Crim Law Case Digests 2008 Mat

Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES vs. ROBERTO QUIACHON
G.R. No. 170236 August 31, 2006
Justice Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of qualified rape. On or
about May 12, 21, the accused, by means of force and intimidation had se!ual intercourse
with one Rowena Quiachon, his daughter, " years old, a deaf#mute minor. Rowel recounted
that on the night of May 12, 21, Rowel saw his father on top of his sister Rowena and they
were co$ered by a blan%et or &%umot.& 'is father(s buttoc%s were mo$ing up and down, and
Rowel could hear Rowena crying. 'e could not do anything because he was afraid of their
father. Rowel remained in the room but the following morning, he told his aunt, )armelita
Mateo about what he had witnessed. *ogether, )armelita and Rowel went to the police to
report what had transpired.
*he Regional *rial )ourt found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of qualified rape defined and penali+ed under Articles 2,,#A and - of the Re$ised
.enal )ode. *he court imposed death penalty against the accused. *he defense argued that
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
VISMARCK UY over-all chair, ARIL CAB!"A chair acade#ics o$erations, AL%!A& LIM
chair hotel o$erations,
AY& SARSABA vice chair for o$erations, A&'()&Y UR*A&A& vice chair for
acade#ics,
R)&AL% +)(& %!CA&) vice chair for secretariat, KARLA ,U&'ILA vice chair for
finance,
+!,,R!Y *ALLAR%) vice chair for ed$, ULYSS!S *)&"AL!S vice chair for logistics
CRIMINL L!
CARLA %IA&A - ALCALA s./0ect chair
LAUR!& R)S! 'A&YA* assistant chair
LAVI1A RA! +AC)BA ed$
L!A&&! MAUR!!& A)LI&AR and C)&!Y R)S! %! V!RA cri#inal law 2, AR' RYA&
S!AC()& cri#inal law 3, &)RMA& AUL 'URI&*A& s$ecial $enal laws
MEMBER"# Michael Sa#.el '.la4, Maria %el Car#en Beatri5 Loina5, Ari Vergil
,a/ros, *enesis L- Sa#$aga, ia Call.eng, Christian +o4 )ca#$o, Anne Marie
Calonge, !5e6iel +osh.a Villena, Re40ie 'orres, Mar4 Christine %a/., (eide Rosales,
Sheena A/ella, Kat Contacto, Mar6 Steven astor, %ee$ee Sala5ar, &a/il M.t4a,
Benn4 Claravall, Anthon4 Men5on, +oe Al/an, Marl4n Bacani, +B Ar7.ero, Roehl +oson
Criminal Law case
digest
the benefits of RA /01, should be e!tended to the accused.
ISSUE:
2hether the appellant can benefit from R.A. /01, which abolished the death penalty
law.
HELD:
Yes. 3n $iew of the enactment of Republic Act 4R.A.5 6o. /01, on 7une 21, 2,
prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be meted on appellant is
reclusion perpetua in accordance with 8ection 2 thereof which reads9
8:)*3O6 2. 3n lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed9
4a5 the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law
$iolated ma%es use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Re$ised .enal )ode; or
4b5 the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law
$iolated does not ma%e use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Re$ised .enal )ode.
*he aforequoted pro$ision of R.A. 6o. /01, is applicable in this case pursuant to the
principle in criminal law, fa$orabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. .enal laws which are
fa$orable to accused are gi$en retroacti$e effect. *his principle is embodied under Article 22
of the Re$ised .enal )ode, which pro$ides as follows9 Retroacti$e effect of penal laws. <
.enal laws shall ha$e a retroacti$e effect insofar as they fa$or the persons guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule = of Article ,2 of this )ode,
although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced
and the con$ict is ser$ing the same.
'owe$er, appellant is not eligible for parole because 8ection 0 of R.A. 6o. /01,
pro$ides that &persons con$icted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for
parole.&
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Frustrated v. Atte!ted Stage
ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1"0#17 Se!te$er 27, 2006
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
.etitioner and 7o$y )alderon were sighted within the 8hoeMart 48M5 comple!
along 6orth :>8A, by ?oren+o ?ago 4?ago5, a security guard who was then manning his
post at the open par%ing area of the supermar%et. ?ago saw petitioner, who was wearing an
identification card with the mar% &Recei$ing >ispatching @nit 4R>@5,& hauling a push cart
with cases of detergent of the well#%nown &*ide& brand. .etitioner unloaded these cases in an
open par%ing space, where )alderon was waiting. .etitioner then returned inside the
supermar%et, and after fi$e 4=5 minutes, emerged with more cartons of *ide @ltramatic and
2
Criminal Law case
digest
again unloaded these bo!es to the same area in the open par%ing space.
*hereafter, petitioner left the par%ing area and haled a ta!i. 'e boarded the cab and
directed it towards the par%ing space where )alderon was waiting. )alderon loaded the
cartons of *ide @ltramatic inside the ta!i, then boarded the $ehicle. All these acts were seen
by ?ago, who proceeded to stop the ta!i as it was lea$ing the open par%ing area. 2hen ?ago
as%ed petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and )alderon reacted by fleeing
on foot, but ?ago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident.
.etitioner and )alderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise
reco$ered.
.etitioner and )alderon were charged and, after trial, con$icted of consummated
theft. .etitioner appealed, arguing that he should ha$e been con$icted of frustrated theft only.
'owe$er, his con$iction was affirmed.
ISSUE:
3s petitioner guilty of consummated theftA
HELD:
Yes. An easy distinction lies between consummated and frustrated felonies on
one hand, and attempted felonies on the other. 8o long as the offender fails to complete all
the acts of e!ecution despite commencing the commission of a felony, the crime is
undoubtedly in the attempted stage. 8ince the specific acts of e!ecution that define each
crime under the Re$ised .enal )ode are generally enumerated in the code itself, the tas% of
ascertaining whether a crime is attempted only would need to compare the acts actually
performed by the accused as against the acts that constitute the felony under the
Re$ised .enal )ode.
3n contrast, the determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated
necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of e!ecution ha$e been performed by the
offender. *he critical distinction instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by
the acts of e!ecution. *he determination of whether the felony was &produced& after all the
acts of e!ecution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of the
felony. 3t is the statutory definition that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under
the Re$ised .enal )ode, while the elements in turn unra$el the particular requisite acts of
e!ecution and accompanying criminal intent.
Article 0" of the Re$ised .enal )ode gi$es a general definition of theft as follows9
B*heft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without $iolence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall ta%e personal property of another without
the latter(s consent.C
Dor the purpose of ascertaining whether theft is susceptible of commission in the
frustrated stage, the question is again, when is the crime of theft producedA *here would be
all but certain unanimity in the position that theft is produced when there is depri$ation of
personal property due to its ta%ing by one with intent to gain. Eiewed from that perspecti$e,
it is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once ha$ing committed all the
acts of e!ecution for theft, is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the
3
Criminal Law case
digest
depri$ation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of e!ecution.
