Crim Pro Cases- full text

8/22/2019 Crim Pro Cases- full text

1/51

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

NATIONAL POWERCORPORATION,

Petitioner,

- versus -

TERESITA DIATO-BERNAL,Respondent.

G.R. No. 180979

Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,

NACHURA,PERALTA,ABAD, andMENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:

December 15, 2010x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

NACHURA,J.:

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the

reversal of the September 28, 2007 Decision[1]and the December 17, 2007 Resolution[2]of the Court

of Appeals (CA).

The assailed issuances affirmed the January 14, 2000 Order[3]of the Regional Trial Court

(RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, which fixed the just compensation at P10,000.00 per square meter

(sq m), in relation to the expropriation suit, entitled National Power Corporation v. Teresita Diato-

Bernal.

The factual antecedents are undisputed.

Petitioner National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) is a government owned and controlled

corporation created by Republic Act No. 6395,[4]as amended, for the purpose of undertaking the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn1


2/51

development of hydroelectric power throughout the Philippines. To carry out the said purpose,

NAPOCOR is authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain.[5]

Respondent Teresita Diato-Bernal (respondent) is the registered owner of a 946 sq m parcel of

land situated along General Aguinaldo Highway, Imus, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title

No. T-384494.[6]

In order to complete the construction of structures and steel posts for NAPOCORs

Dasmarias-Zapote 230 KV Transmission Line Project, it had to acquire an easement of right of way

over respondents property.[7]

Thus, on January 8, 1997, NAPOCOR filed an expropriation suit against respondent,

alleging, inter alia, that: the project is for public purpose; NAPOCOR negotiated with respondent forthe price of the property, as prescribed by law, but the parties failed to reach an agreement; and

NAPOCOR is willing to deposit the amount of Eight Hundred Fifty- Three Pesos and 72/100 (P853.72),

representing the assessed value of the property for taxation purposes.[8]

Respondent moved for the actions dismissal, arguing the impropriety of the intended

expropriation, and claiming that the value of her property is Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)

per sq m for the front portion, and Eighteen Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00) per sq m for the rear

portion, and that she will lose One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) per month by way of

expected income if the property is expropriated.[9]

On September 25, 1998, the parties filed with the RTC a partial compromise

agreement,[10]which reads:

1. That the parties, after earnest and diligent efforts, have reached an amicablesettlement regarding the location and size of Pole Site No. DZ-70 to beconstructed on the property of (respondent);

2. That the parties have agreed that the said Pole Site No. DZ-70 shall be

constructed or located on (respondents) Lot No. 6075-B covered by TransferCertificate of Title No. T-384494 of the Registry of Deeds for Cavite, coveringa total affected area of 29.25 square meters more or less as indicated in theSketch hereto attached as Annex A;

3. That the case shall[,] however, proceed to trial on its merits only with respectto the question of just compensation.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn5


3/51

The agreement was approved by the RTC in its Order dated September 25, 1998.[11]

With the first phase of the expropriation proceedings having been laid to rest by the partial

compromise agreement, the RTC proceeded to determine the amount of just compensation. To

assist in the evaluation of the fair market value of the subject property, the RTC appointed three (3)

commissioners, viz.: (1) the Provincial Assessor of Cavite; (2) the Municipal Assessor of Imus, Cavite,

upon recommendation of NAPOCOR; and (3) Soledad Zamora, respondents representative.[12]The

commissioners submitted their report to the RTC on September 14, 1999. In the main, they

recommended that the just compensation due from NAPOCOR be pegged at P10,000.00 per sq m,

based on the propertys fair market value.[13]

NAPOCOR filed an Opposition[14]to the Commissioners Valuation Report, asserting that it

was not substantiated by any official documents or registered deeds of sale of the subject propertysneighboring lots. NAPOCOR invoked our ruling in Rep. of the Phil. v. Santos,[15] wherein we held that a

commissioners report that is not based on any documentary evidence is hearsay and should be

disregarded by the court. Lastly, NAPOCOR claimed that the just compensation for the expropriated

property should beP3,500.00 per sq m, based on Resolution No. 08-95 dated October 23, 1995,

enacted by the Provincial Appraisal Committee of Cavite (PAC-Cavite).

On January 14, 2000, the RTC issued an Order adopting the recommendation of the

commissioners, viz.:

To the mind of the Court, the appraisal made by the Commissioners is just andreasonable. It is of judicial notice that land values in Cavite ha[ve] considerablyincreased. Such being the case, the just compensation is fixed at P10,000.00 per sq.meter.[16]

Dissatisfied, NAPOCOR sought recourse with the CA, reiterating the arguments raised in its

Opposition.

On September 28, 2007, the CA rendered its Decision affirming the RTCs judgment.[17]Its

motion for reconsideration[18]having been denied,[19]NAPOCOR interposed the present petition.

NAPOCOR, through the Office of the Solicitor General, repleads its contentions before the

courts a quo and adds that the CA failed to explain why the value of the subject property went up by
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn11


4/51

almost 200% in a span of two (2) years - P3,500.00 per sq m in 1995 to P10,000.00 per sq m at the

time of the filing of the expropriation complaint in 1997.

