People vs Vallejo
from the victim’s body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to
her neighbor’s house to seek help in an assignment. It was a Saturday. Gerrico
Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her assignment. At 5pm of the same day,
Daisy’s mom noticed that her child wasn’t home yet. She went to Vallejo’s house
and Daisy wasn’t there. 7pm, still no word of Daisy’s whereabouts. The next
morning, Daisy’s body was found tied to a tree near a river bank. Apparently, she
was raped and thereafter strangled to death.
In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejo’s house to question the latter
as he was one of the last persons with the victim. But prior to that, some neighbors
have already told the police that Vallejo was acting strangely during the afternoon
of July 10. The police requested for the clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy
disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes were submitted for processing.
The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic Biologist of
the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal, he also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek
swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from Daisy’s body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan
found that there were bloodstains in Vallejo’s clothing – Blood Type A, similar to
that of the victim, while Vallejo’s Blood Type is O.
Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained Vallejo’s DNA profile.
Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the crime. But
when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the sworn statement was coerced; that he
was threatened by the cops; that the DNA samples should be inadmissible because
the body and the clothing of Daisy (including his clothing – which in effect is an
admission placing him in the crime scene – though not discussed in the case) were
already soaked in smirchy waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo was convicted and
was sentenced to death by the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as evidence.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Dr. Buan are conclusive.
The court reiterated that even though DNA evidence is merely circumstantial, it can
still convict the accused considering that it corroborates all other circumstantial
evidence gathered in this rape-slay case.
The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA evidence in this
case and for the first time recognized its evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus:
DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which contains his or her
genetic code. Except for identical twins, each person’s DNA profile is distinct and
unique.
When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or
evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the
suspect and the victim.
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between
the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected are
subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile.32 The test may
yield three possible results:
1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different
sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or
discussion;
2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the
samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of
reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the
protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a
different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source
(inclusion). In such a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds
to determine the statistical significance of the Similarity.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should
consider, among others things, the following data: how the samples were collected,
how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the tests.
PEOPLE VS. YATAR (2004)
FACTS:
On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother’s (Isabel Dawang’s)
house, despite her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other former’s
housemate-relatives left in the morning. At 10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar
was seen at the back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during said date. At
12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin saw Yatar, who was then wearing a white
shirt with collar and black pants, descended from the second floor and was pacing
back and forth at the back of Isabel Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t find this unusual
since Yatar and his wife used to live therein. At 1:30 PM, Yatar called upon Judilyn,
telling the latter that he would not be getting the lumber he had been gathering.
This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black shirt (without collar and
blue pants; and noticed that the latter’s eyes were“reddish and sharp”. Accused-
appellant asked about the whereabouts of Judilyn’s husband, as the former
purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar immediately left when Judilyn’s
husband arrived. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found the
lights of her house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened, and the
containers, which she asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon ascending
the second floor to check whether the teenage girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the
door therein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeeded opening the tied door
with a knife, and as she groped in the darkness of the second level of her house,
she felt Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines protruding out
from it. Soon after, police came to the scene of the crime to provide assistance.
Therein, they found Kathylyn’s clothes and undergarments beside her body.
Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with blood was also found 50-
meters away from Isabel’s house. Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon
examination of Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing, results
showed that the DNA comprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatar’s
genotype. Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide
and was convicted for the same by the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga.
Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in order to assail
the court a quo’s decision. On appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in
giving much weight to the evidence DNA testing or analysis done on him, in lieu of
the seminal fluid found inside the victims (cadaver) vaginal canal; (2) the blood
sample taken from is violative of his constitutional right against self-incrimination;
and the conduct of DNA testing is also in violation on prohibition against ex-post
facto laws.
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen may be
used as evidence for Yatar’s conviction?
HELD Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which was three (3)
years before the Rules on DNA evidence took effect.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US case of Daubert vs. Merrell
Dow as a precedent. In the said US jurisprudence, it was ruled that pertinent
evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used, so long as the same
is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. Hence, it was called then as the DAUBERT TEST.
RULE:
At present, SECTION 7, RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE may be used as the legal basis.
