G.R. No. 233659.

 December 10, 2019 PERALTA window of the house of Quiros with a gun on his right hand and a
PEOPLE vs. SANOTA  “black thing” on his left. Appellants Sanota and Dayto then fled to
the forest, while appellant Espineli proceeded to where the
motorcycle was parked. Abion also went back to the motorcycle and
Doctrine: (Pls. see ruling) pretended that he didn’t witness the incident. Appellant Espineli
drove the motorcycle and Abion alighted in Barangay Hernandez
Facts: where the latter was told by the former to keep quiet. The following
day, Abion heard from his neighbors that Quiros’ house has been
1. According to Santiago Abion, Jr. (Abion), on March 31, 2011, around robbed and that the latter’s son, Jose Miguel Quiros (Jose Miguel)
4:00 p.m., he was feeding his ducks at the back of his house when was killed. Abion pretended not to know about the incident, but
he saw appellants having a drinking spree at a hut located five (5) through the prodding of his wife who works as a gardener of Quiros,
meters away from his house. From a distance of three (3) meters, he was able to execute a Sinumpaang Salaysay3 dated April 5, 2011.
he overheard the three (3) appellants planning to raid a house
in Hacienda 8. Abion also heard the same appellants saying that 2. Thus, an Information was filed against the three (3) appellants
anyone who blocks their path will be killed. Thereafter, Abion charging them with the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
entered his house and cooked food for dinner. Later, in the evening
of the same day, appellant Espineli arrived at Abion’s house and With the presence of the aggravating circumstances that the
invited the latter to a birthday party in Don Jose, Santa Rosa, Robbery with Homicide is committed in a dwelling and during
Laguna. After Abion asked permission from his wife, he and nighttime.
appellant Espineli boarded a motorcycle owned and driven by the  
same appellant. Instead of going to Don Jose, Santa Rosa, Laguna, 3. During their arraignment on July 8, 2011, appellants entered a plea
the motorcycle headed towards Hacienda 8, and after five (5) of “not guilty.”
minutes of travelling, appellant Espineli parked the motorcycle
beside the road and in front of the house of Don Alfonso Quiros 4. Appellants Espineli, Dayto and Sanota interposed the defense of
(Quiros). Appellant Espineli told Abion to stay put as he had to talk denial and alibi.
to his fellow security guard inside the house of Quiros. After a few
seconds, appellants Sanota and Dayto arrived and the two asked 5. RTC promulgated its Decision convicting the appellants of the crime
Abion where appellant Espineli was. Abion told them that appellant of Robbery with Homicide.
Espineli went inside the house of Quiros and, thereafter, appellants  
Sanota and Dayto went inside the same house. Abion followed 6. According to the RTC, all the elements of the crime of Robbery with
appellants Sanota and Dayto, and when he was twenty (20) meters Homicide are present.
away from the house of Quiros, he saw appellant Espineli handing a Appellants sought further recourse to the CA.
gun to appellant Dayto, and the latter, with a gun in his possession,
climbed the window of the same house. After five (5) minutes, 7. The CA, in its Decision dated February 15, 2017, affirmed the
Abion heard a gunshot and saw appellant Dayto come out of the decision of the RTC.
 Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
- The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of persons — Penalties.—Any person guilty of robbery with the
of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to the use of violence against or any person shall suffer:
CA, although there was no direct evidence to establish
appellants’ commission of the crime charged, circumstantial The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason
evidence suffices to convict them. or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall
have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been
Issue: accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
 
Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the
robbery with homicide. prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following
elements:
Ruling: YES  
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons;
1. The appellants argue that there was no direct proof presented by (2) the property taken belongs to another;
the prosecution on the events that led to the death of the victim, as (3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and
well as the identity of the person or persons who shot the victim, (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
nor was there any eyewitness to the actual taking of the missing homicide is committed.
laptop. They further insist that the testimony of Abion is incredible  
and does not warrant any consideration. Thus, absent any proof, 3. In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
appellants contend that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
beyond reasonable doubt. occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take
2. What is important is that the prosecution was able to prove the place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result
existence of all the elements of the crime. The crime of robbery obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances,
with homicide has been thoroughly discussed in People v. causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
Ebet, thus: crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such
felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
In People v. De Jesus, this Court had the occasion to meticulously simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely,
expound on the nature of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, thus: robbery and homicide, must be consummated.

Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides: 4. It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident;
or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or
that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide,
 rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal
committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his coconspirators and can
immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a
homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the
felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies 8. Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate
integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the
The word “homicide” is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the
commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the
robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a
5. Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of place other than the situs of the robbery. 
violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of
asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, In this case, all the elements were proven by the prosecution beyond
conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of reasonable doubt.
the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen
may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 15, 2017 of the Court of
robber or recovered by the owner. The prosecution is not burdened Appeals affirming the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, finding
to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen appellants John Sanota y Sarmiento, Deo Dayto y Genorga @ “Rubrob” and
from the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the Rolando Espineli y Acebo @ “Landoy” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for the crime of Robbery with Homicide
robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved.

6. When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of

robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would
also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in
the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent
the same.

7.  If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the

commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of
robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery
with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all
G.R. No. 228951, July 17, 2019 5. RTC: found the Appellant guilty of robbery with homicide. It ruled that in the
absence of eyewitness to the actual taking of victim’s personal belongings, the crime
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAY GODOY MANCAO, of robbery with homicide was nonetheless established by circumstantial evidence.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. 6. CA: affirmed the RTC Decision with modification.

Doctrine: Issue:

1. It held that a conviction for robbery with homicide requires that the robbery is the 1. Whether the accused-appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide
main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to absent any eyewitness to the actual taking of the Deceased’s personal belongings..
the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing
may occur before, during or after the robbery. Ruling
2. ELEMENTS:
a. taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against 1. YES.
persons; 2. It held that a conviction for robbery with homicide requires that the robbery is the
b. the property taken belongs to another; main purpose and objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to
c. the taking is with animo lucrandi; and the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing
d. by reason of the robbery, or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. may occur before, during or after the robbery.
3. ELEMENTS:
Facts: e. taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons;
1. In September 2007, the Deceased Peter Enriquez was texting on his cellphone while f. the property taken belongs to another;
waiting for a jeepney ride when the Appellant Jay Godoy Man Cao stealthily move g. the taking is with animo lucrandi; and
from behind him and stabbed him in the neck. Thereafter, the Appellant dragged the h. by reason of the robbery, or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.
Deceased’s body toward an alley. 4. Here, there was no eyewitnesses to the actual taking of the victim's personal
2. Afterwards, the police received a report of the said incident and immediately property. Prosecution, nevertheless, proved appellant's guilt through circumstantial
proceeded to the same and found the Deceased. His cellphone, silver necklace, silver evidence. the Court bases its findings of guilt on direct evidence of the commission
bracelet, and wallet containing cash were missing. The police followed the trail of of a crime. But the lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that
blood which led to the boarding house of the Appellant. There, the Appellant’s the guilt of the accused can no longer be proved because circumstantial evidence, if
brother cried and confessed that the Appellant was involved in the robbery and that sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence.
he assisted him in fleeing. 5. The first two elements of robbery with homicide were established through
3. The next day, the police proceeded to search for the Appellant who tried to escape circumstantial evidence.
being captured. Upon capture and arrest, they found in his possession a silver 6. The police testified that the silver necklace found in the possession of the Appellant
necklace and a pair of blood-stained pants. was the same necklace owned by the Deceased. As the Appellant failed to justify his
4. Thus, the Appellant was charged with robbery with homicide before the Regional possession of the Deceased’s necklace, the presumption that he stole the same from
Trial Court (RTC). the Deceased stands. Under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, a person
found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker
 and the doer of the whole act. In the case at bar, appellant failed to justify his
possession of the victim's necklace. Thus the presumption that he stole the same
from the victim and that he is the perpetrator of the crime, stands.
7. The third element (animus lucrandi) was similarly established by the same
presumption. For intent to gain is an internal act which is presumed from the
unlawful taking by appellant of the thing subject of asportation. And since the object
of the crime i.e. victim's necklace was recovered from appellant, his intent to gain is
presumed.
8. Further, it was testified by an eyewitness that he saw the Appellant stabbed the
Deceased from the back and dragged his body toward an alley.
9. These circumstances created an unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion
that the Appellant’s primary purpose was to rob the Deceased and the killing was
merely resorted to in order to gain easy access to the Deceased’s personal
belongings.
10. There was no showing that the Deceased and Appellant had known each other
before the incident took place, or that they had previous conflicts that would serve
as sufficient motive for the Appellant to end the life of the Deceased. Hence, the
only logical conclusion is the killing was committed on the occasion only or by reason
of the robbery.
11. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 27, 2016 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01258-MIN, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant Jay Godoy Mancao is found guilty of robbery with
homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay P75,000.00 civil
indemnity; P75,000.00 moral damages; P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
P50,000.00 as temperate damages. These amounts shall earn six (6) percent interest
per annum from finality of this decision until fully paid.
People v. Bacyaan by jumping off the bus, Bacyaan shot passenger Renato James Veloso in the back which
resulted in his death. He also shot the driver.
Doctrine: In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the 4. In their defense, appellants denied that they were participants in the robbery incident.
occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery Guevarra, in particular, averred that he was an innocent passenger of the bus and was on
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take his way home. He was wrongfully arrested and imputed of the crime charged. Meanwhile,
place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result Fernandez claimed that at the time of the incident, he was in the Balintawak Market
obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, waiting for a ride on his way home to Bulacan when he heard gunshots being fired.
causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
5. RTC held the accused guilty of the crimes of robbery with homicide and serious illegal
crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such
detention.
felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, 6. On appeal, the CA affirmed appellants' conviction for the crime of robbery with
robbery and homicide, must be consummated. homicide but dismissed the criminal case for serious illegal detention. It held that the
detention of the victims was only incidental to the main crime of robbery; hence, it was
- Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery,
deemed absorbed.
the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are Issue:
integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, W/N the accused were guilty of robbery with homicide.
includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
Ruling: YES.
- When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would 1. After due consideration, the Court affirms appellants' conviction for robbery with
also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of homicide but modifies the award of damages.
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in
the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent 2. There is robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC when a
the same. homicide is committed by reason of or on occasion of a robbery. In order to sustain a
conviction for robbery with homicide, the following elements must be proven by the
Facts: prosecution: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to
gain or animus lucrandi; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and
1. Appellants were charged with the crimes of robbery with homicide and serious illegal
(4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its
detention.
generic sense, was committed.
2. Giovanni Cuadro7 (Cuadro) testified that on May 31, 2017, he boarded the JMK bus
3. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of
along Ayala Avenue, Makati City. When the bus reached the EDSA-Ayala Flyover, six men,
the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery."27 Thus, it follows that
armed with guns and a grenade, declared a hold-up. He identified appellant Bacyaan as
"[t]he intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur
the one who announced the hold-up, while appellants Guevarra and Fernandez were the
before, during or after the robbery.
ones who divested himself and the other passengers of their personal belongings
including money. 4. Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking
of personal property. When the fact of asportation has been established beyond
3. Meanwhile, policemen started pursuing the bus. When the bus reached the Muñoz
reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the
Market in Caloocan City, the policemen flagged it down. As the passengers tried to escape
robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned
or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. The prosecution
is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from
the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is
of no moment because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or
value involved.

5. When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who
took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single
and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in
the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. If a robber
tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery, he is
guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to
commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all
profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it
has materialized.

6. In the present case, there is no doubt that the above-mentioned elements are present.
The candid testimony of Cuadro, one of the passengers of the bus held-up by appellants,
unmistakably produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. From these circumstances,
there is no mistaking from the actions of appellants that their main intention was to rob
the passengers of the JMK bus and that on the occasion of the robbery, a homicide was
committed. Accordingly, personal properties, such as cellphones and money, belonging to
the passengers were taken by appellants by means of force and with obvious intent to
gain. During the robbery, passenger Renato James Veloso and bus driver Lauro Santos
were both mercilessly gunned down by Bacyaan.
G.R. No. 134815. May 27, 2004.* deposit US$250,000 in the bank every afternoon for his employer.
PEOPLE vs. DE JESUS They decided to waylay Ybasco on his way to the bank.