For her part, respondent prays for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it raises

purely factual questions which are beyond the province of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The petition is meritorious.

We shall first address the procedural infirmity raised by respondent.

In Santos v. Committee on Claims Settlement,[20]the Court had occasion to delineate the

distinction between a question of law and a question of fact, thus: A question of law exists whenthere is doubt or controversy on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of

fact when the doubt or difference arises from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts.

The Court elucidated as follows:

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correctapplication of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue doesnot call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, thetruth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt

or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invitescalibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses,the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as theirrelation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[21]

In this case, it is clear that NAPOCOR raises a question of law, that is, whether or not the

resolution of the PAC-Cavite should prevail over the valuation report of the court-appointed

commissioners. The issue does not call for a recalibration or reevaluation of the evidence submitted

by the parties, but rather the determination of whether the pertinent jurisprudence and laws cited

by NAPOCOR in support of its argument are applicable to the instant case.

On the substantive issue, the Court finds that the CA and the RTC erred in relying on the

unsubstantiated and insufficient findings contained in the commissioners report.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn20


5/51

In arriving at the P10,000.00 per sq m market value of the expropriated property, the

commissioners utilized the following factors:

I. PROPERTY LOCATION

The property subject of the appraisal is situated along Gen. AguinaldoHighway, Brgy. Anabu, Municipality of Imus, Province of Cavite, consisting of946 sq. m. more or less, identified as Lot 6075-B with Flat Terrainapproximately 5 kms. Distance Southwest of Imus Town proper, about 500 to600 m. from the entrance gate of Orchard Club and San Miguel YamamuraCorp. from Southeast around 1 km. [t]o 1.5 kms. From EMI (Yasaki), Makro,and Robinsons Department Store.

II. NEGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION

The neighborhood particularly in the immediate vicinity, is within a mixed

residential and commercial area situated in the Southern Section of theMunicipality of Imus which is transversed by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo Highwayw[h]ere several residential subdivisions and commercial establishments arelocated.

Residential houses in the area are one to two storey in height constructedof concrete and wood materials belonging to families in the middle incomebracket, while commercial buildings mostly located along Gen. EmilioAguinaldo Highway.

Some of the important landmarks and commercial establishments in the

immediate vicinity are:

Newly constructed Robinsons Department StoreMakroCaltex Gasoline station and Shell Gasoline stationGoldbomb Const. Corp.EMI (Yasaki)Pallas Athena Subd.and various Commercial and Savings Banks

Community [c]enters such as school, churches, public markets, shoppingmalls, banks and gasoline stations are easily accessible from the subjectproperty.

Convenience facility such as electricity, telephone service as well as pipepotable water supply system are all available along Gen. Aguinaldo Highway

x x x x

IV. VALUATION OF LAND MARKET DATA


6/51

This method of valuation involves the research and investigation of market

and sales data of the properties comparable with the property under appraisal.

These other properties are compare[d] with the subject property as tolocation and physical characteristics. Adjustment of their selling prices [is] then madewith respect to the said comparative elements as well as time compensate for theincrease or decrease in value.

Based on our investigations and verifications of market sales data and pricelistings of the neighborhood where the property under appraisal is located indicatesland value within the range ofP10,000.00 to P15,000.00 per square meter forresidential lots while commercial lots along Gen. E. Aguinaldo Highway are range[d]from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 per square meters (sic).

With this data and making the proper adjustment with respect to thelocation, area, shape, accessibility, and the highest and best use of the subject

property, we estimate the market value of the subject land at P10,000.00 per squaremeter, as of this date September 10, 1999.[22]

It is evident that the above conclusions are highly speculative and devoid of any actual and

reliable basis. First, the market values of the subject propertys neighboring lots were mere

estimates and unsupported by any corroborative documents, such as sworn declarations of realtors

in the area concerned, tax declarations or zonal valuation from the Bureau of Internal Revenue for

the contiguous residential dwellings and commercial establishments. The report also failed to

elaborate on how and by how much the community centers and convenience facilities enhanced thevalue of respondents property.[23]Finally, the market sales data and price listings alluded to in the

report were not even appended thereto.

As correctly invoked by NAPOCOR, a commissioners report of land prices which is not based on

any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court.[24]

The trial court adopted the flawed findings of the commissioners hook, line, and sinker. It did

not even bother to require the submission of the alleged market sales data and price listings.

Further, the RTC overlooked the fact that the recommended just compensation was gauged as of

September 10, 1999 or more than two years after the complaint was filed on January 8, 1997. It is

settled that just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually

coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the

action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn22


7/51

the filing of the complaint.[25]Clearly, the recommended just compensation in the commissioners

report is unacceptable.

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its

owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain, but the owners loss. The word

just is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation and to convey thereby the idea

that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and

ample.[26]Indeed, the just-ness of the compensation can only be attained by using reliable and

actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property.

The trial court should have been more circumspect in its evaluation of just compensation

due the property owner, considering that eminent domain cases involve the expenditure of public

funds.