Sec. 7 of the Rules on DNA evidence, which took effect on 2007, provides for the
factors to be considered in assessing the probative weight or value to be given on
evidence derived or generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are, to wit:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of
the samples; (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of
the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
conducting the tests; (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is
not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic
casework and credibility shall be properly established; and (d) The
reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
APPLICATION
DAUBERT TEST:
The Honorable Supreme Court in this case upheld the probative value of the DNA
test result yielded from the analysis of Yatar’s blood sample from that of the semen
specimen obtained from the cadavers vaginal canal. Accordingly, it held that the
DNA evidence is both reliable and relevant.
In ascertaining the relevance of the evidence in a case, it must be determined
whether or not the same directly relates to a fact in issue, as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. In this case, the evidence is relevant in determining the
perpetrator of the crime;
In giving probative value on the DNA testing result, yielded from the analysis of
Yatars blood sample from that of the biological sample (semen) obtained from the
victim’s vaginal canal, the trial court considered the qualification of the DNA
analyst, the facility or laboratory in which the DNA testing had been performed,
and the methodology used in performing the DNA test. In the said case, the DNA
test was done at theUP National Science Research Institute (NSRI). The method
used wasPolymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem
Repeat (STR) analysis , which enables a tiny amount of DNA sequence to be
replicated exponentially in a span of few hours. Hence, sufficient DNA analysis may
be made easier even with small DNA samples at hand. The analyst who performed
the procedure was Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria, who is a duly qualified
expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques.
CONCLUSION:
Hence, apart from the other sets of circumstantial evidence correctly appreciated
by the trial court, the said DNA evidence is sufficient to be admitted as evidence to
warrant the accused-appellants conviction of the crime of Rape with Homicide.
WHAT IS DNA?
culled from this case
DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms.23
A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does notchange throughout a
person’s lifetime; the DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA found in his
saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue,
and vaginal and rectal cells.24 Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in
human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable
exception of identical twins; DNA print or identification technology has been
advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate
a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes
of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory
and exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate
account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty,
securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of
justice in every case.
DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or
eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used.26
Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin
tissue, semen, blood, or saliva which can be left on the victim’s body or at the
crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also
be transferred to the victim’s body during the assault.27 Forensic DNA evidence is
helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a
victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime scene or assailant, DNA can be
compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.
ESTATE OF ROGELIO ONG VS JOANNE RODGIN DIAZ
G.R. No. 171713 December 17 2007
FACTS:
The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate and
Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the
minor Joanne. Trial court formerly rendered a decision and declared the
minor to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering
him to support the child until she reaches the age of majority. Rogelio died
during the pendency of the case with the CA. The Estate filed a motion for
reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a dead person cannot be
subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity testing, as current
jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of
settling the present paternity dispute."
ISSUE:
Whether or not DNA analysis can still be done despite the death of Rogelio.
RULING:
Yes.
The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA
testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his
DNA. New Rules on DNA Evidence allows the conduct of DNA testing by using
biological samples--organic material originating from the person's body, ie.,
blood, saliva, other body fluids, tissues, hair, bones, even inorganic
materials- that is susceptible to DNA testing.
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or
would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained
from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead
parent could be resorted to. (People vs Umanito, citing Tecson vs Comelec 424
SCRA 277)
JESSE U. LUCAS V. JESUS S. LUCAS G.R. No. 190710, [June 6, 2011]
FACTS:
Petitioner, Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with a Motion for
the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC). Jesse alleged that he is the son of his mother Elsie who got acquainted
with respondent, Jesus S. Lucas in Manila. He also submitted documents
which include (a) petitioner’s certificate of live birth; (b) petitioner’s
baptismal certificate; (c) petitioner’s college diploma, showing that he
graduated from Saint Louis University in Baguio City with a degree in
Psychology; (d) his Certificate of Graduation from the same school;
(e) Certificate of Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College
of Music; and (f) clippings of several articles from different newspapers about
petitioner, as a musical prodigy.
