69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS: From July 8-10, union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the...

8/18/2019 69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS: From July 8-10, union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Ind…

1/114

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.

MEDARIO CALANTIAO DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO!DE CASTRO, J."

This is an appeal f!" the #anua$ % &, '(%' Decisi!n% !f the C!ut !f Appeals in CA-).R. CR.-*.C.

N!. (+(, affi"in in t!t! the #ul$ '/, '(( Decisi!n' !f the Rei!nal Tial C!ut 0RTC1 !f

Cal!!can Cit$, 2anch %'&, findin accused-appellant 3edai! Calantia! $ Di"alanta 0Calantia!1

uilt$ 4e$!nd eas!na4le d!u4t !f vi!latin Secti!n %%, Aticle II !f Repu4lic Act N!. %5 ! the

C!"pehensive Dane!us Dus Act !f '(('.

On N!ve"4e %/, '((/, Calantia! 6as chaed 4ef!e the RTC !f vi!lati!n !f Secti!n %%, Aticle II !f

Repu4lic Act N!. %5 in an Inf!"ati!n,/ the petinent p!ti!n !f 6hich eads7 That !n ! a4!ut the

%%th da$ !f N!ve"4e, '((/ in Cal!!can Cit$, 3et! 3anila, Philippines and 6ithin the 8uisdicti!n !f

this *!n!a4le C!ut, the a4!ve-na"ed accused, 6ith!ut an$ auth!it$ !f la6, did then and thee

6illfull$, unla6full$ and fel!ni!usl$ have in his p!ssessi!n, cust!d$ and c!nt!l t6! 0'1 4ic9s !f died

"ai8uana fuitin t!ps 6ith a t!tal 6eiht !f & . a"s, 9n!6in the sa"e t! 4e a dane!us

du.

The facts, as s$nthesi:ed 4$ the RTC and ad!pted 4$ the C!ut !f Appeals, ae as f!ll!6s7

EVIDENCE OF T*E PROSEC;TION

On N!ve"4e %/, '((/ > > in the aften!!n, 6hile PO% NE?SON 3ARIANO and

PO/ ED;ARDO RA3IRE@ 6ee !n dut$, a cetain EDIN ?O#ERA aived at thei !ffice and as9ed

f! p!lice assistance eadin a sh!!tin incident. Pe ep!t !f the latte, it appeas that 6hile

divin a t!6in tuc9 and tavesin al!n EDSA, 2alinta6a9, Bue:!n Cit$, he had a taffic dispute

0ititan1 6ith a 6hite ta>i ca4 p!"ptin hi" t! f!ll!6 said vehicle until the$ eached al!n th

Avenue Steet c!ne C-/ R!ad, Cal!!can Cit$. Theeat, the passenes !f said ta>i ca4, !ne !f

the" 6as accused Calantia!, alihted and fied thei uns. Supised, ?!8ea c!uld n!t d! an$thin

4ut c!ntinued his divin until he eached a p!lice stati!n nea4$ 6hee he ep!ted the incident.

The p!lice !ffices !n dut$ then 6ee PO% NE?SON 3ARIANO and PO/ ED;ARDO RA3IRE@.

PO% 3aian! testified that the$ i""ediatel$ esp!nded t! said c!"plaint 4$ p!ceedin t! 5th

Avenue c!ne th Steet, Cal!!can Cit$ 6hee the$ f!und the 6hite ta>i. hile app!achin said

vehicle, t6! a"ed "en alihted theef!", fied thei uns t!6ads the" 0p!lice !ffices1 and an

a6a$. PO% 3aian! and PO/ Ra"ie: chased the" 4ut the$ 6ee su4dued. PO% 3aian! ec!veed

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt1


2/114


3/114

al"!st c!llided 6ith an!the ca. Re$es then !pened the 6ind!6 and "ade a fuc9 $!u sin aainst

the pes!ns !n 4!ad !f that ca. That p!"pted the latte t! chase the" and 6hen the$ 6ee cauht

in a taffic 8a", PO% Nels!n 3aian!, !ne !f the pes!ns !n 4!ad !f that !the ca alihted and

9ic9ed thei ta>i. Calantia! and Re$es alihted and PO% 3aian! slapped the latte and utteed,

Putan ina "! 4a9it "! a9! pina9$u hindi "! 4a a9! 9ilala Said p!lice !ffice p!9ed his un

aaina"inati!n 4ef!e the$ 6ee su4"itted f! inHuest at the p!secut!s

!ffice.+

Rulin !f the RTC

On #ul$ '/, '((, the RTC endeed its Decisi!n ivin cedence t! the p!secuti!ns case. The

disp!sitive p!ti!n !f the Decisi!n eads7

*EREFORE, pe"ises c!nsideed, 8ud"ent is hee4$ endeed declain accused 3EDARIO

CA?ANTIAO $ DI3A?ANTA, );I?TJ 2EJOND REASONA2?E DO;2T !f the !ffense !f Vi!lati!n !f

Secti!n %%, Aticle II, R.A. %5, f! illeall$ p!ssessin&. a"s !f "ai8uana fuitin t!ps.

*encef!th, this C!ut hee4$ sentences hi" t! suffe the penalt$ !f life i"pis!n"ent and a fine !f

Five *unded Th!usand Pes!s 0Php5((,(((.((1.5

In c!nvictin Calantia!, the RTC held that the illeal du sei:ed 6as ad"issi4le in evidence as it

6as disc!veed duin a 4!d$ seach afte Calantia! 6as cauht in flaante delict! !f p!ssessin a

un and fiin at the p!lice !ffices. 3!e!ve, the RTC f!und all the ele"ents !f the !ffense t! have

4een dul$ esta4lished 4$ the p!secuti!n.

Aieved, Calantia! appealed& his c!nvicti!n t! the C!ut !f Appeals, assinin the f!ll!6in e!s7

I

T*E CO;RT A B;O)RAVE?J ERRED IN FINDIN) T*E ACC;SED-APPE??ANT );I?TJ

2EJOND REASONA2?E DO;2T FOR VIO?ATION OF SECTION %%, ARTIC?E II,

REP;2?IC ACT NO. %5, NOTIT*STANDIN) T*E FACT T*AT T*E A??E)ED?J

SEI@ED ITE3S ARE INAD3ISSI2?E IN EVIDENCE.

II

T*E CO;RT A B;O)RAVE?J ERRED IN CONVICTIN) T*E ACC;SED-APPE??ANT

DESPITE T*E ARRESTIN) OFFICERS PATENT NON-CO3P?IANCE IT*T*E

REB;IRE3ENTS FOR T*E PROPER C;STODJ OF SEI@ED DAN)ERO;S DR;)S.

III

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt7


4/114


DESPITE T*E PROSEC;TIONS FAI?;RE TO PROVE T*E PROPER C*AIN OF

C;STODJ OF T*E SEI@ED DAN)ERO;S DR;)S.

Rulin !f the C!ut !f Appeals

The C!ut !f Appeals f!und n! eas!n t! !vetun Calantia!s c!nvicti!n. It f!und that thee 6as

sufficient eas!n t! 8ustif$ a 6aantless aest, as the p!lice !ffices 6ee actin !n a leiti"ate

c!"plaint and had a eas!na4le suspici!n that the pes!ns identified at the scene 6ee the

pepetat!s !f the !ffense. ?i9e6ise, the C!ut !f Appeals held that the seach and su4seHuent

sei:ue !f the "ai8uana in Huesti!n 6as la6ful and valid, 4ein incidental t! a la6ful aest. Findin

that all the ele"ents !f the chae !f illeal p!ssessi!n !f dane!us dus t! 4e pesent and dul$

p!ven,%( the C!ut !f Appeals, !n #anua$ %&, '(%', p!"ulated its Decisi!n, affi"in in t!t! the

RTCs ulin.

;ndaunted, Calantia! is n!6 4ef!e this C!ut pa$in f! an acHuittal, addin the f!ll!6in

au"ents in supp!t !f his p!siti!n7

Fist, the plain vie6 d!ctine is n!t an e>cepti!n t! a seach incident t! a valid 6aantless aest.

> > > >

Sec!nd, Calantia! did n!t 6aive the inad"issi4ilit$ !f the sei:ed ite"s.

> > > >

Finall$, the sei:ed ite"s cust!dial chain is 4!9en.%%

In essence, Calantia! is Huesti!nin the ad"issi4ilit$ !f the "ai8uana f!und in his p!ssessi!n, as

evidence aainst hi" !n the !unds !f eithe it 6as disc!veed via an illeal seach, ! 4ecause its

cust!dial chain 6as 4!9en.

Rulin !f this C!ut

This C!ut finds n! "eit in Calantia!s au"ents.

Seach and Sei:ue !f

3ai8uana valid

This C!ut cann!t su4sci4e t! Calantia!s c!ntenti!n that the "ai8uana in his p!ssessi!n cann!t 4e

ad"itted as evidence aainst hi" 4ecause it 6as illeall$ disc!veed and sei:ed, n!t havin 4een

6ithin the appehendin !ffices plain vie6.%'

Seaches and sei:ue incident t! a la6ful aest ae !vened 4$ Secti!n %/, Rule %' !f the

Revised Rules !f Ci"inal P!cedue, t! 6it7

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt12


5/114

Secti!n %/.Seach incident t! la6ful aest.G A pes!n la6full$ aested "a$ 4e seached f!

dane!us 6eap!ns ! an$thin 6hich "a$ have 4een used ! c!nstitute p!!f in the c!""issi!n !f

an !ffense 6ith!ut a seach 6aant.

The pup!se !f all!6in a 6aantless seach and sei:ue incident t! a la6ful aest is t! p!tect the

aestin !ffice f!" 4ein ha"ed 4$ the pes!n aested, 6h! "iht 4e a"ed 6ith a c!ncealed6eap!n, and t! pevent the latte f!" dest!$in evidence 6ithin each.%/ It is theef!e a

eas!na4le e>ecise !f the States p!lice p!6e t! p!tect 0%1 la6 enf!ces f!" the in8u$ that "a$

4e inflicted !n the" 4$ a pes!n the$ have la6full$ aestedK and 0'1 evidence f!" 4ein dest!$ed

4$ the aestee. It see9s t! ensue the safet$ !f the aestin !ffices and the inteit$ !f the

evidence unde the c!nt!l and 6ithin the each !f the aestee.