As to the resolution of the PAC-Cavite advanced by NAPOCOR, which pegged the fair market

value of the property at P3,500.00 per sq m, it can only serve as one of the factors in the judicial

evaluation of just compensation, along with several other considerations.[27]NAPOCOR cannot

demand that the PAC-Cavite resolution be substituted for the report of court-appointed

commissioners in consonance with the firm doctrine that the determination of just compensation is a

judicial function.[28]

Hence, the legal basis for the determination of just compensation being insufficient, the

ruling of the RTC and the affirming Decision and Resolution of the CA ought to be set aside.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 14, 2000 Order of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 120, Imus, Cavite, and the September 28, 2007 Decision and the December 17, 2007

Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. This case is remanded to the trial court for

the proper determination of just compensation, in conformity with this Resolution. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) andNoel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp. 8-15.[2] Id. at 17.[3] CA rollo, pp. 37-38.

[4] Entitled An Act Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation, effective September 10, 2001.[5] R.A. No. 6395, Sec. 3(h).[6] Records, pp. 9-10.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftn25


8/51

[7] See RTC Order dated November 24, 1998, in relation to paragraph 5 of NAPOCORs complaint; id. at 2, 63.[8] Id. at 1-7.[9] Id. at 18-20.[10] Id. at 56-59.[11] Id. at 60-61.

[12] Id. at 67, 78.[13] Rollo, pp. 53-56.[14] Records, pp. 93-95.[15] 225 Phil. 29, 34 (1986).[16] Supra note 3, at 38.[17] Supra note 1.[18] CA rollo, pp. 86-90.[19] Supra note 2.[20] G.R. No. 158071, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 152.[21] Id. at 159-160.[22] Rollo, pp. 54-56.[23] See National Power Corporation v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 56.[24] Rep. of the Phil. v. Santos, supra note 15, at 34.

[25] B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89980, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 584, 586-587.[26] Republic v. Libunao, G.R. No. 166553, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 363, 376.[27] Id.[28]

Id. at 378.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/180979.htm#_ftnref7


9/51

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Appellee,

- versus -

NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER,Appellant.

G.R. No. 186459

Present:

CARPIO MORALES,J.,Chairperson,

BERSAMIN,DEL CASTILLO,*VILLARAMA, JR., andSERENO,JJ.

Promulgated:

September 1, 2010

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:

Nita Eugenio y Pejer (appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig

City[1]for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, allegedly committed as follows:[2]

On or about May 13, 2003 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then andthere willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslysell, deliver and give away to PO1 AldrinMariano, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachetcontaining three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, whichwas found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerousdrug, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law. (underscoring supplied)

From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn1


10/51

On the night of May 13, 2003, at around 7:30 p.m., a confidential informant reported to PO1

Aldrin Mariano (PO1 Mariano), officer-on-duty at the Pasig City Hall Detachment, that one alias

Aruba was sellingshabu at Vicper Compound, Malinao, Pasig City.

P/Sr. Insp. Chief Rodrigo Villaruel at once formed a buy-bust team to conduct an operation

composed of, among others, PO3 Amilassan Salisa as team leader, and PO1 Mariano as poseur-

buyer. PO1 Mariano, who was given two one hundred peso bills bearing Serial Numbers BT219634

and XN547078 to be used as buy-bust money, wrote his initials ARM thereon at the lower left

portion.

The operation was recorded in the police blotter and coordinated with the Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency (PDEA) which gave it control number NOC-1305-03-10.[3]

At around 8:00 in the evening, the team, together with the confidential informant,

proceeded to the residence of appellant who was standing in front of her house. The informant at

once introduced PO1 Mariano as buyer. As appellant inquired how much, PO1 Mariano handed her

the two marked bills upon which appellant drew out one substance-filled sachet from the outside

wall of her house. At that instant, PO1 Mariano removed his cap, the pre-arranged signal for the

team members to, as they did, close in.

PO1 Mariano then held appellants arm, identified himself as a police officer, and apprised her

of her constitutional rights as he retrieved from her the buy-bust money. He thereafter marked

EXH-A arm/05/13/03 on the substance-filled sachet sold to him by appellant.

The buy-bust team brought appellant to the Rizal Medical Center for physical check-up and

later to the police detachment office where P/Sr. Insp. Chief Villaruel prepared the following

memorandum of May 13, 2003[4]addressed to the Chief of the Eastern Police District Crime

Laboratory Office, requesting the conduct of laboratory examination on the seized substance-filled

sachet to determine the presence of dangerous drugs and their weight:

1. Respectfully forwarded to your good office herewith/attached (sic) submittedspecimen for laboratory examination to wit:

NATURE OF OFFENSE VIOLATION OF RA 9165

NAME OF SUSPECT NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER,57 years old, widow,Res. At Vicper Compound,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn4


11/51

Malinao, Pasig City

D.T.P.O. On or about 8:30 PM 13 May2003 at Vicper Compound,Malinao, Pasig City

ARRESTING OFFICER Elements of Mayors SpecialAction Team/ City HallDetachment, Pasig CityPolice Station represented byPO1 Aldrin Mariano

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED One (1) heat sealedtransparent plastic sachetcontaining undeterminedamount of suspected shabu

Marked EXH A ARM

05/13/03

2. Request acknowledge (sic) receipt.[5] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Acting on the above-quoted memorandum, P/Sr. Insp. Annalee R. Forro, Forensic Chemical

Officer of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, who received the sachet, conducted on

the same night of May 13, 2003, at around 8:33 P.M, a laboratory examination of the contents of the

sachet, the result of which she recorded in Chemistry Report No. D-889-03E[6]wherein she concluded

that the substance inside the sachet weighed 0.03 gram and was positive for methamphetaminehydrochloride.