Jesus learned of this and he filed a Special Appearance and Comment
manifesting that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore
summons should be served on him. Meanwhile, Jesse filed a Very Urgent
Motion to Try and Hear the Case which the RTC found to be sufficient in form
and hence set the case for hearing. Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration
arguing that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation
pointing to him as Jesse’s father.
Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the case and
held that Jesse failed to establish compliance with the four procedural aspects
for a paternity action enumerated in the case of Herrera v. Alba namely,
a prima faciecase, affirmative defences, presumption of legitimacy, and
physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.
This prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC
granted. A new hearing was scheduled where the RTC held that ruling on the
grounds relied upon by Jesse for filing the instant petition is premature
considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place. Jesus filed a Motion
for Reconsideration which was denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favour of Jesus, it
noted that Jesse failed to show that the four significant aspects of a traditional
paternity action had been met and held that DNA testing should not be
allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case.
ISSUE:
Whether aprima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA
testing order
HELD:
Yes, but it is not yet time to discuss the lack ofa prima facie case vis-à-vis the
motion for DNA testing since no evidence has, as yet, been presented by
petitioner.
RATIO:
Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals. The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four significant
procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face
has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is
confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the
parties have presented their respective evidence. They are matters of evidence
that cannot be determined at this initialstage of the proceedings, when only
the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The CA’s observation that
petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case is herefore misplaced. A prima
facie case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the
initiatory pleading.
Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are
aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. It states that
the appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or
on application of any person, who has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and
notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample
exists that is relevant to the case;(b) The biological sample: (i) was not
previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was
previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may
require confirmation for good reasons; (c) The DNA testing uses a
scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential
to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the
case; and (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order,
at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit
or proceeding is commenced. This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing
order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said
conditions are established.
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must
be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity
or “good cause” for the holding of the test. In these states, a court order
for blood testing is considered a “search,” which, under their Constitutions (as
in ours), must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid.
Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was
imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause. Courts
in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which
are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that a
preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order
compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a
preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood
testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of
paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and
a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause
hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of
a court order for blood testing The same condition precedent should be
applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere
harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the
petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable
possibility of paternity.”
EBREO VS EBREO READ THE FULL TEXT
ATIENZZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINE
Facts:
1. Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal
Medical Center (RMC) for check-up on February 1995.
2. Sometime in 1999, due to the same problem, she was referred to Dr. Pedro
Lantin III of RMC who, accordingly, ordered several diagnostic laboratory
tests. She underwent kidney operation after the tests revealed that her left
kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing.
3. Private respondent’s husband Romeo Sioson then filed a complaint for
gross negligence and/or incompetence before the Board of Medicine for the
removal of Editha’s fully functional right kidney, instead of the left, against
the doctors who allegedly participated in the kidney operation, namely: Dr.
Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin, III, Dr. Gerardo Antonio Florendo and
petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza.
4. After Romeo Sioson presented his evidence, Editha filed her formal offer
of documentary evidence, which consisted of certified photocopies of X-Ray
request forms where interpretation of the ultrasound results were written,
for the purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in their proper
anatomical locations at the time she was operated.
5. Petitioner filed his comments/objections to Editha’s formal offer of
exhibits, alleging that said exhibits are inadmissible because the same are
mere photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, intended to
establish matters which are hearsay, and incompetent to prove the purpose
for which they are offered.
6. The formal offer of documentary exhibits of private respondent was
admitted by the BOM. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Order,
which was denied on the ground that BOM should first admit the evidence
being offered so that it can determine its probative value when it decides the
case, and later on determine whether the evidence is relevant or not.
7. Disagreeing with the BOM, Atienza filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Hence, the
present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue:
W/N the exhibits are inadmissible in evidence
Held:
No. Petition denied. To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of
evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies
such as the BOM. Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict
enforcement of the rules of evidence, in connection with evidence which may
appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, we have
held that, “it is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful
or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant,
immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them
beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or
competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be
irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding
them or ignoring them.”
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the
circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves
an issue.
