People v De Guzman
[ G.R. No. 224212, November 27, 2019 ]
PROBLEM:
De Guzman, the accused, was convicted for two counts of qualified rape in relation to RA
No. 7610. De Guzman, with lewd designs, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal
knowledge [of AAA] without her consent, by means of force, threat and intimidation, and by
taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over her, he being her step parent.
However, during trial, the prosecution failed to establish this stepparent-stepdaughter
relationship between De Guzman and AAA. No proof of marriage was presented in order to
establish De Guzman's legal relationship with BBB.
Whether De Guzman should be convicted of two counts of qualified rape?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. He should be convicted of simple statutory rape and simple rape.
The elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force
and without consent; (4) the victim is under [eighteen] years of age at the time of the rape;
and (5) the offender is [either] a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted),
[ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent] of the victim.
Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not
pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances. In this
case, since De Guzman's relationship with AAA as alleged in the Information was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt, De Guzman cannot be convicted of qualified rape, only simple
statutory rape and simple rape.
XXX, Petitioner v People
[ G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021 ]
PROBLEM:
This is a petition for certiorari. An Information was filed against the petitioner for violation
of Section 5, paragraph (e)(2) of RA 9262, alleging that the petitioner willfully, unlawfully,
knowingly and deliberately deprived his wife and their child of sufficient financial support
legally due them.
The complainant and petitioner are living separately. However, their child has special needs,
hence, the complainant tried to contact him to ask for financial help since she could no
longer bear the expenses, but it was to no avail.
On the other hand, the petitioner argues that his wife, the complainant, was the one who
prevented him from giving support and that she is an over-domineering wife who
blackmailed him for P1,000,000. He contends that failure to give support to his child was not
attended with malice, which warrants his acquittal.
Should the petitioner be acquitted due to lack of malice?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Lack of malice is immaterial in cases of mala prohibita.
Generally, the term mala in se pertains to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC while
mala prohibita refers to acts made criminal by special laws. In acts which are declared to be
mala prohibita, malice or intent is immaterial.
Since RA 9262 or Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 is a special
law, the act of deprivation of financial support is considered malum prohibitum, hence, the
argument of absence of malice or intent is immaterial and the only inquiry to be made is
whether or not the prohibited act was committed.
People v Batino
[ G.R. No. 254035. November 15, 2021 ]
PROBLEM:
Batino, the accused, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act No 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002".
A buy-bust operation was conducted where the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sold and delivered one plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. A search warrant was also implemented, hence the
residence of the accused was searched and eleven more plastic sachets weighing 0.72 gram
of drug was found.
Batino argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty for the offenses charged. He pointed
out that there were lapses in the chain of custody, particularly on how and who brought the
seized items from the place of arrest to his house then to the police station, and on how
these items were handled and taken care of.
Was there a violation of the rules on chain of custody?
ANSWER:
No, the Court is convinced that the rules on chain of custody were followed.
The purpose of the rules on chain of custody is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity.
Based on the facts of the case, the court safely concluded that the seized items remained in
PO1 Bassig’s possession during the whole operation, from seizure to the forensic laboratory.
He did not turn over the seized items to the investigating officer though, and he himself
brought them to the forensic laboratory. Moreover, he was not cross-examined in this
matter, nor did the defense present evidence to show otherwise.
In addition, the marking, inventory, as well as the taking of photographs of the seized items
were immediately done after the arrest and seizure in the presence of two required
witnesses, barangay chairman Dungo and media representative Chavez, who signed the
inventory. Under RA 10640, having two witnesses, an elected public official together with a
representative from the National Prosecution service or the media, during the marking,
inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items would be compliant.
This clearly resolves Batino's questions on who and how the items were taken care of and
brought from the place of operation to the police station and to the forensic laboratory.
More so, the acts of public officers such as police officers that conduct anti-drug operations
enjoy presumption of regularity in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to rebut
the same.