CASE NO.

TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT

G.R. No. 184355 ARNULFO a.k.a. ARNOLD Petitioner argues that the RTC decision
JACABAN, Petitioner, finding him guilty of the crime charged is
vs. premised on its erroneous conclusion that
PEOPLE OF THE he is the owner the house where the
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. unlicensed firearms and ammunitions were
found.

claim that there was discrepancy in the

testimony of PO3 Sarte as to the time the
raid was conducted.
 FACTS
Evidence for the prosecution established that on July 15, 1999, Police Senior Inspector Ipil H. Dueñas
(P/SInsp. Dueñas) of the now defunct Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) filed an
Application for Search Warrant before Branch 22 of the RTC, Cebu City, to search the premises of
[appellant's] residence at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City and seize the following items.

- One (1) 7.62 cal M-14 Rifle;

- Two (2) 5.56 mm M16 Armalite Rifle;
- One (1) 12 gauge Shotgun;
- One (1) .45 cal. Pistol;
- One (1) .9 mm cal. Pistol
A Search Warrant was then immediately issued to the applicant by Judge Pampio A. Abarintos.

July 16, 1999 at about 12:45 in the morning, P/S Insp. Dueñas implemented the search warrant together
with his team and (3) barangay tanods of Guadalupe Barangay outpust to accompany the team to the
appelant's house.

Upon arrival to appellant's house, SPO2 Abellana served the search warrant to appellant who was just inside
the house together with his wife and other ladies.1awp++i1 Upon informing appellant of the search warrant,
he became angry and denied having committed any illegal activity. P/SInsp. Dueñas assured appellant that
he had nothing to worry about if the PAOCTF would not find anything.

The team proceeded to search the living room in the presence of three tanods and the appellant himself.
The team continued to search the room where SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 placed in the ceiling.
Appellant, who was at the living room that time, rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2 Abellana but
failed to get hold of the gun.

After an exhaustive search was done, other firearms and ammunitions were recovered from the searched
premises. An inventory was made at the living room of appellant in the presence of appellant himself, the
barangay tanods and other persons present during the search. After appellant and the witnesses signed the
inventory receipt, the team proceeded back to their office with appellant and the confiscated items.
Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine
National Police-Visayas (FED PNP-Visayas), testified that he prepared a certification dated April 29, 2002.
Based on their office's master, appellant is not licensed to possess any kind of firearm or ammunition.
For the defense, they presented witness Felipenerie Jacaban, older sister of the appellant, who testified as
to her presence during the conduct of the search. According to Felipenerie, at about 12:45 in the morning of
July 16, 1999, policemen conducted a raid in the house of Gabriel Arda (uncle of appellant). The policemen
who implemented the warrant were looking for his brother, herein appellant, so she went to appellant's
house and informed him that a raid was conducted at their uncle's house and policemen were looking for
him. When appellant arrived at his uncle's house, policemen searched around the house and a pistol was
subsequently recovered. Felipenerie claims that the recovered pistol was allegedly pledged by a policeman
to her father. She also testified that appellant never made any protest and merely observed the proceeding.
 RULINGS
Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, provides:

Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instrum
in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - ….....

The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) shall be impose
high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as c
lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other
full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however,

That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) th
and, (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for
ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.12 What the law requires
includes not only actual physical possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one

Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession without the requisite authority or license, coupled
to possess on the part of the accused, conviction for violation of the said law must follow. Animus possidendi is a sta
determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It may be inferred from the prior or c
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.14

Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under PD 1866 as amended by RA 82
firearm and the ammunitions was established through the testimony of PO3 Sarte. There was an inventory of the
the presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily signed the inventory receipt. PO
items in open court.

Even assuming that petitioner is not the owner of the house where the items were recovered, the ownership of the
of the crime under PD 1866 as amended. While petitioner may not be the owner, he indeed had control of the hous
circumstances: (1) When the PAOCTF went to the house to serve the search warrant, petitioner was very angry an
having committed any illegal act, but he was assured by P/SInsp. Dueñas that he has nothing to answer if they wo
consented to the search being conducted; (2) while the search was ongoing, petitioner merely observed the cond
make any protest at all; and

(3) petitioner did not call for the alleged owner of the house.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 30, 2008, is AFFIRMED WI
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional in
minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor minimum in its medium period, as
P30,000.00.
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. JOSELITO PERALTA Y whether or not the CA correctly upheld
221991, August ZARENO, PETITIONER, VS. Peralta's conviction for Illegal Possession of
30, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE Firearm and Ammunition.
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
 FACTS
The prosecution alleged that at around 11 o'clock in the evening of November 18, 2008, a team consisting of
Police Officer 3 Christian A. Carvajal (PO3 Carvajal), one Police Officer Lavarias, Police Officer 2 Bernard
Arzadon (PO2 Arzadon), and Police Officer 3 Lucas Salonga (PO3 Salonga) responded to a telephone call
received by their desk officer-on-duty that there was a man firing a gun at the back of the PLDT Building in
Pantal District, Dagupan City.[9] Upon arrival thereat, the police officers saw two (2) men walking, later
identified as Peralta and his companion, Larry Calimlim (Calimlim), holding a gun and a knife respectively.
[10] Upon seeing the police officers, the men became uneasy, which prompted the police officers to swoop
in. Upon apprehension, they recovered a caliber .45 pistol with Serial Number 4517488 containing a
magazine with five (5) live ammunitions from Peralta and a knife from Calimlim.[11] The men were then
brought to the Region I Medical Center in Dagupan City, and later, to the community precinct for paraffin
and gun powder residue test. Meanwhile, the pistol and the magazine with live ammunitions were endorsed
to the duty investigator.[

In his defense, Peralta denied the accusation against him and presented a different narration of facts.
According to him, he was riding a motorcycle with Calimlim when they were flagged down by the police
officers. While admitting that the latter recovered a knife from Calimlim, Peralta vigorously denied having a
firearm with him, much less illegally discharging the same.[13] He pointed out that it was impossible for him
to carry a gun at the time and place of arrest since they were near the barangay hall and the respective
residences of Police Officer Salonga and mediaman Orly Navarro.[14] Further, Peralta averred that upon
arrival at the police station, he was forced to admit possession of the gun allegedly recovered from him, and
that they were subjected to a paraffin test but were not furnished with copies of the results thereof.[15]
Finally, Peralta claimed that he and Calimlim were merely framed up, after his brother who operated a
"hataw" machine went bankrupt and stopped giving "payola" to the police officials.
 RULINGS
At the outset, the Court reiterates that Peralta was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition for c
magazine containing five (5) live ammunitions, a crime defined and penalized under Section 1 of PD 1866, as amend
of which read:
Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instrum
in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - The penalty of xxx shall be imposed upon any person who shall un
acquire, dispose, or possess any xxx firearm, xxx part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition xxx.
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed i
powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as calibe
calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firear
automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arres

The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess o
itself is not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that: (a) the
accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the sam

In this case, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the aforesaid elements, conside
positively identified Peralta as the one holding a .45 caliber pistol with Serial Number 4517488 with magazine and
seized from him and later on, marked, identified, offered, and properly admitted as evidence at the trial; and (b) t
August 10, 2011 issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police which declared that
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and calibre, specifically Caliber .45 Pistol, make (unknown) with Se
verification from the records of this office as of this date.
Applying the foregoing to the instant case, the Court deems it proper to adjust the indeterminate period of imprison
(4) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) month
mayor, as maximum.50 Finally, the imposition of fine in the amount of P30,000.00 stands.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2015 and the Resolution dated December 8, 2015
CR No. 35193, which upheld the Decision dated July 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44
finding petitioner Joselito Peralta y Zareno (petitioner) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Fire
and penalized under Section 1, paragraph 2 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIF
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) d
minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the a
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. JESUS TRINIDAD Y whether or not the CA correctly upheld
239957, BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. Trinidad's conviction for the crime charge
February 18, THE PEOPLE OF
2019 PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
 FACTS
The prosecution alleged that at around 8:30 in the evening of November 14, 2014, members from the
Philippine National Police (PNP)-Pasig Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation, with Police Officer (PO)
1 Randy S. Sanoy (PO1 Sanoy) as the poseur buyer and PO1 Rodrigo J. Nidoy, Jr. (PO1 Nidoy) as the back-up
arresting officer, to apprehend a certain "Jessie" who, purportedly, was involved in illegal drug activities at
Aurelia St., Barangay Bagong Hog, Pasig City.8 After the alleged sale had been consummated, PO1 Nidoy
arrested Trinidad, frisked him, and recovered from the latter a 0.38 caliber revolver loaded with six (6) live
ammunitions tucked at his back, as well as a 0.22 caliber rifle loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions and
two (2) magazines (subject firearms and ammunition) which were found beside the gate of his house.9
When asked if he has any documentation for the same, Trinidad claimed that they were merely pawned to
him. After marking the seized items, they proceeded to the nearby barangay hall and conducted inventory
and photography thereof, and then went to the police station where the request for ballistic examination
was made.10 Finally, the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory, where, after examination, it
was revealed that "the firearms are serviceable and the ammunitions are live and serviceable."11 During
trial, Trinidad's counsel agreed to the stipulation that Trinidad has no license to possess or carry firearms of
any caliber at the time of his arrest.12

For his part, Trinidad denied the accusations against him, claiming, among others, that aside from the
present case, he was also charged with the crime of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, which
arose from the same incident, but was, however, acquitted13 therein for, inter alia, failure of the
prosecution to prove that Trinidad was validly arrested thru a legitimate buy-bust operation. He then
formally offered in evidence the said acquittal ruling, which was objected by the public prosecutor for being
immaterial and irrelevant to the present case.14 The RTC admitted said evidence only as part of Trinidad's
testimony.1
 RULINGS
A lawful arrest may be affected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, a warrantless arrest may be do
is caught in flagrante delicto,34 such as in buy-bust operations in drugs cases.35 However, if the existence of a valid
proven, and thus, the validity of the in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest cannot be established, the arrest become
search incidental thereto becomes unreasonable.36 Resultantly, all the evidence seized by reason of the unlawful a
for any purpose in any proceeding.