PER CURIAM: 3. At 8:00 a.m. on March 7, 1994, upon Nash’s instructions, Del
Rosario and the appellant took a Toyota Corolla car with Plate No.
This is an automatic review of the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of TAX 732 from Rolando Fajardo in Tanauan, Batangas. The car was
Makati, Branch 64, convicting the appellant of robbery with homicide and owned by Nash. While the appellant, Del Rosario and Manansala
sentencing him to suffer the death penalty. were on board the car, their confederate, Tonton, had lunch
somewhere in Batangas. The group arrived in the vicinity of the
Facts: parking lot at the Ayala Center near the Rustan’s Supermarket and
the Kimpura Restaurant on board the same car. The appellant was
1. SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco was a policeman assigned to the Makati armed with a caliber .45 handgun. Manansala, the appellant and
Police Station, Substation Block No. 6 since March 16, 1973. After Del Rosario alighted, and conducted a surveillance of the area.
his tour of duty, he worked on the sly for a money changer in the Tonton remained in the car. Manansala instructed Del Rosario to
vicinity of the Intercontinental Hotel and the Rustan’s Supermarket position himself as a lookout at the corner of the Rustan’s
in Makati City. He delivered money for his employer every Supermarket, and for the appellant to position himself within the
afternoon. The money was placed in a plastic bag and he used a vicinity. Manansala waited for Ybasco near the office of the money
bicycle for this extra job. Everytime Ybasco delivered money to his changer. Dela Rapa, who was then vending cigarettes, was about
employer, he passed by Yolanda dela Rapa who was selling five arm’s length away from the car.
cigarettes in the vicinity of the Rustan’s Supermarket and the
Kimpura Restaurant, Ayala Center, Makati City. Ybasco was a 4. At around 6:30 p.m., Ybasco emerged from the office of his
familiar face among the other cigarette vendors in the area, employer holding a plastic bag. Manansala contacted Del Rosario
namely, Lydia, Gina, Jing and Romy. Dela Rapa called him “Sir and told him that Ybasco was on his way out. He reminded Del
Ybasco.” Rosario to be on the lookout for anybody who might rush to the
succor of Ybasco, while the appellant would take care of Ybasco.
2. Sometime in February 1994, Dante Manansala, a native of Momentarily, Manansala and the appellant confronted Ybasco and
Barangay Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna, appellant Eduardo de Jesus, told him, “May warrant of arrest ka.” They grabbed Ybasco,
a native of Barangay Tabuyok, Apalit, Pampanga, and Crispin Del handcuffed him and dragged him to the car. Manansala and the
Rosario, the appellant’s brother-in-law and a native of Barangay appellant had a scuffle with Ybasco when they grabbed the plastic
Tadloc, Los Banos, Laguna, agreed to stage a robbery in the bag from him. Roberto Acosta, a roving security guard, saw the
afternoon of March 7, 1994. On February 15, 1994, the appellant incident and pulled out his .38 caliber gun with Serial No. 172410.
told Del Rosario of the planned robbery. Del Rosario was told that On board his motorbike, he sped towards the scene to investigate
the financier for the heist was Christopher Nash, a British national the incident. Del Rosario confronted Acosta and grappled with him
residing in the Philippines. The appellant knew that Ybasco was to for the possession of the gun. As Del Rosario managed to wrest
possession of the gun from Acosta, Manansala ordered Del Rosario
 to shoot. Del Rosario did as he was told, and shot Acosta in the at the Ayala Center to conduct an on-the-spot investigation of the
mouth. They boarded the car, and sped towards EDSA. Dela Rapa killing of Acosta and Ybasco’s abduction. When Dela Rapa informed
was shocked at the sudden turn of events. So was Juanito the policemen that she witnessed the incident, she was brought to
Mendoza, who had just stepped out from the Rustan’s the police station where she gave a sworn statement. At 8:10 p.m.,
Supermarket and saw the shooting incident. Wilfredo Delia, Juanito Mendoza arrived at the Makati Police Station and gave a
another security guard at the Ayala Center, rushed to Acosta's aid sworn statement where he indicated that he witnessed the
and brought him to the Makati Medical Center. Acosta expired at shooting incident and saw the get-away car, a Toyota Corolla with
about 10:10 p.m. Plate No. TAX 732. He also gave a physical description of Acosta’s
assailant.
5. Meanwhile, the Toyota Corolla sped towards the direction of
Cabuyao, Laguna. Manansala said that they would have no problem 9. At 6:20 a.m. of March 8, 1994, Sofronio Entridicho was at his sugar
because the mayor was his ninong. However, when he looked field and saw the cadaver of Ybasco whose hands were still
inside Ybasco’s bag and found that it only contained P5,000 instead handcuffed. Entridicho reported what he saw to the Cabuyao Police
of the expected US$250,000, he was enraged. Manansala hit Station. SPO2 Reynaldo Arcibal of the Cabuyao Police Station
Ybasco on the nape and uttered invectives at the latter. Ybasco reported the finding to the Makati Police Station which dispatched
explained, “Eh wala naman akong idinedeliber mga anak na a team of police investigators to Barangay Pulo, Cabuyao, Laguna.
ganyan kalaking pera.” Manansala took the P5,000 from Ybasco. The policemen found Ybasco’s body and an empty shell from a .45
caliber pistol.
6. Ybasco was transported to a sugar farm at Barangay Pulo, Cabuyao,
Laguna. Manansala and the appellant took him out of the car and
told him that he would be allowed to board a tricycle. The 10. On March 12, 1994, Manansala, with the assistance of his counsel,
appellant warned Ybasco not to follow them, as he, (the appellant) Atty. Sofronio Untalan, Jr., executed an extrajudicial confession in
was a member of the New People’s Army. Believing that Ybasco which he narrated how he, the appellant, Del Rosario and Nash,
would be freed, Del Rosario took P80 from the latter’s wallet, but planned to rob Ybasco of the cash he was carrying, including the
returned P50 to him for his fare. details of the abduction and the killing. The policemen attempted
to arrest the appellant at his residence, but the latter was nowhere
7. The appellant suddenly shot Ybasco on the head. The latter fell to to be found. The appellant remained at large.
the ground with his hands still handcuffed. Manansala, the
appellant and Del Rosario proceeded to Calamba, Laguna, where 11. Tanauan Police Operatives found the white Toyota Corolla with
Del Rosario alighted after receiving P100 from the appellant for his Plate No. TAX 732 in Tanauan, Batangas. The car was turned over to
fare. The appellant explained that the remaining P4,900 would be SPO2 Romeo Urbino of the Makati Police Station, who discovered
used for the repair of the car. that the said plate number was tampered with and renumbered
PTT 134.
8. In the meantime, police operatives from the Makati Police Station,
including SPO4 Tomas Sipin and SPO1 Ramoncito Ocampo, arrived
 12. From a police line-up of ten persons formed by the Makati Police did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot and fire at,
Station, which included Del Rosario, Dela Rapa was asked to with a handgun, one Roberto Acosta y Capirao, a roving security guard
identify Acosta’s killer and Ybasco’s abductors. Dela Rapa pointed detailed at the Ayala Center, who came to the rescue of SPO2 Eugenio
to and positively identified Del Rosario as Acosta’s assailant. Dela Ybasco, thereby inflicting upon him a serious mortal wound which directly
Rapa gave a supplemental statement pointing to and identifying caused his death.
Del Rosario as the person whom she saw boarding a white car.
14. Del Rosario was arraigned on April 5, 1994, assisted by counsel, and
pleaded guilty to the charge. On April 15, 1994, Manansala, assisted
13. On May 19, 1995, Del Rosario and Manansala were charged with
by counsel, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On April 21,
robbery with homicide in an Information, the accusatory portion of
1994, Del Rosario appeared before the court and stated that he
which reads:
wanted to testify and elucidate on how the crime charged was
committed by him and his cohorts. The court granted Del Rosario’s
“That on or about March 7, 1994, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro
request. With the assistance of counsel de parte, he forthwith
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
testified on how he, Manansala and the appellant perpetrated the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with Eduardo de
crime. The court, thereafter, rendered judgment convicting Del
Jesus y Enrile alias “Eddie,” Christopher John Nash and one alias “Ton Ton”
Rosario of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to
whose real name and present whereabout are still unknown and all of
suffer reclusion perpetua.
them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent of gain and by
means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: dragging, shoving and
pushing inside a Toyota Corolla car, colored white with Plate No. TAX-732
Issue:
one SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away the following: Whether the prosecution proved the commission of the crime charged
beyond reasonable doubt
1. 1)One (1) Cal. 38 revolver Smith & Wesson, with Serial No.
AUB-1015; Ruling: YES
2. 2)Identification Cards;
3. 3)One (1) wallet containing P5,000.00 cash. The appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the
commission of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. While the
belonging to the said SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco, against his will, to the prosecution may have proved the killing of Acosta and Ybasco, it, however,
damage and prejudice of the said SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco and/or his heirs failed to prove that the appellant divested Ybasco of P5,000.
and thereafter, the above-named accused, after handcuffing both hands of
the said SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco, with intent to kill, did then and there According to the appellant, Del Rosario implicated him, his own
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, shoot and fire at him with a handgun, brother-in-law, because they often quarreled with each other. The
thereby inflicting upon the latter a mortal wound which was the direct and appellant had made life miserable and unbearable for Del Rosario, and the
immediate cause of his death; that on the occasion of the aforesaid latter’s sister, who was later impelled to marry a Swedish national. As
robbery committed on SPO2 Eugenio Ybasco, the above-named accused, shown by Del Rosario’s letters to the appellant, the former himself
apologized to the latter for having falsely implicated him in the crime reason of the robbery.102 The intent to commit robbery must precede the
charged. taking of human life.103 The homicide may take place before, during or
after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons
We have meticulously reviewed the records and we are convinced intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into
beyond cavil that the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt consideration.104 There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through
that the appellant, Del Rosario and Manansala, conspired to rob Ybasco of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of
US$250,000 through violence and intimidation and that the appellant was the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
one of the perpetrators thereof; hence, criminally liable therefor as a
principal by direct participation. It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or
that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two
The Felony of Robbery With Homicide or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape,
intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides: or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons— victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery
Penalties.—Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the
any person shall suffer: robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, “homicide” is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder,
or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional parricide, and infanticide.
mutilation or arson.
Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent
For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is
unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of asportation has
burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements:
been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is
justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in
1. (1)the taking of personal property is committed with
court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown
violence or intimidation against persons;
away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. 105 The
2. (2)the property taken belongs to another;
prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property
3. (3)the taking is animo lucrandi; and
stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber knew the
actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the
1. (4)by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value
homicide is committed.101
involved.
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is
to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by
 When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, Ybasco’s abduction and the consummation of the robbery. The trio
all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held performed their tasks with precision. In the process, Del Rosario shot and
liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with killed Acosta who was on patrol within the vicinity and had rushed to the
homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it scene to investigate the incident. The appellant and Manansala abducted
clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. Ybasco, handcuffed him and boarded him in the car. Del Rosario took
Acosta’s service gun bearing serial number 172410 after killing the victim.
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the
commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery
with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide The Prosecution Adduced Proof
are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained Beyond Reasonable Doubt that
from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal the Appellant and his Cohorts
designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy Divested Ybasco of P5,030.00 And
once it has materialized. That The Appellant Shot Ybasco And
Acosta To Death On The Occasion
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion Or By Reason Of Robbery
of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or
the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of We reject the appellant’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove
the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) that the appellant and his cohorts divested Ybasco of P5,030.00, and his
to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a argument that Ybasco was shot by either Manansala or Del Rosario. The
nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be prosecutor adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that Del Rosario shot
committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. Acosta in Makati, that the appellant divested Ybasco of P5,000.00, and that
Del Rosario divested the victim of P30.00.
The Prosecution Adduced Proof
Beyond Reasonable Doubt That Indeed, Del Rosario’s testimony during the trial on May 20, 1997 is
The Appellant Conspired With Del inconsistent with his testimony during the trial of April 21, 1994. But the
Rosario And Manansala To Commit trial court rejected the aforequoted testimony of Del Rosario on May 20,
Robbery With Violence Against Or 1997, and gave credence to his testimony on April 21, 1994.
Intimidation Of Persons
We agree with the trial court.
In this case, the appellant, Del Rosario and Manansala, intended to
abduct Ybasco and divest him of money in the amount of US$250,000, First. When the public prosecutor asked Del Rosario to affirm and
which they thought Ybasco was about to deposit in the bank. Each of them confirm the truth of his answers to the questions propounded on him
had specific tasks to perform: the appellant and Manansala were tasked to during the trial of April 21, 1994, 121 Del Rosario unequivocably declared
abduct Ybasco, handcuff him and board him in their car, while Del Rosario that his answers to the said questions were true, and that he was not
acted as a lookout who would prevent anyone from interfering with coerced, forced or intimidated into answering.
 who shot Ybasco. However, the identity of the conspirator who shot
It is true that Del Rosario was a co-conspirator and that he implicated Ybasco and Acosta is of no moment.
the appellant and Manansala in the killing of Ybasco and the taking of
P5,000 from the latter. However, we have ruled that the testimony of a co- In People v. Escote, Jr.,137 the trial court ruled that treachery is
conspirator may be given full probative weight if it is shown to be candid aggravating in robbery with homicide. The aggravating circumstance of the
and straightforward, and is full of details which by its nature could not use of a vehicle in committing robbery with homicide is also attendant in
have been contrived, besides being corroborated by independent this case. The appellant and his cohorts used a vehicle when they abducted
evidence. Ybasco and transported him to Cabuyao, Laguna. However, the
Information does not allege that the appellant and his cohorts used a
The appellant’s bare denial of the crime charged and his alibi are vehicle in committing the crime charged as mandated by Section 8, Rule
intrinsically weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive and 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule must be applied
straightforward identification made by Del Rosario, that the appellant was retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant. 138 However, the
one of the perpetrators of the crime charged. 132 Alibi is so easy to concoct additional killing is not an aggravating circumstance in robbery with
and difficult to disprove.133 Furthermore, the appellant’s defenses of denial homicide. This is in accordance with the ruling of this Court in People v.
and alibi were debilitated by his flight after learning that he was wanted by Regala139 which is the prevailing doctrine.
police authorities for robbery with homicide, and his hiding in Cabuyao,
Laguna on November 20, 1994, where he was arrested. The appellant The imposable penalty for robbery with homicide as amended by Rep.
managed to evade the police authorities from March 10 or 11, 1994 134 by Act No. 7659 is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the presence of
working in Cabuyao, Laguna, and in Binangonan, Rizal, 135 while his family the aggravating circumstance of treachery, and that no mitigating
remained in Pampanga. circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the trial court
correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the death penalty, conformably
The trial court sentenced the appellant to suffer the death penalty on its to Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
finding that Ybasco was shot to death with treachery. The appellant
contends that (a) the prosecution failed to prove that he shot the victim;
and, (b) even if he did shoot the victim, the prosecution failed to prove IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is rendered AFFIRMING
that he adopted a particular means or method to do so. The Office of the WITH MODIFICATION the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Solicitor General contends that treachery was attendant because when Branch 4. The appellant Eduardo de Jesus is found GUILTY of robbery with
Ybasco was shot, he was handcuffed; hence, unable to defend himself. homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, and sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
We agree with the trial court and the Office of the Solicitor General.
The evidence on record shows that when the appellant and Manansala
abducted Ybasco in Makati, they handcuffed the victim and transported
him to a sugar field in Cabuyao, Laguna. The appellant and Manansala
brought Ybasco out of the car. Still handcuffed, Ybasco was shot by the
appellant on the right cheek. The appellant insists that it was Del Rosario
G.R. No. 133226 March 16, 2000  Later on in the day, he was informed by a certain Emma about the death of
Bonifacia, so he informed the latter’s son, Roberto, of his encounter with his
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOCSIN FABON @ "Loklok," accused- uncle in the early morning
appellant. 9. Mario Vinculado (Second witness)
 He testified that he is a resident of Brgy. Santa Cruz, Hilongos, Leyte since birth
Doctrine: and that he knew both the accused and the victim
 2nd week of August 1995: Mario went to Ampayon, Butuan City with a police
1. When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by officer named Lumayno from Hilongos Police Station
another offense like rape or intentional mutilation, such additional offense is treated  He went to said town because he was requested by Roberto to accompany
as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the Lumayno in determining whether Loklok was in Ampayon pursuant to an
maximum penalty of death. The proper designation is robbery with homicide Information sent by Butuan Police Station to the Hilongos Police Station
aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery,  When they arrived in Ampayon, they found Loklok at the municipal jail, being
it is the first paragraph of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code which applies, the investigated by the police
rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.  After the investigation, Loklok talked to Mario to inform him that he has a
companion when he assaulted Bonifacio and that he was only able to stab the
Facts: victim twice in the breast
 Upon returning to Hilongos, Mario informed the Hilongos police station and
7. April 23, 1995; said accused at the house of the victim Bonifacia Lasquite did then Roberto about Loklok’s admission
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain by means of force 10. Dr. Conrado Abiera (Expert Witness)
and violence, take and carry away sum of money amounting to P25,000.00 more or  He testified that he conducted an autopsy on the victim
less, and by reason or on occasion of the robbery the same accused attack and take  He stated that the lacerated wound in the victim’s forehead and the depressed
the life of the victim with the use of a bladed weapon.. skull fracture signified that she was hit with a blunt instrument which could
8. Benjamin Milano (First Witness) have been a stone, a piece of wood or the back portion of a bolo
 9 year old nephew and neighbor of Loklok  He also explained that the punctured like stab wounds meant that the assailant
 Nov. 23, 1995: At 5am, he was awakened by his mother to fetch water for their used an instrument shaped as an ice pick or welding rod
morning meal. He brought a container, and proceeded to the water pump of  Hemotama findings: Victim was strangled
Bonifacia Lasquite, located at the back of their house  The strangulation caused her to struggle in the air and in the price, she bit her
 After filling his container, he went on his way home, but he noticed his uncle tongue, which he concluded that the victim was strangled with a handkerchief
coming from the fence of Bonifacia’s house or a piece of cloth
 While standing 5 meters away, his uncle asked him, “Toy, is there somebody  The hematoma formation in the vaginal canal and near the urethral opening
fetching water?” explained that she was also raped, but such is of no certainty because he did
 Benjamin responded in the negative not examine if there were sperm cell in her vagina since the autopsy was
 He noticed that the forehead, t shirt and hair of his uncle were stained with conducted in a barrio where there was no laboratory
blood, and that he was also carrying a plastic bag and a bolo tucked in his pants  Conclusion: Assault was made by more than one assailant considering that
 Loklok then walked away in a hurried manner while repeatedly looking at his there were three devices used in the attack (blunt object, icepick like took and
shoulder a cloth instrument)
  No vital part of the victim was severed. No mutilation it is the first paragraph of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code which applies, the
11. Roberto Lasquite (Fourth Witness) rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
 Son of the victim 14. the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establishes the
 April 22, 1995: He went to attend a fiesta in Sitio Panas, Brgy, Bilibol, Southern guilt of accused-appellant and overpowers his defense of denial and alibi. Aside from
Leyte with a friend the fact that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, accused-appellant's alibi
 He stayed there until the following day of being in his house at 5:30 in the morning does not preclude his physical presence
 April 23, 1995: At around 10am, a certain Costan Taping informed Roberto that in the house of the victim considering that their respective residences are only 380
his mother was dead, so he immediately went home with Costan and his meters apart. Moreover, the proven circumstances in the instant case, when viewed
fiancée in their entirety, are as convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negate the
 They arrived at noon, and found his mother lying dead on the kitchen floor with innocence of accused-appellant, to wit:
their things scattered - The money (PhP 25, 000) kept in their shell was also a. accused-appellant was present at the scene of the crime;
missing b. he had blood stains on his body and clothes, had a bolo tucked in his waist and
 Later on, he was informed by Benjamin of his encounter with Loklok while the was carrying a plastic bag when he was seen leaving the scene of the crime;
former was fetching water c. he left Brgy. Sta. Cruz for Butuan City on the same day when the victim was
 Because of this, he and the barangay tanods searched for Loklok killed;
 After one month, Loklok’s whereabouts were known after he was arrested in d. he admitted to Mario Vinculado that he killed the victim; (
Butuan City e. he did not even bother to inform Roberto Lasquite of his alleged innocence
 He asked Mario to go to Butuan to confirm if it was Loklok who killed his despite having learned that he was being made accountable for the death of
mother Bonifacia Lasquite;
12. Accused-appellant Locsin Fabon, alias “Loklok”, was charged with the crime of f. he could not think of any reason as to why Benjamin Milano, his nephew,
robbery with homicide accompanied by rape and intentional mutilation. would lie in testifying against him; and
13. RTC: Robbery with Homicide and Rape, aggravated by Dwelling; Death Penalty. g. he escaped from incarceration during the pendency of this case before the
lower court.
Issue: 15. Clearly, the foregoing evidence is consistent with the culpability of the accused and
inconsistent with his defense of denial and alibi. Not the least worthy of notice is the
2. Whether Fabon is guilty of special complex crime of robbery with homicide is fact that accused-appellant twice sought to escape liability: first, on the day that the
accompanied by rape.. victim was killed and second, while he was incarcerated in prison. As has often been
repeated, flight is a strong indication of guilt. The reasons put forward by accused-
Ruling appellant to justify the two instances when he fled, i.e., first, to look for his live-in
partner's long lost father and second, because he was denied conjugal visits, are
12. NO. simply too lame and whimsical to merit credibility. Moreover, if the purpose of his
13. RTC inaccurately designated the crime committed as "robbery with homicide and trip to Butuan City was to look for his live-in partner's father, why did he not return
rape." When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by immediately to Brgy. Sta. Cruz after he and his live-in partner failed to locate the
another offense like rape or intentional mutilation, such additional offense is treated whereabouts of the said father? The only logical reason would be that he was
as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the avoiding something in Brgy. Sta. Cruz. However, despite his efforts to escape from
maximum penalty of death. The proper designation is robbery with homicide the long arm of the law, it still caught up with him in Butuan City.
aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery,
16. HOWEVER, the prosecution has sufficiently established accused-appellant's guilt for
the crime of robbery with homicide, it has failed to substantiate the alleged
aggravating circumstances of rape and intentional mutilation. As testified upon by
the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Abiera, it cannot be conclusively stated that the
victim was raped. Due to the fact that the entirety of the evidence presented in this
case are all circumstantial, the fact that the victim was no longer wearing her
underwear when her cadaver was discovered and that the victim had hematoma
formations on both sides of vaginal canal and near the urethral opening cannot
conclusively prove that she was raped. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of
intentional mutilation cannot also be appreciated since, as also testified upon by Dr.
Abiera, no vital body part was severed. Likewise, the fact that the victim's tongue
was halfbitten does not prove intentional mutilation since it could have been caused
by the victim herself when she was fighting to breathe for air while she was being
strangled by accused appellant.
17. Despite our finding that accused-appellant cannot be made liable for the aggravating
circumstances of rape and intentional mutilation, a finding which would have
lowered the penalty in the instant case to reclusion perpetua, accusedappellant will
still have to suffer the supreme penalty of death due to the attendance of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling which was alleged in the information and duly
proven during the trial. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. Dwelling is aggravating
in robbery with violence or intimidation because this class of robbery can be
committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's
house.
18. IN VIEW Of THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Locsin Fabon, alias
"Loklok." guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "robbery with homicide"
under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No
7659, 84 with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and hereby sentences the
said accused to suffer the supreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of
Bonifacia Lasquite in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and to pay
Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as actual damages for the stolen money.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the
Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let copies of the records of this
case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President of the Philippines for
possible exercise of clemency or pardoning power.
People v. Naag cash, and some loose change. When Desiree sensed that he has left, the premises, she
rolled down the ravine. She did not have the energy to stand and walk and so she crawled
Doctrine: - In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true intent of the
until she reached a house, which turned out to be the dwelling place of witness Engineer
accused must first be determined because it is his intent that
Antonio Balacano located at Sybil Subdivision, Sipi, Daraga. She cried for help. He was
determines the offense he has committed.
rescued by the Engineer.
if the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape was committed even
6. Naag, the driver, was arrested by the NBI agents of Naga City at Tagkawayan, Quezon.
before the asportation, the crime is robbery with rape. But if the original
The accused alleged, in his defense, that it was impossible for him to be the author of the
plan was to rape but the accused after committing the rape also
crime at bar. He claimed that at the time and date of the incident, he was sleeping in their
committed the robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the
house approximately seven kilometers away from where it happened. His tricycle was not
offense should be viewed as separate and distinct. To be liable for the
in a serviceable condition then, and he was repairing it the night before. It was fixed only
complex crime of robbery with rape the intent to take personal property
on January 9 since he was able to buy the spare part that he needed at about 8:30 a.m. of
of another must precede the rape.
January 8.
The accused should only be convicted of theft, not robbery, where,
7. In the end, the trial court chose not to believe Naag. It held: “The accused in his
when he took the personal properties of the rape victim, the element of
defense put up alibi, a shabby excuse, a defense indicties never seem to tire of.” However,
violence and intimidation was no longer present, as he inflicted force
the trial court did not convict him of the crime he was originally charged with, which is
upon her person, that was with the view and in pursuance of the rape,
Robbery with Rape. Instead he was meted out two different sentences for the separate
not of the taking.
crimes of Robbery and Rape.
Facts:
Issue:
1. The evidence for the prosecution shows that Desiree was a singer in a band which
W/N the lower court erred in ruling that the accused is guilty for the separate crimes of
regularly plays at the Gloss and Glitters Disco located in Tabaco, Albay. On the morning of
Robbery and Rape.
January 8, 1996, she went home to Sipi, Daraga, Albay, to visit her family.
Ruling: NO.
2. She rode a tricycle and upon reaching her place, she told him to stop and handed to
him her fare. To her surprise, what she received in return was not loose change, but a 1. We affirm the conviction. In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true
slap. intent of the accused must first be determined because it is his intent that determines the
offense he has committed.
3. The driver then began to maul her. Desiree fought back as hard as she could, but this
made the driver more ferocious in his assault. She was strangled, boxed and kicked. She
was repeatedly stabbed with a screw driver on her face, head, and different parts of her 2. We agree with the conclusion of the trial court that rape was the primary intent of the
body. Her head was banged against the sidecar. She realized that her struggle was in vain appellant and his taking away of the belongings of the victim was only a mere
and would only put her life in greater danger. She stopped resisting and pretended to be afterthought. Although the trial court did not state the reasons for its ruling, there exists
dead. sufficient evidence on record from where such deduction can be made.