3t might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property
stolen del$es into the concept of &ta%ing& itself, in that there could be no true ta%ing until the
actor obtains such degree of control o$er the stolen item. -ut e$en if this were correct, the
effect would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted, and not frustrated stage, for it would
mean that not all the acts of e!ecution ha$e not been completed, the &ta%ing not ha$ing been
accomplished.& 3nsofar as we consider the present question, &unlawful ta%ing& is most
material in this respect. @nlawful ta%ing, which is the depri$ation of one(s personal property,
is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time,
without unlawful ta%ing as an act of e!ecution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at
all. 2ith these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 0" of the Re$ised
.enal )ode, theft cannot ha$e a frustrated stage. *heft can only be attempted or
consummated.
LEONIDAS EPIFANIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1"70"7 Ju&e 26, 2007
Justice Austria'(arti&e)
FACTS:
On August 1=, 1//, )risaldo Alberto 4)risaldo5 and his cousin, Allan .ere+ 4Allan5,
were wal%ing to their respecti$e homes after spending time at the house of )risaldo(s father.
8ince the pa$ement going to )risaldo(s house followed a narrow pathway along the local
shrubs called banganga, Allan wal%ed ahead of )risaldo. 8uddenly, )risaldo felt the piercing
thrust of a bladed weapon on his bac%, which caused him to cry out in pain. 'e made a quic%
turnaround and saw his attac%er, petitioner, also %nown as &3yo 4@ncle5 Fing%oy.& .etitioner
stabbed )risaldo again but only hit the latter(s left arm. 2hen Allan heard )risaldo(s outcry,
he rushed to )risaldo(s side which caused petitioner to run away. Allan then brought )risaldo
to his father(s house where )risaldo(s wounds were wrapped in a blan%et. )risaldo was then
brought to the .eGaplata 'ospital where he was gi$en first aid and then transferred to the
>a$ao Medical )enter where he stayed for three wee%s to recuperate from his wounds.
8ubsequently, petitioner was charged with Drustrated Murder. >uring his
arraignment, petitioner pleaded &not guilty.& .etitioner(s defense consisted mainly of denial.
On 7uly =, 1//1, the R*) rendered its >ecision con$icting the petitioner. .etitioner appealed
his con$iction to the )A, which affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE:
2hether the accused was guilty of frustrated murder.
HELD:
No. 3t must be stressed that it is not the gra$ity of the wounds alone which determines
whether a felony is attempted or frustrated, but whether the assailant had passed the
subHecti$e phase in the commission of the offense.
3n homicide cases, the offender is said to ha$e performed all the acts of e!ecution if
the wound inflicted on the $ictim is mortal and could cause the death of the $ictim barring
medical inter$ention or attendance. 3f one inflicts physical inHuries on another but the latter
sur$i$es, the crime committed is either consummated physical inHuries, if the offender had no
4
Criminal Law case
digest
intention to %ill the $ictim; or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or
attempted murder if the offender intends to %ill the $ictim. 3ntent to %ill may be pro$ed by
e$idence of9 4a5 moti$e; 4b5 the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the
crime; 4c5 the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the $ictim; 4d5 the manner the crime
was committed; and 4e5 words uttered by the offender at the time the inHuries were inflicted
by him on the $ictim.
3n the present case, the intent to %ill is $ery e$ident and was established beyond
reasonable doubt through the unwa$ering testimony of )risaldo on the manner of e!ecution
of the attac% as well as the number of wounds he sustained. )risaldo was stabbed from
behind by petitioner. 2hen )risaldo turned around, petitioner continued his assault, hitting
)risaldo on the left arm as the latter tried to defend himself. *he treacherous manner in
which petitioner perpetrated the crime is shown not only by the sudden and une!pected attac%
upon the unsuspecting $ictim but also by the deliberate manner in which the assault was
perpetrated. 6onetheless, petitioner failed to perform all the acts of e!ecution, because Allan
came to the aid of )risaldo and petitioner was forced to scamper away. 'e did not $oluntarily
desist from stabbing )risaldo, but he had to stop stabbing when Allan rushed to help )risaldo
and recogni+ed petitioner. *hus, the subHecti$e phase of the crime had not been completed.
Moreo$er, the prosecution failed to present testimonial e$idence on the nature of the
wounds sustained by )risaldo. 6o e$idence in this case was introduced to pro$e that )risaldo
would ha$e died from his wound without timely medical attendance. 3t is well#settled that
where there is nothing in the e$idence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically
attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful; hence, the doubt should be resol$ed in
fa$or of the accused and the crime committed by him may be declared as attempted, not
frustrated murder.
CONSPIRACY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HENRY TOGAHAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 17*06* Ju&e +, 2007
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
Appellants 'enry *ogahan 4*ogahan5 and :meldo ?auro 4?auro5 together with 2
other accused still at large were charged under separate informations for two counts of
murder committed by shooting one Ananias Eillar, 8r. 4Eillar5 and >a$id Iene Richardson
4Richardson5.
3n the course of the trial, the prosecution stated that at around ,90 p.m., Magdalena
Eillar 4Mrs. Eillar5, her daughter Eilma Eillar#Richardson 4Mrs. Richardson5, son#in#law
Richardson, grandchildren Fenneth, Fe$in, 7unelyn, 7o$elyn and Michelle, and brother
.edro )astillo were all watching tele$ision in the li$ing room of their residence in 8urigao
del 8ur. 2ithout warning, two armed men 4*ogahan and ?auro5 wearing bonnets suddenly
arri$ed. At that time, the $ictim Eillar, husband of Mrs. Eillar, was in his room. 2hen Eillar
heard the commotion, he went to the door and tried to pre$ent the armed men from entering,
but he was shot twice, pulled towards the balcony and clubbed to death.
*ogahan, pointed a gun at Mrs. Richardson and pulled the trigger thrice. *he gun did
5
Criminal Law case
digest
not fire howe$er. ?auro, then, approached Richardson and li%ewise pointed a gun at him.
Mrs. Richardson told her husband to run away but the latter, in an attempt to protect his wife,
struggled and tried to wrestle the gun away from *ogahan instead. 3n the course thereof,
?auro shot Richardson then ran out of the house with Richardson(s 0#year old son. Eillar and
Richardson were brought to .la+a Memorial 'ospital in .atin#ay, 8urigao del 8ur but were
dead upon arri$al.
:yewitness ?owelito Eillar 4?owelito5, grandson of $ictim Eillar, testified that on
the e$ening of the incident, he heard a gun burst and claims to ha$e seen three 405 armed and
mas%ed men he identified as *ogahan, ?auro and -alindo enter the $ictims( house. After the
attac%, all the accused ran out of the house, remo$ing their mas%s in the process.
ISSUE:
2as there conspiracyA
HELD:
Yes. *he e!istence of conspiracy among the assailants is patent. 3n the instant case,
by the concurrent acts of barging into the residence of the $ictims, holding them at gunpoint
and shooting and attac%ing the $ictims, ?auro, *ogahan and their co#accused are deemed to
ha$e agreed to commit the crime of murder. :ach of their contributory acts without
semblance of desistance reflected their resolution to commit the crime. Drom a legal
standpoint, there is conspiracy if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the appellants
had the same purpose and were united in its e!ecution. >irect proof of pre$ious agreement to
commit a crime is not necessary. )onspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the appellants themsel$es
when such acts point to a Hoint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
intent. 2here conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.
ENTRAPMENT v. INSTIGATION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON QUIAOIT, JR.
G.R. No. 17"222 Jul, 27, 2007
Justice C-ico'Na)ario
FACTS:
At around 119 o(cloc% in the e$ening of 12 April 21, the *arlac .6. recei$ed a
report from a confidential informant that someone was selling shabu at the Iolden Miles, a
$ideo%e bar located in -arangay 8an Roque, *arlac )ity. Acting on said information, a team
was immediately organi+ed by .6. .ro$incial >irector Rudy Iamido ?acadin to conduct a
sur$eillance in order to $erify the information and perform a buy#bust operation.
8hortly thereafter, the team went to Iolden Miles where they initially obser$ed the
mo$ements of appellant who was with the confidential informant at that time. ?ater, the
informant introduced .O1 -aquiran to appellant and the two negotiated the sale of shabu.
According to .O1 -aquiran(s testimony, appellant handed to him a plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance in front of *he Iolden Miles( comfort room which was located at
the bac% of said establishment. 3n return, he ga$e appellant a mar%ed .=. bill. As soon as
the e!change between appellant and .O1 -aquiran too% place, the latter ga$e his companions
the pre#arranged signal by scratching his head. .O2 >ueGas and .O1 )abradilla mo$ed in to
6
Criminal Law case
digest
arrest appellant. *he plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was later mar%ed
R3> 1 by .O2 >ueGas.
On their way bac% to )amp Ma%abulos, the informant allegedly told the buy#bust
team, through a te!t message, that appellant still had in his possession illegal drugs other than
that which he had sold to .O1 -aquiran. *hus, upon reaching the camp, they fris%ed
appellant and this yielded si! more plastic sachets, the contents of which were similar to
those earlier bought by .O1 -aquiran. *he sei+ed crystalline substance was subHected to test
and the result shows that it was BshabuC.
*he appellant contends that the arrest was illegal since he was framed up by the
police and the court should consider the arrest as a result of instigation and not entrapment
contrary to the arresting officers claim.
ISSUE:
2as the arrest of the accused a result of instigation or inducementA
HELD:
No. *he demarcation line distinguishing &instigation& from &entrapment& is clearly
drawn. 3n the case of .eople $. Quintana, the )ourt e!plained the distinction between the
two9 3n instigation, the instigator practically induces the accused into the commission of the
offense and himself becomes a co#principal; in entrapment, ways and means are resorted to
for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law brea%er in the e!ecution of his criminal
plan.
3nstigation and inducement must be distinguished from entrapment. *he general rule
is that instigation and inducement to commit a crime, for the purpose of filing criminal
charges, is to be condemned as immoral, while entrapment, which is the employment of
means and ways for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law brea%er, is sanctioned and
permissible. And the reason is ob$ious. @nder the first instance, no crime has been
committed, and to induce one to commit it ma%es the instigator a co#criminal. @nder the last
instance, the crime has already been committed and all that is done is to entrap and capture
the law brea%er. 3n the case at bar, the )ourt finds appellant(s claim of instigation to be
baseless.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Self-Defense
MANUEL O. ORIENTE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1""0#* Ja&uar, 30, 2007
FACTS:
On 1, March 1//,, at around 19 o(cloc% in the e$ening, Arnel *anael was on his
way to the house of Romulo )ariGo. 'e passed in front of the house of JpetitionerK Manuel
Oriente and saw the latter and his companions ha$ing a drin%ing spree at the terrace of the
petitioner(s house. 'e arri$ed at Romulo(s house where the latter was drin%ing beer alone.
*hereafter, Romulo went out of the house to buy cigarettes. 2hile watching tele$ision in the
house of Romulo, Arnel *anael heard two gunshots. 'ence, he rushed outside the house to
7
Criminal Law case
digest
chec% on what the gunshots were all about.
.eeping through potted plants perched on top of a neighbor(s fence *anael saw
Romulo )ariGo, Manuel Oriente, the latter(s daughter, Marilou ?ope+ and her husband, .aul
?ope+ and one Rogelio Iascon arguing. 'e heard .aul ?ope+ telling Romulo )ariGo, &3%aw
)ariGo, ang liit#liit mo, ang yabang moL& *hen *anael saw Marilou coming out from their
house with a lead pipe and handed it o$er to .aul. .aul then hit Romulo with a lead pipe at
his right arm. Accused#appellant got the lead pipe from .aul and hit Romulo on his left
eyebrow. Romulo reeled and fell down. @pon seeing Romulo fall down, Arnel got confused,
hence, he went bac% inside the house and switched off the light and turned the tele$ision off.
'e went outside again and saw Romulo moaning. At this point, .aul ?ope+ was already
po%ing a gun at Romulo, then pulled the trigger twice but the gun did not fire. Arnel then
shouted, &.utang ina ninyo, ba%it niyo ginagawa iyan sa bayaw %o, ba%it ninyo ginaganito
siya, ano ba ang %asalanan niya sa inyo.& Oriente and his company did not say anything.
Romulo )ariGo was brought by Arnel to the :ast A$enue Medical )enter where Romulo,
two hours after, passed away.
*he accused pleaded self#defense, arguing that the $ictim was the one who shot the
gun and that he was only defending himself and his family when he hit the $ictim. *he R*)
rendered a >ecision con$icting the petitioner of the crime of 'omicide. )A affirmed the
decision of the R*). 'ence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
2hether accused may claim self#defense.
HELD:
No. *he petitioner emphasi+es that the $ictim, allegedly a troublema%er in the
$icinity, was drun%, fired his gun twice, and then proceeded towards the petitioner and his
companions. *he )ourt is not con$inced.
2hen self#defense is in$o%ed, the burden of e$idence shifts to the accused to show
that the %illing was legally Hustified. 'a$ing owned the %illing of the $ictim, the accused
should be able to pro$e to the satisfaction of the )ourt the elements of self#defense in order
to a$ail of this e!tenuating circumstance. 'e must discharge this burden by clear and
con$incing e$idence. 2hen successful, an otherwise felonious deed would be e!cused,
mainly predicated on the lac% of criminal intent of the accused.
8elf#defense requires that there be 415 an unlawful aggression by the person inHured
or %illed by the offender, 425 reasonable necessity of the means employed to pre$ent or repel
that unlawful aggression, and 405 lac% of sufficient pro$ocation on the part of the person
defending himself. All these conditions must concur. *here can be no self#defense, whether
complete or incomplete, unless the $ictim had committed unlawful aggression against the
person who resorted to self#defense.
@nlawful aggression, a primordial element of self#defense, would presuppose an
actual, sudden and une!pected attac% or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person <
not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude < but most importantly, at the time the
defensi$e action was ta%en against the aggressor. *o in$o%e self#defense successfully, there
must ha$e been an unlawful and unpro$o%ed attac% that endangered the life of the accused,
8
Criminal Law case
digest
who was then forced to inflict se$ere wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable
means to resist the attac%.
*he testimonies of the defense witnesses, including the accused, that )ariGo
threatened the persons gathered in front of Oriente(s house with a gun is quite difficult to
belie$e in $iew of the admissions of the same defense witnesses, including the accused, that
)ariGo was able to get up from the ground after being hit and ran away with gun in hand. A
person who was already threatening to %ill with a gun and who was then hit with a piece of
wood in a serious manner, can be reasonably e!pected to ma%e use thereof. 'ere, the defense
ma%es a rather unusual claim that )ariGo simply ran away and did not use the gun he was
holding while running.
.a/0ul 1er0ora&ce o0 a 2ut,
RUFINO S. MAMANGUN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1*#1"2 Fe$ruar, 2, 2007
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
*he accused#petitioner police officer Mamangun was charged before the
8andiganbayan with the crime of Murder. On or about the 01st day of 7uly 1//2, held at
Meycauyan, -ulacan, a hold#up# robbery was reported in the area and that the suspect went
to the rooftop of the house. *he accused Mamangun, together with two other police officers
responded in the area. 3t is undisputed fact that the three policemen, i.e., petitioner, >ia+ and
)ru+, each armed with a drawn handgun, searched the rooftop. *here, they saw a man whom
they thought was the robbery suspect. At that instance, petitioner Mamangun, who was
wal%ing ahead of the group, fired his handgun once, hitting the man. *he man turned out to
be Iener )ontreras 4)ontreras5 who was not the robbery suspect. )ontreras died of the
gunshot wound.
*he prosecution lone eyewitness said that accused Mamangun fired his gun although
Iener identified himself while uttering the words to MamangunMs group with B'indi a%o,
hindi a%oC to which Mamangun replied, & Anong hindi a%oA&
*he defense denied the presence of the witness of the prosecution and corroborated
the testimonies of the three police officers. *hey said that the rooftop was dar%. *hey saw
)ontreras crouching on the rooftop and shouted, B.ulis *igilLC whereupon the person
suddenly stopped, turned around, faced Mamangun, and raised a stainless steel pipe towards
the latter(s head but Mamangun was able to e$ade the attac%. *his prompted Mamangun to
shoot the person on the left arm. All three claimed that it was only at this point that .O2 )ru+
and >ia+ approached )ontreras who told them, &'indi a%o. 'indi a%o.& Mamangun went
near )ontreras and as%ed, &2hy did you go to the rooftopA Nou %now there are policemen
here.& *hus, the defense claimed self#defense and lawful performance of a duty as police
officer.
After due proceedings, 8andiganbayan came out with its decision finding the
accused# petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only the crime of 'omicide. 'ence this
petition.
9
Criminal Law case
digest
ISSUE:
)an the petitioner claim the Hustifying circumstance of lawful performance of a dutyA
HELD:
No. *he Hustifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph =, Article 11,
of the Re$ised .enal )ode may be in$o%ed only after the defense successfully pro$es that9
415 the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and 425 the inHury inflicted or offense
committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful e!ercise of such
duty. 'a$ing admitted the fatal shooting of )ontreras, petitioner is charged with the burden
of adducing con$incing e$idence to show that the %illing was done in the fulfillment of his
duty as a policeman.
8elf#defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated as a $alid
Hustifying circumstance in this case. Dor, from the abo$e admitted, uncontro$erted or
established facts, the most important element of unlawful aggression on the part of the $ictim
to Hustify a claim of self defense was absent. ?ac%ing this essential and primary element of
unlawful aggression, petitioner(s plea of self#defense, complete or incomplete, must ha$e to
fail.
*o be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty, without more, do not completely Hustify
the petitioner(s firing the fatal gunshot at the $ictim.
EEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Accide&t /it-out Fault or 3&te&tio& o0 Causi&g it
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with parricide for allegedly shooting his wife with a dart from
a rubber sling, hitting her at the nec% and causing her instantaneous death. 3n his defense, the
accused said that he had no intention of %illing his wife and that he was practicing the use of
the weapon when his wife was accidentally hit by the arrow. 'owe$er, the trial court
nonetheless found him guilty on the ground that the e$idence showed that the infliction of the
fatal inHury upon his wife was preceded by a quarrel between her and the appellant, thus
negating the latterMs defense. *he same was affirmed on appeal. 3n the present petition, the
appellant contends that assuming that he was the one who %illed his wife the same was
accidental and not intentional.
ISSUE:
3s the e!empting circumstance of accident applicable in the instant caseA
HELD:
No. Article 12, par. 1 of the Re$ised .enal )ode, pro$ides9
AR*. 12. )ircumstances which e!empt from criminal liability. < *he
following are e!empt from criminal liability9
!!! !!! !!!
1. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an inHury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
10
Criminal Law case
digest
&Accident& is an affirmati$e defense which the accused is burdened to pro$e, with
clear and con$incing e$idence. *he defense miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof.
*he essential requisites for this e!empting circumstance, are9
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. 2ith due care;
0. 'e causes an inHury to another by mere accident;
1. 2ithout fault or intention of causing it.
-y no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be
considered as performing a &lawful act.& *hus, on this ground alone, appellant(s defense of
accident must be struc% down because he was performing an unlawful act during the incident.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
4olu&tar, Surre&der
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORATO C. BELTRAN
G.R. No. 16+0"1 Se!te$er 27, 2006
FACTS:
On 2= October 1///, at about 19 in the e$ening, :$er 8ales left his wor%place and
proceeded home using his bicycle. 2hile tra$ersing the Eelasque+ Road, he saw -eltran
4appellant5 holding a bolo and standing in front of his house situated at the side of Eelasque+
Road. On the opposite side of the same road, he saw 6orman '. )oncepcion 46orman5
standing in front of an automobile repair shop. :!hausted by the tra$el, :$er decided to stop
by and rest momentarily at a nipa hut near the same road. Minutes later, he saw appellant,
from a distance of si! meters, stal%ing 6orman who was then wal%ing near the automobile
shop. Appellant approached 6orman, and, without a warning, hac%ed him with a bolo.
6orman tried to a$oid the blow by mo$ing bac%wards and shielding his face with his left
arm. 'owe$er, 6orman(s left hand was hit and wounded by the bolo. 2hen 6orman turned
around and ran, appellant hac%ed him at the bac% causing him to fall down on a grassy area.
Appellant repeatedly hac%ed 6orman with a bolo and nearly decapitated the $ictim which
caused the latterMs instant death.
Accused in$o%ed self#defense, nonetheless, he was still con$icted of murder. On
appeal, the accused wished to a$ail of the mitigating circumstance of $oluntary surrender.
ISSUE:
1. )an the accused a$ail of self#defense in committing the crimeA
2. 3f self#defense is not a$ailing, can $oluntary surrender be appreciated as
mitigating circumstanceA
HELD:
1. No. As an element of self#defense, unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attac%,
or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the
defendant(s life in actual peril. 3t is an act positi$ely strong showing the intent of the
aggressor and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. 3t is also described as
11
Criminal Law case
digest
a sudden and unpro$o%ed attac% of immediate and imminent %ind to the life, safety or
rights of the person attac%ed.
3n the instant case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of 6orman that
Hustified the act of appellant in hac%ing him to death. *here was no actual or imminent danger
on the life of appellant when he came face to face with 6orman. 6orman was Hust wal%ing on
the road and was not pro$o%ing appellant into a fight. 3t was the appellant who approached
and suddenly hac%ed 6orman repeatedly e$en when the latter was already fallen on the
ground. 3n short, appellant was the unlawful aggressor.
2. *he essential elements of $oluntary surrender are9 415 that the offender had not been
actually arrested or apprehended; 425 that the surrender was $oluntary and spontaneous; and
405 that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent.
Appellant was already apprehended for the hac%ing incident by the barangay officials
Hust before he was turned o$er to the police. Assuming that appellant had indeed surrendered
to the authorities, the same was not made spontaneously. 3mmediately after the hac%ing
incident, appellant, instead of proceeding to the barangay or police, went to his brother and
the ne!t day, to his sister. 3t too% him three long days to surrender to the police authorities.
Moreo$er, the flight of appellant and his act of hiding until he was apprehended by the
barangay officials are circumstances highly inconsistent with the spontaneity that
characteri+es the mitigating circumstance of $oluntary surrender.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Relatio&s-i! a&d (i&orit,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ORLANDO A. UBI!A
G.R. No. 1763*# Jul, 10, 2007
Justice 5&ares'Sa&tiago
FACTS:
Appellant, Orlando @bina, was charged with rape of his 1=#year old niece. *he
appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After trial, the R*) found him guilty of rape. *he
appellate court affirmed the ruling of the R*). 'owe$er, the appellate court disregarded the
aggra$ating circumstance of craft and the special qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship of the parties in the imposition of penalty because it noted that they were not
alleged in the information. 'ence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
>id the court err in disregarding the qualifying circumstance of relationship and
minorityA
HELD:
*he twin circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 00= of the Re$ised
.enal )ode, as amended by R.A. 6o. O,=/, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances
because they alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As special
qualifying circumstances they must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the
information; . . . 3f the offender is merely a relation < not a parent, ascendant, step#parent,
12
Criminal Law case
digest
guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the $ictim < the specific relationship must
be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is &a relati$e by consanguinity or affinity Jas the
case may beK within the third ci$il degree. *he information in the instant case only
mentioned appellant as AAA(s uncle, without specifically stating that he is a relati$e within
the third ci$il degree, either by affinity or consanguinity. :$en granting that during trial it
was pro$ed that the relationship was within the third ci$il degree either of consanguinity or
affinity, still such proof cannot be appreciated because appellant would thereby be denied of
his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Appellant
cannot be charged with committing the crime of rape in its simple form and then be tried and
con$icted of rape in its qualified form. *hus, the )ourt of Appeals correctly disregarded the
qualifying circumstance of relationship.
'owe$er, the minority of the $ictim was properly alleged in the 3nformation. 2hen
either one of the twin special qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted
or lac%ing, that which is pleaded in the information and pro$ed by the e$idence may be
considered as an aggra$ating circumstance. As such, complainant(s minority may be
considered as an aggra$ating circumstance. 'owe$er, it may not ser$e to raise the penalty in
the instant case because in simple rape, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua which is
single and indi$isible.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
6vide&t 1reeditatio& a&d A$use o0 Su!erior Stre&gt-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA
G.R. No. 171271 August 31, 2006
FACTS9
Accused was employed as a family dri$er by Atty. :$elyn 8ua#Fho since 1//". On
Debruary 12, 21, at around ,9 o(cloc% in the e$ening, the accused dro$e Atty. 8ua Fho to
her condominium unit. After handing his employer(s bag to Marissa 'iso, the housemaid,
accused proceeded to the %itchen where he dran% a glass of water. 8hortly thereafter, Marrisa
heard her employer screaming, and she saw the accused stabbing her with their %itchen %nife.
8he tried to stop the accused, shouting &Fuya -ertL&, but the latter continued to stab Atty.
8ua#Fho.
*he accused fled using the $ictim(s car. 'e was arrested soon afterwards in )alapan,
Mindoro, while on his way to his home pro$ince.
8e$eral wor% associates of the $ictim in the ?awyer(s Ad$ocate )ircle related that
prior to the %illing of Atty. 8ua#Fho, the accused had confided about his grudges against the
$ictim, such as being gi$en spoiled food, that his meals were being measured, that he wor%ed
long hours of the day and ser$ed many bosses.
*he accused, on the other hand, raised the defense of self#defense. Atty. 8ua#Fho,
he testified, didn(t want her husband to %now that she had been ta%ing trips with a company
guest, a certain .hillip Robinson, to .uerto A+ul and >arana% Dalls in *anay. 3n the e$ening
13
Criminal Law case
digest
of Debruary 12, 21, Atty. 8ua#Fho urged accused to go to her father(s house, because her
husband >aniel Fho would be arri$ing. As she and the accused argued about .hillip
Robinson, the former got a %nife and stabbed him with it, catching her on the wrist. Accused
managed to wrest control of the %nife, and with it, stabbed Atty. 8ua#Fho three or four times.
After he stabbed her he was shoc%ed and left the place using the $ictim(s car. 'e fled to
Mindoro where he allegedly surrendered to the police.