In this case, Trinidad essentially anchors his defense on the following contentions: (a) his arrest stemmed from a pu
where the illegal drugs and the subject firearms and ammunition were allegedly recovered from him; (b) this resulte
Informations against him, two (2) of which are for violations of RA 916538 (which were tried jointly), while the othe
(c) his acquittal39 in the drugs cases should necessarily result in his acquittal in this case as well. In finding these con
quo opined that the resolution in the drugs cases is immaterial in this case as they involve different crimes40 and th
x x is neither unlawful arrest nor unlawful search or seizure, but the procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the d

The Court is aware that the findings on the illegality of Trinidad's warrantless arrest were made in the drugs cases, w
from the present illegal possession of firearms and ammunition case. Nevertheless, the Court is not precluded from
findings as evidence, and apply them altogether for the judicious resolution of the same issue which was duly raised
rule is that the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. Howev
such as when the other case has a close connection with the matter in controversy in the case at hand.44 In Bongato
held:
[A]s a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these h
the same court or before the same judge. There are exceptions to this rule. Ordinarily, an appellate court cannot ref
to ascertain a fact not shown in the record of the case before it, yet, it has been held that it may consult decisions in
look for the law that is determinative of or applicable to the case under review. In some instances, courts have also
proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases "may be so closely i
interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice."46 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Here, an examination of the ruling47 in the drugs cases (which Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC admitted a
confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and interdependent of each other since, as mentione
firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. Hence, the Court
circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court which resolved the drugs cases. To recall,
unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly based on the failure of PO1 Sanoy's testimony to es
bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be highly doubtful and incredible.49 This circumstan
fact, the testimonies of both PO1 Nidoy50 and PO1 Sanoy51 in this case essentially just mirror on all material points
in the drugs cases. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the subject firearms and ammunition are also
recovered from the same unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs cases. Since the confiscated firearms and
delicti of the crime charged in this case, Trinidad's acquittal is in order.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 25, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 31, 2018
G.R. CR No. 39598 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jesus Trinidad y Bersamin is ACQUITTED of the cr
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any o
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. 240475 JONATHAN DE GUZMAN Y whether or not petitioner Jonathan De
AGUILAR, Petitioner Guzman y Aguilar is guilty beyond
vs. reasonable doubt of violating Republic Act
PEOPLE OF THE No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms
PHILIPPINES, Respondent and Ammunition Regulation Act.
 FACTS
At around 4:00 p.m. on October 22, 2014, he and nine (9) other police officers were on patrol along Taft
Avenue, Libertad, Pasay City. As they were approaching the White House Market, they noticed that people
were running away from it. They went to investigate and saw a revolver-wielding man, whom they later
identified as De Guzman, shouting as though quarreling with someone. They rushed to De Guzman and
introduced themselves as police officers. SPO1 Estera told De Guzman to put down the gun, to which he
complied. After picking up the gun, SPO1 Estera asked De Guzman if he had a license to possess it, but De
Guzman kept mum. SPO1 Estera then handcuffed and frisked De Guzman, discovering in his possession a
sachet of suspected shabu.

SPO1 Estera then brought De Guzman to the Pasay City Police Station and referred him to SPO3 Allan V.
Valdez (SPO3 Valdez) for further investigation. In SPO3 Valdez's presence, SPO1 Estera marked the revolver
with De Guzman's initials, "JAD-1." It was then that the officer found four (4) live ammunition rounds, which
he marked as "JAD-2" to "JAD-5." He also marked the sachet of suspected shabu as "JAD." SPO1 Estera then
turned the seized items over to SPO3 Valdez.10

De Guzman was separately charged with illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs. The case for illegal possession of a firearm was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 114, Pasay
City, while the case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch
110, Pasay City.

The defense alleged an entirely different version of events. It emphasized, first, that De Guzman was
arrested on October 21, 2014, not on October 22, 2014. It then explained that on October 21, 2014, De
Guzman and his sister, Jessica, were dressing chicken to sell at the public market. While they were taking a
break at around 4:00 p.m., 10 men in civilian clothes arrived, as though looking for something. Among them,
SPO1 Estera, as De Guzman later identified, approached De Guzman and asked him why he had knives. De
Guzman replied that he used them for dressing chickens to be sold at the public market. SPO1 Estera then
asked De Guzman if they had a mayor's permit, to which De Guzman replied that since they merely operated
a small business, they did not obtain such a permit.12

Calling De Guzman's reply "bastos," an angry SPO1 Estera pulled out his gun and pointed it at him. At
gunpoint, De Guzman begged SPO1 Estera for forgiveness. However, SPO1 Estera took De Guzman's knives
and ordered him to lie on his stomach. He then frisked De Guzman, but he found nothing. As SPO1 Estera's
companions arrived, SPO1 Estera told them that he was arresting De Guzman for having the knives in his
possession. De Guzman was then brought to the Pasay City Police Station.
There, SPO1 Estera allegedly demanded ₱300,000.00 from De Guzman lest he be charged with illegal
possession of a firearm and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Unable to produce the amount demanded
by SPO1 Estera, De Guzman was formally charged with the threatened offenses.14

In testifying for his defense, De Guzman noted that he did not personally know SPO1 Estera. He recalled,
however, that about a month prior to his arrest, he won a ₱50,000.00 cockfight bet against SPO1 Estera. He
added that, after collecting his winnings, a "kristo" at the cockfighting arena told him that SPO1 Estera had
asked for De Guzman's name and where he worked. The kristo admitted to telling SPO1 Estera that De
Guzman had a stall at the White House Market.