4. He then transported her to another place. He lifted her from the tricycle and she
thought she would be thrown to a ravine or cliff beside what appeared to be an
abandoned house. Instead, she was tossed to the ground. The driver raped her.

5. After satisfying his lust, the driver took her wristwatch worth P600.00, a bracelet worth
P1,500.00 and fled with her bag containing her clothes, wallet containing P1,800.00 in
3. First. It is obvious from the degree and character of the violence and intimidation which
the appellant employed (and when he employed it) upon Desiree that his intent was to
rape her. He applied such force as to render her resistance to his lust inutile. The kind of
force used was unnecessary if he only planned to rob Desiree. On the other hand, the
excessive force was clearly meant to attain his lustful scheme. Resultantly, when he finally
forced his bestial desire on her, he was able to traverse, in a manner of speaking, the path
of least resistance.

4, Second. The appellant transported Desiree from where he first mauled her to an
abandoned place. All the time that Desiree was helpless after her mauling, appellant did
not concern himself with robbing Desiree even if he could have done so with ease if not
with impunity. Instead, he preoccupied himself in finding a location more suited, nay,
comfortable, for his plan of lying with her. Needless to say, an abandoned house fits well.

5. Lastly, at no time did the appellant ask for the belongings of Desiree. Neither did he
search her for valuables, except for the wallet in her pants. What is apparent is that he
only: (1) took her watch and bracelet, both easily seen and noticeable, and (2) fled with
her bag which was already in the tricycle. These overt acts only indicate that he decided
to take Desiree’s belongings as an afterthought and only when the opportunity presented
itself.
6. We disagree, however, on the ruling of the trial court that the appellant is guilty of
robbery. He should only be convicted of theft because when he took the personal
properties of Desiree, the element of violence and intimidation was no longer present.
While it is true that he inflicted force upon her person, that was with the view and in
pursuance of the rape, not of the taking. When the asportation happened, Desiree was
near lifeless, incapable of putting any form of opposition.
 saw accused-appellant counting the money taken from the aparador. Thereafter, she was
* brought to the kitchen, still hogtied and was raped again by the accused.
G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO REGALA y ABRIOL, Accused-appellant was apprehended by the police four days after the incident. He was
identified at a police line-up by Nerissa and her grandmother.
Doctrine:
The prosecution presented three witnesses: Dra. Conchita Ulanday, Municipal Health
It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or Officer of Aroroy, Masbate, who personally examined the rape victim; Nerissa Tagala, the
homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of rape victim, 17 years old, a third year high school student; and her grandmother,
aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as Consuelo Arevalo, who was her companion when the robbery with rape transpired at
opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same code regarding mitigating Consuelo’s house.
circumstances where there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous
circumstances. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple The following day, September 12, 1995, Nerissa went to the Rural Health Clinic of Aroroy,
homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an “anomalous situation” where Masbate for medical examination. In the Medical Report presented by Municipal Health
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the Officer Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday, it was shown that Nerissa sustained laceration of the
same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. hymen at 4:00 o’clock and 7:00 o’clock positions (fresh wounds), indicating a possible
A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be sexuala ssault upon the victim.
brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute . In view of the
foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not be The defense presented accused-appellant who testified that on September 11, 1995, he
considered as aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is was staying in the house of Antonio Ramilo at barangay Syndicate, Aroroy, Masbate.
proper. Ramilo was the manager in the gold panning business where accused-appellant was
employed. Antonio Ramilo testified and corroborated his defense and stated that
Facts: accused-appellant was in his house, which is about 5 kilometers away from Barangay
Bangon.
Armando Regala appeals from the judgment in Criminal Case by the Regional Trial Court
of Masbate, Masbate, Branch 46, 5th Judicial Region, convicting him of the crime of TC - Armando Regala y Abriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery
Robbery with Rape. with Rape

On the night of September 11, 1995, at Barangay Bangon in Aroroy, Masbate, then 16- Issue:
year old victim Nerissa Tagala and her grandmother, Counselo Arevalo, were sleeping,
when appellant Armando Regala and his two other companions entered the former’s WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
house. BEYOND

Appellant and his companions entered the house through the kitchen and went to the Ruling
room of the victims and poked at 8-inch gun on them, one after the other, and hogtied
both of them. Armando raped Nerissa in bed while her grandmother was hogtied on the YES.
floor. Later, she saw her grandmother’s aparador being opened where two rings, two
wrist watches, and money were taken from the aparador. After raping her in bed, Nerissa The victim in the case at bar was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. There are
cases holding that the additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will
not increase the penalty. In People vs. Martinez, accused Martinez and two (2) other suggested evidence of penetration as shown by the two lacerations at 4 o’clock
unidentified persons, who remained at large, were charged with the special complex and at 7 o’clock which were fresh wounds. That the act was involuntary was
crime of robbery with rape where all three raped the victim. The Court imposed the clearly established by the fact that Nerissa was hogtied when she was sexually
penalty of death after considering two (2) aggravating circumstances, namely, attacked. As correctly pointed out by appellee, Nerissa was a 16-year old barrio
nocturnidad and use of a deadly weapon. However, the Court did not consider the two (2) lass, not exposed to the ways of the world and was not shown to have any ill-
other rapes as aggravating holding that “(T)he special complex crime of robbery with rape motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant, who was a stranger. And as
has, therefore, been committed by the felonious acts of appellant and his cohorts, with all repeatedly pronounced by this Court, it simply would be unnatural for a young
acts or rape on that occasion being integrated in one composite crime.” and innocent girl to concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts and thereafter subject herself to a public trial or ridicule if she was
There are likewise cases which held that the multiplicity of rapes committed could be not, in fact, a victim of rape and deeply motivated by a sincere desire to have the
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. In People vs. Candelario where three (3) of culprit apprehended and punished
the four (4) armed men who robbed the victim “alternately raped her twice for each of
them,” this Court, citing People vs. Obtinalia, ruled that “(T)he characterization of the ISSUE REGARDING INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCETO ESTABLISH CLEAR IDENTITY OF ACCUSED
offense as robbery with rape, however, is not changed simply because there were several
rapes committed. The multiplicity of rapes should instead be taken into account in raising The Court gives its approbation to the finding of the trial court that the evidence was
the penalty to death.” sufficient to clearly establish the identity of Armando Regala as the person who, with two
companions, committed the crime of robbery accompanied by rape on the night of
It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s September 11, 1995. Nerissa Tagala positively identified Armando Regala because at the
should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating time he was counting the money on her bed, the other companion of the accused
circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the beamed the flashlight towards the money and there was a reflection on the face of
enumeration in Article 13 of the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where Regala. Although the three intruders were wearing masks when they entered the house,
there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. they removed their masks later Our cases have held that wicklamps, flashlights, even
moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination, making the
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on this ground unmeritorious
occasion of the robbery) would result in an “anomalous situation” where from the
standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same
level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A
penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought
within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.