In Pe!ple v. Vale!s!,%+ this C!ut had the !ccasi!n t! eiteate the pe"issi4le each !f a valid

6aantless seach and sei:ue incident t! a la6ful aest, vi:7

hen an aest is "ade, it is eas!na4le f! the aestin !ffice t! seach the pes!n aested in

!de t! e"!ve an$ 6eap!n that the latte "iht use in !de t! esist aest ! effect his escape.Othe6ise, the !ffices safet$ "iht 6ell 4e endaneed, and the aest itself fustated. In additi!n,

it is entiel$ eas!na4le f! the aestin !ffice t! seach f! and sei:e an$ evidence !n the

aestees pes!n in !de t! pevent its c!nceal"ent ! destucti!n.

3!e!ve, in la6ful aests, it 4ec!"es 4!th the dut$ and the iht !f the appehendin !ffices t!

c!nduct a 6aantless seach n!t !nl$ !n the pes!n !f the suspect, 4ut als! in the pe"issi4le aea

6ithin the lattes each. Othe6ise stated, a valid aest all!6s the sei:ue !f evidence ! dane!us

6eap!ns eithe !n the pes!n !f the !ne aested ! 6ithin the aea !f his i""ediate c!nt!l. The

phase 6ithin the aea !f his i""ediate c!nt!l "eans the aea f!" 6ithin 6hich he "iht ain

p!ssessi!n !f a 6eap!n ! destucti4le evidence. A un !n a ta4le ! in a da6e in f!nt !f !ne 6h!

is aested can 4e as dane!us t! the aestin !ffice as !ne c!ncealed in the cl!thin !f thepes!n aested. 0Citati!ns !"itted.1

In Vale!s!, h!6eve, the C!ut held that the evidence seached and sei:ed f!" hi" c!uld n!t 4e

used aainst hi" 4ecause the$ 6ee disc!veed in a !!", diffeent f!" 6hee he 6as 4ein

detained, and 6as in a l!c9ed ca4inet. Thus, the aea seached c!uld n!t 4e c!nsideed as !ne

6ithin his i""ediate c!nt!l that he c!uld ta9e an$ 6eap!n ! dest!$ an$ evidence aainst hi".%5

In the case at 4a, the "ai8uana 6as f!und in a 4lac9 4a in Calantia!s p!ssessi!n and 6ithin his

i""ediate c!nt!l. *e c!uld have easil$ ta9en an$ 6eap!n f!" the 4a ! du"ped it t! dest!$ the

evidence inside it. As the 4lac9 4a c!ntainin the "ai8uana 6as in Calantia!s p!ssessi!n, it 6as

6ithin the pe"issi4le aea that the appehendin !ffices c!uld validl$ c!nduct a 6aantlessseach.

Calantia!s au"ent that the "ai8uana cann!t 4e used as evidence aainst hi" 4ecause its

disc!ve$ 6as in vi!lati!n !f the Plain Vie6 D!ctine, is "isplaced.

The Plain Vie6 D!ctine is actuall$ the e>cepti!n t! the inad"issi4ilit$ !f evidence !4tained in a

6aantless seach incident t! a la6ful aest !utside the suspects pes!n and pe"ises unde his

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt15


6/114

i""ediate c!nt!l. This is s! 4ecause

4e in the p!siti!n t! have that vie6 ae su48ect t! sei:ue and "a$ 4e pesented as evidence. % The

d!ctine is usuall$ applied 6hee a p!lice !ffice is n!t seachin f! evidence aainst the accused,

4ut n!netheless inadvetentl$ c!"es ac!ss an inci"inatin !48ect > > >.


7/114

0a1 The appehendin !fficetea" havin initial cust!d$ and c!nt!l !f the dus shall,

i""ediatel$ afte sei:ue and c!nfiscati!n, ph$sicall$ invent!$ and ph!t!aph the sa"e in

the pesence !f the accused ! the pes!ns f!" 6h!" such ite"s 6ee c!nfiscated and!

sei:ed, ! hishe epesentative ! c!unsel, a epesentative f!" the "edia and the

Depat"ent !f #ustice 0DO#1, and an$ elected pu4lic !fficial 6h! shall 4e eHuied t! sin the

c!pies !f the invent!$ and 4e iven a c!p$ thee!fK P!vided, that the ph$sical invent!$and ph!t!aph shall 4e c!nducted at the place 6hee the seach 6aant is sevedK ! at

the neaest p!lice stati!n ! at the neaest !ffice !f the appehendin !fficetea", 6hicheve

is pactica4le, in case !f 6aantless sei:uesK P!vided, futhe, that n!n-c!"pliance 6ith

these eHuie"ents unde 8ustifia4le !unds, as l!n as the inteit$ and the evidentia$

value !f the sei:ed ite"s ae p!pel$ peseved 4$ the appehendin !fficetea", shall n!t

ende v!id and invalid such sei:ues !f and cust!d$ !ve said ite"sa"inati!n. '% This C!ut has n! eas!n t!

!veule the RTC and the C!ut !f Appeals, 6hich 4!th f!und the chain !f cust!d$ !f the sei:ed

dus t! have n!t 4een 4!9en s! as t! ende the "ai8uana sei:ed f!" Calantia! inad"issi4le in

evidence.

Futhe"!e, unless it can 4e sh!6n that thee 6as 4ad faith, ill 6ill, ! ta"pein !f the evidence,

the pesu"pti!n that the inteit$ !f the evidence has 4een peseved 6ill e"ain. The 4uden !fsh!6in the f!e!in t! !vec!"e the pesu"pti!n that the p!lice !ffices handled the sei:ed dus

6ith eulait$, and that the$ p!pel$ dischaed thei duties is !n Calantia!. ;nf!tunatel$,

Calantia! failed t! dischae such 4uden.''

It is 6!th$ t! n!te that these au"ents 6ee !nl$ aised 4$ Calantia! !n his appeal. *e hi"self

ad"its this.'/ *is the!$, f!" the ve$ 4einnin, 6as that he did n!t d! it, and that he 6as 4ein

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt23


8/114

fa"ed f! havin !ffended the p!lice !ffices. Si"pl$ put, his defense tactic 6as !ne !f denial and

fa"e-up. *!6eve, th!se defenses have al6a$s 4een f!6ned up!n 4$ the C!ut, t! 6it7

The defenses !f denial and fa"e-up have 4een invaia4l$ vie6ed 4$ this C!ut 6ith disfav! f! it

can easil$ 4e c!nc!cted and is a c!""!n and standad defense pl!$ in p!secuti!ns f! vi!lati!n !f

Dane!us Dus Act. In !de t! p!spe, the defenses !f denial and fa"e-up "ust 4e p!ved 6ithst!n and c!nvincin evidence. In the cases 4ef!e us, appellant failed t! pesent sufficient

evidence in supp!t !f his clai"s. Aside f!" his self-sevin asseti!ns, n! plausi4le p!!f 6as

pesented t! 4!lste his alleati!ns.'+

*ence, as Calantia! failed t! sh!6 clea and c!nvincin evidence that the appehendin !ffices

6ee stied 4$ illicit "!tive ! failed t! p!pel$ pef!" thei duties, thei testi"!nies deseve full

faith and cedit.'5

*EREFORE, pe"ises c!nsideed, the C!ut hee4$ AFFIR3S the #anua$ %&, '(%' Decisi!n !f

the C!ut !f Appeals in CA-).R. CR.-*.C. N!. (+(.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.

MEDARIO CALANTIAO DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO!DE CASTRO, J."

This is an appeal f!" the #anua$ % &, '(%' Decisi!n% !f the C!ut !f Appeals in CA-).R. CR.-*.C.

N!. (+(, affi"in in t!t! the #ul$ '/, '(( Decisi!n' !f the Rei!nal Tial C!ut 0RTC1 !f

Cal!!can Cit$, 2anch %'&, findin accused-appellant 3edai! Calantia! $ Di"alanta 0Calantia!1

uilt$ 4e$!nd eas!na4le d!u4t !f vi!latin Secti!n %%, Aticle II !f Repu4lic Act N!. %5 ! the

C!"pehensive Dane!us Dus Act !f '(('.

On N!ve"4e %/, '((/, Calantia! 6as chaed 4ef!e the RTC !f vi!lati!n !f Secti!n %%, Aticle II !f

Repu4lic Act N!. %5 in an Inf!"ati!n,/

the petinent p!ti!n !f 6hich eads7 That !n ! a4!ut the%%th da$ !f N!ve"4e, '((/ in Cal!!can Cit$, 3et! 3anila, Philippines and 6ithin the 8uisdicti!n !f

this *!n!a4le C!ut, the a4!ve-na"ed accused, 6ith!ut an$ auth!it$ !f la6, did then and thee

6illfull$, unla6full$ and fel!ni!usl$ have in his p!ssessi!n, cust!d$ and c!nt!l t6! 0'1 4ic9s !f died

"ai8uana fuitin t!ps 6ith a t!tal 6eiht !f & . a"s, 9n!6in the sa"e t! 4e a dane!us

du.

The facts, as s$nthesi:ed 4$ the RTC and ad!pted 4$ the C!ut !f Appeals, ae as f!ll!6s7

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_203984_2014.html#fnt3


9/114

EVIDENCE OF T*E PROSEC;TION

On N!ve"4e %/, '((/ > > in the aften!!n, 6hile PO% NE?SON 3ARIANO and

PO/ ED;ARDO RA3IRE@ 6ee !n dut$, a cetain EDIN ?O#ERA aived at thei !ffice and as9ed

f! p!lice assistance eadin a sh!!tin incident. Pe ep!t !f the latte, it appeas that 6hile

divin a t!6in tuc9 and tavesin al!n EDSA, 2alinta6a9, Bue:!n Cit$, he had a taffic dispute0ititan1 6ith a 6hite ta>i ca4 p!"ptin hi" t! f!ll!6 said vehicle until the$ eached al!n th

Avenue Steet c!ne C-/ R!ad, Cal!!can Cit$. Theeat, the passenes !f said ta>i ca4, !ne !f

the" 6as accused Calantia!, alihted and fied thei uns. Supised, ?!8ea c!uld n!t d! an$thin

4ut c!ntinued his divin until he eached a p!lice stati!n nea4$ 6hee he ep!ted the incident.

The p!lice !ffices !n dut$ then 6ee PO% NE?SON 3ARIANO and PO/ ED;ARDO RA3IRE@.

PO% 3aian! testified that the$ i""ediatel$ esp!nded t! said c!"plaint 4$ p!ceedin t! 5th

Avenue c!ne th Steet, Cal!!can Cit$ 6hee the$ f!und the 6hite ta>i. hile app!achin said

vehicle, t6! a"ed "en alihted theef!", fied thei uns t!6ads the" 0p!lice !ffices1 and an

a6a$. PO% 3aian! and PO/ Ra"ie: chased the" 4ut the$ 6ee su4dued. PO% 3aian! ec!veed

f!" Calantia! a 4lac9 4a c!ntainin t6! 0'1 4ic9s !f died "ai8uana fuitin t!ps and a "aa:ine!f supe / stainless 6ith a""!s, 6hile PO/ Ra"ie: ec!veed f!" Calantia!s c!"pani!n a"inati!n

c!nducted 4$ PSINSP. #ESSSE DE?A ROSA evealed that the sa"e 6as p!sitive f! "ai8uana, a

dane!us du.

