furthermore, the employment of force, threat, intimidation are not elements of statutory rape, only carnal knowledge must be proven to have taken place. Alibi or denial is the weakest defense as it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. The Court affirms the decision of the CA with the following modifications: (1) death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, (2) PHP 75,000 as moral damages, PHP 30,000 as exemplary damages, and PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity and remanded to the court a quo for disposition in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344.
FACTS: On June 29, 2003 at around 1PM the Intelligence Operative of Concepcion Police Station, Concepcion, Tarlac descended upon L. Cortez St., Brgy. San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac to conduct a search with a warrant upon the house of Raul David accompanied by Brgy. Captain Antonio Cannono and found six (6) sachets of marijuana and three (3) plastic sachets of a substance identified as methamphetamine HCL on top of a locked aparador. At the time the appellant was two meters away in the sala, photographs of seized items were taken and inventoried and signed by Brgy. Captain Cannono Apellant was then charged with violation of Section 11, Art. II, of RA 9165 for illegally possessing 3.865 grams of marijuana and 0.327 grams of methamphetamine HCL. The RTC Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified penalty to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for illegal possession of shabu. ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming with modifications the decision of the RTC? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that in all criminal prosecutions for possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) the offender is in possession of an item or object that is prohibited or regulated, (2) that such possession is not authorized by law and (3) that possession is freely and consciously done. Such were present when PO3 Flores found the six sachets of marijuana and 3 sachets of shabu on top of the aparador and affirmed by Brgy. Captain Cannono when he affixed his signature in the certificate of good search. However, the Court applied the principle that penal statutes are construed in favor of the accused against the state and so affirms the single penalty imposed by the RTC and sets aside the modified penalty imposed by the CA, therefore, the accused is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and shabu. Petition is denied.
PDEA v. Brodett and Jorge G.R. No. 196390, September 28, 2011
FACTS: On April 13, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Muntinlupa charged Richard Brodett and Joseph Jorge for violating Section 5, in relation to Section 26 (b) of RA 9165 after being caught selling and trading 9.8388 grams of methamphetamine HCL on September 19, 2008. Likewise, on April 16, 2009, Brodett was charged for violating Sec. 11 of RA 9165 for possession of various drugs in an incident on the previously noted date. On July 30, 2009, Brodett filed a Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence, among which is a 2004 Honda Accord car registered in the name of Myra S. Brodett that PDEA refused to return as it was used in the commission of the crime and which was supported by the OCP, stating that such vehicle be kept during the duration of the trial to allow the prosecution and defense to exhaust its evidentiary value. On November 4, 2009, the RTC ordered the return of the car to Myra S. Brodett after it was duly photographed. PDEA filed a motion for reconsideration, such being denied. PDEA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was also denied, citing Sec. 20 of RA 9165. ISSUE: Can the car owned by an innocent third party not liable for the unlawful act be returned to its owner although such car was used in the commission of a crime? RULING: The Court ruled that a property not found to be used in an unlawful act and taken as evidence can be returned to its rightful owner but only when the case is finally terminated. The Court further states that the order to release the car was premature and in contravention of Section 20, Par. 3 of RA 9165 which states that property or income in custodia legis cannot be disposed, alienated or transferred during the pendency of the case. Court resolves that all RTCs comply with Section 20, RA 9165 and not release articles, drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and before rendition of judgment, even if owned by innocent third party. Respondents having been acquitted of the crime charged the Court will not annul the orders of the RTC nor reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Petition is DENIED. People v. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2005
FACTS: On or about September 12, 2002 in Mandaluyong City, appellant Ronilo dela Cruz is accused of unlawfully, feloniously and willfully delivering, distributing or selling to poseur-buyer PO2 Nick Resuello 0.03 grams of a white crystalline substance and later identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride for PHP 100. Appellant was charged for violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and was found guilty by the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 211 on June 14, 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000. On appeal the CA affirmed the lower courts decision in toto on November 30, 2006. . ISSUE: Was the arrest of appellant valid and are the evidence admissible in court in accordance with RA 9165? RULING: The Court ruled that the arrest of appellant was unlawful and was not in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165. Evidence seized was not properly processed as the arresting officers failed to comply with the guidelines regarding the custody and control of seized drugs despite its mandatory terms. Marking of evidence, although done at the police station, was not done in the presence of the accused or his representatives, no representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official was present during the inventory of seized drugs nor had such people been required to sign the copies of inventory. No photographs of evidence were taken as prescribed by Section 21, Art. II of RA 9165. Court ruled that evidence presented does not support conviction for violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. In all criminal prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the transaction must have taken place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence and (3) buyer and seller must be identified. Decision of the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 211 is reversed and set aside and the appellant acquitted and released.