De Guzman also expressed perplexity at his supposedly carrying a .38 caliber revolver. He admitted to
owning a firearm, a .45 caliber Amscor, which was covered by Firearm License No. 1222309512278865 and
Permit to Carry Control No. JAD-1210006530. He presented as evidence both his Firearm License and Permit
to Carry, along with a March 16, 2016 Certification showing that he was indeed a licensed firearm holder. He
emphasized that there was no point in him carrying around an unlicensed firearm when he had a licensed
gun.16

De Guzman's sister, Jessica, testified to corroborate De Guzman's version of events.

 RULINGS
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is imperative to sustain a conviction in criminal cases. Rule 133, Section 2 of the Rev

SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his g
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, prod
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

This requisite quantum of proof is borne by the constitutional imperative of due process. It is also in keeping with th
an accused until the contrary is proved.32 While proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute, impecc
still requires moral certainty.33 In People v. Que:34

Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The co
the accused is responsible for the offense charged.

To sustain convictions for illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution must show two (2) essential elements: (1) t
offense exists; and (2) that the accused who possessed or owned that firearm had no corresponding license for it.
The Regional Trial Court's reasoning and the Court of Appeals' sustaining it place far too much faith in the lone prose
serving posturing. They come from a misplaced emphasis on the defense's supposed weakness and, ultimately, fail t
reasonable doubt demands.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The March 21, 2018 Decision and July 5, 2018 Resolution of the Court of App
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jonathan De Guzman y Aguilar is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to pr
doubt.
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. People of the Philippines vs. whether or not petitioner Jonathan De
243390, Alex Baluyot Y Biranda Guzman y Aguilar is guilty beyond
October 05, reasonable doubt of violating Republic Act
2020 No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms
and Ammunition Regulation Act.
 FACTS
On March 5, 2013, a confidential informant (CI) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) informed
the team of Intelligence Officer 1 Froilan Bitong (IO1 Bitong) about the drug activity of a certain Alex in
Caloocan City.[4] IO1 Bitong’s team is based in Camp Olivas, Pampanga. The team was able to procure the
necessary authority[5] in order to conduct a buy­-bust operation outside of its jurisdiction. Intelligence
Officer 1 Ronnel Molina (IO1 Molina) was assigned as the poseur-buyer for the operation while Intelligence
Officer 1 Regie Pinto (IO1 Pinto) was designated as the arresting officer.[6] There were three to four other
members of the team.[7] Two five­hundred peso (P500.00) bills were given to IO1 Molina to serve as buy-
bust money.[8] He then placed his initials, “REM,” on the left portion of the bills.[9] The team agreed that
after the sale, IO1 Molina will ring up the cellphone of IO1 Pinto to signal that the latter may proceed to
make the arrest.

The CI then called Alex to inform him that IO1 Molina is a possible buyer of shabu.[11] The cellphone was
passed to IO1 Molina and he asked if Alex had one thousand pesos worth of shabu on hand.[12] Alex
answered in the affirmative.[13] Hence, the team proceeded to the target area in Caloocan City.

At around 9:00 p.m. of the same day, IO1 Molina and the CI walked to the house of Alex while the other
team members proceeded to their positions.[14] The CI introduced IO1 Molina to Alex as the buyer.[15] Alex
showed them only one plastic sachet of shabu and said that he only has five hundred pesos (P500.00), worth
of shabu.[16] IO1 Molina said that one plastic sachet is enough.[17] The sale took place. Alex handed the
sachet to IO1 Molina.[18] In turn, IO1 Molina gave the marked five-hundred peso bill to Alex as payment.
[19] Shortly thereafter, IO1 Molina called up the cellphone of IO1 Pinto, giving the signal for the arrest to
proceed.

Pinto and the other team members rushed to the scene and arrested Alex.[21] IO1 Pinto recovered the
marked five-hundred peso (P500.00) bill from Alex and handed it to IO1 Molina.[22] Another medium-sized
plastic sachet containing two smaller plastic sachets of shabu was recovered from Alex’s black sling bag.[23]
However, IO1 Pinto stated in his testimony that he was not able to see the contents of the black sling bag at
the time of the operation until IO1 Molina subsequently opened it.[24] IO1 Molina marked the plastic sachet
subject of the illegal sale as “EXH A REM 3/5/2013,” and the medium plastic sachet as “EXH B-2a REM
3/5/2013” when they were already in the PDEA National Headqua11ers in Quezon City, as they opted to
leave the site because of the possible danger.[25] He did not mark the two smaller plastic sachets inside the
medium plastic sachet.[26] He then executed an inventory receipt.[27] He also prepared the requests for
laboratory examination of the seized items and drug test on Alex, which were signed by IO1 Bitong.
There, SPO1 Estera allegedly demanded ₱300,000.00 from De Guzman lest he be charged with illegal
possession of a firearm and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Unable to produce the amount demanded
by SPO1 Estera, De Guzman was formally charged with the threatened offenses.14

In testifying for his defense, De Guzman noted that he did not personally know SPO1 Estera. He recalled,
however, that about a month prior to his arrest, he won a ₱50,000.00 cockfight bet against SPO1 Estera. He
added that, after collecting his winnings, a "kristo" at the cockfighting arena told him that SPO1 Estera had
asked for De Guzman's name and where he worked. The kristo admitted to telling SPO1 Estera that De
Guzman had a stall at the White House Market.

