Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

TECSON, Mary Joie S.Case Digest PIRACY PEOPLE V. LOL-LO SARAW Facts: A boat in which there were eleven men, women and children arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Ducth East Indies and was subsequently surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty four moros all armed. They first asked for food but once on the boat, took themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated two of the women. All of the persons on the boat placed on it holes were made on it with the idea that it would submerge, but after eleven days of hardship they were succoured. Two of the moro marauders were Lol-lo and Saraw who later returned their home in Sulu, Philippines where they were arrested and charged with the crime of piracy. Issue: Did the court of first instance in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw? Held: Yes, piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional three-mile limit of a foreign state. Lol-lo who raped one of the women was sentenced to death. There being the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of superior strength and ignominy. PEOPLE V. TULIN Facts: A cargo vessel owned by the PNOC shipping and transport corporation, loaded with barrels or kerosene, regular gasoline and diesel oil was absorbed by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates including the accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola and Andres Infante detained the crew and completely took over the vessel. The vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes where unloaded, transferred and sold under the direct supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the Bessel returned to the Philippines. All the accused were charged with qualified piracy or violation of PD 532. The accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were executed outside the Philippine waters and territory. Issue: Whether or not the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused, appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside the Philippine waters suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on M/T Tabangco and its cargo were committed in PH waters, although the captive vessel was later brought to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded and such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong’s direct supervision. Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in PH waters. The disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy. Hence, the same need not to be committed in Philippine waters. PEOPLE V. CATANTAN Facts: The Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan were fishing in the sea around 3 kilometers away from the shores of Tabogan, Cebu. Suddenly, another boat caught with them. They were later identified as the accused Emilio Catantan and Jose Ursal alias “Bimbo”. They boarded the pump boat of the Pilapils and pointed his gun at Eugene. They hogtied Eugene and covered him up and ordered Juan to ferry them to Daan Tagobon using their pump boat. However, as they went farther out into the open sea the engine stopped running. They saw another boat operated by Juanito and ordered the Pilapil brothers to approach the boat. Catantan boarded Juanito’s pump boat and ordered him to take them to mungaz. Pilapil brothers took the change and escaped. The regional trial court found Catantan and Bimbo guilty of violating PD 532. Issue: Whether or not Emilio Catantan violated PD 532 and not grave coercion. Held: There were piracy and not grave coercion where as part of the act of seizing their boat. The occupants of the vessel were forced to go elsewhere other than their place of destination. This case falls squarely within the concept of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was part of the act of seizing their boat. ARBITRARY DETENTION ASTORGA V. PEOPLE Facts: The offended parties together with SPO3 Andres Cinco Jr and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian were sent to the Island of Daram Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest illegal logging activities. There they met petitioner Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of the boats found at around 4:30 to 5:00pm being constructed at Brgy. Locob-Locob. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. Petitioner called for reinforcement and moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men, some wearing fatigues arrived at the scene. The DENR team was then bought to petitioner’s house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. The team left at 2:00am. Issue: Whether the petitioner is guilty of Arbitrary Detention. Held: Petitioner Astorga is acquitted of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of reasonable doubt. The determinate factor in Arbitrary detention, in the absence of actual physical restraint, is fear. The court find no proof that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private offended parties. Furthermore, he admitted that it was raining at that time. Hence, it is possible that the petitioner prevented the team from leaving the island because it was unsafe for them to travel by boat. CAYAO V. DEL MUNDO Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by Fernando Cayao with the office of the Court Administrator for charging Judge Justiano Del Mundo with abuse of authority, Cayao, a bus driver overtook another bus and as a consequence, Cayao almost collided head on with an oncoming owner-type jeepney owned by Judge Del Mundo. Cayao was brought by the policemean in the Sala of Judge Del mundo and was compelled by Judge Del Mundo to choose from 3 alternative punishment: a) to face charge of multiple homicide b) revocation of is driver’s license c) to be put in jail for 3 days. Cayao chose confinement for 3 days and was forced to sign a “waiver if detention” by Judge Del Mundo. Issue: Whether or not Judge Del Mundo is guilty of the charge of warrantless arrest and arbitrary detention. Held: Judge Del Mundo used and abused his position of authority in intimidating the complaint as well as the members of the police force into submitting to his excesses. The complaint was not accorded any of the basic rights to which an accused is entitled. Cayao was deprived from the presumption of innocence, the right to be heard by himself and counsel, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as well as the right to an impartial and public trial. MILO V. SALONGA Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 Issue: Whether or not the accused respondent. One need not to be a police officer to be chargeable with arbitrary detention. Issue: Whether or not Botero is a mere employee of Ricorn. VELASCO Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . It is accepted that other public officer like judges and mayors who act with abuse of their functions. Held: No. averring that the accused respondent was not a public officer who can be charged with arbitrary detention. can be liable for the crime of arbitrary detention Held: Yes. PEOPLE V. It was alleged that they represented themselves as incorporators and officers of Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines. the public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION PEOPLE V. his territorial jurisdiction is smaller. Mary Joie S. he was receiving them behind a desk which has a nameplate representing his name and his position as a vice president of Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines. It was later discovered that Ricorn was never registered with the securities and exchange commission and that it was never authorized to recruit by the POEA. A perusal of the powers and functions vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter. Both were convicted but Botero appealed. was charged with Arbitrary Detention together with other private persons for maltreating petitioner Valdez and for deliberately depriving the same of his constitutional liberty without any legal ground.TECSON. GARCIA Facts: Carlos Garcia. and that Ricorn is a recruitment agency for seamen. being a barrio captain. Petitioner Assistant Fiscal Milo filed an opposition. Accused respondent then filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute the elements of said crime and that the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the information. it was proven by evidence that he was introduced to the applicants as the vice president of Ricorn. When he was receiving applicants. Patricio Botero and Luisa Miraples were accused of illegal recruitment. Inc. Inc. Case Digest Accused Captain Tuvera Sr. may be guilty of this crime. Issue: Whether or not Beltran can be charged with Rebellion Held: No. Case Digest Facts: Following the issuance by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of Presidential Proclamation No. Thus. (2) he took part in criminal activities. some of which were sworn before a notary public.TECSON. Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is committed — By rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws. dated 23 February 2006. 1017 on 24 February 2006 declaring a "State of National Emergency. of any of their powers or prerogatives. executed by a certain Ruel Escala (Escala). Bulacan. they were met by another individual. wholly or partially. Cachuela stated that he was a former member of the CPP and that (1) he attended the CPP's "10th Plenum" in 1992 where he saw Beltran. he saw Beltran and other individuals on board a vehicle which entered a chicken farm in Bucal. The bulk of the documents consists of affidavits. the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof. naval. executed by members of the military and some civilians. That there be a (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms against the Government. or (a) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress. wholly or partially. by its nature. Except for two affidavits. Mary Joie S. The elements of the offense are: 1. and 2. The evidence before the panel of prosecutors who conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion consisted of the affidavits and other documents. of any of their powers and prerogatives. while he was en route to Marilao. Quezon City. or other armed forces. Beltran moved for a judicial determination of probable cause. Padre Garcia. and detained him in Camp Crame. rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of a political end. or any body of land. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either — (a) to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws: (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof. and Raul Cachuela (Cachuela). naval. none of the affidavits mentions Beltran. dated 20 February 2006. An inquest was held and Beltran was later charged with rebellion before the RTC. Batangas and that after the passengers alighted. Escala recounted that in the afternoon of 20 February 2006. or (2) any body of land." police officers arrested Crispin Beltran on 25 February 2006. In his affidavit. and (3) the arms he and the other CPP members used were Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . or other armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature. For his part. plans to bring down a government is a mere preparatory step to commit the acts constituting Rebellion under Article 134. PEOPLE V. 15 armed men appeared. who represent party-list groups affiliated with the CPP. Held: No. What the law requires is the purpose of extorting money as ransom. In his Comment to Beltran's petition. what the allegations in Fuentes' affidavit make out is a case for Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion. Around 8:30 pm. Padre Garcia. Thus. 1996. businessman Alexander Saldona went to Sultan Kudarat with three other men to meet certain macapagal Silongan. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. punishable under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code. SILONGAN Facts: On March 16. The business transaction was postponed and continued in the afternoon due to the death of Macapagal’s relative and he has to pick his brother in Cotabato City. is that Beltran was in Bucal. like Beltran. None of the affidavits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. or heading a rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006. not Rebellion under Article 134. Case Digest purchased partly from contributions by Congressional members. maintaining. he was present during the 1992 CPP Plenum.TECSON.000 ransom. He described the abductors as Macapagal’s brothers. Alexander and his other companions were tied up and blindfolded. Beltran's alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion. it is not necessary for the crime to be committed. dated 25 February 2006. Mary Joie S. Batangas on 20 February 2006 and that 14 years earlier. and others conspired to form a "tactical alliance" to commit Rebellion. the Solicitor General points to Fuentes' affidavit. As they headed to the highway. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting. At least one overt act of demanding ransom is enough. Even the prosecution acknowledged this. Attendance in meetings to discuss. What these documents prove.000. the RTC Makati erred when it nevertheless found probable cause to try Beltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it. The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against the government. The Information merely alleged that Beltran. since the felony charged in the Information against Beltran in the criminal case is Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion and not Rebellion. among others. among others. They arrived in the morning and were able to talk to Macapagal concerning the gold nuggets that purportedly being sold by the latter. as basis for the finding of probable cause against Beltran as Fuentes provided details in his statement regarding meetings with Beltran and the other petitioners attended in 2005 and 2006 in which plans to overthrow violently the Arroyo government were allegedly discussed. Alexander’s companion were able to escape but Alexander was released after the payment of P12. San Juan. at best. Suddenly. However. Issue: Whether it is necessary that there is actual payment of ransom in the crime of kidnapping. PEOPLE V. Albay public market. Evidence shows that Lovedioro’s allegation of membership to the NPA was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him. in fact there were no known acts of the victim’s that can be considered as offending to the NPA. In addition. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It was confirmed by the prosecution’s principal witness that Lovedioro was a member of the New People’s Army (NPA). because normally no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal.TECSON. has no weight in law and cannot be given any greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim. Case Digest PEOPLE V. 1992. Held: Courts usually give credence to the testimony off a girl who is a victim of sexual assault particularly if it constitutes incestuous rapes. PEOPLE V. The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss. Lovedioro then appealed the decision contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion. The grave man of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any circumstances provided by law. Issue: Whether or not the testimonies and credibility of the complaint witness is in doubt and questionable. AMADO HERNANDEZ Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Accused filed an appeal questioning the testimony of his daughter M and further alleged that it was not him who had raped his daughter but his brother-in-law. offered no contribution to the achievements of the NPA’s subversive claims. were it not to condemn injustice. who has committed the act. Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder and was subsequently found guilty. On November 6. was charged with rape and was convicted of the said crime. mere denial. LOVEDIORO Facts: Elias Lovedioro with three other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while the latter was walking along Burgos St. Mary Joie S. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant committed rebellion or murder. OLIVA Facts: Lorenzo Oliva. Held: The killing of the victim. Benjamin. father of the complainant M. as observed by the solicitor general. destruction of property. enumerated in 13 attacks on government forces or civilians by HUKS. pillage. rebellion cannot be complexed wit common crimes such as killings. Held: The court ruled that murder. and robbery are mere ingredient of the crime of rebellion as means “necessary” for perpetration of the offense. a police officer. etc. looting plunder. He likewise admitted that he and Nunez were members of the Sparrow unit and their aliases were “Armand” and “Mabi”. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the act of rebellion. they committed the crime of rebellion causing murder. arson. Held: Yes. confederating and cooperating with each other. accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years imprisonment. Amado Hernandez and other appellant were accuse of conspiring.TECSON. Dasig contends that it is legally defective. 1945. etc. PEOPLE V. The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him. Case Digest Facts: About March 15. Edwin Nunez and six others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manadtad. arson. or robbery. He claimed that the custodial interrogation was done while he was very sick. SEDITION PEOPLE V. Manadtad. as he died while performing duties. CABRERA Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Issue: Whether or not the crime of rebellion can be complexed with murder. Rebellion constitutes ONLY ONE CRIME. However. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nunez killed Pfc. committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof.. They were accused of being members of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which was actively engaged in armed rebellion against the government of the Philippines. DASIG Facts: Appellants Rodrigo Dasig. With the party of HUKBALAHAP. Mary Joie S. In Hernandez Doctrine. as well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of CFI of Manila. Cebu and a report from a confidential asset of the illegal drug activities of appellant. while the latter handed to him two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. a dangerous drug. PO1 Palconit gave appellant two marked P50.00 bills. Case Digest Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation against appellant after receiving information from residents of Sitio Galaxy. PEOPLE V. Mary Joie S. Tangke. Without such objection.TECSON. the Court brushed aside the accused's belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person were inadmissible because the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. He then put the markings "EC" on the two plastic sachets and brought the same to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for forensic examination. together with the confidential asset. UMALI Facts: The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali. it was already too late in the day for appellant to do so. His back-ups then rushed to the scene and simultaneously therewith PO1 Palconit arrested the appellant.11 gram inside the two plastic sachets marked with "EC" tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. Issue: Whether or not there is compliance with Section 21 of the implementing rules of RA 9165 Held: With regard to the non-compliance by the police officers with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 as alleged by appellant in his Supplemental Brief. PO1 Palconit made the pre-arranged signal by touching his head with his right hand. he must so state in the form of an objection. but on the alleged gap between the time of confiscation of the specimen and the time of its submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The records of the case is bereft of any showing that appellant objected before the RTC regarding the seizure and safekeeping of the shabu seized from him on account of the failure of the police officers to maintain an unbroken chain of custody of the said drugs. the Court notes that appellant raised the same only in this appeal. because [appellant] did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. were found guilty was said to have been committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong.m. Talisay. Quezon. "Whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown. he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. poseurbuyer. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The chemistry report from the PNP Crime Laboratory later revealed that the white crystalline substance with a total weight of 0. In similar cases. At about 4:30 p. Appellant should have raised the said issue before the trial court. between 8:00 and Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . particularly the lack of physical inventory of the seized specimen and the non-taking of photograph thereof. Thereupon. approached appellant who was standing outside his house. The only time that appellant questioned the chain of custody was before the CA but not on the ground of lack of physical inventory or non-taking of photograph. But even then.. 000. During and after the burning of the houses. by armed men. Rivano. NABONG Facts: The appellant is an attorney and he had been retained to defend one Juan Feleo against a charge of sedition that had been preferred against him. for each of the three murders. Ortega. the house of Valentin Robles valued at P10. and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians. the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan.TECSON. Garcia and Lector).000. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of inciting to sedition Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . as well as Captain Cacdac and Lieutenant Arambulo. the pursuant to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the duration of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants are liable of the charges against them of complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder. the sums awarded the victims (Lacorte. In the course of this speech Nabong criticized the members of the Constabulary. each of the appellants is sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim in the sum of P6. particularly the house of Punzalan they knew that it was then occupied by one or more persons. Anselo. It shall be understood. robbing one house and two Chinese stores. and was related by marriage to the appellant. Mary Joie S. Feleo was in those days a recognized leader of the communists in Nueva Ecija. for the reason that the raiders in setting fire to the buildings. At the same time Captain Cacdac and Lieutenant Arambulo took notes of the substance of this part of the speech. and for the arson. While Nabong was talking his words were attentively listened to by deputy fiscal Villamor. however. some of the raiders engaged in looting. for which we impose the maximum penalty provided in Article 321. The raid took place resulting in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content valued at P24. multiple murder. paragraph 1. because they even and actually saw an old lady. each of the appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the indemnities mentioned in the decision of the lower court. The appellants were guilty of sedition. frustrated murder and physical injuries. frustrated murder. at the window. of the Revised Penal Code. with costs. In view of the heavy penalties already imposed and their long duration. 1951. Case Digest 9:00 in the evening of November 14. all of whom understood the Tagalog language. and in view of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime. and the house of one Mortega. and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine Army soldiers stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate. For the crime of sedition each of the appellants is sentenced to 5 years of prision correctional and to pay a fine of P4. the mother of Punzalan. the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. however.000. the court finds it unnecessary to fix and impose the prison sentences corresponding to frustrated murder and physical injuries. After Feleo had been arrested and taken away. Ignacio Nabong delivered a speech in a meeting. arson. PEOPLE V. by the court below will stand. With these modifications.023. arson and robbery? Held: Yes. They also suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. It was the purpose of the speaker. Mary Joie S. 1981. It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct assault is an offense against a person in authority. Gemma. One mode of committing it is. beyond a doubt. that the words used should in fact result in a rising of the people against the constituted authorities. As a result. to incite his hearers to the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means. RIVERA V. belongs to the class of persons in authority. PEOPLE Facts: Petitioner Lydia Gelig impugns the decision promulgated by the court of appeals that set aside the decision of RTC. Gelig was not liable for unintentional abortion for the absence of proof that such incident was the proximate cause of her slapping and pushing. The words used by the appellant manifestly tended to induce the people to resist and use violence against the agents of the Constabulary and to instigate the poor to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes. employing force or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or his agent. and it should be interpreted in the plain and obvious sense in which it was evidently intended to be understood. Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. without public uprising. Issue: Whether or not the honourable court of appeals erred in finding that the petitioner can be convicted of slight physical injuries under the information changing her for direct assault with unintentional abortion. Held: Lydia Gelig was liable for direct assault and not unintentional abortion. Lydia was convicted of committing the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion but the court of appeals found her guilty of the crime slight physical injuries. being a public school teacher. Gemma suffered contusion in her maxillary area and continued experiencing abdominal pain and started bleeding two days after the incident. It is not necessary. Gemma later on suffered incomplete abortion. by attacking. On July 17. thereby tending to stir up the people against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and the order of the Government. in order to be seditious. Case Digest Held: Yes.TECSON. PEOPLE Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . The language used by the appellant clearly imported an overthrow of the Government by violence. DIRECT ASSAULTS GELIG V. that is. In this case the victim was performing his duties. and number of wounds sustained by the victim. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of complex crime of direct assault with murder. use of force. the court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist. inter alia. changing the crime to attempted murder. article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some causes other his own desistance. then appeared at the scene and asked Major Abalos what’s happening. The victim saluted Abalos when the latter turned around to face him. he was maintaining peace and order during the fiesta in barangay. 1983. in the means used by the malefactors.. Mary Joie S. PEOPLE V. Because of fist blows and coup injury. help us! Somebody is making trouble here. Ruben sustained slight injuries. An appeal was made by the accused. location. a woman shouted “police officer. that the assault was made when the said person was performing duties. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. or serious intimidation or resistance upon authority or his agent. accused hurriedly left and procured a piece of wood which is about two inches thick. Issue: (1) Whether or not the court of appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted murder (2) Whether or not there was an intent to kill. Labine collapsed and sustained head fracture. while acciised Tiburcio Abalos and his father were having a heated argument. hitting the policeman at the back of his head. Case Digest Ruben Rodil sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital for being ganged up by the accused Edgardo Rivera and his brother Esmeraldo Rivera. Held: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. but the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. Issue: Whether or not the court erred finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of direct assault with murder. He then swiftly returned and unceremoniously swung with that wooden piece at Labine from behind. The elements of which are that there must be attack.TECSON. As Major Abalos levelled his carbine at Labine. Held: The appellant committed the second mode of committing direct assault.” The victim P/Pfc. ABALOS Facts: In the evening of March 20. the nature. The killing in the instant case constituted the felony of murder qualified by alevosia. Labine. a buy-bust operation was held by the Central Bank Operatives in order to capture a certain Mang Andy who is involved in a syndicate engaging in the business of counterfeit US dollar notes. the Supreme Court held that there is no doubt that appellant Dural and the two other gunmen knew that the victims. they head gunshot and immediately hide. At the said hospital. they saw three armed men firing upon the two Capcom soldiers. Alejandro Tecson. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . they identified one of the three gunmen referring to accused Dural who shot two Capcom soldiers. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Mahiglot. were members of the Philippine Constabulary detailed with the CAPCOM as they were then in uniform and riding an official CAPCOM car. consequently the investigator brought them at the Capcom headquarters at Bicutan then at the camp Panopio Hospital. 1988. When the civilian informer introduced them to Mang Andy. eyewitnessed voluntarily went at the Capcom headquarters to narrate what they have witnessed. approached Mang Andy inside the Jollibee restaurant. The three gunmen positioned themselves as to immobilize the two Capcom soldiers. ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT TECSON V. Mary Joie S. The crimes he committeed are two complex crimes of murder with direct assault upon an agent of the person in authority. Held: Yes. T/Sgt. Labita and Marqueta (members of the buy-bust operation team) acted as poseur-buyer. The victims were agents and persons in authority. CA Facts: On April 28. Case Digest PEOPLE V. DURAL Facts: On January 31. the latter was convinced and drew 10 pieces of US dollar notes from his wallet. while two prosecution witnesses were on their way to Tupadahan. 1990.TECSON. Issue: Whether or not appellants are guilty of direct assault. From the place they were hiding. Two days after. At that moment. Labita and Marqueta introduced themselves as Central Bank operatives and apprehended Mang Andy whom they later identified as herein petitioner. 168 of the Revised Penal Code Held: It is true that in Art. possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with intent to use the same by a clear and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime. petitioner contends that possession without intent to use counterfeit US dollar notes would not make him criminally liable.the jail guards conducted a surprise inspection and found out 23 more fake 500 bills in the wallet of the accused. It is worthy to note that prior to the buy-bust operation. The petitioner gave a fake P 500. from the facts of the case it can be inferred that the accused had the intent to use the fake dollar notes. However. Issue: Whether all the elements of the crime of Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank note in this case are present Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Consequently. Clearly therefore. the petitioner had already the intention to sell fake US dollar notes and from that fact alone he cannot claim that he was only instigated to commit the crime. In the course of the entrapment. The defense of the accused was the defense of frame up. Case Digest Petitioner denies liability for the crime of illegal possession and use of false treasury bank notes and other instruments of credit as defined in Art. Issue: Whether or not from the facts of the case.TECSON. The petitioner also failed to overcome the legal presumption that public officers regularly perform their official duties. Francis de la Cruz reported the matter to jail officers. Mary Joie S. So. his possession of counterfeit dollar notes should be coupled with intent to use. petitioner’s natural reaction from the seeming interest of the of the poseur-buyer to buy fake US dollar notes constitutes an overt act which clearly shows his intent to use or sell the counterfeit US dollar notes. 168. Alejandro Tecson is liable under Art. PEOPLE Facts: The petitioner. CLEMENTE V. prior to the buy-bust operation. In other words.00 bill to Francis de la Cruz to buy a bottle of soft drink from the Manila City Jail bakery but was refused because it was found out that it was fake. Martinez. the civilian informer had an agreement with the petitioner to arrange a meeting with the prospective buyers. was charged with violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. to make him liable under the said provision. 168 of the Revised Penal Code. It was actually the petitioner who planned and arranged said meeting and what the informer did was only to convince the petitioner that there are prospective buyers. According to him. In the case at bar. without anything more. the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes.TECSON. The burden to prove the allegation of forgery in this case has not been conclusively discharged by petitioners because first. possession of false treasury or bank notes alone. HERNANDEZ Facts: PMRDC entered through its president into various agreements with co-respondents Home Insurance & Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). however. positive and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same. In short. they were only informed by Francis dela Cruz that petitioner asked the latter to buy soft drinks at the Manila City jail bakery using a fake P500 bill. HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED HERNANDEZ V. In Digoro. was not presented in court. Digoro. nothing in the records supports the allegation except only perhaps Demetrios explicit self-serving disavowal of his signature in open court. PMRDC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby it was given the option to buy pieces of land owned by petitioners. is not a criminal offense. reversed and set aside the findings of the lower courts and acquitted petitioner of the crime of Illegal possession and use of false bank notes defined and penalized under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. and that the deliberate refusal of PMRDC to perform such obligation gives ground for the rescission of the MOA. According to the jail officers. Mary Joie S. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the RPC. is hearsay and not based on the personal knowledge. the Supreme Court. the jail officers did not have personal knowledge that petitioner asked Francis dela Cruz to use the P500 bill. SALVADOR Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . This thesis is perched on petitioners argument that the MOA could not have possibly been novated by the DAC because Demetrios signature therein has been forged Issue: Whether or not there was forgery in this case Held: No. Case Digest In this case. TAMANI V. Firmly settled is the jurisprudential rule that forgery cannot be presumed from a mere allegation but rather must be proved by clear. Petitioners insist that the obligation of PMRDC to deliver back the TCTs arises on its failure to exercise the option to purchase the lands according to the terms of the MOA. Francis dela Cruz. citing People v. Their account. in connection with the construction of the Isabel Homes housing project in Batangas and of the Monumento Plaza commercial and recreation complex in Caloocan City. to whom petitioner supposedly gave the fake P500 bill to buy soft drinks. the prosecution failed to show that petitioner used the counterfeit money or that he intended to use the counterfeit bills. among which is when the findings of the trial court and appellate court is conflicting. Chief Clerk of the Comptrollers Office. al. While it was improper for the RTC to solely rely on Sorra’s credentials. premises considered. Mary Joie S. Held: Yes. parcel of land located at Solano. directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon (Seclon). the petition is granted. The CA was thus correct when it declared that the judge must conduct his own independent examination of signature. Tamani allegedly sold the disputed property to Milagros Cruz.TECSON. Her superior credentials. EMPLOYEE. even though the discussion of CA is binding. m. a complaint for quieting of title was filed by respondents spouses Roman Salvador and Filomena Bravo against petitioners Tamani et. On August 17. the Budget and Fiscal Non-Commissioned Officer. Guillergan would direct Technical Sergeant Nemesio H. Each time the processing unit returned the payrolls for lack of signatures of the payees. RTC rendered decision ruling in petitioner’s favour. give added value to her testimony. Case Digest Facts: On July 29. book. to cause the preparation of the payrolls of their civilian intelligence agents (CIAs) with supporting time record and book. a Lieutenant Colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). 1986. They were co-ownders of an undivided land. PEOPLE Facts: Petitioner Guillergan. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of falsification of public document Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . NOTARY PUBLIC OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER GUILERGAN V. to affix his initial on the Remarks/Sig column of the payrolls to complete the requirements and facilitate the processing of the time record. Issue: Whether or not court of appeals erred in overturning the factual findings of RTC. 1959. over a 431 sq. Nueva Vizcaya. and payrolls. compared to that of Albacea. Court of Appeals issued a decision ruling in favour of the respondents. they are recognized exceptions. Wherefore. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER. Butcon (Butcon). TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest Held: Yes. The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 are: 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; 2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; and 3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.All of the foregoing elements of Article 172 are present in this case. Guillergan was a public officer when he committed the offense charged. He was the comptroller to the PC/INP Command in Region 6. His work as comptroller did not include the preparation of the appointments and payrolls of CIAs. Nor did he have official custody of the pertinent documents. His official function was limited to keeping the records of the resources that the command received from Camp Crame. GALEOS V. PEOPLE Facts: On February 14, 1994, in the Municipality of Naga, the accused, a former Municipal Mayor and Construction and Maintenance Man of the Office of the Municipal Engineer, in such capacity, falsified a public document, consisting of a Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives In the Government Service, as of December 31, 1993, filed by accused Rosalio S. Galeos and subscribed and sworn to before accused Paulino S. Ong, wherein accused made it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity thereby making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when in truth and in fact, accused very well k[n]ew that they are related with each other, since accused Rosalio S. Galeos is related to accused Paulino S. Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, the mother of accused Rosalio S. Galeos [being] the sister of the mother of accused Paulino S. Ong. Issue: Whether or not Galeos is liable of publication of public document. Held: YES. Petitioners were charged with falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Such crime is committed in any of the following acts: 1.) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2.) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3.) Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4.) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.26 In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.27 Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.28 All the elements of falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements have been established by the prosecution. GONZALUDO V. PEOPLE Facts: In 1985, Ulysses Villaflor took one Rosemarie Gelogo as her mistress into his house in Bacolod City. After Ulysses’ death, said mistress offered to sell the 2-storey for P80,000.00 to herein petitioner Gonzaludo but the petitioner was not interested so he introduced Gelogo to Spouses Canlas. Gelogo ang Gregg Canlas executed a Deed of Sale and it was witnessed by Gonzaludo. Gelogo represented herself as the lawful owner of the house by using the name of Rosemarie Villaflor. Issue: Whether or not of the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document having conspired with Gelogo Held: No. For an accused to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist. To secure conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court has time and again ruled that the following requisites must concur: (1) that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (2) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. In this case, the third element is absent. While it may be said that there was fraud or deceit committed by Rosemarie in this case, when she used the surname "Villaflor" to give her semblance of authority to sell the subject 2-storey house, such fraud or deceit was employed upon the Canlas spouses who were the ones who parted with their money when they bought the house. However, the Information charging Rosemarie of estafa in the present case, alleged damage or injury not upon the Canlas spouses, but upon private complainant, Anita Manlangit. Since the deceit or fraud was not the efficient cause and did not induce Anita Manlangit to part with her property in this case, Rosemarie cannot be held liable for estafa. However, petitioner was found guilty of conspiring with Rosemarie to falsify, that is, by making untruthful statement in the narration of facts in the deed of sale, by declaring Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest Rosemarie to be the owner of the house subject of such sale and signing as "Rosemarie Villaflor" instead of her real name, Rosemarie Gelogo, in order to sell the same to the Canlas spouses. It is established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Rosemarie committed the crime of falsification of public document. GARCIA V. CA Facts: The accused, being in possession of a receipt for P 5,000 dated January 21, 1991 issued by one Alberto Quijada, Jr. as partial down payment of the sale of a house and lot to accused, made alterations on the said receipt and made it appear that it was issued on January 24, 1991 in the amount of Fifty Five Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) when in truth and in fact, the said accused fully well knew that the receipt was only for the amount of Five Thousand Pesos. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC Held: : Yes. The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document; (2) that it was made on a genuine document; (3) that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and (4) that the changes made the document speak something false. When these are committed by a private individual on a private document the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the same code, but there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person. Given the admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private complainant, the Court holds that all four (4) elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of damage, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had received P50,000 when in fact he did not. MACHINATION IN PUBLIC AUCTION OANI V. PEOPLE Facts: During the school year 1988-1989, the Panabo High School in Panabo, Davao del Norte, headed by its Principal, Leopoldo Oani, implemented the free secondary school program of the government. During the period of November 1, 1988 to December 31, 1989, the high school received the amount of P648,532.00 from the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) for Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).[1] Of the said amount, P551,439.13 was earmarked for the purchase of various supplies, materials and Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 Cunanan could not possibly have issued a certification pursuant to an administrative circular which did not as yet exist.00.. 1989. the most plausible explanation being that it was executed and signed by Cunanan only after December 19. as Chairman. 2 for nine units of fire extinguishers and requested Powerline to deliver the supplies. 1991. Oani approved a disbursement voucher in favor of the supplier for the amount of P54. as members.00. The Regional Office of the COA then issued Assignment Order No. 91-368 was issued only on December 19.747. and Bienvenido Presilda and Carmencita Enriquez. composed of Jaime P. The members of the Audit Team that conducted a re-canvass for fire extinguishers of the same brand and features as those supplied by Cunanan discovered that each unit could be purchased for only P2. Instead of conducting a public bidding. Cunanan could not have executed the Certification in January 1988 because paragraph 4 thereof indicates that it was issued pursuant to COA Circular No. making it appear that it had been issued before the subject fire extinguishers were purchased on June 27. Oani decided to purchase the fire extinguishers from the Powerline Manufacturing Industry (Powerline. 1991.000. 5. On June 27. inclusive of 10% allowance. Carnation St. The Certification is dated January 1988. Case Digest equipment.040. 90-137 dated March 2. Panabo. 1989. Davao and the Certification dated January 1988. 1989. In fine. 1990. for brevity) for P54. On March 1. However. Upon delivery thereof. The trial court saw through the petitioners chicanery and declared in its decision: Accused Oani submitted for the purpose a Certification dated 10 July 1988 issued by the Panabo Fire Station. Naranjo. Davao City.00 was certified as available for the purpose. The enterprise was authorized by the Department of Trade and Industry to manufacture and refill stored pressure type (Light Pink only) mono-ammonium phosphate for ABC fires. Besides. that the latter is an exclusive Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Buhangin. 1990 to a team of auditors. Hence. the Resident Auditor regarding. among other things.000. Oani approved Purchase Order No. the alleged overpricing of 12 fire extinguishers for P15.970.TECSON.00. It bears stressing that COA Circular No. Powerline was owned by Francisco Cunanan and had its business address at Km. proprietor of Powerline. no such certification was issued on June 27.747. The supplier acknowledged receipt of the said amount through check. the petitioner should have submitted the same to the auditing team. issued by a certain Francisco R.00 each. long after Cunanan signed the Certification. the petitioner never submitted the certification when the auditing team conducted its investigation. Issue: Whether or not the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict him of violation of RA 3019. Held: Yes. The purchase of the nine units of fire extinguishers was. The amount of P55. If the certification was indeed issued as early as January 1988. Cunanan. 91-368.00. thus. the DECS Secretary received a letter from the Parents Teachers Association of the Panabo High School regarding the investigation of Principal Oani and Bonifacio Roa. Mary Joie S. overpriced by P23. After a careful evaluation of the respective evidences submitted by the parties on this issue. particularly of the accused Oani. The penultimate paragraph of the said certification of Powerline proprietor. On the basis of such review. Mary Joie S. the Court finds for the People and brushes aside as incredible the claims of the defense. or a mere afterthought. states. are. entitled to great weight and will not be Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . at the least. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly hold that the trial courts findings of fact. finds no leg to stand on. The appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct. as a general rule. Cunanan. THAT. at the most. I am executing this Certification pursuant to Article 7. we find the present appeal meritorious. especially when affirmed by the CA. Issue: What is the nature of appeal in criminal cases? Held: Appeal in criminal cases possess a unique nature. MORALES Facts: Roldan Morales was charged in two separate Informations before the RTC with possession and sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS PEOPLE V. The trial court and the Court of Apelas found Morales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Case Digest distributor of the purchased fire extinguishers and that no subdealer was appointed to sell the same. It appears that the theory of the accused that bidding and canvass may be dispensed with in view of the exclusiveness of Powerline in the manufacture and distribution of the purchased fire extinguishers. Francisco R. 91368 governing the procurement from Duly Licensed Manufacturers and Exclusive Distributors).TECSON. section 442 of the Government Auditing Rules & Regulations (GAAM Volume I under COA Circular No. cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. the sachet of shabu was marked "AS-1-210702" and taken to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for testing. misapprehended or misapplied. With respect to the third element. It must present testimony about every link in the chain of custody of such drugs. After due consideration of the records of this case. we resolve to ACQUIT Roldan Morales." indicating that Sangalang probably made the marking. But here the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that they followed the procedure that has been prescribed in connection with the seizure and custody of drugs. Sangalang identified the seized drugs in a manner that glossed Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Consequently. PEOPLE V. PERALTA Facts: Elmer Peralta was arrested after the District Drug Enforcement Group (DDEG) staged a by-bust operation with one police officer (SPO1 Alberto Sangalang) acting as poseur-buyer. from the moment they were seized from the accused to the moment they are offered in evidence. The contents of the sachet tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. To begin with. While the records show that the sachet bore the markings "AS-1210702. it could have been marked long after its seizure or even after it had been tested in the laboratory. Held: NO. b) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug.00 bill for a sachet of shabu. took the marked money from him. The elements of the sale of illegal drugs are a) the identities of the buyer and seller. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved—the seized chemical—is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted. the police back-up team rushed in. The prosecution also dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist after the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report D-332-02. evidence presented and relevant law and jurisprudence. Mary Joie S. the prosecution did not adduce evidence of when the sachet of shabu was marked. The police officer gave Peralta a marked P500. The prosecution presented the police officer. we hold that this case falls under the exception. peddling prohibited drugs. At a signal. Meanwhile. He alone testified for the government since it was thought that the testimonies of the other police officers would only be corroborative. They arrested accused Peralta. and brought him to the police station. There was likewise a break in the chain of custody which proves fatal to the prosecution’s case. On seeing the informant come out of the house. The prosecution must establish the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs. Case Digest disturbed on appeal. Sangalang told his informant to go out and buy cigarettes. Issue: Whether or not the prosecution presented ample proof that the police officers involved caught accused Peralta at his home. which showed that the specimen tested positive for shabu. However.The identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. since the prosecution has failed to establish the element of corpus delicti with the prescribed degree of proof required for successful prosecution of both possession and sale of prohibited drugs. An informant introduced the police officer to Peralta and the former informed Peralta that the police officer was a dance instructor in need of shabu for himself and his fellow dance instructors so they could endure the long nights.TECSON. Thus. this rule admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked. the prosecutor did not bother to ask him if such marking was his. and c) the existence of the corpus delicti. If the drugs were not in a plastic container. he. Five marked twenty-peso bills were given to PO1 Espares as buy-bust money. after the laboratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder in the container. While the other members of the team were strategically positioned. if the accused wants to contest the test made. Barangay Palatiw. Mary Joie S. apprehended appellant. SPO3 Matias received information via telephone from a concerned citizen that a certain alias Nick. Since the seizing officer usually has to turn over the seized drugs to the desk officer or some superior officer. with PO1 Espares as poseur-buyer. appellant replied. In this way the drugs would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Magkano ba bibilhin mo? (How much are you buying?). an unsealed plastic sachet containing traces of white crystalline substance. and five empty plastic sachets. PO1 Espares and PO1 Mapula proceeded to. and so on up to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory until the drugs reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it. which he headed. Appellant was brought to the police station wherein the confiscated items were surrendered to an investigator. he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal had been broken. Heeding the pre-arranged signal. and surveilled. meron ka ba diyan? Bibili kami. it is imperative for the officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to seal the same. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . In this way. who would then send a courier to the police crime laboratory with a request that the same be examined to identify the contents. Further. And if someone else brought the unsealed sachet of drugs to the police crime laboratory. while on duty at the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police Force. 2003. That desk officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that the drugs were not tampered with or substituted. SPO3 Matias thus formed a buy-bust team. and confiscated the black plastic case which appellant was holding.m. accompanied by PO1 Espares. PEOPLE V. the Court would be assured that what is retested is the same powder seized from the accused. Case Digest over the need to establish their integrity. opened it and took one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which he handed to PO1 Espares. the other members of the team closed in to assist PO1 Espares who then marked all the seized items including the plastic sachet containing the substance subject of the sale. eto pera at the same time tendering the buy-bust money which appellant took and placed in his right front pocket. was peddling shabu along San Agustin Street. Pasig City. to which PO1 Espares replied Piso lang. On the instructions of SPO3 Matias. GUTIERREZ Facts: At around 5:00 p. The case yielded a pair of scissors.TECSON. the area and confirmed the information. too. on June 16. The prosecutor could then ask questions of the officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to prove that the suspected drugs had not been tampered with or substituted when they left that officer’s hands. the asset. Apparently not having heard the entire utterances. Appellant then drew from his pants back pocket a black plastic case. The team thereafter went to the target area and met with a confidential asset who was to assist them in the operation. should give similar testimony. PO1 Espares thereupon executed the pre-arranged signal. the prosecution would have to present the desk officer or superior officer to whom the seizing officer turned over such article. If the sealing of the seized article had not been made. later identified to be appellant. the police officer should put it in one and seal the same. preferably with adhesive tape that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. and PO1 Mapula and PO1 Michael Familara (PO1 Familara) as members. approached appellant and asked him Pare. Bibili ako ng piso. A. Coupled with the failure to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items adduced were not tainted. At this juncture. The presumption. Mary Joie S. the team spotted the blue Kia van on the opposite side of the street going toward the direction of Commonwealth Avenue. an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. There was no physical inventory and photograph of the shabu allegedly confiscated from appellant. There was likewise no explanation offered for the non-observance of the rule. 9165 with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. Quezon City. in other words. they introduced themselves as police officers to the driver and passenger of the van and informed them that they committed the crime of reckless imprudence and asked for his driver's license. Case Digest Appellant was charged with illegal sale of 0. It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They opened one of the sacks and noticed that it contained several plastic bags containing white crystalline substance. When the police finally intercepted the van. Paragraph 1 of Article II of R. Appellant. the Court notes another lapse of the members of the buy-bust team their failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21. PEOPLE V. Around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. the buy bust teams disregard of the requirements of Section 21 is fatal. members Central Police District received a phone call from an informant that a blue Kia Pregio van with plate number UPN 595 which was being used in the transport of shabu has been seen within the vicinity of Barangay Holy Spirit. Otherwise. in front of Andok's Litson Manok. obtains only where nothing on record suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. QUE MING KHA Facts: On May 16. . .05 gram of shabu and illegal possession of paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking . The police noted that Go was on the driver's seat while Que sat on the passenger's seat. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . A concerned motorist picked up the boy and rushed him to the hospital. A tem was immediately dispatched to the reported place.TECSON. Nicolas Gutierrez y Licuanan. the van hit. No. where the official act in question is irregular on its face. Before reaching Commonwealth Avenue. The police peered through the window of the van and noticed several sacks placed on the floor at the back of the van. or introducing any dangerous drug into the body by two separate Informations Issue: Whether or not accused violated Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Held: The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 1997. In People v. Thus. Each of the nine sacks contained 253 plastic bags which contained around one kilo of the white crystalline substance. In our criminal justice system the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.TECSON. Not one reliable eyewitness pointed to him as having been with Go inside the van when it hit Elmar Cawiling. transport or distributed any regulated drug. Mere possession and/or delivery of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act Regarding the criminal liability of appellant Que. Case Digest The arresting officers thereafter forwarded the seized substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. the Court should listen and listen hard. the Supreme Court made a cautionary warning that "the court must be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually heavy penalties for drug offenses. Go's contention that he did not know that there were illegal drugs inside the van cannot constitute a valid defense. Section 15. Issue: Whether appellants are guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act Held: The Supreme Court found appellant Go guilty of transporting prohibited drugs. Que had nothing to do with the loading and transport of the shabu.5 Both Go and Que claim ignorance about the presence of shabu at the back of the van. The crime under consideration is malum prohibitum. unless authorized by law. lest it locks up a person who has done no wrong. We are not persuaded. When the prosecution itself says it failed to prove Que's guilt. It has been established that Go was driving the van that carried the contraband at the time of its discovery. the Supreme Court acquitted Que. Upon examination. He was therefore caught in the act of transporting a regulated drug without authority which is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Go claimed that he was not aware of the existence of the contraband at the back of the van. Mary Joie S. DIRECT BRIBERY MARIFOSQUE V. PEOPLE Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the substance was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. dispense. but acquitted appellant Que. Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act penalizes "any person who. deliver." To exonerate himself. shall sell. Pagaura. No less than the Solicitor General himself entertains doubt on the guilt of Que and recommends his acquittal. In such case. the lack of criminal intent and good faith do not exempt the accused from criminal liability. Manipon sent a notice to the COMTRUST garnishing the bank accounts of Dominguez. which showed that he was well aware of the illegality of his transaction because had he been engaged in a legitimate deal. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: The Sandiganbayan found accused Nathaniel S. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . dated September 30. "the question raised being factual and for lack of merit. Petitioner further averred that he was only collecting on behalf of the police asset and that he already gave an advance of 1. For one reason or another. was not corroborated by his asset. One of the arresting CIS officers testified that petitioner attempted to give back the money to Yu So Pong when they were about to arrest him. Jr. was assigned to enforce an order of the Minister of Labor. upon motion for reconsideration. the Court reconsidered its resolution and gave due course to the petition. His claim that he previously gave 1000 pesos to his asset. MANIPON V.000 pesos to said asset and only collecting the balance of 4. which is the normal reaction of an innocent man. Case Digest This is a petition for review on certiorari.800. Mary Joie S. Manipon came to this Court on petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the judgment of conviction. Issue: Whether or not petitioner committed Direct Bribery? Held: Yes. Petitioner averred that said money was not for him but as “reward money” for the police asset who demanded that he be given 350 pesos per cylinder tank. even though he was no longer on duty. which assails the September 23. guilty of direct bribery. Petitioner cannot feign innocence and profess good faith since all the indicia point to his guilt and malicious intent.. The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision convicting petitioner of direct bribery. defined and penalized under the 2nd paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. Resolution of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Nazario Marifosque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of direct bribery. The bank agreed to hold the accounts. Petitioner did not introduce his asset or mention his name to Yu So Pong or his daughter at the time of the illegal transaction.. Pursuant to that assignment. 2 Nathaniel S. 1981. decision and the January 3. 2002. 31." 1 However. His solicitous and overly eager conduct in pursuing the robbery incident. The Court dismissed the petition. Manipon. Manipon did not inform the labor arbiter of the garnishment nor did he exert efforts to immediately satisfy the judgment under execution. 2003. The petitioner's persistence in obtaining the monetary reward for the asset although the latter was no longer complaining about the 1000 pesos that he supposedly received earlier. a deputy sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City and Benguet. betrays an intention not altogether altruistic and denotes a corrupt desire on his part to obtain pecuniary benefits from an illegal transaction. Branch IV. which purportedly represented a partial payment of the reward money. Manipon. Jr. he would have faced courageously the arresting officers and indignantly protested the violation of his person.TECSON. Manipon had planned to get Dominguez to acquiesce to a consideration for lifting the garnishment order. 1979. As early as November 9. However. it is hard to believe that Dominguez was not interested in getting said temporary receipt because precisely that was the proof he needed to show that he had partially complied with his legal obligation. The defense theory is so incredible that it leaves no doubt whatsoever in the Court's mind that Manipon is guilty of the crime charged." Dominguez interpreted this to mean that Manipon would withdraw the garnished amount for a consideration. as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General. Indeed. attending to voluminous exhibits and court proceedings. After Manipon left. Issue: Whether or not accused committed direct bribery? Held: Yes. In fact he candidly admitted that he never communicated with the NLRC concerning the garnishment. And yet did he not also claim that Dominguez had framed him up because of a grudge? And if there was really an agreement to alter the judgment. That was also the same excuse he gave for not informing the labor arbiter of the novation. Of course Manipon would have us believe that there was no need for it because he trusted Dominguez and Tabek. Contrary to Manipon's claim. Dominguez agreed and they arranged to meet at the bank later in the afternoon. His lame excuse was that he was very busy in the sheriff's office. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . It is very strange indeed that for such an important agreement that would modify a final judgment. when the two met again. an act which the latter had openly resented. he had already garnished the bank accounts of Dominguez at Comtrust. why did he not inform the labor arbiter about it considering that it was the labor arbiter who had issued the order of execution? Manipon could not give satisfactory explanations because there was no such agreement in the first place. it was returnable within thirty days from October 29. had been marked with irregularities. is a last-minute fabrication to provide proof of the alleged agreement for the trial payment of the judgment debt. He returned the writ unsatisfied only on February 20. Manipon told Dominguez that the money could not be withdrawn. no one took the bother of putting it down on paper.00 in fifty-peso bills which were then authenticated. Case Digest Manipon's help was sought by Dominguez in the withdrawal of the garnished account. Manipon's behavior at the very outset. Manipon told Dominguez that he "can remedy the withdrawal so they will have something for the New Year. Aguana were able to put up P700. Sanchez and a Col. Xeroxed and dusted with fluorescent powder. 22 Clearly. 1979. but he did not notify the labor arbiter so that the corresponding order for the payment by the bank of the garnished amount could be made and the sum withdrawn immediately to satisfy the judgment under execution. Dominguez confided the offer to NISA Sub-Station Commander Luisito Sanchez. They then hatched up a plan to entrap Manipon by paying him with marked money the next day.TECSON. 1980 although by its express terms. The temporary receipt 20 adduced by Manipon. Col. Mary Joie S. Manipon maintains that Dominguez had framed him up because of a grudge. He said that in 1978 he and Flora had levied execution against several vehicles owned by Dominguez. 82-2964 and assigned for investigation to the petitioner who was then an Assistant City Fiscal.00 was illegally seized because there was no valid March warrant and therefore inadmissible. otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. paragraph (b). 2) search of a moving vehicle. petitioner's guilt. as amended. The petitioner states: Assuming in gratia argumenti. After trial the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding accused Lauro G. The principal issue is whether or not the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as a "contract or transaction" within the purview of Sec.A. Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of Bribery? Held: Yes. Soriano. These are: 1) search incidental to an arrest. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. and 3) seizure of evidence in plain view. subparagraph (b) of Rep. for Violation of Section 3.00 in bills were marked by the NBI which had to supply one-half thereof. the facts make out a case of Direct Bribery defined and penalized under the provision of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and not a violation of Section 3. otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. 3 (b) of R. Tan reported the demand to the National Bureau of Investigation which set up an entrapment. which is not the offense charged and is not likewise included in or is necessarily included in the offense charged. Manipon has pointed out that the P1. The prosecution showed that: the accused Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Act 3019. Mary Joie S. if at all the offense of Direct Bribery. of Republic Act No. The rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule.S. There are at least three exceptions to the rule recognized in this jurisdiction. No.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case.000. The evidence for the prosecution clearly and undoubtedly support.. which is for violation of Section 3. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: The City Fiscal of Quezon City lodged a complaint with the accused Thomas N. as Principal in the Information. as amended. 7393 which reads as follows: The undersigned Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor accuses LAURO G. Tan of qualified theft. Because Tan was hard put to raise the required amount only P2. Act 3019.000. 3019. No. SORIANO vs. A motion to reconsider the decision was denied by the Sandiganbayan. hence the instant petition.TECSON. for Violation of Section 3. The case was docketed as I. Jr. SORIANO.000. paragraph (b) of Republic Act 3019. 3019. as amended. subparagraph (b) of Rep. The argument is untenable. In the course of the investigation the petitioner demanded P4. This falls on the first exception. Case Digest Dwelling on one last point. On this issue the petition is highly impressed with merit. 8. Estrella Mutia was employed with NIA on a project basis and she wasterminated on December 31.She was the personnel supervisor of the regional office of the National IrrigationAdministration (NIA) in Tacloban City. perforce leaving no other interpretation than that the expressed purpose and object is to embrace all kinds of transaction between the government and other party wherein the public officer would intervene under the law. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva According to Mrs. 3019.A certain Mrs. if at all is Direct Bribery. 1982. the Act would have so stated in the "Definition of Terms". 3 (b) of R.000.TECSON.00 which was allegedly solicited. No. We agree with the petitioner that it was error for the Sandiganbayan to have convicted him of violating Sec. Mutia. 5. Wrong. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Petitioner Leonor Formilleza has been with the government service for around 20 years. P2. Neither was it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. (Comment. Her duties include theprocessing of the appointment papers of employees. Therefore. In the light of the foregoing. however. is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner. pending with the government. Section 2 thereof. like a contract. whether commercial. A reading of the information which has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed. civil or administrative in nature.000. she tooksteps to obtain CRIMINALLAW 2 . she continued working. that the act of dismissing the criminal complaint pending before petitioner was related to the exercise of the function of his office. which may or may not constitute a crime. The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted of bribery under the Revised Penal Code because to do so would be violative of as constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. the respondents claim: A reading of the above-quoted provision would show that the term 'transaction' as used thereof is not limited in its scope or meaning to a commercial or business transaction but includes all kinds of transaction. Leyte since October 1. (Petition. in consideration of P4. 1983. Pursuant to the verbal instructions of the regional directorof the Administration.00 of which was allegedly received.) Upon the other hand. Mary Joie S. otherwise. This must be so. INDIRECT BRIBERY FORMELIZA V. p. p. A transaction. But it did not. the petitioner undertook or promised to dismiss a criminal complaint pending preliminary investigation before him.) It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract.A. Case Digest is a public officer. it is with pristine clarity that the offense proved. profession or calling.Sergeant Abanes took photographs of the sequence of events. Florida Sevilla and Mrs. Mutia occupied a table and were joinedby some officemates – Mrs. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan isSET ASIDE. 1984. while the PC officials occupiedseparate tables. includingthe right of suffrage. essential The ingredient ofindirect bribery as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the public officerconcerned must have accepted the gift of material consideration. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign. When sheapproached the regional director about it.Mutia reported her problem to the Philippine Constabulary (PC) authorities in the province. either a permanent Case Digest or at the least a renewed appointment. petitioner and Mrs. Mary Joie S. Held: Petitioner Leonor Formilleza is ACQUITTED. circumstances or act to showsuch acceptance is not sufficient to lead the Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Efren Abanes and Ignacio Labong aboutthe arrangement. arranged for an entrapmentwith marked money bills worth P100 as the entrapment equipment. At the canteen. There must be a clearintention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider the same ashis own property from then on. Dimaano. and public censure. An exception to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition ofthis character calls for application in this case. Sergeant Abanes brought along a camera to document the entrapment. who are colleagues of Mrs.TECSON. Atthat moment. Mutia thennotified the PC authorities. There are substantial facts and circumstanceswhich appear to be favorable to the accused but which were not carefully considered by theSandiganbayan. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner accepted the supposed bribe money. Mutia’s husband. Mrs.The PC officials. On February 27. The petitioner was arrestedand was brought to the PC crime where she was found positive for ultra-violet powder. On February 29. Sergeants Eddie Bonjoc. the PC officials approached the petitioner and held her hand holding the money. such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or pocketing thesame. Mrs. 1984. The petitioner elevated the case to the SupremeCourt by way of the Instant Petition for Review. she was advised to see the petitioner but the latterrefused to attend to her appointment unless given some money. Mutia maintains that after taking the snacks she handed the marked money bills underthe table with her right hand to the petitioner who received the money with her left hand. The respondent court found the petitioner guilty of Indirect Bribery and sentenced her tofour months of arresto mayor. Mutia agreed to meet at the canteen at 9:00am. suspension from public office.Mrs.the petitioner and Mrs. The failure to do so is most unfortunate considering that the Sandiganbayanis the first and last recourse of the accused before her case reaches the Supreme Courtwhere findings of fact are generally conclusive and binding. consequently. NUESTRO Facts: Rina V.00. Mutia at thecanteen. Nuestro to immediately enforce the writ of execution against the defendant. they saw the respondent talking with counsel of defendant and that the respondent was hesitantin proceeding to carry out the writ of execution. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHUA vs. counsel for defendant arrived and showed them the official receipt of payment of the supersede as bond and so he discontinued the execution proceedings. respondent went to the premises in question and when he arrived there. they broke the padlock and entered portion B of the premises. the next day. filed an administrative charge against the respondent for allegedly delaying the enforcement of the writ of execution in her favor after demanding and getting from her the sum of 1500 pesos. The court issued a writ of execution. Issue: Whether Chua and counsel be charged of corruption of public official when they gave to therespondent the amount of 1500 pesos in consideration of enforcing the writ of execution. On September 12. Sevilla and Mrs. Case Digest court to conclude that the crime of indirect briberyhas been committed. Chua being the complainant. but he was told by the judge not to proceed because a supersede as bond was filed. they agreed to give 1000 pesos to the respondent. in the afternoon of the same day.TECSON. 1988. however. one of whom took pictures and the petitioner shouted at Mrs. and for the purpose. If the petitioner knew and was prepared to accept the money from Mrs. Sevilla she did not see the alleged passing of the moneyunder the table.Mutia. the petitioner would not have invited her officemates Mrs. According to Mrs. Mary Joie S. and at the insistence of the complainant. 1988. it may not be said that the guilt of the accusedin a criminal proceeding has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Dimaanoto join them. he found the premises locked. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Chua and counsel asked respondent Deputy-Sheriff Edgardo D. To hold otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within their physical custody some gift. Nevertheless. Respondent received the amount of 1000 pesos on September 12. Respondent even asked for a additionalamount of P500. What she was sure was that when they were about to leave the canteen. Without the standard of certainty. Later. “What are you trying to do to me?” The reaction of petitioner is far from one with a guiltyconscience. twomen approached petitioner. money or otherproperty. TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest While we cannot fault the sheriff for his hesitance to immediately carry out the writ of execution because the defendant still had time to file supersedeas bond to stay execution, we find duly proved by preponderance of evidence that the respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro received the amount of P1,500.00 from the complainant and her lawyer as a consideration for the performance of his work. This amount is distinct from the sheriffs fee and expenses of execution and was not intended for that purpose. It was indeed a bribe given and received by respondent deputy sheriff from the complainant. RA 3019 – ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT CHANG V. PEOPLE Facts: Roberto Chang, the Municipal Treasurer of Makati and Pacifico San Mateo, the Chief of Operations, Business Revenue Examination, Audit Division, Makati Treasurer's Office found out that GDI has a tax deficiency of P494,000. The Office of the Treasurer then issued an Assessment notice to GDI to pay the unpayed taxes. GDI asked for a validation of the assessment and petitioners asked for a meeting with GDI representatives. On that meeting, petitioners offered GDI that if they could pay P125,000, the tax would be “settled.” Thinking that it was the right tax assessment, GDI prepared P125,000 in check. Petitioners made it clear that it was not the tax due and gave two options: either to pay the petitioners P125,000 or pay the Municipality P494,000. GDI then alerted the NBI and the petitioners were caught in an entrapment operation. Issue: Whether petitioners were indeed guilty of corrupt practices by illiciting bribe to fix tax deficits. Held: Yes. The fact that petitioners willingness to meet with GDI representatives despite the receipt of the latter of deficiency assessments notices to settle tax deficiencies, refusal to accept of the initial payment of P125,000 for the municipality, and the petitioners' handing over to GDI representatives the Certificate of Examination on which was annotated "NO Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest TAX LIABILITY INVOLVED" establishes that the criminal intent originated from the minds of petitioners to illicit bribes. BUSTILOO V. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: The Office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner Anuncio Bustillo, then incumbent mayor of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, and his daughter Rowena Bustillo in the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Official Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code by making it appear that municipal funds were expended for the purchase of lumber from Estigoy Lumber when, in truth and in fact, as both accused well knew, said lumber were actually purchased from Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned by accused Rowena G. Bustillo. In view of the criminal charges against the petitioner, Sandiganbayan then suspended the petitioner from office for 90 days. The petitioner argues that Sandiganbayan has no basis to suspend him because he contends that the Information filed against him and his co-accused is invalid because it failed to allege the element of gain, the party benefited or prejudiced by the falsification, or that the "integrity of the [falsified] document was tarnished.” Issue: Whether the Information charged against the accused was valid to justify the Sandiganbayan’s resolution of suspending the accused. Held: The information is valid. The allegation of intent to gain, the party benefited or prejudiced by the falsification, or tarnishing of a document’s integrity, is not essential to maintain a charge for falsification of official documents. Such charge stands if the facts alleged in the Information fall under any of the modes of committing falsification under Article 171. Suspension from office is mandatory whenever a valid Information charges an incumbent public officer with (1) violation of RA 3019; (2) violation of Title 7, Book II of the RPC; (3) any offense involving fraud upon government; or (4) any offense involving fraud upon public funds or property. While petitioner correctly contends that the charge filed against him and his co-accused does not fall under Title 7, Book II but under Title 4, Book II of the RPC, it nevertheless involves "fraud upon government or public funds or property. TEVES V. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: That on or about February 4, 1992, and sometime subsequent thereto, in Valencia, Negros Oriental, Philippines, accused Edgar Y. Teves, a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental, committing the crime-herein charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of his official functions, and conspiring and confederating with his wife, herein accused Teresita Teves, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause the issuance of the appropriate business permit/license to operate the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center in favor of one Daniel Teves, said accused Edgar Y. Teves having a direct financial or pecuniary Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest interest therein considering the fact that said cockpit arena is actually owned and operated by him and accused Teresita Teves. Issue Whether a public official charged with violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for unlawful intervention, in his official capacity, in the issuance of a license in favor of a business enterprise in which he has a pecuniary interest may be convicted, together with his spouse, of violation of that same provision premised on his mere possession of such interest. Held: Petitioner Teresita Teves must, however, be acquitted. Conspiracy must be established separately from the crime itself and must meet the same degree of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, the evidence must reasonably be strong enough to show community of criminal design. Certainly, there is no conspiracy in just being married to an erring spouse. For a spouse or any person to be a party to a conspiracy as to be liable for the acts of the others, it is essential that there be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design. Except when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act must consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or of moral assistance to his co-conspirators. We find no sufficient evidence that petitioner Teresita Teves conspired with, or knowingly induced or caused, her husband to commit the second mode of violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law. The acts of petitioner Teresita Teves can hardly pass as acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit the violation of the Anti-Graft Law that would render her equally liable as her husband. If ever she did those acts, it was because she herself was an owner of the cockpit. Not being a public official, she was not prohibited from holding an interest in cockpit. Prudence, however, dictates that she too should have divested herself of her ownership over the cockpit upon the effectivity of the LGC of 1991; otherwise, as stated earlier, considering her property relation with her husband, her ownership would result in vesting direct prohibited interest upon her husband. In criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that the accused is either responsible for its commission or has conspired with the malefactor. Since no conspiracy was proved, the acquittal of petitioner Teresita Teves is, therefore, in order. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS BAHILIDAD V. PEOPLE Facts: Accused Amelia C. Zoleta (Zoleta) and Violeta Bahilidad (Bahilidad), are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Public Documents under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. In the instant case, petitioner was found guilty of conspiring with Zoleta and other public officials in the commission of the Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 The Sandiganbayan faulted petitioner for immediately encashing the check. Petitioner is a public officer occupying the position of asupply officer at the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .Two demand letters were received by the petitioner from the Provincial Treasurer to submit aliquidation of the 18000 pesos cash advance. The ASIDE. however. Case Digest crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents. There can be no dispute about thepresence of the first three elements. Zoleta appealed questioning the decision of sandiganbayan regarding the presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is the product of intentionality on the part of the cohorts. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence. Held: Yes. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. processing or disbursement of the check issued in her name. 1988. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself. insisting that she should have deposited the check first. and. Held: The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with whichhe is chargeable.Whether the return of the misappropriated amount extinguish the criminal liability of theoffender. the petition is GRANTED. it is essential that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is not presumed. Issue: Whether the petitioner be held guilty of malversation of public funds. as supply officer of the Office of the ProvincialEngineer of Marinduque. Undeniably. we find petitioners participation in the crime not adequately proven with moral certainty. during and after the commission of the crime. had no hand in the preparation. as a private individual. The petitioner failed to do so. Petitioner's receipt of theamount is evidenced by his signature appearing in Disbursement Voucher No. WHEREFORE. the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. shall be prima facie evidence thathe has put such missing fund or property to personal uses.TECSON. Mary Joie S. for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before. petitioner. the evidence must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. petitioner Davalos. In the instant case. PEOPLE Facts: On January 14. 103-880-08. For conspiracy to exist. all taken together. Issue: Whether or not sandiganbayan erred in their decision regarding the presence of conspiracy. Petitioner is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt assailed Decision is SET DAVALOS vs. received from the provincial cashier a cash advance of 18000 pesos forthe procurement of working tools for a certain “NALGO” project. upon demand by any duly authorized officer. Such insistence is unacceptable. or reimbursement of fundsmisappropriated. she even practically admitted to having assisted Bas in covering up such shortages TETANGCO V. A routine audit examination of the accountability of the petitioner was conducted. 1987[13] (which. Petitioner.In malversation of public funds. it does not specify or cite what those instances are. as reflected in the above-quoted Deputy Ombudsman’s Order of July 28. nonetheless. CHAN vs. What degree of error suffices. indemnification. upon demand by any duly authorized officer. SANDIGANBAYAN Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Issue: Whether petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds.TECSON. Mary Joie S. could have shown that she was not remiss in her supervision of Bas. payment. A demand letter was issued to the petitioner to restitute the missing funds and explain the shortage. The auditor thus committed no error when she charged to petitioner’s account the shortage in the collections actually done by Bas. A second audit was conducted. 2001 finding her guilty of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217. Petitioner was thus indicted before the Regional Trial Court for Malversation of Public Funds. shall beprima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. failed to do so. Case Digest Marinduque. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: The petitioner Pamela Chan seeks a reversal of the Sandiganbayan decision of August 28. by way of rebutting the disputable presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code which states: The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable. hereceives money or property belonging to the provincial government for which he is bound toaccount.[14] was cited by COA Director Alquizalas when he opposed petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation before the Ombudsman) recognizes that a re-audit may be conducted in certain instances. While COA Memorandum 87-511 dated October 20. does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender which. In that capacity. after the commission of the crime. there is no hard and fast rule. where the auditor found a shortage in petitioner’s cash accountability. Petitioner. at most. can merely affect the accused's civil liability and be considered amitigating circumstance being analogous to voluntary surrender. The audit was conducted during the leave of the petitioner. Not only did she omit to report the shortages of Bas to the proper authority upon her discovery thereof. Held: The burden of proof that the subject audit reports contain errors sufficient to merit a re-audit lies with petitioner. however. 1997. The Ombudsman adopted his recommendation. and (3) the public use for which the public funds orproperty were applied is different from Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Jr. Mayor Atienza refunded P20. whimsical or despotic. This petition for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the Order of public respondent Ombudsman which dismissed the Complaint of petitioner Amando Tetangco against private respondent Mayor Jose L.000 cash financial assistanceto the chairman and P1. the offender shall also suffer the penaltyof temporary special disqualification. are: (1) the offender isan accountable public officer. theComplaint had no verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. Art. Case Digest Facts: On March 8. any damages or embarrassment shallhave resulted to the public service. petitioner filed his Complaint before the Ombudsman alleging that on January 26. 220. The Ombudsman found no evidence to proveprobable cause. not the Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over the caseand the same case had previously been filed before the COMELEC. He asserted that it was theCommission on Elections (COMELEC). The Complaint charges Mayor Atienza with illegal use of public funds. and these had passed prior audit and accounting. Complainant did not cite any law or ordinance thatprovided for an original appropriation of the amount used for the financial assistance citedand that it was diverted from the appropriation it was intended for. District I. the action taken by the Ombudsman cannot be characterized asarbitrary. the Complaintmerely alleged that the disbursement for financial assistance was neither authorized by lawnor justified as a lawful expense. Zone 8. 105. Mary Joie S.220 of the Revised Penal Code provides:Art. if by reason of such misapplication. likewise deniedpetitioner’s motion for reconsideration. – Any public officer who shall apply anypublic fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of thesum misapplied.TECSON. Furthermore. Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported bycircumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that theperson accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. 2001. Mayor Atienza denied the allegations and sought the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for forum-shopping.000 to each tano of Barangay.. through its Over-all Deputy Ombudsman. llegal use of public funds or property. In either case. onMarch 5. On this matter. The mayor maintainedthat the expenses were legal and justified. Allegedly. the same being supported by disbursementvouchers.In his Counter-Affidavit. the penalty shall be afine from 5 to 50 percent of the sum misapplied. (2) he applies public funds or property under hisadministration to some public use. Held: In this case. for violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code(RPC). capricious. Atienza. 2002.000 or the total amount of the financialassistance from the City of Manila when such disbursement was not justified as a lawfulexpense. 2001. The elements of the offense. private respondent Mayor Atienza gave P3. The Office of the Ombudsman. Here. The Investigating Officer recommended the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of evidenceand merit.If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted. Issue: Whether accused committed a violation of the anti-graft law. also known as technical malversation. 1989 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto. the third element is not present in this case. respectively. Patently. DAarkis. On or about November. being then the Administrative Officer V of the said school. in Jolo. NenitaAguil and Mahmud Darkis. Only appellant was found guilty and sentenced by the Sandiganbayan in its decision. is therefore absent. to the damage and prejudice of public service . without lawful authority. Case No. were both acquitted. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . It is pertinent to note the high priority which laborers’ wages enjoy as claims against the employers’ funds and resources. unlawfully and feloniously. or more commonly known as technical malversation. Held: There is no dispute that the money was spent for a public purpose – payment of the wages of laborers working on various projects in the municipality. 23261 of the crime of illegal use of public funds defined and penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. the amount of P40. Aguil. both public officers. the Sandiganbayan amended appellant’s sentence by deleting the temporary special disqualification imposed upon her Issue: Whether there was unlawful intent on the appellant’s part. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The third element of the crime of technical malversation which requires that the public fund used should have been appropriated by law. it isnecessary that public funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other thanthat provided for by law or ordinance. there must be a diversion of the funds from the purpose for which they had been originally appropriated by law orordinance. In fine. which amount was appropriated for the payment of the salary differentials of secondary school teachers of the said school. apply for the payment of wages of casuals.00. PEOPLE Facts: Convicted by the Sandiganbayan in its Crim. while in the performance of their functions. Abdulla is now before this Court on petition for review under Rule 45. did then and there willfully. the above-named accused: Norma Abdulla and Nenita P. ABDULLA V. conspiring and confederating with Mahmud I. the third and fourth elements of the crime defined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code are lacking in this case. Whether the essential elements of the crime of technical malversation is present. appellant Norma A. Settled is the rule that conviction should rest on the strength of evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. and as such by reason of their positions and duties are accountable for public funds under their administration. of the Sulu State College. Sulu.000. Upon motion for reconsideration. Acquittal is thus in order. Case Digest the purpose for which they were originallyappropriated by law or ordinance. It is clear that for technical malversation to exist. being then the President and cashier. The Court notes that there is no particular appropriation for salary differentials of secondary school teachers of the Sulu State College in RA 6688. also a public officer.Appellant’s co-accused.TECSON. To constitute the crime. Mary Joie S. " Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Hence. When a nurse. was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and was sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to pay the heirs of the victim P50. Parungao admitted that he received the said amount. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: The petitioner. AYUMAN Facts: This is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court. a public officer. forgive your father. unless they have both have the same essential elements which are alleged in the information. Sugar Ray was buried. 220. this appeal. 1997. the wife of the accused. she went to the precinct and gave a testimony to SPO1 Catulong against her husband for killing their son. An autopsy was done to the dead body of Sugar Ray. 250. it appeared that he was dead on arrival." Afterwards. Hence. don't leave us. The couple then went to the Office of the Prosecutor to "tell the truth. took the child's vital signs.TECSON. the petition was granted. Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him for on the violation of Art.000. the elements of the crime of malversation of public funds and illegal use of public funds are distinct. "Dong. Conrado Ayuman. On April 22. 1997. And Oscar Parungao was acquitted. Neither did he report for work from April 23 to May 21. On April 23. The decision of Sandiganbayan was reversed. Cagayan de Oro City where the accused. Case Digest PARUNGAO V. rushed her five-year old son Sugar Ray to the Emergency Room of the Northern Mindanao Medical Center. Dong. was charged of malversation of public funds for allegedly appropriating to his personal use the amount of P185. Mary Joie S. At that time. Pampanga. Ermita Ayuman. for the labor of the different barangays in the municipality. Parungao claims that he cannot be convicted of a crime different and distinct from that charged in the information. but was disbursed for the materials to be used and the rest was used to pay upon the insistence of the municipal mayor of Porac. Brach 19. Whereas. his son was already buried. 1997 at around 10:15 in the morning. Ermita's statement was noted in the emergency room record. Ermita cried and shouted. DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUSTANCES PEOPLE V. Held: The accused has the constitutional right that he can only be convicted of the crime with which he is charged. The accused was nowhere to be found. Sandiganbayan acquitted him but convicted him for the crime of illegal use of public funds.00 for the construction of the Jalung road in Porac. Oscar Parungao. During the burial. Florencio came to their house.000 as exemplary damages. The key element here is the relationship of the offender with the victim. of the accused or any of his ascendants or descendants. accompanied by his grandson. were as convincing as direct evidence and as such. and (3) the deceased is the father. Case Digest Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of parricide. Such a heartless conduct is condemnable and is extremely contrary to human nature. Leah. PEOPLE V. or his spouse. Erlinda. negate the innocence of the accused. And also. whether legitimate or illegitimate. 1995. Otherwise stated. mother or child. bathed in his own blood and lying by the side of the rice paddy. (2) the deceased is killed by the accused. admitted having an illicit relationship with Florencio. the circumstances cited by the trial court. The elements of the crime of parricide are: (1) a person is killed. Luceno fled towards the house of his neighbor. wife of appellant. Erlinda ran swiftly to Luceno’s place but Florencio was already dead. Young Reymark ran back to his parents’ house and told his mother. Appellant suddenly arrived and stabbed Florencio five times using a sharp pointed knife locally known as plamingco. that accused committed the crime of parricide. Mary Joie S. what transpired. Issue: Whether the accused is entitled to invoke the defense of death under exceptional circumstances under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. In the morning of February 21. while she was breastfeeding her child. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . PUEDAN Facts: Florencio Ilar. the prosecution established beyond a shadow of doubt.000 as civil indemnity and P25. Terrified of what he witnessed. Their relationship had been going on for two years and was known in their Barangay. specifically on the basis of circumstantial evidence. although on the verge of death. for prompt medical treatment. went to the house of appellant Luceno Tulo to buy a piglet. Reymark. Every father is expected to love his children and shower them with acts of affection and tenderness. The body remained where it had fallen until the arrival of the police later that day. Held: The decision of the trial court was affirmed with modification and the accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P50. All the above elements were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. when viewed in their entirety. and was looking for her husband. Florencio told Luceno that he wanted to buy a piglet from him.TECSON. Here is a father who mercilessly abused his own son and refused to bring him to the hospital. Luceno was fashioning out a mortar for pounding palay near his house when Florencio and Reymark arrived. through circumstantial evidence. in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying the adjacent room of the mahjong room were hit as well. which was inconsequential to the killing. He was not able to work for 1 and ½ months because of his wounds and he was receiving P1000 as salary. By invoking this defense. Issue: Whether the trial court is correctly convicted the accused of complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder instead of entering a judgment of conviction under Art. The accused who was peeping above the build-in cabinet ran away. (2) that he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter. appellant must prove that he actually surprised his wife and the victim in flagrante delicto. 247 Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Arnold was hit in the kidney. Case Digest The Supreme Court ruled that by raising Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code as his defense. all that appellant established was the victim's promiscuity. appellant admitted that he killed the victim. He spent 15K for hospital while his wife spent 1K for the same purpose. PEOPLE VS. appellant waives his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears the burden of proving the following: (1) that a legally married person (or a parent) surprises his spouse (or his daughter. and that he killed the man during or immediately thereafter. He found him playing and then he fired at him 3 times with rifle. What is important is that his version of the stabbing incident is diametrically opposed to the convincing accounts of the prosecution witnesses. the RTC believes that accused is deserving of executive clemency. she pushed her paramour who got his revolver. He went to look for a firearm and got a rifle. and (3) that he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. not of full pardon but of substantial if not radical reduction or commutation of his death sentence. Mary Joie S. ABARCA Facts: Accused Francisco Abarca has a wife who had an illicit relationship with Khingsley Paul Koh which started when he was reviewing for the 1983 Bar exam in Manila and his wife was left in Tacloban. Koh was hit. The lower court found the accused guilty of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and sentenced him to suffer death penalty. he found his wife Jenny and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. He went back to his house but was not able to find his wife and her paramour so he went to the mahjong session where Khingsley hangouts. Upon reaching home. under 18 years of age and living with him). considering the circumstances of the crime. However. To satisfy this burden. When the wife noticed the accused. Koh died instantaneously but the spouses were able to survive due to time medical assistance. However.TECSON. in front of Andok's Litson Manok. QUE MING KHA Facts: On May 16. the team spotted the blue Kia van on the opposite side of the street going toward the direction of Commonwealth Avenue. 247 of RPC are present in this case: legally married surprises spouse in the act of sex with another person. The police noted that Go was on the driver's seat while Que sat on the passenger's seat. and that he kills any or both of them in the act or immediately after. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour in the act of illicit copulation. Mary Joie S. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage. Before reaching Commonwealth Avenue. one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act.TECSON. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. the rule presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. 247 of RPC. When the police finally intercepted the van. the Supreme Court held that the accused is only liable for the crime of less serious physical injuries thru simple negligence or imprudence under 2nd paragraph of Article 365. the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused. Case Digest The accused is entitled to the defense of death under exceptional circumstance under Art. A tem was immediately dispatched to the reported place. the van hit. members Central Police District received a phone call from an informant that a blue Kia Pregio van with plate number UPN 595 which was being used in the transport of shabu has been seen within the vicinity of Barangay Holy Spirit. In this case. Articvle 247 only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. they introduced themselves as police officers to the driver and passenger of the van and informed them that they committed the crime of reckless imprudence and asked for his driver's license. Although an hour has passed between the sexual act and the shooting of Koh. 1997. Quezon City. MURDER PEOPLE V. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse and must not have been influenced by external factors. Around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The accused did not have the intent to kill the spouses. and not frustrated murder. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the accused was not committing murder when he discharged rifle upon the deceased. Although as a rule. A concerned motorist picked up the boy and rushed him to the hospital. The foregoing elements of Art. Regarding the physical injuries sustained by the Amparado spouses. Go claimed that he was not aware of the existence of the contraband at the back of the van. Issue: Whether appellants are guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act Held: The Supreme Court found appellant Go guilty of transporting prohibited drugs. Thus. the Court should listen and listen hard. The crime under consideration is malum prohibitum. Pagaura. but acquitted appellant Que. No less than the Solicitor General himself entertains doubt on the guilt of Que and recommends his acquittal. the substance was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. shall sell. transport or distributed any regulated drug. Go's contention that he did not know that there were illegal drugs inside the van cannot constitute a valid defense. In such case. dispense. Upon examination. Case Digest The police peered through the window of the van and noticed several sacks placed on the floor at the back of the van. PEOPLE V.TECSON. When the prosecution itself says it failed to prove Que's guilt. Section 15. Each of the nine sacks contained 253 plastic bags which contained around one kilo of the white crystalline substance. lest it locks up a person who has done no wrong. It has been established that Go was driving the van that carried the contraband at the time of its discovery.5 Both Go and Que claim ignorance about the presence of shabu at the back of the van. We are not persuaded. Mere possession and/or delivery of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act Regarding the criminal liability of appellant Que. He was therefore caught in the act of transporting a regulated drug without authority which is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. In our criminal justice system the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Que had nothing to do with the loading and transport of the shabu. CORICOR Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the Supreme Court acquitted Que. deliver. the lack of criminal intent and good faith do not exempt the accused from criminal liability. the Supreme Court made a cautionary warning that "the court must be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually heavy penalties for drug offenses. Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act penalizes "any person who." To exonerate himself. unless authorized by law. The arresting officers thereafter forwarded the seized substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. They opened one of the sacks and noticed that it contained several plastic bags containing white crystalline substance. Mary Joie S. Not one reliable eyewitness pointed to him as having been with Go inside the van when it hit Elmar Cawiling. In People v. not contradicted by the same Catalina Regis. appellant is found guilty of the offense of having killed Pedro Lego as punished by article 247 of the Revised Penal Code and. he will kill them and would forget that Lego is his uncle. appears not to tally with the fact that. MALLARI Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . and the evidence for the defense on October 21 and 22. Conjugal fidelity committed by a married woman and her paramour is punished. For such acts of conjugal infidelity. The great majority of them are left unpunishable. in effect. Mary Joie S. he went twice to her to complain about the illicit relations between Pedro Lego and Isabel. Under article 334. by article 333 of the Revised Penal Code with from 4 months to 6 years of imprisonment. article 247. some punishable with short terms of imprisonment. one Saturnino Caaya. Such a twisted logic seems possible only in a paranoiac mind. 1941 for the prosecution. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pedro Lego in the sum of P2. by article 334. and to pay the costs.TECSON. 000. and the one committed by a husband and his mistress. because she had a paramour. 1941. however. 4 months and 1 day of banishment. as adultery. and to indemnify the heirs of Pedro Lego in the sum of P2. For all the foregoing. The evidence was presented on October 20 and 21. is sentenced to 2 years. to the extent that appellant manifested to Catalina that if he should surprise Lego in flagrant copulation with Isabel. others with simple banishment. 1941. accordingly. It is high time to relegate article 247 to where it properly belongs. confers to the offended spouse the power to inflict the supreme penalty of death. the death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. The banishment provided for the killer is intended more for his protection than as a penalty. The court applied in the case at bar Art 247. PEOPLE V. according to the testimony of the accused. not all cases of conjugal infidelity committed by a husband is punishable. and still others not punishable at all. as testified to by Catalina Regis. to the memory of the sins that humanity promised to herself never to commit again.000. Case Digest Reclusion perpetua was sentenced to the appellant. as concubinage. 247 of the RPC? Held: A careful weighing of the evidence both of the prosecution and the defense leads us to the conclusion that appellant's version as to the circumstance under which Pedro Lego was killed is the more credible. opines otherwise. setting aside the appealed decision. That appellant should have gone to the house of Severino Regis to invite Pedro Lego and his wife to come to appellant's house so as to advise Isabel. The majority of the Court. having been found by the lower court guilty of murder committed on September 15. Six witnesses testified for the prosecution. No fiscal will think of prosecuting the husband who should indulge in sexual intercourse with discreet mistresses or with prostitutes. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant committed the crime of murder under Art 248 or death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances under Art. with imprisonment from 6 months and 4 years and 2 months for the erring husband and banishment for the mistress. Mary Joie S. a person who kills another “by means of a motor vehicle” is guilty of murder. Thus. Philippines. Metro Manila. The case of People v. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of Joseph. the above-named accused did then and there willfully. PEOPLE VS WHISENHUNT Facts: On or about September 24. attack. Appreciating the qualifying circumstance of use of motor vehicle. The accused therein shot the victim. Case Digest During the basketball game at the barangay basketball court. Upon catching up with him. but Joseph was able to run away. Issue: Whether or not the use of a motor vehicle is a qualifying circumstance for the crime of murder? Held: The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the truck ran over the latter. Rufino hit him with the truck. the use of motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder. it convicted Rufino of murder. In the present case. in the Municipality of San Juan. thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death and thereafter outraged or scoffed her corpse by then and there chopping off her head and different parts of her body. In the said case. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Joseph and Liza (wife) were watching as well as Rufino and his brothers. unlawfully and feloniously.) Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of abuse of strength is present. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . which caused the latter’s death.TECSON. with intent to kill and taking advantage of superior strength. should be the penalty to be imposed on Rufino. arrived and attempted to stab Joseph. 1993. the police patrol jeep was merely used by the accused therein in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to the place where it was dumped. reclusion perpetua. In view of the absence of an aggravating circumstance and the presence of one mitigating circumstance. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. not death. Issue: 1. as a result of which Joseph died instantly. When they were not able to catch up with him. the truck itself was used to kill the victim by running over him. who were then carrying bladed weapons. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. which caused his instantaneous death. assault and use personal violence upon the person of one Elsa Elsie Santos Castillo by then and there stabbing her with a bladed weapon in different parts of her body. Muñoz cited by Rufino finds no application to the present case. assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. thus qualifying the killing to murder. After the arrest of another suspect. that accused-appellant deliberately took advantage of his superior strength in overpowering Elsa. nobody witnessed the actual killing.TECSON. There ought to be enough proof of the relative strength of the aggressor and the victim. Issue: Whether or not the element of treachery is present qualifying the crime to murder.) Yes. PEOPLE VS CONTINENTE Facts: It appears that appellant Donato Continente and several other John Does were initially charged with the crimes of murder and frustrated murder in two (2) separate Information dated June 20. and it is not indicated in any of the pieces of physical evidence. The mere decapitation of the victims head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. On the contrary. the other circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the victim was correctly appreciated by the trial court. Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .S. Then. Juanito Itaas. establish that accused-appellant committed the crime with abuse of superior strength. this Court observed from viewing the photograph of accused-appellant that he has a rather small frame. Nowhere in Demetrio’s testimony. Joaquin Vinuya. is both revolting and horrifying. among the other accused. 1989 in Davao City. Itaas. James N. In this case. he strewed the dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside. 2. The fact that the victim was a woman does not. the viewer cannot help but feel utter pity for the sub-human manner of disposing of her remains. accused-appellant not only beheaded Elsa.) Whether or not scoffing of the victim's body is to be appreciated in court to qualify the crime to murder. leaving them to rot on the ground. At the same time. The sight of Elsa’s severed body parts on the ground. filed two (2) separate amended information for murder and frustrated murder to include Juanito T. In this case. with prior leave of court. the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not adequately proved and cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant. He further cut up her body like pieces of meat. Abuse of superior strength must be shown and clearly established as the crime itself. Held: 1. vividly depicted in the photographs offered in evidence. Col. the prosecution. 1989 at the corner of Tomas Morato Street and Timog Avenue in Quezon City which caused the death of U. Mary Joie S.) The answer is in the negative. on August 27. Rowe while seriously wounding his driver. by itself. Hence. 1989 in connection with the shooting incident on April 21. Case Digest 2. Often. Metro Manila.[74] The evidence clearly shows that the mode of execution was deliberately adopted by the perpetrators to ensure the commission of the crime without the least danger unto themselves arising from the possible resistance of their victims. Joaquin Vinuya. Issue: Whether or not Treachery is attendant in the case to convict the accused of murder. which houses amenities such as a dining room. PEOPLE VS ANTONIO Facts: On that fateful morning of November 2. Their bets always ran into the tens of thousands of pesos. Mere suddenness of attack is not enough to constitute treachery where accused made no preparation or employed no means. was attended by treachery. appellant Itaas and his companions suddenly fired at the said car upon reaching the said place. It was during his stint as such that he and Tuadles became socially acquainted. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution. A sudden and unexpected attack would not constitute alevosia where the aggressor did not consciously adopt a mode of attack intended to perpetrate the homicide without risk to himself. without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. Convicted of murder by the trial court as the killer is Alberto Ambet S. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person. 1996. Arnulfo Arnie Tuadles. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . what should have been an amiable game of cards for the victim. Arnulfo Arnie Tuadles succumbed instantaneously to a single gunshot wound right between the eyes. method and form of execution tending directly and specially to insure the commission of a crime and to eliminate or diminish risk from defense which the victim may take. the two would meet with other members and friends to play cards in the gameroom at the second floor of the club. the shooting of Col. Their preferred games were poker or pusoy dos.TECSON.9mm caliber Beretta pistol. James Rowe during the said ambush is murder. Antonio. They somehow lost touch. ordinary poker or Russian poker. a former professional basketball player and his friend turned into a deadly confrontation resulting in the fatal shooting of one by the hand of the other. a one-time chairman of the Games and Amusement Board (GAB). located along Wilson Street in San Juan. the crime committed for the killing of Col. music bar and gameroom. who were all armed with powerful firearms. Case Digest Yes. inflicted with deadly precision by the bullet of a . Hence. Without any warning. Rowe which was being driven by Joaquin Vinuya at the corner of Timog Avenue and Tomas Morato Street in Quezon City. The aggravating circumstance of treachery is not present when decision to attack was arrived at on the spur of the moment. James Rowe and his driver. waited for the car of Col. but later became reacquainted when they both started frequenting the International Business Club (IBC). Held: No. Appellant Itaas and his companions. employing means. Mary Joie S. Chapman saw the incident. Maureen circled around accused’s car.” When Leino handed his I. She strayed to the side of accused’s car. accused caught Maureen and repeatedly enjoined her to shut up and sit down beside Leino. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . we reiterated our consistent view that: While the killing itself appears to have occurred on sudden impulse. warning the latter to shut up. Leino knelt beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to get up and leave Chapman alone. Leino offered to walk with her while Chapman stayed in the car and listened to the radio. PEOPLE VS TEEHANKEE Facts: Jussi Olavi Leino was taking Maureen Hultman to her home at Campanilla Street. trying to put some distance between them. Makati. Accused then turned his ire on Leino. Upon entering the village. Maureen continued to be hysterical. While Leino and Maureen were walking. my God. She repeatedly shouted: “Oh. a light-colored Mitsubishi box-type Lancer car. Since the sudden shooting of Tuadles was preceded by a heated verbal altercation between Tuadles and appellant Antonio. he’s got a gun. such as when a heated argument preceded the attack. In People v. Leino obeyed and made no attempt to move away. Maureen asked Leino to stop about a block away from her house. dug into his shirt. and asked: “Who are you? (Show me your) I. She could not stay still.D. it was preceded by acts of appellant showing hostility and a heated temper that indicated an imminent attack and should have put the deceased on guard. Maureen finally sat beside Leino on the sidewalk. as admitted by both prosecution and defense. or when the victim was standing face to face with his assailants and the initial assault could not have been unforeseen. Accused alighted from his car. Even if it could be said that the attack was sudden. The shooting initially shocked Maureen. Accused stood 2-3 meters away from him. the accused grabbed and pocketed the I. Eventually. as she wanted to walk the rest of the way for she did not want her parents to know that she was going home that late. The short chase lasted for a minute or two. without bothering to look at it.. there would still be no treachery. Accused tried but failed to grab her.. Thus. staggered for a moment. then it cannot be concluded that the shooting was committed with treachery. Jr. He’s gonna kill us. Chua. Case Digest There would be no treachery when the victim was placed on guard. pulled out a gun and fired at him. Chapman felt his upper body.D. accused was pointing his gun to and from Leino to Maureen. approached them. and asked: “Why did you shoot me?” Chapman crumpled on the sidewalk.TECSON. she became hysterical and started screaming for help. 1991.. When she came to her senses.D. Will somebody help us?” All the while. Mary Joie S. He stepped down on the sidewalk and asked accused: “Why are you bothering us?” Accused pushed Chapman. Accused ordered Leino to sit down on the sidewalk. He pointed gun at him and asked: “Do you want a trouble?” Leino said “no” and took a step backward. Roland John Chapman went with them. Dasmarinas Village. treachery could not be appreciated where the victim was forewarned and could have anticipated the aggression of the accused. driven by accused Claudio Teehankee. came up from behind them and stopped on the middle of the road. Maureen moved around his car and tried to put some distance between them. Jr. Leino struggled to his knees and shouted for help. As a result of the incident. the accused turned his back from the two. As to the wounding of Jussi Leino and the killing of Maureen Hultman. the Information for Frustrated Murder was amended to MURDER. Held: No. They were strangers to each other. unarmed and begging for mercy. he was charged with: MURDER for the killing of ROLAND CHAPMAN. The time between the initial encounter and the shooting was short and unbroken. When Hultman subsequently died after 97 days of confinement at the hospital and during the course of the trial. There was an appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Chapman and the shooting of Leino and Hultman — a period which appellant used to prepare for a mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself. appellant purposely placed his two victims in a completely defenseless position before shooting them. but did not lose consciousness. Their meeting was by chance. He noticed at least 3 people who saw the incident. the shooting of Chapman was carried out swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. It appears to us that appellant acted on the spur of the moment. appellant got to Maureen and ordered her to sit beside Leino on the pavement. Leino was hit on the upper jaw. Initially. Treachery was thus correctly appreciated by the trial court against appellant insofar as the killing of Hultman and the wounding of Leino are concerned. He faced them again and shot Leino. constitute treachery. While seated. and two (2) FRUSTRATED MURDER for the shooting and wounding of JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN HULTMAN. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Issue: Whether or not there is evident premeditation and treachery in the commission of the crime. When appellant went after her. by itself. Maureen became hysterical and wandered to the side of appellant's car. fell backwards on the sidewalk. The shooting of Chapman was thus the result of a rash and impetuous impulse on the part of appellant rather than a deliberate act of will. Even then. He lifted his head to see what was happening and saw accused return to his car and drive away. we hold that treachery clearly attended the commission of the crimes. Case Digest For a moment. The evidence shows that after shooting Chapman in cold blood. Clearly. the two were gunned down by appellant.TECSON. it has been consistently ruled that mere suddenness of the attack on the victim would not. After a minute or two. Concededly. there is no evidence on record to prove that appellant consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack to insure the accomplishment of his criminal design without risk to himself. 3 separate criminal cases were filed against accused Claudio Teehankee. appellant ordered Leino to sit on the pavement. Mary Joie S. Leino heard another shot and saw Maureen fall beside him. Edilberto strewed him with a burst of gunfire from his M-14 Armalite. in a flash. Severino Lines. their first intended victim. Domingo Gomez.. while the others are simply "messengers". Bantil. together with Espia and the four (4) appellants. As Fr.. Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3) times. Father. Norberto. Fr. As Norberto. Deocades cowered in fear as he knelt with both hands clenched at the back of his head. Issue: Whether or not the appellants can be exculpated from criminal liability on the basis of defense of alibi which would establish that there is no conspiracy to kill. Domingo Gomez is another lay leader. On the same occasion. a Catholic lay leader who is the complaining witness in the Attempted Murder. bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me. the conspirators agreed to Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Norberto Jr. Mary Joie S. Fred Gapate. Jr. Consequently. Bantil tried to run but he was again fired upon by Edilberto. Peter Geremias. Peter. After a heated confrontation. neither did Norberto Manero. But the latter simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. Jr. proceeded to the house of "Bantil".TECSON. Jr. Peter Geremias. were inside the eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades. the Manero brothers. an Italian priest suspected of having links with the communist movement. Father. and fired anew. lit a fire and burned the motorcycle. another Italian priest would be killed in his stead. in the Arson case. Fr. together with Rodrigo Espia. while Deocades was feeding his swine. Moments later. Father)? Gusto mo. While inside. Jr. Favali. at 4:00 pm. Jr. The Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo Espia did not appeal. Peter" is Fr. Though Bantil was able to seek refuge in the house of a certain Domingo Gomez.. Rudy Lines.. Favali accosted Norberto." "Fr.. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Lines. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . taunted Edilberto if that was the only way he knew to kill a priest. Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño appealed with respect to the cases for Murder and Attempted Murder. He entered the house of Gomez. Slighted over the remark. At 5:00 o'clock. They later on nailed a placard near the carinderia bearing the names of their intended victims. Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning. "Bantil" is Rufino Robles. which was also in the vicinity of Deocades' carinderia. They were conferring with three others of a plan to liquidate a number of suspected communist sympathizers. his brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their comrades-in-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from possible assistance. flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers. ordered his men to surround the house so that Bantil would die of hemorrhage. As the vehicle was ablaze. Case Digest PEOPLE VS. Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of Bantil who was able to parry and was hit at the lower portion of his ear. This again drew boisterous laughter and ridicule from the dreaded desperados. the felons raved and rejoiced. Jr.. Edilberto and Elpidio. Rudy Lines. and his co-accused Pleñago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. padre (What is it you want. Later. the Manero brothers Norberto Jr. Favali dropped to the ground. all with assorted firearms. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered the head of Fr. opened the gasoline tank. the decision as against them already became final. causing his brain to scatter on the road. kicked it twice. his hands clasped against his chest. spilled some fuel. At this point. to break your head)?" Thereafter. MANERO Facts: On the 11th of April 1985. Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño. Norberto. Norberto.125 on board his motorcycle. Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. Edilberto asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo. Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire. Among their targets are: Fr. Danilo Laurel left his house together with Edwin Selda. Edwin. left to look for a place to relieve himself. could only watch helplessly as Danilo was being mauled and overpowered by his assailants. Case Digest Held: The court did not appreciate the defense of alibi of the Lines brother. who according to them. More important. While they were outside. While it may be true that Fr. Fr. They performed overt acts to ensure the success of the commission of the crimes and the furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy. While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves. It is not essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. Favali was deemed a good substitute in the murder as he was an Italian priest.filled bottle of beer. The court held that ―It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not only be at some other place but that it must also be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. and unity in its execution is present. were in a farm some one kilometer away from the crime scene. In this case. Peter Geremias whom the group targeted for the kill. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. 1989. Almost simultaneously. Fuvali. UNLAGADA Facts: On January 27. it is well-settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the authors of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. as it was Fr. their collective action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts. Based on the findings of the lower court. there is a community of design to commit the crime. According to Edwin. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . nevertheless. approached Danilo and stabbed him at the side. Contrary to the claim of the Lines brothers. who was petrified. Danilo fell to the ground and died before he could be given medical attention. Danilo. they are not merely innocent bystanders but in fact were vital cogs in the murder of Fr. Mary Joie S.‖ There is no physical impossibility where the accused can be at the crime scene in a matter of 15-20 minutes by jeep or tricycle.TECSON. After two hours. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is singularity of purpose. a group of men numbering of seven (7). Favali was not originally the intended victim. they decided to have a drink and bought beer. ganged up on Danilo and hit him with assorted weapons. it will be suffice to kill another priest as long as the person is also Italian priest DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY PEOPLE V. halfway on his first bottle. The accused agreed that in case they fail to kill the intended victims. Danilo retaliated by striking his assailant with half. a visitor from Bacolod City at around 9:00 in the evening to attend a public dance at Negros Occidental. dark bearded man walked past him. Not long after. he was only about three meters from Danilo who was relieving himself when a short. Danilo asked Edwin to take a short break from dancing to attend to their personal necessities outside the dance hall. there were two eyewitnesses who positively identified the accused. 251 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: Basic is the rule that the defense of alibi should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by an eyewitness because alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification.for. Thereat.all. At about 12 midnight. accused. approached Ricardo Donato and boxed him on the chest. particular victim. as against a common. PEOPLE VS MARAMARA Facts: The evidence shows that a benefit dance sponsored by the Calpi Elementary School PTA of which accused. one of whom was sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing. Ricardo Donato tried to help his fallen brother Miguelito but somebody struck Ricardo’s head with an iron bar which knocked him out for about 3 minutes. The deceased was relieving himself. where several persons not comprising definite or identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and disorganized manner. that the man under detention. while Ricardo Donato was dancing with certain Rowena Del Rosario. The quarrel in the instant case is between a distinct group of individuals. fully unaware of any danger to his person when suddenly the accused walked past witness Edwin Selda. When Ricardo regained consciousness. and given no chance to put up any defense.TECSON. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Wherefore. Rowena ran away while Ricardo Donato scampered toward the fence for safety. the victim was caught by surprise. resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them. one Dante Arce. in the course of which a person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained.appellant took his hand. The accused assails his conviction. Calpi. a melee or free.appellant is the president. Miguelito Donato was about two meters away from where Ricardo stayed at the fence. Claveria Masbate in the evening of November 18.appellant’s house in Brgy.appellant. was held in the yard of accused. the attack was completely without warning. he executed an affidavit and affirmed before the police authorities. Not for long. he hurried home and informed his parents of what happened. approached the victim and stabbed him at the side. 251 of The Revised Penal Code.gun tucked in his waist and fired at the victim Miguelito Donato. a “tumultuous affray” within the meaning of Art. 1991. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Unlagada guilty of murder instead of tumultuous affray under Art. the attack was qualified by treachery. It is not. that is. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons who engage in a confused and tumultuous manner. as the defense suggests. a friend of the accused. Verily. Case Digest Edwin Selda confirmed the identity of the suspect who was then in the custody of the police. hitting the latter at the left breast. There was hardly any risk at all to accused.appellant. the decision of conviction appealed from is affirmed. Mary Joie S. was the same man who stabbed his friend Danilo. Anecito Unlagada. Frightened. appellant’s position that he should be held liable only for death caused in a tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code. one on the left nipple. The autopsy report revealed that aside from gunshot. at first blush. the Court modifies the judgment appealed from. Then accused. 1986.appellant and was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.” On July 27. Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code cannot apply because prosecution witness Ricardo and Regarder Donato positively identified accused.appellant with his hand. They applied a permit to hold a rally but it was denied.appellant. Despite this setback. On July 27.for. Assuming that a rumble or a free.appellant himself suffered multiple stab wounds which. a rally was scheduled to be held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalist. 198. and one on the left arm. The Court finds Cresenciano Maramara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. That the wounds could have inflicted by more than two persons. Before Miguelito expired.two on the stomach.gun shot Miguelito. the father. the prosecution established that. three thousand gathered at the Rizal Monument led by Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega. Regarder Donato. No ticket could be produced. the body of Miguelito bore lacerated wounds.appellant as Miguelito’s killer.all fight occurred at the benefit dance. a known “Coryista.TECSON. Lozano turned towards his group and said “gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators. Atty. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Wherefore. PEOPLE Facts: Amidst tension and strong hostility between Cory loyalists and Marcos loyalists broke into violence. may lend verity to his claim that a rumble ensued and that victim Miguelito inflicted upon him these wounds. Case Digest Their father immediately went to the crime scene and rushed Miguelito to the Pio Duran Hospital where the latter died early in the morning of the next day. Mary Joie S. asked who shot him and Miguelito replied that it was accused. SISON VS. Colonel Dula Torres gave them ten minutes to disperse. it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo.” The police pushed the crowds and used tear gas to disperse them. While accused. the evidence is adequate to consider them as a mitigating circumstance because the defense’s version stands discredited in light of the more credible version of the prosecution as to the circumstances surrounding Miguelito’s death. Issue: Whether or not Maramara should be held liable for tumultuous affray instead of murder? Held: There is no merit in the accused. The trial court ruled against the accused. It was in such situation that accused came at the scene and joined the fray purportedly to pacify the protagonists when Miguelito attacked him causing four (4) stab wounds in different parts of his body. It was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as loyalists picked on one defenseless individual and attacked him repeatedly. Joel Tan. Salcedo pleadfed for his life. Richard De Los Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them but the maulers pursued Salcedo.TECSON. Case Digest At about 4:00 pm. So they took him to PGH where he died upon arrival. Pacadar pursued him. Sision repeatedly boxed him. in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case. cigarette vendor. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the crime committed is murder and not death caused in a tumultuous affray? Held: For Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code to apply. if it can be called a quarrel. Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo but Billosos emerged from behind Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Ferrer was convicted as an accomplice.(4) someone was killed in the course of the affray. The trial court rendered decision finding Romeo Sison. Mary Joie S. Somebody then shouted “kailangan gumanti tayo ngayon!” a commotion ensued and Renato Banculo. Tan boxed Salcedo while Pacadar. Sumilang with a help of traffic enforcer brought Salcedo to Medical Center Manila but was refused admission. (3) these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner. a small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden. was between one distinct group and one individual. but this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa Street. kicks and blows on him. nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident. Annie Ferrer was there and they informed her of the dispersal and Ferrer angrily ordered them “gulpihin ninyo ang mga Cory hecklers!” A few minutes later. Confusion may have occurred because of the police dispersal of the rallyists. taking turns in inflicting punches. Salcedo managed to get away but accused Tan. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray. saw the loyalists attacking the persons in yellow. it must be established that: (1) there be several persons. The court convicts Tamayo of homicide. The mauling resumed at the Rizal monument and continued along Roxas Boulevard until Salcedo collap[sed and lost consciousness. (2) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally. mauling Sumilang in the process. (5) it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased. Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw. Thay caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. He was hit on various parts of his body. De Los Santas.shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be Marcos loyalists. and (6) that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence be can be identified. The man in yellow t. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray. The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting Ferrer but increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused except for Tamayo. Nilo Pacadar. she was arrested by the police. who conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver of Silvestre Balinas testified that the fatal wound that caused the death of the victim was the one inflicted on the mid-inner thigh. Balinas told Eraso to wait. the Esperanza. Antenor. 1992. Thereafter. Rhodora T. Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed three teams. They took advantage of their superior strength and excessive force and frustrated any attempt by Salcedo to escape and free himself. the three metallic fragments recovered from the fatal wound of the victim turned out to be fragments of a 5. The victim turned out to be Silvestre "Butsoy" Balinas. Upon examination by NBI Ballistician Elmer Nelson D. Alfredo Balinas. Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas until he finally lost unconsciousness.45 caliber pistol. Eraso fired his M16 armalite rifle at the approaching man before Balinas could beam his flash light. Piedad. he did not turn to face the source thereof and instead fired his . The team saw somebody approaching who was half-naked. Alfredo Balinas and Rufo Alga were both armed with M14 armalite rifles. and Rufo Alga. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS DADO V. The deliberate and prolonged use of superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies the killing of murder. Wherefore.56 mm.56 mm jacketed bullet. Dr. petitioner fired a single shot from his .45 caliber pistol in front of him purposely to demoralize their enemy. Case Digest As the lower courts found. PEOPLE Facts: On May 25. jacketed bullet. However. Petitioner admitted that when he heard the rapid gun burst. the victim’s assailant’s were numerous by as much as fifty in number and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. while petitioner was armed with a caliber . When he was about 5 meters away from the team. on cross-examination. Silvestre Balinas died as a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained.45 pistol and accused Francisco Eraso was carrying an M16 armalite rifle. She added that the position of the victim at that time of the shooting was higher than the assailant considering that the trajectory of the bullets was upwards. in order to intercept cattle rustlers from Barangay Laguinding. The bullet pierced through and injured the organs in the pelvic region where she found three irregularly shaped metallic fragments. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Sultan Kudarat.TECSON. the nephew of Alfredo Balinas and not the cattle rustler the team were ordered to intercept. Accused Eraso embraced Alfredo Balinas and told him that it was not intentionally done and it was merely an accident. the decision appealed from is affirmed and modified. he declared that he is not sure whether the 2 other metallic fragments recovered from the fatal wound of the victim are indeed parts of a copper jacket of a caliber 5. which composed of petitioner SPO4 Geromino Dado and CAFGU members Francisco Eraso. Mary Joie S. However. his lawfully wedded wife and who was at the time 8 months on the family way. on the other hand petitioner. Held: The Court sustains the finding of the trial court that petitioner fired his . SALUFRANIA Facts: Filomeno Salufrania by boxing and strangling MARCIANA ABUYO-SALUFRANIA. Mary Joie S. Intent to kill must be established with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the crime. filed this petition. petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code. petitioner Geronimo Dado is guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm. Issue: Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner guilty of homicide. Accused Eraso filed a Petition for Review but was denied by CA. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt. Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim. However.TECSON. it appears that there is no evidence to prove that petitioner had intent to kill the victim. Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact that the use of firearms is dangerous to life. and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person. UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION PEOPLE V. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person. Case Digest The trial court convicted petitioner and accused Eraso of the crime of homicide which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The prosecution witnesses did not see whether petitioner aimed to kill the victim. caused upon Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . The Decision of the Court of Appeals in affirming the conviction of petitioner for the crime of homicide is set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.45 caliber pistol towards the victim. which were symptoms of premature delivery. Marciana Abuyo died together with the fetus in her womb. However. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies. as there is no evidence to show that he had the intention to cause an abortion. Soledad was heavy with child. During which time. From the time of the incident there was hemorrhage and pain. Case Digest her injuries resulting in her instantaneous death and the death of the child who was still in its maternal womb. The elements of Unintentional Abortion are as follows: 1. such violence being voluntarily exerted by Filomeno upon her. According to testimony deceased was in good health the day before. In fact. It has been clearly established (a) that Marciana Abuyo was seven (7) to eight (8) months pregnant when she was killed. Mary Joie S. The lower court found Filomeno guilty as charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. 3. taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight. either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. Issue: Whether or not the conviction of the accused for the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion is proper? Held: No. Hence. Soledad by such fall suffered pains in the abdomen.TECSON. The abortion was caused by the same violence that caused the death of the wife. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . as a result of said violence. but the other baby could not be delivered. Marciana Abuyo. the intent to cause the abortion has not been sufficiently established. (b) that violence was voluntarily exerted upon her by her husband Filomeno. Genoves however. Soledad and both babies died. Soledad remained in said condition for days until it culminated in the painful and difficult premature delivery of one of the twin babies that she way carrying. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. Thus Filomeno was charged with the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion committed. the automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court. That the violence is intentionally exerted. Filomeno Salufrania should not be held guilty of the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion but of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. and (c) that. 4. That there is a pregnant woman. is not sufficient proof to show intent to cause an abortion. repeatedly struck Soledad with his fist causing her to fall to the ground several times. GENOVES Facts: Soledad Rivera tried to take back by force from Genoves a yoke of a plow she claims she owned. 2. Mere boxing on the stomach. Filomeno alleges that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion. PEOPLE V. Filomeno must have merely intended to kill his wife but not necessarily to cause an abortion. AGUIRRE VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE Facts: On June 11. scouted. prospected. He further contends that Vasectomy does not in any way equate to castration and what is touched in vasectomy is not considered an organ in the context of law and medicine. “The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him. facilitated. Olondriz denied that the prospected. Agatep contends that the complainant has no legal personality to file a case since she is only a common law sister of Larry who has a legal guardian in the person of Pedro Aguirre. Agatep. facilitated solicited and/or procured the medical services of respondents Dr. Genoves must be held responsible for the natural consequences of his act.The Assistant City Prosecutor held that the facts alleged did not amount to mutilation. Dr. Dr. Pascual and several John/Jane Doe alleging that John/Jane Doe upon the apparent instructions of respondents Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz and Pedro Aguirre actually scouted.2002 petitioner Gloria Aguirre instituted a criminal complaint for the violation of Revised Penal Code particularly Articles 172 and 262.TECSON. Mutilation. Olondriz. Dr. She further contends that his common law brother went through a vasectomy procedure but that does not amount to mutilation. of some essential organ for reproduction. both in relation to Republic Act No.7610 against respondents Pedro Aguirre. Agatep on the intended mutilation via bilateral vasectomy of Laureano Aguirre. Gloria Aguirre then appealed to the Secretary of the DOJ but Chief State Prosecutor dismissed the petition stating that the Secretary of Justice may motu propio dismiss outright the petition if there is no showing of any reversible error in the questioned resolution. Mary Joie S. Case Digest Genoves was then charged and convicted by CFI Occidental Negros of the complex crime of homicide with abortion. and the evidence shows a complete sequel of events from the assault to Soledad’s death. Laureano Aguirre. either totally or partially. solicited and/or procured any false statement mutilated or abused his common law brother.” Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the court held that Article 262 of the Revised Penal Code provides that Art. 262. the abortion in this case is unintentional abortion denounced by article 257 of the Revised Penal Code. Pascual and Dr. Issue: Whether or not the conviction of the complex crime of homicide with abortion is proper? Held: No. It is generally known that a fall is liable to cause premature delivery. the vasectomy operation did not deprived Larry of his reproductive organ. Issue: Whether or not the respondents are liable for the crime of mutilation Held: No. e. i. he was found guilty and sentenced to the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor to fourteen (14) years. the vasectomy operation did not in any way deprived (sic) Larry of his reproductive organ. that is. Issue: Whether or not petitioner should be convicted for the crime of slight physical injury instead of homicide? Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Immediately thereafter. Peering through the window. the facts alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined and penalized above. In such a condition. Li then stabbed Arugay once. causing him to lose his hold on the baseball bat and fell semi-unconscious or unconscious. and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately. seeking the reversal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. his girlfriend dela Camara and Baby Jane’s boyfriend. to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction. this time with a knife. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Enraged. Li struck Arugay on the head with the bat. eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal. They suddenly heard a noise outside. that is. which is still very much part of his physical self. Case Digest Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. Tan. 262 of the Revised Penal Code to be 1) that there be a castration. Aggrieved. The witnesses Tan and dela Camara assisted Arugay and were trying to drag him back to his house when Li re-emerged. After trial. SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND MALTREATMENT LI V. mutilation of organs necessary for generation.TECSON. Li ran back to his house. it is highly improbable that he was capable of inflicting the fatal stab wounds on Arugay. A straightforward scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art. The prosecution alleged that Arugay was watching television at home with his sisters Cristy and Baby Jane. they saw Li and a certain Eduardo Sangalang taking a bath completely naked. causing Arugay to fall.. Then petitioner Li shouted back. the deceased shouted something to Li and Sangalang. Petitioner Li denies killing Arugay. PEOPLE AND CA Facts: Petitioner Li was charged before the RTC of Makati with the crime of homicide for the death of Christopher Arugay. The deceased who is armed with a bolo. Li filed a petition for review. The two were facing the house of the Arugays. An incensed Arugay went out the house where he was met by petitioner carrying a baseball bat. According to the public prosecutor. they were able to see Sangalang stab Arugay at least once. retaliated by hacking Li on the head. He contends that he hit first with a baseball bat Christopher Arugay hitting the latter not on the head but at the right arm which is near the shoulder. Mary Joie S. m. In view of the victim’s supervening death from injuries which cannot be attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt. naked on top of their daughter. OGA Facts: August 10. Ignacio and his wife were awakened by the loud banging of corrugated GI sheet coming from the barracks of his co-construction worker which was about 3 meters away at around 2:00 a. Careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the criminal culpability of Li in the death of Arugay was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: Whether or not force and intimidation are attendant in this case? Held: Neither was intimidation employed against her. herein appellant. He inserted his penis into her vagina. she was not threatened with bodily or physical harm by a knife. Mary Joie S. the appellant summoned her to his barracks. Case Digest Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It ruled that the only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li striking Arugay with a baseball bat. appellant suddenly pulled her and laid her on a wooden bed (papag). but because the actors were too quick to offense and impervious to reason. of August 9. Thinking he had the usual errand for her she approached him. However. Irene. It was only at around 2:00 a. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the required medical attendance. What transpired during the dawn hours of was an artless. spontaneous street fight devoid of any methodical plan for consummation. Ignacio and his wife proceeded in haste to investigate but they were surprised and disarrayed to see his co-worker. RAPE PEOPLE V. Yet. however senseless this lethal imbroglio is. the offense is only slight physical injuries. Appellant did not deny that he had several intercourse with Irene but interposed “sweetheart story”. that she was able to finally kick the galvanized iron sheet that enclosed the appellant’s barracks. the effects of the contusion caused by Li are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of speculation. who was also naked. Irene testified that at around 10:00 p. Irene’s overall deportment during her ordeal defies comprehension and the reasonable standard of human conduct when faced Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . The appellant then took off her pants and panty. 1998. bolo or any object or instrument that the appellant could have employed so as “to create a real apprehension of dangerous consequences or serious bodily harm”. It arose not because of any long-standing grudge or an appreciable vindication of honor. a judicious examination of the circumstances must be made to avoid leaps into hyperbole. the person who is responsible for the death apparently remains at large.TECSON. 1999.m. as well as his clothes. Even if she was pulled down to the bed. Unfortunately.m. the above-named accused. PEOPLE VS JALOSJOS Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . at Barangay Malokiat.00 as civil indemnity and P75. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape qualified by relationship and minority. WHEREFORE. did then and there willfully. Furthermore.TECSON. Held: Yes. armed with a bolo with intent to have sexual intercourse with his own daughter.35 Consequently.000. Branch 46.000. or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented. in Criminal Cases Nos. U-9332 and U-9333. In the case at bar. Hence. we find Josephine’s account of her ordeal in the hands of appellant forthright and credible. the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation. PEOPLE VS AGSAOAY Facts: on or about July 15. against her will and without her consent. municipality of Pozorrubio. Mary Joie S. guilty of the crimes of qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH in each case. Josephine Ferrer Agsaoay. in view of its nature in which only two persons are normally involved. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Agsaoay. Additionally. or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that he is ordered to pay the amount of P75. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court. It is unnatural for an intended rape victim. The sole important issue in a rape case is the credibility of the victim’s testimony. but difficult for the accused to disprove it. by means of force and intimidation. province of Pangasinan. in adjudicating such issue.00 as moral damages in each case. 1997.The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Jr. for the charge of rape to prosper. jurisprudence has established the following guidelines: (1) the victim’s testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution since an accusation of rape can be made with facility. U-9332. finding appellant Santiago Agsaoay. Case Digest with a similar situation. the appealed Decision dated November 28. This constrained us to entertain a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the appellant. the victim was again raped by the accused 2 days after using a bolo to scare and threaten the said victim.000. and (2) when her testimony meets the test of credibility. a 17 years old minor and accused’s own daughter. unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with JOSEPHINE AGSAOAY. Urdaneta Pangasinan. appellant is ordered to pay P25. to the damage and prejudice of said Josephine F. not to make even a feeble attempt to free herself despite a myriad of opportunities to do so.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. as in the case at bar. the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law. the performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. Art. The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution. Mary Joie S. Issue: Whether or not being a Congressman is a substantial differentiation which removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law by reason of the “mandate of the sovereign will”. The duties imposed by the “mandate of the people” are multifarious. Hence. Here. While the Constitution guarantees: “x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws. To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. The accused-appellant filed this motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. implication or equitable considerations. It may not be extended by intendment. 11. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. Case Digest Romeo G. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law. However. inspite of its importance. it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.TECSON. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense. election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement.” this simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class. it has constitutional foundations. Held: NO. Jalosjos as the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Sec. The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. VI of the Constitution. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. The privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. He pushed Corazon aside who she tried to block his path. ayo'ko!" so she went upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already removed. The crime having been committed sometime in April. her brother. 7659. cannot be considered consummated rape. Then she heard Crysthel cry. PEOPLE VS ECHAGARAY Facts: The Supreme Court rendered a decision in the instant case affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of raping his ten-year old daughter. entered the labial threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that the rape was consummated. There she met Primo Campuhan. This was dismissed. there were no physical signs of injuries on the witness’ body to conclude a medical perspective that a penetration has taken place. a cousin and an uncle who were living within their compound. however. "Ayo'ko. Pamintuan. who was then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at the second floor.t . only attempted rape. it is important that a valid testimony and medical certificate complements each other. helper of Conrado Plata Jr. Hence. mother of 4-year old Crysthel Pamintuan. accused-appellant was inevitably meted out the supreme penalty of death. WHEREFORE. Corazon P. commonly known as the Death Penalty Law. convicted of attempted instead.TECSON. brother of Corazon.ng ina mo. Failure to prove such penetration. It is necessary to carefully establish a proof that the penis. even the slightest one. anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. Issue: Whether or not the accused committed a consummated statutory rape Held: The records reviewed failed to show the proof whether Primo’s penis was able to penetrate Chrystel’s vagina. 1996 4 pm: Ma. They called the barangay officials who detained. during which time Republic Act (R. was already in effect. Physical examination yielded negative results as Crysthel ‘s hymen was intact. Horrified. He evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. The accused-appellant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration which focused on the sinister motive of the victim's grandmother that precipitated the filing of the alleged false accusation of rape against the accused. the decision of the court on convicting Campuhan guilty of statutory rape is modified.) No. Corazon then ran out and shouted for help thus prompting Vicente. went to the ground floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her 2 children. to chase the Campuhan who was apprehended. if not acts of lasciviousness. 1994. In rape cases.. Case Digest PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN Facts: On April 25. for relying alone on testimonial evidence may create unwarranted or mischievous results. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . in reality. Mary Joie S. she cursed "P . while his short pants were down to his knees and his hands holding his penis with his right hand.A. Also. any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. A supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prepared by the FLAG on behalf of accusedappellant. No. 7659. Julian R. Hence.) Whether or not the crime is punishable by death penalty. Mary Joie S. particularly on the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. 1996. parent. guardian. the mandatory penalty of death is imposed.A.TECSON.) Yes. Atty. the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raises three (3) main issues: (1) mixed factual and legal matters relating to the trial proceedings and findings.) Yes. 3 when the rape is committed in full view of the husband. Issues: 1. 7659. all that the accused-appellant offered as defenses mainly consisted of denial and alibi which cannot outweigh the positive identification and convincing testimonies given by the prosecution. Case Digest On August 6. or the common-law spouse of the parent or the victim. which the victim herself intended to disregard as earlier discussed. among others. the affidavit of desistance. and retained the services of the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force of the Free Legal Assistance Group of the Philippines. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Held: 1.) Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape qualified by relationship and minority. In sum. accused-appellant discharged the defense counsel.A. (2) alleged incompetence of accused-appellant's former counsel. 2. step-parent. 2 when the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. In the case at bar. if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1 when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. Vitug. No. must have no bearing on the criminal prosecution against the accused-appellant. 4 when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old 5 when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. under R. ascendant. 2. and (3) purely legal question of the constitutionality of R. appellants entered their plea of not guilty. Based on the victims account. Mary Joie S. Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. While the victim testified on the three episodes. feloniously take. and (3) the protracted detention. by force and intimidation. 7 when by reason or on the occasion of the rape.TECSON. There is no doubt that the victim was deprived of his liberty throughout all the episodes. It covered the full length of the victims involuntary confinement spanning eight (8) days until his stirring rescue. Case Digest 6 when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency. and deprive Ruiz Saez-Co y Lim of his liberty against his will for purposes of extorting money as in fact a demand for money was made as a condition for his release but before any ransom can be paid. (2) the asportation. He did not see the face of the persons who abducted him in Mamatid and those who formed the entourage which brought him to Taytay. The second segment covered the entire forced journey of the victim from Mamatid to the detention house in Taytay. appellants were charged with the crime of kidnapping for ransom in an Information the accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about September 8. The first segment was the Mamatid (in Cabuyao. he failed to see and identify any of his captors until he was rescued as he was blindfolded most of the time during his captivity. did then and there. the victim was rescued after eight (8) days in captivity. 11 ) KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION PEOPLE VS TAN Facts: On the 17th of September 1997. unlawfully. 1997 in the evening of Barangay Mamatid. mutually helping one another and grouping themselves together. the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation. the ordeal he had gone through can be divided into three distinct segments." (Sec. Held: We agree with the OSG that the participation of the appellants in the forcible taking and journey of the victim was not clearly established. namely: (1) the forcible taking. the above named accused conspiring. And the third segment was the Taytay episode. On arraignment. Rizal. confederating. Cabuyao. carry away. Trial ensued. and use of high powered firearms. willfully. Laguna) episode where he was held by armed men at gunpoint and forcibly boarded in a car. There were no eyewitnesses who testified on the abduction. To conclude that those Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Issue: Whether or not the criminal liability of the appellants in each and every episode established beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty for kidnapping or illegal detention. Oliver. who was a suspected member of the group. namely: (1) that the offender is a private individual. The unexplained presence of appellants in the house where the victim was held captive leads to no other conclusion than that they participated in his illegal detention. the kidnappers went to Bonitas Resort in Pangasinan. through SPO2 Epafrodito Aliling and SPO2 Antonio Chungtuyco. Jr.7 Million. any of the following circumstances are present: (a) that the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than five days. the kidnapper were able to receive the money. they brought Oliver to a Petron Gas Station in Meycauayan Highway. Eleazar Caparas received a call from the kidnappers asking for Php 10 Million ransom in exchange for the release of his son. It appears that one of the suspects was a member of an NPA rebel returnee group headed by Armando Rodrigo. and (3) that the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal. Then. The third episode. Not a single appellant could convincingly explain his presence at the crime scene. gave him money and told him his uncle inside a canteen in the gas station would fetch him. dela Cruz. is different. (2) that he kidnaps or detains another. the kidnappers agreed to lower the ransom money to Php 1. The OSG correctly recommended that they should be held liable therefor. 267 of the Revised Penal Code. she admitted her participation in the kidnapping of Oliver Caparas and implicated appellants. In the meantime. Through Oliver’s uncle. forcibly seized by four men and boarded him into a car wherein he was blindfolded and taken to Baguio while waiting for a ride to school on the 10th of September 1996. PEOPLE V. or (c) that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . was invited for questioning. or (b) that it is committed simulating public authority. Under Art. Mary Joie S. and (4) that in the commission of the offense. the crime of Kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements. an investigation was conducted by the Intelligence Section of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Malolos. After three days of negotiation. Case Digest who were captured during the rescue operation were also participants in the forcible taking and asportation is to lower the level of evidence required for conviction. then 13 years of age. On that occasion. Issue: Whether or not elements constituting the crime of kidnapping are present to convict appellants of the said crime. Upon the killing of Bert Liwanag. RODRIGO Facts: Oliver Caparas. or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty. After the kidnapping incident. Bulacan. Held: Yes. The criminal participation of the appellants therein was proven beyond reasonable doubt. his girlfriend.TECSON. however. The next day. it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Sajiron had carnal knowledge with the victim against her will while Maron stood guard and watched them. the appellant (Maron) and his father (Sajiron) appeared suddenly in the victim’s house with a gun and told the victim to come with them. unfortunately Egap refused and threatened to kill her daughter if she would report the matter to the authorities. PEOPLE V. where she was detained in a room. appellants are private individuals. When she refused. making it very easy to physically drag her to the forest away from her home. Oliver was abducted by four armed men. and brought her to the forest. They left the forest and brought the victim to the house of Egap. Nine days after she and Sajioron were married by Imam Musli Muhammad. female or public officer. she and Sajiron lived in the house of Egap. Third. Fourth. Issue: Whether or not the crime committed was kidnapping and serious illegal detention. V. Mary Joie S. although the victim was not actually confined in an enclosed place. It is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses that the essential elements of kidnapping were present. she went home and did not report the incident to the police authorities. While detained.TECSON. Case Digest kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made. the victim’s mother came to get her. he was detained in a house in Pangasinan against his will. Sajiron and Egap were arrested by the police. Sajiron instructed Egap to guard the victim and to shoot her if she would attempt to escape. Fifth. but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. MADSALI. There. she did not try to escape because her house was very far from the place where she was held captive. coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. thus. or (d) that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. First. PEOPLE Facts: After a confrontation between the victim and her aunt Inon Dama while fetching water. the detention lasted for seven days. ET AL. because she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of cloth. After the marriage. Sajiron and Maron tied her hands behind her back. and her captors threatened to kill her and her family if she would attempt to escape. In this case. A day after. but she refused. SILONGAN Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . She was then forced to sign an unknown document. Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty. she was clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty. Egap asked the victim if she wanted to marry Sajiron. Out of fear of losing her daughter. covered her mouth with a piece of cloth. Oliver Caparas was a minor at the time of the kidnapping incident. Months after the marriage. defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. which she was not able to read. For there to be kidnapping. Second. Further perusal of the allegations in the information appears that the crime charged was actually the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and rape. The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure. Held: Yes. But if the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom. conspiring. Branch 103. Rosita Dela Cruz. 1995. as to warrant the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. detained her and deprived her of her freedom and liberty up to and until 4:30 in the afternoon of the following day. Held: Yes. Ervin Tormis and Victor Cinco for the purpose of demanding ransom in the amount of Php 12 Million. SURIAGA Facts: On the 22th of February. (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal.. a two-year old female child. kidnapped and took away Nicole Ramos. Mary Joie S. It is thus essential that the following be established by the prosecution: (1) that the offender is a private individual. It is not necessary that there be actual payment of ransom because what the law requires is merely the existence of the purpose of demanding ransom. America Rejuso. and thereafter. convicting appellants Abdila Silongan. or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty.TECSON. Appellants. confederating and mutually aiding one another. 1995. detaining and depriving Alexander Saldana of his personal liberty. accused Ruben Suriaga. (2) he kidnaps or detains another. Jumbrah Manap and Ramon Pasawilan of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention and sentencing them to suffer death penalty. Rolly Lamalan. willfully. PEOPLE V. did then and there. Issue: Whether or not the guilt of the appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. Case Digest Facts: For automatic review is the decision of the RTC of Quezon City. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the kidnapping was committed “for the purpose of extorting ransom” from Alexander. Akmad Awal. The essence of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with proof beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to effect the same. Sacaria Alon. took part by assisting the principal accused to profit by the effects of the crime by accompanying and driving for accused Ruben Suriaga to the place where the pay-offs was made and receiving the ransom money in the amount of Php 100. Macapagal Silongan. and (4) in the commission of the offense. Rosita Dela Cruz and Joel Isidera with kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention committed as follows: That on January 22. any of the four circumstances enumerated in Article 267 be present. for the purpose of extorting ransom from the latter. an information was filed with the RTC charging Ruben Suriaga. Jr. the fourth element is no longer necessary. Issue: Whether or not Ruben Suriaga is guilty of kidnapping for ransom.00. Joel Isidera. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . having learned of the kidnapping and without having participated therein as principal or accomplice. without the consent of her parents. conspiring together. unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Alexander Saldana. Dr. the elements of kidnapping for ransom have been sufficiently established by the prosecution considering the following circumstances: 1) appellant. And if the person detained is a child. conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with one another. with treachery and evident premeditation. 2) appellant took the girl and brought her to a shanty where Rosita’s sister lived. the trial court convicted him only of murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. and 4) he demanded a ransom of Php 100. did then and there kidnap and detain one Bienvenido Mercado. Undoubtedly. was charged with kidnapping with murder. coupled with indubitable proof of the accused’s intent to effect the same. Furthermore. however. and while under detention. Banzons testimony significantly jibes with the physical evidence showing that the victim sustained multiple abrasions in both arms. Held: Yes. the question that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to show that in taking the child. armed with firearm. a private individual. Issue: Whether or the trial court is erred in not finding accused liable for illegal detention. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . took the young Nicole without personally seeking permission from her father. there was deprivation of the child’s liberty and that it was the intention of the accused to deprive the mother of the child’s custody. Ceniza narrated that several employees called her up in the morning of February 5.TECSON. LLAGUNO Facts: Together with two others. was charged in an Information with the following: that said accused. which was sustained by the trial court. clearly established that appellant had in fact detained the victim without authority to do so. thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries as a consequence of which he died a few days later. find him liable for serious illegal detention under Art. The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty. Case Digest Held: Yes. Appellant Judy Reyes. SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION PEOPLE V. Although appellant. hitting him on the vital part of his body. with deliberate intend. 2) he detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing to return her to her parents overnight and the following day. without informing her parents of their whereabouts. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently proves beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. did then and there suddenly and unexpectedly shot said Bienvenido Mercado with said firearm. Banzon testified that he witnessed the victim hanging by the arms in appellant’s room. The trial court did not. The evidence presented by the prosecution.000 through telephone calls and gave instructions where and how it should be delivered. 267 of the Revised Penal Code because the victim was detained only for one day. Mary Joie S. with intent to kill. e. in deciding this appeal. The trial court rendered a decision convicting the appellant of two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Ka Dindo. While we find no proof beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction for murder. who are still at large. thereby depriving said victims of their civil liberties since then up to the present. which the prosecution sought to prove. The court a quo. Province of Negros Occidential. Manifestly. detain.. in company of his five other co-accused. whose true names are still unknown and herein designated only as Ka Morito. they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Philippines. Besides. the acts constituting slight illegal detention were necessarily included in the information. although two or more crimes are actually committed.TECSON. the records indisputably prove culpability for slight illegal detention PEOPLE V. and keep Alipio Tehidor and Dioniso Tehidor and bring them somewhere in the hinterlands of said municipality. unlawfully and feloniously take. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. It is a well-settled doctrine that an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review and empowers (even obligates) the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the appealed judgment even if they have not been assigned. in the Municipality of Binalbagan. Mary Joie S. to wit: That on or about 24th of May 1989. the Court is not confined to the conviction for murder. Case Digest 1987 asking for permission to go home because there was a man hanging at the back in one of the buildings of GF International. aremed with assorted firearms of unknown calibers. It must be emphasized that appellant was charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder. he stands for a new trial of the whole case. Hence. DADLES Facts: Appellant Narito alias Naring Dadles was charged in two separate informations. did then and there. Ka Willy. In a complex crime. employing means to weaken the defense. Since the information charged the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. the scope of its review encompasses the offense charged in the information. All these ineludibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was deprived of his liberty by appellant. not of two independent charges of kidnapping and murder. Cenizas testimony was unrebutted. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . violence and intimidation. under restraint and against their will. When an accused appeals. i. the trial court appreciated the act constituting slight illegal detention as a qualifying circumstance. we deem it significant to reiterate that the trial court merely made a finding that appellant could not be convicted of serious illegal detention for the sole reason that the victim’s detention did not exceed five days. by means of force. however. the first above-named accused. rather. Dr. appellant was fairly apprised of the nature of the crime of slight illegal detention and granted a fair opportunity to defend himself. found that appellant illegally detained the victim for at least one day. conspiring. which act by itself constitutes slight illegal detention. At this juncture. kidnap. Ka Mike and Ka Juanito. and may thus be validly taken into account in the resolution of the present appeal. without proper authority thereof. willfully. confederating and mutually helping one another. the evidence presented by the prosecution surrounding the events of that fateful day are grossly insufficient to establish the alleged liability of accused-appellant for the death of Moronia”. As discussed earlier. the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping the victims. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Held: The Rules of Court provides that the death shall be presumed if a person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years.TECSON. including accused Roluna. ROLUNA Facts: Kidnapping with murder were charged to eight person. “The conviction of accused-appellant for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder cannot be allowed to rest on the vague and nebulous facts established by the prosecution. Mary Joie S. The accused raised that the body of the victim has not surfaced and that the unexplained disappearance cannot be blamed on him as there is all possibility that the victim may still be alive. Issue: Whether or not the death of the victim is sufficiently proved and the accused be held liable for it. PEOPLE V. we find that the crime committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused claimed that he was taking care of an ill relative at the time of the kidnapping. we find that the crime committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC found Roluna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Kidnapping with murder. However. The SC thus decided that “Since none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (kidnapping with serious illegal detention) was proved and only the fact of kidnapping of Anatalio Moronia was established. since none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (kidnapping with serious illegal detention) was proved and only the fact of kidnapping was established. Case Digest Whether or not trial court erred in convicting appellant with kidnapping and serious illegal detention. However. Based from the evidence presented during the trial. Held: Yes. The victim was alleged to have been threatened with firearms and hand bound behind his back. Witnesses claimed that they saw victim Anatalio Moronia stopped by accused and several others. the Supreme Court decided that there were insufficient circumstances to hold the accused responsible for the death of the victim. The testimony of the witnesses stating that the victim’s hands were bound by a companion of the accused is not enough to prove that the accused killed him. especially on the credibility of witnesses. Erma found out that Willy was never treated for any illness. Accused-appellant vehemently denied the charges against her but the trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. 1997. P 3. are accorded great weight and respect. Then on March 16. Mary Joie S.000. the mother of Jenny. the issue posed here is the credibility of witnesses. Factual findings of the trial court. Rubi-Rose asked for P 18. Held: No. As consistently ruled by the Court. 1997. Erma sent P 5. March 27. namely: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person. Erma returned to the Philippines to look for her son. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. Erma Postejo. accused-appellant informed Erma that Willy was suffering from bronchitis.TECSON.00 as processing fee. In the final analysis. She was introduced to accused-appellant Rubi-Rose who offered to work on the processing of Willy’s travel documents to Canada. This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Later on.00 to be given to Doroteo and the remaining balance should pay for Willy’s medical treatment. Jr. and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.300. the Court ruled that Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code has two essential elements. we will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.it must be premeditated. Aresola and 9year old Willy Garpen. headstrong. What is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. Aresola went home and Willy was left in Tondo. Accused-appellant was asking Erma for sums of money which Erma refused to transmit. her son by a common-law relationship. The word deliberate as used in Article 270 must imply something more than mere negligence . Doroteo. Case Digest KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR PEOPLE VS PASTRANA Facts: A domestic helper in Canada.610. foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.00. accused-appellant fetched Willy and Aresola from their home in Caloocan and brought them in Tondo. accused-appellant informed Doroteo that Willy was missing and that he was last seen playing inside her apartment. PEOPLE V. From the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and set aside. administers and manages St. there is no reason for us to disregard the trial court’s finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit. After five years. MENDOZA Facts: Angelina Mendoza y Ramos alias "Rosalinda Quintos' was convicted of the crime of kidnapping and failure to Return a minor as defined in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. In the instant case. EUGENIA T. unlawfully. they agreed to keep the baby in the extension building as a boarder for 50 pesos a day. Issue: Was an abandoned child by mother still be claimed as being kidnapped as in Art 270 RPC? Held: The efforts taken by the accused-appellants to help the complainant in finding the child (among the many they took care of and put up for guardianship)clearly negate the alleged deliberate refusal or failure on their part to restore the child to her mother. The guardians meantime had the child baptized and named Cristine Neri and would not return the child to the mother. In 1987. POLICARPIO.TECSON. Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting her of the crime of Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor as defined and penalized under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. A complaint was filed for kidnapping and failure to return a minor to her parents.John's Clinic in Caloocan. a sick baby Arabella Somblong was confined by her mother Johanna but since she had no money and no one to leave the child at home. as it was not proven that the custody of the minor victim Edward Policarpio had been entrusted to her and that she deliberately failed to return or restore said minor to his parents or guardians. PEOPLE V. and deliberately failing to return him to his mother. The Ty's were convicted by the RTC and subsequently appealed. It is noteworthy that they were motivated by nothing more than an earnest desire to help the child and high regard for her welfare and well-being. feloniously and illegally kidnap and carry away EDWARD POLICARPIO. The baby was put up for guardianship to a relative of the Ty's. for the purpose of selling him and separating him from his mother. Johanna came back to claim the child. Case Digest falsehood. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . a one year and three months old baby boy. The accused-appellants Vicente and Carmen Ty are hereby acquitted. The child turned out to be not the same child as claimed by Johanna to be hers. The baby was visited only once in 5 years by the mother and the father. for wilfully. TY Facts: Accused -Appellants Ty owns. carrying him away without the knowledge and consent of his said parents. It so happened that there were many babies left behind that time and the attending Pediatrician had in that five years relocated abroad. Mrs. Mary Joie S. strong and positive evidence of the prosecution that the taking of the minor child Edward was without the knowledge and consent of his parents. stopped in front of the house. Said criminal act was perpetrated while Mrs. Henry Salimbay (the barangay captain of Umingan). GRAVE COERCION PEOPLE V. Leonida answered that she had already paid the debt before the barangay captain of Umingan. Josephine Santos. Moments later. Mary Joie S. Policarpio had her back turned to the child and accused-appellant and while Mr. Sensing an escalating tension between the two women. The first. Held: Yes. Policarpio was temporarily away from the group. 000. the barangay captain decided to leave.TECSON. telling him that Josephine had sent the CIS agents to demand payment of her debt and that it was Josephine who should instead be accosted. who was attired in a business suit. Leonida de la Peña was at home in Barangay Resurreccion. the penalty shall be imposed in its medium term. Case Digest Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under article 270 of the revised penal code.[1] Alberto asked Leonida about her unpaid obligation to Josephine Santos. at six o'clock in the morning.00. Christine Lovely Mae Delanos. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law the minimum that can be imposed is anywhere Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Umingan. telling the parties that it was best for both of them to just amicably settle their differences. Pangasinan. introduced himself as Rocky Alberto and his companions as agents of the Criminal Investigation Service ("CIS"). Grave coercion carries the penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P6. it has been established by the clear. Five decently dressed men stepped down from the vehicle and entered the house. a brown colored car. when a passenger jeepney arrived. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance. with her eight-year old niece. An essential element that the offender must be entrusted with the custody of a minor person is lacking in the case and the accused-appellant Angelina Mendoza is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Leonida rushed to confront Salimbay. alighted. another vehicle. Manny Baltazar and two unidentified males and one unidentified female. SANTOS Facts: On 10 December 1996. Issue: Is the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of grave coercion? Held: The circumstances that have surfaced instead warrant a conviction for grave coercion. 1993 or a period of two (2) hours. as maximum. more or less.m. attack and strike with a deadly weapon to wit: a knife and a chisel. and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months of arresto mayor. to three (3) years and six (6) months of prision correccional medium.00. Villamar has interposed the instant appeal. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Case Digest from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months of arresto mayor. Province of Pampanga. that is. 1993 to 9:00 a. Marilyn Villamar was charged with the crime of illegal detention and frustrated murder. and to pay a fine of P3. suspecting that Maria Luz Cortez would not return her daughter Jonalyn Villamar whom she entrusted to said Maria Luz Cortez. did then and there wilfully. suffered various lacerated wounds on the head which ordinarily would cause the death of the said Maria Luz Cortez. four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. accused with evident premeditation and with intent to kill. by the timely arrival of the authorities who rescued Maria Luz Cortez which prevented her death. Costs de oficio. VILLAMOR Facts: On or about and during the period beginning 7:00 a. accused. 000. did then and there wilfully. unlawfully and feloniously assault. of the same day. as maximum.m. of June 5. WHEREFORE. Appellants Josephine Santos and Manny Baltazar are ACQUITTED of the crime of Kidnapping. Municipality of Bacolor. one Maria Luz Cortez who as a result thereof.TECSON. in Barangay Cabalantian. MARILYN RAFAEL-VILLAMAR. a woman of 20 years old as the latter entered her house whom said accused detained and kept locked inside the house from 7:00 a. said appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave coercion. PEOPLE V. of June 5. instead.m. to 9:00 a.m. the judgment of conviction under review is MODIFIED. but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of her will. as minimum. Mary Joie S. The focal point of Villamar's thesis is that she cannot be guilty of serious illegal detention since Issue: Whether or not the court erred in finding accused-appellant Villamar guilty of serious illegal detention. as minimum. Insisting on her innocence. under restraint and against the will of the said Maria Luz Cortez and said accused during the period of detention maltreated and refused to release said Maria Luz Cortez until her demand for a sum of money and a getaway vehicle was given to her and on the occasion thereof. unlawfully and feloniously surreptitiously enter the house of Maria Luz Cortez and by means of force and intimidation and with threats to kill take said Maria Luz Cortez. and from two (2) years. thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of murder as a consequence. either by material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and. as provided in Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.) Whether or not it was kidnapping or coercion. as presently worded. Under the law. Issue: 1. 8243 wherein appellant was charged with violation of Article 267.[9] In the instant case. 2.TECSON. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Astorga claimed that he had no motive to kidnap the 8-year-old Yvonne Traya which should’ve been apparent and proven upon conviction. there is no showing whatsoever that Villamar wanted to extort money from Cortez prior to their confrontation. PEOPLE V. or compelled to do something against his or her will. The crime of grave coercion has three elements: (a) that any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law. The appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED.) Whether or not the prosecution’s witnesses were credible. consequently. in other words.) Whether or not the lack of motive by the appellant is significant in the court’s decision. This is clearly demonstrated in the testimony of Villamar herself. Case Digest Yes. Mary Joie S. Appellant is convicted only for grave coercion and is sentenced to six (6) months of arresto mayor. He claimed that the court erred in convicting him despite the fact that he had not detained nor locked Yvonne up which is an important element in kidnapping. 3. be it right or wrong. that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right Contrary therefore to the prosecution's assertions. Astorga insisted that the inconsistencies and the contradictions of the prosecution’s witnesses should be deemed incredible and that the delay in the filing of the accusation weakened the case. The act merely constituted grave coercion. ASTORGA Facts: Appellant Arnulfo Astorga appealed the court’s decision on Criminal Case No. the court are of the opinion that Villamar had no intention to kidnap or deprive Cortez of her personal liberty. (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence. and (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so. control over the will of the offended party. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code or the kidnap and detention of a minor. it is essential that the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. Case Digest 1. much less. inconclusive and contradictory. Appellant’s forcible dragging of Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement or restriction on the person of Yvonne. the felony committed was grave coercion under Article 286 of the same code.) The delay in the making of the criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken the credibility of the witnesses especially if it had been satisfactorily explained. that he actually detained her. Accordingly. Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He thus made an appeal to the SC arguing that: 1 2 3 4 5 There was not enough evidence to find him guilty of the crime Prosecution failed to satisfy all requisites for conviction Circumstances relied on to convict him were unreliable. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . said acts being committed against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice. did then and there willfully. The evidence does not show that appellant wanted to detain Yvonne. He moved for a reconsideration but to no avail. Mary Joie S. PEOPLE Facts: About 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila Renato “Chito” Baleros forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Besides. In the case. 2.TECSON. 3. unlawfully and feloniously commenced the commission of rape by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Davao. The awarding of damages to complainant was improper and unjustified. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects. There was no “lock up”.) The court found it irrelevant to identify the motive since motive is not an element of the crime. one week was reasonable since the victim was a resident in Binaungan and that the case was filed in Tagum. There was no motive. Rather. LIGHT COERCION VALEROS V. the appellant himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco Central Elementary School. appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Chito made an appeal to the CA only to be denied.) The court agreed with the appellant’s contention. The pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou did not necessarily constitute an overt act of rape. Therefore for an attempted rape. He is adjudged guilty of light coercion and is ordered to serve 30 days of arresto mayor and pay PHP 200. acquitting Chito of attempted rape. the petitioner did not commence any act that was indicative of an intent to rape Malou. Whether the evidence adduced by prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of attempted rape 2. The attempt which RPC punishes is the act that has logical connection to the crime that should it have been successful. there was no carnal knowledge in the case. No. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape Held: 1. 6 Case Digest In failing to appreciate in his favour the constitutional presumption of innocence and that moral certainty has not been met. Yes. rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1 2 3 By using force or intimidation When woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious When woman is under 12 years of age or demented Art. In the crime of rape.TECSON. However. 335 of the RPC. ONG CHIUN KWAN V. The Supreme Court reversed and modifies the decision of the CA. there was no attempt to neither undress her nor touch her private part. penetration is an essential requisite. Moreover. the penetration was not completed. embracing and kissing her or touching her private part do not constitute rape or attempted rape. Art. Thus petitioner’s act of lying on top of her. Mary Joie S. The court’s decision was merely based on speculations. Issue: 1. 6 of the RPC defines attempted rape when offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The petitioner was fully clothed. the attempt would lead to the consummation of rape. accused must have commenced the act of penetrating but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. he should be acquitted on the basis that the offense charged has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. CA Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . 2. water and telephone interruption happened during the operation of the business.. but the Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . He fired one warning shot which caused the three to run towards Phase I. 1990. Western Police District. REYES Facts: On October 12. PO1 Eduardo C.TECSON. Issue: Whether or not Ong Chiu Kwan is liable for unjust vexation. Molato of Station 4. ROBBERY PEOPLE V. Having admitted that he ordered the cutting of electric. 1997.m. Lapu-lapu Avenue. electric and water lines without a permit from appropriate authorities. Sampaloc. Mildred Ong filed a case against Ong Chiu Kwan for unjust vexation and the Trial Court found Ong Chiu Kwan guilty of unjust vexation under Article 287. He continued chasing the suspects up to Phase II until he reached Agora. He chased them but when he saw the victim. Case Digest Facts: Crazy Feet is a business establishment owned by Mildred Ong. On April 24. The one in front of the victim forcibly took his wristwatch while the other one stabbed him at the back. Manila was on his way home on board a passenger jeepney. he hailed a tricycle and asked the driver to bring the victim to the nearest hospital. the electric. Held: The court ruled that petitioner is liable for unjust vexation. second paragraph. at 2:00 a. The Court declared Ong Chiu Kwan guilty of unjust vexation hence this petition. Mary Joie S. he caused the annoyance and vexation of Mildred Ong. To add. Wilfredo Infante was ordered by Ong Chiu Kwan to relocate Crazy Feet's telephone. water and telephone lines without the permit to relocate such. When he alighted at the corner of Lapu-lapu Street and Northbay Boulevard South he saw the victim being held up by two persons. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof.[4] The positive identification of the accused. self-serving. The accused-appellant was the only one arrested. who at that time was engaged in the real estate business. The offense becomes a special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof.M. and 12:00 midnight. He was watching television thereat. such defenses are negative. when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain). Suddenly. private complainant Director Nilo L. A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things. SUELA Facts: On July 26. Case Digest suspects were gone. prevails over alibi and denial. Rosas was at the masters bedroom located at the second floor of his townhouse in Quezon City. The incident happened swiftly but PO1 Molato had a good look at the face of the one who stabbed the victim as he was about 8 to 10 meters away from them. and his former co-teacher and good friend. Mary Joie S. together with his adopted son. and undeserving of any weight in law PEOPLE V. Norman Rosas. The accused-appellant filed an appeal saying that the court erred in convicting the him notwithstanding the fact that his guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt and that the court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony and identification made by PO1 Molato. between 11:00 P. court of appeals affirmed the decision of regional trial court finding Danilo Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime robbery with homicide. 1995. (b) the property taken belongs to another. homicide in its generic sense was committed.TECSON. three persons sporting Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Geronimo Gerry Gabilo. Regional Trial Court of Malabon found Danilo Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime Robbery with homicide. Held: No. Issue: Whether or not regional trial court erred in convicting Danilo Reyes for the crime of Robbery with homicide. Mary Joie S. as it is. It was not shown if the girlfriend voluntarily and validly consented to the taking x x x. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .[23] The extrajudicial confessions of all three appellants are thus inadmissible in evidence. no presumption of regularity can be assumed. Appellants appealed in Court of appeals saying that RTC erred in convicting them of the said crime. 2 Whether the wristwatch and the letter of Nerio Suela are admissible in evidence. Case Digest ski masks. (3) whether appellants can be convicted of robbery with homicide.000 as payment for information on the robbery-slay case. barged into the room. brandishing handguns and a knife. the watch was taken without a search warrant and not as an incident of a valid arrest. bonnets and gloves. we stated that a confession made in an atmosphere characterized by deficiencies in informing the accused of all rights to which he is entitled would be rendered valueless and inadmissible. The seizure was irregular. 2 Clearly. There is also no evidence on record that it was taken under any of the exempting circumstances where a warrantless seizure is permissible. by noncompliance with the procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is entitled under the Bill of Rights and as now further implemented and ramified by statutory law. the assigned errors boil down to four: (1) whether the extrajudicial confessions of appellants are admissible in evidence. and (4) whether Edgar Suela is guilty of robbery for demanding P200. dela Cruz. Lacking such evidence. Issue: 1 Whether the extrajudicial confessions of appellants are admissible in evidence.000 as payment for information on the robbery-slay case.TECSON. 3 Whether appellants can be convicted of robbery with homicide 4 Whether Edgar Suela is guilty of robbery for demanding P200. Court finds the accused Nerio Suela y Hembra and Edgar Suela y Hembra and Edgardo Batocan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. perforated. Held: 1 In People v. (2) whether the wristwatch and the letter (of NerioSuela) are admissible in evidence. at about 8:10 in the morning. 5-17. appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that charge PEOPLE V. was left behind as she had no classes that day. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . As such. Olongapo City to go to the formers stall in the public market.000. The total value of the burned properties was around Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30.. their merchandise (stuffed toys that they sell at the public market).00 (TSN. Notified of the news that their house was on fire. pieces of evidence sufficiently prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. Rita. they went home. Decision. 15). hence. When she entered the kitchen. the elements of simple robbery have not been established in the instant case. it should not have been admitted and appreciated against the accused. Court finds the accused Donato del Rosario guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. left their house at 1657 Balic-Balic. Emelita Paragua and a companion. ibid. what is clear was that the giving of the money was done not out of fear but because it was a choice private complainant opted because he wanted to get the information being offered to him for the consideration of P200.). Raquel Lopez was already dead when her aunt discovered her. 4 There was no showing that appellant Edgar Suela had exerted intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to give the money. Emelita Paragua likewise discovered that six pieces of her jewelries were missing. He is of the impression that not all the essential requisites of the crime of robbery with homicide were proven.TECSON. the money was delivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possibly having a lead in solving the case and to possibly bring the culprit to justice (ibid. p. Case Digest The wristwatch is clearly a fruit of a fruit of a poisonous tree. Parts of her hand and her thigh were burned. a Delia Aquino. and the cassette were burned.000. Mary Joie S.00). November 4. Paragua saw that the sala set. Accused-appellant Donato del Rosario contends that it is essential to prove the intent to rob and that the intent to rob must come first before the killing transpired. 1996. pp. Raquel Lopez. the 11-year old niece of Paragua. she saw her niece lying on her stomach with a raincoat covering her head and her neck and arms tied with CATV wire. Instead. a Saturday. In fact. 1992. Sta. ROSARIO Facts: On September 26. 3 Without the wristwatch and the uncounseled extrajudicial confessions. As such. or intent to gain. Held: In the offense of robbery with homicide.” and he was thus apologizing for AAA’s death. Cagayan de Oro City. SPO1 Bladimir Agbalog of the local police thus called for a meeting of AAA’s relatives during which AAA’s sister BBB. big enough for a person of medium build to enter. the crime of homicide. which is therein used in a generic sense. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons. physically manhandled and strangled. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s necklace with two heart-shaped pendants bearing her initials and handbag were likewise missing. Mary Joie S. was committed. 2000 in her house in Isla Copa. which eventually led to her death. and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. I’m sorry. is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.TECSON. She was raped. xxx (T)he intent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking. the local police discovered a hole bored into the lawanitwall of the comfort room inside AAA’s house. Her furniture and belongings were found strewn on the floor. HIPONA Facts: AAA was found dead on the morning of June 12. the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is the usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of useful property appertaining to another. BBB executed an affidavit affirming appellant’s confession. (b) the property thus taken belongs to another. Consolation. for circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime Robbery with Homicide? Held: Yes. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. I did it because I did not have the money. drawing the police to infer that the perpetrator is familiar with the layout of AAA’s house. Animus lucrandi. unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. Upon investigation. The main electrical switch behind a “shower curtain” located at the “back room” was turned off. the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance. Case Digest Whether or not it is erroneous and illogical for the trial court to convict appalent when the elemental requisites of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are not present. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE PEOPLE V. who is appellant’s mother. Although proof as to motive for the crime is essential when the evidence of the theft is circumstantial. declared that her son-appellant had told her that “Mama. and AAA’s death resulted by reason of or on the occasion thereof. inconsistent and contradictory testimony of the alleged eyewitness Cesar Yuzon. rape should have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance instead. The trial court rendered its decision finding the accused Lito Hernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of complex crime of robbery with homicide. that from the evidence for the prosecution. the appellant. Natividad’s son.m.4 and Catapang dragging his seventy-two-year-old auntie. together with the barangay captain and some of the barangay folks. disregard of age and sex of the victim. Hernandez appealed contending that the trial court erred in convicting him of the said crime. Issue: 1 Whether or not the lower court gravely erred in holding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the robbery with homicide despite the uncorroborated. Nemensio Mendoza. Following Article 294(1) and Article 62(1)1 of the Revised Penal Code. saw his cousin-in-law. robbery was the main intent of appellant.TECSON. 2 Whether or not the lower court gravely erred in appreciating against him the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength. who was lying prostrate on the ground.Cesar shouted. however. Cesar followed them and concealed himself behind a mango tree about ten arm’s length away. Case Digest The Court gathers. HERNANDEZ Facts: On December 19. bakit ninyo kinakaladkad ang aking tiya?" Catapang and the appellant approached and told him not to interfere. That afternoon. Natividad Yuzon Mendoza. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . a forty-four-year-old sweepstakes ticket vendor. "Hoy. in the direction of a forested area where there were also mango and coconut trees. 1994. Cesar Yuzon. 3 Whether or not the lower court gravely erred in failing to appreciate in accusedappellant’s favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. PEOPLE V. Cesar joined the search at 5:00 p. and saw them forcibly taking money. The cadaver of Natividad was found at about 11:00 p.m. Mary Joie S. a pair of earrings and a necklace from the bag of his aunt. had already started looking for his mother. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . and their unwillingness to be involved or dragged into a criminal investigation is common. there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater number. Magpantay. Aurora Lagrada. naked from the waist up. as PRINCIPAL of the offense of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. and that she had shouted for help. 3 The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is not present in the case at bar. To establish the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Such failure in making a prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy the truth per se of the complaint. the natural hesitance of the witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case.m. GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. and has been judicially declared not to affect their credibility 2 Moreover. either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. PEOPLE V. A surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done by the accused spontaneously and made in such manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to authorities. Likewise. the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex cannot be appreciated as no evidence was presented to prove the same. on June 11. REYES Facts: At around 11:00 p.TECSON. 1998. Antonio Reyes appealed saying that the court erred in convicting him of the said crime. They saw the bloodied Lagrada. Barangay Captain William Magpantay received a radio report from barangay kagawad that someone managed to gain entry into the house of Dr. The policemen passed by the garage and opened the door. a barangay councilman and a barangay tanod responded and proceeded to the house of the doctor. Case Digest Held: 1 Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness’ delay in reporting the crime to the authorities. sprawled sidewise on the floor opposite the sink near the kitchen Court finds the accused ANTONIO REYES. Mary Joie S. The accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robbery. an intrinsic connection between the robbery and the killing. Mary Joie S. the constituted crimes of robbery and homicide must be consummated PEOPLE V. Case Digest Issue: 1 Whether or not the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore. Paraiso is an officer of the court. The latter may be done prior to or subsequent to the former. However. Paraiso who certified that he had personally examined the appellant and that he was satisfied that the latter had voluntarily executed the same. 2 To sustain a conviction of the accused for robbery with homicide. the prosecution was burdened to prove the essential elements of the crime.TECSON. The homicide may precede robbery or may occur thereafter. Atty. was committed. the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of the victims life. What is essential is that there is a nexus. The notary publics certification belies the appellants claim that he was forced by the police officers to affix his signature on page 1 of his confession. 2 Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide. Wilfredo O. (b) the property thus taken belongs to another. viz: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. which is now on page 1 of the said confession The extrajudicial confession of the appellant was notarized by Atty. DANIELA Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandiand (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. Held: 1 The Court rejects the appellants claim that his signature on page 3 of his extrajudicial confession is a forgery and that he affixed his signature on a blank paper. which is therein used in a generic sense. the crime of homicide. He is presumed to have regularly performed his duties as such notary public. 1996. unlawfully and feloniously. whose true names. ordering the people/employees thereat to lie down on the floor. conspiring with others. did then and there wilfully. take. Held: Yes. Apellants Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis were convicted of robbery with homicide. violence and intimidation. during. to wit: by then and there barging inside Tondo General Hospital located at Honorio Lopez Blvd. 1996. rings and earrings. A conviction for robbery with homicide required certitude that robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. Case Digest At around 2 am of March 31. In People vs. grabbing the cashier and ordering him to open the vault and filing cabinets and once opened. the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. rob and carry away the following. armed with a . Ricardo Napalit. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. NAPALIT Facts: On or about April 3. However. sentencing them to death and directing them to pay to the heirs of the victims. OSG contends that the prosecutor mustered the required quantum evidence to prove the constitutive elements of robbery with homicide. PEOPLE V. The evidence on the record shows that the object of the appellants was to rob the victim of their money and personal properties and kill Ronito on the occasion of robbery. all armed with unknown caliber firearms.TECSON.. Mary Joie S.38 caliber gun and holding fluorescent lamp. The court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another. Tondo. Philippines. with intent of (sic) gain and by means of force. Manuel and Jose assail the decision of trial court and insist that the court erred in convicting them for it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Tidula. Manuel Daniela ordered Jose Baylosis to kill Ronito while Daniela was raping the house maid. entered the bedroom or Ronito and Maria Fe. to wit:cash Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . announcing a hold-up. in the City of Manila. real identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another. or after the commission of the robbery. They ransacked the room and divested Maria Fe of her necklace. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before. Manuel. unless it is shown that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance that. appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court since the latter is in a better position to pass on it. Mary Joie S. They are straightforward and consistent Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not indispensable in conspiracy. concerted action and community of interest. professional fees. and even granting that accused-appellant was a co-conspirator in the plan to commit robbery. indeed. PEOPLE V. and aided each other for its consummation. synchronized their acts for unity in its execution. In his brief. when such point to a joint purpose and design. cash advances and salaries of employees amounting to. they merit credence. having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. nonetheless. Case Digest money consisting of unions collection. there can be no other conclusion than that they hatched a criminal scheme.TECSON.P1. or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves. could affect the outcome of the case In the case at bar.[32] From the time accused-appellant and his companions entered the hospital and announced a holdup up to the time they fled. the trial court found the testimony of witnesses Santos and Saclolo to be worthy of credence. the trial court.000.00 Accused-appellant was found guilty of robbery in band with homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 (as amended by R. erred in attributing to him and holding him liable for the crime of homicide which happened on the occasion of the robbery. Issue: Whether or not court erred in deciding the case. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated. A. CAMPOS Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . in the course of which security guard Gomez was shot. when the issue of credibility is involved. this Court finds that. if considered. 7659).300. patients fees. more or less --. From the transcripts of the stenographic notes of their testimonies. accused-appellant ascribes the following errors to the trial court: The trial court erred in finding the accusedappellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Held: No. (b) the property taken belongs to another. Accused-appellant Renato dela Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is ordered released immediately from confinement unless he is held for another case. (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof the crime of homicide was committed. at around 10:00 in the evening. Court REVERSES the decision of the Regional Trial Court. In robbery with homicide cases. Mary Joie S. accused Campos moved towards Mercelina and started stabbing her. left arm.TECSON. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . someone stabbed her on her left arm. Their bedroom and the kitchen were located inside the mini mart. while Felicidad laid on the floor beside them. Thereafter. Case Digest On August 16. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of Robbery with Homicide Held: In order to be convicted of robbery with homicide. Mercelina laid on the bed with her twoyear old son. convicting accused-appellant Renato dela Cruz y Borac of robbery with homicide. the two accused left hurriedly. still lying on the bed. and left side. She knew accused dela Cruz because they used to work together in the Cefel's General Merchandise Store. four (4) elements are necessary: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person. Court finds the accused Alejandro Campos y Armado and Renato dela Cruz y Borac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide with Frustrated Homicide as charged and hereby sentences each accused to suffer imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. She fell to the floor in a sitting position and she looked at the person who stabbed her. Branch 124. Felicidad roused from her sleep and stood up. She was hit on her abdomen. Only accused-appellant Renato dela Cruz contended that the trial court erred in convicting him because his participation in the crime was not clearly established. Court finds insufficient evidence to show that accused-appellant dela Cruz was guilty of the first three elements of robbery with homicide. Christopher. 1989. She also noticed accused Renato dela Cruz standing near the door of the room. and. Suddenly. Accused Campos kept stabbing her. the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. Felicidad and Mercelina prepared to sleep. exiting through the storeroom of the minimart. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. Suddenly. She recognized accused Alejandro Campos. Caloocan City. a hardware store adjacent to the mini-mart. At around midnight. She started to shout as her assailant continued to stab her. woke up and shouted for help. Mercelina. Felicidad turned off all lights in the store except the kitchen light. who worked at the neighboring gravel and sand area and frequented their store to buy gas. whom she identified as accused Mario Verceles and Felix Corpuz. The trial court did not err in discharging Jerry Soriano to be utilized as a state witness. (b) the testimony of Rosita Quilates that her properties were stolen. Second. Jerry Soriano does not appear to be the most guilty for he was not a co-conspirator in the robbery with rape. Mary Joie S. Case Digest ROBBERY WITH RAPE PEOPLE V. She later identified her aggressor as Mamerto Soriano. Besides. the testimony of Jerry Soriano was absolutely necessary as the prosecution has no direct evidence to prove the identity of the malefactors Mamerto Soriano. in not considering as mitigating circumstance the voluntary surrender of Mario Verceles. Accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles interposed the instant appeal. Mario Verceles and Pablo Ramos. Lastly. VERCELES Facts: On October 19. Jerry Sorianos testimony was corroborated in its material points by other prosecution witnesses and physical evidence. and (c) the testimony of SPO2 Renato Solomon that they were able to recover the stolen properties from a certain Andres Tirano who bought them from accused Mamerto Soriano. and in awarding damages to the private complainants. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the question of whether Jerry Soriano appears to be the most guilty is a factual issue. in appreciating conspiracy among the accused. Soriano undressed her then kissed her on the body and fondled her breasts for five minutes. While she was being ravished. They alleged that the trial court erred in discharging Jerry Soriano as a state witness. First. she saw two men standing at the door. 1996 at around 2:00 in the morning. She tried to resist and fight back but her strength proved too weak against her aggressor. These are: (a) the testimony of Maribeth Bolito that there were three malefactors. There he removed his pants and laid her on the floor and tried to insert his penis inside her vagina. The Court hereby finds accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape.TECSON. one of whom sexually abused her and two of whom just stood at the door. Maribeth Bolita was awakened by a man fondling her breast and other private parts. Maribeth lost consciousness and when she came to. her private part was very painful and the three accused were gone. Held: The appeal lacks merit. Issue: Whether or not the appeal lacks merit. Felix Corpuz. He merely accompanied the accused and received three hundred pesos as his share in the proceeds of the sale of the stolen properties. covered her mouth and inserted his penis into the mouth of the said victim. it must be shown that the rape was Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . took and carried away cash money amounting to P500. did then and there willfully. the accused must satisfactorily comply with three requisites: (1) he has not been actually arrested.TECSON. undressed her. or on the occasion of a robbery. For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated. TAMAYO Facts: On or about the 29th day of March 1998. violence against. For a conviction of crime of robbery with rape to stand. and (3) the surrender is voluntary. poked a fan knife on her throat. pulled down her shorts and panty and succeeded in having sexual interoucrse with her against her will and consent. all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape. PEOPLE V. However. (2) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent. and once inside. it posits that the crime comiitted is not the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294. but two separate crimes of rape and robbery. and intimidation. Tamayo was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Case Digest The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence. Issue: Whether or not the court erred in finding Tamayo guilty of the crime charged. Nelson Tamayo. with intent to gain. Tamayo appealed insisting that the lower court erred in finding accused appellant guilty of special complex crime of robbery with rape despite his guilt not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt.00 belonging to the said victim. Tamayo. although not all of them took part in the rape. held her. Held: The court maintains that the trial court did not err in handing down a judgment of conviction. unlawfully and feloniously enter the room and residence of one Mary Anne Guazon. by means of force. Mary Joie S. Michelle.TECSON. Marvin Indon. However. Case Digest committed by reason or occasion of a robbery and not the other way around. but the appellant followed her. Raquel got up and ran for help. It contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take. Issue: Whether or not the crime committed is murder Held: Raquel Indon. The appellant then proceeded to stab Marvin. four-year-old Marvin rushed towards her. with intent to gain. the criminal acts should be viewed as two distinct offenses. She then grabbed him and ran towards the gate. and would sustain a conviction for murder. The appellant also attacked twoyear-old Jeffer by striking him on the head with the screwdriver. since the kitchen light illuminated his face. both minors who could not be expected to defend themselves against an adult. After stabbing Marvin. was considered treacherous. Appellant’s conviction for frustrated Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Their neighbor. after committing rape. PEOPLE V. Furthermore. hitting the latter twice on the arm and twice on his left chest. personal property belong to another and rape is committed on occasion thereof as an accompanying crime. Melissa died because of the stab wounds that the appellant inflicted on her. Armed with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife. Marvin and Jeffer were sleeping inside their house when she was awakened by the sound of appellant kicking their door open. who was able to hide under the papag merely sustained serious physical injuries. appellant returned back to the house. When she tried to escape from the room. If the original design was to commit rape but the accused. before reaching the gate. She immediately recognized the accused. Melissa Indon. towards Raquel’s two daughters Michelle and Melissa. also committed robbery because the opportunity presented itself. and Jeffer Indon were merely sleeping inside their bedroom and had not even given the slightest provocation when appellant attacked them without warning. she fell down and appellant stabbed her right leg. but the latter managed to run to the house of Raquel’s sister-in-law. Marvin died on 3 April 2000 as a result of these injuries. The penalties imposed were adjusted accordingly. Michelle Indon. using the six-inch screwdriver. the killing of Marvin Indon and Melissa Indon. DOMINGO Facts: Complainant Raquel Indon and her minor children Melissa. Mary Joie S. appellant cut the cord of the mosquito net and repeatedly stabbed her. while Michelle. came to their rescue and tried to subdue the appellant. Ronaldo Galvez. On cross-examination. Lisbog was also his classmate. he heard somebody was groaning from the room. Lisbog was instructed to wait outside. Mary Joie S. Moreover. since prosecution failed to prove appellant’s treachery or evident premeditation in his assault against Rolando Galvez. Thereafter. He stopped schooling. he testified that Cozette Aragon was his classmate in one of his back subjects at Jose Fabella Memorial School. Marvin Indon and Melissa Indon were both minors when they were killed by the appellant. The killing by an adult of a minor child is treacherous. Aragon also invited Lisbog to go with them. Aragon and Diadid went inside the room. PEOPLE V. Held: Although Aragon avers that it was only Diadid who did the stabbing. Suddenly. the victims in this case were asleep when appellant barged into their house and attacked their family. He admitted that when he heard the groaning inside the room. Qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established. Upon entering the gate of the house. Aragon let them in. he came to know that Diadid also proceeded to the house of Aragon’s uncle at the back of Don Bosco in Kalentong. Case Digest homicide in Criminal Case No. he did not bother to verify what was happening. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. He went out of the house immediately and did not attend his classes anymore. Afraid. LAGO Facts: Accused Reyderick Lago testified that accused Cozette Aragon who was his classmate in English approached him and asked him to accompany him to the house of his uncle to get a project and collect his salary.TECSON. who came to the scene of the crime to subdue the appellant. This Court has ruled that whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery. he immediately left the place and went to the house of his grandmother in Mandaluyong who advised him not to leave the place anymore. 1499-M-2000 was affirmed. Aragon opened the jalousie window with the use of a ‘beinte nueve’ balisong and unlocked the door. The attack was clearly unprovoked. While he was seated on the sofa. the latter’s act is deemed to be the act of all. He did not know personally Jayson Diadid and Dennis Sison. and they were defenseless against him. all those who took part as Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Whether or not the accused is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. he tied her hands and told her that he loved her and that he would answer for what he had done to her. and once again with threat and intimidation sexually abused her. and not by any hard and fast rule. Mary Joie S. The accused was arrested the next morning and brought to the police headquarters for further interrogation. b. a police officer. Whether or not in being raped twice. Issue: a. stabbed and killed the victim. (2) the property taken belongs to another. who immediately reported the same to his friend. through threat and intimidation. YES. Perhaps convinced that she was going to run away with him. he allowed her to go home at noon to get her things. Appellant and his cohorts broke into the house of Aragon’s uncle took the victim’s wallet and cash. tied her hands and went out of the room to smoke. homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed. even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide. Held: A. PEOPLE V. untied her." He grabbed her and brought her to his house along where he. Case Digest principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. After ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes. had carnal knowledge of her. Sultan. in the course of the robbery. unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the homicide. he ordered her to put on her bra and panty. who pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and announcing it was a "hold-up. later identified as accused-appellant Fernando L. It is enough that it produces Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . that is. (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi. SULTAN Facts: One evening she was on her way home from a visit to her cousin she was accosted by someone. and (4) by reason of the robbery or on occasion thereof. wrist watch and several pieces of jewelry amounting to P67. every count of rape should be treated as aggravating circumstance. Thereafter.000 and. The elements of this special complex crime are the following: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against a person.TECSON. The records and the pleadings show that all the above-mentioned elements are present in the case at bar. Accused-appellant might not have employed force in committing the rape but he definitely used intimidation which was sufficient to make complainant submit herself to him against her will for fear of life and personal safety. She immediately reported the abuse to her sister. he came back. After satisfying his lust. Intimidation is subjective so it must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. In her effort to release herself from his clutches she "agreed" to elope with him. did then and there willfully. unlike in Art. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. ABROGAR Facts: On or about September 10-19. Under Art. Complaining witness Juditha Bautista was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. the accused. conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another. "x x x [a]ny person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The record shows that the prosecution has established that he committed both robbery and rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding the rape. Mary Joie S. par. THEFT LAUREL V. Under this view. effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimated amount of P20. the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. hence. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating circumstance. antenae. the remedy lies with the legislature. x x x when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape x x x x" B.651. 294. and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT. steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR). It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. in the said amount. or prior thereto in Makati City. Consequently. Case Digest fear. with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT).370. The Court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. 13 of the same Code which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered. cables. unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating. fear that if the complainant does not yield to the bestial demands of accused-appellant something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter. 1999. (1).TECSON. as in the present case. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive. which is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines. unlawfully and feloniously take. of the Revised Penal Code. who with intent to gain but without violence. The assailed Decision is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above. is AFFIRMED. Case Digest Whether international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are considered as personal properties subjected to theft. Issue: Whether or not the said accused is guilty of qualified theft. Mary Joie S. harvested and gathered 1500 coconuts thru the supervision of Alfonso and Leticia Gaviola from the plantation of Cleto Mejarito without his authority and consent. the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. PEOPLE Facts: The RTC convicted Alfonso Gaviola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft. which denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) for theft.) Any person who. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Order issued by Judge Zeus C. GABLOIA V. Theft is likewise committed by: (1. ACCORDINGLY. The case is remanded to the trial court and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended Information to show that the property subject of the theft were services and business of the private offended party. against or intimidation of neither persons nor force upon things. shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him. after having maliciously damaged the property of another.) Any person who shall enter an enclosed state or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner. The said accused admitted that the coconuts were taken upon his instruction but insisted that the trees were planted from the lot he inherited from his father.) Any person who. 1997 at 7:00 AM. cereals or other Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system. and (3. (2. Jovencio Mejarito. Held: Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code states that theft is committed by any person. Abrogar of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Held: In the instant case. having found lost property. and a barangay councilman saw Gavino Gaviola. shall take personal property of another without the latter‘s consent.TECSON. Rodrigo Gaviola and Domingo Caingcoy climbing the coconut trees and deliberately took. shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner. On September 6. shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits. a nephew of Cleto Mejarito. 00 all belonging to Luisito Tuazon. or if the property stolen is motor vehicle. an electric fan.00. The accused made an appeal to the Court of Appeals.000. twenty-three (23) pieces of cassette tapes. fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire. It may be deduced from the concerted acts of the accused. 69. together with Wilfredo Navarro and Enrique Lovena. with intent to gain. That there be taking of personal property. LUCAS V. Case Digest forest or farm products. Held: No. one (1) box of car toys. confederating and mutually helping one another. According to Article 310: Qualified theft . volcanic eruption. Rizal. cash ofP20. Br. earthquake. He claims he did not know his co-accused Navarro and Lovena. a 14-inch colored TV.The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degree than those respectively specified in the next preceding article. Thus. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. Thus. Petitioner Lucas alleges that it was impossible for conspiracy to have existed among the accused. meaning the intent to deprive another of his ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from but concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo. willfully. indubitably Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .000.TECSON. or with grave abuse of confidence. four (4) pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls. neither did they know him on or before 8 June 1990 Issue: Whether or not conspiracy is essential to make the petitioners liable of committing the crime of theft. unlawfully and feloniously stole and carried away one stereo component. conspiring. or any other calamity.00 and jewelry worth P10. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. if committed by a domestic servant. 3) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner and 5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. For one to be guilty of theft. 2) that said property belongs to another. mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. The Information[1]alleged that on or about 8 June 1990 the three (3) accused. petitioner‘s claim of good faith in taking the coconuts from private complainant‘s land is a mere pretense to escape criminal liability. Mary Joie S. CA Facts: Herminigildo Lucas was charged with theft before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan. typhoon. the accused must have intent to steal (animu furandi) personal property.000. the elements of theft are: 1). valued at P100. 125 on board his motorcycle. to break your head)?" Thereafter.. MANERO Facts: At 5:00 o'clock. his hands clasped against his chest. Jr. Favali. lit a fire and burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze. causing his brain to scatter on the road. and. and that they were united in its execution. But the latter simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. Jr. Jr. Norberto. his brothers danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their comrades-in-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from possible assistance. (3) there must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's personal property.TECSON. padre (What is it you want. Issue: Whether or not there was a conspiracy on the part of all of the accused. the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent. Fr. and fired anew. Favali dropped to the ground. (2) the act of taking the personal property of another must be done without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. kicked it twice. Mary Joie S. and his co-accused Pleñago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. As Norberto. the felons raved and rejoiced. Jr.. Father. To sustain a conviction for theft. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. Favali accosted Norberto. Case Digest demonstrating their unity of purpose. Father)? Gusto mo. in a flash. Norberto.. While inside. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . It is enough that the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense and that they had the same purpose or common design. The Court of Appeals which affirmed their conviction and even raised the period of their imprisonment to from six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum PEOPLE V. intent and sentiment in committing the crime. At this point. Jr. Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3) times. Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire. attempted homicide and arson. He entered the house of Gomez.. bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me. opened the gasoline tank. Edilberto asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo. Slighted over the remark. As Fr. spilled some fuel. Father. Norberto. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered the head of Fr. Fr. hence guilty of the crime of murder. flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers. taunted Edilberto if that was the only way he knew to kill a priest. their collective action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts. Held: No. 1985. in Virac. The appellants acted in concert in the murder of Fr. Mary Joie S. 1982. Undoubtedly. Catanduanes. Issue: Whether the petitioner was properly convicted of qualified theft.TECSON. the said accused. Virac. to the damage and prejudice of the government. and as such have access and control of the motor pool of the DPWH. It is universally recognized that the crime of theft implies an invasion of possession. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is singularity of purpose and unity in its execution is present. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. and taking advantage of his official position. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Favali and the attempted murder of Rufino Robles by the Manero brothers and their militiamen. For sure. the chassis of Willys Jeep valued at P15. appellants all assumed a fighting stance to discourage if not prevent any attempt to provide assistance to the fallen priest. and this doctrine is well accepted in both the common-law and civil law jurisdictions. being then the District Engineer of the Department (then Ministry) of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Office. did then and there wilfully. Catanduanes.00 in the Inventory and Inspection Report of Unserviceable Property dated December 2. Philippines. a public officer. Case Digest Held: YES. with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence. Catanduanes. unlawfully and feloniously take and steal. of the DPWH. It Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . They surrounded the house of Domingo Gomez to stop Robles and the other occupants from leaving so that the wounded Robles may die of hemorrhage. Favali and in the attempted murder of Rufino Robles. Virac. committing the offense in relation to his duties. without the consent of the government. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: On October. these were overt acts to ensure success of the commission of the crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy. it is clear that appellants were not merely innocent bystanders but were in fact vital cogs in perpetrating the savage murder of Fr. The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft. It is not essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves.000. ABUNDIO V. From the foregoing narration of the trial court. TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest follows therefore, that there cannot be theft when the owner has voluntarily parted with the possession of the thing. A felonious taking characterizes the crime of theft. The facts clearly show that there was no furtive taking or unlawful asportation, in the criminal sense, of the chassis. The physical and juridical possession of the subject chassis was transferred to the petitioner, at his request, with the consent of the Motor Pool Officer, Engineer Alberto. The delivery of the chassis to the petitioner was properly documented. A taking which is done with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the property is not felonious. Lack of malice or criminal intent on the part of petitioner was sufficiently established in this case. Since the prosecution failed to prove that theft was committed by Abundo, it is unnecessary to discuss whether the theft was simple or qualified. PEOPLE V. SALVILLA Facts: The accused were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade. When they entered the establishment, they met Rodita Hablero an employee thereat who was on her way out for her meal break and announced to her that it was a hold-up. She was made to go back to the office and there Appellant Salvilla pointed his gun at the owner, Severino Choco, and his two daughters, Mary and Mimie the latter being a minor 15 years of age, and told the former that all they needed was money. Hearing this, Severino told his daughter, Mary, to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000.00 cash and handed it to Appellant. Thereafter, Severino pleaded with the four accused to leave the premises as they already had the money but they paid no heed. Instead, accused Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his two daughters, and Rodita, were herded to the office and kept there as hostages. UItimatums were given but the accused did not budge. Finally, the police and military authorities decided to launch an offensive and assault the place. This resulted in injuries to the girls, Mimie and Mary Choco as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Mary suffered a "macerated right lower extremity just below the knee" so that her right leg had to be amputated. The medical certificate described her condition as "in a state of hemorrhagic shock when she was brought in to the hospital and had to undergo several major operations during the course of her confinement from April 13, 1986 to May 30, 1986." Issue: Whether the crime of robbery was consummated or was merely attempted. Held: The crime of robbery in this case was consummated. There is no question that in robbery, it is required that there be a taking of personal property belonging to another. This is known as the element of asportation the essence of which is the taking of a thing out of the possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without the animus revertendi. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest Those factual allegations of the appellant that while the "giving" has been proven, the "taking" has not, are contradicted by the evidence. Rodita, the lumberyard employee, testified that upon demand by Appellant, Severino put P20,000.00 inside a paper bag and subsequently handed it to Appellant. In turn, accused Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino. In respect of the P50,000.00 from Mayor Caram, Rodita declared that the Mayor handed the amount to her after she (the Mayor) had opened the padlocked door and that she thereafter gave the amount to one of the holduppers. The "taking" was, therefore, sufficiently proved (TSN, July 1, 1987, pp. 12-13, 15-16, 27-31). The money demanded, and the wallet and wristwatch were within the dominion and control of the Appellant and his co-accused and completed the taking. QUALIFIED THEFT ROQUE V. PEOPLE Facts: Antonio Salazar (Salazar) is a member/depositor of the Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA) as evidenced by his passbook No. 1359. He was made to sign two ledgers when he opened his savings account. On November 16, 1989, Salazar made a deposit of P2,000 at the BABSLA; however, he did not make any withdrawal, nor did he authorize anyone to do the same on that date or on November 17, 1989 or for the whole month of November of that year. Salazar disclosed that around July 1990 he heard that the funds of other depositors were missing inside the BABSLA and were supposedly clandestinely circulating around the base. Prodded by this news, and considering that the balance in his passbook was P46,000, he went to the BABSLA to withdraw P40,000, but was informed that his balance at the BABSLA was insufficient to cover the withdrawal. He was not allowed to withdraw. Rosalina de Lazo, the general manager, informed him that several withdrawals were made on his account amounting to P30,500, as evidenced by three (3) withdrawal slips. Included among these withdrawal slips is one with the amount of P10,000, dated November 16, 1989. Salazar claimed that the signature appearing on said withdrawal slip was not his signature. He does not personally know who made the withdrawal ofP10,000. Salazar assumed that the one in control of the funds made the withdrawal. Issue: Whether or not qualified theft may be committed when the personal property is in the lawful possession of the accused prior to the commission of the alleged felony? Held: YES. In the present case, what is involved is the possession of money in the capacity of a bank teller. In People v. Locson, the this Court considered deposits received by a teller in behalf of a bank as being only in the material possession of the teller. This interpretation applies with equal force to money received by a bank teller at the beginning of a business Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest day for the purpose of servicing withdrawals. Such is only material possession. Juridical possession remains with the bank. In line with the reasoning of the Court in the abovecited cases, beginning with People v. De Vera, if the teller appropriates the money for personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not estafa. Further, since the teller occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places money in the teller’s possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the felony of qualified theft would be committed. PEOPLE V. BUSTINERA Facts: From the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City finding appellant Luisito D. Bustinera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft for the unlawful taking of a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he comes to this Court on appeal. In an information dated June 17, 1997, appellant was indicted as follows: The undersigned accuses Luisito D. Bustinera of the crime of Qualified Theft, committed as follows: That on or about 25 December up to the 9 January 1997 in Quezon City, the said accused being then employed as one of the taxi Drivers of Elias S. Cipriano, an Operator of several taxi cabs in Diliman, Quezon City, and as such has free access to the taxi he drives, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by his employer and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi with Plate No. PWH-266worth PHP 303,000.00 belonging to Elias S. Cipriano, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount of PHP 303,000.00. Issues: Whether or not the accused- appellant had intent to gain when he failed to return the taxi to its garage? Held: Appellant was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However, Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING. The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti- carnapping law and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery. The anti- carnapping law is a special law, different from the crime of robbery and theft included in the RPC. It particularly addresses the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would apply as the said motor vehicle does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in the anti-carnapping law Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 30. Arthur Christy Mariano of the spot audit group testified that the amount of accounts payable for October 23. Mariano also testified that after finding basic differences in the signature of bank manager Antonia Manuel appearing on the subject check with other specimens he conferred with the latter who told him that the signature appearing therein was not hers. with grave abuse of confidence. by increasing the penalty imposed on the accused to reclusion perpetua. did then and there willfully. 013702 in the amount of P36.480. Branch 142 in Criminal Case No. under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.000. in a letter dated September 15. Case Digest PEOPLE V.30. the supposed payee when in truth and in fact there is no such transaction between Firebrake and Metrobank. Manager Antonia Manuel likewise testified that the signature appearing in the cashiers check varies with the way she signs.480. the imposable penalty for the felony of theft is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and 1 year of each additional PHP 10. Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 18551 which modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. Abelardo Salonga. Severino S. intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof. Flaviano Pangilinan. through which they succeeded in its encashment. Since the value of the check is P38. and as such had access to the preparation of checks in the said Metrobank and Trust Company (Metrobank). 1987 to Atty. in the Municipality of Makati.30 making it appear genuine and authorized.00 in accordance with Article 309. the above-named accused. 1993. unlawfully and feloniously take. thereby causing the preparation and use of a simulated check described as Check No. steal and carry away the total amount of P36. Metro Manila. SALONGA Facts: This case was certified to this Court pursuant to Section 13. Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup were charged with the crime of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document in an information alleging that on or before 23 October 1986.R.30 by forging the signature of officers authorized to sign the said check and have the said check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services. However. On July 19.480. Tabios of Metrobank. accusedappellant confirmed the statements in his extra-judicial confession and offered to return the amount of P8. Issues: Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified theft? Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper? Held: The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the participation of accusedappellant in the crime charged. paragraph 1 of the RPC. CR NO.500. the crime of qualified theft is punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than that specified in Article 309 of Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .00. showing that the check was issued without any transaction. The crime charged is Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. 33127. to the damage and prejudice of Metrobank and Trust Company in the total amount of P36. Significantly. Mary Joie S. It was established that accused-appellant was the custodian of the blank Metrobank cashiers check which was processed and encashed.480. the RTC rendered its decision finding Salonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. 1986 as reflected in the proof sheet did not tally with the debit tickets of the same date. conspiring and confederating with one another and mutually helping and aiding one another. enabling them to gain for themselves the total sum of P36.TECSON.480.30. the correct penalty is fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. the penalty for the more serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed. Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence and Sec. ‘Duran’ was able to purchase some wires which came from. He received reports that some private electricians were involved in the sale of DLPC supplies. 1(f). guilt beyond reasonable doubt proven Held: the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 24. where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. forging the signatures of the bank officers authorized to sign the subject cashiers check was resorted to in order to obtain the sum of P36. Case Digest the Revised Penal Code. Falsification of the subject cashiers check was a necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft resulting in a complex crime. In October 1988. Ricardo offered to supply the materials saying that his cousin can supply the same to him. In addition.480. PEOPLE V. and he said that his ‘boss’ needs some electrical materials to be used in Diwalwal. was unable to present Ricardo as witness as the subpoena cannot be personally served to him as he was in Sultan Kudarat. 2001 Gonzaga-Reyes Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA affirming RTC decision convicting Jonathan Cariaga of qualified theft Facts: Luis Aboitiz was the systems analyst of Davao Light & Power Company (DLPC). he sought assistance of Sgt. we apply Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. ‘Duran’ then ‘confessed’ in order to persuade Ricardo and the others involved to come out with the truth. a private electrician. his cousin named Jonathan Cariaga (accused). as Ricardo said. Issue: Whether or not Ricardo’s sworn statement is admissible as evidence. He also hired Florencio Siton as an undercover agent under the pseudonym “Canuto Duran”. 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION (1) Not admissible. which provides that. Hence. 47.TECSON. CA June 6. a gold panning area. Ricardo and another person came to the police station and confessed to their participation as “fence” for Jonathan Cariaga. however. Villasis. Siton is a credible witness. He initiated a covert operation to ascertain the matter and catch the perpetrators. The prosecution. Considering that qualified Theft is more serious than falsification of bank notes or certificates which is punished under Article 166 (2) of the Revised Penal Code with prision mayor in its minimum period. Sec. Ricardo was able to give a sworn statement pertaining to the stealing for a labor case between Jonathan and DLPC for the latter’s alleged illegal dismissal. Chief of the Theft & Robber Section of METRODISCOM-Davao. Mary Joie S.30 for the benefit of the accused. The RTC & CA erred when it admitted the sworn statement of Ricardo as evidence in the instant case. CARIAGA Facts: Jonathan Cariaga v. Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure both speak of Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Villasis ‘apprehended’ him on February 1989. Two degrees higher than prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. ‘Duran’s undercover work came to an end when Sgt. ‘Duran’ became acquainted with Ricardo Cariaga. PEOPLE Facts: Both accused (Conchita Quinao and Salvador Cases) and private complainant Francisco Del Monte are claiming ownership over the land in question. QUINAO V. and (3) the accused should be animated by the intent to gain. In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales. (2) violence or intimidation should be employed in possessing the real property or in usurping the real right. the Court stated that the elements of the offense are (1) occupation of another's real property or usurpation of a real right belonging to another person. but. CA . the Court has held that “unable to testify” does not cover cases of witnesses subpoenaed but did not appear. The Court must exercise its coercive power to arrest. The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took possession of another's real property or usurped real rights in another's property. Petitioner failed to give any cogent reason for this Court to deviate from this salutary principle. the decision rendered by the trial court convicting her of the crime of usurpation of real property was not based on "speculations.TECSON. this case. Case Digest admissibility of a testimony of a witness “unable to testify” in court. it did not in the present case. Accused-appellant presented a tax declaration and alleged that the land being claimed by the complainant is different from the land litigated in Civil Cases No. 3561. Mary Joie S. In Tan v. Issue: Whether or not the accused-petitioner who claims to be owner of the land in question could be held liable of usurpation of her own property Held: Contrary to petitioner's allegation. Trial Court finds accused guilty of the crime of Usurpation of Real Rights in Property. Ricardo was only subpoenaed once. Cubelo. He was neither dead nor out of the country. In fact he is in Sultan Kudarat which is merely 4 hours drive away from Davao." the proof must show that the real property occupied or usurped belongs. that the possession or usurpation was committed with violence or intimidation and that the accused had animo lucrandi. surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the evidence on record and in accordance with the applicable law under Article 312 of Revised Penal Code. and that the possession of the usurper was obtained by means of intimidation or violence done to the person ousted of possession of the property. (3) Guilty. but to some third person. not to the occupant or usurper. In Castrodes vs. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. (2) Credible. PEOPLE Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . SWINDLING (ESTAFA) ONG V. Hence. When. As reflected above. as well as the others. which is hard to determine and may not be inferred from mere failure to comply with a promise. the Information alleged that petitioner issued the questioned checks knowing that she had no funds in the bank and failing to fund them despite notice that they were dishonored. on maturity. Section 14(2) of Article III of the Constitution grants the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. the real nature of the crime charged is determined. knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed. paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code when she was. upon her assurance that the checks would be funded on their due dates. under paragraph 2(d). defenses to a malum in se like Estafa. This leaves it unnecessary to pass on the evidence for the defense. From the allegations in an information. petitioner offered to pay in installment. but there is no evidence that petitioner received notice of dishonor of all. are not difficult to credit. RTC convicted petitioner of Estafa under Article 315. She was likewise indicted for 10 counts of violation of B. failure to fund the check despite notice of dishonor creates a prima facie presumption of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. which is not an element of a violation of paragraph 2(a). the checks were deposited. While she normally bought jewelry on cash basis. In the case at bar. Thus. not under paragraph 2(a) as the lower courts found but. they were returned with the stamp "Account Closed. 22 before the RTC of Manila. petitioner was indicted for Estafa. These allegations clearly constitute a charge. An accused cannot thus be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. she was allowed to issue postdated checks to cover the jewelry she bought in December 1994 up to February 1995. in the Information. the prosecution stipulated that petitioner had made a total payment of Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . of the questioned checks. on notice of the lack of sufficient funds in her bank account. For. Issue: Whether she could be convicted of Estafa under Article 315. as priorly stated. failure to prove it is a ground for acquittal thereunder. the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.654). Hence. if there is no proof of notice of dishonor. petitioner was charged under paragraph 2(d).P. Under paragraph 2(d). to which the private complainant agreed. paragraph 2(d) of the same Code Held: The appeal is impressed with merit. Suffice it to state that petitioner’s defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent. charged of Estafa under Article 315. 7600042 for P76. except one (Allied Bank Check No.Notice of dishonor being then an element of a charge under Article 2(d) under which petitioner was clearly charged. In the case at bar. Mary Joie S. under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. and unless there is a priori intent." Hence. with respect to all but one of the checks. Although the earlier quoted paragraph 2(a) and the immediately quoted paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 have a common element – false pretenses or fraudulent acts – the law treats Estafa under paragraph 2(d) by postdating a check or issuing a bouncing check differently. This is to enable the accused to adequately prepare for his defense. Case Digest Facts: Petitioner had for years been buying jewelry from Gold Asia which is owned and operated by the family of private complainant Rosa Cabuso. Motion for reconsideration was denied. paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. to cover the Allied Bank check. no Estafa can be deemed to exist. the amount covered by the said check.TECSON. Hence. Appellant insists that he is only civilly liable for an unpaid debt. would win as a Senator. claiming to be a consultant of then Congressman Antonio V. When asked to pay. which amount is almost one-third of the total amount of the ten checks or more than the amount covered by the P76. 1995. Quezon City. Quezon City. however. paragraph 2(d) under which petitioner was clearly charged.391. When the Sales Invoice was presented to petitioner.00. Inc. but to no avail.654 Allied Bank check. he refused to pay. The judgment bearing on her civil liability stands. he asked that four (4) additional tables be set. but still. petitioner was charged with estafa before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). petitioner. Due to petitioners stubborn refusal to pay.TECSON. when petitioner arrived at the restaurant on August 23. Ramon assured that Marcos. Branch 31. he refused and insisted he was a mere guest of Ramon. Roland Veloso. The lawyer for the restaurant sent a demand letter to petitioner. After the elections. Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of estafa Held: The court DENIED the petition. GSIS Village. at No. Jr.250. Costs against petitioner. he refused to pay. petitioner and then Congressman Cuenco. the prosecution having failed to establish all the elements of Estafa under Article 315. We reviewed the records very closely and found that petitioner and his guests. Petitioner instructed her to send it to Congressman Cuencos office as he was always present there. that he was no longer reporting at that office. Ramon. occupying four tables. while at the said restaurant having dinner. Mary Joie S. Domingo (Eva). ate the food he ordered. PEOPLE Facts: Shangri-la Finest Chinese Cuisine. promising he would pay for the same. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA finding petitioner Roland V. It turned out. had a conversation with Ramon. Eva had four additional tables prepared in addition to the one under Ramons account. his commitment to petitioner. This led to a friendly bet between petitioner and Ramon on whether or not Ferdinand Marcos. Before the May 1995 elections. Eva asked him where she should send the bill. Hence. petitioner won in the bet. It bears emphasis that the understanding between petitioner and Ramon was that the latter would pay for only one Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . In fine. her acquittal is in order. Jr. Hence. the loser. On August 22. Hence. was an occasional guest at the restaurant. Case Digest P338. Congressman Cuencos secretary called Eva Anne Nanette Sto. is a sure winner. Cuenco. Jr. West Triangle. the restaurants assistant dining manager. to reserve a dinner for one table corresponding to ten persons on behalf of petitioner. They both agreed that the loser will host a dinner for ten (10) persons. 1995. lost in his senatorial bid. Quezon City. However. 4 Times Street. Consequently. Veloso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa are AFFIRMED. however. The Sales Invoice for the additional four tables amounted to P11. VELOSO V. informed Eva that he would pay for one table. but petitioner claimed otherwise. official results showed that Marcos. is a restaurant owned and operated by the Developers Group of Companies. explaining he was a guest of Ramon. the bill was sent to his address at 63 Benefit Street. Ramon Sy Hunliong (Ramon) was its president and general manager. failed to rebut the prosecution's evidence that she misappropriated the items or their corresponding value. She also promised to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the unsold items to Santos within 15 days. The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused-agent to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. She signed a document acknowledging receipt of the jewelry and agreeing to sell these items on commission basis. She likewise admitted that she failed to return the items or their value on Santos' demand. the testimony of her lone witness. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own. Here.000 as partial payment. Lilia Pascual. Sometime in March 1996. On March 28. She expressed interest to see the pieces of jewelry Santos was selling. it is the agent's duty to return the jewelry on demand of the owner. This time. which makes him liable for estafa under Article 315 (2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code. petitioner received several pieces of jewelry from Santos. The essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b). the value of the unpaid and unreturned items amounted to P91. She. 1996. however. BONIFACIO V. bounced for being drawn against insufficient funds and being drawn against a closed account.000. petitioner failed to account. On March 21. respectively. Petitioner failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale within the given period. Santos demanded from petitioner the payment of the total amount of P244. Petitioner gave her two checks amounting to P30. 1996.500. 1996. petitioner again failed to pay. partaking of the food ordered and then illegally refusing to pay. The value of the pieces unaccounted for amounted to P154.TECSON. On the other hand. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. to the prejudice of the owner. PEOPLE Facts: Private complainant Ofelia Santos was a businesswoman and a buy-and-sell agent of jewelry. On due date. on due date. RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received. We agree with the Solicitor General in his brief for the People that petitioner employed fraud in ordering four additional tables. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the trial and appellate courts' conclusion of guilt by misappropriation was a logical consequence of the established facts. petitioner admitted that she received the pieces of jewelry on commission. She also never appeared in the trial court to refute the charge against her. 1996. Mary Joie S.500. however. or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. On April 3. In a letter dated July 25. Again. The pieces of jewelry left unpaid and unreturned amounted to P38. Case Digest table. returned some of the unsold items at a later date. petitioner asked Santos for new sets of jewelry to sell under the same terms and conditions. Issue: Whether the CA’s decision of rendering judgement of petitioner being guilty of Estafa is correct Held: The petition is hereby DENIED.500. petitioner once more accepted several pieces of jewelry and signed an acknowledgment receipt under the same terms and conditions. In an agency for the sale of jewelry. The checks. petitioner Crisanta Bonifacio was introduced to her. Hence. 22 is unconstitutional? Held: A check issued as an evidence of debt. After less than a year in Pagadian City. Ulysses was re-assigned to Bacolod City. PEOPLE Facts: Before his death in 1992. has the same effect like any other check. And. Mary Joie S. Samar prompting her to leave Bacolod City and live in Samar. or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant. as it did in this case. she contends that BP 22 is unconstitutional. for the prosecution to present the drawee bank’s representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds. Ulysses was assigned to Pagadian City. a complaint was filed by which she was found guilty. On petition for certiorari.TECSON. his wife Anita secured a teaching job in Catubig. only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense charged. which is explicit that “any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply for an account or for value. he was able to buy for P1. its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency. It is within the contemplation of B.00 a small house located near that of his Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . It is not required much less indispensable. in December of 1978. 22 does not appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties. Case Digest RECUERDO V. the couple stayed with Ulysses’s mother at the latter’s house at Bacolod City. that she subsequently received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation ‘drawn against insufficient funds’ stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves. though not intended for encashment. PEOPLE Facts: Petitoner was found guilty in violation of BP 22 where out of the 9 checks she issued as payment for the jewelry she bought from Yolanda Floro. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank x x x which check is subsequently dishonored x x x shall be punished by imprisonment.P. On January 11. 5 were dishonored by the bank.P. GONZALUDO V. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank. Thereafter. The prosecution may present.500. B.P. Issue: Whether or not B. one Ulysses Villaflor was a member of the Bacolod City Police Office. Ulysses married Anita Manlangit in Bacolod City. 22. 1978. Later. A demand letter was sent to her and upon failure to make payments. before an appropriate application of the legislative enactment can be made. Meanwhile. It is a policy that can be easily eroded if one has yet to determine the reason for which checks are issued. or the terms and conditions for their issuance. and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. It is petitioner’s thesis. The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the settled principle that the deceit. Since the deceit or fraud was not the efficient cause and did not induce Anita Manlangit to part with her property in this case. The trial court acquitted the Canlas spouses but convicted petitioner of the crime charged. an Information dated May 31. alias Rosemarie Villaflor. In the Deed of Sale. There is no question that the first.a. vendee Gregg Canlas acquired all of Rosemarie’s rights and interest on the subject house. all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist. petitioner introduced the Canlases to Rosemarie Gelogo. For an accused to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. While it may be said that there was fraud or deceit committed by Rosemarie in this case. Rosemarie cannot be held liable for estafa. Mansungay. who lives just nearby. must be the efficient cause or primary consideration which induced the offended party to part with his money or property and rule differently in the present case. his mistress Rosemarie Gelogo offered to sell the 2-storey house for P80. a. Ben Gonzaludo. upon complaint of Ulysses’s widow Anita Manlangit. the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas and petitioner with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document.k. that there is here an absence of the third element contending that private complainant Anita Manlangit.000. Revised Penal Code considering that the third element of the crime of Estafa is not present Held: The petition is partly impressed with merit. By virtue of the same deed. was never induced to part with any money or property by means of fraud. After Ulysses’s demise in January of 1992. but upon private complainant. who was the offended party in this case. However. Herein. committed simultaneously with the false pretense or fraudulent representation by Rosemarie. Bacolod City. improvements were made on the house and the house was transformed into a 2-storey structure. The appellate affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.00 to herein petitioner Bienvenido Gonzaludo. second and fourth elements are present: there was false or fraudulent misrepresentation by Rosemarie Gelogo when she used the fictitious surname "Villaflor". Later. such fraud or deceit was employed upon the Canlas spouses who were the ones who parted with their money when they bought the house. in 1985. to buy the same. when she used the surname "Villaflor" to give her semblance of authority to sell the subject 2-storey house. Rosemarie Gelogo signed as Rosemarie G. the misrepresentation or false pretense was made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. The Court find merit in petitioner’s submission. however. to whom he is related by affinity. Case Digest mother at Purok 5. With all the more reason must this be Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . alleged damage or injury not upon the Canlas spouses. Ulysses took one Rosemarie Gelogo as his mistress and brought her into the house. In time. 1994 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City charging Rosemarie Gelogo. Villaflor and represented herself to be the lawful owner of the 2-storey house. Article 315. Anita Manlangit. and private complainant Anita Manlangit’s right to the subject 2-storey house was lost or at the very least prejudiced when Rosemarie sold it to the Canlases. which must be prior to or simultaneously committed with the act of defraudation. Since the house was being sold for a cheap price. Then. the Information charging Rosemarie of estafa in the present case. Issue: Whether or not Rosemarie Villaflor is guilty of the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as defined and punished under Paragraph 2(a).TECSON. Mary Joie S. petitioner convinced the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas. TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest for herein petitioner. The lack of criminal liability for estafa, however, will not necessarily absolve petitioner from criminal liability arising from the charge of falsification of public document under the same Information charging the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. It is settled doctrine that the conviction of an accused on one of the offenses included in a complex crime charged, when properly established, despite the failure of evidence to hold the accused of the other charge is legally feasible. As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner conspired with Rosemarie to falsify, that is, by making untruthful statement in the narration of facts in the deed of sale, by declaring Rosemarie to be the owner of the house subject of such sale and signing as "Rosemarie Villaflor" instead of her real name, Rosemarie Gelogo, in order to sell the same to the Canlas spouses. It is established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Rosemarie committed the crime of falsification of public document. Likewise, proof beyond reasonable doubt has been duly adduced to establish conspiracy between Rosemarie and petitioner who is the brother-in-law of Melba Canlas, one of the buyers of the house in this case. Petitioner is acquitted of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document, but found guilty of the crime of Falsification of Public Document. DELA CRUZ V. PEOPLE Facts: That on or about and during the period comprised from the month ofDecember 1994 to January 1995, inclusive, or thereabouts in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the Great Mandarin Villa Seafoods Village, Inc., and Hock Wan Restaurant Corporation, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused being then the payroll clerk of said Corporations, existing domestic corporations primarily engaged in the restaurant business, with principal places of business at 798 Ongpin St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, and 489 Nueva St., Binondo, Manila, respectively, and by virtue of her position as such, received from said corporations in trust, during the said period a total sum of P471,166.11 representing the excess amount paid to the employees of said corporations as salaries under the obligation of accounting and turning over the said excess to said corporations, but she did not do so in violation of the trust relationship existing between her and said corporations, which amount, once in her possession, far from complying with her obligation aforesaid, went into hiding and failed and refused, and still fails and refuses to return the same whereby misappropriating, misapplying and converting the said amount to her personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of the said corporation represented by their common personnel manager Manuel M. Matammu in the total amount of P471,166.11 Philippine Currency. Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented against petititoner is sufficient to convict her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence as charged in the information Whether or not formal demand is essential requisite in the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence to sustain a judgment of conviction Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest The court premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 31 May 2001 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The questioned decision is hereby REVERSED. Accused-petitioner Amelita dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of the crime of estafa defined under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code on the ground of reasonable doubt. The cash bond for the accused-petitioners provisional liberty is ordered returned to her, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures. Ominously, such bait, though hearsay evidence, was acknowledged hook, line and sinker by the court a quo, and worse, affirmed by the appellate court. Not even one iota of documentary or object evidence was presented that would give a semblance of correctness to the actions of the said courts. In sum, from the totality of evidence presented before the Court, it cannot, with propriety and due respect for the law, be held that there is sufficiency of competent evidence on which to base an affirmative finding of guilt in relation to the requisite degree of moral certainty. Only the checks and acknowledged payroll slips were presented to show the culpability of the accused-petitioner, and, sadly, said documentary evidence were the only basis for the theory that there was an over-computation of the payrolls. What the trial court used to convict the accused-petitioner are documents that had no direct relation to her. It would have been different had the accused-petitioners computations been used as the basis for comparing the acknowledged payroll slips. That way, it would be clearly shown that she had over-computed the salaries due the employees to enable her to misappropriate said excess. In other words, the trial court failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accusedpetitioner over-computed the payroll and pocketed the excess money. The Court finds the testimonies and documents for the prosecution rather weak. While there may be inherent weaknesses for the defense, at most, the proofs in this case only cast suspicion on accusedpetitioner. The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt. While the Court is not inclined to hold that the evidence is conclusive that she is not guilty, neither is it convinced that she is so, based on the circumstances of this case. The Court is, thus, under a long standing legal injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of herein accused-petitioner. Undeniably, the convergence of the circumstances vis--vis the evidence established by the prosecution, especially the tenuous testimonies of the witnesses, must ineluctably result in a favorable verdict for the defense. PEOPLE V. JULIANO Facts: The accused purchased 190 sacks of milled rice from JCT Agro-Development Corporation and in payment she issued a check for a value of P89,000, knowing at the time of issue that she did not have funds with the drawee bank for payment of the said check. When presented for encashment, it was dishonored by the bank for reason of insufficiency of funds. On the following month the accused issued another check that was again dishonored by the drawee bank for the same reason, to the damage and prejudice of JCT AgroDevelopment Corporation. The trial court found her guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) and Estafa. Appellant appealed her conviction for estafa to the Court of Appeals, but still found her guilty, with intent to defraud and by means of false pretense, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, committed the offenses. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest Issue: Whether the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant for estafa Held: The Court set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court and acquitted Lea Sagan Juliano for the crime of estafa. The accused could not be found guilty of estafa in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed deceit constituting false pretenses or any fraudulent act. Nevertheless, appellant’s civil liability to JCT remains, in the amount of P89,000, which is the value of the sack of rice she purchased. PEOPLE V. CUYUGAN Facts: That on or about the 18th day of May 1994, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, Rica G. Cuyugan, defrauded and deceived private Complainant Norma Abagat in the following manner to wit: that said accused with intent to defraud and well knowing that her account with the bank was already closed, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, make out and issue to private Complainant the several checks. in the total amount of P396,000.00 simultaneous with the receipt by the accused of cash money from private Complainant also in the total amount of P396,000.00 but which checks when presented to the drawee bank on their maturity dates were promptly dishonored for reasons of Account Closed and notwithstanding demands made on her, accused failed and refused and still fails to redeem or make good the said checks face value thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the private Complainant in the total aforesaid amount of P396,000.00. That on or about the 12th day of May 1994, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused defrauded and deceived private Complainant Norma Abagat in the following manner to wit: that the accused with intent to defraud and well-knowing that her account with the bank has no sufficient funds, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make out and issue to the private Complainant Far East Bank and Trust Company Check No. 03A058532P postdated June 10, 1994 in the amount of P150,000.00 simultaneous with, for and in consideration of cash money from private Complainant in the total amount of P150,000.00 but which check when presented to the drawee bank on maturity date was promptly dishonored for reason of Drawn Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF) and notwithstanding demands on her, accused failed and refused and still fails and refuses to redeem or make good the said check or its value, to the damage and prejudice of the private Complainant in the total aforesaid amount of P150,000.00. Issue: Whether or not the accused is liable for the crime of estafa Held: The judgment dated December 20, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, finding appellant RICA G. CUYUGAN, liable for three counts of estafa Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. did then and there willfully. Appellant is ACQUITTED. thus committing illegal recruitment in large scale in violation of [Article 38(2) in relation to Article 39 (b) of the Labor Code].000. That in or about and during the months from March to May 1993 in the Municipality of Makati. the prosecution did not establish specifically and conclusively the fraud alleged as an element of the offenses charged. she is ordered to pay private complainants the balance of her obligation The transaction between appellant and the Abagat spouses.000. REMULLO Facts: That in or about and during the months from March to May 1993. But we also note that the trial court convicted appellant on a general allegation that all the elements of estafa under Article 315. she has the obligation to make good the payment of the money borrowed by her. which representations the accused well knew was (sic) false and fraudulent and was only made by her to induce said complainant to give and pay. PEOPLE V.00. JENELYN QUINSAAT and HONORINA MEJIA. Metro Manila. But such obligation is civil in character and in the absence of fraud. as in fact the latter gave and paid to her the amount of P15.00 which the accused once in possession of the said amount. a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. in the Municipality of Makati. did then and there willfully. to the damage and prejudice of the complainant JENELYN QUINSAAT in the aforementioned amount of P15. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code had been proved by the prosecution without making any reference to or giving any proof of the actual fraud that appellant allegedly committed to make her liable for estafa.TECSON. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty for large scale illegal recruitment Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . in our view. recruit and promise employment job placement abroad to the complainants. is self-serving. the above named accused. As such. Philippines. falsely representing herself to have the capacity and power to contract. unlawfully and feloniously collect for a fee. with intent to defraud the complainant JENELYN QUINSAAT to the effect that she would send her abroad for the purpose of employment and would need certain amount for the expenses in the processing of papers thereof. Metro Manila. that the Abagat spouses entered into a joint venture agreement with her for the supply of materials with the AFP. the above named accused. the same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction. Mary Joie S. unlawfully and feloniously appropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit. It is elementary that where an allegation in the information is an essential element of the crime. ROSARIO CADACIO. was one for a loan of money to be used by appellant in her business and she issued checks to guarantee the payment of the loan. Case Digest is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In this case. We find appellants allegation.However. enlist and recruit workers for job/placement abroad. no criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment. without first securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. Philippines. by means of false pretenses and fraudulent representation made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. for lack of sufficient evidence to prove fraud beyond reasonable doubt. Rosario Cadacio and Honorina Mejia. who then appropriated the money for her own use and benefit. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code against Guinhawa in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Naga City. Guinhawa purchased a brand new Mitsubishi L-300 Versa Van and from the Union Motors Corporation (UMC) in Paco. However. In Criminal Case No. together with the costs. appellant clearly defrauded private complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. months. 95-655 and 95-656 for estafa. appellant NIMFA REMULLO is found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100. Leopoldo Olayan. On February 14. the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit. as no jobs await them abroad. four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) one day of prision mayor.000. and was ditched into the canal parallel to the highway. Case Digest WHEREFORE. the spouses Silo withdrew their complaint from the DTI. private complainants each parted with their hardearned money. but failed utterly to provide overseas job placements to the complainants. and to pay by way of restitution P15. The van was damaged. PEOPLE Facts: Jaime Guinhawa was engaged in the business of selling brand new motor vehicles. In a classic rigmarole. traversed the highway onto the opposite lane. Daet. drove the van from Manila to Naga City. 1996. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . even years. brought to the airport with their passports and tickets.TECSON. Makati City. Anent appellants conviction for estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. During the confrontation between her and Guinhawa. the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court. Subsequently. Jenelyn Quinsaat. Naga City. Camarines Norte. Olayan suffered a heart attack. 95-654. Branch 132. Mary Joie S. only to realize they were gypped. No clearer cases of estafa could be imagined than those for which appellant should be held criminally responsible GUINHAWA V. complainants were provided defective visas. 1995. under the business name of Guinrox Motor Sales. Guinhawas driver. In this case. By virtue of appellants false representations. He employed Gil Azotea as his sales manager. Josephine learned that Guinhawa had bought the van from UMC before it was sold to them. is hereby AFFIRMED.000 as recruitment fee to appellant. Josephine Silo filed a complaint for the rescission of the sale and the refund of their money before the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). and in Criminal Cases Nos. Each complainant paid P15. Their conviction and sentence are fully supported by the evidence on record. Josephine Silo filed a criminal complaint for violation of paragraph 1. 95-654 to 95-656.000 to each of the private complainants. she is declared guilty sentenced in each case to two (2) years. only to be offloaded that day. For charges of estafa to prosper. but with promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. Manila. for illegal recruitment in large scale. and after it was damaged in Daet. and the left front tire had to be replaced. we find no error committed by the trial court. 95-653. and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. His office and display room for cars were located along Panganiban Avenue. while the van was traveling along the highway in Labo. The van went out of control. On March 17. The recruits wait in vain for weeks. including Mitsubishi vans. the petitioner was charged of other deceits under paragraph 1.TECSON. Ferdinand T. thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of murder as a consequence but which. the petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of six (6) months imprisonment. she was the innocent victim of the petitioners fraudulent nondisclosure or concealment. she relied on her belief that the van was brand new. causing the complete destruction of the saidhouse and the death of Celerina Solangon and Alvin Savarez. and a NEW one is rendered findingappellant. The petitioner shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Azotea. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code Held: The petition is DENIED. the house of Celerina Solangon. Case law has it that wherever the doing of a certain act or the transaction of a given affair. The two are equally liable for their collective fraudulent silence.D. ARSON PEOPLE V. or the performance of certain business is confided to an agent. In fine. in accordance with a general rule often referred to. Issue: Whether or not the courts correct in charging the accused the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder Held: The Court of Appeals Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Mary Joie S. it reduced the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua. The assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Trial Court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder. They resolved to maintain their silence. the authority to so act will. nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Arson under Sec. to the prejudice of the private complainant. He is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death. It bears stressing that Azotea and the petitioner had every opportunity to reveal to the private complainant that the van was defective. 9346. who was a garment merchant and who had no special knowledge of parts of motor vehicles. carry with it by implication the authority to do all of the collateral acts which are the natural and ordinary incidents of the main act or business authorized. No. Case Digest Whether or not under the Information. and inflicting serious physical injuries on JoshuaSavarez. BALUNTONG Facts: Ferdinand Baluntong set on fire. 1613 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . 3(2) of P. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court but in light of the passage of R. Considering the surrounding circumstances of the case. Based on the surrounding circumstances.A. The petitioner cannot pin criminal liability for his fraudulent omission on his general manager. Baluntong. Case Digest reclusion p er p etua with no eligibility for parole and other civil damages modified. This is especially true with respect to the death of Celerina. or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.D. the crime would only be arson. 2004. He got into a heated argument with Herminio. thus performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of homicide as a consequence. hence. however. but nevertheless did not produce it be reason of causes independent of the will. and a NEW one is rendered as follows: Appellant. the homicide being a mere consequence thereof. MURCIA Facts: That on or about the 24th day of March. with intent to kill. Appellant met Alicia and confronted her about the actuations of Herminio.TECSON. he saw Felicidad go inside the house to get a glass of water. PEOPLE V. unlawfully and feloniously attack. as amended by Section 3 (2) of P. For the only difference between a charge for Murder under Article 248 (3) of the Revised Penal Code and one for Arson under the Revised Penal Code. Province of La Union. She merely entered the burning house to save her grandsons. The latter struck him in the head. appellant may be convicted of Arson. Mary Joie S. went back outside and hit Herminio. he was struck by something in the back. 1613. Appellant is ORDERED to pay the damages and other expenses. Appellant was the lone witness for the defense. despite the fact that she was cross-examined thereon. Absent any concrete basis then to hold that the house was set on fire to kill the occupants. He immediately went inside the house to get a weapon. As reflected above. No. How Felicitas acquired such knowledge was not probed into. Appellant denied setting the house on fire. did then and there willfully. apparently. Appellant thereafter hit her with the knife. as it was not shown that the main motive was to kill the occupants of the house. Ferdinand T. assault and stab with a knife one. He noticed Felicidad light a gas lamp. Manlupig which prevented her death. He followed her and gave her water. the abovenamed accused. appellant cannot be held liable for double murder with frustrated murder. Manlupig inflicting upon the latter stab wounds. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Alicia Q. The latter ran away and appellant chased him. But Alicia cursed him. by the timely medical attendance rendered to said Alicia Q.D. 1613 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole. decision was rendered Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Arson under Sec. Baluntong. Celerina was outside the house at the time it was set on fire. conviction shall be for the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. 3(2) of P. On 30 May 2006. that is. for even assuming arguendo that appellant wanted to kill her to get even with her in light of her alleged desire to drive him out of the neighboring house. all to the damage and prejudice of said offended party. absorbed by arson. The assailed CA decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. and the offense charged is included or necessarily includes the offense proved. No. He was able to get a bolo. He then went back to his friends and resumed drinking. lies in the intent in pursuing the act. Appellant then fell on the ground and lost consciousness because. He stated that while he was having a drinking spree. When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved. in the Municipality of Bauang.While the above-quoted Information charged appellant with Double Murder with Frustrated Murder. but upon her arrival there. namely: Destructive Arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code and Simple Arson under Presidential Decree No. aircraft. Manila and he received a call from his wife telling him of a woman (the same housemaid) who was acting Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . after paying for her fare. His testimony. Presidential Decree No. Tondo. railways. finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson and frustrated homicide. one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa. buildings. On the other hand. he received a report from pedicab driver Rolando Gruta. 1316. Appellant imputes ill-motive on the part of Herminio. regardless of the value of the damage caused. as amended by Section 10 of Republic Act No. wharves and other industrial establishments PEOPLE V. plantations. that shortly before the occurrence of the fire.TECSON.m. She was seen to have boarded a pedicab which was driven by a person later identified as Rolando Gruta. it was at around 4:45 a. hotels. having withstood cross-examination.m. She was heard by the pedicab driver to have instructed that she be brought to Nipa Street. Case Digest by the RTC. who was also a tanod. government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. she changed her mind and asked that she be brought instead to Balasan Street where she finally alighted. farms. 2001 when Remigio Bernardo and his tanods saw the accusedappellant EDNA. However. The lower courts found appellant liable under Article 320(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Balut. Balut. Said classification is based on the kind. has passed the scrutiny of the lower courts and was held to be credible. hurriedly leaving the house of her employer at No. trains. MALINGAN Facts: From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo. both public and private. with her head turning in different directions. 7659. airports. It may not be amiss to point out that there are actually two categories of arson. 1316 covers houses.. 172 Moderna Street. When Barangay Chairman Bernardo returned to the Barangay Hall. Barangay Chairman Bernardos group later discovered that a fire gutted the house of the employer of the housemaid. This Court does not discount the fact that there was a fight between appellant and Herminio which preceded the occurrence of the fire. it cannot be presumed that Herminio will automatically give a false testimony against appellant. Thirty minutes later. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of Arson and frustrated homicide Held: The appealed decision finding appellant JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of arson and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. 172 Moderna Street. vessels. factories and other military. Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of structures. character and location of the property burned. at around 5:15 a. Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods responded to the fire upon hearing shouts from the residents and thereafter. Sr. the Barangay Chairman in the area. Mary Joie S. Manila. bus stations. Tondo. firemen from the Fire District 1-NCR arrived at the fire scene to contain the fire. edifices. dwellings. he saw a woman (the housemaid) coming out of the house at No. as well as the personal account of the pedicab driver named Rolando Gruta. on January 2. government buildings. mills. In cases where both burning and death occur. identified the woman as accusedappellant EDNA who was the housemaid of Roberto Separa. After Rolando Gruta positively identified the woman as the same person who left No. and in fact the offender has already done so. a disposable lighter was found inside accused-appellant EDNAs bag. neighbor of Roberto Separa. the m ain objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice. PEOPLE V. Sr.TECSON. Sr. CR HC No. 5 of Presidential Decree No. and the resulting homicide is absorbed. at around eleven o'clock in the evening. but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing.(c) if the objective is. Tondo. in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated ± whether arson. 01139. Cruz. accusedappellant EDNA confessed to Barangay Chairman Bernardo in the presence of multitudes of angry residents outside the Barangay Hall that she set her employers house on fire because she had not been paid her salary for about a year and that she wanted to go home to her province but her employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home. In accordance with Sec. She shouted. accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA. Case Digest strangely and suspiciously on Balasan Street. Manila where she was further investigated and then detained Issue: Whether or not there is a complex crime of arson and homicide Held: The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 2 September 2005. Mercedita Mendoza. 1613. murder or arson and homicide/murder. OLIVA Facts: August 23. in CA G. but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson. He saw Ferigel set the roof of their house on fire with a lighted match. the crime is simply arson . Rolando Gruta and the other tanods proceeded to Balasan Street and found the woman who was later identified as the accused-appellant. Awakened by the loud barking of dogs. Claveria. when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only. then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed homicide/ murder and arson. is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of accused-appellant EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO is concerned. "Perry is burning our house!" and called out to the neighbors Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . likewise. Balut. lastly. Upon inspection. Thereafter. who brought her to the San Lazaro Fire Station in Sta. Avelino went out of the house to urinate. Accused-appellant EDNA was then turned over to arson investigators headed by S[F]O4 Danilo Talusan. Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods apprehended her and brought her to the Barangay Hall for investigation. Avelino Manguba (hereinafter referred to as "Avelino") and his family were sleeping in their house in San Jose. 1993. and whose house was also burned. Barangay Chairman Bernardo. are MODIFIED. (b) if. Avelino's wife sensed danger and peeped through a hole in their wall. At the Barangay Hall. Mary Joie S. She also saw Ferigel burn the roof of their house. to kill a particular person. Manila. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of damages to be awarded. on the other hand. Cagayan. however. it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:(a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice. 172 Moderna Street.R. He used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer" Montesclaros. In arson. Kalookan City. Noel. Mary Joie S. at the time of the offense charged. Benjamin tried to run. 1993. Identification of the weapon only becomes critical when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant. Also whether or not Benjamin immediately fell or tried to run away after he was shot is not important. There are 2 elements of arson: (1) that there is intentional burning. and neither would we. The two testimonies were not inconsistent. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of the witnesses. and Benjamin's son. The gunshot wound caused Benjamin's death. witnessed the shooting since they were only about five (5) to six (6) meters away from Ferigel when the incident occurred. (2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. CAUSE OF DEATH "Internal Hemorrhage due to gunshot wound at back. Ferigel and three others. any act of his after he was shot would not change the shooting. As Benjamin was helping put out the fire. a few hours before the fire. We agree with the Solicitor General that Benjamin could have been on the street while pouring water on the burning roof. Filomena M. Here.TECSON. In this case. On August 24. but he slumped and fell to the ground. may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.9 cm. same with alibi and defense Held: Whether or not Benjamin was shot while he was on the street or when he was in the act of pouring water on the burning roof is irrelevant to the crime. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. Equally insignificant is whether the gun used was a long firearm or a short firearm. ACOSTA Facts: Appellant Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old mason. and a resident of Barrio Makatipo. The place was brightly lit by the burning roof and visibility was not a problem. which at that point was fait accompli. the grandson of private complainant. 10 cms. 1996. he was shot by Ferigel at close range. While the fire razed Avelino's house. the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. Case Digest for help. Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecution for felonies and offense. Dominador Oliva. corpus delicti of the arson and murder was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt PEOPLE V." Issue: Whether or not that the testimonies should be taken into consideration. if credible. a post-mortem report was made on Benjamin's cadaver. Avelino. at left lateral mid-scapular area going medially and anterosuperiorily. the trial court did not doubt the identity. The fact is that he was shot. Marigomen."Gunshot wound of entrance 0. On February 27. One of the neighbors. Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo watched at a distance of about five (5) meters. Benjamin Estrellon (hereinafter referred to as "Benjamin") went to the nearby river and fetched water with a pail. It refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. in the belief Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . his wife.""III. deep without exit. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime. married. Montesclaros. revealing the following: "II POSTMORTEM FINDINGS: "Cadaver is in a state of rigor mortis and with postmortem lividity at back. Although there is no direct evidence linking appellant to the arson. Second. appellant had the motive to commit the arson. was carrying a stove and a kitchen knife. when asked why he was carrying a stove and a knife. Owing to the fearsome answer of appellant to witness Aquino’s query. she returned immediately to her house. 1996. petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity. Case Digest that appellant and his wife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him. replied that he would burn the house of complainant Filomena M. Thereafter. that accused started the fire which gutted the house of private complainant. appellant poured kerosene on the bed (papag) and lighted it with cigarette lighter. Mountain Heights Subdivision. stormed the house of appellant and burned their clothes. A few minutes after closing the door. which was unoccupied at that time. 1973. After 24 years of marriage and having four children. the existence or non-existence of a sufficient motive is a fact affecting the credibility of the witnesses. It is not absolutely necessary. Marigomen. appellant’s intent to commit the arson was established by his previous attempt to set on fire a bed ("papag") inside the same house (private complainant’s) which was burned later in the night. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of arson. nevertheless in a case of arson like the present. The fire was easily put off by appellant’s wife who arrived at the place. Charmaine on the other hand filed a criminal complaint for concubinage against petitioner and his paramour. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . She went out of her house and approached appellant who. When she peeped through her kitchen door. Mary Joie S. we find the trial court correctly held that the following circumstances taken together constitute an unbroken chain of events pointing to one fair and logical conclusion. At about 4:00 to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 27. she saw appellant inside complainant’s house. simultaneously shouting that appellant Raul Acosta. Montesclaros lived in the house owned by said complainant and located at Banahaw St. It was this house allegedly set on fire by appellant. furniture. Held: In this case. she saw appellant carrying a gas stove and knife BELTRAN V. Kalookan City. Barrio Makatipo.TECSON.. their neighbor. she heard the sound of broken bottles and the throwing of chair inside the house of complainant. and it is frequently impossible for the prosecution to prove the motive of the accused for the commission of the crime charged. and appliances. Appellant had every reason to feel aggrieved about the incident and to retaliate in kind against Montesclaros and his grandmother. we agree with the trial court in holding him guilty thereof in the light of the following circumstances duly proved and on record: First. the nephew of prosecution witness Mona Aquino called the latter. To forestall the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the criminal complaint. petitioner filed for the suspension of the criminal case on concubinage arguing that the civil case for the nullification of their marriage is a prejudicial question. PEOPLE Facts: Petitioner was married to Charmaine Felix on June 16. Prosecution witness Mona Aquino testified that at around 5:00 in the afternoon of the same day. On November 2. Ruby Vera Neri in the company of Mrs. Its requisites are 1) that a civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action and 2) the resolution of the issue determines whether or not the criminal action will proceed.m. Ruby Vera Neri. thereafter. More importantly. and Eduardo Arroyo in the City of Baguio. for the same must be submitted to the competent courts. The Court notes that Article 1411 of the Civil Code relates only to contracts with illegal consideration. VERA NERI V. Arroyo Jr. Both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals. Neri filed a criminal complaint for adultery before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Benguet against his wife. The case at bar does not involve any illegal contract Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . In the present case. Mrs. Jorge B. PEOPLE Facts: : Dr. Petitioner Arroyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision. At around 7:00 o' clock in the evening. he went down to and knocked at the master's bedroom where accused Ruby Vera Neri and her companion Linda Sare were. mother of Ruby Vera at Crystal Cave. Arriving at around 11:00 a. Case Digest Issue: Whether or not the civil case for nullity of marriage under psychological incapacity is a prejudicial question to the criminal case of concubinage. Issue: Whether or not Dr. accused. Linda Sare and witness Jabunan. but only in Article 1411 of the Civil Code.. and that her husband had later on traded marriage with another woman with whom he is presently co-habiting. On accused Ruby Vera Neri's request. the accused need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than the proof of a final judgment. Neri. Vera. private complainant Dr. went up to the sala then left the condominium. Three of them. they dropped first at the house of Mrs. contending that a pardon had been extended by her husband. Held: The rationale on the existence of prejudicial questions is to avoid two conflicting issues. About forty-five minutes later. Linda Sare left the master's bedroom and went upstairs to the sala leaving the two accused. Baguio City then proceeded to the Mines View Park Condominium of the Neri spouses. accused Eduardo Arroyo arrived at the Neris' condominium. took the morning plane to Baguio. Neri’s alleged extra-marital affair precludes him from filing the criminal complaint on the ground of pari delicto.TECSON. Mary Joie S. parties to a marriage should not be allowed to judge for themselves its nullity. Jorge B. came up and told Linda Sare that she could already come down. Therefore he who cohabits with a woman not his wife risks being prosecuted for concubinage. Witness opened the door for Arroyo who entered. Held: The concept of pari delicto is not found in the Revised Penal Code. 1982. So long as there is no such final judgment the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Petitioner Ruby Vera Neri also moved for reconsideration or a new trial. by its very nature. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention. in a street near the school with people around. petitioner’s act of purposely touching Kristine Joy’s breasts (sometimes under her shirt) amounts to lascivious conduct. He also argues that the resultant crime is only acts of lasciviousness under Art 336 RPC and not child abuse under RA 7610 as the elements thereof had not been proved. an 8 year old Grade 3 pupil without her consent.i. and (3) suppose h intentionally touched her breast. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. Amployo contends that the element of lewd design was not established since: (1) the incident happened at 7am.[12] it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. it was merely to satisfy a silly whim. Case Digest which either of the contracting parties is now seeking 171 | P a g e Background image of page 171 to enforce. 7610. Held: Before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age. the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of Rep. by entering into an agreement with his wife that each of them were to live separately and could marry other persons and by filing complaint only about a year after discovering his wife's infidelity. PEOPLE Facts: : Alvin Amployo was charged with violation of RA 7610 for touching.e. What is or what is not lewd conduct. ACTS OF LASCIVOUSNESS AMPLOYO V. Amployo cannot take refuge in his version of the story as he has conveniently left out details which indubitably prove the presence of lewd design. Mary Joie S. Act No. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. In the Guinucud case. cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition. the Court found that the complaining husband. The term ‘lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene.The first element is lewd design. Lewd design was established. The first element of RA 7610 obtains. not authorized by law to institute the criminal proceedings. Issue: Whether or not lewd design was established. It would have been easy to entertain the possibility that what happened was merely an accident if it only happened once. (2) the breast of an 8 year old is still very much underdeveloped. the adulterous relations existing between the accused. and he is therefore. Such is not the case. had "consented to.TECSON. and acquiesced in. mashing and playing the breasts of Kristine Joy Mosguera. however. Amployo violated RA 7610.. as the very same petitioner did the very same act to the very same victim in the past. [24] Section 5 of Rep. the sums of P50. accused-appellant was formally charged with rape. but her labia minora was coaptated and her labia majora was gaping. Mary Ann Martenez.00 as civil indemnity and P25. When they got home. Accused-appellant was lying on top of her. intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. told her mother. within school premises or even occupied rooms.000.00 as moral damages. as maximum. PEOPLE V. Held: The decision is is MODIFIED. Arnel Arat. Mary Ann clearly testified that accused-appellant only placed his penis on top of her Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .000. She turned to see where the stone came from. Ledesma. Act No. but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation. suffice it to say that lust is no respecter of time and place. she found herself lying on the grass naked. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit. It is known to happen in the most unlikely places such as parks. 1996. Danilo P. which caused her to feel pain. Larin. as she was only eight years old at the time of the incident in question. the lower court convicted him of the crime of rape Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape. accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. While accused-appellant is guilty of rape. at 12:10 p. to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.[4] On March 12. Mary Ann ran towards the road while putting on her clothes. Case Digest The second element is likewise present. 1996. As to the third element. fifteen year-old Mary Ann Martenez was walking home from Wangan National Agricultural School.[2] When Mary Ann came to. MONTERON Facts: On March 7. She frantically grabbed his erect penis and pushed it away from her. This caused accused-appellant to stand up in pain. At his arraignment. While she was walking on a secluded portion of the road. The latter found that Mary Anns hymen was intact and had no laceration. restrained her.[5] After trial. She struggled but accusedappellant. accusedappellant is ordered to pay the victim. witnessed the whole incident as he was then walking to Wangan Agricultural School. Mary Anns cousin. the same was committed only in its attempted stage. who was stronger. Mary Ann was hit on the head by a slingshot. in turn. That afternoon. Mary Ann was brought to the City Health Office of Davao City where she was examined by Dr. as minimum. Rape has also been committed on a passageway and at noontime. she was hit again on the mouth. Her uncle. She fell down unconscious. along roadsides. As case law has it.. The following morning. Accused-appellant also contends that it was unlikely for him to strip naked and commit rape in broad daylight. there is no dispute that Kristine Joy is a minor.TECSON. Mary Ann told her uncle what happened. also naked. Further. Accused-appellant Marianito Monteron y Pantoras is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Rape and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor.m. He met Mary Ann while the latter was running away and brought her home. Mary Joie S. upon complaint of Mary Ann. the Calinan Police Precinct arrested accused-appellant. In this connection. As we observed in People v.[3] He placed his penis on top of her vagina. Davao City. e. but they were advised that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Kalookan City police force. Malou and the victim.TECSON.. Case Digest vagina. told them to report the matter to the Malabon Police Station. Jennifer was advised to go to the then-Philippine Constabulary (PC) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame. that of undressing himself and the victim and lying on top of her. causing accusedappellant to stand up. He then inserted his private part inside the private part of Jennifer. Manuel again threatened Jennifer not to tell anybody about what happened to her. it was only on June 13. i. In fact. that Jennifer submitted herself to a physical examination.M. Malou promised to help her. It was not until June 3. Othelia Marco. who was dressed in short pants. on May 31. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . based on Mary Anns own narrative. Mary Joie S. 1990. Jennifer left the house after the incident and proceeded to the nearby house of her aunt. 1990. the fact remains. However. Jennifer remained outside the house until Manuel called her later on to clean the bleedings.M. All this time Jennifer protested and complained of pain but was unable to resist because Manuel threatened to kill her. They then accompanied Jennifer and Malou to the Kalookan City police station. Malou and Jennifer then proceeded there. who was then staying with them. PEOPLE V. She brought her to the Navotas Police Station in order to report the rape incident. However. a kumadre of her mother. did not remove the same but he unzipped the zipper of his short pants. In the case at bar. in the morning of May 31. 1990 that Jennifer disclosed her harrowing experience to a certain Malou (Marilou Castellano). Manuel Perez ordered Jennifer to remain lying down on the cemented floor and began undressing Jennifer. Jennifer reported the incident to her aunts. 1990. she was able to grab it and push it away from her. He pulled the legs of Jennifer apart and placed himself on top of the body of Jennifer. PEREZ Facts: At about 6:00 A. The Navotas police. He proceeded to kiss and touch the breasts of Jennifer as well as the upper part of Jennifers body. that accused-appellants penis was merely on top of her vagina and has not actually entered the same. Quezon City for a physical examination. Jennifer glanced at the clock in Othelias house and found out that it was 6:00 A. The next day. but he did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. After satisfying his lust. did not proceed to the Kalookan City police force as it was already late in the evening. where Jennifer filed a complaint for rape against appellant. The door and the windows of the house were closed. Manuel Perez woke up Jennifer who lying asleep on the cemented floor of the house.Accused-appellant has commenced the commission of the rape directly by overt acts. who was then out of the house. The pain she felt may have been caused by accused-appellants attempts to insert his organ into hers. Othelia Marco and Myrna Casapao. however. After the police investigation. however. it was Mary Anns violent resistance which prevented the insertion of accusedappellants penis in her vagina. Manuel. Manuel then kissed the cheeks of Jennifer. Perforce. It would be most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of rape by her mothers common-law spouse. Moreover. Her testimony is supported by the results of the medico-legal examination conducted upon her at the police crime laboratory. and worse. Her silence was Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .TECSON. Against said positive identification. even in the presence of her younger brother. Messeahs failure to reveal the sexual abuses to her mother does not taint her credibility. Jessie served as the family driver. Jennifer Dimaano y Casapao. for he does not even deny that he was with the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. While waiting for an opportunity to become a seaman himself like his uncle Jose. Reggie. Thus the incorrigible lothario transgressed all norms of decency. and their three (3) children. COLLADO Facts: TO TIE A CHILD of tender years spread-eagled to her bed to abuse her in the privacy of her home is despicable enough. Messeah is the daughter of Jose Noli Dumaoal. There were four unfortunate occasions that constituted the crime. Jessie would also drive the school service vehicle operated by the Dumaoal spouses. Private complainant testified as to how appellant had carnal knowledge of her. and subject herself to a public trial and possible ridicule. But. to encroach on her innocence unashamedly in front of her younger brother is to descend to the deepest recesses of depravity. appellants conviction must stand. he took advantage of Messeah by sexually molesting her at home. His household was composed of his wife Julie. The accused Jessie Ventura Collado. Moreover. son of Jose Nolis cousin Benjamin. Having examined the entire record. Messeah and Metheor. The carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of violence and intimidation. allow a medical examination of her genitalia. his attempts to cast ill motive on private complainant or her family for fabricating the charge of rape against him have no evidentiary weight. appellants puerile defense of denial will not hold water. Since Jose was almost always at sea and having no househelp. Aside from driving Julie. morality and rectitude when he molested his nine (9)-year old victim in the presence of her six (6)-year old brother and severed all strands of gratefulness to her parents who gave him food. a seaman. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape Held: The court finding accused-appellant JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO guilty of Statutory Rape and three (3) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness in is MODIFIED. we find that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond doubt all the elements of rape. instead of taking care of them as their surrogate father. she positively pointed to appellant in open court as the person responsible for her defilement. their children were oftentimes left in the care of Jessie. was living with them since 1989. Case Digest Decision: The decision is finding appellant Manuel Perez y Magpantay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION that appellant is also ordered to pay the victim. PEOPLE V. Mary Joie S. shelter and livelihood for four (4) years. all because her maternal relatives want her mother to separate from her common-law spouse. we agree with the Solicitor General that the only reason why the Dumaoal spouses agreed to let Jessie go home to the province instead of filing charges against him was because they were "torn between seeking justice for their daughter and preserving her and the familys reputation. Jose Noli testified that when he arrived for a vacation in August 1993. touched her private part. He and his wife had brought Messeah to several doctors. whereupon trial ensued. "Inaano ako ng uncle ko. which shows that they left their familiar surroundings and uprooted their family all within ten (10) days just so they could ensure Messeahs safety. came home crying. Upon arraignment. She told her guardian. then why would the Dumaoal family file the complaints against him only on 13 April 1994. however. In fact. Moreover. Iluminada Beltran. As petitioner’s father refused to surrender his son to Lumaban and his party. especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. the latter’s guardian. if Julie only wanted Jessie out of her house. if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child's defilement. complained of dizziness and headaches and sometimes threw up. 7. In her own words. Jessie's alibi that he was driving the family car on the disputed occasions cannot stand up to his positive identification as the perpetrator of the crime by both Messeah and Metheor. with the child. In fact. Andrea. that her uncle. Furthermore. She also said that petitioner showed his penis to her. she said. To interpret their actuation any other way would be most unfair to parents who are equally suffering with what befell their only daughter.TECSON. The rule is that affirmative testimony is far weightier than a mere denial. herein petitioner. The matter was reported to Barangay Councilor Carlos Lumaban who. that petitioner took advantage of the situation and ran away. Case Digest impelled by both fear for her life and shame for the degradation that had befallen her. before one finally diagnosed Messeah as suffering from nervous breakdown and psychological trauma. It appears. who was then three years old. Neither does this explain why the Dumaoal spouses felt compelled to change residences in such a short period of time. they made the move even before All Saints Day. DULLA V. Neither can we believe Jessie's allegation that Julie only wanted him out of their house because she favored her own relative over him. with bruises on her right thigh. In her Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . It is not uncommon for a young girl of tender age to be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat against her life. No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation. As Jose Noli testified." while doing a pumping motion with the lower part of her body to demonstrate what had been done to her. and three barangay tanods. when it is clear that he had already left the household as early as 22 October 1993. Lumaban sought assistance from the nearby Western Police District (WPD) Station No. Silence is not an odd behavior of a rape victim. 1993. There was also the Christian desire to forgive and give a blood kin a new chance at life knowing the gravity of the penalty that would be meted out to him. CA Facts: On February 2. especially Messeah who looked thin. Mary Joie S. went to the house of petitioner to confront him. he noticed that his children looked blank and pale. disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape. the burden of keeping such a secret took its toll on her health. petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape. it is highly improbable that a rape victim and her family would publicly disclose the incident and thus sully their honor and reputation in the community unless the charge is true. Section 21 of the Rules of Court. Case Digest testimony in court. on account of immaturity. who examined the child on February 3. according to her. 1994 and sometime on November. one on October 20. She was consistent in her answers to the questions asked by the prosecutor. however. he was just convicted of qualified seduction. when unable to articulate what was done to her by petitioner. only children who. she was able to respond to the questions put to her. denied the accusation against him. 1994. Petitioner. showed that hymen of the victim is still intact. the Court held: It is thus clear that any child. Held: The contention has no merit. And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing. and perceiving. 1994 and December. may be witnesses. a 16-year old girl. As a general rule. Mary Joie S. Petitioner was also lying down. are incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully are disqualified from being witnesses. 1993. was raped three times by her father. she had no panties on and that she was lying down. can be a competent witness if he can perceive. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . regardless of age. The trial court found petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness hence this appeal. Amado Sandrias Javier. and even by the judge.The requirements then of a child’s competency as a witness are the following:(a) Capacity of observation. Maximo Reyes.TECSON.(b) Capacity of recollection(c) Capacity of communication. can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. Andrea demonstrated what she meant. PEOPLE V. and perceiving. it is settled that the trial court is called upon to make such determination. she showed an understanding of what was being asked. which resulted to Julia’s pregnancy. on the other hand. Under Rule 130. and said that he only went away to avoid any trouble that time. During her interrogation. Issue: Whether Andrea is a competent witness. Three complaints were filed. In People v. He said that Andrea was coached by her guardian. JAVIER Facts: Julia Ratunil Javier. The trial court found Amado guilty of the crime of incestuous rape in the first complaint and sentenced to death. Andrea was three years and 10 months old at the time she testified. all persons who can perceive. She answered "yes" and "no" to questions and. Despite her young age. He likewise denied that he escaped from Lumaban and his men on February 2. She said that when petitioner did a pumping motion. 1993. can make known their perception to others. In the case at bar. Upon failure of the prosecution to prove the use of force by Amado in the second and third complaints. Mendoza. Andrea said that petitioner fondled her organ and showed her his penis. The medical report on Andrea prepared by Dr. the defense counsel. 278 SCRA 425 [1997]). Court of Appeals. It is only when the complaint for rape contains allegations for qualified seduction that the accused may be convicted of the latter in case the prosecution fails to prove the use of force by the accused (People vs. Case Digest Whether or not the conviction for qualified seduction is proper in the complaint for the crime of rape? Held: No. Jennifer testified that she was raped eight times in the “taho” factory in Tondo. Ramirez. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own evidence. the workplace of her father. however. PEOPLE V. the crime of qualified seduction. rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses. 69 SCRA 144 [1976]). 232 SCRA 667 [1994]). and demanding punishment for the abuser. Rodante Manansala. The inconsistencies on victim’s testimony for evidence cannot be dismissed as trivial. On cross examination. As SC has said: Rape is a very emotional word. While the two felonies have one common element which is carnal knowledge of a woman. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape or quite possibly. Antido. On direct examination. being interpreters of the law and dispensers of justice. judges must look at a rape charge without those proclivities. Mary Joie S. taking into account the inconsistencies of the victim’s statement? Held: No. The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information (People vs. and condemnation of the rapist. Jennifer changed her statement that the first rape incident was committed in the “taho” factory in Tondo but the rest of the seven rape incidents were committed in Tarlac. To do otherwise would be violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the accusation against him. they significantly vary in all other respects (Gonzales vs. She also mentioned that her father gave her money every time they had sexual intercourse. Trial courts must keep in mind that the prosecution must be able to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the conviction of the accused. The trial court found Rodante Manansala guilty of having raped his daughter in Manila but dismissed those committed in Tarlac on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. SC acquitted the accused. on November of 1991. the latter cannot be convicted of qualified seduction.TECSON. a 44-year old “taho” vendor. Assuming that the prosecution failed to prove the use of force by accused. it cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. and the natural human reactions to it are categorical: admiration and sympathy for the courageous female publicly seeking retribution for her outrageous violation. too. Then. and deal with it with extreme caution and circumspection. Judges must free themselves of the natural tendency to be overprotective of every woman decrying her having been sexually abused. MANANSALA Facts: Jennifer Manansala. was raped eight times by her father. However. While they ought to be cognizant of the Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . a 14-year old girl. both on the crime of rape and qualified seduction. quite possibly qualified seduction. is sixteen years old and unmarried. When the complainant regained her senses.” accused-appellant cannot possibly be convicted of qualified seduction without offense to the constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the accusation against him. the Court cannot understand why she went with her father to Tarlac on November 2 and stayed there with him until November 14. a highschool student that time. considering the age of complainant (14 at the time of the crime). He also professed that he had only one incident of sexual intercourse with the complainant. the accused at the trial. she noticed that she was en dishabille and her vagina was bloody. it is also improbable. Said accused was then living with his mother and his niece in the same house. Considering the allegations in the complaint that the rape in this case was committed “by means of force. That charge does not include qualified seduction. pointed his Garand rifle at her. Mary Jane alleged that when she was about to go out to attend her afternoon classes in school. the brother of her mother and the son of her grandmother. But the fact that she had voluntarily gone with her father to Tarlac suggests that the crime was not rape but. for the fact is that accused-appellant was not living with them. However. The fact that she could describe the lurid details of the sexual act shows that it was not an ordeal that she went through but a consensual act. Hence Mary Jane did not report the incident to her grandmother or to anyone for that matter. The accused did sexually abused her niece in two more incidents. The accused who was then standing outside the room warned the complainant not to tell anybody what happened or else he will kill her. One subjected to sexual torture can hardly be expected to see what was being done to her. Issue: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Mary Joie S. Espilan. 1991. The prosecution’s evidence is not only shot through with inconsistencies and contradictions. violence and intimidation. then punched her in the stomach as a result of which the former lost consciousness. having separated from complainant’s mother in 1986. It is true the medico-legal examination conducted on November 17. Neither can qualified seduction include rape.interposing consent on the part of the complainant as a defense. If complainant had been raped on November 1. Case Digest anguish and humiliation the rape victim goes through as she demands justice. 1991 showed that she was no longer a virgin and that she had had recent sexual intercourse. This is especially true because she said she had been given money by her father everytime they had an intercourse.TECSON. What is clear from complainant’s testimony is that although accused-appellant had had sexual intercourse with her. judges should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law. SUBINGSUBING Facts: Mary Jane S. While the accused Napoleon Subingsubing is the complainant's uncle. She felt pain in her private parts and is quite certain she was raped or abused. PEOPLE V. She was supposed to have gone through a harrowing experience at the hands of her father but the following day and for thirteen more days after that she stayed with him. Nor was the rape made possible because of accusedappellant’s moral ascendancy over her. it was not done by force or intimidation. Napoleon forcibly pulled her to the bedroom of the grandmother. denied the charge of rape as narrated above and proferred a different story . 1991. [Loreta T. then and there. Case Digest Whether or not the accused Subingsubing is guilty of rape. did. The Court also cannot help but question the conduct of the complainant after the alleged incidents of rape. At the hearing. against her will and without her consent. guardian. The accused is guilty of the crime of Qualified Seduction under Article 337 of the RPC and not rape. priest." The complainant lived in the house of the accused as she was taking care of the accused and her sister’s son. or any person who. 337 of the Revised Penal Code. Honesto Marco. stand and suffice to establish the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. wilfully. It is worded thus: "In the City of Naga. the Court must state that it finds conclusive evidence (no less than the accused-appellant's admission) that on 25 November 1989. Notably. ALVAREZ Facts: A complaint for rape signed by the offended party herself that an information was filed against appellant Nicanor Alvarez. that the evidence for the prosecution cannot. fully seven months and sixteen days after the alleged rape. with lewd designs. while she was asleep by putting himself atop of her body. Abuse of confidence is the qualifying circumstance in the offense. among the persons who can commit qualified seduction is a "domestic". even if were to assume arguendo that the defense of consent on the part of the complainant was not sufficiently established. domestic. PEOPLE V. Mary Joie S. Qualified seduction is the act of having carnal knowledge of a virgin over 12 years to 18 years of age and committed by any of the persons enumerated in Art. the above-named accused. to wit: any person in public authority. A perusal of the records and the testimony of the complainant discloses contradictions and inconsistencies on vital details which lead one to seriously doubt the veracity of her story. Her behavior after the alleged incidents directly contradicts the normal or expected behaviour of a rape victim. for failing to meet the exacting test of moral certainty. A careful perusal of the records of the present case reveals. However. As things stand. brother of her own mother. a virgin 13 years of age and sister-in-law of the herein accused. Held: No. on its own. The accused is the uncle of the complainant. it is incumbent to set aside the trial court's judgments of conviction for rape. It Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . 2 and the complainant. dela Concepcion]. home-servant. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the accused Napoleon Subingsubing had sexual intercourse with Mary Jane Espilan when she was only 16 years of age. who issued a medical certificate after examining the complainant. two witnesses testified for the prosecution. The complainant and the accused were living in the same house. teacher. a certain Dr. unlawfully and feloniously rape and have sexual intercourse with the herein complaining witness. shall be entrusted with the education and custody of the woman seduced.TECSON. in any capacity. to the effect that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy something rather obvious from her physical condition. Held: No. found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Issue: Whether or not the accused is correctly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside. 337 'is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction . After she returned from the store. and constituting.. a part thereof' . appellant was. It was alleged that private complainants were playing near the house of the appellant when the latter called Liza and instructed her to buy juice at the store. the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction . are twins aging 12 years old at the time of the crime.'" SIMPLE SEDUCTION PEOPLE V. Mary Joie S. committed by any of the persons enumerated in Art. both surnamed Paragas. He is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Seduction.. an abuse of confidence which implies deceit or fraud. Private complainants Liza and Anna. Liza tried to scream but Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . inserted his penis into her vagina and made push and pull movements. Liza and Anna considered appellant as their grandfather although he was not related to them. Pangasinan. violated the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code. taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent (culprit).TECSON.. for all intents and purposes. in this sense. The appellant was their neighbor in Calvo. Appellant then removed Lizas pants and underwear. went on top of her.. the appellant ordered Liza to go inside his house and lie down on the floor. because in such a case. as the latter was serving in his house or was therein as a domestic — a term embracing 'persons usually living under the same roof. pertaining to the same house. it is beyond doubt that." The seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age. even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin. the custodian of the complainant. But even though he were not clearly or formally entrusted with the custody of the offended party. Case Digest was therefore solely on the basis of the testimony of the offended party herself that the lower court in the decision now on appeal. Hence.. — the appellant upon taking advantage of his authority and abusing the confidence and trust reposed on him as master of the house. in his capacity as head of the family and master of the house. PASCUA Facts: The RTC of Pangasinan finds the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape. Liza obeyed. Mangatarem. As aptly opined by the trial court. Case Digest appellant threatened to kill her. In this case. the appellant presented no proof that private complainants consent was secured by means of such promise. Liza and Anna Paragas. up to 10:00 A. Held: Yes. TEODOSIO Facts: On that fateful day of December 19. Anna. The woman should have yielded because of this promise or inducement. he would promise them P20. the appellant gave Liza P10 and warned her not to reveal the incident to her mother and she remained silent. Liza’s twin sister. as amended by RA 7659. Rather. to constitute seduction. it should only be for simple seduction. The accused was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape on four counts as defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Insisting on his innocence. prior to every sexual intercourse with Liza and Anna. Liza and Annas respective testimonies established that the appellant had sexual intercourse with them without their consent and against their will. The same thing happened again when Liza was called by the appellant as she was passing by his house. The prosecution was able to prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by the appellant on the two victims to satisfy his lust. the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of several crimes of rape against the 12-year-old twins. it should only be for simple seduction. After the sexual intercourse.Untenable is the argument of the Pascuat that. suffered the same fate at the hands of the appellant twice. they proceeded to the Luneta where they Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . where Elaine was enrolled. The appellant even postulates that. Issue: Whether or not the RTC correctly held the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and not the crime of simple seduction. the appellant claims in his appeal that he is not guilty of rape because private complainants voluntarily submitted to his sexual desires. 1985 Elaine and appellant were together from 7:00 o'clock in the morning when they met in front of the Fargo Department Store in Caloocan City when they attended the Christmas party at the Manila Central University. if he is at all liable for anything. it was for the purpose of buying their silence to ensure that nobody discovered his dastardly acts. PEOPLE V. However. the money given by the appellant to private complainants was not intended to lure them to have sex with him. if there should at all be any liability on his part. He declared that. The evidence for the prosecution was more than enough to show that the element of voluntariness on the part of private complainants was totally absent.TECSON.M. the appellant claims that the acts of sexual intercourse with the private complainants were in exchange for money. Considering that the victims accounts of what the appellant did to them were absolutely credible and believable. Under Article 338 of the RPC. Mary Joie S. Thereafter. there must in all cases be some deceitful promise or inducement. aside from his bare testimony. Frankly —1. being much older than Elaine. She was enjoying their tryst. Quezon City and they ate at a nearby McDonald's restaurant. Verily. She did not show any sign of having had a traumatic experience.TECSON. All the elements of the offense are present. The contradictions in the testimony of Elaine where she attempted to prove that their coition was involuntary rather than fortify the case of the prosecution. 3. slept together and thus consummated the fruition of their brief love affair. Firstly. but she did not. Elaine was over 12 and under 18 years of age. What is obvious and clear is that these two young lovers. After drinking two glasses of pineapple juice. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape Held: No. The only elements of the offense alleged in the sworn complaint of the offended party is that she is over 12 years of age when appellant had carnal knowledge of her. This is the deceit contemplated by law that attended the commission of the offense. dragged her to the hotel and took advantage of. she could easily have escaped during the many hours they were together going from one place to another.11 Unfortunately. She is single and of good reputation. carried by their mutual desire for each other. deceived and abused the latter sexually by raping her when she was unconscious on account of her having drunk the drugged softdrink or pineapple juice. The accused was acquitted of the crime of rape neither can he be convicted for simple seduction. It was a consensual affair. Then they went to the Fiesta Carnival at Cubao. they had sexual intercourse. Appellant cannot be held liable for rape as there was none committed. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Upon alighting therefrom. 2. her medical examination did not reveal any contusions on her body showing use of any force on her. the foregoing circumstances disproves the theory of force and involuntariness in the sexual interlude of the two. Appellant said he planned to marry Elaine and for this reason he successfully persuaded her to give up her virginity. the essential ingredients of simple seduction are not alleged nor necessarily included in the offense charged in the information. They later proceeded to Lyceum where appellant took his examinations at about 2:30 P. It was committed by deceit. Neither the crime committed by appellant is simple seduction in Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code. if she was under any compulsion. in a moment of recklessness. Then he fetched Elaine at the canteen where she was waiting. They stayed overnight in the said motel. served to demolish the same. Mary Joie S. The offender had sexual intercourse with her. Indeed. they walked to the Champion Lodging House. They rode the metropolitan light rail transit at the Central Station up to Doroteo Jose Street.M. Case Digest took a stroll. It was alleged that the accused. Elaine was composed and was not disturbed at all. 4. Indeed. at 1:00 oclock in the morning. with lewd and unchaste design. they went to the house of Artemio. conspiring. The accused-appellant could only be convicted for the crime of rape. province of Oriental Mindoro. the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity. wilfully. forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape. accused-appellant is deemed a co-conspirator for the act of rape committed by his co-accused Lian Salvacion and should accordingly be penalized therefor. Accused Lining denied the accusations against him and disputed the findings of the trial court. The inconsistencies of the testimonies only added doubt on the mind of the Court regarding the veracity of the statements of the defense witnesses. to the damage and prejudice of the latter. confederating and acting in common accord. Mary Joie S. 1997. wilfully. Later that afternoon.TECSON. it should be stressed that one who clearly concurred with the criminal design of another and performed overt acts which led to the multiple rape committed is a coconspirator. arriving thereat at about eight oclock in the evening where they also met Russel Bolquerin. his brother-in-law Artemio Salvacion invited him to attend a barangay dance in Nabuslot. the accused. it would appear from the records that the main objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the house of Mila Salvacion was to rape her. then and there. feloniously and with threat and intimidation with use of a deadly weapon. LINING Facts: That on or about the 5th day of October. instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. use of deadly weapon and abuse of superior strength are attendant. in sitio Buho. He alleged that in the morning of October 4. Case Digest PEOPLE V. Accused-appellant has nothing to offer other than alibi. Even a woman of loose morals could still be a victim of rape. Allan Salvacion and Lian Salvacion. towards an unoccupied house and thereat and pursuant to their criminal conspiracy and motivated with lustful desire. he and Ildefonso had some beer and pulutan in the house of Artemio Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Lining guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of abduction with rape and another crime of rape Held: Yes. he fetched Ildefonso Magararu and together. Lining was not able to attend the dance party because Artemio requested him to look after the palay in his house. more or less. Instead. for the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her will and without her consent ] Neither the absence of physical injuries negates the fact of rape since proof of physical injury is not an element of rape Finally. Therefore. Further. did. a 15year-old girl. That in the commission of the crime. forcibly abduct one Emelina Ornos. unlawfully and feloniously lay with and had carnal knowledge one after the other of said victim against her will and without her consent. Barangay Mabuslot. the testimonies of accusedappellant and the other witnesses for the defense are not consistent on some material points. unlawfully. 1997. municipality of Pinamalayan. Hence. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Information for Forcible Abduction with Rape was filed against the accused and after several warrants of arrest and attempts to arrest him. Lenie could not be expected to physically resist considering the fact that even her companion. had to run home to escape accused-appellant's wrath as he brandished a hunting knife. was taken against her will as shown by the fact that at knife-point she was dragged and taken by accused-appellant to a place far from her abode. Before leaving the site of the deep well. Held: : No. The accused appealed the decision of the trial court. Akiao forcibly relocated Lenie to Cabalantian. 342 of the RPC. Case Digest PEOPLE V. the instant case was filed against him. In the afternoon. the abduction of his daughter. When the accused failed to fulfill his promise. the accused agreed to give 2 horses to the family of Lenie. Mary Joie S. Cotabato. At her tender age. For four (4) months. The victim. The accused allegedly delivered the horse to the father. Kataotao. In exchange of the hand of Lenie in marriage.TECSON. On 6 January 1997 Lenie and her cousin Jessica Silona were fetching water at a deep well several meters from Lenies house in Sitio Salaysay. who is a young girl. he was finally arrested at Arakan. thirty-six (36) years old. During the trial. All the elements of forcible abduction were proved in this case. The trial court rejected the defenses of the accused and convicted him of forcible abduction with rape. About 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon. he likewise terrorized Jessica by brandishing his hunting knife which forced the girl to scamper for safety. Arakan. Jessica was able to report to Lenies father. the datus attempted a customary settlement of the abduction in accordance with Manobo traditions. Jessica Silona. EGAN Facts: Lito Egan alias Akiao. The decision of the court in convicting accused-appellant LITO EGAN alias Akiao of forcible abduction with rape is modified and Egan is instead declared guilty of Forcible Abduction only under Art. The accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. was an avid admirer of a twelve (12)-year old girl named Lenie T. the accused appeared from nowhere and forcibly dragged and pushed Lenie towards Sitio Dalag. accused tried to prove that he and Lenie had actually been living together under Manobo rites in the house of her father after he has given the family. Issue: Whether or not Egan is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. He threatened to kill her if she resisted. Marilog. the father demanded the unconditional return of his daughter to his custody. Cotabato. but was again refused when the latter increased the number of horses from one to two. Since the amicable settlement was not realized. Davao City. Bukidnon. The accused concluded that because he failed to deliver two wild horses. Camad. where the latter was successfully rescued. the dowry. Fear gripped and paralyzed Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Palmones Camad. Both the accused and Lenie were members of the Manobo indigenous cultural community in Mindanao and residents of Sitio Salaysay. lustful. The indecent molestation cannot form the other half of a complex crime since the record does not show that the principal purpose of the accused was to commit any of the crimes against chastity and that her abduction would only be a necessary means to commit the same. Her normal reaction would have been to cover-up for the man she supposedly loved and with whom she had a passionate affair. If they had indeed been lovers. on the contrary. Such lewd designs were established by the prurient and lustful acts which accused-appellant displayed towards the victim after she was abducted. Mary Joie S. and P2. as she herself admitted. Lenie's father would not have shown so much concern for her welfare and safety by searching for the couple for four (4) months. or that which is carried on in a wanton manner. two (2) pigs. it was allegedly only his intention to realize his matrimonial aspiration with Lenie. and their respective testimonies as to facts proving forcible abduction are worthy of full faith and credit. Proof of this. Accused-appellant would however insist that he and Lenie had been engaged under Manobo rituals to marry each other and that her companionship was willful and voluntary. he said. with two (2) wild horses forthcoming.TECSON. if his chief or primordial intention had been to lay with her. If they were. The word lewd is defined as obscene. what we discern from the evidence is that the intent to seduce the girl forms part and parcel of her forcible abduction and shares equal importance with the other element of the crime which was to remove the victim from her home or from whatever familiar place she may be and to take her to some other. indecent. Stated otherwise. on top of it all. Instead. The sexual abuse which accused-appellant forced upon Lenie constitutes the lewd design inherent in forcible abduction and is thus absorbed therein. Lenie lost no time in denouncing accused-appellant and exposing to her family and the authorities the disgrace that had befallen her. Surely it would not have been the case that accused-appellant would touch Lenie only once during her four (4)month captivity. ten (10) sacks of palay. But. was the alleged dowry of one (1) horse. The evidence likewise shows that the taking of the young victim against her will was done con miras deshonestas or in furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. If it had been so. he had given her father in exchange for her hand in marriage. Case Digest Lenie into helplessness as she was manhandled by accused-appellant who was armed and twenty-four (24) years her senior. The testimony of the victim negated this contrived posture of accused-appellant which in reality is simply a variation of the sweetheart defense. lecherous. surely.000. desperately wanting to rescue her from captivity and seeking the intervention of the datus in resolving the matter. the intention of accused-appellant as the evidence shows was not only to seduce the victim but also to Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Lenie would not have jeopardized their relationship by accusing him of having held her against her will and molesting her and. by filing a criminal charge against him. This element may also be inferred from the fact that while Lenie was then a naive twelve (12)-year old. accused-appellant was thirty-six (36) years old and although unmarried was much wiser in the ways of the world than she The logical conclusion is that there was no improper motive on their part. In moving from one place to another to look for the horses which the old man Palmones had demanded. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity.00. lascivious. Lenie could have easily told her father after the latter had successfully traced their whereabouts that nothing untoward had happened between her and the accused. After the Bombay-looking man finished having sexual intercourse with Cleopatra. the Bombaylooking man proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. She tried to push him away but he held her left arm.S. One of the men again sprayed something on Cleopatras face which made her vision blurred. Physical Therapy at the Baguio Central University. especially from her father Palmones. GARCIA Facts: Cleopatra Changlapon. she was inside a room. She opened her eyes and tried to move. Case Digest separate her from her family. She struggled as the door closed and the van sped away and fell unconscious. Baguio City. whom she later identified as accused-appellant Jeffrey Garcia. but accused-appellant hit her on the abdomen. It was still dark. As the fourth man was having sexual intercourse with her. she told them that she had been raped by four men. By that time. to go home to Km. Cleopatra was pulled by the arms into the van. She left school at 6:30 p. Although she was afraid to ride the taxi. She was totally undressed and was lying flat on her back on a bed. Based on our own review of the records of this case. The Bombay-looking man lay on top of her. Another man with long hair. burned her right chin with a lighted cigarette. We are not persuaded. went on top of her.TECSON. she blacked out. While accused-appellant was seated on her right side and holding her. PEOPLE V. The taxi brought her to her house. Accused-appellant assails his conviction based on complainants identification. The Court finds Jeffrey Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and likewise of the three (3) crimes of rape in conspiracy with three (3) others whose identities and whereabouts are yet unknown. In the room with her were four men. 3. She felt dizzy and her private parts were aching. She heard somebody say that it was 1:30. A taxi passed by and picked her up. The fourth man was next in raping Cleopatra. she saw the Bombay-looking man burning her panties with a lighted cigarette. She felt pain all over her body and was unable to move. she boarded it just to get home. When she regained consciousness. the transcripts convincingly show that complainant was left to freely study the faces of the thirty or more inmates on the basketball court below to see whether she Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . As she was crossing Bonifacio Street. when she was able to regain her composure. she was feeling helpless and was too tired to struggle. After some time. On the contrary. Cleopatra just kept crying and was unable to talk when asked. She closed her eyes and heard the men laughing. the identification was improperly suggested by the police. Cleopatra fought back but accused-appellant held her right arm. was nineteen years old and a sophomore student of B. After that. La Trinidad. accused-appellant took his turn and went on top of her. The third man. clearly tell-tale signs of forcible abduction. According to him. Benguet. whom Cleopatra noted had pimples on his face. he got up. she was lying by the roadside somewhere between Tam-awan and Longlong. When Cleopatra came to. After the fourth man finished raping her. She already had her clothes on. we find that complainant was neither influenced nor induced by the police to point to accused-appellant as one of her molesters. Mary Joie S.m. Therefore. therefore. are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd designs. the information sufficiently alleged the elements of forcible abduction. Thus. There was no suggestion from the police to point to the new detainee. considering the clear conspiracy among them shown by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate. confederated and mutually aided one another in having carnal knowledge of complainant by means of force and intimidation and against her will. established by the actual rape. Moreover. 8353. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . all the four accused helped one another in consummating the rape of complainant. as amended by Republic Act No. Aside from alleging the necessary elements of the crimes. Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting Garcia of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. While one of them mounted her. one after the other. They also burned her face and extremities with lighted cigarettes to stop her from warding off her aggressor. accused-appellant is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. as correctly held by the trial court. Rape is the more serious of the two crimes and. the crime. Mary Joie S. (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Hence. i. The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed in its maximum period. the prosecution sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt that accusedappellant succeeded in forcibly abducting the complainant with lewd designs.TECSON. In the case at bar. the other three held her arms and legs. However. They should be detached from and considered independently of the forcible abduction. The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape. The two elements of forcible abduction. when committed by more than two persons. It was likewise alleged that accused-appellant and his three co-accused conspired. the taking of complainant against her against her will and with lewd design.e. He should also be held liable for the other three counts of rape committed by his three coaccused. Case Digest recognized any of them. Held: No. Thus.. as defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. As borne by the records. who had just been arrested on another rape charge. the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Each of them. is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but for the rape committed by the others as well. and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. the prosecution convincingly established that the carnal knowledge was committed through force and intimidation. accused-appellant should be convicted of one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and three separate acts of rape. there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation. TECSON. the above-named accused Alfredo Napud Jr. Jr. has remained at large. The trial court summed up Napuds version as follows: Accused Alfredo Napud. one for rape and another for forcible abduction with rape. In Criminal Case No. unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the undersigned against her will and consent. 1994 and chose to sleep at the Baratos house the rest of the time until he was awakened at about 5:30 oclock in the morning by Betty Barato informing him that Brgy. their neighbor at Brgy. husband. September 21. in the Municipality of Janiuay. he butchered the ducks of Betty Barato. confederating with Tomas Amburgo to better realize their purpose and armed with a butchers knife (pinute) with deliberate intent and lewd design by means of force and intimidation. that she identified him as the one who allegedly robbed their parents house and raped her. in the early morning of September 21. and then helped her husband in cooking it. that after a while all the others in the line-up were sent home while he was brought to the police headquarters where he was again presented to Esmaylita Benedicto and Greg Cantiller but both of them said that he was not the one. had a drinking spree inside the latters house from 8:00 oclock that same evening until 2:00 oclock the following morning. 1994. conspiring. Councilwoman Teresita Napud was summoning all male residents of the barangay to assemble at the basketball court for reasons that he did not know. after Tomas Amburgo had raped her. both Napud and Amburgo pleaded not guilty to the charges. 44264 was absorbed by the rape charged in Criminal Case No. Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting him of rape by means of force or intimidation Held: Yes. when Esmaylita Benedicto came back. 44263 for rape. The trial court found that the forcible abduction with rape alleged in Criminal Case No. alleged that in the afternoon of September 20. 1994. that it was only about 11:00 oclock that same morning inside the cell at the police headquarters. PEOPLE V.. Both Amburgo and Napud raised the defense of denial and alibi. Case Digest accused-appellant should be sentenced to the maximum penalty of death for forcible abduction with rape. Romel Brillo. The evidence for the prosecution shows that Esmaylita was brought by Amburgo and appellant to a banana plantation some 1-1/2 kilometers away from her house for the purpose of raping Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Philippines. Janiuay. NAPUD Facts: Esmaylita also filed two separate complaints. That when he and about 20 other male residents were made to form a line-up he saw Ernesto Benedicto who looked at each of them in the line-up. and father. did then and there willfully. the complaint alleged: That on or about the 21st day of September. The third accused. 44263. Matag-ub. 1994. Province of Iloilo. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. When arraigned in each of the three cases. Mary Joie S. Iloilo. that he and Betty Baratos son. he stopped giving financial support. correctly held that the rape charged and proved in Criminal Case No. Eduardo took all his clothes. Imprisonment was from 2 years. Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when he married the private complainant.TECSON. and whenever she asked money from Eduardo. Eduardo succeeded in having his way with her. Manuel started making himself scarce and went to their house only twice or thrice a year. Worse. Where complainant was forcibly taken away for the purpose of sexually assaulting her. The Regional Trial Court ruled against him sentencing him of imprisonment of from 6 years and 10 months to ten years. thus. Tina was then 21 years old. The couple was happy during the first three years of their married life. He met Tina B. Pecuniary reward for moral damages was affirmed. Afterwards. Eduardo even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tinas parents. Held: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . and was assured by them that their son was still single. They were married before the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Baguio City. despite Tinas resistance. The CA ruled against the petitioner but with modification on the RTC’s decision. starting 1999. while Eduardo was 39. and did not return. The latter’s defense being that his declaration of “single” in his marriage contract with Gandalera was done because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid and that he did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. PEOPLE Facts: Eduardo Manuel was married to Rubylus Gaa. Eventually. Sometime in January 2001. a Computer Secretarial student. Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime in January 1996. then the rape so committed may absorb the forcible abduction. left. However. The trial court. and an amount of P200. as one thing led to another. assuring her that he was single. Eduardo went to Baguio City to visit her. they went to a motel where. he did so in good faith and without any malicious intent. he would slap her. Tina was jobless. 44264 BIGAMY MANUEL V. Both men then successively had carnal knowledge of her at said place. Mary Joie S. Tina learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. 44263 already absorbed the forcible abduction with rape complained of in Criminal Case No. Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo sometime in the first week of March 1996. Eduardo proposed marriage on several occasions. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel.000.00 for moral damages. Case Digest her. Issue: Whether or not Manuel is guilty of bigamy. Branch 61. months and 1 day to ten years. It appeared in their marriage contract that Eduardo was single. Texas (247th Judicial District). Such judgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage. However. b) In a document dated February 15. the judicial declaration of presumed death like annulment of marriage should be a justification for bigamy. Manuel P. CASTILLO Facts: This is an administrative complaint against Regional Trial Court Judge Silverio Q. Diego in the honest belief that she was free to do so by virtue of the decree of divorce is a mistake of Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . 1965. the accused used and adopted the name Crescencia Escoto. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant.[20] The phrase or before the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings was incorporated in the Revised Penal Code because the drafters of the law were of the impression that in consonance with the civil law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence of a number of years. DIEGO V. with a civil status of single. Mary Joie S. 1978. Case Digest Yes. with a civil status of single. Jr.[if After trial of the criminal case for bigamy. The couple were both Filipinos. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. The facts and circumstances of the criminal case are summarized. again. Cancelled and Annulled and the Petitioner is hereby granted a Divorce. Castillo for allegedly knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in a criminal case and/or rendering judgment in gross ignorance of the law. Clemente T. solemnized before then Mayor Liberato Reyna of Dagupan City. that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between Jorge de Perio and Crescencia de Perio are hereby Dissolved. the dispositive part of which stated:A careful study of the disputed decision reveals that respondent Judge had been less than circumspect in his study of the law and jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. the present spouse will have to adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. As a general rule. mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo. 1999. Godoy. Fr. on February 24. In the marriage contract. the same Crescencia Escoto contracted marriage with herein complainants brother. such defense negates malice or criminal intent. accused Lucena Escoto contracted marriage with Jorge de Perio. Where a spouse is absent for the requisite period. respondent Judge promulgated a decision. on June 4. The marriage contract shows that this time. respondent Judge stated: That the accused married Manuel P. The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage established by law. c) Subsequently. adjudged and decreed. Diego. the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage only after securing a judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent spouse to avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy. as follows:a) On January 9. In his comment. denominated as a Decree of Divorce and purportedly issued to Jorge de Perio as petitioner by the Family District Court of Harris County. ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. parish priest of Dagupan City.TECSON. 1987. it was ordered. the accused used and adopted the name Lucena Escoto.. solemnized before the Rev. 1995. 1967. It is firmly established in this jurisdiction that for a judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Salvador contracted a second marriage with a certain Zenaida Bias before Judge Lilian Dinulos Panontongan in San Mateo. Knowingly means consciously. therefore. (b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision. This Court reiterates that in order to hold a judge liable. even assuming that a judge erred in acquitting an accused. when she learned that her husband was having an extra-marital affair and has left their conjugal home. The law requires that (a) the offender is a judge. As held in Alforte v. PEOPLE V. Iloilo and has four children with her prior to their separation in 1966. 1989. it must be shown that the judgment is unjust and that it was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. willfully or intentionally. Mary Joie S. She also discovered that on January 10. it must be shown that the judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence. Rizal. and that the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. After earnest efforts.TECSON. On May 18. Narcisa left for Japan to work but returned to the Philippines in 1992. Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment Held: No. intelligently. (c) the judgment is unjust. she still cannot be administratively charged lacking the element of bad faith. 1955 before a municipal trial court judge in Concepcion. There is. For conviction to lie. no basis for the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. upon the request of their son for the Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is a criminal offense defined and penalized under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code. It appeared however that there was no evidence of their 1955 marriage so he and Zenaida remarried on January 10. An annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa. malice or corrupt purpose. ABONADO Facts: The records show that on September 18. (d) he knew that said judgment is unjust. Salvador married Narcisa Arceo. 1989. Malice or bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering an unjust decision must still be proved and failure on the part of the complainant to prove the same warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint. Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato. Case Digest fact. Santos. That good faith is a defense to the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment remains the law. a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida. Salvador admitted that he first married Zenaida on December 24. it must be proved that the judgment is unjust and that the judge knows that it is unjust. Case Digest purpose of complying with the requirements for his commission in the military. They got married in 1990. Notably. The general rule is that a defective information cannot support a judgment of conviction unless the defect was cured by evidence during the trial and no objection appears to have been raised. WHEREFORE. Mary Joie S. to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. It should be remembered that bigamy can be successfully prosecuted provided all its elements concur two of which are a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage which possesses all the requisites for validity. 1995. the trial court convicted petitioner Salvador Abunado of bigamy. MORIGO V. therefore.TECSON. namely. finding petitioner Salvador S. as maximum. PEOPLE Facts: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. He argues that the Information was defective as it stated that the bigamous marriage was contracted in 1995 when in fact it should have been 1989. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . for the same information clearly states that petitioner contracted a subsequent marriage to Zenaida Bias Abunado on January 10. Abunado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. in view of the foregoing. is AFFIRMED. was an obvious typographical error. and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years. On Appeal. Petitioners submission. four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. which was granted. that the information was defective is untenable. Petitioner contented he contracted second marriage in good faith. the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with Barrete was void ab initio. On May 18. All of these have been sufficiently established by the prosecution during the trial. Issue: Whether petitioner has been sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 1989. They lost contacts for a while but after receiving a card from Barrete and various exchanges of letters. Morigo married Lumbago. Morigo was then charged with bigamy and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the civil case pending posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. 2001. they became sweethearts. as minimum.R. CR No. The statement in the information that the crime was committed in or about and sometime in the month of January. that he contracted a subsequent marriage with another woman while his first marriage was subsisting Held: No. 26135. In 1992. the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the ruling of the trial court appreciating the mitigating circumstance that the accuse seventy six years of age then. Barrete went back to Canada for work and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada. He subsequently filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground that there was no marriage ceremony. petitioner failed to object to the alleged defect in the Information during the trial and only raised the same for the first time on appeal before the Court of Appeals. Thus. This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with. for all intents and purposes. The petitioner. it is but logical that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to speak of. hence. 6020. TAN Facts: Accused is charged [with] bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for having contracted a second marriage with herein complainant Ma. must. under the eyes of the law. the accused was. there is no first marriage to speak of. Thelma V. x x x While acknowledging the existence of the two marriage[s]. reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the first marriage. Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio. the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code.R. The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married. the decision had long become final and executory. Thelma V. 1991 when at that time he was previously united in lawful marriage with Ma. MERCADO V. CR No. and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage ha[d] all the essential requisites for validity. 20700. petitioner was not married to Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. never married. legally speaking. the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. Thelma V. It is an admitted fact that when the second marriage was entered into with Ma.TECSON. perforce be acquitted of the instant charge. The contract of marriage is null. As the dissenting opinion in CA-G. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio. The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. Consuelo Tan on June 27. it is clear that Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Oliva. The existence and the validity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime of bigamy. the two were never married from the beginning. for legal purposes. Mary Joie S. correctly puts it. accuseds prior marriage with Ma. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion. accused posited the defense that his previous marriage ha[d] been judicially declared null and void and that the private complainant had knowledge of the first marriage of accused. (3) that he contract[ed] a second or subsequent marriage. Oliva on April 10. Oliva was subsisting. no judicial action having yet been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage with Ma. what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two. without the presence of a solemnizing officer. and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. 1991. Instead. Since no declaration of the nullity of his first marriage ha[d] yet been made at the time of his second marriage. In other words. The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. all the essential elements of the crime are present. without said first marriage having been legally dissolved. it bears no legal effect. (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case the spouse is absent. namely: (a) that the offender has been previously legally married. Consuelo Tan on June 27. But in this case. Case Digest Issue: Whether or not Lucio Morigo is guilty of bigamy Held: No. As shown by the evidence and admitted by accused. 1976 at Cebu City. Issue: Whether or not Mercado is guilty of bigamy in spite of the filing the declaration of nullity of the prior marriage. GARCIA.TECSON. private respondent Adela Teodora P. Held: Yes. an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. Cabanilla. No. which is classified as an afflictive penalty under Article 25 of the same Code. As with a voidable marriage. It is now settled that the fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. Violation of C. which marriage has [sic] discovered in 1989 and Falsification of Public Documents. The Code Commission believes that the parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void. there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage before contracting the second marriage. 6085. The complainant having discovered the first marriage Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .A." with Bigamy. and without the said marriage having been dissolved. the crime had already been consummated by then. he instituted the Petition to have the first marriage declared void only after complainant had filed a letter-complaint charging him with bigamy. petitioner contracted a second marriage although there was yet no judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. Mary Joie S. We cannot allow that. (or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings). That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial. petitioner Jose G. In the instant case. The trial court granted the motion to quash and dismissed the criminal case. By contracting a second marriage while the first was still subsisting. In fact. Article 40 of the Family Code states that x x x. x x x. The court believes that since the penalty prescribed under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code for the offense of bigamy is prision mayor. as amended by R. He was still at the time validly married to his first wife. 142. he committed the acts punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. GARCIA V. even if such is the fact. he is guilty of the charge against him. for being previously united in lawful marriage with REYNALDO QUIROCA. 1991. did then and there willfully. CA Facts: On 28 August 1991. Case Digest accused was a married man when he contracted such second marriage with complainant on June 27. his view effectively encourages delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases. Garcia filed with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office an "Affidavit of Complaint" charging his wife. but must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage before they should be allowed to marry again. the petitioner informed the latter that he would limit his action to bigamy. then said offense should prescribe in fifteen (15) years as provided in Article 92 of the Code.A. Under the circumstances of the present case. unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with JOSE G. To repeat. in his letter of 10 October 1991 to Assistant City Prosecutor George F. However. Moreover. No. Santos alias "Delia Santos. The petitioner then appealed to the CA. which he copied in full in the petition in this case. As to the first. Q-92-27272. the petitioner is now before us on a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and to compel the respondent court to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's order granting the motion to quash the information for bigamy based on prescription. ." "authorities. Mary Joie S. as the petitioner does. Undaunted. the criminal liability of a person is "'totally extinguish[ed]' by the prescription of the crime." It is settled that in bigamy. But. . . and. or their agents . describes him as the "offended party" who suffered "damage and prejudice . The petitioner even admits that he is the offended party in Criminal Case No. as well as in other public offenses. in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code. 1991. hence. the authorities. the offense charged has already prescribed when the information was filed in this case on November 15. and (b) the counsel for the accused was barred from filing the motion to quash the information against the accused. prescription is not deemed waived even if not pleaded as a defense. then the 15-year prescriptive period had certainly lapsed. the petitioner argued that bigamy was a public offense. hence "the offended party is not the first or second (innocent) spouse but the State whose law/policy was transgressed. The information therein. . that only the State is the offended party in such case. or eighteen years after the discovery of the offense. The CA gave credence to the private respondent's evidence and concluded that the petitioner discovered the private respondent's first marriage in 1974. therefore. only the State's discovery of the crime could effectively commence the running of the period of prescription therefor. which is a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. It is true that bigamy is a public offense. Since the information in this case was filed in court only on 8 January 1992. it is entirely incorrect to state. Held: No." Thus. ." and "their agents" supports his view that the State is the offended party in public offenses. The argument presented by the prosecution that it was difficult for the complainant to obtain evidence of the alleged first marriage. the prescriptive period should be counted from the time the evidence was secured will not hold water. He contended therein that: (a) the trial court erred in quashing the information on the ground of prescription. It further held that the quash of an information based on prescription of the offense could be invoked before or after arraignment and even on appeal." Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .TECSON. Article 91 of the RPC provides that "[t]he period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. both the first and the second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances. for under Article 89(5) of the RPC." The petitioner added that the "interchanging use" In Article 91 of the RPC of the terms "offended party. Case Digest of the accused to one Reynaldo Quiroca in 1974 when he was informed of it by one Eugenia Balingit. WHEREFORE. 1995 in Quezon City. as follows: “That on or about the 14th day of June. Case Digest The distinction he made between public crimes and private crimes relates not to the discovery of the crimes. NAGHAHANAP LANG NG SAKIT NG KATAWAN SI ANNABELLE KUNG SA STATES NGA NIYA MAIISIPANG PUMUNTA NGAYON PARA LANG TAKASAN NIYA SI LIGAYA SANTOS AT ANG SINTENSIYA SA KANYA when in truth and in fact. Brach 218. did then and there willfully. unlawfully and feloniously print and circulate in the headline and lead story of the said GOSSIP TABLOID issue of June 14. 1995 the following material. Quezon City. publisher. TUGAS. BUKOD PA SA NAPAKARAMING PINOY NA HUMAHANTING SA KANILA MAS MALAKING PROBLEMA ANG KAILANGAN NIYANG HARAPIN SA STATES DAHIL SA PERANG NADISPALKO NILA. PEOPLE Facts: This is a case for Libel filed by a showbiz couple namely.TECSON. Roxas District. Articles 344 and 360 of the RPC. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. conspiring together. and BOGS C. LIBEL FERMIN V. in relation to Section 5. publicly and acting with malice. CR No. Philippines. MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO DOON SI ANNABELLE IMPOSIBLENG NASA AMERIKA NGAYON SI ANNABELLE DAHIL SA KALAT DIN ANG ASUNTO NILA DUN. are clear on this matter.. the accused very well knew that the same are entirely false and untrue but were publicly made for no other purpose than to expose said Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Annabelle Rama Gutierrez and Eduardo (Eddie) Gutierrez against Cristinelli S. to wit: MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES. confederating with and mutually helping each other. but to their prosecution. the abovenamed accused CRISTENELLI SALAZAR FERMIN. Editor-in-Chief of Gossip Tabloid with offices located at 68-A Magnolia Tulip St.R. Mary Joie S. The two (2) criminal informations uniformly read. the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the challenged decision of 13 February 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.14324 is AFFIRMED. Fermin and Bogs C Tugas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. and circulated in Quezon City and other parts of Metro Manila and the whole country. in its Decision dated September 3. it was held that Article 360 includes not only the author or the person who causes the libelous matter to be published. Moreover. Tugas testimony. found petitioner and Tugas guilty of libel. to the damage and prejudice of the said ANNABELLE RAMA GUTIERREZ. discredit and contempt upon the person of the offended party. in its Joint Decisions dated January 27. The Supreme Court noted that the CA erred in acquitting Tugas. his alibi. as petitioner and Tugas are in this case. 277 which provides that: Every author. the accused was indicted under Section 6 of Act No. v. In People v. or serial publication is chargeable with the publication of any words contained in any part of said book or number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the author of the same. proof adduced during the trial showed that accused was the manager of the publication without the corresponding evidence that. 2002. Hence. reference was made to the Spanish text of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code which includes the verb publicar. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Petitioner and Tugas appealed to the CA. Mary Joie S. confirms his actual participation in the preparation and publication of the controversial article and his approval thereof as it was written. or publishing of the matter contained in the said libelous article. 2003. as such. editing. this petition. or proprietor or printer/publisher of the publication.S. Thus. In U. Case Digest ANNABELLE RAMA GUTIERREZ to humiliation and disgrace. Topacio and Santiago. he was directly responsible for the writing. Based on these cases. Taylor. Tugas both pleaded not guilty. is unavailing. However. affirmed the conviction of petitioner. that he was confined at the Mother of Perpetual Help Clinic in Angeles City. thereby causing dishonor. but also the person who prints or publishes it. proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication of the offending article is not required. The appellate court. Branch 218.TECSON. petitioner and co-accused Bogs C. in view of the testimony of his attending physician that Tugas medical condition did not prevent him from performing his work. Issue: Whether or not Tugas and Fermin can be held liable for libel Held: Yes. editor or proprietor of any book. It said that Tugas cannot feign lack of participation in the publication of the questioned article as was evident from his and petitioners Joint Counter-Affidavit. editor. 1997. CONTRARY TO LAW” Upon arraignment. The CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in the Resolution dated March 24. newspaper. the RTC of Quezon City. in fact. if the accused has been specifically identified as author. as it depicts her to be a fugitive from justice and a swindler. After trial on the merits. which was considered meritorious by the CA. therefore. but acquitted Tugas on account of non-participation in the publication of the libelous article. KAYA KINAILANGAN NILANG UMUWI SA PILIPINAS NOON. or of a vice or defect. discredit. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. MILYON-MILYON ANG INVOLVED. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . E. are: “HINDI SIYA MAKAKAPUNTA SA AMERIKA DAHIL NAPAKARAMI RIN NIYANG ASUNTONG INIWAN DUN NOON PA. ILANG TAON NA RIN SIYANG INAABANGAN DUN NG NGA KABABAYAN NATING NILOKO NIYA. the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them. As regards to the second issue.TECSON. condition. real or imaginary. the Supreme Court cannot reverse the findings of acquittal by the appellate court in view of the principle of double jeopardy. NAAALALA PA BA NINYO YUNG MGA MAMAHALING KALDERO NA IBINEBENTA NILA NOON SA AMERIKA. IMPOSIBLENG SA STATES SIYA NAGPUNTA! MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES. omission. or contempt of a natural or juridical person. In determining whether the statement is defamatory. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.. petitioner Fermin argues that the subject article in the June 14. is covered by the mantle of press freedom. status. written in smaller but bold letters. to wit: The banner headlines of the offending article read: “KUNG TOTOONG NAKATAKAS NA SI ANNABELLE RAMA..” A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime. MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO DUN SI ANNABELLE!” On the first page of the same issue of Gossip Tabloid. we would run afoul of his constitutional right against double jeopardy”. NAKAPAG-ABROAD MAN SIYA. 1995 issue of Gossip Tabloid is not libelous. unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. Mary Joie S. of course. “But. Case Digest However. DUN SILA NAGKAPROBLEMA. or any act. PIHADONG HINDI SIYA SA AMERIKA NAGTULOY. we cannot reinstate the ruling of the trial court convicting Bogs Tugas because with his acquittal by the CA. IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?. As the wordings of the Supreme Court. SA AMERIKA PA KAYA SIYA MAGTATAGO. The Supreme Court disagrees on her arguments by analyzing the libelous articles. E. and is merely in the nature of a fair and honest comment. While complainants are considered public figures for being personalities in the entertainment business. Thus. Topacio and Santiago. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . and of being a wastrel (that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the earnings from their business through irresponsible gambling in casinos). The attribution was made publicly. If the utterances are false. it was held that Article 360 includes not only the author or the person who causes the libelous matter to be published. Case Digest To say that the article. or serial publication is chargeable with the publication of any words contained in any part of said book or number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the author of the same. editor or proprietor of any book. However. malicious or unrelated to a public officers performance of his duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving public figures. as it tends to cause the dishonor. The victims were identified and identifiable. or publishing of the matter contained in the said libelous article. More importantly. about their personal lives. PEOPLE Facts: Yes. reference was made to the Spanish text of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code which includes the verb publicar. Taylor. Mary Joie S. In People v. editing. including gossip and intrigue writers and commentators such as petitioner. whether in broadcast media or in print. is not libelous disturbs ones sensibilities. or against public figures on matters of public interest.S. the Supreme Court held that the conviction of petitioner Fermin for libel should be upheld. in its entirety. the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. It said that Tugas cannot feign lack of participation in the publication of the questioned article as was evident from his and petitioners Joint Counter-Affidavit. media people. considering that Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide circulation. There is evident imputation of the crime of malversation (that the complainants converted for their personal use the money paid to them by fellow Filipinos in America in their business of distributing high-end cookware). the accused was indicted under Section 6 of Act No. In U. newspaper. or contempt of the complainants. as such. 277 which provides that: Every author. v. of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law (that complainants and their family returned to the Philippines to evade prosecution in America). proof adduced during the trial showed that accused was the manager of the publication without the corresponding evidence that. BUATIS V. do not have the unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments. The Supreme Court noted that the CA erred in acquitting Tugas. he was directly responsible for the writing. discredit. Neither can petitioner take refuge in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. the article reeks of malice. but also the person who prints or publishes it. it would certainly prick ones conscience.TECSON. such criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. Thus. Although a wide latitude is given to critical utterances made against public officials in the performance of their official duties. of course.TECSON. DUN SILA NAGKAPROBLEMA. which was considered meritorious by the CA. IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?. Moreover. The Supreme Court disagrees on her arguments by analyzing the libelous articles. as petitioner and Tugas are in this case. are: “HINDI SIYA MAKAKAPUNTA SA AMERIKA DAHIL NAPAKARAMI RIN NIYANG ASUNTONG INIWAN DUN NOON PA. Case Digest Based on these cases. As the wordings of the Supreme Court. is unavailing. in fact.” Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .. petitioner Fermin argues that the subject article in the June 14. NAKAPAG-ABROAD MAN SIYA. and is merely in the nature of a fair and honest comment. to wit: The banner headlines of the offending article read: “KUNG TOTOONG NAKATAKAS NA SI ANNABELLE RAMA. Mary Joie S.. As regards to the second issue. MILYON-MILYON ANG INVOLVED. editor. or proprietor or printer/publisher of the publication. “But. therefore. E. NAAALALA PA BA NINYO YUNG MGA MAMAHALING KALDERO NA IBINEBENTA NILA NOON SA AMERIKA. proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication of the offending article is not required. is covered by the mantle of press freedom. we would run afoul of his constitutional right against double jeopardy”. written in smaller but bold letters. Tugas testimony. in view of the testimony of his attending physician that Tugas medical condition did not prevent him from performing his work. 1995 issue of Gossip Tabloid is not libelous. his alibi. if the accused has been specifically identified as author. KAYA KINAILANGAN NILANG UMUWI SA PILIPINAS NOON. that he was confined at the Mother of Perpetual Help Clinic in Angeles City. we cannot reinstate the ruling of the trial court convicting Bogs Tugas because with his acquittal by the CA. IMPOSIBLENG SA STATES SIYA NAGPUNTA! MAS MALAKING HALAGA ANG NADISPALKO NILA SA STATES. MAY MGA NAIWAN DING ASUNTO DUN SI ANNABELLE!” On the first page of the same issue of Gossip Tabloid. ILANG TAON NA RIN SIYANG INAABANGAN DUN NG NGA KABABAYAN NATING NILOKO NIYA. confirms his actual participation in the preparation and publication of the controversial article and his approval thereof as it was written. E. PIHADONG HINDI SIYA SA AMERIKA NAGTULOY. the Supreme Court cannot reverse the findings of acquittal by the appellate court in view of the principle of double jeopardy. SA AMERIKA PA KAYA SIYA MAGTATAGO. However. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. such criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. While complainants are considered public figures for being personalities in the entertainment business. status. of vices or defects for being fugitives from the law (that complainants and their family returned to the Philippines to evade prosecution in America). There is publication Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . or any act. considering that Gossip Tabloid had a nationwide circulation. real or imaginary. Thus. as it tends to cause the dishonor. For an imputation to be libelous. Mary Joie S. the same may give rise to criminal and civil liability. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Buatis is guilty of libel Held: Yes. discredit. (b) it must be malicious. or any act. in its entirety. discredit. real or imaginary. and of being a wastrel (that Annabelle Rama Gutierrez lost the earnings from their business through irresponsible gambling in casinos). or contempt of a natural or juridical person. about their personal lives.TECSON. malicious or unrelated to a public officers performance of his duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving public figures. In determining whether the statement is defamatory.and (d) the victim must be identifiable. is not libelous disturbs ones sensibilities. the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory. To say that the article. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. the article reeks of malice. whether in broadcast media or in print. Neither can petitioner take refuge in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them. (c) it must be given publicity. media people. condition. Case Digest A libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime. or of a vice or defect. There is evident imputation of the crime of malversation (that the complainants converted for their personal use the money paid to them by fellow Filipinos in America in their business of distributing high-end cookware). Although a wide latitude is given to critical utterances made against public officials in the performance of their official duties. The victims were identified and identifiable. The attribution was made publicly. omission. or contempt of a natural or juridical person. More importantly. or of a vice or defect. omission. discredit. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. condition. unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. the Supreme Court held that the conviction of petitioner Fermin for libel should be upheld. status. or contempt of the complainants. If the utterances are false. do not have the unbridled license to malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime. or against public figures on matters of public interest. including gossip and intrigue writers and commentators such as petitioner. it would certainly prick ones conscience. The last two elements have been duly established by the prosecution. and. unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. 341). The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. and they not having been assisted by the offered explanation in reading the article. Thus. Petitioner's subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. as it was written. 'inutile'. when the imputation is defamatory. and 'satan'. 'stupidity'. A reading of petitioner's subject letter-reply showed that he malevolently castigated respondent for writing such a demand letter to Mrs. Also. Whitcomb & Hurley Co. There was nothing in the said letter which showed petitioner's good intention and justifiable motive for writing the same in order to overcome the legal inference of malice. to wit: In Tawney vs. Mary Joie S. two rules of construction are conspicuously applicable:(1)That construction must be adopted which will give to the matter such a meaning as is natural and obvious in the plain and ordinary sense in which the public would naturally understand what was uttered. when found in the mailbox.The whole question being the effect the publication had upon the minds of the readers. (109 Minn. Case Digest in this case. the court had the following to say on this point:In determining whether the specified matter is libelous per se. if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them. was open. Furthermore. In using words such as 'lousy'. if any there be. As the CA said. the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain. open to public. publication means making the defamatory matter. 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. In determining whether a statement is defamatory. not contained in an envelope thus. we laid down the rule in Jimenez v. the prosecution need not prove malice on the part of petitioner (malice in fact). these very words of petitioner have caused respondent to public ridicule as even his own family have told him: 'Ginagawa ka lang gago dito. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Reyes.ry Gauging from the abovementioned tests.TECSON.. for the law already presumes that petitioner's imputation is malicious (malice in law). it comes too late to have the effect of removing the sting. petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. from the words used in the publication. It is enough that the author of the libel complained of has communicated it to a third person. under the general rule laid down in Article 354. Simonson. In applying these rules to the language of an alleged libel. the letter. known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written. casts aspersion on the character. the words used in the letter dated August 18. Quingco. Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory. the court will disregard any subtle or ingenious explanation offered by the publisher on being called to account. the letter. after it is written. In libel. integrity and reputation of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. No evidence aliunde need be adduced to prove it. For the purpose of determining the meaning of any publication alleged to be libelous. 'carabao English'. every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. even if it be true. (2)The published matter alleged to be libelous must be construed as a whole. Rodelito. 8806R. the writing reads: "HUAG BURAHIN BAWAL DUMAAN ANG SUSPETSOSA BASTOS AT MAKAPAL NA MUKHA DITO LALO NA SA MANIAC AT MAGNANAKAW NG ASO KATULAD NI CERELITO.Kaya iyong pambabastos mo at pagdudumi niya sa pangalan naming at higit pa Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Cedring. related what he saw to his father. at around 4:00 p. Baguio City. feeling that he was the maniac and dog thief being referred to. 'Lito or 'Cedring being alluded to. upon reaching home." After reading what was thus written. went to the BCP sub-station to deliver her 3-page letteranswer written in yellow pad and addressed to the station sub-commander. finding. Rodelito proceeded with his errand and.. Evelyn followed suit afterwards. illiterate. Cerelito's 16-year old son. who immediately read the three (3) separate letters contained in the envelope. of the same day. Alejandro. Eventually. Evelyn gave the unsealed envelope to Cerelito. Again.TECSON. or on March 9. saw Dolores write on the wall at the back of her garage the following words: 'Huag Burahin Bawal Dumaan Dito ang Maniac at Magnanakaw ng Aso katulad ni Cere Lito O. In the afternoon of March 2. in the information in Criminal Case No. Pictures were then taken of the aforesaid writing on the wall. Cerelito. 1991.m. 1991. Cerelito's sister. Cerelito lost no time in filing a complaint with the Baguio City Police (BCP). Dolores handed to and instructed Evelyn Arcartado. At around 12:20 p. saw Dolores writing something on her garage's extension wall with the use of a paint brush and red paint. while at the upper portion of his house. Feeling that he was the 'Cere'. The first letter. dayukdok na galing sa isang kahig isang tukang pamilya at walang pinagaralan. following an investigation. Evidently apprised by the police of the complaint thus filed by Cerelito. Marcos Highway. in the morning of March 15. March 15. PEOPLE Facts: This is a case for Libel committed by Dolores Magno on various occasions against Cerelito T. 8804-R. In full. to deliver an unsealed white.m. filed the corresponding information giving rise to Criminal Case No.Since Fe was out of the house at that time. probable cause for libel against Dolores. Subsequently. unsigned and undated and written on yellow pad. in part. Quoted. the former’s neighbor for almost 20 years at PucayVillage. 1991. long. Case Digest Thus. 1991. while on his way to buy bread at a nearby store. Fe read the contents of the envelope upon reaching home late in the afternoon of March 15. 1991. Mary Joie S. ordinary envelope to Fe Alejandro. the Office of the City Prosecutor in Baguio. Cerelito's wife. the Supreme Court find that the CA did not commit any error in affirming the findings of the trial court that petitioner is guilty of the crime of libel MAGNO V. mal educado kaya bastos eh huag na niya kaming idamay sa kaniyang katangahan na alam na trabaho eh humawak ng grasa sa Saudi. this unsigned letter reads: “If your husband can't show any proof of his makating dila then comply & if your husband can't understand this simple English dahil mangmang. Dolores. Cerelito reported the matter to the local police and filed an affidavit-complaint with the Fiscal's Office. was addressed to spouses Cerelito and Fe Alejandro. 8804-R. 8803-R. to the SubStation 5 Commander of BCP purportedly in reply to the statement given by Fe Alejandro to the police station on March 3. bukas ang zipper ng pantaloon nakayapak na walang sapin sa paa.Galing siya sa p ng baboy at hindi sa p ng tao. 8805-R and 8806-R and raffled to Branch 6 of the court.Huag niyang ikumpara ang pinangalingan niya sa pinangalingan namin. 1993. di ba lampas kayo sa lote ninyo. she was acquitted. Kailan mo masasabi na pumasok sa bakuran mo para mamirhuesyo sa inyo. Following a joint trial. but with the following addendum written in ink at the back page thereof which reads: “Ang tibay mo rin naman Mrs.TECSON. as follows: The Sub Station Commander Sub-Station 5 Marcos Highway.In simple tagalog magnanakaw ng aso para may malamon dahil takaw na takaw at walang maibili.” The second letter is a photo-copy of the first. Alejandro a maniac.Malinaw na ibidensiya iyan kinalagyan ng hagdan ninyo. Alejandro. however.I have 3 native dogs but 1 was slaughtered by Mr. the appellate court affirmed in toto the judgment of conviction of the RTC.Siya ang magnanakaw at mandaraya. . It is upon the foregoing factual backdrop that Dolores was charged with libel under four (4) separate informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City.C. B.” The third letter. as accused. tignan ninyo muna ang sarili ninyo. docketed as Criminal Cases No.Pumasok siya sa lote ko sa garahe na naging shelter (temporary) namin ng pamilya ko pagkatapos ng lindol (3 weeks after) ng hatinggabi-lasing na lasing nakapaa. 1991.He is even a dog-napper. Mas mukha pang magnanakaw ang asawa mo para malinaw. the trial court rendered judgment on September 23. in part. . In Criminal Cases Nos. On Appeal.I don't trust him as my kapitbahay na bantay salakay. Tanga.We were awakened by the constant barking of my dogs. why I call Mr. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .Pinalakad ninyo ang mojon para lumaki ang lote ninyo. My Manang Louie can relate the incident since we were out of the country x x x. Cerelito Alejandro '. Case Digest siyang marumi at putang ina rin niya. Mary Joie S. reads. Dolores. The appellate court likewise denied the motion for reconsideration of Dolores Magno for lack of merit. entered a plea of Not Guilty to each of the offenses charges in the four informations aforecited. makapal pa ang mukha mo at ikaw pa ang magpapablotter sa akin para pagtakpan mo ang maniac mong asawa. 8803-R and 8805-R. Upon arraignment. 8804-R and 8806-R and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment and ordering her to indemnify the offended party a certain sum as moral damages. Dear sir: cralawxxxxxxxxx Allow me then to explain to you . finding her guilty of libel in both Criminal Cases Nos. 1991.Bago kayo magsalita mambintang ng kapitbahay ninyo. a photocopy of Dolores’ signed letter dated March 15.Tulog na kami. and editor. It cannot be overstressed that she herself handed the unsigned letter to Evelyn Arcartado with specific instructions to give the same to Fe Alejandro. the contents of the letters are basically reiteration/elaborations of Dolores' previous writing on the wall and her letter to the BCP Sub-Station commander. A man's reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself. respectively of the newspaper Abante were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. of the crime of LIBEL. the Court cannot give credence to Dolores' allegation that she is not the author of the unsigned libelous letter. (b) publication Publication. If the statement is sent straight to a person for whom it is written there is no publication of it. What the Court of Appeals said on this point is basic common sense and deserving of acceptance. reads: The undersigned accuses ALFIE LORENZO. People of the Philippines v. the following elements must be shown to exist: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another. Likewise. The information. Mary Joie S. Alfie Lorenzo. for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein. ALLEN MACASAET. Jr. The factual antecedents are as follows: In an Information dated 10 July 1997. PEOPLE Facts: Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Decision entitled. with the crime of libel. Case Digest Issue: Whether or not Magno could be held liable for libel Held: Yes.. publisher. known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. The reason for this is that 'a communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem. Allen Macasaet. et al. in context. Finally. and Roger Parajes. Nicolas Quijano. Writing to a person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication. columnist. PARAJES and JORDAN CASTILLO. Alfie Lorenzo. in the law of libel.TECSON. Accordingly. managing editor. means the making of the defamatory matter. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Fe. is. the wife. NICOLAS QUIJANO JR. but the estimation in which others hold him. which was raffled off to Branch 93 of said court.. after it has been written. the ascription of reversible errors on the part of the CA and the trial court in adjudging Dolores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of libel cannot be sustained MACASAET V. ROGER B. The Supreme Court held that to be liable for libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. a third person to whom the publication was made. The Supreme Court finds all the elements of libel to have been sufficiently established. then and there willfully. and JORDAN CASTILLO.a. 1996. in its issue of July 13. . conspiring.. editor.TECSON. The possible venues for the institution of the criminal and the civil aspects of said case are concisely outlined in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. TOTO TRINIDAD to public hatred. with evident intent of exposing JOSELITO MAGALLANES TRINIDAD.. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the libel case on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the offense charged. as amended by Republic Act No. ALLEN MACASAET. the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published. shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense Issue: Whether or not the petitioners' contention that he could only file his libel suit in the City of Manila where Abante was first published or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time the purported libelous article was printed is tenable. Case Digest committed as follows: That on or about the 13th day of July. is more particular in libel cases. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . JOEY TRINIDAD a. unlawfully and feloniously and maliciously write. to wit: The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter. published.a. It provides: Art. did. According to petitioners. columnist. exhibited and circulated in the aforesaid newspaper. a.k. managing editor. the RTC of Quezon City did not have jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. confederating together and mutually helping one another. however. PARAJES. The law. however. discredit and contempt and ridicule. Mary Joie S.k. 1996 in Quezon City. Philippines. The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter. as the information discloses that the residence of private respondent was in Marikina. respectively of Abante a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. 4363. publish. dishonor. That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense. shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided. publisher. ROGER B. . Persons responsible. the said accused ALFIE LORENZO. 360. the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual. NICOLAS QUIJANO JR. and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila. . Held: Yes. exhibit and circulate and/or cause to be written. the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published. the Revised Rules of Court is clear on this point. Jaime Olmedo. a public official. the lower court still has jurisdiction over the case. The Rules cannot be any clearer: until the filing of the last notice of appeal and the expiration of the period to perfect an appeal by all the parties. the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Mary Joie S. the trial courts jurisdiction over the case does not cease as a matter of course.TECSON. However. Olmedo filed a complaint for libel against petitioner alleging that the latter’s statements cast aspersions on him and damaged his reputation. the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. In the article.000. [50] As explained by our former colleague. The next day. Justice Florenz Regalado . April 22. its only effect is that the appeal is deemed perfected as to him. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . [I]n the meantime. Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. where all the parties have either thus perfected their appeals. Rule 41. .[51] Applied to the case at bar. by filing their notices of appeal in due time and the period to file such notice of appeal has lapsed for those who did not do so. It is only after the occurrence of these two incidents when the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals begins and at which time the OSG is supposed to take charge of the case on behalf of the government VASQUEZ V. we deem it proper that the notice of appeal was filed by the private and the public prosecutors before the trial court. On appeal. 1992. . Case Digest The next question should then be: when does the jurisdiction of the trial court end and that of the Court of Appeals commence? Happily. (3) kasangkot din umano si Olmedo sa mga ilegal na pasugalan sa naturang lugar at maging sa mga nakawan ng manok. the trial court still retains jurisdiction over the case. [49] When a party files a notice of appeal. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of libel.00. he and some 37 families from the area went to see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General Manager Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman. Sometime in April 1986. x x x” Based on the newspaper article. the trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of P1. petitioner and his companions were met and interviewed by newspaper reporters at the NHA compound concerning their complaint. On May 28. (2) ang mga lupa ay ilegal na patituluhan. Section 9 of the Rules states that (i)n appeals by notice of appeal. pulished were supposed allegations by Vasquez that (1) “nakipagsabwatan umano si Chairman Jaime Olmedo upang makamkam ang may 14 na lote ng lupa”. nagawa ito ni Olmedo sa pakikipagsabwatan sa mga project manager at legal officers ng NHA. the following exerpts of the news article appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa. After their meeting with Atienza and other NHA officials. 1986. then the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case as of the filing of the last notice of appeal or the expiration of the period to do so for all the parties. CA Facts: Petitioner Rodolfo R. Case Digest Held: No. We recognize that a person's liability for libel does not necessarily proceed from the fact that he was the original publisher of the discreditable act. both due to the latter's unjustified refusal and failure to return petitioner's cash bond of P1. CA Facts: ROQUE VICARIO Y MENDEZ was charged with libel by the Provincial Prosecutor of Catarman. and (d) existence of malice. Of course. According to the Information.00 cash bond posted by a respondent in one of several cases pending in his sala. at the same time asserting that the libel suit against him was ill-motivated for he had filed a criminal charge for graft and corruption against Judge Sidro before the Ombudsman and an administrative complaint for dishonesty with the Supreme Court. (c) identity of the person defamed.Conrado Vasquez yesterday filed with the Sandiganbayan graft charges against a Northern Samar judge who pocketed the P1. The maker of a libelous republication or repetition.00. Charged was Judge Proceso Sidro of the Northern Samar municipal circuit trial court in Mondragon. with Judge Proceso Sidro of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mondragon-San Roque. as complaining witness. But in every case malice must be present. something which has not been shown in the case at bar. the following elements must be proved: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another. There was nothing defamatory in the news item. although not liable for the results of the primary publication. The law presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation VICARINO V.000.TECSON. Mary Joie S. he who repeats the publication is likewise free from accountability for the re-utterance. Investigation showed that Sidro failed to deposit the cash bond with his clerk-of-court. Northern Samar. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . This much was found by the trial court itself. is liable for the consequences of a subsequent publication which he makes or participates in making so long as the elements of libel are satisfied.000. it does not necessarily mean that if the news article complained of is not libelous because it is a privileged matter. (b) publication of the charge. Petitioner Vicario on the other hand disclaimed responsibility for the distribution of the alleged libelous article. To find a person guilty of libel under Art. and refused to return the money even after the accused who filed the bond was already acquitted in the case. 353 of the Revised Penal Code. Private complainant Sidro alleged that petitioner's act greatly prejudiced his reputation as a member of the bench and caused him great distress. noting that the published article was merely a factual report about the filing by the Ombudsman of the charge of corruption against the judge with the Sandiganbayan. Northern Samar. the crime was committed when Vicario allegedly distributed and circulated in the vicinity of the Northern Samar Provincial Hospital in Catarman photocopies of page 7 of the 20 March 1992 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer which contained the following article: SAMAR JUDGE WHO POCKETED BOND CHARGED WITH GRAFT OMBUDSMAN -. there was no evidence at all to show that petitioner was the source of the statements contained in the news item published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. exists for so ruling. the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another. There is no specific reference therein to petitioner nor to his Affidavit-Complaint. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. as in fact it did. condition. PEOPLE Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . This is why it was incorrect for the appellate court to find that "the news item was patently culled from the Affidavit-Complaint of the appellant imputing a criminal act on Judge Sidro filed with the Ombudsman (emphasis ours)" when no basis. (c) identity of the person defamed. constitutes the crime of libel. it would have been more accurate for the appellate court to state that the news article was culled from the resolution of the Ombudsman directing the filing of a criminal charge based on the results of his investigation of a complaint leveled against the named judge. Case Digest After trial.TECSON. To be sure. The trial court justified its decision by declaring that while no evidence was presented to show that Vicario distributed copies of the news article to several persons. as evident from the manner his testimony was delivered. But then. the records also confirmed its absence. Indeed. at least he gave one photocopy to prosecution witness Amador Montes which amounted to publication. towards complaining witness Sidro. for not only was the news item by itself bereft of this information. that Vicario maliciously imputed a discreditable act to respondent judge. factual or legal. and there would be no more justification for the finding that the first element of libel was established VILLANUEVA V. if it did. status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person. or of a vice or defect. it would be inappropriate to conclude that through the disputed news item he ascribed a criminal act to Judge Proceso Sidro. the Affidavit-Complaint was merely a narration of the facts constituting the cause of action of petitioner. omission. real or imaginary. (d) existence of malice. Libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime. Issue: Whether or not the act of petitioner in giving a copy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer to Amador Montes where the news item was published. it would have been left with no basis at all to hold. the court a quo found petitioner Vicario guilty of libel and sentenced him to pay a fine of P200. As found by the trial court. Held: No. and that this act was tainted with malice as it stemmed from Vicario's hatred. Thus. Its contents never appeared in the news article which spoke only of the filing by the Ombudsman with the Sandiganbayan of graft charges against Judge Sidro after its investigation of a complaint that the judge refused to return the cash bond of an accused after the latter's acquittal in a criminal case. and. Since it has not been established that he caused the publication of the subject article nor was the source thereof. Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. (b) publication of the imputation. Mary Joie S. or any act. Parenthetically. instead of in writing. but inside you are worm infested and extremely dirty). who was holding the position of Councilor at that time. unlawfully. petitioner. defendant Villanueva. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used. tictac carinat" (You are pretending to be clean and honest yet you are not clean and honest. and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case. office. is hidebound to be an exemplar to society against the use of intemperate language particularly because the offended party was a Vice-Mayor. garapal ca" and "Balamu mansanas cang malutu. petitioner was filing an application for monetized leave for the approval of herein complainant. has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation. However. but also upon the special circumstances of the case. The term oral defamation or slander as now understood. depending not only upon their sense. as found by the Court of Appeals. PEOPLE Facts: Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . CANA V. which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. maliciously and feloniously uttered in a serious and insulting manner the following words: "Nagmamalinis ca. and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately. it is a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other. Tarlac. In the case at bar. grammatical significance. pero queng quilib ularan ca. The rule that all possible circumstances favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor. Mary Joie S. Case Digest Petitioner Noel Villanueva was a member of the Municipal Council while private complainant Yolanda C. ena ca man malinis. A heated argument then ensued between the complainant and the enraged defendant Villanueva. Issue: Whether the petitioner is guilty of slight oral defamation Held: Yes. you are like a red apple. that complainant refused. trade. in a loud voice and within hearing distance of everyone present. Castro was the Municipal Vice Mayor of Concepcion. business or means of livelihood. as a public official. The slander committed by petitioner can be characterized as slight slander following the doctrine that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger. but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party. There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. Sometime in September 1994. with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony. antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender. without valid justification to approve the monetization of accrued leave credits of petitioner. it should be noted that such scathing words were uttered by petitioner in the heat of anger triggered by the fact. The application was not immediately attended to by complainant as she was then busy dictating some important matters to her secretary. you are corrupt. In the presence of several persons. Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means.TECSON. Indeed. Article 2219(7) of the New Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of libel. Issue: Whether or not the statements of the petitioner constitute oral defamation. to wit: “AYAW MO KAHADLOK SA TESTIGOS NI DAYLINDA KAY WALAY BANCA-AGAN. He argues that at the MCTC. into discredit. why you afraid to Daylinda. At that time. Atty. she live from stealing. Mary Joie S. if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. who was always absent. Bataan in the elections of May 8. Indeed. NABUHI ITON SA PANGAWAT” which if translated in English language will mean (You afraid to the witness of Daylinda who had no how. he was invariably present and ready to present his evidence.TECSON. she is a long time thieves) and other words of similar imports. On April 20. This imputes to her a crime that is dishonorable or contemptuous. It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. NABUHI ITON SA PANGAWAT. even if it be true. And malice may be inferred from the style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions which are not present in the case at bar. Escolango was conversing with his political leaders at the terrace of his house at Morong. 1995. Bataan when petitioner appeared at the gate and shouted putang ina mo Atty. Held: Yes. disrepute and contempt when he unlawfully and publicly speak and utter against her the following insulting words and expressions. The petitioner alleges that the CA gravely erred in sustaining his conviction. Atty. Balanga. This provision establishes the right of an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. Benjamin C. He further alleges that the appellate court failed to appreciate the true facts of his case.. Daylinda testified to the feelings of shame and humiliation she suffered as a result of the incident complained of PADER V. Bataan. NAHADLOK KAW KANG DAYLINDA. at about 8:00 p. Alvizo. Branch 1. Bataan affirming petitioners conviction of grave oral defamation by the Municipal Trial Court. slander or any other form of defamation. calling Daylinda a thief is defamation against her character and reputation sufficient to cause her embarrassment and social humiliation. it was his counsel that did him in and he should not be made to suffer for that. To say that Daylinda is a thief is irrefragably grave oral defamation. PEOPLE Facts: What is before the Court is an appeal via certiorari from a decisionof the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court. The Court affirms the trial courts award of moral damages in favor of the private complainant.m. Bagac. Napakawalanghiya mo! The latter was dumbfounded and embarrassed. Case Digest Petitioner is accused of bringing private complainant Daylinda Cañal. Escolango was a candidate for vice mayor of Morong. Escolango. Atty. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . 1995. He insists that he was unjustly deprived of his right to adduce evidence in his behalf due to the failings of his counsel. Castillo in place of Atty. that petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words. Vivencio Ruiz. We do not agree. a practising lawyer since 1926. Ruiz and his collaborator Judge Alfredo Guiang. a drunk Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty. L. the oral defamation was only slight. the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the parties were also neighbors. Exequiel Victorio Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . the intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily to insult the latter. antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender. Bagac. People. the factual backdrop of the case. Bagac. VICTORIA V. CA Facts: Atty. Bataan a complaint against petitioner for grave oral defamation. the words uttered were defamatory.TECSON. on March 4. has been the attorney of petitioner Exequiel Victorio in certain civil cases from 1953 until 1963 when petitioner decided to hire the services of another lawyer. In fact. 1998. On appeal. however. and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately. one time Justice of the Peace and member of the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija. the Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in toto Issue: Whether or not Pader is guiltly of slight oral defamation Held: Yes. Unquestionably. Escolango did when petitioners father died. In which case. Escolangos reputation since the parties were political opponents. Being a candidate running for vice mayor. but also upon the special circumstances of the case. Somehow. Atty. Mary Joie S. to which petitioner pleaded not guilty. in arriving at its decision. we ruled that the expression putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed. we are guided by a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other. grammatical significance. Case Digest On June 16. Bataan rendered decision convicting petitioner of grave oral defamation. In resolving the issue. not really to slender but rather to express anger or displeasure. The trial court. Nueva Ecija. Considering. We do not find it seriously insulting that after a previous incident involving his father.[ After due trial. more often. considered that the defamation was deliberately done to destroy Atty. a professor of law and for sometime president of the Nueva Ecija Bar Association. depending not only upon their sense. which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. it is just an expletive that punctuates ones expression of profanity. the oral defamation was not of serious or insulting nature. Obviously. then Municipal Judge of Guimba. occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his person are not uncommon. Escolango would utter words expressing anger. In Reyes vs. on October 30. 1995 Atty. and the fact that petitioners anger was instigated by what Atty. Escolango filed with the Municipal Trial Court. 1997 the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. while Atty. Petitioner Daniel Victorio is the son of Exequiel Victoria. Mary Joie S. who apparently taken aback. as counsel for respondent Judge Guiang in the administrative case. between serious and slight oral defamations. Thus. During the hearing of the administrative case on that particular afternoon of January 9. Revised Penal Code. does not deny that the accused. has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation. the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Castillo. office. Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting Daniel Victorio and Exequiel Victorio of serious oral defamation and not slight oral defamation Held: No. for investigation and disbarment proceedings against Atty. Mayabang yang putang-inang abogado Ruiz na iyan. suwapang at estapador. counsel of the Victorios. People. Case Digest and his wife afterwards filed an administrative charge against Judge Guiang which was assigned to Judge Ramon Avancena. Jur. suwapang at estapador. business or means of livelihood (33 Am. To determine whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation. to have uttered the following defamatory words: Daniel: "Kayabang ng putang-inang abogadong Ruiz na iyan. moved that Atty. Ruiz. 39). 1964 in the sala of Judge Avanceña." Exequiel: "Lastog ta ukinnanata abogado Ruiz. The term oral defamation or slander as now understood. suwapang. the incident that gave rise to the criminal prosecution for oral defamation took place. trade. as follows: "Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Castillo and gave him a lecture." (Balite v. estapador. then pending in the Office of the Solicitor General. Appellant-petitioner in this instant appeal.") The prosecution having proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. spells out the demarcation line. Petitioners were overheard by Emiliano Manuzon. Article 358. Castillo be cited for contempt of court. Ruiz. presented an urgent motion to disqualify Judge Avanceña to hear the administrative case. a policeman of Cabanatuan City and one of the witnesses for the prosecution." (Translated in Tagalog as. paltogak ta ukinana ta abogado Ruiz. otherwise. Atty. tunaw naman ang utak. After the said hearing and while the two accused were later walking down the corridor leading to the stairs from the sala of Judge Avanceña. the Court Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . on the occasion in question. the sole issue that the Court has to resolve is whether or not the defamatory words constitute serious oral defamation or simply slight oral defamation.TECSON. babarilin ko ang putang inang iyan. the accused. Exequiel Victoria is hereby found guilty of Grave Oral Defamation. There is no dispute regarding the main facts that had given rise to the present case. Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. if it is of a serious and insulting nature. called down Atty. 18 SCRA 280 [1966]). uttered the defamatory words alleged in the information. suwapang ken estapador. The MeTC refused quashal. states cause of action..A. LaVin. page 494). Invoking this conviction. with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. they are libelous per se and (the) complaint. Mains v. INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR IVIER V. are slanderous per se (Kraushaar v.. Ibid.. finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. Branch 157 (RTC). 82367) for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Thus. the MeTC proceeded with the arraignment and. petitioner sought from the MeTC the suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2d 857 [1943]. petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. business or profession of a person charged. SAN PEDRO Facts: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004. Greenburg v. We are to be guided by a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other. 82366) for the death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. 2d 638 [1968]. Without acting on petitioner’s motion.C. invoking S. Balite v. 42 N. De Salvo.S. Defamatory words uttered specifically against a lawyer when touching on his profession are libelous per se. as Viada puts it.Y. 82367 and was meted out the penalty of public censure. On 7 September 2004.C. cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest. Sipser (191 NY 845 [1934]). Ponce (respondent Ponce). including the arraignment on 17 May 2005. Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.' or a false charge. quoting Viada. 82366 for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence. but also upon the special circumstances of the case. it was held that "where statements concerning plaintiff in his professional capacity as attorney are susceptible. petitioner moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. No. Quinta edicion. occupation. 82366. antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender. 216 So. dealing with office. 2803). trade. 2803 as a prejudicial question. People.3 After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration.A. 4 Seven days later.. because of petitioner’s absence.. . Meanwhile. depending upon. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. '.upon their sense and grammatical meaning judging them separately. the MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to suspend Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . even in the absence of allegation of special damage. Branch 71 (MeTC). in their ordinary meaning.TECSON. of such construction as would tend to injure him in that capacity. in a petition for certiorari (S. petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. in Kleeberg v. ." Oral statements that a certain lawyer is 'unethical. Mary Joie S. which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time: . Codigo Penal. and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. Whiting 49 NW 559 [1891]. Case Digest adopted the following guidelines: . No. the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . finding that Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries is an entirely separate offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property "as the [latter] requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Held: Yes. The text of the provision reads: Imprudence and negligence. Any person who." We find for petitioner. arising from the same facts.TECSON. Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses. The accused’s negative constitutional right not to be "twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense" protects him from." Petitioner adopts the affirmative view. 82366 and Criminal Case No. shall commit any act which. respondent Ponce sought in the RTC the dismissal of S. submitting that the two cases concern the same offense of reckless imprudence. its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to Determine the Penalty The two charges against petitioner.C. if it would have constituted a light felony. had it been intentional.A. by simple imprudence or negligence. 82367 involve the "same offense. Petitioner contested the motion Issue: Whether petitioner’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponce’s husband. the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed. 82367 was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid charge. Mary Joie S. would constitute a grave felony. When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another. if it would have constituted a less serious felony. It is not disputed that petitioner’s conviction in Criminal Case No. 2803 for petitioner’s loss of standing to maintain the suit. The MeTC ruled otherwise. were prosecuted under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code. if it would have constituted a less grave felony. — Any person who. Case Digest proceedings and postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed. shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony. Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime. shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed. post-conviction prosecution for the same offense. Thus. among others. namely. with the prior verdict rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid information. as amended. No. by reckless imprudence. Relying on the arrest order against petitioner. the case turns on the question whether Criminal Case No. shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. the motion remained unresolved. 5 Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition. Petitioner adopts the affirmative view. Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses. When. by simple imprudence or negligence. without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four. separately defined and penalized under the framework of our penal laws. The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense. are distinct species of crime. post-conviction prosecution for the same offense. as amended. regardless of its various resulting acts. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary. Case Digest equal to the value of said damages to three times such value. among others. The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable. whether reckless or simple. if done maliciously. Mary Joie S.TECSON. doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. with the prior verdict rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid information. undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365. namely. in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. The accused negative constitutional right not to be "twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense" protects him from. arising from the same facts. but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos. the court shall exercise their sound discretion. the notion that quasi-offenses. in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law. would have constituted a light felony." The two charges against petitioner. were prosecuted under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code. Indeed. The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable: 1. physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons. time and place. The MTC ruled otherwise. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. to death of a person shall be caused. is nothing new. but without malice. degree of intelligence. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article. shall cause some wrong which. finding that Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries is an entirely separate offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property "as the [latter] requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who. taking into consideration his employment or occupation. submitting that the two cases concern the same offense of reckless imprudence. In the imposition of these penalties. 2. the lenient schedule of penalties under Article 365. Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. In a few days. In August 1996. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . Meanwhile. as here. the Department of Justice separately charged petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court of Boac. and Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code ("RPC") for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. Tapian. At the base of the pit ran a drainage tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnit rivers. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense. Case Digest These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Tapian pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and Makalupnit rivers. Marcopper had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt. Marinduque ("MTC") with violation of Article 91(B). should cushion the effect of this ruling LONEY V.TECSON. Mary Joie S. On 24 March 1994. tailings gushed out of or near the tunnel’s end. but any disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as "light offenses" (or. PEOPLE Facts: Petitioners are officers of Marcopper. If it is so minded. they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing formula under Article 48. less grave or light offenses. Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel’s end. Section 108 of Republic Act No. True. Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. a corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque. 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines ("PD 1067"). the Mt. Marinduque. The Court had continuously ruled that a single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense. 984 or the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 ("PD 984"). This will still keep intact the distinct concept of quasi-offenses. The petition has no merit. sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of Presidential Decree No. PD 984. Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the grounds that the Informations were "duplicitous" as the Department of Justice charged more than one offense for a single act. and RA 7942 Held: No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 ("RA 7942"). Issue: Whether or not the charge of the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC "absorbs" the charges for violation of PD 1067. whether penalized as grave. for the more serious consequence prosecuted belatedly). befitting crimes occupying a lower rung of culpability. and RA 7942 must fail. suffice it to say that a mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD 1067. 365 of the Revised Penal Code is the lack of necessary or adequate precaution. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . PD 984. fell rather than jumped off the bus. doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act). 984 (Anti-Pollution Law). Mary Joie S. PEOPLE Facts: Teofilo Abueva y Cagasan was charged before the RTC of Davao City. 1067 (Philippines Water Code). the additional fact that must be proved is the existence of actual pollution. It was alleged that petitioner drove and moved a passenger bus out of the terminal building even before Lourdes Mangruban. negligence. (2) his degree of intelligence.D. recklessness and imprudence on the part of the accused to prevent damage to property. The claim that the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC "absorbs" the charges for violation of PD 1067. What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa). In P. The facts showed that the victim. Lourdes Mangruban. The gravamen is the pollution itself. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily. what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enacting them ABUEVA V. The claim of the defense that the deceased jumped off the bus is incredible and contrary to human experience. in an information of Reckless Imprudence resulting in homicide for the death of Lourdes Mangruban qualified by petitioner’s failure to render or lend assistance on the spot to the victim such help as may be in the hands of the accused to give. the additional element to be established is the dumping of mine tailings into the Makulapnit River and the entire Boac River System without prior permit from the authorities concerned. but without malice. taking into consideration (1) his employment or occupation. LOURDES MANGRUBAN fell down to the cemented pavement of the terminal road and sustained the injuries which caused her death. Case Digest In P. and RA 7942). PD 984. In R. and that as a direct result of said negligence. recklessness and carelessness.TECSON. On the other hand. the additional fact that must be established is the willful violation and gross neglect on the part of the accused to abide by the terms and conditions of the Environmental Compliance Certificate.A. a passenger of said bus. could properly find and safely take her seat. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is liable for Reckless Imprudence resulting to homicide Held: Yes. the additional element that must be established in Art. (3) his physical condition.D. This element is not required under the previous laws. petitioners liability for the death of passenger Lourdes Mangruban. Having failed to exercise due diligence that resulted in the tragic incident. July 28. conniving and confederating together and mutually helping one another.m.00 as indemnity as well as the costs. L-6641. with intent to kill. estafa through falsification of public document. during the entire trip. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment and held one of the accused liable for estafa through falsification by negligence. The accused are all declared guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. PEOPLE V. time and place. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants can be guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicice even the information filed charges them with murder Held: Yes. The information against accused-appellants alleged: That on or about the 27th day of January. No. 1997 at about 2:00 oclock p. the said accused. must be sustained. did then and there inflict fatal physical injuries on one Randy Luntayao which injuries caused the death of the said Randy Luntayao. and convicted of. as we held in Quizon v. and Reynario Nuez @ Rey Nuez guilty of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor. Philippines.R. the Court held: While a criminal negligent act is not a simple modality of a willful crime. Delia Sibonga @ Deding Sibonga. Court of Appeals. the accused were charged with. Celedonia Fabie @ Isabel Fabie.. with deliberate intent. in the City of Cebu. as found by the lower courts. with treachery and evident premeditation. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. and upon disembarking from the vehicle. it may however be said Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 .TECSON. finding accused-appellants Eutiquia Carmen @ Mother Perpetuala. Mary Joie S. In overruling this contention. Case Digest and (4) other circumstances regarding persons. He is expected to be well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers. but a distinct crime in itself.000. 1955. CARMEN Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC of Cebu City. Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has been in the employ of the bus company for 18 years and has undergone training courses and seminars to improve his skills as a driver. Not only must he make sure that they reach their destinations on time. G. he must also ensure their safety while they are boarding. designated as a quasi offense in our Penal Code. On appeal. Alexander Sibonga @ Nonoy Sibonga. it was contended that the appeals court erred in holding the accused liable for estafa through negligence because the information charged him with having wilfully committed estafa. In Samson v. The fact that the information does not allege that the falsification was committed with imprudence is of no moment for here this deficiency appears supplied by the evidence submitted by appellant himself and the result has proven beneficial to him. Pabon appeared. Domingo Belbes and Pat. it would be incongruous to allege at the same time that it was committed with imprudence for a charge of criminal intent is incompatible with the concept of negligence. Ulanca and said "Mam. approached Mrs. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . this Court modified the judgment and held the accused liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after finding that he did not act with criminal intent PEOPLE V. Fernando was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. In People v. and convicted of. appellant. Jose Pabon were assigned by the Bacacay Station Commander to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Appellant and Pat. bone torn away. bathed with his own blood. Pat. Fernando. muscles. Case Digest that a conviction for the former can be had under an information exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense. Fernando Bataller. . the accused was charged with. appellant Pat. responded forthwith. (3) chest (back) located at the middle back at the level of the lowest rib. two students. antero lateral approximately 5 cm. Pabon. was hit on different parts of his body and died."Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat" filled the air. Albay. On appeal. the information alleges acts which charge willful falsification but which turned out to be not willful but negligent. a graduating student of Pili Barangay High School. appellant and Pat. Certainly. located at the right lower face. bursts of gunfire-. At this instance. while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca. Moments before the gruesome incident. the Court of Appeals found that in effecting the falsification which made possible the cashing of the checks in question. Bacacay. Mary Joie S. Without warning. was in the company of Carlito Bataller and Rosalio Belista. Around 9:00 p.TECSON. having alleged that the falsification has been willful. Pili. upon the theory that the greater includes the lesser offense. Pabon fled from the crime scene. another gunshot wound on the same location with tattooing located at left lateral waistline. 1990. skin and superficial muscles torn away. located at left. In other words. (2) chest (front. the bamboo splits broke. armed with an armalite rifle and a . Moments after the two police officers left. blood vessels. As shown in the autopsy report. nerves. skin. Riselle Banares and Juliana Basaysay. respectively. . This is the situation that obtains in the present case. ." Appellant and Pat. appellant did not act with criminal intent but merely failed to take proper and adequate means to assure himself of the identity of the real claimants as an ordinary prudent man would do.m. Fernando slumped on the ground. While Fernando was vomiting and holding on to the bamboo wall of the schools temporary building. BEIBES Facts: "In the evening of February 16. Pabon and Elmo Bes were watching the dance. This is a case covered by the rule when there is a variance between the allegation and proof. it seems that there is somebody making trouble. murder by the trial court. appellant fired his gun.38 caliber revolver. then drunk. Fernando suffered the following gunshot wounds: (1) head. below but lateral to the left nipple. Fernando Bataller. Appellant was charged with willful falsification but from the evidence submitted by the parties. TECSON. but the bullet ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon thereafter. Applying the indeterminate sentence law. We conclude that appellant is guilty only of homicide. who was killed by the accidental discharge brought about by negligent handling. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. and in fact hit ONLY the victim. On the other hand. On one hand. Mary Joie S. he fired another shot at the ground.45 caliber pistol twice in the air. the minimum of said penalty should be taken from prision mayor. in shooting the victim. Professor: Fiscal Nelson Salva CRIMINALLAW 2 . no opportunity being given the latter to defend himself or to retaliate. employed means. treachery did not attend the commission of the crime as to rule out murder. There is no showing that the shooting was premeditated or that appellant. Likewise. two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means. lateral level of the lowest rib. and. or (2) discharging a firearm from the window of ones house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment leaned over the balcony front. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended victim might make. the maximum of the penalty should be reclusion temporal in its minimum period. appellant intended to fire AT the victim. Case Digest another gunshot wound located at the left back. There being one mitigating circumstance. Issue: Whether or not Belbes can be convicted of the crime reckless imprudence resulting in homicide Held: No. mitigated by the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. the offense is definitely not reckless imprudence resulting in homicide because the shooting was intentional. fired his . method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim. The appellant is guilty of tbe crime of homicide. to stop a fist fight. In this case. Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a friend. The RTC also erred in convicting him of murder. mere suddenness of the attack does not necessarily imply treachery. methods or forms to ensure its execution. as the bout continued. and (b) the means. For the same to be considered as a qualifying circumstance. or (3) where the defendant. method or manner of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. with tattooing. which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself.