CRIMINAL LAW>Murder

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEZAR CORTEZ

FACTS: Cezar Cortez appealed the decisions finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of homicide and three (3) counts of murder. At around two (2) to three (3) o'clock in the morning,
eyewitness was awakened by a banging sound on the wall. She then peeped through the door of her
room and saw accused hitting Mario on the head with an object similar to a rolling pin while the latter was
asleep. Subsequently, she witnessed Cezar stabbing Minda with a knife and Froilan stabbing his co-
baker, Efren. Shortly thereafter, the two accused forcibly entered eyewitness’ room and proceeded to stab
and kill Baby and Jocelyn. Fortunately, the eyewitness was able to immediately hide leaving her
unscathed. The assertions were then corroborated by Mario and Minda's son and Mario's brother,
Leonardo. After inspecting the dead bodies, he noticed that Mario's watch was missing. Leonardo and
Janet then went to report the matter to the police, who in turn, conducted a manhunt for Cezar and
Froilan, killing the latter in the process. Consequently, they inspected Froilan's body and recovered the
missing watch of Mario. Finally, Leonardo claimed that Cezar was initially apprehended but was able to
escape.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cezar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Homicide and three
(3) counts of Murder.

HELD: The appeal is denied. However, the Court modified the conviction of the accused to one (1) count
of Homicide, for the killing of Efren, and four (4) counts of Murder, for the killings of Mario, Minda, Baby,
and Jocelyn. It is hereby undisputed that the accused were responsible for the killing. Here, the court is
left to determine the presence of qualifying circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of superior strength,
as alleged in the information.

To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (a) a person
was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide; and (d) the killing
was accompanied with any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC. Notably,
if the accused killed the victim without the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or
by that of Parricide or Infanticide, a conviction for the crime of Homicide will be sustained. Case law
instructs that to appreciate treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the means of execution employed gives
the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the methods of execution were deliberately
or consciously adopted. On the other hand, abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the
advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.

Anent Mario's killing, records clearly indicate that Cezar purposely sought attacking Mario at night while
the latter was sleeping so as the latter would have no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and thus,
ensuring the execution of the criminal act. However, there is reasonable doubt as to the presence of
superior strength in this case as to the killings of Minda, Baby, and Jocelyn. It does not appear that Cezar
and Froilan specifically sought the use of deadly weapons so as to be able to take advantage of their
superior strength against the victims. In fact, their criminal design to raid the house and consequently, to
use deadly weapons in killing whomever they encounter therein was applied indiscriminately.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the qualifying circumstance of treachery may be appreciated in this
case, considering that Minda, Baby, and Jocelyn — similar to Mario — were attacked in the middle of the
night while they were sleeping, unarmed, and defenseless. As such, their killings were still correctly
classified as Murders. Lastly, the killing of Efren was properly classiffied as Homicide absent any factual
averment showing that the same is attended by treachery and/or abuse of superior strength. In fine, the
Court holds that Cezar should be held liable for one (1) count of Homicide for the killing of Efren, and for
four (4) counts of Murder for the killings of Mario, Minda, Baby, and Jocelyn, respectively defined and
penalized under Articles 249 and 248 of the RPC.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW > Chain of Custody

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRANDON DELA

FACTS: Dela Cruz and Bautista appealed the decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs as defined under RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that at
around five (5) o'clock in the afternoon of August 2012, members of the Bambang Police Station
successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against accused appellants, during which 0.029 gram of
white crystalline substance was recovered from them. The police officers then took accused-appellants
and the seized item to the police
station where the marking, inventory, and photography were done in the presence of Municipal Councilor
and an employee of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The seized item was then brought to the crime
laboratory where, after examination, the contents thereof tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.

ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of a media representative in the inventory, marking, and photography
of the seized item affected the integrity of the corpus delicti

HELD: The appeal is meritorious. It is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with
moral certainty since the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.
Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal.

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug 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. The law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and
photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In
this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking
at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." The law further requires that the said
inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items
were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to
the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any
elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. Anent the witness requirement,
non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to
appear. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required
witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

The seizure in this case is done after the amendment of RA 9165. Hence, the prosecution failed to
comply with the above-described procedure since the inventory and photography of the seized item were
not conducted in the presence of a media representative. As evinced by the Inventory of Seized
Properties/Items, only an elected public official and a representative from the DOJ were present to
witness these activities. Although the prosecution in its Pre-Trial Brief averred that "no media
representatives were present despite efforts x x x to secure their presence," nothing else on record
appears to substantiate the same. Indeed, this general averment, without more, cannot be accepted as a
proper justification to excuse non-compliance with the law. Thus, in view of this unjustified deviation from
the chain of custody rule, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the item purportedly seized from accused-appellants were compromised, which consequently warrants
their acquittal.