That on or about the 5th day of March, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to IO1 RONNEL E. MOLINA, who posed as buyer, One (1)
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings “EXH A REM 03/5/2013” containing
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.0372 gram which when subjected for laboratory
examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and
knowing the same to be such.
 RULINGS
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and Essential Chemicals. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, a
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opiu
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elem
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
[57] In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt b
consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.[58] What matters is the proof that the sale actually took place, co
court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.

The foregoing provisions provide that the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items must be done
confiscation of the items in the presence of three witnesses-a representative from the media, the Department of J
official.[62] The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs
as to its identity.
The provisions allow exceptions to the chain of custody rule. The case of Belmonte v. People[64] mentions that und
strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not be always possible as long as th
of the seized items are preserved.[65] The IRR of RA 9165 likewise provides that the marking, photographing, and in
be done “at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practi
seizures.”

The failure to comply with the three-witness requirement produces a gap in the chain of custody of the seized items
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[80] This raises doubts that the integrity of the seized items may
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. 237423 People of the Philippines, accused-appellant maintains his position
| October 12, Plaintiff-appellee, that there is no moral certainty on the
2020 identity and integrity of the corpus delicti;
Vs. and that his warrantless arrest was invalid
as he was not doing anything illegal at the
Neil Dejos Y Pinili, Accused- time of his arrest.
appellant.
 FACTS
The prosecution alleged that at around 11:30 p.m. of July 17, 2012, operatives from the Provincial Anti-
Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG), led by Police Officer I Julmar J. Berdejo (PO1
Berdejo) and PO3 Serito C. Ongy (PO3 Ongy), successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-
appellant in the interior part of Colon Extension, Taclobo, Dumaguete City. During the operation, the
operatives recovered seven bultos of shabu, with a total net weight of 31.75 grams, from accused-appellant.
After the operation, PO1 Berdejo marked the seized items. Realizing that the place of arrest was not well-
lighted and safe, the operatives discussed among themselves on whether to conduct the inventory and
photography instead at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) office.

In the middle of the discussion, accused-appellant’s phone rang. The operatives instructed accused-
appellant to answer the call with the loudspeaker on. The operatives heard a female voice on the other line,
later identified as belonging to one May Flor Saraña y Buncalan a.k.a. Darlene (May Flor). May Flor asked
accused-appellant of his whereabouts and the money. At that point, PO3 Ongy talked to May Flor and
signified his intention to buy three bultos of shabu. May Flor agreed to meet them at her place.
Consequently, the operatives hatched an entrapment.

The seized 10 bultos of shabu (seven bultos from accused­-appellant and three bultos from May Flor) were
then inventoried[11] and photographed[12] in the presence of accused-appellant, May Flor, Barangay
Captain Gregorio Suasin, Jr. (Brgy. Captain Suasin), Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ramonito
Astillero (Astillero), and media representative Neil Rio (Rio). Later, the operatives brought the seized items
to the crime laboratory[13] where, after examination by Police Chief Inspector Josephine S. Llena (PCI Llena),
the contents tested positive[14] for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He asserted that on July 17, 2012, at
around 8:00 p.m., after he stopped at about 30 meters away from the house of his girlfriend at Colon
Extension in Dumaguete City, a person who was running passed by him. Then, five to six men approached
him; one of them kicked him. When he struggled, the men punched him.[16] The men, who he later came to
know as police officers, never told him of any wrongdoing on his part. They just told him that he was the
companion of that person who was running away.
 RULINGS
The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused wa
object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
drug.

In accused-appellant’s case, after his arrest, the buy-bust team immediately took custody of the seized items and m
was not well-lighted, the buy-bust team decided to conduct the inventory and the photography of the seized items
of accused-appellant, media representative Rio, DOJ representative Astillero, and Brgy. Captain Suasin. PO1 Berdejo
seized items to PO1 Pama, the officer on duty at the crime laboratory. Soon after, PO1 Pama submitted them to PCI
necessary tests thereon. After the examination, PCI Llena placed the specimens in the evidence vault of the crime la
presentation to the court, where they were duly presented, identified, and admitted as evidence.

