RA 9165
PLEA BARGAINING
In a motion for plea bargaining, the RTC must resolve on the merits the prosecution’s objections. – The RTC acted correctly in granting the accused’s Motion to Plea Bargain to a lesser offense, as it considered the prosecution’s objection based solely on the ground that the accused’s plea bargaining is inconsistent with DOJ Circular No. 27 which has been subsequently set aside. Aside from that, the trial court allowed the accused to avail of plea bargain because of the prosecution’s failure to prove that the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times, or proved that the evidence of guilt is strong. In other words, the trial court resolved the petitioner’s objections on the merit.[1]
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
The chain of custody in drugs cases must be unbroken, even in warrantless stop-and-frisk searches. – “In essence, a straightforward interpretation of Section 21 mandates that the law enforcement team initially seizing the drugs conduct an immediate physical inventory and photographic documentation, and this should happen in the presence of the accused and the designated witnesses. Notably , this mandate is not restricted to drug items unearthed in buy-bust operations – it applies universally to all items recovered lawfully, whether through the implementation of a warrant or through other forms of warrantless searches and seizures, alike.
In this case, law enforcement officers frisked accused-appellant due to suspicion of unlicensed firearm possession. This led to the arrest of accused-appellant for illegal possession of a gun, and the consequent recovery of a transparent plastic sachet, believed to contain shabu, on accused-appellant’s person. Upon suspecting that the sachet contained illicit drugs, law enforcement officers were immediately obligated by law to ensure the integrity of the seized items, in accordance with the applicable version of Section 21.”[2]
Absolute necessity for prosecution to adhere meticulously to rules and protocols. – “In conclusion, this Court once again underscores the absolute necessity for the prosecution to adhere meticulously to rules and protocols, particularly Section 21 of R.A. 9165, when handling and presenting drug evidence. Regrettably, in an era where unfounded drug charges are not uncommon, often levied by corrupt elements within law enforcement agencies, the importance of these procedural safeguards cannot be overstated. This is not to tarnish the reputation of the entirety of law enforcement operatives, many of whom diligently uphold their duty to protect and serve. Rather, it is an appeal for integrity in the process, particularly given the extensive resources at the disposal of the State. These procedural safeguards have been designed to uphold the sacrosanct principle of justice that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When these safeguards are ignored or bypassed, it is not just an individual person that suffers, but the entire edifice of our justice system. Hence, le this ruling be a reminded that diligent adherence to these rules is a testament to our collective commitment to the rule of law, and a vital bulwark against the miscarriage of justice.”[3]
How to establish chain of custody. – “To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.”[4]
Links to establish chain of custody. – “In People v. Sipin, the Court reiterated the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officers; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.”[5]
RA 10591
Valid stop and frisk justifying warrantless search. – The facts of this case clearly demonstrate a valid stop and frisk justifying warrantless search on the accused: first, the police officer received information that accused is seen in possession of a firearm in Bgy. Gulod Itaas; upon arriving at the location, the police officer observed accused displaying a nickel-colored metal object to a companion. The accused has also been under the unwavering gaze of the police officers for around three years prior to his arrest. These circumstances created a reasonable inference of criminal activity, authorizing the stop and frisk of the accused.[6]
PD 957
PD 957 is a crime malum prohibitum; however, the prosecution still has to prove that accused intended to perpetrate the act. – “Succintly put, for crimes mala ins se, there must be proof of criminal intent, while for crimes mala prohibita, it is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. As applied here, even if a violation of P.D. 957 is malum prohibitum, it must still be established that the accused had the volition or intent to commit the prohibited act, which is the non-registration of the subject contracts.”[7]
Corporate officer’s liability stems from active participation in the commission of the wrongful acts. – “The doctrine that a corporate officer’s criminal liability stems from his or her active participation in the commission of a wrongful act is consistent with the wording of P.D. 975. To recall, Section 39 thereof provides that in case of a corporation, the “President, Manager, or Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally responsible” for a violation of P.D> 957. Thus, in assigning liability for crimes committed by a corporation, the law refers to a person in charge of the administration of the business – who may or may not the President, Manager, or Administrator, What is crucial in ascertaining criminal liability is not the position of said officer, but his or her functions in relation to the specific violation he or she is charged with. XXX”[8](Citation omitted)
RA 9208
Trafficking in persons may be committed by means of taking advantage of persons’ vulnerability as minor. – “The law carved out an exception as to the means adopted to prove trafficking, for the protection of minors. Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended, reads:
SEC. 3 .Definition of Terms. – As used in this act:
- Trafficking in persons. – x x x
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for purposes of exploitation or when the adoption is induced in any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as “trafficking in persons” even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, where the victim is a child, the criminal element of means to commit trafficking need not be established. It is sufficient that the fact of minority is established on record.”[9]
RA 7610
Lascivious Conduct Under Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. 7610. – Where the accused placed his penis outside the victim’s genital, without any indication that there was the slightest penetration, and accused completed is lustful desire by simply placing his top on the victim’s vagina and by doing a push and pull movement without any indication that he had the intent to commit the slightest penetration of the cleft of the labia majora, the crime committed is Lascivious Conduct under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, “which provides:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, are deemed to be children exploited in prosecution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
X x x x
- Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or [subjected] to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the [victim] is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape, and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be. Provided, that the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period[.]”[10]
Lascivious Conduct defined. – “Under 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 7610, lascivious conduct is defined as the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth, of any person ,whether or the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any persons, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genital, or pubic area of a person. (Citation omitted)
The prosecution’s evidence had sufficiently established the elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The evidence confirms that petitioner committed lascivious acts against AAA, who narrated that on September 29, 2016, petitioner dragged her to the unused pigpen of “Kapitana” where he kissed her cheeks and thereafter removed both his and AAA’s clithes. Petitioner then placed his penis on top of, and rubbed it against, her vagina. The victim even suffered an epileptic seizure during the ordeal. Undoubtedly, the foregoing overt acts of petitioner qualify as lascivious conduct under Section 2(h) of the IRR of R.A. No. 7610.”[11]
Elements of sexual abuse or lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. “The elements of sexual abuse or lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 are as follows:
- The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
- The act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
- The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.”[12]
[1] Quiqui v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 266439, August 30, 2023
[2] People of the Philippines vs. Dalisay, G.R. No. 258060
[3] People of the Philippines vs. Dalisay, G.R. No. 258060
[4] People of the Philippines v. Mendiola, et. al, G.R No. 2519181, August 2, 2023, citing Pp. v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020
[5] People of the Philippines v. Mendiola, et. al, G.R No. 2519181, August 2, 2023, citing Pp v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018)
[6] People of the Philippines vs. Dalisay, G.R. No. 258060
[7] Valenzona v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248584, August 30, 2023
[8] Valenzona v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248584, August 30, 2023
[9] People of the Philippines vs. Pine, G.R. No. 262197, August 14, 2023
[10] Talisay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 258257, August 9, 2023
[11] Talisay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 258257, August 9, 2023
[12] Talisay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 258257, August 9, 2023, citing People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839, 886 (2017)