Compound, Paranaque City. At 10 PM of October 16, 2002, SPO2 Sanchez, poseur-buyer, gave marked PHP 300 bills to accused-appellant for the purchase of shabu. Upon receipt of the item, Zaida Kamad and her boyfriend, Leo, were arrested. The RTC Branch 259 of Paranaque City found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of methamphetamine HCL. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu? RULING: No, the Court ruled that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must must be established: (1) proof that the transaction took place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence. Records showed that the prosecution through SPO2 Sanchez, established the sale of the prohibited drug shabu by accused-appellant but the RTC and the CA failed to notice the defects in the prosecutions case such as (1) lapse in implementing Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in the handling of the seized shabu and (2) failure of police to comply with the chain of custody rule. For violations of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, no inventory and photographing of seized drugs was done at the place of arrest as well as the presence of the accused as it was being done nor a representative of the media, the DOJ, and any elected pubic official who will confirm that evidence seized were as they were found. Neither was it established by the prosecution why such thing were not followed by presenting (1) justifiable cause and (2) preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of seized evidence as required by the IRR of RA 9165 Section 21-A. For non-compliance of the chain of custody rule, which requires the documentation and description of evidence as it is being processed along the system was neither complied. Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the CA affirming the final judgment of RTC Branch 259 of Paranaque City for the illegal sale of shabu of accused-appellant. Zaida Kamad is hereby acquitted and ordered released from detention.
inside the house and upon returning gave a plastic sachet, PO1 Santos then gave her the 2 marked PHP 100 bills. At which time appellat was informed that she was being arrested for violation of RA 9165. In a decision by Branch 78, RTC of Malolos dated February 21, 2006, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. On appeal, the CA in a decision dated June 7, 2007 affirmed the lower courts decision. ISSUE: Did the trial court err in convicting appellant despite the prosecutors failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that in all criminal prosecutions for violations of RA 9165 the following elements must in all criminal prosecutions for violations of RA 9165 the following elements must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence. In case at bar, Section 21 of RA 9165 was not complied with as PO1 Santos admitted markings of evidence (2 heat sealed sachets) were done at the police station and not in the place of arrest, no inventory or photographs were taken of confiscated items, no representatives of media, the DOJ, and any elected public official was present to to sign the inventory of seized items. PO1 Santos marked the evidence without the presence of the accused, ergo, corpus delicti in this case is not legally extant. Decision of the lower court is reversed and set-aside. Appellant is acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt and released.
by the other members of the buy-bust team. Five more marked sachets containing the same white crystalline substance were recovered from Sam and promptly marked SAU (Sammy A. Umipang) by PO2 Gasid. For the sale of the sachet of 0.05 gram of shabu, which violates Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the RTC of Pasig City sentenced accused-appellant to life imprisonment and fined PHP 500,000. For possession of 5 sachets of shabu wih a total weight of 0.23 gram, which is a violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the same court sentenced accused-appellant to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1day minimum to 14 years, 21 days as maximum and fined PHP 300,000. On appeal, CA affirmed the lower courts decision in toto. ISSUE: Did the RTC and the CA err in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses as sufficient to convict accused-appellant of the alleged sale and possession of methylamphetamine HCL, which are violations of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165 respectively? RULING: Yes, the Court reiterates once again that buy-bust operations, although proven to be an efficient way to flush out illegal transactions, are also susceptible to police abuse. Hence, strict adherence to procedures laid down by RA 9165, specifically Sec. 21, Art. II must be followed. It is evident that said section was blatantly disregarded by the buy-bust team when no proper inventory was done, no photographs taken and no representatives from the media, the DOJ, and any publicly elected official were present. Section 86 of RA 9165 was also not followed as the PDEA was not contacted with regards to the operation. Although failure to follow Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 ipso facto is not fatal to the prosecutions case, it must be shown why such was not carried out by (1) justifiable cause and (2) preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were guaranteed. Court maintains that presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot overrule the step- by-step procedure outlined in RA 9165 as it is a matter of substantive law. The court further asserts that the conduct itself of the buy-bust team was defective for the following reasons: (1) material inconsistencies in the marking of the evidence. This is shown by the admission of PO2 Gasid, who marked the seized items with the accused-appellant initials SAU (Sammy Abdul Umipang) allegedly at the scene of the operation. However, PO2 Gasid admits that prior to the operation he did not know of the identity or full name of the accused, the latter being only known as Sam. It was PO2 Saez, in the police station, who got Sams full name. (2) SAID-SOTF did not show genuine and sufficient third party representatives enumerated in Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 as evidenced by PO2 Gasids admission during cross-examination that no effort was made to contact the barangay captain or any barangay official of Brgy. Maharlika. (3) SAID-SOTF did not properly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory. PO2 Gasid, who prepared such document, did not sign it. Court sets aside the decision of the CA affirming the July 24, 2007 RTC decision and acquits Sammy A. Umipang of the crimes charged herein and ordered released immediately.