*he trial court ruled against the accused. *he )ourt of Appeals disregarded
appellant(s claim of self defense for lac% of e$idence and for being incredible considering the
number and location of wounds sustained by the $ictim and his flight from the crime scene.
ISSUE:
2hether accused is guilty of murder.
HELD:
Yes. *he )ourt agrees with the )ourt of Appeals that e$ident premeditation was
adequately established which qualified the %illing to murder. ?i%ewise, it appreciated abuse
of superior strength as an aggra$ating circumstance. ?i%e any other circumstance that
qualifies a %illing as murder, e$ident premeditation must be established by clear and positi$e
e$idence; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. *he essence of premeditation is that the
e!ecution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflections upon the resolution to
carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arri$e at a calm Hudgment. *o
be considered, the following elements must be pro$en9 415 the time when the accused
decided to commit the crime; 425 an o$ert act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination; and 405 sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the e!ecution, to
allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
.rosecution witnesses Marian Aquino and Atty. 7oel -aguio testified as to
appellant(s state of mind and predisposition to a$enge the alleged maltreatment by the $ictim.
-oth witnesses testified on appellant(s ill#plans against his employer the day prior to the
crime. Absent e$idence showing any reason or moti$e for the witnesses to falsely testify
against the appellant, the logical conclusion is that no such improper moti$e e!ists and their
testimonies should be accorded full faith and credit. *hus, the lower courts correctly
concluded that e$ident premeditation attended the commission of the crime.
Appellant li%ewise too% ad$antage of his superior strength to perpetuate the criminal
act. 'e %illed Atty. 8ua#Fho by o$erpowering her and dri$ing the murder weapon into her
body se$eral times, despite her attempts to parry the blows. 'e could not ha$e e!ecuted the
dastardly act without employing physical superiority o$er the $ictim. 3n .eople $. :spina, the
)ourt ha$e ruled that an attac% by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and
defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his se!
and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to
defend herself.
%reac-er,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN
G.R. No. 16#2*6 Ja&uar, 26, 2007
14
Criminal Law case
digest
FACTS:
After attending a worship ser$ice at the 3glesia ni Fristo church in his barangay,
Michael proceeded home. 2hile Michael was casually wal%ing along the corner of 8to. 6ino
8treet and Mactan 8treet, appellant and his two companions, who were drin%ing nearby,
suddenly approached and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself at the bac% of
Michael while his two companions stood in front of Michael. 3n an instant, they grabbed the
shoulders of Michael and o$erpowered the latter. One of the appellant(s companions, whom
the prosecution witnesses described as a male with long hair, drew out a %nife and repeatedly
stabbed Michael on the stomach. @nsatisfied, the appellant(s other companion, whom the
prosecution witnesses described as a male with flat top hair, too% the %nife and stabbed
Michael on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in front of Michael, too% the %nife and
also stabbed Michael on the stomach. 2hen Michael fell on the ground, appellant %ic%ed him
at the body. @pon noticing that the bloodied Michael was no longer mo$ing, appellant and
his two companions fled the scene. *he appellant was con$icted by the trial court with the
crime of murder. On appeal, appellant contends that e$en if he were held liable for the death
of Michael, there was no treachery which will qualify the %illing as murder. According to
him, there is no e$idence to show that appellant and his two companions had deliberately and
consciously adopted their mode of attac% to ensure its e!ecution without ris% to themsel$es.
*he stabbing incident occurred in a place that was properly lighted. *here were many people
in the area then wal%ing in different directions. 'e claims that if he and his two companions
wanted to ensure that no ris% would come to them, then they could ha$e chosen another time
and place to attac% Michael.
ISSUE:
)an treachery be properly appreciated in the instant caseA
HELD:
Yes. *reachery is a sudden and une!pected attac% under the circumstances that
renders the $ictim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and
se$erity of the attac%. 3t is an aggra$ating circumstance that qualifies the %illing of a person
to murder. Article 11, paragraph 41,5 of the Re$ised .enal )ode states the concept and
essential elements of treachery as an aggra$ating circumstance. *here is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms
in the e!ecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its e!ecution, without ris%
to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might ma%e.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, two essential elementsPconditions are required
in order that treachery may be appreciated9 415 *he employment of means, methods or
manner of e!ecution that would ensure the offender(s safety from any retaliatory act on the
part of the offended party, who has, thus no opportunity for self#defense or retaliation; 425
deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of e!ecution. Durther, it must
always be alleged in the information and pro$ed in trial in order that it may be $alidly
considered.
3n the instant case, treachery was alleged in the 3nformation against appellant.
Moreo$er, all the essential elementsPconditions of treachery were established and pro$en
during the trial. *he suddenness and une!pectedness of the attac% of appellant and his two
15
Criminal Law case
digest
companions rendered Michael defenseless, $ulnerable and without means of escape. 3t
appears that Michael was unarmed and alone at the time of the attac%. Durther, he was merely
se$enteen years of age then. 3n such a helpless situation, it was absolutely impossible for
Michael to escape or to defend himself against the assault of appellant and his two
companions. -eing young and wea%, Michael is certainly no match against adult persons li%e
appellant and his two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had three
assailants and was unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two
companions too% ad$antage of their si+e, number, and weapon in %illing Michael. *hey also
deliberately adopted means and methods in e!acting the cruel death of Michael by first
surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders and o$erpowering him. Afterwards, each of
them repeatedly stabbed Michael with a %nife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the
ground. *he stab wounds sustained by Michael pro$ed to be fatal as they se$erely damaged
the latter(s large intestine.
*he fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and many people were
wal%ing then in different directions does not negate treachery. 3t should be made clear that
the essence of treachery is the sudden and une!pected attac% on an unsuspecting $ictim
without the slightest pro$ocation on his part. *his is e$en more true if the assailant is an
adult and the $ictim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot
be e!pected to put up a defense. *hus, when an adult person illegally attac%s a minor,
treachery e!ists.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEOSON E. DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 171272 Ju&e 7, 2007
Justice 7uisu$i&g
FACTS:
*wo informations charged the accused with Murder and Drustrated Murder
committed by means of treachery, e$ident premeditation, ta%ing ad$antage of superior
strength, using disguise, fraud and craft to enter the dwelling and with insult to or in
disregard of the respect due on account of ran%, age and se!. 3n the course of the trial, the
prosecution alleged that appellant >ela )ru+ presented an 3.>. with the name Allan -. Reyes
to 8gt. :sgana, the guard#on#duty at Iate 0 of the )inco 'ermanos 8ubdi$ision. @pon
reaching the house of .elagio, >ela )ru+ was let in by Rebecca, .elagio(s daughter. >ela
)ru+ went straight to the %itchen.
