PEOPLE VS SUMAGIT

[G.R. No. 220889. July 5, 2017.]

FACTS:
In the evening of August 31, 2007, Hiroshi Emmanuel Zorilla (Hiroshi) celebrated
his 17th birthday with his friends in the house of his Aunt Teodora and Uncle Robert
Dela Cruz in Pasig City. Around 2:00 a.m. of September 1, 2007, Jolly Pantaleon (Jolly)
left the group and was followed by Enrile, but the latter soon returned to the party and
was accompanied by accused-appellant and his brother Marvin, and Noel. Armed with
guns and a knife, the three men approached and suddenly boxed Enrile, then tied the
hands of all the persons inside the house and ordered them to lie down on the door as
they took their personal belongings. Meanwhile, the maids of Teodora and Robert,
namely, AAA and Rhea Brioso, were awakened inside their quarters by the presence
accused-appellant and Noel. Upon Noel's order, AAA was left inside the room. Noel
immediately locked the door, and at gunpoint, ordered AAA to remove her pants. He
told AAA to lie down, then he inserted his penis into her vagina.
Thereafter, Noel and Marvin entered the room of spouses Teodora and Robert
through the window. Teodora was awakened and was surprised, hence, she shouted
which prompted Robert to get up from bed. At gunpoint, Noel and Marvin ordered the
spouses to lie on the bed while they searched the room then they took away some
pieces of jewelry, laptop, ATM card, cash amounting to PhP6,700 and 23 pieces of Yen.
Teodora recognized the faces of Noel and Marvin since the room was illuminated by
light coming from a lamp shade.
Accused-appellant and Marvin, on the other hand, proffered alibi and claimed
that they were sleeping in their house when the alleged crime was committed Accused-
appellant and his co-accused, namely, Marvin Belmonte (Marvin), Enrile Gabay (Enrile),
and Noel Baac (Noel) were charged with Robbery with Rape.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
Yes, accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is no
basis to disturb the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA respecting accused-
appellant's criminal culpability. The prosecution's evidence established with certainty
that accused-appellant, together with his brother Marvin, and co-accused Noel, have
intruded the house of spouses Teodora and Robert on the occasion of Hiroshi's birthday
celebration thereat. They aided each other in divesting the guests of Hiroshi of their
personal belongings through violence and intimidation. The evidence disclosed that they
were armed with guns and knife, and they tied the hands of their victims and threatened
them with harm if they disobeyed their orders. Noel and Marvin, on the same occasion,
entered the room of spouses Teodora and Robert through the window and succeeded
in taking away from their possession some pieces of jewelry, laptop, ATM card, and
cash. Teodora and Hiroshi, as to the foregoing, are sufficient and credible to sustain the
conviction of accused-appellant. The prosecution witnesses' positive identification of the
accused-appellant as one of the malefactors in the robbery that took place on
September 1, 2007 defeats accused-appellant's lone defense of alibi. Hence, the
accused is guilty for the crime of Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659.
Robbery with Rape is a special complex crime under Article 294 of the RPC.