The f!e!in testi"!n$ !f PO% 3ARIANO 6as c!!4!ated 4$ PO/ RA3IRE@ 6h! testified thathe pes!nall$ sa6 th!se 4ic9s !f "ai8uana c!nfiscated f!" the accused. *e c!nfi"ed that he

6as 6ith PO% 3aian! 6hen the$ appehended said accused and his c!"pani!n and testified that

6hile PO% 3aian! ec!veed f!" the accused a 4lac9 4a c!ntainin "ai8uana, !n his pat, he

c!nfiscated f!" accuseds c!"pani!n a ./ ev!lve.

3R. CRISENDO A3ANSEC, the dive !f the ta>i 6hee the suspects 4!aded 6as als! pesented

in !pen c!ut and testified as t! 6hat he 9n!6s a4!ut the incident. *e c!nfi"ed that !n that date,

t6! 0'1 pes!ns 4!aded !n his ta>i and up!n eachin C-/ R!ad, the$ alihted and fied thee 0/1

sh!ts and an a6a$.

Aside f!" the !al testi"!nies !f the 6itnesses, the p!secuti!n als! !ffeed the f!ll!6ind!cu"enta$ evidence t! 4!!st thei chae aainst the accused7

E>h. A G ReHuest f! ?a4!at!$ E>a"inati!n dated N!ve"4e %', '((/

E>h. 2 G Ph$sical Sciences Rep!t N!. D-%+'/-(/ dated N!ve"4e %', '((/

E>h. C-% G Pictue !f Fist 4ic9 !f "ai8uana fuitin t!ps


10/114

E>h. C-' G Pictue !f Sec!nd 4ic9 !f "ai8uana fuitin t!ps

E>h. D G Refeal Slip dated N!ve"4e %', '((/

E>h. E G Pinasa"an Sinu"paan Sala$sa$ dated N!ve"4e %', '((/ !f PO/ Eduad!

Ra"ie: and PO% Nels!n 3aian!

E>h. E-% G Thei espective sinatues

E>h. F G Sinu"paan Sala$sa$ !f Cisend! A"ansec 0E!ne!usl$ "a9ed as E>h. E1

EVIDENCE OF T*E DEFENSE

The accused !ffeed a diffeent vesi!n !f the st!$. Acc!din t! his testi"!n$, this instant case

!iinated f!" a taffic "ishap 6hee the ta>i he and his c!"pani!n R!""el Re$es 6ee idin

al"!st c!llided 6ith an!the ca. Re$es then !pened the 6ind!6 and "ade a fuc9 $!u sin aainst

the pes!ns !n 4!ad !f that ca. That p!"pted the latte t! chase the" and 6hen the$ 6ee cauhtin a taffic 8a", PO% Nels!n 3aian!, !ne !f the pes!ns !n 4!ad !f that !the ca alihted and

9ic9ed thei ta>i. Calantia! and Re$es alihted and PO% 3aian! slapped the latte and utteed,

Putan ina "! 4a9it "! a9! pina9$u hindi "! 4a a9! 9ilala Said p!lice !ffice p!9ed his un

aaina"inati!n 4ef!e the$ 6ee su4"itted f! inHuest at the p!secut!s

!ffice.+

Rulin !f the RTC

On #ul$ '/, '((, the RTC endeed its Decisi!n ivin cedence t! the p!secuti!ns case. The

disp!sitive p!ti!n !f the Decisi!n eads7

*EREFORE, pe"ises c!nsideed, 8ud"ent is hee4$ endeed declain accused 3EDARIO

CA?ANTIAO $ DI3A?ANTA, );I?TJ 2EJOND REASONA2?E DO;2T !f the !ffense !f Vi!lati!n !f

Secti!n %%, Aticle II, R.A. %5, f! illeall$ p!ssessin&. a"s !f "ai8uana fuitin t!ps.

*encef!th, this C!ut hee4$ sentences hi" t! suffe the penalt$ !f life i"pis!n"ent and a fine !f

Five *unded Th!usand Pes!s 0Php5((,(((.((1.5

In c!nvictin Calantia!, the RTC held that the illeal du sei:ed 6as ad"issi4le in evidence as it

6as disc!veed duin a 4!d$ seach afte Calantia! 6as cauht in flaante delict! !f p!ssessin a

un and fiin at the p!lice !ffices. 3!e!ve, the RTC f!und all the ele"ents !f the !ffense t! have

4een dul$ esta4lished 4$ the p!secuti!n.

Aieved, Calantia! appealed& his c!nvicti!n t! the C!ut !f Appeals, assinin the f!ll!6in e!s7



11/114

I

T*E CO;RT A B;O)RAVE?J ERRED IN FINDIN) T*E ACC;SED-APPE??ANT );I?TJ

2EJOND REASONA2?E DO;2T FOR VIO?ATION OF SECTION %%, ARTIC?E II,

REP;2?IC ACT NO. %5, NOTIT*STANDIN) T*E FACT T*AT T*E A??E)ED?J

SEI@ED ITE3S ARE INAD3ISSI2?E IN EVIDENCE.

II


DESPITE T*E ARRESTIN) OFFICERS PATENT NON-CO3P?IANCE IT*T*E

REB;IRE3ENTS FOR T*E PROPER C;STODJ OF SEI@ED DAN)ERO;S DR;)S.

III


DESPITE T*E PROSEC;TIONS FAI?;RE TO PROVE T*E PROPER C*AIN OFC;STODJ OF T*E SEI@ED DAN)ERO;S DR;)S.

Rulin !f the C!ut !f Appeals

The C!ut !f Appeals f!und n! eas!n t! !vetun Calantia!s c!nvicti!n. It f!und that thee 6as

sufficient eas!n t! 8ustif$ a 6aantless aest, as the p!lice !ffices 6ee actin !n a leiti"ate

c!"plaint and had a eas!na4le suspici!n that the pes!ns identified at the scene 6ee the

pepetat!s !f the !ffense. ?i9e6ise, the C!ut !f Appeals held that the seach and su4seHuent

sei:ue !f the "ai8uana in Huesti!n 6as la6ful and valid, 4ein incidental t! a la6ful aest. Findin

that all the ele"ents !f the chae !f illeal p!ssessi!n !f dane!us dus t! 4e pesent and dul$

p!ven,%(

the C!ut !f Appeals, !n #anua$ %&, '(%', p!"ulated its Decisi!n, affi"in in t!t! theRTCs ulin.

;ndaunted, Calantia! is n!6 4ef!e this C!ut pa$in f! an acHuittal, addin the f!ll!6in

au"ents in supp!t !f his p!siti!n7

Fist, the plain vie6 d!ctine is n!t an e>cepti!n t! a seach incident t! a valid 6aantless aest.

> > > >

Sec!nd, Calantia! did n!t 6aive the inad"issi4ilit$ !f the sei:ed ite"s.

> > > >

Finall$, the sei:ed ite"s cust!dial chain is 4!9en.%%

In essence, Calantia! is Huesti!nin the ad"issi4ilit$ !f the "ai8uana f!und in his p!ssessi!n, as

evidence aainst hi" !n the !unds !f eithe it 6as disc!veed via an illeal seach, ! 4ecause its

cust!dial chain 6as 4!9en.



12/114

Rulin !f this C!ut

This C!ut finds n! "eit in Calantia!s au"ents.

Seach and Sei:ue !f

3ai8uana valid

This C!ut cann!t su4sci4e t! Calantia!s c!ntenti!n that the "ai8uana in his p!ssessi!n cann!t 4e

ad"itted as evidence aainst hi" 4ecause it 6as illeall$ disc!veed and sei:ed, n!t havin 4een

6ithin the appehendin !ffices plain vie6.%'

Seaches and sei:ue incident t! a la6ful aest ae !vened 4$ Secti!n %/, Rule %' !f the

Revised Rules !f Ci"inal P!cedue, t! 6it7

Secti!n %/.Seach incident t! la6ful aest.G A pes!n la6full$ aested "a$ 4e seached f!

dane!us 6eap!ns ! an$thin 6hich "a$ have 4een used ! c!nstitute p!!f in the c!""issi!n !f

an !ffense 6ith!ut a seach 6aant.

The pup!se !f all!6in a 6aantless seach and sei:ue incident t! a la6ful aest is t! p!tect the

aestin !ffice f!" 4ein ha"ed 4$ the pes!n aested, 6h! "iht 4e a"ed 6ith a c!ncealed

6eap!n, and t! pevent the latte f!" dest!$in evidence 6ithin each.%/ It is theef!e a

eas!na4le e>ecise !f the States p!lice p!6e t! p!tect 0%1 la6 enf!ces f!" the in8u$ that "a$

4e inflicted !n the" 4$ a pes!n the$ have la6full$ aestedK and 0'1 evidence f!" 4ein dest!$ed

4$ the aestee. It see9s t! ensue the safet$ !f the aestin !ffices and the inteit$ !f the

evidence unde the c!nt!l and 6ithin the each !f the aestee.

In Pe!ple v. Vale!s!,%+ this C!ut had the !ccasi!n t! eiteate the pe"issi4le each !f a valid

6aantless seach and sei:ue incident t! a la6ful aest, vi:7

hen an aest is "ade, it is eas!na4le f! the aestin !ffice t! seach the pes!n aested in

!de t! e"!ve an$ 6eap!n that the latte "iht use in !de t! esist aest ! effect his escape.

Othe6ise, the !ffices safet$ "iht 6ell 4e endaneed, and the aest itself fustated. In additi!n,

it is entiel$ eas!na4le f! the aestin !ffice t! seach f! and sei:e an$ evidence !n the

aestees pes!n in !de t! pevent its c!nceal"ent ! destucti!n.

