Page 1 of 6CRIMPROC DIGESTED CASES ~ SET 6

1Hizon v. CA265 SCRA 517

FACTSPetitioner challenges the provision of PD 704, the Fisheries Decree, which provides that the discovery of explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall constitute a presumption that the owner or operator was fishing with the use of explosives or poisonous substance, as a violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence.

ISSUEWON there is a violation of the right to be presumed innocent.

HELDNo. The legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can constitute a prima facie evidence of guilt provided there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed. To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable.

2People v. Gaudia423 SCRA 520

FACTSAccused was charged with rape. The victim was below 7 years old at the time of the incident, but the information merely alleged that she was a minor without stating the precise age.

ISSUEWON the accused be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death?

HELDNo. Since the information did not allege that the victim, was below 7 years old when she was violated, accused was therefore charged with simple rape, under Sec.335 of the RPC, as amended by R.A 7659 (Death Penalty Law). Upon its passage, R.A 7659 introduced 7 new attendant circumstances, which when present, will transform the crime to qualified rape, punishable by death.

3People v. Orbita384 SCRA 393

FACTSAccused-appellant Federico Orbita y Retumba was charged with the crime of Rape in an Information that on or about April 14, 1995, accused-appellant, with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously havecarnal knowledgeof said Marijoy Sumapang y Tijano, a mental retardate, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. Marijoy was twenty years of age albeit her mental state is that of a nine year and three month old child.

ISSUEWON an accused be convicted of rape of a mental retardate under an information which failed to allege the victims mental state and where accused failed to object to evidence of her mental retardation.

HELDYES. Accused has waived his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. The records show that accused did not object to the manifestation made by the prosecution that the victim should be examined first to determine her mental condition. There was no objection from the defense.

4People v. Del Rosario234 SCRA 246

FACTSNormandodel Rosariowas charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions and Illegal Sale of Regulated Drugs. Accused was withoutlegal authority, have in his possession and control a homemade (paltik)caliber .22 revolver with three (3) live ammunition and sellto a poseur buyer analuminum foilcontaining Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as "Shabu", a regulated drug.

ISSUEWON a person charged with sale of Shabu be convicted of possession of the same instead?

HELDNo. Neither can accused-appellant be convicted ofillegal possessionof firearm and ammunition. The search warrant implemented by the raiding party authorized only the search and seizure of ". . . the described quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalia." Thus, the raiding party was authorized to seize only shabu and paraphernalia for the use thereof and no other. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a finishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. The Constitution itself (Section 2, Article III) and the Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. Thus, the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned, much less described with particularity, in the search warrant. Neither may it be maintained that the gun was seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-appellant's arrest was far from regular and legal.

5Alonto v. People445 SCRA 624

FACTSThe Information against accused for violation of B.P. 22 charged her of issuing the posdated check on May 14, 1992. However, the documentary evidence presented and duly marked was BPI Check No. 831258 in the amount of P25,000 dated April 5, 1992.

ISSUEWhether or not the accused can be convicted of the offense?

HELDNo. Since the identity of the check enters into the first essential element of the offense under Sec. 1 of B.P.22, that a person makes, draws or issues a check on account or for value, and the date thereof involves its second element, namely, that at the time of issue the maker, drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not have sufficient funds to cover the same, there is a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense charged in view of the variance.

6Carredo v. People183 SCRA 273

FACTSAccused after arraignment waives his right to appear in court during the trial while under a bond. At the presentation of the principal witness the court issued a subpoena to the accused to appear on trial for the purpose of meeting the witness face to face, however he did not appear with the justification of his waiver. Subsequently the municipal judge issued order of arrest of the accused with confiscation of his cash bond and ordering the bondsman to show cause why no judgment shall be rendered against him.

ISSUEWhether or not an accused may be compelled by the court to appear before the court despite waiver in favor of trail by absentia.

HELDThe court held that such waiver only constitutes a waiver of the right of the accused to meet the witness face to face. It does not in effect deprive the prosecution of its right to require the presence of the accused for the purpose of identification by its witnesses which is vital in the conviction of the accused. It does not further release the accused from his obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused is accorded with the right to waive his own personal right but not his duty and obligation to the court.

7Gimenez v. Navareno160 SCRA 1

FACTSOn August 3, 1973, Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula, Fernando Cargando, Rogelio Baguio and the herein private respondent Teodoro de la Vega Jr., were charged with the crime of murder. On August 22, 1973 all of them were arraigned and each of them pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Following the arraignment, the respondent judge, Hon. Ramon E. Nazareno, set the hearing of the case for September 18, 1973 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. All the accused including De la Vega, Jr., were duly informed of this. Before the scheduled date of the first hearing, De la Vega, Jr., escaped from his detention center and on the said date, failed to appear in court. This prompted the fiscals handling the case to file a motion to proceed with the hearing of the case against all the accused praying that de la Vega, Jr. be tried in absentia invoking the application of Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. Pursuant to the provision, the lower court proceeded with the trial of the case but nevertheless gave De la Vega, Jr., the opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he shows up in court. On November 6,1973, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the five accused while holding in abeyance the proceedings against the private respondent. On November 16,1973 the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration questioning the decision of the trial court on the ground that it will render nugatory the constitutional provision on "trial in absentia" cited earlier. However, this was denied by the lower court.