Second, petitioner’s insistence that the admission of Editha’s exhibits
violated his substantive rights leading to the loss of his medical license is
misplaced in light of Section 20, Article I of the Professional Regulation
Commission Rules of Procedure. As pointed out by the appellate court, the
admission of the exhibits did not prejudice the substantive rights of
petitioner because, at any rate, the fact sought to be proved thereby, that the
two kidneys of Editha were in their proper anatomical locations at the time
she was operated on, is presumed under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court on Disputable presumptions.
The exhibits are certified photocopies of X-ray Request Forms filed in
connection with Editha’s medical case, which contained handwritten entries
interpreting the results of the examination. The fact sought to be established
by the admission of Editha’s exhibits, that her “kidneys were both in their
proper anatomical locations at the time” of her operation, need not be
proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice. These exhibits do not
constitute hearsay evidence of the anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys
because the position and removal may still be established through a belated
ultrasound or x-ray of her abdominal area.
Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, the best evidence rule is also
inapplicable. Section 3 of Rule 130 provides:
1. Best Evidence Rule
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject
of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office.
The subject of inquiry in this case is whether respondent doctors before the
BOM are liable for gross negligence in removing the right functioning kidney
of Editha instead of the left non-functioning kidney, not the proper
anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys. As previously discussed, the proper
anatomical locations of Editha’s kidneys at the time of her operation at the
RMC may be established not only through the exhibits offered in evidence.
In fact, the introduction of secondary evidence, such as copies of the exhibits,
is allowed, especially as one of the witnesses testified that the Records Office
of RMC no longer had the originals of the exhibits “because [it] transferred
from the previous building, x x x to the new building” and ultimately, the
originals cannot be produced.
PEOPLE VS COCA READ FULL TEXT
CRUZ VS MINA
Facts:
Ferdinand A. Cruz filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as
private prosecutor, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining
witness.
The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his
appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v.
Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an
agent or friend of a party litigant. The petitioner furthermore avers that his
appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a
written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the
prosecution of the said criminal case.
However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission
for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No.
19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of
the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should take precedence over
the ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan; and set the case for
continuation of trial.
Issue:
whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as
an agent or friend of a party litigant
Ruling:
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior
court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior
courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity without the
supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the
peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent
or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In
any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an
attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized
member of the bar.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend
of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar. (Emphasis
supplied)
PEOPLE VS CARREON READ THE FULL TEXT

SISON VS PEOPLE

666 SCRA 645 – Criminal Law – Crimes Against Persons – Rape; Qualified
Rape
Crimes Against Public Order – P.D. 1866 – Illegal Possession of Firearms
One evening in April 2003, AAA boarded the passenger van of Arnel Sison.
AAA was on her way to work. AAA was the last passenger but when she was
about to reach her place of destination, Sison drove on until they reached a
motel. Sison threatened AAA with a gun hence AAA was helpless. Sison was
able to rape AAA inside the motel. Later, AAA reported the incident to the
police. Several days later, Sison was caught driving the same passenger van.
Recovered from him was a gun for which he had no license to carry (expired).
The trial court eventually convicted Sison for two crimes: kidnapping with
rape and violation of P.D. 1866 (carrying of unlicensed firearm).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the guilt of Sison but ruled that the crimes
should be rape and violation of P.D. 1866. The CA ruled that it is
not kidnapping with rape because the intent of Sison was only to rape and the
detention made upon AAA was deemed absorbed in rape. The CA likewise
ruled that Sison is guilty of violation of P.D. 1866.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sison should be convicted for both crimes.
HELD: No. Sison should only be convicted for rape. Under Section 1 of P.D.
1866, an offender may be convicted of illegal possession of firearms provided
that “no other crime was committed by the person arrested“. In this case,
Sison also committed the crime of rape on the occasion when he was
unlawfully possessing a gun. Hence, pursuant to P.D. 1866, Sison can only
be convicted of rape and the charge for illegal possession should be dropped.
However, pursuant to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the use of a
deadly weapon in the commission of rape shall qualify the crime to qualified
rape. Therefore, Sison is convicted for qualified rape and shall serve the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.