3!e!ve, in la6ful aests, it 4ec!"es 4!th the dut$ and the iht !f the appehendin !ffices t!

c!nduct a 6aantless seach n!t !nl$ !n the pes!n !f the suspect, 4ut als! in the pe"issi4le aea

6ithin the lattes each. Othe6ise stated, a valid aest all!6s the sei:ue !f evidence ! dane!us

6eap!ns eithe !n the pes!n !f the !ne aested ! 6ithin the aea !f his i""ediate c!nt!l. Thephase 6ithin the aea !f his i""ediate c!nt!l "eans the aea f!" 6ithin 6hich he "iht ain

p!ssessi!n !f a 6eap!n ! destucti4le evidence. A un !n a ta4le ! in a da6e in f!nt !f !ne 6h!

is aested can 4e as dane!us t! the aestin !ffice as !ne c!ncealed in the cl!thin !f the

pes!n aested. 0Citati!ns !"itted.1

In Vale!s!, h!6eve, the C!ut held that the evidence seached and sei:ed f!" hi" c!uld n!t 4e

used aainst hi" 4ecause the$ 6ee disc!veed in a !!", diffeent f!" 6hee he 6as 4ein



13/114

detained, and 6as in a l!c9ed ca4inet. Thus, the aea seached c!uld n!t 4e c!nsideed as !ne

6ithin his i""ediate c!nt!l that he c!uld ta9e an$ 6eap!n ! dest!$ an$ evidence aainst hi".%5

In the case at 4a, the "ai8uana 6as f!und in a 4lac9 4a in Calantia!s p!ssessi!n and 6ithin his

i""ediate c!nt!l. *e c!uld have easil$ ta9en an$ 6eap!n f!" the 4a ! du"ped it t! dest!$ the

evidence inside it. As the 4lac9 4a c!ntainin the "ai8uana 6as in Calantia!s p!ssessi!n, it 6as6ithin the pe"issi4le aea that the appehendin !ffices c!uld validl$ c!nduct a 6aantless

seach.

Calantia!s au"ent that the "ai8uana cann!t 4e used as evidence aainst hi" 4ecause its

disc!ve$ 6as in vi!lati!n !f the Plain Vie6 D!ctine, is "isplaced.

The Plain Vie6 D!ctine is actuall$ the e>cepti!n t! the inad"issi4ilit$ !f evidence !4tained in a

6aantless seach incident t! a la6ful aest !utside the suspects pes!n and pe"ises unde his

i""ediate c!nt!l. This is s! 4ecause

4e in the p!siti!n t! have that vie6 ae su48ect t! sei:ue and "a$ 4e pesented as evidence. % The

d!ctine is usuall$ applied 6hee a p!lice !ffice is n!t seachin f! evidence aainst the accused,4ut n!netheless inadvetentl$ c!"es ac!ss an inci"inatin !48ect > > >.


14/114

hishe epesentative ! c!unsel, a epesentative f!" the "edia and the Depat"ent !f

#ustice 0DO#1, and an$ elected pu4lic !fficial 6h! shall 4e eHuied t! sin the c!pies !f the

invent!$ and 4e iven a c!p$ thee!fpessl$ specif$ is the "atte !f

"a9in !f the sei:ed ite"s in 6aantless sei:ues t! ensue that the evidence sei:ed up!n

appehensi!n is the sa"e evidence su48ected t! invent!$ and ph!t!aph$ 6hen these activities

ae undeta9en at the p!lice stati!n athe than at the place !f aest. C!nsistenc$ 6ith the chain !fcust!d$ ule eHuies that the "a9in !f the sei:ed ite"s G t! tul$ ensue that the$ ae the sa"e

ite"s that ente the chain and ae eventuall$ the !nes !ffeed in evidence G sh!uld 4e d!ne 0%1 in

the pesence !f the appehended vi!lat! 0'1 i""ediatel$ up!n c!nfiscati!n.

The p!secuti!n 6as a4le t! esta4lish the chain !f cust!d$ !f the sei:ed "ai8uana f!" the ti"e the

p!lice !ffices c!nfiscated it, t! the ti"e it 6as tuned !ve t! the investiatin !ffice, up t! the ti"e it

6as 4!uht t! the f!ensic che"ist f! la4!at!$ e>a"inati!n. '% This C!ut has n! eas!n t!



15/114

!veule the RTC and the C!ut !f Appeals, 6hich 4!th f!und the chain !f cust!d$ !f the sei:ed

dus t! have n!t 4een 4!9en s! as t! ende the "ai8uana sei:ed f!" Calantia! inad"issi4le in

evidence.

Futhe"!e, unless it can 4e sh!6n that thee 6as 4ad faith, ill 6ill, ! ta"pein !f the evidence,

the pesu"pti!n that the inteit$ !f the evidence has 4een peseved 6ill e"ain. The 4uden !fsh!6in the f!e!in t! !vec!"e the pesu"pti!n that the p!lice !ffices handled the sei:ed dus

6ith eulait$, and that the$ p!pel$ dischaed thei duties is !n Calantia!. ;nf!tunatel$,

Calantia! failed t! dischae such 4uden.''

It is 6!th$ t! n!te that these au"ents 6ee !nl$ aised 4$ Calantia! !n his appeal. *e hi"self

ad"its this.'/ *is the!$, f!" the ve$ 4einnin, 6as that he did n!t d! it, and that he 6as 4ein

fa"ed f! havin !ffended the p!lice !ffices. Si"pl$ put, his defense tactic 6as !ne !f denial and

fa"e-up. *!6eve, th!se defenses have al6a$s 4een f!6ned up!n 4$ the C!ut, t! 6it7

The defenses !f denial and fa"e-up have 4een invaia4l$ vie6ed 4$ this C!ut 6ith disfav! f! it

can easil$ 4e c!nc!cted and is a c!""!n and standad defense pl!$ in p!secuti!ns f! vi!lati!n !fDane!us Dus Act. In !de t! p!spe, the defenses !f denial and fa"e-up "ust 4e p!ved 6ith

st!n and c!nvincin evidence. In the cases 4ef!e us, appellant failed t! pesent sufficient

evidence in supp!t !f his clai"s. Aside f!" his self-sevin asseti!ns, n! plausi4le p!!f 6as

pesented t! 4!lste his alleati!ns.'+

*ence, as Calantia! failed t! sh!6 clea and c!nvincin evidence that the appehendin !ffices

6ee stied 4$ illicit "!tive ! failed t! p!pel$ pef!" thei duties, thei testi"!nies deseve full

faith and cedit.'5

*EREFORE, pe"ises c!nsideed, the C!ut hee4$ AFFIR3S the #anua$ %&, '(%' Decisi!n !f

the C!ut !f Appeals in CA-).R. CR.-*.C. N!. (+(.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif-Appellee, v. PETRUS YAU A..A. !"OHN#

AND !RI$Y# AND SUSANA YAU Y SU%OG&A A..A. !SUSAN#, Accused-

Appellants.

D E $ I S I O N

%ENDO'A, ".(

This is an appeal rom the September 7, 2012 ecision1 o the !ourt o Appeals

"!A#, in !A-$.%. !%-&! 'o. 0())*, +hich armed the ecember 1), 2007



16/114

ecision2 o the %eional Trial !ourt, ranch 21), /andaluon !it "%T!#, in

!riminal !ase 'o. /!-0)-72(.

The %T! ound accused-appellant Petrus au "Petrus# uilt beond reasonable

doubt as principal o the crime o 3idnappin or ransom and serious illeal

detention, as de4ned and penali5ed in Article 2*7 o the %evised Penal !ode "%P!#,as amended b %epublic Act 'o. 7*6, "%.A. 'o. 7*6#, and convicted accused-

appellant Susana au Sumoba "Susana# as an accomplice to the commission o

the same crime.

T)* F+ts

Petrus and Susana +ere chared +ith the crime o idnappin 8or %ansom in the

9normation,( dated 8ebruar 1(, 200), the accusator portion o +hich reads:.

That on or about ;anuar 20, 200), at around 2:00 P./. in the vicinit o Shoemart

/ea /all, /andaluon !it, the above-named accused, conspirin, conederatin

and mutuall helpin one another, +ith the use o a sleepin substance, did then

and there, +illull, unla+ull and eloniousl 3idnap and ta3e a+a AP& ='$ T&=FSA'

=% operatives o the Philippine 'ational Police.

!='T%A% T=


17/114

>SA, and +ithin the vicinit o S/ /eamall, private complainant received a phone

call rom his associate ell ?ei in &on on. &e noted that +hile he +as on the

phone conversin +ith his associate, appellant Petrus au, +hom he noted to have

short blac3 hair, a moustache and old ramed eelasses, +ould rom time to time

turn to him and tal3 as i he +as also bein spo3en to. Thereater, he elt ro

and decided to han-up his phone. &e no loner 3ne+ +hat transpired e@cept that+hen he +o3e up lin do+n, his head +as alread covered +ith a plastic ba and

he +as handcufed and chained.

?hen private complainant complained that the handcufs +ere too tiht, a man +ho

+as +earin a red mas3 and introduced himsel as B;ohnC approached him and

removed the plastic ba rom his head and loosened his handcuf. ;ohn inormed

him that he +as bein 3idnapped or ransom and that he +ill be allo+ed to ma3e

phone calls to his amil and riends. &ours later, ;ohn returned +ith telephon

eIuipment, tape recorder, phone and a special antennae cap or the cellphone. ?ith

these eIuipment, private complainant +as allo+ed to call his irlriend and ather

and as3ed them or the P9' o his AT/ cards and or mone, ho+ever, +ith

instructions not to inorm them that he +as 3idnapped. A da ater, he +as told b

his captor to call his irlriend and ather to tell them that he +as still alive as +ell

as to reveal to them that he +as 3idnapped or ransom and his 3idnappers +ere

demandin Si@ &undred Thousand ollars "FSG*00,000.00# as ransom and T+ent

Thousand Pesos "Php20,000.00# a da as room and board ee.

The private complainantHs amil, irlriend "9ris !hau# and riends received a te@t

messae purportedl rom the ormer inormin them that he +as 3idnapped and

ransom or his libert +as demanded.

=n ;anuar 21, 200), the amil o the victim inormed the Fnited States >mbass in

/anila about the situation and a meetin +ith the representatives o the Philippine

'ational Police +as arraned.

SubseIuentl, !hau received an email rom the purported 3idnapper demandin

FSG2,000.00. !hau then +ired FSG1,000.00, upon instructions, to =n +ai Pin

thru /etro an3 and Trust !ompan.


18/114

=n 8ebruar 10, 200), the PA!>% received inormation that a ta@i +ith plate number

P 116 plin alon acoor +as victimi5in passeners. Fpon instructions o

PLSupt. 9saani 'ere5, members o the Police Anti-!rime and >merenc %esponse

Tas3 8orce "PA!>%# +ere ordered to proceed to acoor, !avite to loo3 or Toota

!orolla ?hite Ta@icab +ith Plate 'o. P 116.