ISSUEWhether or not under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, an accused who has been duly tried inabsentiaretains his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him

HELDNo. The Court ruled that an escapee who has been duly triedin absentia waives his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him.Upon the termination of a trialin absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented in court. The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross examine the witnesses against him. To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trialin absentia.

8People v. Ferrer406 SCRA 658

FACTSThe appellant Jerry Ferrer was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against Mary Grace Belonio and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay for moral damages. When arraigned on 16 June 1998, appellant pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, appellant, through counsel Atty. Mohd Hassan Macabanding of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), filed an undated Urgent Motion for Medical Treatment.He alleged that he was suffering from an unknown internal sickness which had already claimed the life of another detention prisoner.Afraid that he would suffer the same fate, appellant prayed for his immediate medical treatment at the Provincial or City Hospital.

ISSUEWhat does the right to counsel mean in a criminal case?

HELDThe right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. It means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client.

9People v. Tulin 364 SCRA 10

FACTSAccused were tried for piracy. There were represented by Tomas Posadas who presented and examined 7 witnesses before the court discovered that he was a non-lawyer. Their new lawyer, however, manifested that accused were adopting the evidence adduced when they were represented by a non-lawyer. Convicted by the trial court, they now claim that their right to counsel was violated.

ISSUEWhether or not the conviction be reversed?

HELDNo. The law entitles the accused to be present and to defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. However, it is also provided that rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, etc.

10People v. Larranaga 421 SCRA 530

FACTSLarraaga et al wereconvictedofkidnappingand seriousillegaldetention with homicide and rape on February 3, 2004; and for serious illegal detention. The first crime is punishable by death and the second is punishable by reclusionperpetua. One of the co-accused, James Andrew Uy, alleged that on July 16, 1997, thedateof the commission of the crime, he was only 17 years old and 262 days old. To prove his claim, Uy presented his birth certificate duly certified by the City Civil Registrar and the National Statistics Office.

ISSUEWhether or not Uy is entitled a mitigating circumstance due tominority?

HELDYes. Uy was able to prove his claim hence he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance in both crimes charged against him. This is pursuant to Article 68 and 80 of the RevisedPenal Code, which provides that persons below 18 years of age are entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that imposed by law.

11People v. Bernas306 SCRA 135

FACTSOn August 3, 1994, complainant Manuela Bermas, 15 years old, was raped by her own father, appellant Rufino Bermas, while she was lying down on a wooden bed inside their house at Creek Drive II, San Antonio Valley 8, Paraaque, Metro Manila.Armed with a knife, appellant removed the victim's shorts and panty, placed himself above her, inserted his penis in her vagina and conducted coital movements. After the appellant satisfied his lustful desire, he threatened the victim with death if she reports the incident to anyone. The trial court, in its decision of 02 May 1995, found the case of the prosecution against the accused as having been duly established and so ruled out the defense theory of denial and supposed ill-will on the part of private complainant that allegedly had motivated the filing of the complaint against her father.The court adjudged. The Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the DEATH PENALTY, to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P75,000.00, Philippine Currency, and to pay the costs.

ISSUEWhether or not the right to counsel of accused violated?

HELDYes. Accused was not properly and effectively accorded the right to counsel. The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned. The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections.

12People v. Sesbreno314 SCRA 87

FACTSAccused was charged with murder. Being a practicing lawyer, he insisted on representing himself. Despite prodding by the court and an offer of the possibility of assistance from the PAO, he handled his own defense and was convicted.

ISSUEWhether or not the right to counsel of the accused violated?

HELDNo. Accused acted as his own counsel. The constitutional right of the accused to counsel is not violated where he was represented by a prominent and competent member of the bar, namely himself, even if there were other available. He is now stopped from claiming that the trial court violated his right to be represented by counsel of his own choice.

13People v. Tagana424 SCRA 620

FACTSOn or about September 30, 1995, the accused with intent to kill conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another and with treachery,evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, all being thenarmed with bladed weapons, which they were conveniently provided, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and harm Celestino Buoy, the offended party,who was unarmed, and drunk,by stabbing him several times hitting the latter in different parts of his body and/or inflicting on hispersonseveral mortal wounds whicharethe direct/ immediate cause of his instantaneous death.

ISSUEWON accused was deprived of his right to testify in his own behalf?

