People
vs Gomer Climaco (G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012)
Facts
A criminal case was filed
against Gomer Climaco (Gomer) for violation of Republic Act 9165 (The
Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002) for illegal possession and illegal sale of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drugs. In the prosecutions
version during the buy bust operation PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio (PO1 Ignacio)
acted as a poseur –buyer. PO1 Ignacio told Gomer that he would buy shabu. Gomer entered the house. When he came out he
showed to PO1 Ignacio the shabu an arrest was then made Gomer was asked to
empty his pockets and another sachet was recovered which was inserted between
his fingers. The sachets were turned over to the office of the Special
Operation Group which was then marked TR-B and TR-R. During trial documentary
exhibits was also presented the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance
with marking GSC-1; Plastic sachet white crystalline substance with marking
GSC-2.
Issue
Whether or not the guilt of
Gomer Climaco for the crimes of illegal sale and possession of shabu, was
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
No, guilt beyond reasonable
doubt was not established. What was seized at the buy bust operation (TR-B and TR-R)
was different from the dangerous drug submitted (GSC1 and GSC2) to the forensic
chemist for review and evaluation, the chain and custody over the dangerous
drugs was broken and the interity of the evidence submitted to the trial court
was not preserved, casting doubt on the guilt of Climaco.
The elements necessary in
every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object and the consideration; and the (2) delivery of the
thing sold and the payment. To prosecute illegal possession of dangerous drugs
the following elements must be established: (1 ) The accused is in possession
of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the dangerous drug itself. The in both cases of illegal sale and
possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug
must be shown to establish corpus delicti.
The corpus delicti in cases involving
dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself. There was no moral certainty that the
substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug submitted to the
laboratory and the trial court.
People
of the Philippines vs Eduardo Navarette Jr. (G.R. No. 191365, February 22,
2012)
Facts
On 11 June 2002 Eduardo
Navarette Jr (Eduaro) was charged for allegedly raping AAA in two instances.
First was when she was 8 years old in 1994 and the second time, when she was 10
years old in 1996. On bothe occasions, AAA claimed that she went to the house
of Eduardo to play with his younger brother Emerson. Eduardo suggested that AAA
look for Emerson upstairs. AAA heeded Eduardo followed and pulled her toward
the room. He then forced her to the floor and undresses her. In 1994, he tried
inserting his penis in AAA, but it merely touched her vagina. In 1996, however,
he was able to insert his penis on AAA vagina and there was complete
penetration. It took AAA thee (3) years before she reported the incident due to
the threats made by Eduardo that he would kill AAA`s parents and sister. AAA
was however forced to tell her parents about the rape incident because was
being sexually harassed by the appellant.
Issue
Whether or not Eduardo is
guilty has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
Yes for statutory rape to
prosper, the prosecution must prove that: the accused had carnal knowledge that
the accused had carnal knowledge of the women; and (2) that such woman is under
twelve (12) years of age. In cases of rape, only two (2) persons are normally
privy to its occurrence, the complainant and the accused. Generally the nature
of the offense is such that the only evidence that can prove the guilt of the
accused is the testimony of the complainant herself. Thus, the prosecution of
rape cases is anchored of a rape victim for share may not be able to remember
or recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and appalling outrage
she went through, especially so since she might in fact be trying not to recall
the same, as they are too painful to remember. It is doctrinal that date or
time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the aid rime
because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force
intimidation. The precise time when the rape took place has no substantial
bearing on its commission. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element.
What is important is that the information alleges that the victim was a minor
under twelve years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her,
even if the accused did not use force or intimidation on her or deprived her of
reason.
Facts
On March 25, 1975, Pentel
Merchandising Co., (Pentel) and Teofista Payumo Tinitigan (Payumo) entered into
a contract of lease of a residential house whereby for a term of four years
Payumo shall lease to Pentel the premises at 205 Loring St., Pasay City covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title no. 15923, at a rental of P1, 500.00 per month
with option to buy the same within the term of the lease for 350,000.00. In
April 22, 1975, Payumo and her three children leased to United Electronics
Corporation a factory building together with the portion of land on which it is
erected covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 160998 situated in
Banawag, Paranaque Rizal.
In both transactions, the
consent of Severino Tinitigan Sr. (Tinitigan) husband of Payumo was not
secured. On May 22, Tinitigan filed a complaint for “Annulment of Ownership and
of witness Pre-Injunction”. The matter settled amicably however on September
17, 1975, filed a motion seeking judicial approval of sale of a two-storey
residential house and a lot which are conjugal properties located at 205 Loring
St., Pasay City covered by TCT No. 15923.
Issue
Whether or not the contract
executed by Teofista Payumo is binding on the conjugal partnership.
Ruling
Payumo has contravened the
law by encumbering the disputed property as well as other conjugal properties
without her husband’s consent. Article 172 of the new Civil Code provides that
“ the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband’s consent,
except in cases provided by law. “Granting arguendo that she is the
administrative still her act of leasing the lots covered by TCT No. 15923 and
TCT No. 160998 is unjustified, being violative of Article 388 of the Civil Code
which states that “the wife who is appellant pointed as an administrative of
the husband`s property cannot alienate or encumber the husbands property or
that of the conjugal partnership without judicial authority”. Consequently,
Payumo`s unauthorized transaction cannot be invoked as a source of right or
valid defense. The contract may bind persons parties to the same but it cannot
bind another not a party thereto, merely because he is aware of such contract
and has acted with knowledge thereof. So goes the “res inter alios acta nobis
nocet, nec prodest,” which means that a transaction between the parties ought
not to operate to the prejudice of a third person.
No comments:
Post a Comment