=n 8ebruar 11, 200), at around ):00 oHcloc3 in the mornin, the PA!>% roup

proceeded to acoor and positioned themselves alon Auinaldo &ih+a under the

overpass rontin S/ acoor. 'ot havin cauht siht o the ta@i, ater three hours,

the roup moved to a diferent location alon the Auinaldo &ih+a +here the

+ere able to chance upon the said vehicle. Thus, the ollo+ed it, then Kaed it

do+n and approached the driver. The driver +as as3ed to scroll do+n his +indo+

and +as told that the vehicle +as bein used to victimi5e orein nationals.

Appellant did not ofer to ma3e an comment. &ence, this prompted the ocers to

as3 or his name and since he ans+ered that he +as Petrus au, a ritish national,

the as3ed him or his driverHs license and car reistration but appellant +as not

able to produce an. Since he could not produce an driverHs license and car

reistration, the +ere supposed to brin him to the police station or investiation,

ho+ever, +hen sho+n a picture o private complainant and as3ed i he 3ne+ him,

he ans+ered that the man is bein 3ept in his house. &e +as immediatel inormed

that he +as bein placed under arrest or 3idnappin private complainant Alastair

=nlins+am ater bein inormed o his constitutional rihts. Thereater,

appellantHs cellphones, a MT> Palmtop and Son >ric3son +ere con4scated. Fpon

instructions o PLSupt. 'ere5, NappellantO +as brouht to the par3in lot o S/ !it

acoor or a possible rescue operations o the victim.

Appellant led the team to his house and ater openin the ate o his residence, he+as led bac3 to the police car. The rest o the members o PA!>% proceeded inside

the house and ound a man sittin on the Koor chained and handcufed. The man

later identi4ed himsel as Alastair =nlins+am.

urin the trial o the case, private complainant positivel identi4ed Petrus au as

his captor and the ta@i driver. Test conducted b the Fnited States 8ederal ureau o

9nvestiation reveals that the 'A ound in the mas3 used b private complainantHs

captor matched that o appellant Petrus au.6

ersion o the eense

Petrus and Susana denied the accusation, and stated the ollo+in in their rie * to

substantiate their claim o innocence:.

Accused Petrus au denied havin committed the crime. &e averred that the

supposed 3idnap victim coordinated +ith the police to set up the subect case


19/114

aainst him and his amil. &e is a ritish national. &e had been in the Philippines

or man times since he +as 1) ears old. &e came to the countr in ;ul 2001 or a

vacation and had not let since then. =n September 2001, he ot married to Susana

au. Prior thereto, he +as in Sinapore runnin some businesses.

=n ;anuar 20, 200), at around 2:00 oHcloc3 in the aternoon "the date and time thevictim +as 3idnapped#, Petrus au +as at home sleepin.

=n 8ebruar 11, 200) "the date the victim +as alleedl rescued# at around J:(0 Q

:00 oHcloc3 in the mornin, he +ent to his +ie Susana in her shop and ot mone

to be deposited to the Asia Trust an3. &e par3ed his car outside the ban3. Ater he

alihted rom his car, three "(# men bier than him held his hands: one "1# o them

held his nec3. The pushed him inside their van. The tied his hands +ith pac3in

tape, covered his ees +ith the same tape, and his head +ith a plastic ba. The

3ic3ed and beat him until he became unconscious.

?hen he reained consciousness, he +as inside an air-conditioned room. &is hands

+ere handcufed and he elt ver cold because his bod +as +et. &is head +as still

bein covered. &e shouted as3in +here he +as. People came in and he heard them

tal3in in Taalo. The 3ic3ed him or about t+ent "20# seconds. mbass, his riends and his +ie, but to no avail.

?hen he +as ta3en into custod, he had his +eddin rin, +atch and a +aist ba

containin his ritish passport, alien certi4cate, driverHs license, Asia Trust ban3boo3in the name o Susana au, AT/ !ards "in his name# o /etroban3, P!9 >Iuitable

an3 and anco de =ro, 9SA !ard, and some cash iven to him b his +ie . &e lost

those personal properties.

Ater our ")# to 4ve "6# hours, he +as transerred to another room +ithout a

+indo+. The ollo+in da, he +as brouht to and detained at the PA!>% !ustodial

!enter.

Petrus au can spea3 >nlish but he is better in the !hinese lanuae, both

/andarin and !antonese. &e bouht the ta@i he +as drivin in Auust 200( or>iht 8ive Thousand Pesos "PhpJ6,000.00# or personal use andLor or resale. 9t had

a deective enine "usuall overheats#, +ithout an aircon and cannot travel or lon

ourne. &e does not drive a ta@i to earn a livin. &e had police riends +ho told him

that he cannot drive a ta@i as an occupation since his driverHs license is non-

proessional.

Sometime on ;une 200(, he and his +ie Susana had a heated arument over his


20/114

+omani5in. &ence, she decided to live separatel rom him "thouh she +as

prenant at that time# and moved to another house "loc3 6,


21/114

T)* Ru-/g o t)* RT$

9n its udment, dated ecember 1), 2007, the %T! convicted Petrus au, as

principal, o the crime o 3idnappin or ransom and serious illeal detention, and

Susana au, as an accomplice to the commission thereo. The %T! ound thetestimonies o the prosecution +itnesses credible and sucient, +ith their versions

o the incident dovetailin +ith each other even on minor details. 9t observed that

Petrus ailed to rebut his positive identi4cation b the victim, Alastair and his

brother Aaron ;ohn =nlins+am "Aaron ;ohn#, +ith +hom he tal3ed or several

times over the phone. 9t stated that the circumstantial evidence profered b the

prosecution had adeIuatel reinorced its theor that Petrus +as the perpetrator o

the heinous act.

?ith respect to Susana, the %T! +rote that she +as positivel identi4ed b Alastair

as the 8ilipino +oman +ho ed him or accompanied Petrus in brinin him ood

durin his 22 das o captivit and, or said reason, should be held liable as an

accomplice.

The %T! reected the t+in deenses o alibi and rame-up submitted b Petrus and

Susana because the same +ere unsubstantiated b clear and convincin evidence.

The dispositive portion o the said decision states:.

?&>%>8=%>, this court renders udment 4ndin the accused Petrus au $F9=' %>AS='A =FT as principal o the crime o 3idnappin or ransom

and serious illeal detention and pursuant to %epublic Act 'o. ()*, he is hereb

sentenced to sufer the prison term o %>!AS='A =FT as accomplice to the

commission o the crime o 3idnappin or ransom and serious illeal detention and

applin to her the bene4t o the 9ndeterminate Sentence ! "1# A

o P%9S9=' /A=% /9'9/F/ AS /9'9/F/ to T?> "12# >A%S and T>' "10#

/='T&S o %>!


22/114

S= =%>%>.J

Fna5ed, Petrus and Susana appealed the %T! udment o conviction beore the !A.

T)* Ru-/g o t)* $A

The !A armed the conviction o Petrus and Susana. The appellate court li3e+ise

lent credence to the testimonies o the prosecution +itnesses, +ho +ere able to

establish +ith certitude the commission o the crime and the identities o the

culprits thereo.

&ence, this appeal.

ASSIGNED ERRORS(

I

THE TRIAL $OURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE A$$USED

APPELLANT AS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND AS SU$H, THE PIE$ES OF

O&"E$T EVIDEN$E ALLEGEDLY SEI'ED ARE INAD%ISSI&LE.

II

THE TRIAL $OURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE AS POSITIVE

IDENTIFI$ATION OF THE A$$USEDAPPELLANT AS THE ALLEGED

IDNAPPER.

III

THE TRIAL $OURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE A$$USEDAPPELLANT

GUILTY &EYOND REASONA&LE DOU&T OF THE $RI%E $HARGED.10

Susana insisted that the trial court erred: 1O in not ivin credence to her claim that

she +as livin separatel +ith her husband, Petrus auD 2O in not considerin that

she +as not mentioned in the s+orn statement e@ecuted b Alastair, dated 8ebruar

12, 200), even +hen said victim +as as3ed i there +as another person assistin

Petrus in the perpetration o the crimeD (O in not considerin the %esolution o the

epartment o ;ustice, dated 8ebruar 1(, 200), 4ndin probable cause aainst her

because she is the reistered o+ner o the house +here Alastair +as held captive


23/114

and not because she served ood on the victimD and )O in convictin her as an

accomplice.11crala+red

=n September 11, 201(, the !ourt issued a resolution12 notiin the parties that

the could 4le their respective supplemental bries i the so desire. The People o

the Philippines, represented b the =S$, opted not to 4le an supplemental brie,maintainin its positions and aruments in its brie earlier 4led in !A-$.%. !%-&.!.

'o. 0())*.1( Petrus 4led his Supplemental rie 1) on ecember 27, 201( in

ampli4cation o his aruments raised in his brie 4led beore the !A.

T)* $ou3ts Ru-/g

The appeal is beret o merit.

>ncapsulated, the issues herein ocus on: "a# the credibilit o the prosecution

+itnessesD "b# the sucienc o the prosecution evidence to prove the commissiono 3idnappin or ransom and the identit o the culprits thereoD and "c# the deree

o responsibilit o each accused-appellant or the crime o 3idnappin or ransom.

?orth reiteratin on the issue o the credibilit o the +itnesses is the rulin o the

!ourt in People v. /a@ion16 that:.

The issue raised b accused-appellant involves the credibilit o +itness, +hich is

best addressed b the trial court, it bein in a better position to decide such

Iuestion, havin heard the +itness and observed his demeanor, conduct, and

attitude under ruelin e@amination. These are the most sini4cant actors in

evaluatin the sincerit o +itnesses and in unearthin the truth, especiall in theace o conKictin testimonies. Throuh its observations durin the entire

proceedins, the trial court can be e@pected to determine, +ith reasonable

discretion, +hose testimon to accept and +hich +itness to believe. eril, 4ndins

o the trial court on such matters +ill not be disturbed on appeal unless some acts

or circumstances o +eiht have been overloo3ed, misapprehended or

misinterpreted so as to materiall afect the disposition o the case.1*

9t has been an established rule in appellate revie+ that the trial courtHs actual

4ndins, such as its assessment o the credibilit o the +itnesses, the probative

+eiht o their testimonies, and the conclusions dra+n rom the actual 4ndins, are

accorded reat respect and have even conclusive efect. Such actual 4ndins and

conclusions assume even reater +eiht +hen the are armed b the

!A.17crala+red

9n the case at bench, the %T! ave more +eiht and credence to the testimonies o

the prosecution +itnesses compared to those o the accused-appellants. Ater a


24/114

udicious revie+ o the evidence on record, the !ourt 4nds no coent reason to

deviate rom the actual 4ndins o the %T! and the !A, and their respective

assessment and calibration o the credibilit o the prosecution +itnesses.