Hence, the filing of the Information against appellant.

Denying the charge against her, appellant gave the following version:

On May 11, 2003, while fetching water from a nearby well, she was, in the presence of

family and neighbors, accosted by police officers who brought her to the police station. At the

station, she was questioned whether she knew one Baylene Ramba, to which she replied in the

negative. She was later surprised to learn that an Information for violation of R.A. 9165 had been

filed against her.

Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, by Decision of May 31, 2005, convicted

appellant, disposing as follows:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn6


12/51

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused NITA EUGENIO y Pejer @ Aruba

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A.9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 andimposes upon her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine ofPhp500,000.00

SO ORDERED.[7] (underscoring supplied)

By Decision of September 16, 2008,[8]the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts

decision.

In affirming the trial courts rejection of appellants defense, the appellate court held:

. . . As correctly observed by the trial court, the claim that accused-appellant wasarrested without reason is not supported by evidence. Not one of the allegedwitnesses to the unlawful arrest, including accused-appellants own daughter, waspresented to corroborate the claim. Hence, the court a quo is correct in consideringthe defense incredible for being self-serving and uncorroborated.[9](underscoringsupplied)

In her present appeal, appellant claims, in the main, that there was failure to follow the

requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, hence, it compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of

the allegedly seized item.

Sec. 21 of R.A. No 9165 provides:Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or SurrenderedDangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors andEssential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. ThePDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources ordangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well asinstruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and orsurrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of thedrugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physicallyinventory and photograph the samein the presence ofthe accused or thepersons/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, orhis/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and theDepartment of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be


13/51

required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; xx x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Appellant specifically claims that no physical inventory and photographing of the specimen

took place. Respecting the required conduct of an inventory, since only one sachet was seized,

failure to comply therewith may understandably have been rendered unnecessary.

As for the required photograph of the seized item, a reading of the testimony of PO1 Mariano

confirms the prosecutions failure to follow such requirement:

Atty. Ronatay:Q: Are you aware that it is required under the dangerous drugs law that in case of

the buy-bust operation, the subject specimen their (sic) must be a picturetaken on the subject specimen?

A: What I said is that impossible, we have a buy-bust to verify.

Atty. Ronatay:Your Honor, I think the answer is not responsive to the question. We moved(sic) to strike that out and the witness to answer the question.

Court: Answer the question.

Witness:A: Not yet maam.

Atty. Ronatay:Q: How many times have you been engaged in buy-bust operation?A: More or less ten maam.

Q: And in those ten cases, was there ever an occasion that the subject specimen,there was a picture taken on that subject specimen?

A: None, maam.

Q: Are you also aware Mr. witness that under the dangerous drugs law, it is

standard operating procedure that in cases of operation specifically in a buy-bust operation, there has also be (sic) a presence of the media?

A: I do not know, maam.

Q: In this case was there a media present at the time of the operation?

A: None maam.


14/51

Q: Are you also aware that under the dangerous drugs law, it is required that

there has to be coordination with the Local Brgy.?

A: None maam.[10] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Failing to comply with the provision of Section 2 of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily doom

the case for the prosecution, however. People v. Pringas enlightens:

Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal aslong as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and theevidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by theapprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrestillegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost

importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of theseized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt orinnocence of the accused.[11](citation omitted, emphasis, italics and underscoringsupplied)

The Courts pronouncement inPringas is based on the provision of Section 21(a) of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations[12]of R.A. No. 9165 reading:

x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements

underjustifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seizeditems are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not rendervoid and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items ; (emphasis andunderscoring supplied)

Clearly, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the integrity and evidentiary

value of the shabu was preserved.

As reflected in the above-quoted Memorandum of P/Sr. Insp. Chief Villaruel, the time of

operation was on or about 8:30 P.M., 13 May 2003. If the allegedly seized substance-filled sachet

was confiscated at 8:30 p.m., it is highly improbable that it was received at the Crime Laboratory

at 8:33 P.M or a mere three minutes after the seizure, given that appellant was after his arrest first

brought to a hospital for physical check-up.


15/51

Doubt is thus engendered on whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory

examination and presented in court is the same as that allegedly sold by appellant. In fine, the

prosecution failed to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the 0.03 gram specimen.

Parenthetically, unlike in Pringas, the defense in the present case questioned early on, during

the cross examination of PO1 Mariano, the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the

inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. And the defense raised it

again during the offer of evidence by the prosecution, thus:

Atty. Ronatay:

x x x x

Exh. C - we object to its admission as well as the purpose for which they are

being offered for being planted evidence, your honor.[13] (underscoringsupplied)

The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of the evidence did not shift to the defense to thus leave it

unnecessary to pass upon the defense evidence even if it were considered weak. Appellants

acquittal based on reasonable doubt is then in order.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET

ASIDE. Appellant, Nita Eugenio y Pejer, is ACQUITED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for

Women, Mandaluyong City who is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless she is

being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within ten (10) days

from notice.