In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant

should not be considered as aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by
the trial court is proper.

Dr. Conchita Ulanday’s testimony does not support the contention of accused-
appellant that Nerissa voluntarily submitted to the sexual advances of Regala.
The admission of Dr. Ulanday that her findings point to the fact that Nerissa
“either voluntarily or was forced into sexual act” does not prove that Nerissa
voluntarily submitted to the sexual act. Dr. Ulanday testified that there was
G.R. No. 212191. September 5, 2018 PERALTA
PEOPLE vs.  DILLATAN 2. An Information was filed against herein accused-appellants.

3. Accused-appellants were arraigned on September 29, 2010 where

Facts: both pleaded not guilty.4

1. Herein private complainants, the spouses Henry and Violeta Acob 4. In their defense, accused-appellants denied the allegations of the
(Spouses Acob), were owners of a market stall at the public market prosecution and also raised the defense of alibi. For his part, Garcia
of Sta. Rosa, Aurora, Isabela. Around 6 o’clock in the evening of claimed that on February 7, 2010, he was at a tricycle terminal in
February 7, 2010, the Spouses Acob, together with their son, Aurora, Isabela where he worked as a dispatcher until 7 o’clock in
Homer, closed their stall and proceeded home by riding together on the evening. His allegation was corroborated by the testimony of
their motorcycle. Homer was the driver, Violeta sat at the middle, another tricycle driver who claimed to have seen him during the
while Henry sat behind her. They were approaching the entrance to night in question. On the part of Dillatan, he testified that he was in
their barangay around 6:30 p.m. when they noticed two persons, his bakery in Quezon, Isabela until 7 o’clock in the evening of
whom they later identified as herein accused-appellants, near a February 7, 2010. His testimony was corroborated by his own
motorcycle. When they passed, accused-appellants rode the witness.
motorcycle and tailed them. Accused-appellants eventually caught
up with them, whereupon, accused Dillatan forced them to stop 5. RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellants guilty of the
and immediately declared a holdup. Violeta embraced Homer, while crime of robbery with homicide.
Dillatan grabbed her belt bag which contained P70,000.00 cash.
Thereafter, Dillatan uttered, “barilin mo na.” Garcia then fired at the - The RTC held that: all the elements of the crime of robbery are
victims hitting, first, the left hand of Violeta. The bullet went present in the instant case; robbery was the main purpose of
through the left hand of Violeta and pierced Homer’s chest causing accused-appellants; the killing of Homer and the infliction of
the latter to fall down together with the motorcycle. Henry, on the injuries upon Violeta and Henry are only committed on the
other hand, was able to get off the motorcycle and tried to escape occasion or by reason of the robbery; hence, these crimes are
but Garcia also fired at him thereby hitting his right knee. Accused- merged into a special complex crime of robbery with homicide,
appellants, thereafter, fled through their motorcycle. Several people as defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
then came to the aid of the private complainants and brought them Code (RPC). 
to the hospital where Homer later expired by reason of his gunshot
wound. Violeta and Henry were treated for their wounds. Accused- 6. CA promulgated its assailed Decision affirming the Decision of the
appellants were apprehended by police authorities later at night RTC.
where they were subsequently identified by Violeta at the police
station as the ones who grabbed her belt bag and shot them. A Issue:
criminal complaint was subsequently filed against accused-
appellants.
Whether the RTC erred in convicting them of the crime charged, and the 2. Under the given facts, the Court finds no error in the findings of
CA, in affirming their conviction both the RTC and the CA that the prosecution was able to clearly
establish that: (1) accused-appellants forced Homer, Henry and
Ruling: 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
Essentially, accused-appellants question the credibility of the the stolen item and to facilitate their escape.
prosecution’s key witnesses, Henry and Violeta Acob, who identified them
as the malefactors. 3. The Court, likewise, finds no cogent reason to disturb the rulings of
both the RTC and the CA in giving credence to the testimonies of
First, accused-appellants argue that, since the alleged crime happened Henry and Violeta, especially, their positive and categorical
so fast and in a very short period of approximately two minutes, Violeta identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the
and Henry could not have clearly seen and remembered the faces of the crime.
perpetrators. Second, accused-appellants attempt to cast doubt on their
identification by claiming that there was inadequate lighting at the locus 4. The Court is not persuaded by accused-appellants’ insistence on
criminis. They contend that the poor illumination at the crime scene made their argument that given the circumstances surrounding the
positive identification impossible; thus, the trial court should not have commission of the crime, the prosecution failed to establish their
accepted the identification of accused-appellants as the malefactors. identity as the malefactors.

The Court is not persuaded. 5. First, this Court has ruled that common human experience tells us
that when extraordinary circumstances take place, it is natural for
1. Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either persons to remember many of the important details. This Court has
by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction held that the most natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is
for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the to strive to see the features and faces of their assailants and
following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed observe the manner in which the crime is committed. Most often
with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a
belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness’
gain; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime memory. Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual
of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed. A acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses
conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of
and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental criminals at any given time.
to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human
life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. 6. Thus, if family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved
one usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants, this
Court sees no reason how both parents, who witnessed the violence
 inflicted, not only upon themselves, but especially upon their son, conclusion than that they have acted in conspiracy with each other.
who eventually died by reason thereof, could have done any less. It Moreover, it is settled that when homicide is committed by reason
must be stressed that Henry and Violeta were seated together atop or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals
their motorcycle when Dillatan grabbed her bag and Garcia fired at in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single
them. In fact, Violeta was embracing her son, Homer, when a single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did
bullet struck them. Both accused-appellants, at that time, were not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that
both less than a meter away from the victims. Hence, despite the they endeavored to prevent the same.
swiftness of the assault upon them, Henry and Violeta could not
have mistaken the identity of accused-appellants as the persons
responsible for the attack. 9. As to the penalty, the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article
7. Moreover, Violeta’s testimony disproves the poor illumination claim 294(1) of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Article 63
of accused-appellants when she testified that “it was still bright” at of the same Code, as amended, states that when the law prescribes
the time of the commission of the crime. It is settled that when the a penalty consisting of two (2) indivisible penalties, and the crime is
conditions of visibility are favorable, as in this case, the eyewitness neither attended by mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the
identification of accused-appellants as the malefactors and the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Considering that there was no
specific acts constituting the crime should be accepted. Add the fact modifying circumstance which attended the commission of the
that Violeta and Henry had an unhindered view of the faces of crime, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty
accused-appellants during the whole time that the crime was being of reclusion perpetua.
committed. Thus, accused-appellants’ attack on the positive
identification by Violeta and Henry must, therefore, fail. 10. At this stage, the Court notes that, on the occasion of the robbery,
aside from Homer being killed, the Spouses Acob also sustained
8. The lower courts, also, correctly ruled that accused-appellants acted injuries by reason of the gunshots fired by Garcia. It bears to
in conspiracy with one another. Conspiracy exists when two or reiterate at this point that the component crimes in a special
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of complex crime have no attempted or frustrated stages because the
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from intention of the offender/s is to commit the principal crime which is
the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of to rob but in the process of committing the said crime, another
the crime which indubitably point to, and are indicative of, a joint crime is committed. “Homicide,” in the special complex crime of
purpose, concert of action and community of interest.31 For robbery with homicide, is understood in its generic sense and forms
conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for part of the essential element of robbery, which is the use of
an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at violence or the use of force upon anything. Stated differently, all
the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the
same purpose and were united in its execution. In the present case, robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery
the coordinated acts and movements of accused-appellants before, with homicide. Thus, as in the present case where, aside from the
during and after the commission of the crime point to no other killing of Homer, the Spouses Acob, on the occasion of the same
 robbery, also sustained injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime
committed is still robbery with homicide as the injuries sustained by
the Spouses Acob are subsumed under the generic term “homicide”
and, thus, become part and parcel of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.

11. Nonetheless, it is also settled that in robbery with homicide, the

victims who sustained injuries, but were not killed, shall also be
indemnified. Hence, the nature and severity of the injuries
sustained by these victims must still be determined for the purpose
of awarding civil indemnity and damages.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision dated

August 30, 2013, of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05294, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, accused-
appellants, RICHARD DILLATAN, SR. y PAT and DONATO GARCIA y DUAZO,
are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide.
 was made into her account and then she would fill out a withdrawal slip to simulate
a withdrawal of said amount from her capital contribution.
G.R. No. 199208, July 30, 2014 16. Cahilig employed the same scheme in each of the 30 cases of qualified theft filed
against her, allowing her to pilfer from WPESLAI’S funds a total of P6,268,300.00. All
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. TRINIDAD A. CAHILIG, Appellant. 30 cases were consolidated and jointly heard. Upon agreement of the parties, only
three of the 30 cases went thru trial. The remaining 27 cases were the subject of a
written stipulation of facts, on the basis of which these were submitted for
Doctrine:
resolution
19. Elements of Qualified Theft, committed with grave abuse of confidence, are as 17. RTC: found Cahilig guilty of the crimes charged. Cahilig, as cashier of WPESLAI, was
follows: granted trust and confidence by the key officers of the association. The RTC noted
a. Taking of personal property; that Cahilig “enjoyed access to the funds and financial records of the association, a
b. That the said property belongs to another; circumstance that understandably facilitated her easy withdrawal of funds which she
c. That the said taking be done with intent to gain; converted to her personal use in the manner heretofore described. Undoubtedly,
d. That it be done without the owner’s consent; she betrayed the trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer.”
e. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against 18. CA: affirmed the RTC’s Decision.
persons, nor of force upon things;
f. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. Issue:
20. Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Qualified Theft, “must be the result of
3. Whether Cahilig was guilty of qualified theft.
the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the
appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence
Ruling
between them which the appellant abused.”