In sum, the Court holds that there is sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule, and thus, the integrity and
delicti have been properly preserved. The testimonies and the evidence offered by the prosecution were the basis o
conviction of accused-appellant, whose defense of denial and frame-up had remained uncorroborated. Perforce, his
11, Article II of RA 9165 provides the penalty of life imprisonment and a tine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.
than 50 grams of shabu. In this case, accused­-appellant was found with an aggregate weight of 31.75 grams of shab
accused-appellant by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC N
Accused-appellant Neil Dejos y Pinili is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Possession o
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P400
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
UDK-16615, 15 AMRODING LINDONGAN y whether the CA correctly: (a) denied
FEB 2021 AMPATUA VS PEOPLE OF Lindongan's Motion to Recall Entry of
THE PHILIPPINES Judgment and Notice of Appeal; and (b)
affirmed Lindongan's conviction for Illegal
Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
 FACTS
The prosecution alleged that in the wee hours of the morning of December 21 , 2009, acting upon a tip from
a confidential informant about the illegal drug peddling activities of a certain "Amron" - later identified as
Lindongan - at Dofia Loleng Village, Barangay Nancayasan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, several operatives of
the Intel Division of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Urdaneta City Police, led by Police Officer 2 Mannan E.
Dela Cruz (PO2 Dela Cruz) as poseur buyer, successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against
Lindongan. The buy-bust team was immediately dispatched at the target area; PO2 Dela Cruz, accompanied
by the confidential informant, positioned themselves at a pathway near a mosque to wait for Lindongan.
Upon Lindongan's arrival, he asked PO2 Dela Cruz, "A1agkano ang bibilhin mo?" to which the latter replied,
"P300.00." Lindongan then produced a brown leather purse containing a plastic sachet of suspected shabu,
which he handed to PO2 Dela Cruz, who in turn, gave the fonner the marked money. After PO2 Dela Cruz
performed the prearranged signal, the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene and apprehended
Lindongan. The arresting officers apprised him of his constitutional rights and violation. PO2 Dela Cruz was
able to recover the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance as well as the buy-bust money from
Lindongan.

In defense, Lindongan claimed that at around 6:30 in the evening of

December 20, 2009, he was in front of his house at Dofi.a Loleng Village
talking with his fellow Muslims when a black car suddenly stopped nearby
where three (3) persons disembarked and approached him. One of them,
whom he recognized as a police officer, frisked him and confiscated a
cellphone and some cash. When he asked why he was being frisked, there
was no answer. Thereafter, he was brought to the police station where he
was asked to settle his case.
 RULINGS
In cases for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165,39 it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug b
ce1tainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.4
° Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt
reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.

To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for e
from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.42 As part of the ch
law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted imm
confiscation of the same.
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person
seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment
representative from the media and the Department of Justice [DOJ], and any elected public official" ; or ( b) if after t
10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." The law re
witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and
remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarde
technicality but as a matter of substantive law_.is This is because " [t]he law has been 'crafted by Congress as safety
police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisorunent. Nonetheless, the Court h
field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 50 As such, the f
to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and inva
prosecution
satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary va
properly preserved. The foregoing is based on the saving clause mandated under RA l 0640.52 It should, however, b
clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the justifiable
be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist.

Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending
sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnes
examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comp
given circumstances. 55 Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the requ
as justified grounds for non-compliance.56 These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinaril
from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest
operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would hav
chain of custody rule.
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. 209464 DANDY L. DUNGO and whether the CA correctly: (a) denied
July 1, GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., Lindongan's Motion to Recall Entry of
2015 Petitioners, Judgment and Notice of Appeal; and (b)
vs. affirmed Lindongan's conviction for Illegal
PEOPLE OF THE Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
 FACTS
That on or about 2:30 in the early morning of January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba
City, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-name accused, during
a planned initiation rite and being then officers and members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity and present
thereat, in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers, whose identity is not yet
known, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one
MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as condition for his admission to the fraternity,
thereby subjecting him to physical harm, resulting to his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of
the victim.

At around 3:20 o'clock in the morning of January 14, 2006, the victim Marlon Villanueva (Villanueva) was
brought to the emergency room of Dr. Jose P. Rizal District Hospital (JP Rizal Hospital). Dr. Ramon
Masilungan (Dr. Masilungan), who was then the attending physician at the emergency room, observed that
Villanueva was motionless, not breathing and had no heartbeat. Dr. Masilungan tried to revive Villlanueva
for about 15 to 30 minutes. Villanueva, however, did not respond to the resuscitation and was pronounced
dead. Dr. Masilungan noticed a big contusion hematoma on the left side of the victim's face and several
injuries on his arms and legs. He further attested that Villanueva 's face was cyanotic, meaning that blood
was no longer running through his body due to lack of oxygen; and when he pulled down Villanueva's pants,
he saw large contusions on both legs, which extended from the upper portion of the thighs, down to the
couplexial portion, or back of the knees.

Dr. Masilungan disclosed that two (2) men brought Villanueva to the hospital. The two told him that they
found Villanueva lying motionless on the ground at a store in Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, and brought him to
the hospital. When he asked them where they came from, one of them answered that they came from Los
Baños, Laguna, en route to San Pablo City. He questioned them on how they found Villanueva, when the
latter was in Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City. One of the men just said that they were headed somewhere else.

Dr. Masilungan reduced his findings in a medico-legal report.8 Due to the nature, extent and location of the
injuries, he opined that Villanueva was a victim of hazing. He was familiar with hazing injuries because he
had undergone hazing himself when he was a student, and also because of his experience in treating victims
of hazing incidents.
Susan Ignacio (Ignacio) was the owner of the sari-sari store located at Purok 5, Pansol, Calamba City, in front
of Villa Novaliches Resort, which was barely ten steps away. On January 13, 2006, at around 8:30 to 9:00
o'clock in the evening, she was tending her store when she saw a jeepney with more than twenty (20)
persons arrive at the resort. Ignacio identified Dungo as the person seated beside the driver of the
jeepney.11 She estimated the ages of these persons in the group to be between 20 to 30 years old. They
were in civilian clothes, while the other men wore white long-sleeved shirts. Before entering the resort, the
men and women shook hands and embraced each other. Three (3) persons, riding on a single motorcycle,
also arrived at the resort.

