7/28/2019 Crim Law & Proc; Dec-2012 Sc Decisions
1/2
December 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on
Criminal Law and Procedure
Posted onJanuary 9, 2013 byDominador Maphilindo O. Carrillo
Posted inCriminal Law,Philippines - Cases,
Philippines - Law Taggedevidence,jurisdiction,qualified
rape,rape,trust receiptsLeave a commentHere are select December
2012 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal
law and procedure:
1. REVISED PENAL CODE
Rape; Pruna Guidelines. In this case, the prosecution may have
been unable topresent AAAs birth certificate or other authentic
document such as a baptismalcertificate during trial in accordance
with the formulated set of guidelines in Peoplev. Pruna in
appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifyingcircumstance in rape cases. However, that failure to
present relevant evidence didnot deter the Supreme Court from
upholding that qualified rape was indeedcommitted by the accused
Padigos because he himself admitted, in his counter-affidavit which
formed part of the evidence for the defense and the contents
ofwhich he later affirmed in his testimony in open court, that AAA
was below 7 yearsold around the time of the rape incident. In the
Courts view, this admission fromaccused, taken with the testimony
of the victim, sufficiently proved the victimsminority. People of
the Philippines v. Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December5,
2012.
Rape; resistance. Accused Estoya attempts to raise doubts in
victim AAAstestimony by questioning the latters failure to offer
tenacious resistance during thesupposed sexual assault. The Supreme
Court held that the law does not imposeupon a rape victim the
burden of proving resistance. Physical resistance need notbe
established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim
and shesubmits herself against her will to the rapists lust because
of fear for life andpersonal safety. In the case at bar, AAA was
only 14 years of age at the time ofthe rape, and at such a tender
age, she could not be expected to put up resistanceas would be
expected from a mature woman. Also, Estoya had threatened AAAthat
he would stab her with a knife if she resisted. People of the
Philippines v.Radby Estoya y Mateo, G.R. No. 200531, December 5,
2012.
2. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Trust Receipts Law; liability of corporate agents. Section 13 of
the Trust ReceiptsLaw explicitly provides that if the violation or
offense is committed by acorporation, as in this case, the penalty
provided for under the law shall beimposed upon the directors,
officers, employees or other officials or person
responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil
liabilities arising from thecriminal offense. In this case,
petitioner Crisologo was acquitted of the charge forviolation of
the Trust Receipts Law in relation to Article 315, paragraph 1(b)
of theRPC. As such, he is relieved of the corporate criminal
liability as well as thecorresponding civil liability arising
therefrom. However, as correctly found by thetrial court and the
Court of Appeals (CA), he may still be held liable for the
trustreceipts and letters of credit transactions he had entered
into in behalf of
Novachem. Settled is the rule that debts incurred by directors,
officers, andemployees acting as corporate agents are not their
direct liability but of thecorporation they represent, except if
they contractually agree/stipulate or assumeto be personally liable
for the corporations debts, as in this case. The trial courtand the
CA adjudged petitioner personally and solidarily liable with
Novachem forthose obligations secured by the subject trust
receipts, which he signed theguarantee clauses therein in his
personal capacity and even waived the benefit ofexcussion.
Ildefonso S. Crisologo v. People of the Philippines and China
BankingCorporation, G.R. No. 199481, December 3, 2012.
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Evidence; credibility of victims testimony. Accuseds appeal is
hinged principallyon the credibility of the victims testimony. He
insists that AAAs testimony is notcredible because she allegedly
failed to give a straightforward and consistent
narration of the events surrounding the incidents at issue. He
maintains that AAAstestimony is not worthy of belief because it
allegedly lacked details as to how thecrimes of rape and acts of
lasciviousness were actually committed. The SupremeCourt (SC) ruled
that when the credibility of the victim is at issue, it gives
greatweight to the trial courts assessment. The trial courts
finding of facts is evenconclusive and binding if it is not shown
to be tainted with arbitrariness oroversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence. The wisdombehind this rule is
that the trial court had the full opportunity to observe directly
thewitnesses deportment and manner of testifying, thus, it is in a
better position thanthe appellate court to properly evaluate
testimonial evidence. In the case at bar,both the trial court and
the Court of Appeals categorically held that AAA is acredible
witness and that her testimony deserves full faith and belief. In
spite of thebrevity of her testimony, the trial court considered
the same as delivered in a clearand straightforward manner that is
devoid of any pretense or equivocation.
Moreover, SC has repeatedly stressed that no young girl would
concoct a sordidtale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of
her own father, undergo medicalexamination, then subject herself to
the stigma and embarrassment of a publictrial, if her motive was
other than a fervent desire to seek justice. People of
thePhilippines v. Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5,
2012.
December 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law
and Procedure
Page 1 of2
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/december-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/dmoclexoterica/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/dmoclexoterica/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/dmoclexoterica/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/criminal-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/criminal-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/criminal-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/evidence/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/evidence/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/qualified-rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/qualified-rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/qualified-rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/trust-receipts/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/trust-receipts/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/trust-receipts/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/december-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/#respondhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/december-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/#respondhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/december-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/#respondhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/200531.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/199481.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/dmoclexoterica/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/criminal-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/evidence/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/qualified-rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/rape/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/trust-receipts/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/december-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/#respondhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/200531.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/199481.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/181202.pdfhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/december-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-criminal-law-and-procedure/
7/28/2019 Crim Law & Proc; Dec-2012 Sc Decisions
2/2
Jurisdiction; voluntary submission. As a rule, one who seeks an
affirmative relief isdeemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction
of the court. Filing pleadings seekingaffirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent jurisdictionof
ones person to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, by filing
several motionsbefore the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the
dismissal of the criminal case,respondent Alamil voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC.Furthermore, custody of
the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs otherthan
an application for bail. Dante LA. Jimenez, etc. v. Hon. Edwin
Sorongon, etc.,et al,G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012.
Rule 45; only questions of law reviewed. Accused Josue seeks the
review of hiscase through a petition for review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, where onlyquestions of law shall be addressed
by the Supreme Court (SC), barring anyquestion that pertains to
factual issues on the crimes commission. The generalrule is that
questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under
Rule45, subject only to certain exceptions as when the trial courts
judgment is notsupported by sufficient evidence or is premised on a
misapprehension of facts.Upon review, the SC has determined that
the present case does not fall under anyof the exceptions. In
resolving the present petition, SC then defer to the
factualfindings made by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals (CA), whenthe case was brought before it on appeal. The
SC has, after all, consistently ruled
that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of
witnesses and weighing theircredibility is best left to the trial
court which forms first-hand impressions aswitnesses testify before
it. Factual findings of the trial court as regards itsassessment of
the witnesses credibility are entitled to great weight and respect
bythe SC, particularly when affirmed by the CA, and will not be
disturbed absent anyshowing that the trial court overlooked certain
facts and circumstances whichcould substantially affect the outcome
of the case. Ramon Josue y Gonzales v.People of the
Philippines,G.R. No. 199579, December 10, 2012.
December 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law
and Procedure
Page 2 of2
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/178607.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/178607.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/178607.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/199579.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/199579.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/178607.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/december2012/199579.pdf