According to .elagio, >ela )ru+ was a messenger in his law firm who got fired
based on his secretary(s recommendation that >ela )ru+ had been absent without lea$e at
least three times. 'e said that he would write >ela )ru+ a recommendation letter which the
latter could pic% up from the office. As he escorted >ela )ru+ out towards the garage gate,
the latter suddenly stabbed him at the bac% and %ept on stabbing him until he lost his balance.
2hen he managed to turn and face >ela )ru+, the latter %ept on stabbing him frontally. 'e
tried to put his arms around >ela )ru+ but his attac%er shoo% him off. As he ran towards the
%itchen, >ela )ru+ chased and %ept on stabbing him at the bac% of his left shoulder. At this
point, 7uliana appeared and rushed to him begging, &?eo, tama na, tama na, tama na.& >ela
)ru+ dropped the %nife and ran towards the garage.
As 7uliana was attending to her husband, >ela )ru+ suddenly reappeared and stabbed
16
Criminal Law case
digest
her at the bac% with a letter opener. As she Her%ed bac%ward, she recei$ed another stab below
the left shoulder. 8he tried to ward off the letter opener with her left hand, but again was
stabbed at the bac% of her left arm. .elagio shouted, &'uwag ?eo, si 7ulie yan.& 2hen the
letter opener bro%e, >ela )ru+ dropped the instrument and rushed outside where he was
apprehended. 7uliana died as a result.
ISSUE:
3n a case, can all aggra$ating circumstances alleged be appreciatedA
HELD:
No. 2hen treachery is present, an allegation of abuse of superior strength can no
longer be appreciated as an independent aggra$ating circumstance. *he same holds true with
the circumstance of disregard of the respect on account of ran%, age or se!, which in this case
could not be aggra$ating. 3n li%e manner, we do not find that disguise, fraud or craft attended
the commission of the crimes. Also, we find no intellectual tric%ery nor cunning resorted to
by appellant to lure his $ictims into a trap and conceal his identity.
'owe$er, the )ourt agrees that dwelling aggra$ated the commission of the crimes.
Appellant(s greater per$ersity was re$ealed when he deliberately entered the $ictims(
domicile, at the prete!t of soliciting help from its owners. *he garage, where the incidents
too% place, is undoubtedly an integral part of the $ictims( residence.
)leary, the presence of the attending circumstances of this case qualified the %illing
of 7uliana to murder. As to the attac% on .elagio, the crime committed was frustrated murder
as appellant performed all acts of e!ecution which would ha$e claimed the life of .elagio but
because of the prompt medical inter$ention, a cause independent of the appellantMs will,
.elagio sur$i$ed.
ACCOMPLICE
ERNESTO GARCES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 173+"+ Jul, 17, 2007
FACTS:
Rosendo .acursa, 8enando Iarces, Antonio .ira, 7r., Aurelio .ira, and petitioner
:rnesto Iarces, were charged with Dorcible Abduction with Rape. On August 2, 1//2, while
AAA was on her way to the chapel, the fi$e accused suddenly appeared and approached her.
Rosendo .acursa co$ered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be
%illed. 'e then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four companions stood
guard outside. 3nside the barn, .acursa started %issing AAA. .ri$ate complainant fought
bac% but to no a$ail. *hereafter, .acursa succeeded in ha$ing carnal %nowledge of her.
After a while, they heard people shouting and calling the name of AAA. At this point,
petitioner :rnesto Iarces entered the barn, co$ered AAAMs mouth, then dragged her outside.
'e also threatened to %ill her if she reports the incident.
@pon reaching the house of Dlorentino Iarces, petitioner released AAA. Rosendo
.acursa denied that he raped the $ictim, while his co#accused presented alibis as their
defense. On the other hand, petitioner, Antonio .ira, 7r., and Aurelio .ira, testified that they
were watching a tele$ised bas%etball game at the house of Antonio .ira, 7r. at the time the
17
Criminal Law case
digest
alleged rape transpired. *hey denied seeing .acursa that night.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision finding .acursa guilty of
Dorcible Abduction with Rape while petitioner Iarces was found guilty as an accessory to
the crime. Antonio .ira, 7r. and Aurelio .ira were acquitted for insufficiency of e$idence.
-oth .acursa and petitioner appealed the decision with the )ourt of Appeals. 'owe$er,
.acursa subsequently withdrew his appeal. *he )ourt of Appeals rendered its >ecision
affirming with modification the decision of the trial court. .etitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but same was denied. 'ence, the instant petition for re$iew on certiorari.
ISSUE:
2hether or not petitioner is guilty as an accessory to the crime of rape.
HELD:
No. *he facts show that petitioner participated in the commission of the crime e$en
before complainant was raped. 'e was present when .acursa abducted complainant and
when he brought her to the barn. 'e positioned himself outside the barn together with the
other accused as a loo%out. 2hen he heard the shouts of people loo%ing for complainant, he
entered the barn and too% complainant away from .acursa.
'a$ing %nown of the criminal design and thereafter acting as a loo%out, petitioner is
liable as an accomplice, there being insufficient e$idence to pro$e conspiracy, and not merely
as an accessory. As defined in the Re$ised .enal )ode, accomplices are those who, not
being included in Article 1O, cooperate in the e!ecution of the offense by pre$ious or
simultaneous acts. *he two elements necessary to hold petitioner liable as an accomplice are
present9 415 community of criminal design, that is, %nowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; and 425
performance of pre$ious or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of
the crime.
ABSORPTION OF CRIMES
EUGENE GONZALES, ET AL. vs. NARCISO ABAYA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 16*007 August 10, 2006.
Justice Sa&doval'Gutierre)
FACTS:
3n relation to the celebrated Oa%wood mutiny where a total of 021 soldiers including
petitioners herein declared their withdrawal of support to the )ommander#in#chief, .resident
Iloria Macapagal#Arroyo declared a state of rebellion and ordered the arrest of the said
soldiers. 3n order to a$oid a bloody confrontation, the go$ernment sent negotiators to
dialogue with the soldiers. After se$eral hours of negotiation, the go$ernment panel
succeeded in con$incing them to lay down their arms and defuse the e!plosi$es placed
around the premises of the Oa%wood Apartments. :$entually, they returned to their barrac%s.
*he 6ational -ureau of 3n$estigation 46-35 in$estigated the incident and
recommended that the military personnel in$ol$ed be charged with coup d(etat defined and
penali+ed under Article 101#A of the Re$ised .enal )ode, as amended. *he )hief 8tate
.rosecutor of the >epartment of 7ustice 4>O75 recommended the filing of the corresponding
18
Criminal Law case
digest
3nformation against them.
Meanwhile, pursuant to Article O of the Articles of 2ar, respondent Ieneral
6arciso Abaya, then AD. )hief of 8taff, ordered the arrest and detention of the soldiers
in$ol$ed in the Oa%wood incident and directed the AD. to conduct its own separate
in$estigation.