9n ever criminal case, the tas3 o the prosecution is al+as t+o-old, that is, "1# to

prove beond reasonable doubt the commission o the crime charedD and "2# toestablish +ith the same Iuantum o proo the identit o the person or persons

responsible thereor, because, even i the commission o the crime is a iven, there

can be no conviction +ithout the identit o the maleactor bein li3e+ise clearl

ascertained.1J &ere, the prosecution +as able to satisactoril dischare this burden.

ictim Alastair positivel identi4ed Petrus as the driver o the +hite Toota !orolla

ta@icab +ith Plate 'o. P 116 +hich he boarded beore he lost consciousness on

the aternoon o ;anuar 20, 200). &e claimed that +hile he +as conversin +ith his

business associate ell ?ei over his phone inside the ta@icab, Petrus +ould turn his

ace to+ards him, rom time to time, and +ould tal3 as i he +as bein spo3en to.

Alastair claimed that he had a ood loo3 and an ample opportunit to remember the

acial eatures o the driver as to be able to reconi5e and identi him in court. 9t is

the most natural reaction or victims o crimes to strive to remember the aces o

their accosters and the manner in +hich the craven acts are committed.1crala+red

Alastair also reconi5ed the voice behind the red mas3 used b his 3idnapper as

belonin to Petrus. 9t +as established that rom the 4rst to the t+entieth da o

AlastairHs captivit, his 3idnapper +ould meet him 4ve times a da and +ould tal3 to

him or an hour, thus, enablin him to remember the culpritHs voice +hich had a

uniIue tone and noticeable !hinese accent. Alastair declared +ith certaint that it

+as the voice o Petrus. ?itness Aaron ;ohn insisted that the person +ho introducedhimsel as =n +ai Pin and +ith +hom he had tal3ed over the phone or three

+ee3s, demandin necessit mone and ransom or the release o his brother

Alastair, +as Petrus because o the distinct tone o his voice +ith !hinese accent.

There +as no sho+in that Alastair and Aaron ;ohn had an ill motive to alsel

testi aainst Petrus. As a rule, absent an evidence sho+in an reason or motive

or prosecution +itnesses to perure, the loical conclusion is that no such improper

motive e@ists, and their testimonies are, thus, +orth o ull aith and

credit.20crala+red

8urther, the prosecution presented credible and sucient pieces o circumstantialevidence that led to the inescapable and reasonable conclusion that Petrus

committed the crime chared. The settled rule is that a udment o conviction

based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld onl i the ollo+in reIuisites

concur: "1# there is more than one circumstanceD "2# the acts rom +hich the

inerences are derived are provenD and "(# the combination o all the circumstances

is such as to produce conviction beond reasonable doubt.21 The corollar rule is

that the circumstances proven must constitute an unbro3en chain +hich leads to


25/114

one air and reasonable conclusion pointin to the accused, to the e@clusion o all

others, as the uilt person.22crala+red

The combination o the ollo+in established acts and circumstances arm the

4ndins o uilt b the %T! and the !A:.

1O The victim +as rescued b the police inside the house o+ned b Petrus and

Susana, located at loc3 2(,


26/114

?hen vie+ed as a +hole, the prosecution evidence efectivel established his uilt

beond reasonable doubt.

The elements o idnappin 8or %ansom under Article 2*7 o the %P!, as amended

b %.A. 'o. 7*6, are as ollo+s: "a# intent on the part o the accused to deprive the

victim o his libertD "b# actual deprivation o the victim o his libertD and "c# motiveo the accused, +hich is e@tortin ransom or the release o the victim.2)crala+red

All o the oreoin elements +ere dul established b the testimonial and

documentar evidences or the prosecution in the case at bench. 8irst, Petrus is a

private individual. Second, Petrus 3idnapped Alastair b usin sleepin substance

+hich rendered the latter unconscious +hile inside a ta@icab driven b the said

accused-appellant. Third, Petrus too3 and detained Alastair inside the house o+ned

b him and Susana au in acoor, !avite, +here said victim +as handcufed and

chained, and hence, deprived o his libert. 8ourth, Alastair +as ta3en aainst his

+ill. And 4th, Petrus made demands or the deliver o a ransom in the amount o

FSG*00,000.00 or the release o the victim.

Anent the criminal liabilit o each accused-appellant, there is no doubt that Petrus

is liable as principal o the crime o 3idnappin or ransom. Susana, on the other

hand, is liable onl as an accomplice to the crime as correctl ound b the lo+er

courts. 9t must be emphasi5ed that there +as no evidence indubitabl provin that

Susana participated in the decision to commit the criminal act. The onl evidence

the prosecution had aainst her +as the testimon o Alastair to the efect that he

remembered her as the +oman +ho ave ood to him or +ho accompanied his

3idnapper +henever he +ould brin ood to him ever brea3ast, lunch and dinner.

;urisprudence26 is instructive o the elements reIuired, in accordance +ith Article 1J

o the %P!, in order that a person ma be considered an accomplice, namel, "1#

that there be a communit o desinD that is, 3no+in the criminal desin o the

principal b direct participation, he concurs +ith the latter in his purposeD "2# that

he cooperates in the e@ecution b previous or simultaneous act, +ith the intention

o supplin material or moral aid in the e@ecution o the crime in an ecacious

+aD and "(# that there be a relation bet+een the acts done b the principal and

those attributed to the person chared as accomplice.

9n the case at bench, Susana 3ne+ o the criminal desin o her husband, Petrus,but she 3ept Iuiet and never reported the incident to the police authorities. 9nstead,

she staed +ith Petrus inside the house and ave ood to the victim or accompanied

her husband +hen he brouht ood to the victim. Susana not onl countenanced

PetrusH illeal act, but also supplied him +ith material and moral aid. 9t has been

held that bein present and ivin moral support +hen a crime is bein committed

ma3e a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed.2* As 3eenl

observed b the %T!, the act o ivin ood b Susana to the victim +as not


27/114

essential and indispensable or the perpetration o the crime o 3idnappin or

ransom but merel an e@pression o smpath or eelin o support to her

husband.27 /oreover, this !ourt is uided b the rulin in People v. e era,2J

+here it +as stressed that in case o doubt, the participation o the ofender +ill be

considered as that o an accomplice rather than that o a principal.

AlastairHs positive identi4cation o Susana is not in an bit preudiced b his ailure

to mention her name in his s+orn statement, dated 8ebruar 12, 200). 9t is +ell-

settled that adavits, bein e@ parte, are almost al+as incomplete and oten

inaccurate, but do not reall detract rom the credibilit o +itnesses. 2 =tentimes,

the alleations contained in adavits involved mere passive mention o details

anchored entirel on the investiatorHs Iuestions. The discrepancies bet+een a

s+orn statement and a testimon in court do not outrihtl usti the acIuittal o

an accused, as testimonial evidence carries more +eiht than an

adavit.(0 Testimonies iven durin the trial are more e@act and elaborate. esides,

s+orn statements are oten e@ecuted +hen an aantHs mental aculties are not in

such a state as to aford the aant a air opportunit o narratin in ull the incident

+hich transpired.(1crala+red

$iven the over+helmin picture o their complicit in the crime, this !ourt cannot

accept the deenses o alibi and rame-up interposed b the accused-appellants.

Alibi is the +ea3est o all deenses, or it is eas to contrive and dicult to prove.

Alibi must be proven b the accused +ith clear and convincin evidenceD other+ise

it cannot prevail over the positive testimonies o credible +itnesses +ho testi on

armative matters. (2 The deense o rame-up, li3e alibi, has been invariabl

vie+ed b this !ourt +ith disavor, or it can easil be concocted but is dicult to

prove. 9n order to prosper, the deense o rame-up must be proven b the accused+ith clear and convincin evidence.(( Apart rom their bare alleations, no

competent and independent evidence +as adduced b the accused-appellants to

substantiate their t+in deenses o alibi and rame-up and, thus, remain sel-servin

and do not merit an evidentiar value. /ore importantl, no+here in the records

does it sho+ o an dubious reasons or improper motive that could have impelled

the prosecution +itnesses, particularl victim Alastair =nlins+am, to alsel

testi and abricate documentar or obect evidence ust to implicate accused-

appellants in such a heinous crime as 3idnappin or ransom. Their onl motive +as

to see to it that the 3idnapper be brouht to ustice and sentenced +ith the

appropriate penalt.

As a last-ditch efort to e@culpate themselves rom an criminal culpabilit, the

accused-appellants Iuestioned the lealit o their +arrantless arrests. This too

must ail.

An obection to the procedure ollo+ed in the matter o the acIuisition b a court

o urisdiction over the person o the accused must be opportunel raised beore he


28/114

enters his pleaD other+ise, the obection is deemed +aived.() The accused-

appellants never obected to or Iuestioned the lealit o their +arrantless arrests

or the acIuisition o urisdiction b the %T! over their persons beore the entered

their respective pleas to the 3idnappin or ransom chare. !onsiderin this lapse

and coupled +ith their ull and active participation in the trial o the case, accused-

appellants +ere deemed to have +aived an obection to their +arrantless arrests. The accused-appellants voluntaril submitted to the urisdiction o the %T! thereb

curin +hatever deects that miht have attended their arrest. 9t bears stressin

that the lealit o the arrest afects onl the urisdiction o the court over their

persons.(6 Their +arrantless arrests cannot, b themselves, be the bases o their

acIuittal.

>ven assumin aruendo that the accused-appellants made a timel obection to

their +arrantless arrests, urisprudence is replete +ith rulins that support the vie+

that their conviction +as proper despite bein illeall arrested +ithout a +arrant.

9n People v. /anlulu,(* the !ourt ruled that the illealit o the +arrantless arrest

cannot deprive the State o its riht to prosecute the uilt +hen all other acts on

record point to their culpabilit. 9ndeed, the illeal arrest o an accused is not a

sucient cause or settin aside a valid udment rendered upon a sucient

complaint ater a trial ree rom error.(7crala+red

?ith respect to the penalt, the !ourt 4nds that the %T! +as correct in imposin the

penalt oreclusion perpetua +ithout eliibilit o parole aainst Petrus as principal

in the chare o 3idnappin or ransom in vie+ o %.A. 'o. ()*, prohibitin the

death penalt. Also, the !ourt 4nds that the penalt o eiht "J# ears and one "1#

da o prision maor, as minimum, to t+elve "12# ears and ten "10# months

o reclusion temporal, as ma@imum, meted out aainst Susana, an accomplice, tobe proper.