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________________________________________________________

* Per Special Order No. 879 dated August 13, 2010 in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion.[1] Records, pp. 1-2[2] Id.[3] Id. at 8.[4] Id. at 7.[5] Ibid.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftn14


16/51

[6] Id. at 10.[7] CA rollo, p. 14[8] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A.

Salazar-Fernando and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.[9] Rollo, p. 8.[10] TSN, October 21, 2003, pp. 23-24.[11] G.R. No. 175928. August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.[12] Took effect on November 27, 2002.[13] Exhibit C pertains to the specimen confiscated from appellant which is the plastic sachet containing white

crystalline substance or shabu., TSN, March 10, 2004, p. 31.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/186459.htm#_ftnref7


17/51

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Appellee,

- versus -

G.R. No. 185708

Present:

CARPIO MORALES,J.,Chairperson,

BRION,BERSAMIN,VILLARAMA, JR., and

SERENO,JJ.

JUANITO CABIGQUEZ y ALASTRA,Appellant.

Promulgated:

September 29, 2010x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR.,J.:

On appeal is the Decision[1]dated July 9, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Mindanao

Station, which affirmed the Decision[2]dated October 29, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 18 finding appellant Juanito Cabigquez y Alastra (Cabigquez) and

Romulo Grondiano y Soco (Grondiano) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery (Criminal Case No.

2001-816), and also convicting appellant Cabigquez of rape (Criminal Case No. 2001-815), both crimescommitted against private complainant AAA,[3]a 43-year old widow and mother of ten (10)

children. Grondiano decided to withdraw his appeal before the appellate court.[4] Hence, this review

shall consider only Cabigquezs appeal.

Below are the facts, as culled from the records of both the trial and appellate courts.

In the evening of March 26, 2001, AAA and her three minor children BBB, CCC, and DDD[5]

slept inside AAAs smallsari-sari store which was annexed through the exterior balcony of her house

at Purok 1-A, Tablon in Cagayan de Oro City. AAAs head was close to the door, while a cabinet stood

at her right side. She left the 50-watt incandescent bulb on as they slept through the night.[6]

At around 3:30 a.m., March 27, 2001, AAA was awakened when clothes fell on her face. When

she looked up, she saw a man whose face was covered with a handkerchief and wearing a

camouflage jacket and cycling shorts. He immediately poked a gun at her. AAA shouted Ayyy!,

rousing her three children from sleep.[7] Despite the cover on the burglars face, BBB was able to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn1


18/51

identify him as Romulo Grondiano, one of their neighbors, based on the hanging mole located below

his left eye.[8]Armed with a stainless handgun,[9]Grondiano ordered AAA and her children to lie face

down.[10] Though stricken with fear, BBB noticed that Grondiano had a companion who stayed at the

balcony keeping watch.[11] Grondiano then ransacked the store, taking with him P3,000.00 cash from

the cabinet and P7,000.00 worth of grocery items. Before he left, Grondiano pointed the gun at

AAAs back and warned them not to make any noise.[12]

As soon as Grondiano left the store, the other man entered. BBB identified the man as appellant

Juanito Cabigquez as the latter did not conceal his face. Armed with Grondianos gun, Cabigquez

stripped AAA of her short pants and underwear, placed a pillow on her lower abdomen and mounted

her from behind. He lifted and twisted one of her legs and pinned the other. AAA shouted Ayaw!

(No!), but offered no further resistance. Cabigquez inserted his penis into AAAs vagina, and

proceeded to ravish her in full view of her children, and even as the latter cried for mercy. Before he

left, Cabigquez threatened to kill AAA and her children if they would tell anyone about the

incident.[13]

Afraid for their lives, AAA and her children remained prostrate on the floor even after the two

malefactors had left. Shortly thereafter, they decided to proceed to the house of AAAs older son,

EEE, and asked for help. AAA failed to disclose to her son the identities of the two men. Meanwhile,

BBB, fearing retaliation from the two men, decided not to divulge the identities of Cabigquez and

Grondiano to her mother and brother.[14]

That same morning, March 27, 2001, AAA reported the incident to the Puerto Police Station. Nocriminal complaint, however, was filed since AAA was still uncertain of the identities of the two

men. AAA was physically examined by Dr. Cristilda O. Villapae and Dr. Riman Ricardo, resident

physicians at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center.[15]Dr. Villapaes examination revealed that the

smear recovered from AAAs vagina was positive for spermatozoa,[16]while Dr. Ricardo found a two-

centimeter contusion on AAAs left hand dorsum.[17]

On May 24, 2001, Cabigquez was arrested for possession of illegal drugs.[18] Grondiano was

likewise arrested on May 26, 2001 also for possession of illegal drugs.[19]With the two men

incarcerated, and now certain of their safety, BBB finally mustered the courage to reveal the

identities of Cabigquez and Grondiano to her mother.[20]

On July 18, 2001, two Informations were filed against Cabigquez and Grondiano, viz:

Criminal Case No. 2001-816 (For: Robbery)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn8