1. YES.
Facts:
2. The elements of Qualified Theft, committed with grave abuse of confidence, are as
14. Cahilig worked as cashier at Wyeth Philippines Employees Savings and Loan follows:
Association, Inc. (WPESLAI) from December 1992 until 7 November 2001. She was a. Taking of personal property;
tasked with handling, managing, receiving, and disbursing the funds of the WPESLAI. b. That the said property belongs to another;
15. It was discovered that from 31 May 2000 to 31 July 2001, Cahilig made withdrawals c. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
from the funds of WPESLAI and appropriated the same for her personal benefit. d. That it be done without the owner’s consent;
Cahilig would prepare disbursement vouchers, to be approved by the WPESLAI e. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
president and Board of Directors, in order to withdraw funds from one of WPESLAI’s persons, nor of force upon things;
bank accounts then transfer these funds to its other bank account. The withdrawal f. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
was done by means of a check payable to Cahilig, in her capacity as WPESLAI cashier. 3. All the elements are present in this case.
This procedure for transferring funds from one bank account to another was said to 4. Cahilig took money from WPESLAI and its depositors by taking advantage of her
be standard practice at WPESLAI. However, Cahilig did not actually transfer the position. Her intent to gain is clear in the use of a carefully planned and deliberately
funds. Instead, she made it appear in her personal WPESLAI ledger that a deposit executed scheme to commit the theft.
5. Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Qualified Theft, “must be the result of
the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the
appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence
between them which the appellant abused.”
6. Cahilig’s position was one reposed with trust and confidence, considering that it
involves “handling, managing, receiving, and disbursing” money from WPESLAI’s
depositors and other funds of the association. Cahilig’s responsibilities as WPESLAI
cashier required prudence and vigilance over the money entrusted into her care.
7. However, instead of executing her duties, she deliberately misled the board of
directors into authorizing disbursements for money that eventually ended up in her
personal account, a fact that Cahilig did not deny.
8. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01381 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In lieu ofthe penalties meted out by the trial court in
Criminal Case Nos. 03-2186, 03-2191, 03-2194, 03-2197, 03-2204, and 03-2206,
appellant Trinidad A. Cahilig is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count of qualified theft in the aforesaid cases. The judgment to
indemnify the amounts in each of the corresponding charges stands.
Saulo v. People 4. However, when the spouses Alberto presented the two checks for payment, both
checks bounced for the reasons "Account Closed" and "Insufficient Funds," respectively.
Doctrine: - To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements
After the two checks bounced, Alberto sent Saulo a Notice of Dishonor dated December
must be present: (1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to
17, 1996 which was received by Saulo on the same day.
apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer,
or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or 5. To Alberto's surprise, Saulo filed an Estafa case against her before the Office of the City
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon Prosecutor of Pasig City. In his complaint-affidavit, Saulo claimed that Alberto stole from
its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the him five checks and that Alberto falsified them. Alberto denied these allegations and
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same claimed that they were all lies. On reconsideration, the case was dismissed.
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank
6. Two other cases, "Qualified Theft" and "Falsification of Commercial Documents," were
to stop payment.
filed by Saulo against Alberto before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City, also
When a corporate officer issues a worthless check in the corporate involving the same five checks, but the said cases were dismissed due to insufficient
name, he may be held personally liable for violating a penal statute. The evidence.
statute imposes criminal penalties on anyone who with intent to
7. Thereafter, Alberto filed against Saulo two counts of Violation of B.P. 22, in two
defraud another of money or property draws or issues a check on any
separate sets of Information. MeTC convicted Saulo. RTC and CA affirmed.
bank with knowledge that he has no sufficient funds in such bank to
meet the check on presentment. Moreover, the personal liability of the Issue:
corporate officer is predicated on the principle that he cannot shield
himself from liability from his own acts on the ground that it was a W/N Saulo is guilty of BP 22.
corporate act and not his personal act.
Ruling: YES.
Facts:
1. Under B.P. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check is already the offense in itself. In
1. Petitioner Saulo was the owner of Yadoo Dynasty and Khumbmela Products, Inc. this case, we find no reason to depart from the trial courts' findings. All three elements
(Khumbmela), engaged in the manufacturing of various bags, backpacks, and accessories. (refer to the doctrine) are present here.
He hired private respondent Marsene Alberto (Alberto) from 1992-1996 as Disbursing
2. The first and third elements of B.P. 22 are undisputed. The prosecution was able to
Officer and was then promoted as Operations Manager at Khumbmela and later on at
present the two original BDO checks with Check No. 157580 dated October 28, 1996 in
Yadoo Dynasty.
the amount of P12,270.00 and Check No. 157581 dated November 20, 1996 in the
2. During that time, Saulo encountered financial problems and sought Alberto's help to amount of P29,300.00. These checks were dishonored upon presentation for payment for
find someone who could lend him money. To help Saulo, Alberto asked her husband, the reasons "Account Closed" and "Drawn against Insufficient Funds." Petitioner also
Amando V. Alberto, to approach Eladio Naval (Naval), who in turn lent Saulo failed to rebut the statutory presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds, the second
P1,500,000.00. Upon receipt of the said amount, Saulo issued and signed three checks. element, which attaches when the two checks were presented and dishonored by BDO
within 90 days from its issuance and that petitioner failed to pay the amount of the check
3. Sometime in October 1996, Saulo borrowed from Alberto the amount of P12,270.00, or make arrangement for its payment within five days from the time the written notice of
and as payment, he issued Banco De Oro (BDO) Check. Saulo again sought Alberto's dishonor was received by him on December 17, 1996. In his Complaint-Affidavit for
assistance to find someone who could lend him money for the construction of his studio Qualified Theft and Falsification filed against respondent before the Office of the City
in Pasig City. Alberto and her husband (spouses Alberto) obliged and helped him obtain Prosecutor of Pasig, petitioner admitted that he indeed received the Notice of Dishonor
the required materials from Masinag Lumber. Since Masinag Lumber was reluctant to on December 17, 1996. Incidentally, this Complaint-Affidavit was also the basis of
accept the check from Saulo, Alberto's husband issued. respondent in filing this present case of perjury against petitioner.
3.Also, where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or
persons, who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this
Act. Evidence showed that what was issued here were corporate checks issued against the
account of Khumbmela. Petitioner admitted that he was the President of the said
corporation and as testified by the prosecution witnesses, petitioner was the one signing
the check for the corporation. Also, petitioner never disputed the authenticity and
genuineness of his signatures in the two checks subject matter of these cases.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed May 23,
2018 Decision and the October 19, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR
No. 39251 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Edwin L. Saulo is ordered
to pay Marsene Alberto interest on the value of the checks at the rate of 12% per annum
from the date the Information was filed on October 24, 1997 until June 30, 2013 and at
the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this judgment. The monetary
award shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of the finality of
this judgment until full satisfaction of the same.
 G.R. No. 224979. December 13, 2017.* Later on, 10 of these 11 checks were dishonored when presented for payment for having
  been drawn against a closed account. BPHI sent Lim various demand letters, but to no
avail. On June 28, 2005, BPHI sent a final demand letter, which Lim supposedly received as
IVY LIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BLUE PACIFIC
shown by the registry return card bearing her signature.
HOLDINGS, INC., respondents.
For failing to pay the amounts corresponding the dishonored checks, Lim was charged
with 11 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. For her part, Lim raised the defenses that (1)
Doctrine:
she could not have signed and issued the checks on July 29, 2003 in the presence of BPHI
Finance Officer Juanito Enriquez because she was then abroad as shown by the
Notice of Dishonor; Proof of Service; If the service of the written notice is by registered Certification of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID); (2) BPHI has no permit
mail, the proof of service consists not only in the presentation as evidence of the registry to conduct financing business; (3) the checks were issued to facilitate illegal trafficking of
return receipt but also of the registry receipt together with the authenticating affidavit of teachers to the United States for which there has been a criminal action filed and resolved
the person mailing the notice of dishonor. Without the authenticating affidavit, the proof for human trafficking; and (4) there was no valuable consideration given.
of giving the notice of dishonor is insufficient, unless the mailer personally testifies in
court on the sending by registered mail.
Upon arraignment on December 13, 2006, Lim, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to
all charges. During the preliminary conference, the parties admitted the following
hat is material in Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 22 cases is the date of issuance of the matters: (1) the jurisdiction of the trial court; (2) the identity of Lim as the accused, (3) the
checks which appear on their face, and not the exact date of the delivery or signing existence of the complaint affidavit, (4) the existence of the promissory note and Lim's
thereof. signature thereon, and (5) the existence and due execution of the 11 checks with BPHI as
payee.
The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action During trial, the prosecution presented its witness, BPHI Finance Officer Enriquez, and
separately shall be allowed. documentary evidence consisting of the complaint-affidavit, the promissory note and the
11 checks, and the demand letters, among others. For the defense, Lim claimed that the
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows: 1. The accused makes, draws or subject checks were unauthenticated because she was out of the country on July 29,
issues any check to apply to account or for value; 2. The check is subsequently dishonored 2003, as shown by the certification of her travel record issued by the BID. She refuted the
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit; or it would have been dishonored testimony of Enriquez that he personally saw her signed the checks before him.
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reasons, ordered the bank to
stop payment; and 3. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does MeTC rendered a Joint Decision finding Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 10 counts
not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for payment of the check in full of violation of B.P. Blg. 22
upon its presentment.
RTC found no reversible error and affirmed the MeTC Decision
Facts:
A also denied her motion for reconsideration. Hence, the petition.
Private respondent Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. (BPHI) granted Rochelle Benito a loan
amounting to P1,149,500.00 as evidenced by a Promissory Note acknowledged before a
Issue:
notary public on July 29, 2003. Petitioner Lim signed as a co-maker of her sister Benito. To
secure payment of the loan, Benito and Lim issued eleven (11) Equitable PCI Bank checks
1. Whether Lim is guilty of BP 22
with a face value of P67,617.65 each, or a total amount of P743,794.15.
 2. Whether an unauthenticated registry return card cannot prove receipt of The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
notice of dishonor and cannot be a basis for conviction for a charge of violation credit; or it would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
of batas pambansa blg. 22 under prevailing jurisprudence such that the court of any valid reasons, ordered the bank to stop payment; and
appeals gravely erred in upholding the rulings of the trial court and the regional
trial court that there was proof of personal service of notice of dishonor on the
petitioner based on a comparison of signatures on the subject checks and of the
signatures on the registry return card - and that herein petitioner was properly The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient
convicted for violation of batas pambansa blg. 22 funds in, or credit with, drawee bank for payment of the check in full upon its
presentment.

All the foregoing elements were established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution,
as thoroughly discussed by the MeTC:
3. Whether unauthenticated checks cannot prove that herein petitioner was the
same person who issued said checks, in accordance with the doctrine
As to the first element, the Court finds that the checks were issued for value. Accused is
enunciated in unchuan v. Lozada. Et al (supra.), such that the court of appeals
the co-maker of the promissory note (Exhibit "D") wherein she voluntarily bound herself
gravely erred in upholding the rulings of the trial court and the regional trial
to be jointly and severally liable with Rochelle Benito, her sister, to Blue Pacific Inc. for the
court that herein petitioner was properly convicted for violation of batas amount of P605,000.00 plus interests. Accused is also a signatory to the eleven checks
pambansa blg. 22 issued, along with her sister, in favor of Blue Pacific. These checks constitute the means
4. Whether document that was never presented, identified, authenticated nor for payment of the promissory note signed by the accused and her sister. It is undisputed
testified on during trial cannot be admitted in evidence nor used to prove the that the co-accused, Rochelle Benito was able to travel to the United States. The expenses
guilt of herein petition[er] for the offense charged against her, in accordance incurred for the said travel came, undoubtedly, from the proceeds of the said loan albeit
with the doctrine in unchuan v. Lozada, et al, (supra.), such that the court of the accused did not personally received the proceeds thereof. Although there was no
appeals gravely erred in upholding the rulings of the trial court and the regional personal receipt of the proceeds by the accused, it is undisputed that the principal
trial court that herein petitioner was properly convicted for violation of batas objective of the accused, the processing and travel of her sister to the United States was
pambansa blg. 22 criminally and civilly liable accomplished. The accused then stood to benefit from the loan. The allegation of human
trafficking, fraud and payment remains allegations as no evidence was presented to the
Ruling Court to prove [them]. The pieces of evidence presented, testimonial and documentary,
show that this is a business transaction between Blue Pacific and the accused.
1. YES
As to the second element, except for Exhibit "G", the evidence shows that the ten (10)
checks were presented for payment and subsequently dishonored for the reason
Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in affirming the RTC decision, which
"Account Closed". The check dated May 29, 2004 with check number 0105461 in the
upheld the conviction of Lim for 10 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and her civil liability
amount of P67,617.65 was not presented for payment, and hence to criminal liability
for the face value of the 11 checks.
attached thereto.
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows:
As to the third element, Exhibit "Q", the demand letter dated May 18, 2005 addressed to
Ivy Benito Lim and signed by Juanita Enriquez was undisputedly received by the accused
The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
Ivy Lim as shown in Exhibit "Q-6". The distinctive strokes in writing the name "Ivy" and the
flourish of the stroke in writing "im" in the latter part thereof, compared with the
signatures appearing on all the checks shown that these signatures were made by one can be gleaned from the fact that the offenses punished in the said law are not committed
and [the] same person. No evidence was presented by the defense to refute the sending, if the check is presented for payment after ninety (90) days from date of issue.
receipt and existence of the signature of accused Ivy Lim in Exhibits "Q" and Q-6".25
Concededly, the criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed.19 With respect to the civil aspect of a B.P. Blg. 22 case, Lim would do well to
2. remember that when an action is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or
attached to the corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the
contrary to Lim's claim that only the unauthenticated registry return card was the only instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically
proof presented by the prosecution to establish service of a notice of dishonor, the denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts.20
evidence on record shows that the prosecution also presented the registry receipt and the
testimony of Enriquez who sent the demand letter by registered mail. As can be gleaned from the Complaint-Affidavit dated October 5, 2005, the action of BPHI
is not only meant to prosecute Lim for issuing bouncing checks to secure payment of loan
In Resterio v. People,6 the Court ruled that the notice of dishonor required under B.P. Blg. as evidenced by a promissory note where Lim signed as a co-maker, but also for recovery
22 to be given to the drawer, maker or issuer of the check should be written. "If the of the amounts covered by said checks intended as payment of the loan. Lim does not
service of the written notice is by registered mail, the proof of service consists not only in specifically deny the genuineness and execution of the promissory note, let alone sets
the presentation as evidence of the registry return receipt but also of the registry receipt forth what he claims to be the facts. Moreover, such instrument no longer needs to be
together with the authenticating affidavit of the person mailing the notice of dishonor. authenticated because Lim stipulated on the existence of the promissory note and her
Without the authenticating affidavit, the proof of giving the notice of dishonor is signature thereto, as shown in the Preliminary Conference Order21 dated March 28,
insufficient, unless the mailer personally testifies in court on the sending by registered 2007.
mail."
4.
Here, the transcript of stenographic notes confirm that the prosecution complied with the
requisite proof of service of the notice of dishonor by presenting Enriquez, who testified Against Lim's claim that the promissory note was not presented, identified and testified
on the sending of such notice by registered mail, and identified the demand letter, the on during trial, the transcript of stenographic notes show otherwise, as it was made an
registry receipt and the registry return card. actual receipt of such notice of dishonor was integral part of the Complaint-Affidavit, which in turn was presented, identified
proved by the prosecution through Enriquez who identified the signature on the dorsal authenticated and testified on during trial.
portion of the registry return card as that of Lim. Enriquez can credibly identify Lim's
signature because he testified having witnessed her signed the subject checks. Significantly, Lim's counsel admitted during cross-examination that the prosecution has
presented, identified and testified on the subject promissory note
3.

Nowhere in the records did Lim deny that the signature on the 11 checks were hers nor
claim that her signatures thereon were forged. She cannot be heard now to complain
that unauthenticated checks cannot prove that she was the same person who issued
them.

At any rate, what is material in B.P. Blg. 22 cases is the date of issuance of the checks
which appear on their face, and not the exact date of the delivery or signing thereof. This
G.R. No. 224979 December 13, 2017 PERALTA demand letters, among others. For the defense, Lim claimed that
IVY LIM vs. PEOPLE the subject checks were unauthenticated because she was out of
the country on July 29, 2003, as shown by the certification of her
  travel record issued by the BID. She refuted the testimony of
Facts: Enriquez that he personally saw her signed the checks before him.

1. Private respondent Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. (BPHI) granted 5. MeTC rendered a Joint Decision finding Lim guilty beyond
Rochelle Benito a loan amounting to P1,149,500.00 as evidenced by reasonable doubt of 10 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
a Promissory Note acknowledged before a notary public on July 29,  
2003. Petitioner Lim signed as a co-maker of her sister Benito. To 6. RTC found no reversible error and affirmed the MeTC’s Decision.
secure payment of the loan, Benito and Lim issued eleven (11)
Equitable PCI Bank checks with a face value of P67,617.65 each, or a 7. CA also denied her motion for reconsideration.
total amount of P743,794.15.
Issues:
2. Later on, 10 of these 11 checks were dishonored when presented
for payment for having been drawn against a closed account. BPHI 1. Whether Lim’s signature in the registry return card of the demand
sent Lim various demand letters, but to no avail. On June 28, 2005, letter was never authenticated because the prosecution’s sole
BPHI sent a final demand letter, which Lim supposedly received as witness, Enriquez, admitted that he did not personally or actually
shown by the registry return card bearing her signature. see her receive the notice of dishonor nor sign the registry receipt.