HELDNo. The accused had all the right and opportunity to do so. He was properly represented by his counsel of choice and there was no hindrance to his testifying except his own volition.

14People v. Yatar428 SCRA 504

FACTSOn June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmothers house, despite her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other formers housemate-relatives left in the morning. At10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar was seen at the back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during saiddate. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyns first cousin saw Yatar, who was then wearingawhite shirtwith collar and black pants, descended from thesecond floorand was pacingback and forthat the back of Isabel Dawangs house, Judilyn didnt find this unusual sinceYatar 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) andblue pants; and noticed that the latters eyes were reddish and sharp. Accused-appellant asked about the whereabouts of Judilyns husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar immediately left when Judilyns husband arrived. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrivedhome, she found the lights of her house turned off, the door of theground 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 doortherein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeeded opening the tied door with a knife, and as she groped inthe darkness of the second level of her house, she felt Kathylyns 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 Kathylyns clothes and undergarments beside her body. Amongst others, a whitecollared shirtsplattered with blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabels house. Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide and was convicted for the same by the RegionalTrial Courtof Tabuk, Kalinga. Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in order to assail the court a quos 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.

ISSUEWhether or not the rights of the accused not to be a witness against himself violated?

HELDNo. The kernel of the right against self-incrimination is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt.

15People v. Besonia422 SCRA 210

FACTSAccused pleaded guilty to 2 counts of murder. The RTC conducted a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his guilty plea. On automatic review of the death sentences, accused claims that his admissions and confessions violated his right not to testify against himself.

ISSUEWhether or not the contention was correct?

HELDNo. The right against self-incrimination is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him and to avoid a person subjected to such compulsion to perjure himself for his own protection. His plea of guilty and confession or admissions during the searching inquiry cannot be the sole basis for his conviction.

16People v. Abano145 SCRA 555

FACTSThat on or about the 7th day of February, 1980 accused Eugenia Abano, then united in lawful wedlock with Agripino Abano, and conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with Eliseo Cabana alias Lucio Cabana and Pablo Cabana alias Teofilo Cabana, armed with sharp bladed weapons, with evident premeditation and treachery and in consideration of a prize or reward for the accomplishment of their criminal purposes, with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab the said Agripino Abano with the weapons aforecited thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple wounds on the vital parts of the body which injuries caused, as a consequence, the instantaneous death of the victim. The offense was committed with the aid of armed men; superior strength and arms; night time; in consideration of the prize or reward and perpetrated in the dwelling of the victim. Except for the difference in the name of the accused, the absence of the allegation on the accused's relationship to the victim and the fact that Bienvenida Cumad is Identified as the victim, the information for murder in Criminal Case No. CCC-XIV-2148 is also dated May 7, 1980 and couched in basically the same language.

ISSUEWON the testimony of the accused be used as evidence against her during trial?

HELDNo. The rule against self-incrimination positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inuman procedure of compelling a person to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. The absence of counsel when she appeared as witness during the preliminary investigation is an irreparable damage which rendered inadmissible accuseds alleged confession.

17Alonte v. Savellano, Jr.287 SCRA 245

FACTSAlonte was accused of raping JuvieLyn Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion. It was alleged that Concepcion befriended Juvie and had later lured her into Alonetes house who was then the mayor of Bian, Laguna. The case was brought before RTC Bian. The counsel and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. While the change of venue was pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance. The prosecutor continued on with the case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from Alonte. The case was raffled to the Manila RTC under J Savellano. Savellano later found probable cause and had ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion. Thereafter, the prosecution presented Juvie and had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same being due to media pressure and that they would rather establish new life elsewhere. Case was then submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both accused to reclusion perpetua. Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross examine Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised about the details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance.

ISSUEWhether or not Alonte has been denied criminaldue process.

HELDThe SC ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case due to animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing that Alonte waived his right. The standard of waiver requires that it not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting on numerous petitions filed by Alonte. The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified.

18Estrada v. Desierto356 SCRA 109

FACTSJosephErap Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave whileGloriaMacapagal-Arroyoclaims she is the President. From thebeginningof Eraps term, he was plagued by problems that slowly but surely eroded his popularity. His sharp descent from power started on October 4, 2000. Singson, a long time friend of Estrada, went on air and accused the Estrada, his family andfriendsof receiving millions of pesos from juetenglords. The expos immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 19, Estrada fell from power. At 1:20 p.m. of said day, the Erapinformed thenExecutive Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes,Chief of Staffof the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. January 20 turned to be the day of Eraps surrender. On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency. After his fall from the pedestal of power, Eraps legal problems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion.

ISSUEWhether or not Arroyo is alegitimate(de jure) president.

HELDThe SC holds that the resignation of Estrada cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacaang. In thepress releasecontaining his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as thedisability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Estradas reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioners valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in the past tense. Even if Erap can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

..END..SAFA