PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GGG

G.R. No. 224595, September 18, 2019

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (trial court), Branch 6, Dipolog City, convicting accused-appellant GGG (appellant) of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution presented five witnesses: (1) BBB, the mother of AAA; (2) CCC, the brother of AAA; (3) SPO4 Ronnie Quizo, the arresting officer; (4) Dr. Rolito Cataluna; and (5) Dr. Zita Adaza.

CCC, the 14-year-old brother of AAA, testified that on 28 February 2005, a party was held at their house in Dapitan City for the birthday of his brother EEE's daughter. Among those who attended the party was appellant. After dinner, he and his sister AAA slept in one of the bedrooms, which was visible from the sala where EEE and his guests, including appellant were still drinking Tanduay Rhum. The following morning, at 5:00 a.m., CCC was awakened when he felt the floor shake. CCC saw a man on top of AAA having sexual intercourse with her. AAA was gasping for breath and moaning in pain. When CCC switched on the light in the room, he saw appellant, who was only wearing a big t-shirt but no pants, about to leave the room. Appellant asked CCC for some salt and CCC told him to get some in the kitchen. CCC was scared because appellant just raped his sister. In the afternoon, CCC went to Zamboanga to report the rape incident to his mother BBB.

Dr. Cataluna then explained that the medical certificate states that AAA had lacerations in the vaginal canal which may be caused by biking, or an inserted penis, among others. He added that the result of the urinalysis conducted on AAA indicated the presence of spermatozoa in her vagina.

Dr. Zita Adaza testified that on 30 August 2006, she examined AAA and found her: (1) mentally retarded and mute; (2) totally dependent on her mother; (3) has cardiovascular problem; (4) has a very low mental classification; and (5) has a profound level of 5 which is the lowest level.

VERSION OF THE DEFENSE
Appellant alleged that in the evening of 28 February 2005, he attended the birthday party of EEE's daughter at AAA's house. The party ended at around 10:00 p.m. and he left the party with Eneria, EEE and his friends. At around 12:00 midnight, he slept in the sala of Eneria's house and woke up the following day at 10:00 a.m. Appellant admitted that he went to AAA's house to ask for salt from CCC, but he was there in the evening of 28 February 2005 and not on 1 March 2005. On cross-examination, appellant stated that Eneria's house is very near AAA's house which is only 150 meters away. Appellant admitted that he knew AAA was mute and mentally retarded.

Eneria testified that on 28 February 2005, she and appellant were at the birthday party of EEE's daughter. At around 10:00 p.m., she, her children and appellant left the party and went home to her house to sleep. Eneria testified that appellant slept in her house and that he could not have raped AAA because he stayed in her house the whole night and only left the following day.

ISSUE: Whether appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING
Denial and alibi, which are self-serving negative evidence and easily fabricated, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of a credible witness. The victim's brother, CCC, who witnessed the rape incident, positively identified appellant as the person who raped his sister AAA. Furthermore, as found by theCA and the trial court, appellant's alibi is weak considering that Eneria's house where appellant slept is only 150 meters away from AAA's house, such that it was not impossible for appellant to go to AAA's house on the date and time of the rape incident.

However, appellant should be convicted of qualified rape pursuant to Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the RPC since the Information alleged, and it was proven, that appellant knew at the time of the commission of the crime that the victim AAA is mentally retarded.[12]

Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the RPC, as amended, provides:

ART. 266-B. Penalties. - x x x

x x x x

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

x x x x

10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

In this case, appellant admitted that he knew that AAA is mute and mentally retarded. Since appellant knew of AAA's mental disability when appellant raped her, the proper designation of the crime committed is qualified rape.

Appeal from Labor Arbiter to NLRC

G.R. No. 195109               February 4, 2015

ANDY D. HALITE, DELFIN M. ANZALDO AND MONALIZA DL. BIHASA, Petitioners,
vs.
SS VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., SUNG SIK LEE AND EVELYN RAYALA, Respondents.

An appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. 

In a judgment involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon 

(1) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; 
(2) posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and 
(3) filing of a memorandum of appeal.

Compromise Agreement

A judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final and executory unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law.

Gadrinab v. Salamanca

G.R. No. 194569

June 11, 2014

On Bigamy

Any person who contracts a second marriage without first having a judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, albeit on its face void and in existent for lack of a marriage license, is guilty of bigamy as defined and penalized by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Lasanas v. People, G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014

Hesitate but never stop there. Else, you fail!

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALIM ISMAEL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017
Del Castillo J

Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). 

Elements of Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs

[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;

[2] such possession was not authorized by law; and

[3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

The dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. xxx In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not mark the seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. No explanations were given why markings were not immediately made. At this stage in the chain, there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."

Due to the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item subject of the sale transaction was switched with the seized items subject of the illegal possession case. This is material considering that the imposable penalty for illegal possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the seized drug.

Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The prosecution failed to:

(1) overcome the presumption of innocence which appellant enjoys;

(2) prove the corpus delicti of the crime;

(3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and

(4) offer any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with.

The Court is thus constrained to acquit the appellant based on reasonable doubt.


Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_208093_2017.html

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA

G.R. No. 211724, August 24, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE), FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA, Petitioner 
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS: For almost sixty (60) years, petitioner has been using the surname "Almojuela." However, when he requested for a copy of his birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that he was registered as "Felipe Condeno," instead of "Felipe Almojuela."

Petitioner alleged that he was born on February 25, 1950 and is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), former governor of the said province, and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both deceased. He averred that while his parents did not marry each other, he has been known to his family and friends as "Felipe Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in all of his official and legal documents. In support of his petition, he also presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe Almojuela" appears as his registered full name.

In a Decision, CA held that Petitioner’s failure to implead and notify the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings as mandated by the rules precluded the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case, thereby, reversing the RTC’s Decision

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in nullifying the correction of entry on petitioner's birth certificate on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,

HELD: Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry through an appropriate adversary proceeding.

A reading of Sections 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of notices to potential oppositors: one given to persons named in the petition, and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Consequently, the petition for a substantial correction of an entry in the civil registry should implead as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.

In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, the Court emphasized that in a petition for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby be made respondents for the reason that they are indispensable parties.

Similarly, in Republic v. Uy, the Court nullified the trial court's order to correct respondent's entry for the latter's failure to implead and notify not only the Local Civil Registrar, but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections sought.

In this case, the CA correctly found that petitioner failed to implead both the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings.  Although he claims that his half-siblings have acknowledged and accepted him, the procedural rules nonetheless mandate compliance with the requirements in the interest of fair play and due process and to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.

Moreover, although it is true that in certain instances, the Court has allowed the subsequent publication of a notice of hearing to cure the petition's lack/failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, such as when: (a) earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties; (b) the parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; (c) there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or, (d) when a party is inadvertently left out, these exceptions are, unfortunately, unavailing in this case.

In sum, the failure to strictly comply with the above-discussed requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for correction of an entry in the civil registrar involving substantial and controversial alterations renders the entire proceedings therein null and void.

In Republic v. CA, the Court held that the proceedings of the trial court were null and void for lack of jurisdiction as the petitioners therein failed to implead the civil registrar, an indispensable party, in the petition for correction of entry, viz.: 

The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. As he was not imp leaded in this case much less given notice of the proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer for the correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual all proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment.

x x x x

The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the corrction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/aug2016/gr_211724_2016.html