3. For failing to pay the amounts corresponding the dishonored 2. Whether Lim did not sign the checks in the presence of Enriquez on
checks, Lim was charged with 11 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. said date, then the subject checks could not have been properly
For her part, Lim raised the defenses that (1) she could not have authenticated in accordance with the Rules on Evidence.
signed and issued the checks on July 29, 2003 in the presence of
BPHI Finance Officer Juanito Enriquez because she was then abroad 3. Whether Lim is correct in asserting that in holding her liable to BPHI,
as shown by the Certification of the Bureau of Immigration and the trial court primarily relied on the Promissory Note which was
Deportation (BID); (2) BPHI has no permit to conduct financing never produced, presented, identified, authenticated or testified on
business; (3) the checks were issued to facilitate illegal trafficking of by Enriquez. Thus, the trial court erred in admitting the said
teachers to the United States for which there has been a criminal evidence and using it as basis for holding her guilty beyond
action filed and resolved for human trafficking; and (4) there was no reasonable doubt of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
valuable consideration given.
Ruling:
4. During trial, the prosecution presented its witness, BPHI Finance
Officer Enriquez, and documentary evidence consisting of the Lim’s arguments are untenable.
complaint-affidavit, the promissory note and the 11 checks, and the  
 1. First, contrary to Lim’s claim that only the unauthenticated registry ATTY. DELA ROSA:
return card was the only proof presented by the prosecution to        May we respectfully request that the dorsal portion of the
establish service of a notice of dishonor, the evidence on record Return Card your Honor be marked in evidence as Exhibit “Q-
shows that the prosecution also presented the registry receipt and 5” the date May 24, 2005 and Exhibit “Q-6” which is the
the testimony of Enriquez who sent the demand letter by registered signature of the accused.
mail.
In claiming that an unauthenticated registry return card cannot prove
- In Resterio v. People, the Court ruled that the notice of dishonor receipt of the notice of dishonor, Lim only objected to Exhibits “Q,” “Q-2”
required under B.P. Blg. 22 to be given to the drawer, maker or and “Q-3” because there is no showing at all that the Demand Letter of
issuer of the check should be written. “If the service of the written Juanito Enriquez was actually and personally received by her. However,
notice is by registered mail, the proof of service consists not only in actual receipt of such notice of dishonor was proved by the prosecution
the presentation as evidence of the registry return receipt but also through Enriquez who identified the signature on the dorsal portion of
of the registry receipt together with the authenticating affidavit of the registry return card as that of Lim. Enriquez can credibly identify Lim’s
the person mailing the notice of dishonor. Without the signature because he testified having witnessed her signed the subject
authenticating affidavit, the proof of giving the notice of dishonor is checks.
insufficient, unless the mailer personally testifies in court on the   
sending by registered mail.” 2. There is also no merit in Lim’s claim that the subject checks were
unauthenticated and not proven to have been issued by her. For
Here, the transcript of stenographic notes confirm that the prosecution one, in the Preliminary Conference Order dated March 28, 2007,
complied with the requisite proof of service of the notice of dishonor by the parties admitted that whenever the court refers to the name of
presenting Enriquez, who testified on the sending of such notice by Ivy Lim, the name pertains to the accused, and stipulated on the
registered mail, and identified the demand letter, the registry receipt and existence and due execution of the eleven (11) checks with payee
the registry return card. Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. For another, BPHI Finance Officer
Enriquez presented and identified during trial the 11 checks issued
Q   Do you have any proof to show that the letter was received by Lim.
by the accused, Ivy Lim?  
A   The return card of that registered mail attached to the letter, - Nowhere in the records did Lim deny that the signature on the 11
sir. checks were hers nor claim that her signatures thereon were
Q    I am showing to you the return card which have been forged. She cannot be heard now to complain that unauthenticated
previously marked in evidence as Exhibit “Q-2,” where in this checks cannot prove that she was the same person who issued
Exhibit “Q-2” will show that the accused received the letter them.
of demand.
A   The signature of Ms. Lim on May 24, 2005 at the back of the Raising the defenses of denial and alibi, Lim insists that she was abroad
Registry Return Receipt, sir. when she supposedly signed the 10 checks in the presence of prosecution
  witness Enriquez on July 29, 2003, as shown by a certification from the BID
that she left the country on July 21, 2003 and returned on October 29, covered by said checks intended as payment of the loan. Lim does not
2003. While the prosecution failed to refute such evidence, the MeTC specifically deny the genuineness and execution of the promissory note, let
correctly noted that (1) the unresolved issue is when these checks were alone sets forth what he claims to be the facts. Moreover, such instrument
issued and delivered to BPHI, and (2) the fact that the checks were issued no longer needs to be authenticated because Lim stipulated on the
is not an issue, as the existence of the checks and signatures of the existence of the promissory note and her signature thereto, as shown in
accused on these checks are uncontroverted. the Preliminary Conference Order21 dated March 28, 2007.

There is nothing in the direct testimony of Enriquez which states that 3. Against Lim’s claim that the promissory note was not presented,
the checks were personally signed by Lim before him on July 29, 2003, for identified and testified on during trial, the transcript of stenographic
he only said that the checks were issued in BPHI’s office at Morse corner notes show otherwise, as it was made an integral part of the
Edison Streets in Barangay San Isidro, Makati. The wrong information was Complaint-Affidavit, which in turn was presented, identified
elicited from Enriquez’ cross-examination, which may have been based on authenticated and testified on during trial.
the date when the promissory note was acknowledged before a notary
public. - Significantly, Lim’s counsel admitted during cross-examination that
the prosecution has presented, identified and testified on the
At any rate, what is material in B.P. Blg. 22 cases is the date of issuance subject promissory note.
of the checks which appear on their face, and not the exact date of the
delivery or signing thereof. This can be gleaned from the fact that the 4. Anent the civil aspect of the B.P. Blg. 22 cases, her defense of lack
offenses punished in the said law are not committed if the check is of consideration for the checks fails to persuade. Apart from having
presented for payment after ninety (90) days from date of issue. admitted the authenticity and due execution of the promissory
note, Lim also failed to present clear and convincing evidence to
Concededly, the criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be overturn the disputable presumptions.24
deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed. 19 With respect to the civil - that there were sufficient considerations for the said contract which
aspect of a B.P. Blg. 22 case, Lim would do well to remember that when an she signed as a co-maker, and for the negotiable instruments
action is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the consisting of 11 checks issued under her name as security for the
corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the payment of the loan. Besides, as a co-maker who agreed to be
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under jointly and severally liable on the promissory note, Lim cannot
oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the validly claim that she hardly received any consideration therefor, as
facts. the fact that the loan was granted to the principal debtor, her sister
Benito, already constitutes sufficient consideration.
As can be gleaned from the Complaint-Affidavit dated October 5, 2005,
the action of BPHI is not only meant to prosecute Lim for issuing bouncing 5. All told, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in
checks to secure payment of loan as evidenced by a promissory note affirming the RTC’s decision, which upheld the conviction of Lim for
where Lim signed as a co-maker, but also for recovery of the amounts
 10 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and her civil liability for the [them]. The pieces of evidence presented, testimonial and
face value of the 11 checks. documentary, show that this is a business transaction between Blue
Pacific and the accused.
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are as follows:
As to the second element, except for Exhibit “G,” the evidence
1.   The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to
shows that the ten (10) checks were presented for payment and
account or for value;
subsequently dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” The
2.   The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
check dated May 29, 2004 with check number 0105461 in the
insufficiency of funds or credit; or it would have been
amount of P67,617.65 was not presented for payment, and hence to
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
criminal liability attached thereto.
any valid reasons, ordered the bank to stop payment; and
3.   The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she
As to the third element, Exhibit “Q,” the demand letter dated
does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, drawee bank
May 18, 2005 addressed to Ivy Benito Lim and signed by Juanita
for payment of the check in full upon its presentment.
Enriquez was undisputedly received by the accused Ivy Lim as shown
 
in Exhibit “Q-6.” The distinctive strokes in writing the name “Ivy” and
6. All the foregoing elements were established beyond reasonable
the flourish of the stroke in writing “im” in the latter part thereof,
doubt by the prosecution, as thoroughly discussed by the MeTC:
compared with the signatures appearing on all the checks shown
that these signatures were made by one and [the] same person. No
As to the first element, the Court finds that the checks were
evidence was presented by the defense to refute the sending,
issued for value. Accused is the co-maker of the promissory note
receipt and existence of the signature of accused Ivy Lim in Exhibits
(Exhibit “D”) wherein she voluntarily bound herself to be jointly and
“Q” and Q-6.”25
severally liable with Rochelle Benito, her sister, to Blue Pacific, Inc.
for the amount of P605,000.00 plus interests. Accused is also a
signatory to the eleven checks issued, along with her sister, in favor 7. Be that as it may, a modification of the fine of P676,176.50 imposed
of Blue Pacific. These checks constitute the means for payment of by the MeTC is in order because it appears to exceed the
the promissory note signed by the accused and her sister. It is P200,000.00 limit under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 which provides for
undisputed that the co-accused, Rochelle Benito was able to travel the penalty of “imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not
to the United States. The expenses incurred for the said travel came, more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more
undoubtedly, from the proceeds of the said loan albeit the accused than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case
did not personally received the proceeds thereof. Although there exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and
was no personal receipt of the proceeds by the accused, it is imprisonment at the discretion of the court.” Instead of imposing a
undisputed that the principal objective of the accused, the lump sum fine, the proper penalty should be a fine of P67,617.65
processing and travel of her sister to the United States was [face value of each check] for each of the Ten (10) counts of
accomplished. The accused then stood to benefit from the loan. The violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 with subsidiary imprisonment
allegation of human trafficking, fraud and payment remains in case of insolvency.
allegations as no evidence was presented to the Court to prove
 8. Finally, the actual damages in the amount of P743,794.15 checks and 3) he acted in good faith. He likewise adopts the dissenting opinion of CA
representing the face value of the Eleven (11) checks, which the Justice Martin Vil-larama, Jr.,7 which states that the penalty of imprisonment was
incorrectly imposed on petitioner in the light of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000.
MeTC awarded to BPHI shall further incur interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully Issue:
paid, in line with Nacar v. Gallery Frames.
W/N he is guilty of violation of BP 22.

Ruling: YES.
Josef v. People
1. The elements of violation of BP 22 are:
Doctrine: The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check and
therefore, whether or not malice and intent attended such issuance is 1)making, drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value;
unimportant.
2)knowledge of the maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not
The imposition of either a fine or imprisonment remains entirely within have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in
the sound discretion of the judge trying the case, based on his full upon its presentment; and
assessment of the offender and the facts.
3)subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
Facts: or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
1. From June to August, 1991, petitioner, a Marikina-based manufacturer and seller of
shoes, purchased materials from respondent Alarilla, , a seller of leather products from All three elements are present here.
Meycauayan, Bulacan, for which the former issued a total of 26 postdated checks against
his account with the Associated Bank and Far East Bank & Trust Company (Marikina 2. Petitioner categorically admits the fact of issuance of the checks and their dishonor,10
Branches). the first and third elements. He has likewise failed to rebut the statutory presumption11
of knowledge of insufficient funds, the second element, which attaches if the check is
2. When private respondent presented these checks for encashment, they were presented and dishonored within 90 days from its issuance.12 While petitioner alleges to
dishonored because the accounts against which they were drawn were closed. Private have paid private respondent the amount of the checks, he failed to specify if he had
respondent informed petitioner of the dishonor and demanded payment of their value. done so within five banking days from receiving notice of the checks’ dishonor and to
present any evidence of such payment. In addition, his unsubstantiated claim of cash
3. After some negotiations, petitioner drew and delivered a new set of postdated checks
payment contradicts his earlier defense that he had replaced the checks.
in replacement of the dishonored ones. Private respondent, in turn, returned to petitioner
the originals of the dishonored postdated checks but retained photocopies thereof. When 3. Regarding petitioner’s allegation of good faith, suffice it to say that such a claim is
private respondent deposited the replacement checks in his account with the Westmont immaterial, the offense in question being malum prohibitum.15 The gravamen of the
Bank, these were also dishonored by the drawee bank. offense is the issuance of a bad check and therefore, whether or not malice and intent
attended such issuance is unimportant.
4. As a result, the private respondent filed criminal complaints against petitioner for
violation of BP 22 with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan. RTC convicted 4. In invoking of A.C. No. 12-2000, petitioner adopts the interpretation of Justice Villarama
the accused of violation of BP 22. CA affirmed. to the effect that the circular mandates judges to impose fines rather than imprisonment
on violators of BP 22. In affirming the sentence imposed by the trial court, the majority
5. Petitioner admits having issued the 26 dishonored checks. However, he claims the
pointed out that it is only under certain conditions that trial court judges may impose
following defenses: 1) he has already paid private respondent the amount of the checks in
fines rather than imprisonment. The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Order No.
cash; 2) the trial court was incorrect to accept as evidence photocopies of the original
12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule
of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22. The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment

for violators of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law.
5. Clearly, the imposition of either a fine or imprisonment remains entirely within the
sound discretion of the judge trying the case, based on his assessment of the offender and
the facts. Justice Villarama premised his dissent on the absence of a distinction in A.C. No.
12-2000 between which offenders deserve the relatively lenient penalty of a fine and
which deserve imprisonment. As A.C. No. 13-2001 states, the application of the circular is
selective and it is entirely up to the trial court judge to make that distinction, given the
circumstances obtaining. This brings us to the factual issue of petitioner’s worthiness of
the lighter penalty. On this, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 23234 is hereby AFFIRMED.
G.R. No. 145498, January 17, 2005, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ insufficient funds"; he went to Calapan, Mindoro and talked to
LEE vs. CA Bautista and the latter replaced the dishonored checks with United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. ARA 168341, signed by
Facts: Bautista and herein petitioner dated July 24, 1993, in the amount of
₱980,000.00 representing the total amount loaned plus interests;
1. On October 4, 1993, an Information was filed against petitioner Dr.
when Bergado deposited the check at UCPB, the same was
Benjamin F. Lee and a certain Cesar Al. Bautista, for violation of B.P.
dishonored due to "account closed"; through his lawyer, he sent
Blg. 22, which reads:
demand letters to Bautista and petitioner, who, despite having
That on or about the 24th day of July 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, the received the same still failed and refused to make any payment.
said accused, conspiring together, confederating with, and mutually Upon cross-examination, Bergado admitted that he did not see or
helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously meet petitioner prior to July 24, 1993 nor did he go to Calapan,
make or draw and issue to Rogelio G. Bergado to apply on account or for Mindoro to check the existence of Unlad prior to lending it the
value United Coconut Planters Bank Check No. 168341 dated July 24, 1993 amount of ₱900,000.00.6
payable to the order of Rogelio G. Bergado in the amount of ₱980,000.00,
Philippine Currency, said accused well knowing that at the time of issue
they did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for 3. The prosecution also presented Zenaida7 Katigbak, Branch
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check when Operations Officer of UCPB Araneta Avenue, Quezon City, who
presented for payment was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank testified that Bautista and petitioner are the authorized signatories
for Account Closed and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said of Current Account No. 130-000406-2, against which the check
accused failed to pay said Rogelio G. Bergado the amount of said check or subject of the present criminal case was issued; and that the
to make arrangement for full payment of the same within five (5) banking account was opened on August 22, 1988 and closed on January 31,
days after receiving said notice. 1992 due to mishandling of the account, i.e., a check was
previously issued against it without sufficient funds.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty in his arraignment.