The !ourt also sustains the %T! in a+ardin actual damaes in the amount o

P27(,1(2.00 plus interest committed rom the 4lin o the inormation until ull

paid. As reards the moral damaes aainst the accused-appellants, the !ourt 4nds

the a+ard o P1,000,000.00 to be e@orbitant. &ence, the same is bein reduced to

P200,000.00, as the reasonable compensation or the inomin and suferins that

Alastair and his amil endured because o the accused-appellantsH inhumane acts

o detainin him in handcufs and chains, and mentall torturin him and his amil

to raise the ransom mone. The act that the sufered the trauma rom mental,phsical and pscholoical ordeal +hich constitutes the basis or moral damaes

under Article 221 o the !ivil !ode is too obvious to still reIuire its recital at the

trial throuh the superKuit o a testimonial charade. The !ourt also 4nds the a+ard

o e@emplar damaes to be in order in vie+ o the presence o the Iualiin

circumstance o demand or ransom, and to serve as an e@ample and deterrence or

the public ood. The !ourt, ho+ever, reduces the amount rom P200,000.00 to

P100,000.00 in line +ith prevailin urisprudence.(Jcrala+red


29/114

The %T!, ho+ever, erred in rulin that Susana +as solidaril liable +ith Petrus or

the pament o damaes. This is an erroneous apportionment o the damaes

a+arded because it does not ta3e into account the diference in the nature and

deree o participation bet+een the principal, Petrus, and the accomplice, Susana.

The rulin o this !ourt in People v. /ontesclaros(

is instructive on theapportionment o civil liabilities amon all the accused-appellants. The entire

amount o the civil liabilities should be apportioned amon all those +ho cooperated

in the commission o the crime accordin to the derees o their liabilit, respective

responsibilities and actual participation. Accordinl, Petrus should shoulder a

reater share in the total amount o damaes than Susana +ho +as aduded onl

as an accomplice.

9n 4ne, the accused-appellants are ordered to pa the victim, Alastair =nlins+am

actual damaes in the amount o P27(,1(2.00D moral damaes in the amount o

P200,000.00D and e@emplar damaes in the amount o P100,000.00, or a total

amount o P67(,1(2.00. Ta3in into consideration the deree o their participation,

the principal, Petrus, should be liable or t+o-thirds "2L(# o the total amount o the

damaes "P67(,1(2.00 @ 2L(# or P(J2,0JJ.00D and the accomplice, Susana, should

be ordered to pa the remainin one-third "1L(# or P11,0)).00. Speci4call, Petrus

shall be liable or actual damaes in the amount o P1J2,0JJ.00D moral damaes in

the amount o P1((,(((.((D and e@emplar damaes in the amount o P**,***.*7D

and Susana or the amount o P1,0)).00 as actual damaesD P**,***.*7 as moral

damaesD and P((,(((.(( as e@emplar damaes.

HEREFORE, the September 7, 2012 ecision o the !ourt o Appeals in !A-$.%.

!%-&.!. 'o. 0())* is AFFIR%ED +ith %ODIFI$ATION in that accused-appellantsPetrus au and Susana au Sumoba are ordered to pa the victim Alastair ;oseph

=nlins+am moral damaes in the amount o P200,000.00 and e@emplar

damaes in the amount o P100,000.00. The a+ard o actual damaes in the

amount o P27(,1(2.00 is maintained. The civil liabilities o the accused-appellants

shall be apportioned as ollo+s:.

1O Petrus au is directed to pa actual damaes in the amount o P1J2,0JJ.00D

moral damaes in the amount o P1((,(((.((D and e@emplar damaes in the

amount o P**,***.*7D and!han%oblesirtuala+librar

2O Susana au Sumoba is directed to pa actual damaes in the amount o

P1,0)).00, moral damaes in the amount o R**,***.*7 and e@emplar damaes

in the amount o P((,(((.((.

SO ORDERED


30/114

3anila

T*IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 20#01# No$e%&e' 19, 2014

MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO, Petiti!ne,vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Resp!ndent.

D E C I S I O N

RE(ES, J."

This case ste""ed f!" 3a. 3i"ie Cescenci!s 0petiti!ne1 c!nvicti!n f! vi!lati!n !f Secti!n % !f

Pesidential Decee 0P.D.1 N!. &(5,' !the6ise 9n!6n as the Revised F!est$ C!de !f the

Philippines 0F!est$ C!de1, as a"ended 4$ E>ecutive Ode 0E.O.1 N!. '&&,/

endeed 4$ theRei!nal Tial C!ut 0RTC1 !fTali4!n, 2!h!l, 2anch 5', in Ci"inal Case N!. -'&, !n Auust %',

'((.+ The C!ut !f Appeals 0CA1, in CA-).R. CR N!. (%%', dis"issed the appeal in its

Res!luti!n5 dated Apil %5, '(%% f! failue t! seve a c!p$ !f the Appellants 2ief t! the Office !f the

S!licit! )eneal 0OS)1. The CA, in its Res!luti!n dated N!ve"4e %, '(%', als! denied the

petiti!nes "!ti!n f! ec!nsideati!n !f the said es!luti!n.

The Facts

Actin !n an inf!"ati!n that thee 6as a st!c9pile !f lu"4e ! f!est p!ducts in the vicinit$ !f the

h!use !f the petiti!ne, Eufe"i! A4aniel 0A4aniel1, the Chief !f the F!estP!tecti!n ;nit !f

Depat"ent !f Envi!n"ent and Natual Res!uces 0DENR1 - C!""unit$ Envi!n"ent and NatualRes!uces Office, Tali4!n, 2!h!l, t!ethe 6ith F!est Ranes ;cin! 2utal 02utal1, Alfed! 2astasa

and Cels! Ra"!s 0Ra"!s1 6ent t! the petiti!nes h!use at 2alic!, Tali4!n, 2!h!l !n 3ach %5,

%+ at /7(( p.". ;p!n aivin theeat, the$ sa6 f!est p!ducts l$in unde the h!use !f the

petiti!ne and at the sh!eline a4!ut t6! "etes a6a$ f!" the petiti!nes h!use. As the DENR

pes!nnel tied t! investiate f!" the neih4!h!!d as t! 6h! 6as the !6ne !f the lu"4e, the

petiti!ne ad"itted its !6neship. Theeafte, the DENR pes!nnel enteed the pe"ises !f the

petiti!nes h!use 6ith!ut a seach 6aant.&

;p!n inspecti!n, '+ pieces !f "asiha!nlu"4e, 6hich is eHuivalent t! +5' 4!ad feet, 6ee

disc!veed. hen the DENR pes!nnel as9ed f! d!cu"ents t! supp!t the petiti!nes clai" !f

!6neship, the latte sh!6ed t! the" Official Receipt N!. /5(5/ issued 4$ Penavit! Entepises6hee she alleedl$ 4!uht the said lu"4e. *!6eve, 6hen the DENR pes!nnel scaled the lu"4e,

the$ f!und !ut that the di"ensi!ns and the species !f the lu"4e did n!t tall$ 6ith the ite"s

"enti!ned in the eceipt. The said eceipt sh!6ed that the petiti!ne 4!uht %( pieces !f ed la6aan

lu"4e 6ith si:es '>>% and 5 pieces 6ith si:es '>>% !n 3ach %/, %+. On the !the hand, the

lu"4e in the petiti!nes h!use, !n 3ach %5, %+, 6as '+ pieces !f "asiha!nlu"4e !f thee

diffeent si:es, t! 6it7 '( pieces '>>%K / pieces '>>%K and % piece '>%(>%'.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt8


31/114

Since the petiti!ne c!uld n!t pesent an$ !the eceipt, A4aniel !deed the c!nfiscati!n !f the

lu"4e, as9ed f! p!lice assistance, and t!ld the petiti!ne that the$ 6ee !in t! tansp!t the

c!nfiscated lu"4e t! the DENR !ffice f! safe9eepin. Sei:ue Receipt N!. ((+%5& and a

State"ent Sh!6in the Nu"4ePieces and V!lu"e !f ?u"4e 2ein C!nfiscated, 6hich sh!6ed

the value !f the lu"4e t! 4e ,(+(.((, 6ee issued t! the petiti!ne. F!est Ranes 2utal and

Ra"!s c!!4!ated A4aniels testi"!n$.%(

SPO% Desidei! )acia testified that up!n the eHuest !f A4aniel f! p!lice assistance, he and PO/

Ant!ni! Cescenci! 6ent t! the h!use !f the petiti!ne 6hee the$ sa6 s!"e lu"4e6hich 6as late

l!aded !n a ca! tuc9. Theeafte, the$ esc!ted the tansp!t !f the lu"4e t! the DENR !ffice in

San R!Hue, Tali4!n, 2!h!l.%%

On the !the hand, the l!ne 6itness !f the defense, ?!lita Cescenci!, ad"itted that the sei:ed

lu"4e 6ee !6ned 4$ the petiti!ne 4ut clai"ed that the latte 4!uht it f!" Penavit! Entepises

!f Tinidad, 2!h!l and f!" #ava 3a9etin in ;4a$, 2!h!l.%' *!6eve, the defense had !nl$ the

Official Receipt N!. /5(5/ issued 4$ Penavit! Entepises 6hich, h!6eve, did n!t tall$ 6ith the

f!est p!ducts c!nfiscated.

On 3a$ %&, %+, the petiti!ne 6as chaed 4$ the P!vincial P!secut! !f Ta4ilaan Cit$, 2!h!l,

6ith vi!lati!n !f Secti!n !f P.D. N!. &(5, as a"ended 4$ E.O. N!. '&&. The Inf!"ati!n%/ alleed7

That !n ! a4!ut the %5th da$ !f 3ach, %+, in the "unicipalit$ !f Tali4!n, 2!h!l, Philippines, and

6ithin the 8uisdicti!n !f this *!n!a4le C!ut, the a4!ve-na"ed accused 6ith intent t! p!ssess and

t! ain f! he !6n 4enefit, 6ith!ut an$ leal d!cu"ent as eHuied unde e>istin 8uispudence,

la6s and eulati!ns, and 6ith!ut an$ la6ful auth!it$ unde e>istin ules and eulati!n !f DENR

F!est 3anae"ent Sect!, 6illfull$, unla6full$ and illeall$ p!ssess and have unde he cust!d$

and c!nt!l f!est p!ducts c!nsistin !f t6ent$-f!u 0'+1 pieces !f "asiha!n lu"4e 6ith a

v!lu"e !f +5' 4!ad feet and a t!tal value !f Nine Th!usand F!t$ 0P,(+(.((1 Pes!s, PhilippineCuenc$K t! the da"ae and pe8udice !f the Repu4lic !f the Philippines.%+

Duin the aain"ent !n #ul$ %5,%&, the petiti!ne pleaded n!t uilt$ t! the !ffense

chaed.Theeafte, tial ensued.%5

On Auust %', '((, the RTC endeed 8ud"ent% c!nvictin the petiti!ne !f the !ffense chaed

and sentenced he t! i"pis!n"ent !f si> 01 $eas and !ne 0%1 da$ !f pisi!n "a$!as "ini"u" t!

eleven 0%%1 $eas and si> 01 "!nths and t6ent$-!ne 0'%1 da$s !f pisi!n "a$!as "a>i"u". The

RTC als! !deed the c!nfiscati!n !f the sei:ed lu"4e !6ned 4$ the petiti!ne.%&

As e>pected, the petiti!ne appealed the decisi!n t! the CA. *!6eve, in its Res!luti!n%

dated Apil%5, '(%%, the CA dis"issed the appeal !utiht 4ecause the petiti!ne failed t! funish the OS) a

c!p$ !f the Appellants 2ief in vi!lati!n !f the Rules !f C!ut. The petiti!ne "!ved f!

ec!nsideati!n 4ut it 6as denied 4$ the CA,in its Res!luti!n% dated N!ve"4e %, '(%'. *ence, this

petiti!n f! evie6 !n ceti!ai.

The Issue

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt19


32/114

The c!e issue t! 4e es!lved is 6hethe ! n!t the CAs dis"issal !f the appeal due t! the

petiti!nes failuet! seve a c!p$ !f the Appellants 2ief t! the OS) is p!pe, in vie6 !f the

attendant factual cicu"stances and in the inteest !f su4stantial 8ustice.

Rulin !f the C!ut

In this case, the petiti!ne as9s f! a ela>ati!n !f the iid ules !f technical p!cedue and su4"its

that the CA eed in dis"issin he appeal puel$ !n the 4asis !f "ee technicalities.

C!nf!nted 6ith issues !f this natue, this C!ut is "indful !f the p!lic$ !f aff!din litiants the

a"plest !pp!tunit$ f! the dete"inati!n !f thei cases !n the "eits and !f dispensin 6ith

technicalities 6heneve c!"pellin eas!ns s! 6aant ! 6hen the pup!se !f 8ustice eHuies it. '(

The C!ut has c!nstantl$ p!n!uncedthat


33/114

N!netheless, even if the C!ut 4ushes aside the technicalit$ issue, it 6ill still find that the

p!secuti!n 6as a4le t! p!ve 4e$!nd eas!na4le d!u4t the petiti!nes culpa4ilit$.

In atte"ptin t! escape lia4ilit$, the petiti!ne c!ntends that7 0a1 she had the supp!tin d!cu"ents

t! sh!6 that she 4!uht the Huesti!ned lu"4e f!" leiti"ate s!ucesK and 041 the 6aantless

seach and sei:ue c!nducted 4$ the DENR pes!nnel 6as illeal and, thus, the ite"s sei:ed sh!uldn!t have 4een ad"itted in evidence aainst he.

The C!nstituti!n ec!ni:es the iht !f the pe!ple t! 4e secued in thei pes!ns, h!uses, papes,

and effects aainst uneas!na4le seaches and sei:ues.'/ N!netheless, the c!nstituti!nal p!hi4iti!n

aainst 6aantless seaches and sei:ues ad"its !f cetaine>cepti!ns, !ne !f 6hich is sei:ue !f

evidence in plain vie6.%6phi% ;nde the plain vie6 d!ctine, !48ects fallin in the plain vie6 !f an !ffice,

6h! has a iht t! 4e in the p!siti!n t! have that vie6, ae su48ect t! sei:ue and "a$ 4e pesented

as evidence.'+

Thee is n! Huesti!n that the DENR pes!nnel 6ee n!t a"ed 6ith a seach 6aant 6hen the$

6ent t! the h!use !f the petiti!ne. hen the DENR pes!nnel aived at the petiti!nes h!use, thelu"4es 6ee l$in unde the lattes h!use and at the sh!eline a4!ut t6! "etes a6a$ f!" the

h!use !f the petiti!ne. It isclea, theef!e, that the said lu"4e is plainl$ e>p!sed t! siht. *ence,

the sei:ue !f the lu"4e !utside the petiti!nes h!use falls 6ithin the puvie6 !f the plain vie6

d!ctine.

2esides, the DENR pes!nnel had the auth!it$ t! aest the petiti!ne, even 6ith!ut a 6aant.

Secti!n ('5 !f the F!est$ C!de auth!i:es the f!est$ !ffice ! e"pl!$ee !f the DENR ! an$

pes!nnel !f the Philippine Nati!nal P!lice t! aest, even 6ith!ut a 6aant, an$ pes!n 6h! has

c!""itted ! is c!""ittin in his pesence an$ !f the !ffenses defined 4$ the F!est$ C!de and t!

sei:e and c!nfiscate the t!!ls and eHuip"ent used in c!""ittin the !ffense !the f!est p!ducts

atheed ! ta9en 4$ the !ffende. Cleal$, in the c!use !fsuch la6ful intusi!n, the DENR pes!nnelhad inadvetentl$ c!"e ac!ss the lu"4e 6hich evidentl$ inci"inated the petiti!ne.

The fact !f p!ssessi!n 4$ the petiti!ne !f the '+ pieces !f "asiha!nlu"4e, as 6ell as he

su4seHuent failue t! p!duce the leal d!cu"ents as eHuied unde e>istin f!est la6s and

eulati!ns c!nstitute ci"inal lia4ilit$ f! vi!lati!n !f the F!est$ C!de. ;nde Secti!n !f the

F!est$ C!de, thee ae t6! distinctand sepaate !ffenses punished, na"el$7 0%1 cuttin, athein,

c!llectin and e"!vin ti"4e ! !the f!est p!ducts f!" an$ f!est land, ! ti"4e f!" aliena4le

! disp!sa4le pu4lic land, ! f!" pivate land 6ith!utan$ auth!it$K and 0'1 p!ssessi!n !f ti"4e !

!the f!est p!ducts 6ith!ut the leal d!cu"ents eHuied unde e>istin f!est la6s and

eulati!ns.'

In the sec!nd !ffense, it is i""ateial 6hethe the cuttin, athein, c!llectin and e"!val !f the

f!est p!ducts ae leal ! n!t. 3ee p!ssessi!n !f f!est p!ducts 6ith!utthe p!pe d!cu"ents

c!nsu""ates the ci"e. hethe ! n!t the lu"4e c!"es f!" a leal s!uce is i""ateial

4ecause the F!est$ C!de is a special la6 6hich c!nsides "ee p!ssessi!n !f ti"4e ! !the

f!est p!ducts 6ith!ut the p!pe d!cu"entati!n as "alu" p!hi4itu". '&

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_205015_2014.html#fnt27


34/114

In the pesent case, the "asiha!nlu"4e 6ee ad"ittedl$ !6ned 4$ the petiti!ne 4ut

unf!tunatel$ n! pe"it evidencin auth!it$ t! p!ssess said lu"4e 6as dul$ pesented. Thus, the

Inf!"ati!n c!ectl$ chaed the petiti!ne 6ith the sec!nd !ffense 6hich is c!nsu""ated 4$ the

"ee p!ssessi!n !f f!est p!ducts 6ith!ut the p!pe d!cu"ents. The p!secuti!n adduced seveal

d!cu"ents t! p!ve that the lu"4e 6as c!nfiscated f!" the petiti!ne, na"el$7 a State"ent

Sh!6in the Nu"4ePieces and V!lu"e !f ?u"4e 2ein C!nfiscated !n 3ach %5, %+, sei:ueeceipt, a ph!t!aph !f the h!use !f the petiti!ne, and a ph!t!aph !f the c!nfiscated lu"4e.

3!es!, the diect and affi"ative testi"!n$ !f the DENR pes!nnel as state 6itnesses !n the

cicu"stances su!undin the appehensi!n 6ell esta4lishes the petiti!nes lia4ilit$.

As t! the i"p!sa4le penalt$ !n the petiti!ne, the RTC i"p!sed an indete"inate sentence !f si> 01

$eas and !ne 0%1 da$ !f pisi!n "a$!as "ini"u" t! eleven 0%%1 $eas, si> 01 "!nths and t6ent$-

!ne 0'%1 da$s !f pisi!n "a$!as "a>i"u".

The C!ut d!es n!t aee. This C!ut n!tes that the esti"ated value !f the c!nfiscated pieces !f

lu"4e, as appeain in the State"ent Sh!6in the Nu"4ePieces and V!lu"e !f ?u"4e 2ein

C!nfiscated is P,(+(.(( 6hich is alleed in the Inf!"ati!n. *!6eve, e>cept f! the testi"!nies !f A4aniel and 2utal that this a"!unt is the esti"ate 4ased !n pevailin l!cal pice as stated in the

appehensi!n eceipt the$ issued, the p!secuti!n did n!t pesent an$ p!!f as t!the value !f the

lu"4e.

Cleal$, this evidence d!es n!t suffice. The C!ut had uled that in !de t! p!ve the a"!unt !f the

p!pet$ ta9en f! fi>in the penalt$ i"p!sa4le aainst the accused unde Aticle /( !f the Revised

Penal C!de 0RPC1, the p!secuti!n "ust pesent "!e than a "eeunc!!4!ated esti"ate !f

such fact. In the a4sence !f independent and elia4le c!!4!ati!n !f such esti"ate, c!uts "a$

eithe appl$ the "ini"u" penalt$ unde Aticle /( ! fi> the value !f the p!pet$ ta9en 4ased !n

the attendant cicu"stances !f the case.' *ence, the l!6e c!ut eed in findin that the value !f

the c!nfiscated lu"4e is P,(+(.(( f! n! evidence !f such value 6as esta4lished duin the tial.

Acc!dinl$, the C!ut i"p!ses !n the petiti!ne the "ini"u" penalt$ unde Aticle /(01' !f the

RPC, 6hichis aest! "a$!in its "ini"u" and "ediu" pei!ds. *!6eve, c!nsidein that vi!lati!n

!f Secti!n !f the F!est$ C!de is punished as Bualified Theft unde Aticle /%(/( in elati!n t!

Aticle /( !f the RPC, the statut!$ penalt$ shall 4e inceased 4$ t6! deees, that is, t! pisi!n

c!ecci!nalin its "ediu" and "a>i"u" pei!ds ! 6ithin the ane !fthee 0/1 $eas, si> 0

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kris-vermie-garcia
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS: From July 8-10, union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the...

Documents