PEOPLE VS BONGOS
[G.R. No. 227698. January 31, 2018.]
FACTS:
In the evening of June 8, 2010, at Barangay 123, Legazpi City, AAA, helper of
BBB and CCC, was left to tend the house when CCC went to her mother's house. While
AAA was washing dishes, two male persons entered the house through the kitchen.
She identified them as Bongos, the one wearing bonnet up to his forehead, and
Dexisne, the one wearing black short pants with red stripes on the side. She knew them
because they are neighbors of her employers. Bongos pointed a gun at her, while
Dexisne pointed his knife. They forced her to enter the room where the money of her
employer was and demanded her to open the drawer. After they took the money, they
forcibly dragged AAA outside the yard, both accused threatened and ordered AAA to
undress herself. When she refused to do so, Dexisne got violent and slashed her leg
and then hit her chest near her left breast which caused her to lose consciousness.
When AAA woke up, she no longer had her clothes on and felt pain on her
private
part. She was afraid so she went to DDD, the grandfather of CCC and asked for help.
DDD summoned someone to fetch CCC to come home. Together with CCC, AAA
reported the robbery incident to the authorities the following day. However, AAA did not
tell CCC of the rape incident because she was ashamed and afraid that accused would
really make good of their threat to kill or harm her in case she makes a report about the
incident.
In the Medico-Legal Report issued on June 17, 2010 by Dr. James Belgira, the
genital examination upon AAA revealed that her hymen was dilated and there were
deep-healed lacerations at 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions, which concluded that there
were clear signs of blunt vaginal penetrating trauma. Later, Dr. Belgira testified that the
approximate time wherein the deep-healed lacerations were inflicted was around three
to five days prior to the examination day. He further testified that the cause of the
dilation and lacerations of the hymen may be due to a blunt protruding hard object
inserted in the vagina which has a diameter sufficient enough to break the maximum
elasticity of the hymenal body.
 The defense alleged that around 1 o'clock in the afternoon of June 8, 2010,
Bongos was at the house of his parents in Barangay 123, Legazpi City to fix the tricycle
of his father. Those present at the house where his father and mother, Nimfa Bongos
and Dexisne. Bongos claimed that he finished fixing the tricycle at around 8 o'clock in
the evening and then he went directly to his house, about 150 meters away from his
father's house, while Dexisne was left behind.

ISSUE: Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

HELD:
No, the trial court did not gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of
the charge crime despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Robbery with rape is a special complex crime under Article 294 of the RPC. To
be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: (1) the taking of
personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the
property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. For a conviction of the
crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by
reason or on the occasion of a robbery and not the other way around.
In the case at bar, the court found no compelling reason to disturb the findings of
the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. The prosecution was able to establish
that Bongos and Dexisne entered the house of the victims armed with a handgun and
knife and took spouses BBB and CCC's money amounting to P20, 000.00 without
consent and by means of violence and intimidation. Having established that the
personal properties of the victims were unlawfully taken by the accused-appellant, intent
to gain was sufficiently proven. Thus, the first three elements of the crime were clearly
established. The prosecution's evidence established with certainty that accused-
appellant, together with Dexisne, conspired to the crime. Hence, Accused-appellant
Hernando Bongos is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of
ROBBERY WITH RAPE, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE VS DILLATAN, SR. y PAT

[G.R. No. 212191. September 5, 2018.]
FACTS:
 Private complainants, the spouses Henry and Violeta Acob (Spouses Acob),
were owners of a market stall at the public market of Sta. Rosa Aurora, Isabela. Around
6 o'clock in the evening of February 7, 2010, the Spouses Acob, together with their son,
Homer, closed their stall and proceeded home by riding together on their motorcycle.
They noticed two persons, whom they near a motorcycle, when they passed, accused-
appellants rode the motorcycle and tailed them. Accused-appellants eventually caught
up with them, whereupon, accused Dillatan forced them to stop and immediately
declared a holdup. Garcia then fired at the victims hitting, first, the left hand of Violeta.
The bullet went through the left hand of Violeta and pierced Homer's chest causing the
latter to fall down together with the motorcycle. Henry, on the other hand, was able to
get off the motorcycle and tried to escape but Garcia also fired at him thereby hitting his
right knee. Accused-appellants, thereafter, fled through their motorcycle. Several people
then came to the aid of the private complainants and brought them to the hospital where
Homer later expired by reason of his gunshot wound. Violeta and Henry were treated for
their wounds. A criminal complaint was subsequently filed against accused-appellants.