4. The prosecution presented UCPB Check No. ARA 168341,9 UCPB

2. For the prosecution, private complainant Rogelio Bergado testified
Check Return Slip dated August 5, 1993 stating that Check No. ARA
that: on July 19, 1992, he loaned Unlad Commercial Enterprises
168341 was returned unpaid due to "account closed"; a demand
(Unlad for brevity), through its agent Norma Ilagan, the amount of
letter addressed to petitioner dated August 9, 1993; registry return
₱500,000.00 with an interest of 4% a month; on September 10,
slip; a copy of the complaint affidavit of private complainant;
1992, he loaned another ₱400,000.00 through Ilagan for the same
signature card of the current account of petitioner and Bautista at
interest rate; in exchange, he received a total of twenty-six checks,
UCPB; and the bank statement of the current account of petitioner
four of which were dishonored for the reason "drawn against
 and Bautista dated January 31, 1992 reflecting that said account
has been closed on said date.
7. To bolster his claim, petitioner presented: an affidavit executed by
Bautista dated May 31, 1993 stating that Bautista is the sole
proprietor of Unlad and that any business transaction entered into
5. For the defense, petitioner testified that: it is Bautista who is the
by Unlad shall be Bautista’s personal responsibility; an affidavit
sole owner of Unlad; he knew Bautista and became his "compadre"
executed by Bautista on June 4, 1990, stating that petitioner is no
because of Bautista’s wife who was his employee; he does not
longer connected with Unlad and that petitioner should not be held
know anything about the check issued by Bautista in favor of
liable regarding any transaction entered into by Unlad after July
Bergado nor did he receive any amount from Bergado or any other
1989 since petitioner is no longer a signatory; a business permit
person; he agreed to open an account with Bautista in 1988
issued by the Municipality of Calapan certifying that Bautista has
because Bautista promised to give him 5% interest from the
been granted a permit to operate a "general merchandise"; a
proceeds of loans that will be made in favor of other people from
certification from the Department of Trade and Industry, Oriental
said account; before July of 1989, Bautista also asked him to sign
Mindoro Provincial Office stating that Unlad is registered in the
several checks in exchange for 2.5% interest a month from the
name of Cesar Bautista and/or Placer Bautista; orders of
proceeds of loan to be made in favor of other people; after July
attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro
1989, he terminated his accommodation arrangement with
on the properties of Bautista and petitioner; and checks issued by
Bautista after learning that Bautista was also giving 5% interest to
Bautista in favor of petitioner and his wife Amelia Lee.
other investors without any accommodation agreement; he asked
for the checks he previously signed but Bautista refused to return
them saying that he did not have them anymore; and inspite of
8. RTC promulgated its decision finding accused Benjamin Lee guilty
these, he continued investing in Bautista’s business in the amount
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
of more than ₱500,000.00.
and accordingly sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of one (1)
year of prision correccional, and to pay the offended party
₱980,000.00 and to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00 with subsidiary
6. On cross-examination, petitioner admitted that he signed several
imprisonment in case of insolvency and non-payment of the fine by
checks in blank on different occasions; that he was the one who
the accused.
asked and insisted that Bautista execute Exhs. "1" and "2",
affidavits of Bautista stating that Unlad shall be Bautista’s sole
responsibility; and that despite having severed his relationship with
9. Court of Appeals which modified the trial court’s judgment by
Bautista in July of 1989, he did not inform UCPB Araneta, Quezon
imposing a penalty of one (1) year and for the accused to pay the
City branch of such fact and he continued investing in Unlad, from
private party the sum of Nine Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos
July 1989 to April 1994.
(₱980,000.00) as civil indemnity.
 ₱980,000.00, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction over the
present case.
Issue:
1. whether the RTC, which tried and convicted petitioner, has
2. Second issue. Whether petitioner had actual knowledge of the
jurisdiction over the case.
insufficiency of funds.
2. whether petitioner had actual knowledge of the sufficiency or
insufficiency of funds handled by his co-accused We have held that knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish,
3. whether the check was issued on account or for value thus the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption that the drawer
4. whether the private complainant, at the time of issuance, had had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank at
knowledge that the check had no sufficient funds the time of the issuance and on the check’s presentment for payment if he
5. whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable fails to pay the amount of the check within five banking days from notice
doubt. of dishonor.38
Sec. 2 of B.P. Blg. 22, provides:
Ruling: Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making,
drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the
1. First issue, RTC had jurisdiction over the case.
drawee bank because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank,
Petitioner claims that the RTC which tried and convicted him had no when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall
jurisdiction over violations of B.P. Blg. 22 since such jurisdiction is vested be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or
on the MTC in view of Sec. 32 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129. credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount
due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of
such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such
We do not agree. check has not been paid by the drawee.

Since the Information in the present case was filed prior to the In the present case, the prosecution has established the prima facie
amendment of R.A. No. 7691, the old rule governs and therefore, presumption of knowledge of petitioner of insufficient funds through the
considering that the imposable penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 per demand letter sent to petitioner, Exhibit "C"40 which was duly received by
Section 1, thereof is imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not petitioner as shown by the registry return receipt, Exhibit "D".41
more than one year OR by a fine of not less than but not more than double
Petitioner tried to rebut the prima facie presumption by insisting that he is
the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed ₱200,000.00, or
not an owner of Unlad and he has already severed his accommodation
both fine and imprisonment; and inasmuch as the fine imposable in the
arrangement with Bautista as early as 1989. He argues that the affidavits of
present case is more than ₱4,000.00 as the subject amount of the check is
Bautista exonerating him from any responsibility as well as the private
complainant’s own testimony that he never dealt with petitioner, should 3. Third issue. Whether or not the check was issued on account or
be given weight. for value
We are not persuaded. Petitioner’s claim is not feasible. We have held that upon issuance of a
check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
It is a hornbook doctrine that unless the affiant himself takes the witness
same was issued for valuable consideration. Valuable consideration, in
stand to affirm the averments in his affidavits, the affidavits must be
turn, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to
excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. The
the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or
trial court and the Court of Appeals were correct in considering the same
some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or
as hearsay evidence and in not giving probative weight to such affidavits.
undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do, or not to do in favor
Moreover, petitioner had admitted that he continued investing in Unlad of the party who makes the contract, such as the maker or indorser.
until April 1994. Hence, he now cannot claim that he has completely
In this case, petitioner himself testified that he signed several checks in
severed his ties with Bautista as of 1989. With nothing but his bare
blank, the subject check included, in exchange for 2.5% interest from the
assertions, which are ambiguous at best, petitioner has failed to rebut the
proceeds of loans that will be made from said account. This is a valuable
prima facie presumption laid down by the statute and established by the
consideration for which the check was issued. That there was neither a
prosecution.
pre-existing obligation nor an obligation incurred on the part of petitioner
Petitioner’s insistence that since he is not an owner of Unlad, he could not when the subject check was given by Bautista to private complainant on
have had any knowledge as to the insufficiency of funds is devoid of merit. July 24, 1993 because petitioner was no longer connected with Unlad or
As clarified in Lao vs. Court of Appeals,43 the very case petitioner is Bautista starting July 1989, cannot be given merit since, as earlier
invoking, the doctrine that a mere employee tasked to sign checks in discussed, petitioner failed to adequately prove that he has severed his
blanks may not be deemed to have knowledge of the insufficiency of funds relationship with Bautista or Unlad.
applies only to corporate checks and not to personal checks.44 In this case,
At any rate, we have held that what the law punishes is the mere act of
what is involved is a personal and not a corporate check.
issuing a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
Worth mentioning also is the fact that in the Lao case, the notice of terms and conditions relating to its issuance. This is because the thrust of
dishonor was never personally received by petitioner, thus the prima facie the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds never arose. Here, as circulation.
correctly found by the RTC, petitioner was duly notified of the dishonor of
the subject check as shown by Exh. "C,"45 a letter, specifically mentioning
that the subject check was dishonored for reason "Account Closed," with 4. Fourth issue. Whether the private complainant, at the time of
the corresponding registry return receipt showing that petitioner received issuance, had knowledge that the checks had no sufficient funds.
the notice on August 16, 1993 which petitioner did not impugn.
We have held that knowledge of the payee that the drawer did not have
sufficient funds with the drawee bank at the time the check was issued is
immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense under B.P.
Blg. 22. This is because the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a
bad check, hence, malice and intent in the issuance thereof are
inconsequential.
In Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that there is no violation of
B.P. Blg. 22, if complainant was actually told by the drawer that he has no
sufficient funds in the bank. In the present case, since there is no evidence
that a categorical statement was given to private complainant when the
subject check was issued to him, the above ruling cannot apply.

5. Fifth issue. Whether the guilt of the accused was proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
Petitioner maintains that the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt since the prosecution failed to rebut his
allegation that he was not anymore connected with the business of
Bautista and the trial court relied solely on the authenticity of petitioner’s
signature on the subject check to convict him of the offense charged. We
are not convinced.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty. Suffice
it to say the law requires only moral certainty or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in a prejudiced mind.
After reviewing the entire records of this case, we find that there is no
reason to depart from the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The weight
and quantum of evidence needed to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt were met and established by the prosecution and
correctly affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Rico v. People 4. The prosecution established that petitioner, who used to purchase construction
materials on credit from ELC, issued the abovecited checks as payment for the materials
Doctrine: Knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit in the drawee bank for the
and that they were dishonored upon presentment for payment to the bank either for
payment of a check upon its presentment is an essential element of the
“insufficient funds” or “account closed”. After the checks were dishonored, ELC
offense. In several cases, we have ruled that to hold a person liable
demanded payments from petitioner, who failed to make good his undertaking to replace
under B.P. 22, it is not enough to establish that a check was dishonored
the checks. No formal written demand letter or notice of dishonor, however, was sent to
upon presentment. It must be shown further that the person who
the petitioner. It was also established by the prosecution that ELC, through its manager,
issued the check knew at the time of issue that he does not have
issued several receipts covering several payments in various amounts made by petitioner
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
as replacement of some dishonored but returned checks as well as for payment of
such check in full upon its presentment. Because this element involves a
materials purchased. No official receipts covering the materials purchased, however, were
state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of the law creates a
presented in court as evidence.
prima facie presumption of such knowledge.
5. In his defense, petitioner did not deny that he issued the subject checks and that they
The prima facie presumption arises when a check is issued. But the law
were dishonored upon presentment for payment with the drawee bank. He claimed,
also provides that the presumption does not arise when the issuer pays
however, that he already paid the amounts covered by the checks, totalling P284,340.50,
the amount of the check or makes arrangement for its payment within
including interest. In support thereof, he submitted as evidence the following official
five banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been
receipts issued by ELC.
paid by the drawee. Thus, the presumption that the issuer had
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only 6. RTC convicted the accused. CA affirmed.
after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and
Issue:
that, within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount
of the check or to make arrangement for its payment. W/N the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
While Section 2 of B.P. 22 indeed does not state that the notice of Ruling: NO.
dishonor be in writing, this must be taken in conjunction with Section 3
of the law, i.e., “that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit 1. The law enumerates the elements of violation of B.P. 22, namely (1) the making,
with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of
notice of dishonor or refusal”. A mere oral notice or demand to pay the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in
would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment;
and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
Facts: funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
1. Petitioner Ben Rico was a “pakyaw” contractor who used to purchase construction
materials on credit from private complainant Ever Lucky Commercial (ELC). 2. The first and third elements of the offense are present and proved in these
consolidated cases. But we find that the second element was not sufficiently established.
2. Petitioner made payments either in cash or by postdated checks. On several occasions,
he issued checks to ELC, which were dishonored by the bank upon presentment for 3. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit in the drawee bank for the payment of a
payment for “insufficiency of funds” or “closed account”. check upon its presentment is an essential element of the offense.19 In several cases,20
we have ruled that to hold a person liable under B.P. 22, it is not enough to establish that
3. Consequently, petitioner was charged under several informations(five) for violation of
a check was dishonored upon presentment. It must be shown further that the person who
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
issued the check knew at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
Because this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of
the law creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge.

4. Thus, the presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is
brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of
dishonor and that, within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of
the check or to make arrangement for its payment.22

5. Here, both the Court of Appeals and the trial court relied solely on the testimony of
prosecution witness Danilo Cac to the effect that private complainant immediately
demanded payment of the value of the checks after they were dishonored. Aside from
this self-serving testimony, no other evidence was presented to prove the giving and
receiving of such notice. The nature and content of said demands were not clarified. Even
the date when and the manner by which these alleged demands were made upon and
received by petitioner were not specified. Worse, the records do not show that formal
and written demand letters or notices of dishonor were ever sent to petitioner.

6. Where the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds does not arise due to
the absence of notice of dishonor of the check, the accused should not be held liable for
the offense defined under the first paragraph of Section 1 of B.P. 22. In other words, if
such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer of the
bum check, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer,
then the presumption of knowledge as provided in Section 2 of B.P. 22 cannot arise, since
there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period.

7. In fine, the failure of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt by petitioner of
the requisite written notice of dishonor and that he was given at least five banking days
within which to settle his account constitutes sufficient ground for his acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 19764 is MODIFIED.
Petitioner BEN RICO is ACQUITTED of the charge for violation of B.P. 22 on the ground of
reasonable doubt. However, he is ordered to pay private complainant the face value of
the checks in the total amount of P178,434.00, with 12 percent interest per annum, from
the filing of the informations until the amount due is fully paid.
G.R. No. 132926. July 20, 2001 BUENA admitted the fact of shortage in the amount stated in the
AGULLO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Information. Notwithstanding, petitioner Agullo, at all stages of the
criminal indictment, persistently professed her innocence of the
charge and categorically denied having malversed or converted the
Doctrine: Thus, in a string of categorical pronouncements, this Court public funds in question for her own personal use or benefit.9
has consistently and emphatically ruled that the presumption of
conversion incarnated in Article 217, paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal 4. During trial, the defense offered to present the testimony of
Code is—by its very nature—rebuttable. To put it differently, the witness Austero for the purpose of proving that an amount equal
presumption under the law is not conclusive but disputable by satisfactory to P26,722.0511 was withheld from the salary and other
evidence to the effect that the accused did not utilize the public funds or compensation of petitioner Agullo. Further, the defense offered the
property for his personal use, gain or benefit. testimony of witness Barangay Captain Camaoy for the purpose of
establishing that “the accused suffered a heart attack (stroke) on
October 22, 1985; that on June 30, 1986, the accused informed her
Facts: that the accused lost the money for which she (was being)
subjected to criminal prosecution x x x; and that between October
1. As borne by the records, the charge of malversation against 22, 1985 and June 30, 1986, there had been no demand upon the
petitioner germinated from an audit conducted on 14 July 1986 by accused to produce the money for which she was declared short.”
Ignacio Gerez, Auditing Examiner III, as a result of which a
P26,404.26 cash shortage was discovered on petitioner’s 5. At the witness stand, petitioner Agullo unrelentingly maintained
accountability. On the same date, Gerez informed petitioner of said her innocence and vehemently denied the accusation against her.
finding of cash shortage and required the latter, through a letter of Thus, according to petitioner, in the morning of 21 October 1985,
demand,6 to “produce immediately the missing funds.” Further, she reported for work and prepared an inventory of her cash
petitioner was required to submit within 72 hours from receipt a accountability14 as Disbursing Officer15 of the MPWH Regional
written explanation of the cash shortage. Office, Candahug, Palo, Leyte. On the same day, petitioner received
around thirteen (13) checks in the form of cash advances in her
2. In a letter7 dated 25 August 1986, addressed to the Resident name totaling P26,076.87,16 which amount represented salaries of
Auditor of the MPWH, petitioner complied with the directive by MPWH officials and employees.
explaining that the cash shortage was, in effect, due to a
“fortuitous event” where the amount could have been stolen/taken 6. Around 1:30 PM, petitioner, together with Benjamin Veridiano,
by somebody on the day she suffered a stroke on 22 October 1985, driver of MPWH Finance and Management Division, proceeded to
near the corner of Juan Luna Street and Imelda Avenue, Tacloban the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tacloban City Branch, on board
City. the MPWH official vehicle, to encash the aforesaid checks. Upon
encashment of the checks, petitioner then put the money inside a
3. In the course of the pre-trial, petitioner Agullo conceded the fact of PNB envelope which she further placed in her bag. From the PNB,
audit and admitted8 the findings in the Report of Cash Examination petitioner—who boarded the official vehicle driven by Veridiano for
and the facts set forth in the Letter of Demand. In effect, she
 the purpose of proceeding further to the MPWH Regional Office—
felt dizziness, chest pain and nausea. As a result of her condition, 10. As to petitioner’s medical history and physical condition after
petitioner Agullo requested driver Veridiano to drop her off at her stroke, the Sandiganbayan, in its decision, observed from the
petitioner’s residence located at 109 Juan Luna Street—about half records:
a kilometer away from the PNB.
- “x x x In the past, the accused had likewise suffered a stroke and
7. In the morning of the following day, 22 October 1985, petitioner— had undergone medical treatment. A medical certificate, marked as
upon realizing that it was then the third-week payday of the month, Exhibits “3” and “3-A,” attest(s) to the fact that she had a history of
and burdened with the thought that she failed to give the salary of high blood pressure and had been undergoing treatment for the
the permanent employees—strove to report for work despite her said malady. Since her sudden breakdown on October 22, 1985, the
weak physical condition. Petitioner Agullo testified that she left her right part of her body became paralyzed and her speech has been
residence alone and brought with her the bag containing the impaired. She was advised by her doctor to undergo physical
money which she encashed the previous day from the PNB. therapy and to take medicine regularly. She was advised not to
report for work during such time that she was under recuperation.
8. Upon leaving the house with the money inside her bag, she walked Only on February 2, 1986 did she start to report for work, although
the stretch of Juan Luna Street and was able to reach almost the at irregular intervals, until the date of the audit, July 14, 1986.”
corner of Juan Luna and Imelda Avenue 19 a distance of around 50
meters away from her residence 20 when she was stricken with deep
chest pain21 and experienced dizziness; her vision blurred and “the Striking down the defense as ‘incredible and without basis,’ the
right part of (her) body (became) heavy” to the point that she Sandiganbayan rendered its assailed decision, convicting petitioner Agullo
“could not move anymore.” At this point, she collapsed and lost of the crime of malversation of public funds, ratiocinating principally
consciousness. that ‘no evidence has been presented linking the loss of the government
funds with the alleged sudden heart attack of the accused (herein
9. In the afternoon of the same day, she found herself in a hospital petitioner).’
bed of St. Paul’s Hospital located about a block away from
petitioner’s residence. Upon inquiry, she was informed that a Issue:
certain Metro Tacloban Aide by the name of Teresa Lorenzo came
to her rescue when she fainted, assisted in rushing her to the Whether Sandiganbayan is correct in convicting Agullo of the crime of
hospital, and informed her family about Agullo’s dire condition and malversation of public funds
the unfortunate event that befell her. 23 Petitioner was confined in
St. Paul’s Hospital for over a week—from 22 October 1985 to 01 Ruling:
November 198524—under the care of her attending physician, Dr.
Juan Abando, who issued the corresponding Medical Certificate. We do not agree.
(Hypertension complicated with Cerebro Vascular Accident (CVA),
Rt. Hemiparesis and Urinary Infection.) 1. By and large, the pieces of evidence presented against petitioner in
this case do not fulfill the test of moral certainty and may not be
 deemed sufficient to support a conviction. 25 Records reveal that 4. Thus, in a string of categorical pronouncements, this Court has
evidence for the prosecution consisted solely of the Report of Cash consistently and emphatically ruled that the presumption of
Examination,26 dated 14 July 1986, which was presented by the conversion incarnated in Article 217, paragraph (4) of the Revised
prosecution to prove the cash shortage in the amount of Penal Code is—by its very nature—rebuttable. To put it differently,
P26,404.26, on petitioner Agullo’s accountability as Disbursing the presumption under the law is not conclusive but disputable by
Officer of the then MPWH. Likewise, the prosecution presented satisfactory evidence to the effect that the accused did not utilize
the Letter of Demand27 dated 14 July 1986 signed by Auditing the public funds or property for his personal use, gain or benefit.
Examiner III Ignacio Gerez.
5. Accordingly, if the accused is able to present adequate evidence
2. Aside from the aforementioned documents, the prosecution opted that can nullify any likelihood that he had put the funds or property
not to present a single witness to buttress its bid for conviction and to personal use, then that presumption would be at an end and
relied merely on the prima facie evidence of conversion or the prima facie case is effectively negated. This Court has
presumption of malversation under Article 217, paragraph (4) of the repeatedly said that when the absence of funds is not due to the
Revised Penal Code, to wit: personal use thereof by the accused, the presumption is completely
destroyed; in fact, the presumption is never deemed to have existed
“ART. 217. Malversation of public funds or property—Presumption of at all.
malversation—
x x x “The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public 6. Applying the foregoing principle, the prosecution in the instant case
funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly upon whose burden, as in Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan29, was laden the
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such task of establishing by proof beyond reasonable doubt that
missing funds or property to personal uses.’ petitioner had committed the offense charged, mainly relied on the
statutory presumption aforesaid and failed to present any
3. Stated otherwise, the evidence for the prosecution, upon which the
substantial piece of evidence to indicate that petitioner had used
Sandiganbayan riveted its judgment of conviction, was limited to
the funds for personal gain.
documents to wit, the Report of Cash Examination and Letter of
Demand. As could be readily gleaned from the assailed decision, the
7. Worth noting is that the Sandiganbayan, in its impugned decision,
verdict adjudging herein petitioner guilty of the crime of
admitted that “conversion or the placing of malversed government
malversation was anchored solely on the presumption provided
funds to personal uses has, indeed, not been proven in the case at
under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code,
bar.” Perhaps realizing such gaping hole, the Sandiganbayan
which prima facie evidence, in turn, was rooted loosely on the
nonetheless leaped into the conclusion, albeit erroneous, that
documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, to wit: the
herein petitioner was just the same guilty of malversation invoking
Report of Cash Examination and Letter of Demand—pieces of
the prima facie evidence stated in Article 217, paragraph (4) of the
evidence which the defense concededly admitted, but which, to our
Revised Penal Code.
mind, do not suffice to convict the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged.
8. On this score, the rule of general application is that the factual allegation that no evidence exists regarding loss of the public funds,
findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on this court. this postulation is belied by the records as petitioner herself
However, such rule admits of settled exceptions, among others: (1) testified on the stand that she had the money subject of inquiry
the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, when she collapsed and lost consciousness as a result of the
surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly strokeTo us, this circumstance—coupled with the other peculiarities
mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is attendant in the instant case and further considering the palpable
based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact of failure of the prosecution to adduce other evidence to clearly
the Sandiganbayan are premised on a want of evidence and are establish conversion—‘suffice to make the mind uneasy as
contradicted by evidence on record.31 to Agullo’s guilt, notwithstanding the prima facie evidence
established by law against herein petitioner, which by no means
9. On this matter, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that ‘there is no dispenses with the need of proving guilt beyond reasonable
evidence to show that the accused was then carrying the sum of doubt.’34 After all, mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of
P26,404.26 in her person when she allegedly collapsed at Juan Luna conversion. Neither is the mere failure of the accused to turn over
Street, Tacloban City,” is to say the least, without factual basis and the funds at any given time sufficient to make even a prima
not duly supported by evidence. On the stark contrary, the records facie case. Conversion must be affirmatively proved, either by direct
are extant, as petitioner Agullo, in fact, testified on the witness evidence or by the production of facts from which conversion
stand that she had the money with her when she suffered a stroke necessarily follows.
and collapsed on the streets of Tacloban City on 22 October 1985.
Records likewise reveal that the amount of P327.39, which is the 12. Truly, these serve as strong considerations that seriously impair the
difference between P26,404.2632 and P26,076.87,33 represents the basis upon which is founded the legal presumption of personal
salary of Mr. Alcober, Jr., Administrative Officer of the DPWH in misappropriation of money or property of accountable officers who
Candahug, who made a telephone call to petitioner for the latter to fail to have forthcoming, such money or property when so
bring the sum of P327.39, together with the payroll. demanded by a duly authorized official.36 Verily, a finding of prima
facie evidence of accountability does not shatter the presumptive
10. True enough, the evidence adduced by the defense reveals innocence the accused enjoys because, before prima facie evidence
sufficient circumstances to establish the strongest degree of arises, “certain facts [have still to be] proved”; the trial court cannot
probability that the public funds subject of the criminal indictment depend alone on such an evidence, because precisely, it is
for malversation was lost during that fateful day of 22 October merely prima facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is guilty—
1985, where petitioner Agullo suffered a stroke on the streets of beyond reasonable doubt—of the offense charged. Neither can it
Tacloban City as she was then on her way to the MPWH Regional rely on the weak defense the latter may adduce.
Office.

11. In fact, the records though insensate, clearly reveal that the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is granted.
prosecution admitted that petitioner suffered a stroke on the ACCORDINGLY, the decision of respondent Sandiganbayan dated 16 March
streets of Tacloban on 22 October 1985. As to the prosecution’s 1992 and its Resolution dated 18 March 1998, are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Petitioner Elvira Agullo is hereby ACQUITTED on grounds of
reasonable doubt. MOREOVER, the DPWH is hereby directed to refund
petitioner the sum of Three Hundred Seventeen Pesos and Seventy Nine
Centavos (P317.79) representing the amount overdeducted from
petitioner’s salary, cost of living allowance and other emoluments.
Isidoro v. People target beneficiaries, Leyte’s malnourished children. She also pointed out that the
Supplemental Feeding Implementation Guidelines for Local Government Units governed
Doctrine: Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law
the distribution of SFP goods.3 Thus, Ysidoro committed technical malversation when he
punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or
approved the distribution of SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries.
ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The
offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not 6. In his defense, Ysidoro claims that the diversion of the subject goods to a project also
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law meant for the poor of the municipality was valid since they came from the savings of the
forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, SFP and the Calamity Fund. Ysidoro also claims good faith, believing that the
and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, municipality’s poor CSAP beneficiaries were also in urgent need of food.
and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not
7. Sandiganbayan found Ysidoro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of technical
the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is
malversation.
completely irrelevant.
Issue:
Facts:
W/N Ysidoro is guilty of the crime of technical malversation.
1. The Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas accused Arnold James M. Ysidoro before
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 28228 of violation of illegal use of public property Ruling: YES.
(technical malversation)
1. The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal
2. The facts show that the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) of Code4 has three elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; b) that he
Leyte, Leyte, operated a Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP) that provided applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) that
construction materials to indigent calamity victims with which to rebuild their homes. The the public use for which such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose
beneficiaries provided the labor needed for construction. for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.5
3. Thereafter, when construction for calamity victims in Sitio Luy-a, Barangay Tinugtogan, 2. Ysidoro claims that he could not be held liable for the offense under its third element
was 70% done, the beneficiaries stopped reporting for work for the reason that they had because the four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines he gave the CSAP beneficiaries
to find food for their families. This worried Lolita Garcia (Garcia), the CSAP Officer-in- were not appropriated by law or ordinance for a specific purpose. But the evidence shows
Charge, for such construction stoppage could result in the loss of construction materials that on November 8, 2000 the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte enacted Resolution 00-133
particularly the cement. Thus, she sought the help of Cristina Polinio (Polinio), an officer appropriating the annual general fund for 2001 and there is a creation of the two items
of the MSWDO in charge of the municipality’s Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) that shows the Sanggunian’s intention to appropriate separate funds for SFP and the CSAP in
rationed food to malnourished children. Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of the annual budget.
rice and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she had already distributed food to
the mother volunteers, what remained could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries. 3. Since the municipality bought the subject goods using SFP funds, then those goods
should be used for SFP’s needs, observing the rules prescribed for identifying the qualified
4. Garcia and Polinio went to petitioner Arnold James M. Ysidoro, the Leyte Municipal beneficiaries of its feeding programs. The target clientele of the SFP according to its
Mayor, to seek his approval. After explaining the situation to him, Ysidoro approved the manual10 are: 1) the moderately and severely underweight pre-school children aged 36
release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardine to months to 72 months; and 2) the families of six members whose total monthly income is
CSAP. Subsequently, CSAP delivered those goods to its beneficiaries. Afterwards, Garcia P3,675.00 and below.11 This rule provides assurance that the SFP would cater only to the
reported the matter to the MSWDO and to the municipal auditor as per auditing rules. malnourished among its people who are in urgent need of the government’s limited
resources.
5. Thereafter, Doller, former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte, filed the present
complaint against Ysidoro et. Al testified that the subject SFP goods were intended for its
4. Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines when he approved the distribution of the goods to
those providing free labor for the rebuilding of their own homes. This is technical
malversation. If Ysidoro could not legally distribute the construction materials
appropriated for the CSAP housing beneficiaries to the SFP malnourished clients neither
could he distribute the food intended for the latter to CSAP beneficiaries.

5. Two. Ysidoro claims that the subject goods already constituted savings of the SFP and
that, therefore, the same could already be diverted to the CSAP beneficiaries. The subject
goods could not be regarded as savings. The SFP is a continuing program that ran
throughout the year. Consequently, no one could say in mid-June 2001 that SFP had
already finished its project, leaving funds or goods that it no longer needed.

6. Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the idea of using the SFP goods for
the CSAP beneficiaries came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he
consulted the accounting department if the goods could be distributed to those
beneficiaries. Having no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the
crime. But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes
the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the
prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive
law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and
convenience.