19/51

The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses JUANITO CABIGQUEZ yALASTRA, alias DODOY, and ROMULO GRONDIANO y SOCO, alias Molok, of thecrime they committed, as follows:

That on March 27, 2001, at more or less 3:30 oclock in the earlymorning in a store located at Purok 1-A, Barangay Tablon, Cagayan deOro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating andhelping with one another, with intent to gain and violence orintimidation of persons, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully andfeloniously take, rob and carry away cash Php3,000.00 and assorted[grocery] stocks valued Php7,000.00 all in all amounting toPhp10,000.00, owned by and belonging to one [AAA], in thefollowing manner: that accused Romulo Grondiano intimidated theoffended party with a gun pointed to her and her three children andordered them to lay on the floor with face down and then took,robbed and carried away the aforementioned valuable personal

things while Juanito Cabigquez y Alastra acting/serving as lookout atthe door of the store, to the damage and prejudice of the offendedparty, in the total sum of Php10,000.00, Philippine Currency.

Contrary to and in violation to Article 294, par. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, asamended.[21]

Criminal Case No. 2001-815 (For: Rape)

The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses, JUANITO CABIGQUEZ Y

ALASTRA ALIAS DODOY, of the crime of RAPE that he committed as follows:

That on March 27, 2001, at more or less 3:30 oclock orthereabout, in the early morning, at Purok 1A, Tablon, Cagayan de OroCity, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,the above-named accused, armed with a gun, and with the usethereof, by means of force, and intimidation, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledged (sic) ofthe offended party [AAA], against her will [and] in the presence andfull view of her children.

Contrary to and in violation to (sic) Article 266-A (Formerly under Art. 335) ofthe Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353.[22]

Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.[23] During the trial, Cabigquez admitted that on

the night of March 26, 2001, he slept in the house of Leonila Omilao, a neighbor of Cabigquez and

AAA.[24] He admitted that he did not have any quarrel with AAA and found no possible reason why
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn21


20/51

AAA would file the complaints and testify against him.[25]Omilao herself testified that Cabigquez was

in her house on the night of the incident and even saw the latter sleeping in the kitchen. During

Omilaos cross-examination, however, the trial court noted Silvina Cabigquez, appellants daughter,

coaching Omilao in her answers.[26]

On October 21, 2002, the trial court, on motion by the defense, ordered the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI) in Manila to conduct a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis on the sperm taken

from AAAs vagina. On May 21, 2003, NBI Forensic Chemist III Aida Viloria Magsipoc testified that the

sample collected from AAA did not match Cabigquezs DNA profile since the specimen submitted to

them were mere vaginal discharges from AAA.[27]

On October 29, 2003, the trial court rendered judgment convicting Cabigquez and Grondiano of

the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds accused JUANITOCABIGQUEZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, punishable under Article 266-B of the same Code, andthere being one aggravating circumstance [the used (sic) of a deadly weapon(firearm)] without a[ny] mitigating circumstance, accused JUANITO CABIGQUEZ ishereby sentenced and is SO ORDERED to suffer the supreme penalty of Death bylethal injection, including its accessory penalties. He is further directed and is SOORDERED to pay the victim the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) asindemnity, plus another TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00), as moraldamages. Pursuant to Section 22 of R.A. 7659 and Section 10 of Rule 122 of the Rules

of Court, let the entire record of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court forautomatic review.

FURTHERMORE, the Court likewise finds accused JUANITO CABIGQUEZ andROMULO GRONDIANO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Robberypunishable under paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and [there]being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, and after applying theIndeterminate Sentence Law, accused JUANITO CABIGQUEZ and ROMULOGRONDIANO are hereby sentenced and are SO ORDERED to serve the [penalty of]imprisonment of TWO (2) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS AND TWENTY (20) DAYSOFPRISION CORRECCIONAL, as the MINIMUM, to SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH AND

ELEVEN (11) DAYS OF PRISION MAYOR, as the MAXIMUM, including its accessorypenalties, plus further SO ORDERED to pay the stolen items and cash in the sum ofTEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00).

SO ORDERED. Cagayan de Oro City, October 29, 2003.[28]

The records of the case were elevated to this Court on automatic review. Pursuant to our ruling

in People v. Mateo,[29]the case was referred to the CA.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn25


21/51

In his appeal, appellant maintained his defense of alibi and denial. He questioned the accuracy

and credibility of BBBs testimony given her failure to immediately divulge the identity of the

perpetrators after the incident. Appellant also noted that AAAs lone interjection, while she was

allegedly being raped by him, can hardly be considered as a manifest resistance.[30] The defense also

argued that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy since BBB did not actually see that

Cabigquez was on the balcony while the robbery was being committed.[31]

By Decision dated July 9, 2008, the CA upheld the RTC in convicting appellant of both crimes

of robbery and rape. The CA found BBBs testimony candid and not prompted by ill -motive. As to

BBBs failure to promptly implicate Grondiano and Cabigquez for the crimes, the appellate court

ruled that this cannot be taken against her in the light of serious threats made by said accused on

their family. The alleged contradictions in the testimonies of AAA and BBB were likewise not fatal to

the case of the prosecution as they bear no materiality to the commission of the crime. The CA alsonoted that the accused were able to consummate their criminal acts without any physical resistance

from the victims who could not even cry loudly because they were ordered at gunpoint not to make

any noise. It rejected the defense of alibi put up by Cabigquez in view of his admission that he stayed

at a house within the vicinity of AAAs store.[32]

The CA thus decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed October 29, 2003 Decision ofthe Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 18,

Cagayan de Oro City, convicting Juanito A. Cabigquez, the lone appellant before Us,for the crimes of Robbery and Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in thatJuanito A. Cabigquez is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua for the crime of Rape.