Ignacio saw about fifteen (15) persons gather on top of the terrace of the resort who looked like they were
praying, and then the lights of the resort were turned off. Later that evening, at least three (3) of these
persons went to her store to buy some items. During her testimony, she was shown photographs and she
identified Christopher Braseros and Sibal as two of those who went to her store.12 It was only on the
morning of January 14, 2006 that she learned from the policemen visiting the resort that the deceased
person was Villanueva.
 RULINGS
R.A. No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law .of 1995, has been enacted to regulate hazing and other forms of initiation rit
other organizations. It was in response to the rising incidents of death of hazing victims, particularly the death of Leo
its passage, reports of deaths resulting from i hazing continue to emerge. Recent victims were Guillo Servando of th
Andre Marcos and Marvin Reglos of the San', Beda College - Manila, and Cris Anthony Mendez of the University of t
continuity of these senseless tragedies, one question implores for an answer: is R.A. No. 8049 a sufficient deterrent

Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membe
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as for
foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injur
elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:

1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority

2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and

3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing hi
other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

And not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section 2 thereof provides that initiation rites of frater
shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are met:

1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organiza

2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation;

3. That the written notice shall indicate:

a. The period of the initiation activities, which shall not exceed three (3) days;

b. The names of those to be subjected to such activities; and

c. An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. Section 3 of R.A. No
the head of the school or organization or their representatives that they must assign at least two (2) representatives
present during these valid initiations. The duty of such representative ,is to see to it that no physical harm of any kin
neophyte or applicant.
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other
any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization wh
infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is
participation, unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity
the hazing.81 Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they sh
provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or alum
The third class of principals would ht; officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who know
the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat.82 These officers or members are penalized, not because of
infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazin
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present when the acts constituting
failed to take action to prevent them from occurring.83 The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere pre
failure to prevent the same.

The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.
home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their h
action to avoid the same from occurring.
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. OMAR VILLARBA, whether or not the amendment to the
227777, June PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF Information in this case is substantial
15, 2020 APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,

whether or not the Information is

considered void for being insufficient; and

whether or not the prosecution sufficiently

proved the guilt of petitioner Omar Villarba
for the violation of the Anti-Hazing Act.
 FACTS
During trial, the prosecution presented Dordas as witness. He testified that he learned about the Junior
Order of Kalantiao through Villarba, his classmate and then fraternity chairperson. In August 2001, Villarba
recruited Dordas to join the fraternity, assuring him that the membership would help him in his studies, and
that no physical harm would be involved in the application process.13

Dordas agreed. Yet, after attending meetings and taking a written examination,14 Dordas and his co-
applicants were made to perform various tasks in the campus, many of them humiliating and foolish stunts.
They were ordered to act as models, perform yoga and karate, and shout while running around the flagpole.
They were also made to jog around the campus with their feet tied and, at times, to sing in front of
strangers.

On September 15, 2001, Dordas and his co-applicants were brought to Racrap Beach Resort in Calaparan,
Arevalo, Iloilo City for the final rites. Upon arrival that evening, they were told to eat a mix of rice, canned
goods, and hot peppers. When they failed to finish the meal, Villarba told them to chew hot peppers as
punishment. Dordas ate about five of them.16

Afterward, the applicants passed through a series of stations where they were asked, among others, to
recite the organization's preamble. Whenever they failed to perform the tasks, they suffered different forms
of punishment. Dordas was instructed to jog and crawl around the resort, and cling and lift himself on
scaffoldings. He was made to climb a coconut tree and shout that he was a gecko. His right hand was used as
an ashtray. Hot peppers were squeezed on his lips and left eye. He was slapped in the face for three to five
times.

After a while, Dordas and his co-applicants were brought inside a big cottage, where the members
blindfolded them. After being asked to turn and walk for a few meters, two members held his hands while
another punched him in his right waist. Startled, Dordas struggled to remove his blindfold and was able to
see some members, including Villarba and another member who then each threw a punch in his stomach.
Dordas was later made to lie face down on a table and recite the preamble while the members dripped hot
wax on his body. Soon after this ordeal, Dordas officially became a member of the fraternity.18

When Dordas went home the morning after, he complained of an intense pain in his abdomen. His family
then brought him to St. Paul's Hospital, where he underwent surgery due to liver damage.
For its part, the defense presented several witnesses, among them Villarba. Villarba admitted that he was a
member of the fraternity and that he recruited Dordas. He confirmed that Dordas took a written test along
with psychological and physical examinations, and underwent final rites at the same beach resort that
Dordas identified. However, Villarba testified that their recruits only had to do sit-ups, push-ups, or
jogging,20 insisting that "no physical harm was inflicted on the recruits.
 RULINGS
To the Court of Appeals, the element of initiation activities as a prerequisite for admission to the fraternity was not
Information. Instead, the essential element was the "infliction of physical or psychological suffering o
the hazing or initiation rites of the recruit, neophyte or applicant."34 Since initiation activities are requi
fraternity, they already formed part of the definition of hazing, the Court of Appeals explained. In any case, the omis
ignorant of the crime they were being charged with, and what defenses they needed to prepare for trial.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membe
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as for
foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injur
elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:

1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and

3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing hi
other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

And not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section 2 thereof provides that initiation rites of frater
shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are met:

1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organiza
2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation;

3. That the written notice shall indicate:

a. The period of the initiation activities, which shall not exceed three (3) days;

b. The names of those to be subjected to such activities; and

c. An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. Section 3 of R.A. No
the head of the school or organization or their representatives that they must assign at least two (2) representatives
present during these valid initiations. The duty of such representative ,is to see to it that no physical harm of any kin
neophyte or applicant.
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other
any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization wh
infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is
participation, unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity
the hazing.81 Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they sh
provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or alum

The third class of principals would ht; officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who know
the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat.82 These officers or members are penalized, not because of
infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazin

The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present when the acts constituting
failed to take action to prevent them from occurring.83 The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere pre
failure to prevent the same.

The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.
home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their h
action to avoid the same from occurring.
 CASE NO. TITLE RELIEF SOUGHT
G.R. No. OMAR VILLARBA, whether or not the amendment to the
227777, June PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF Information in this case is substantial
15, 2020 APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,

whether or not the Information is

considered void for being insufficient; and

whether or not the prosecution sufficiently

proved the guilt of petitioner Omar Villarba
for the violation of the Anti-Hazing Act.
 FACTS
During trial, the prosecution presented Dordas as witness. He testified that he learned about the Junior
Order of Kalantiao through Villarba, his classmate and then fraternity chairperson. In August 2001, Villarba
recruited Dordas to join the fraternity, assuring him that the membership would help him in his studies, and
that no physical harm would be involved in the application process.13

Dordas agreed. Yet, after attending meetings and taking a written examination,14 Dordas and his co-
applicants were made to perform various tasks in the campus, many of them humiliating and foolish stunts.
They were ordered to act as models, perform yoga and karate, and shout while running around the flagpole.
They were also made to jog around the campus with their feet tied and, at times, to sing in front of
strangers.

On September 15, 2001, Dordas and his co-applicants were brought to Racrap Beach Resort in Calaparan,
Arevalo, Iloilo City for the final rites. Upon arrival that evening, they were told to eat a mix of rice, canned
goods, and hot peppers. When they failed to finish the meal, Villarba told them to chew hot peppers as
punishment. Dordas ate about five of them.16

Afterward, the applicants passed through a series of stations where they were asked, among others, to
recite the organization's preamble. Whenever they failed to perform the tasks, they suffered different forms
of punishment. Dordas was instructed to jog and crawl around the resort, and cling and lift himself on
scaffoldings. He was made to climb a coconut tree and shout that he was a gecko. His right hand was used as
an ashtray. Hot peppers were squeezed on his lips and left eye. He was slapped in the face for three to five
times.

After a while, Dordas and his co-applicants were brought inside a big cottage, where the members
blindfolded them. After being asked to turn and walk for a few meters, two members held his hands while
another punched him in his right waist. Startled, Dordas struggled to remove his blindfold and was able to
see some members, including Villarba and another member who then each threw a punch in his stomach.
Dordas was later made to lie face down on a table and recite the preamble while the members dripped hot
wax on his body. Soon after this ordeal, Dordas officially became a member of the fraternity.18

When Dordas went home the morning after, he complained of an intense pain in his abdomen. His family
then brought him to St. Paul's Hospital, where he underwent surgery due to liver damage.
For its part, the defense presented several witnesses, among them Villarba. Villarba admitted that he was a
member of the fraternity and that he recruited Dordas. He confirmed that Dordas took a written test along
with psychological and physical examinations, and underwent final rites at the same beach resort that
Dordas identified. However, Villarba testified that their recruits only had to do sit-ups, push-ups, or
jogging,20 insisting that "no physical harm was inflicted on the recruits.
 RULINGS
To the Court of Appeals, the element of initiation activities as a prerequisite for admission to the fraternity was not
Information. Instead, the essential element was the "infliction of physical or psychological suffering o
the hazing or initiation rites of the recruit, neophyte or applicant."34 Since initiation activities are requi
fraternity, they already formed part of the definition of hazing, the Court of Appeals explained. In any case, the omis
ignorant of the crime they were being charged with, and what defenses they needed to prepare for trial.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membe
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as for
foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injur
elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:

1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and

3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing hi
other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

And not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section 2 thereof provides that initiation rites of frater
shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are met:

1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organiza
2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation;

3. That the written notice shall indicate:

a. The period of the initiation activities, which shall not exceed three (3) days;

b. The names of those to be subjected to such activities; and

c. An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. Section 3 of R.A. No
the head of the school or organization or their representatives that they must assign at least two (2) representatives
present during these valid initiations. The duty of such representative ,is to see to it that no physical harm of any kin
neophyte or applicant.
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other
any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization wh
infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is
participation, unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity
the hazing.81 Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they sh
provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or alum

The third class of principals would ht; officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who know
the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat.82 These officers or members are penalized, not because of
infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazin

The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present when the acts constituting
failed to take action to prevent them from occurring.83 The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere pre
failure to prevent the same.

The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.
home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their h
action to avoid the same from occurring.