ISSUE: Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED

HELD:
No, the Court finds no error in the fndings of both the RTC and the CA that the
prosecution was able to clearly establish that: (1) accused-appellants forced Homer,
Henry and Violeta to stop their motorcycle; (2) Dillatan declared the holdup and grabbed
the belt bag in Violeta's possession; and (3) thereafter, Garcia fired at the victims in
order to preserve their possession of the stolen item and to facilitate their escape.
In this case, both the trial and appellate courts found Violeta's and Henry's
separate testimonies as credible. It is doctrinal that findings of trial courts on the
credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a
judgment of conviction. The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the ruling of
the lower courts that apart from their self-serving testimony that they were someplace
else at the time of the commission of the crime, accused-appellants were unable to
sufficiently show that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the
crime when it was committed. Hence, the accused-appellant is guilty of beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, defined and
penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS VIBAL, JR y UAYAN
[G.R. No. 229678. June 20, 2018.]
FACTS:
 On May 10, 2005, PO3 Wilfredo Almendras, together with PO2 Binmaot and PO2
Erwin Rivera, and two (2) other civilian escorts, was with Mayor Leon Arcillas at the 2nd
floor of the Municipal City Hall of Sta. Rosa City. The police officers were assigned as
security escorts of the Mayor. Mayor Arcillas was then solemnizing marriages. After the
ceremony ended, the Mayor went to the Office of the Commission on Audit then to the
Office of the Mayor. On their way gunshots were fired on them. PO3 Almendras was
not able to pull out his gun since there was a rapid fire coming from their front and back.
He, PO2 Rivera and the Mayor sustained gunshots wounds. The three (3) fell to the
ground. While on the floor, PO3 Almendras heard three (3) more gunshots before he felt
dizzy. Thereafter, PO3 Almendras and Mayor Arcillas were brought to the hospital.
During the investigation, Cipriano Refrea appeared and told SPO1 Peria that
accused-appellants Vibal and David were his companions when the killing transpired.
Refrea pointed to them as the gunmen. After knowing from Refrea the identity of
accused-appellant Vibal, SPO1 Peria asked his whereabouts. He came to know that
accused-appellant Vibal was presently detained at the Trece Martirez. SPO1 Peria,
together with the other policemen visited Vibal, and when asked about his participation
on the shooting incident, he at first denied his participation, but later on admitted to his
participation.

ISSUE: Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS' POSITIVE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WHEN THE FACTS OF THE
CASE SHOW THAT THERE ARE DOUBTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED POSITIVE
IDENTIFICATION.

HELD:
No, the trial court did not gravely err in giving full credence to the testimony of the
prosecution witness’ positive identification of the accused-appellants. The Court agrees,
and finds no cogent reason to disturb this conclusion of the RTC as affirmed by the CA.
Appellants committed the second form of assault, the elements of which are: 1)
that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a
person in authority or his agent; 2) the assault was made when the said person was
performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance; and 3) the accused knew
that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have
the intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority. The assault results in the killing of an agent or of a
person in authority for that matter, there arises the complex crime of Direct Assault with
murder or homicide. Hence Herminio Vibal, Jr. y Uayan @ Pato and Arnold David y
Cruz @ Anot are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Direct
Assault with Attempted Murder.
 PEOPLE vs OPINIANO y VERANO
[G.R. No. 181474. July 26, 2017.]

FACTS:
On November 30, 1997, at around 2:30 a.m., spouses Eladio Santos (Eladio)
and Leonor Santos (Leonor) were found dead in the garage of their house at No. 548
Tahimik St., Brgy. Pag-ibig sa Nayon, Quezon City. Around 2:30 a.m. of November 30,
1997, Estrella received a call from her sister that their parents were stabbed. She and
her husband hurriedly went to the store. They noticed policemen and reporters waiting
outside the store. When she entered the garage, Estrella saw the bloodied and dead
bodies of her parents, while the police took pictures of the victims. She saw the store
and the house in disarray. She noticed that cigarettes, lighters, coins, and bills were
missing. Estrella remembered wrapping some coins and signing her initials on them for
eventual bank deposit.
In the second floor, she found the master bedroom in shambles, and noticed that
some money and her mother's pieces of jewelry were missing. The missing pieces of
jewelry were a watch worth P1,500.00, a ring with a big diamond stone worth more than
P55,000.00, a ring with small diamonds worth at least P15,000.00, a pair of earrings
with a Russian diamond worth P5,000.00, and a pair of pearl earrings worth
P20,000.00. Estrella estimated that the total cash missing amounted to P100,000.00.
She also noticed that the kitchen knife was missing, it had a black rubber band wrapped
around the handle. She later found the knife full of blood inside a case of beer. The
knife was turned over to the La Loma police.
Around 9:00 p.m. of the previous day, November 29, 1997, PO2 Paule and
SPO1 Eduardo Roderno (SPO1 Roderno) of the Caloocan police were traversing C-3
Road aboard a police-marked vehicle when they noticed a man carrying a heavy-
looking bag. When they approached him, the man ran away. After a brief chase, the
man was cornered. PO2 Paule noticed that he was nervous and sweating. His right leg
was stained with blood and his right waistline was bulging with an object, which turned
out to be a double bladed 9-inch mini kris. He did not answer when asked about the
bloodstain on his leg. Upon further interrogation, Dela Cruz verbally confessed that he
and his companions, whom he later revealed as "Ango" or Lumayag, and Opiniano,
"had just killed and robbed an old couple." Opiniano appealed the Regional Trial Court's
decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond

reasonable doubt.
HELD:
Yes, the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
eyewitness account of Dela Cruz, corroborated by the testimony and findings of Dr.
Arizala and Forensic Biologist Buan, suffices to convict accused-appellant Opiniano of
the crime charged. As a rule, findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness will
generally not be disturbed on appeal as it was the trial court which had the opportunity
to observe the demeanor of the witness during trial. Hence, accused-appellant Diony
Opiniano y Verano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide

PEOPLE vs ZZZ
[G.R. No. 228828. July 24, 2019.]

FACTS:
ZZZ went at large, but he was later arrested on February 6, 2003. Upon
arraignment, ZZZ pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. In an October 14, 1996
Information, ZZZ was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. The prosecution
presented five (5) witnesses: (1) the victim's uncle BBB; (2) Senior Police Officer 3
Jaime Lavarias (SPO3 Lavarias); (3) Dr. Paz Q. Mejia (Dr. Mejia); (4) Dr. Ronald
Bandonill (Dr. Bandonill); and (5) the victim's father CCC. BBB testified that at around
7:00 p.m. on May 16, 1996, he was on his way to the store to buy cigarettes when he
saw ZZZ dragging AAA by the wrist toward the school. Though it was dark and he was
about 10 meters away, he was able to see them using a flashlight he was carrying. Still,
he said he presumed nothing was off, thinking they were relatives. He had merely
reprimanded them before he went on to buy his cigarette and returned home, where he
had a drinking spree with his nephews. The following day, news spread that AAA was
missing. With his cousin Jose􀀼no
Camilet, BBB went on a search for his niece and informed barangay officials who then
helped to look for her. A couple of days later, the barangay officials found a lifeless
AAA in a bamboo grove near the school. BBB said that her niece's naked body had
already blackened due to decomposition. On the same day, he said he found ZZZ in his
house — the last time he had ever seen him. SPO3 Lavarias testi􀀼ed that he was on
duty the day AAA was found. When he and his companions went to _____________,
they saw AAA's corpse under the bamboo grove. They came to know the body's identity
through BBB, who also claimed that ZZZ was the person behind the crime. Dr. Bandonill
remarked that AAA might have been sexually assaulted. He added that AAA's death
could have been caused by the traumatic cerebral contusion.
ZZZ testified that he was 15 years old when the incident happened, as evidenced
by his birth certificate. When the incident happened, he said that he went to his
grandmother's house, where he watched television with his brother and around 20 other
people — including AAA. After watching, he and his brother, YYY, returned to their
sister's house to sleep. He said that he did not notice if AAA left their grandmother's
house. ZZZ filed his Notice of Appeal. His appeal having been given due course, the
Court of Appeals elevated the records of this case to this Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant ZZZ is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of the crime of rape with homicide

HELD:
Yes, accused-appellant ZZZ is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape with homicide. The commission of the crime of rape may be proven not only by
direct evidence, but also by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence are "proof
of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common experience." In the absence of direct
evidence, a resort to circumstantial evidence is usually necessary in proving the
commission of rape. The trial court and the Court of Appeals considered the
circumstantial evidence in convicting accused-appellant. A careful review of the records
shows nothing that warrants the reversal of the trial court's and the Court of Appeals'
rulings. Hence Accused-appellant ZZZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the special complex crime of rape with homicide and is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum,
to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

ARIAS vs PEOPLE
[G.R. Nos. 237106-07. June 10, 2019.]
FACTS:
During the period March to December 2001, or sometime subsequent thereto,
reimbursements were claimed and paid by DPWH in an amount totaling millions of
pesos covering 409 transactions purportedly for the emergency repairs of 39 DPWH
service vehicles. Out of the 409 transactions, 274 transactions were made in the name
of accused Martinez for which the total sum of P5, 166,539.00, not P6, 368,364.00,
were claimed and paid as reimbursements. The spare parts were purportedly supplied
by J-CAP Motorshop, owned by accused Capuz, and DEB Repair Shop and Parts
Supply owned by accused Dela Cruz. The transactions are covered by Disbursement
Vouchers with supporting documents to justify the release of checks.
On November 24, 2016, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending,
among others, that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were self-serving. He
argued that the findings of fact made by the Sandiganbayan were not proven during the
trial and that its ruling was based mainly on conjectures and surmises. Petitioner
maintained that in signing documents, he performed only ministerial functions and that
he relied on the tasks performed by his subordinates which were done in a regular
manner. The Sandiganbayan denied the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has committed a reversible error when it
found that Arias is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime estafa and violation of
section 3 (e) of RA 3019

HELD:
No, the Sandiganbayan has not committed a reversible error when it found that
Arias is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime estafa and violation of section 3 (e)
of RA 3019. All the elements of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Official/Commercial Documents were established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. In this case, Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it
was proven that except for the Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, the documents
required under the DPWH Memorandum, dated July 31, 1997, were prepared,
accomplished and signed by all the public oficials concerned, taking advantage of their
official positions in making untruthful statements in the narration of facts. The said
documents were made to appear that the 39 service vehicles underwent emergency
repairs or required purchase of spare parts. In addition, in order to claim payment from
DPWH, the Disbursement Vouchers were also falsified to justify the release of checks.
As aptly ruled by the Sandiganbayan, all the elements of the crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents are present because the petitioner and
his co-accused utilized false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means to make it
appear that the DPWH service vehicles underwent emergency repairs or required the
purchase of spare parts, and that reimbursements are due to petitioner by using falsified
documents. Through those falsified documents, petitioner and his co-accused employed
fraudulent means in order to defraud the government in paying the claims for the
fictitious emergency repairs/purchases of spare parts. Hence, petitioner is guilty of
Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents, petitioner is sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

PEOPLE vs MACASPAC y ISIP

[G.R. No. 198954. February 22, 2017.]
FACTS:
The case was archived for more than 15 years because Macaspac had gone into
hiding and remained at large until his arrest on July 28, 2004. Upon his arraignment on
August 31, 2004, he pleaded not guilty to the foregoing information. Around 8:00 in the
evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with Ricardo Surban, Dionisio
Barcomo alias Boy, Jimmy Reyes, and Jebulan on Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City. In the course of their drinking, an argument ensued between Macaspac
and Jebulan. Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the lower right area of his chest,
and ran away. Surban and the others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan. The badly
wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan had
scuffled for the possession of the knife, and that he had then stabbed Jebulan once he
seized control of the knife. However, Macaspac later on claimed that Jebulan had been
stabbed by accident when he fell on the knife. Macaspac denied being the person with
whom Jebulan had the argument, which he insisted had been between Barcomo and
one Danny.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming his conviction for murder
on the ground that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt for murder beyond
reasonable doubt.

HELD:
No, the CA did not erred in affirming his conviction for murder on the ground that
the Prosecution did not establish his guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt. The
Court sees no misreading by the RTC and the CA of the credibility of the witnesses and
the evidence of the parties. The CA correctly observed that inconsistencies had
rendered Macaspac's testimony doubtful as to shatter his credibility. The CA rejected
his claim of self-defense by highlighting the fact that Jebulan had not engaged in any
unlawful aggression against him. Instead, the CA observed that Jebulan was already
running away from the scene when Macaspac stabbed him. Both the RTC and the CA
18 concluded that Macaspac had suddenly attacked the completely unarmed and
defenseless Jebulan; and that Macaspac did not thereby give Jebulan the opportunity to
retaliate, or to defend himself, or to take fiight, or to avoid the deadly assault. Hence,
accused-appellant RODRIGO MACASPAC y ISIP guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
HOMICIDE, and SENTENCES him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of EIGHT
YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR , as minimum, to 14 YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS AND
ONE DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL , as maximum.