SO ORDERED.[33]

Before this Court, appellant Cabigquez reiterates the following arguments:I.

THE COURTA QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OFTHE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIRGUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE COURTA QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THEINCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/185708.htm#_ftn30


22/51

III.

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS COMMITTED ROBBERY,

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THEM TO PAY THECOMPLAINANT P10,000.00 AS ACTUAL DAMAGES.

IV.

THE COURTA QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY INTHE CASE AT BAR.[34]

We sustain the ruling of the CA.

The factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the appellate court, indubitably prove that

appellant raped AAA even if the specimen obtained from the vaginal swabs and submitted to the NBI

failed to match appellants DNA profile. Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal

knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation.[35] The commission of rape was clearly

shown by testimonial and documentary evidence; the defense submits that it is the identity of the

perpetrator which is not duly established.

For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is indeed a fertile source of both

inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

[36]

In this case, however, the result of the DNA test is renderedinconclusive to exculpate or inculpate the appellant since the sample tested by the NBI merely

contained vaginal discharges. In the laboratory test earlier conducted by Dr. Villapae on the vaginal

swab obtained from AAAs genitalia, the presence of spermatozoa was confirmed. This

notwithstanding, the totality of evidence satisfactorily established that it was indeed appellant who

raped AAA.

AAAs daughter, BBB, who witnessed the entire incident which happened inside their store

on the night in question, positively identified appellant as the one who raped her mother against the

latters will by threatening her and her children with a handgun he was then carrying. BBBs

unflinching and consistent testimony, when taken together with Dr. Villapaes findings and AAAs

own declarations in court, provides sufficient basis for the conviction of appellant for rape.

Quoted herein are the relevant portions of BBBs testimony on direct examination as to her

identification of appellant as her mothers rapist,viz:


23/51

Q Now, [BBB], you said that you are 13 years old and you said a while ago yousworn that you will tell the truth, can you remember that?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay now, are you going to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before this

Honorable Court?

A Yes, sir I will tell the truth.

Q Do you know what will happen to you if you tell a lie in court?

A Yes, sir I will be imprisoned.

Q Do you want to be imprisoned?

A No, sir.

Q So, you will tell the truth nothing but the truth?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you know accused Romulo Grondiano?

A Yes, sir because he is our neighbor.

x x x x

Q Do you also know accused Juanito Cabigquez who is accused for rape and co-accused in robbery?

A Yes, sir he is also our neighbor.

Q For how long have you known Juanito Cabigquez before March 27, 2001?

A Since I came that age of reason I already knew Juanito Cabigquez.

Q Is Juanito Cabigquez also a resident of Purok 1-A at Tablon?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you also know the nickname of Juanito Cabigquez?

A Its Dodoy.

Q If Juanito Cabigquez is inside this courtroom, can you point to him?A Note: Witness pointed to a person who when asked of his name identified

himself as Juanito Cabigquez.

Q Okay, on March 27, 2001 at about 3:30 early in the morning, do you rememberwhere were you?

A I was inside our store sleeping together with our mother.


24/51

Q Aside from you and your mother, who were other persons who were with you?

A Together with my two (2) siblings.

x x x x

Q Now, while you were sleeping together with your mother and your two (2)younger siblings at that time, what happened?

x x x x

A The three (3) of us were awakened because of the shout of our mother.

Q Who is that us?

A I together with my two (2) siblings.

Q Your mother also woke up?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, after you were awakened by the shout of your mother, what did youobserve, if there was any?

A I saw my mother knelt down and I came nearer and then I embraced herbecause I thought she was dreaming but I saw Romulo Grondiano with a gun.

x x x x

Q Alright, what happened while you saw accused Romulo Grondiano already atthe door of your store of your mother holding a gun and your mother was

kneeling?

A He ordered us to lay face down.

Q After Romulo Grondiano ordered you to lay face down, what did you, yourmother and your two (2) siblings do?

A I let my mother lay face down.

Q How about you?

A I also lay face down.

Q How about your two (2) younger siblings?A They also lay face down.

Q Alright, while the four (4) of you were lying face down, what did you observe?

A I noticed that he had a companion who is at our balcony.

Q How were you able to notice that he has a companion?


25/51

A Because we had a chair made of bamboo and then if somebody or a person hitit, it will sound.

x x x x

Q Now, after Romulo Grondiano took all those things that you have enumerateda while ago, where did Romulo Grondiano go?

A He pointed a gun at my mothers back and then ordered us not to move.

x x x x

Q Alright, after Romulo Grondiano told you, your mother and your two (2)younger siblings not to move, where did Romulo Grondiano go?

A He went to the balcony and then Juanito Cabigquez replaced him (Romulo) ingoing up, he (Juanito) went inside our store.

x x x x

Q Alright, you testified a while ago that after Romulo Grondiano went inside yourstore he passed by the balcony of your house, then co-accused JuanitoCabigquez came in, where did Juanito Cabigquez come in?

A He entered in our store.

Q The same store where you, your mother and two (2) younger siblings werestaying at that time?

A Yes, sir.

Q How were you able to recognize that it was Juanito Cabigquez who came in?

A Because I saw him.

Q When you saw Juanito Cabigquez, were you still lying face down or were youalready sitting?

A I was already lying face down.

Q How were you able to see him?

A Because I looked back at the door because I thought that Romulo Grondianoalready left but then I saw Juanito Cabigquez came in and replaced RomuloGrondiano.

Q This Juanito Cabigquez who came in after Romulo Grondiano went out, is hethe same Juanito Cabigquez the co-accused for robbery and accused in rapecase?

A Yes, sir.


26/51

Q If he is inside this courtroom, can you point him again?

A Note: Witness pointed again to a person who when asked of his nameidentified himself as Juanito Cabigquez.

Q After Juanito Cabigquez came in inside the store, what did you observe?

A He removed the shortpants of my mother and then he got the pillow of mymother and placed it under her abdomen.

x x x x

Q Now, what was the position of your mother when Juanito Cabigquez took offthe shortpants of your mother?

A She was still lying face down.

Q What was the position of your mother when Juanito Cabigquez put the pillowunder her abdomen?

A She was still lying face down.

Q By the way, when Juanito Cabigquez entered the store, was the light still on?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, you said that your mother shouted when Juanito Cabigquez came in. Myquestion is, when did your mother actually shout?

A When Juanito Cabigquez was removing the shortpants of my mother.

COURT: (to the witness)

Q Can you tell the Court what kind of shout your mother did?

A My mother shouted ay!

PROS. M. NOLASCO: (contg.)

Q Now, was Juanito able to take off the shortpants of your mother?

A Yes, sir because it was a gartered shortpants.

Q Now, how about the panty of your mother?

A It was removed together with the shortpants.

Q Now, after the shortpants and panty of your mother were taken off and thepillow was placed under her abdomen, what next did you observe?

A Juanito Cabigquez mounted on my mother.

Q And then, what did Juanito do when he mounted to your mother?


27/51

A He did a push and pull motion.

Q How about your two (2) younger siblings, were they still awake at that time?

A Yes, sir, they were crying.

Q How about you?A I also cried.

Q When you noticed that he (Juanito Cabigquez) entered your store, was hecarrying a gun?

x x x x

A He was bringing a gun.

x x x x

Q Can you demonstrate the length of the gun that you saw?

A The gun which Juanito Cabigquez was bringing was the same gun Romulobrought.

Q How about your mother while Juanito Cabigquez was already mounted on herand make a push and pull motion, what did your mother do?

A My mother was crying.

x x x x

Q You said that you, your mother and your two (2) younger siblings were cryingwhile Juanito Cabigquez mounted on your mother and made a push and pullmotion, what happened after that?

A He pointed his gun at the back of my mother and then told us not to tell toanybody because they will return and kill us.

Q Now, after Juanito Cabigquez warned you not to tell anybody otherwise theywill return and kill you, what did Juanito Cabigquez do?

A He went up to the balcony.

x x x x

Q How about Juanito Cabigquez, when he entered your store of your mother andraped your mother, what was he wearing?

A He was wearing a white t-shirt and maong pants.

COURT: (to the witness)


28/51

Q Was it long or short?

A Long pants.

x x x x[37](Emphasis supplied.)

Appellant asserts that it is significant that AAA herself did not recognize him and his co-

accused despite her familiarity with them as they were her customers in her store. It was pointed

out that the identification of the perpetrators was supplied solely by her daughter BBB, who should

not have been given any credence in view of her inconsistent declarations such as when she testified

that when she woke up, her mother was kneeling contrary to the latters testimony that when

clothes fell on her face, she was awakened and that her mother shouted but a gun was pointed to

her. Moreover, BBB saw the accused several times after the alleged crimes transpired and yet she

did not manifest any alarm even when they reported the matter to the police; it was only after the

accused were detained that their identities were revealed. In the light of serious discrepancies in thetestimonies of prosecution witnesses, appellant maintains that BBBs identification of the

perpetrators of robbery and rape was unreliable and doubtful.[38]

We are not persuaded.

While it is true that the most natural reaction for victims of crimes is to strive to remember

the faces of their assailants and the manner in which the craven acts are committed ,[39]in this case,

AAA cannot be faulted for failing to recognize appellant as her rapist though the latter was their

neighbor. It must be recalled, as narrated by AAA and BBB, they were all still lying face down when

appellant suddenly entered the store right after his co-accused Grondiano exited through the

balcony taking the loot with him. BBB recounted that her mother was still lying face down when

appellant removed her mothers short pants and panty, placed a pillow below her abdomen and then

proceeded to rape her. It was BBB who had the opportunity to look at this second person who

entered their house because she looked back at the door thinking that Grondiano (the one who first

entered the store) alr

Documents

Crim Pro Cases- full text