On August =, 20, the >O7 filed with the Regional *rial )ourt 4R*)5, Ma%ati )ity
an 3nformation for coup d(etat against those soldiers, 8ubsequently, this case was
consolidated in$ol$ing the other accused, pending before -ranch 11" of the R*), Ma%ati
)ity.
On August 10, 20, the R*) directed the >O7 to conduct a rein$estigation of
)riminal )ase 6o. 0#2O"1.
On the same date, respondent )hief of 8taff issued ?etter Order 6o. ,2= creating a
.re#*rial 3n$estigation .anel tas%ed to determine the propriety of filing with the military
tribunal charges for $iolations of )ommonwealth Act 6o. 1", 1 4otherwise %nown as &*he
Articles of 2ar&5, as amended, against the same military personnel.
Of the original 021 accused in )riminal )ase 6o. 0#2O"1, only 210 4including
petitioners herein5 filed with the R*), -ranch 11" an Omnibus Motion praying that the said
trial court assume Hurisdiction o$er all the charges filed with the military tribunal. *hey
in$o%ed Republic Act 4R.A.5 6o. O==.
8ubsequently, the .re#*rial 3n$estigation .anel submitted its Dinal .re#*rial
3n$estigation Report to the 7AIO, recommending that, following the &doctrine of
absorption,& those charged with coup d(etat before the R*) should not be charged before the
military tribunal for $iolation of the Articles of 2ar.
Dor its part, the R*), on Debruary 11, 21, issued an Order stating that &all charges
before the court martial against the accused . . . are hereby declared not ser$ice#connected,
but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d(etat.& *he trial court
then proceeded to hear petitioners( applications for bail.
)olonel 7ulius A. Magno, in his capacity as officer#in#charge of the 7AIO, re$iewed
the findings of the .re#*rial 3n$estigation .anel. 'e recommended that 2/ of the officers
in$ol$ed in the Oa%wood incident, including petitioners, be prosecuted before a general court
martial for $iolation of Article /, 4conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman5 of the
Articles of 2ar. *he same was appro$ed by the AD..
*he AD. 7udge Ad$ocate Ieneral then directed petitioners to submit their answer to
the charge. 3nstead of complying, they filed with this )ourt the instant .etition for
.rohibition praying that respondents be ordered to desist from charging them with $iolation
of Article /, of the Articles of 2ar in relation to the Oa%wood incident.
.etitioners maintain that since the R*) has made a determination in its Order of
19
Criminal Law case
digest
Debruary 11, 21 that the offense for $iolation of Article /, of the Articles of 2ar is not
ser$ice#connected, but is absorbed in the crime of coup d(etat, the military tribunal cannot
compel them to submit to its Hurisdiction.
ISSUE:
1.2hether the court martial may assume Hurisdiction o$er those who ha$e been
criminally charged of coup dMQtat before the regular courts.
2. 2hether the doctrine of absorption of crimes is applicable.
HELD:
". Yes. Article /, of the Articles of 2ar is ser$ice#connected. *his is e!pressly
pro$ided in 8ection 1 4second paragraph5 of R.A. 6o. O==
i
. 3t bears stressing that the charge
against the petitioners concerns the alleged $iolation of their solemn oath as officers to
defend the )onstitution and the duly#constituted authorities. 8uch $iolation allegedly caused
dishonor and disrespect to the military profession. 3n short, the charge has a bearing on their
professional conduct or beha$ior as military officers. :qually indicati$e of the &ser$ice#
connected& nature of the offense is the penalty prescribed for the same < dismissal from the
ser$ice < imposable only by the military court. 8uch penalty is purely disciplinary in
character, e$idently intended to cleanse the military profession of misfits and to preser$e the
stringent standard of military discipline.
'ence, there is no merit in petitioners argument that they can no longer be charged
before the court martial for $iolation of Article /, of the Articles of 2ar because the same
has been declared by the R*) in its Order of Debruary 11, 21 as &not ser$ice#connected,
but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d(etat,& hence, triable by
said court 4R*)5. *he R*), in ma%ing such declaration, practically amended the law which
e!pressly $ests in the court martial the Hurisdiction o$er &ser$ice#connected crimes or
offenses.& 2hat the law has conferred the court should not ta%e away. 3t is only the
)onstitution or the law that bestows Hurisdiction on the court, tribunal, body or officer o$er
the subHect matter or nature of an action which can do so. And it is only through a
constitutional amendment or legislati$e enactment that such act can be done. *he first and
fundamental duty of the courts is merely to apply the law &as they find it, not as they li%e it to
be. :$idently, such declaration by the R*) constitutes gra$e abuse of discretion tantamount
to lac% or e!cess of Hurisdiction and is, therefore, $oid.
2. No. *he trial court aggra$ated its error when it Hustified its ruling by holding that the
charge of )onduct @nbecoming an Officer and a Ientleman is absorbed and in furtherance to
the alleged crime of coup d(etat. Dirstly, the doctrine of Rabsorption of crimes( is peculiar to
criminal law and generally applies to crimes punished by the same statute, unli%e here where
different statutes are in$ol$ed. 8econdly, the doctrine applies only if the trial court has
Hurisdiction o$er both offenses. 'ere, 8ection 1 of R.A. O== depri$es ci$il courts of
Hurisdiction o$er ser$ice#connected offenses, including Article /, of the Articles of 2ar.
*hus, the doctrine of absorption of crimes is not applicable to this case.
CONTINUOUS CRIME
JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 16#727'2+ August 1+, 2006
Justice Callejo, Sr.
20
Criminal Law case
digest
FACTS:
3n 1//", the 8enate )ommittees on Accountability of .ublic Officers and
3n$estigation 4-lue Ribbon5 and on 6ational >efense and 8ecurity 4collecti$ely, 8enate -lue
Ribbon )ommittee5 carried out an e!tensi$e Hoint inquiry into the &coup rumors and the
alleged anomalies& in the Armed Dorces of the .hilippines#.hilippine Retirement -enefits
8ystems 4AD.#R8-85. 3n its Report, the 8enate -lue Ribbon )ommittee outlined, among
others, the anomalies in the acquisition of lots in *anauan, -atangas, )alamba, ?aguna and
3loilo )ity by the AD.#R8-8, and described the modus operandi of the perpetrators as
follows9
*he modus operandi in the buying of the lots was to co$er the same transactions with
two deeds of sale. One deed of sale would be signed only by the seller or sellers 4unilateral
deed5. Another deed of sale would be signed by the seller or sellers and the buyer, AD.#
R8-8 4bilateral deed5. *hese @nilateral >eeds of 8ale recorded lower consideration paid by
the 8ystem to the buyer4s5 than those stated in the -ilateral >eeds. *he moti$ation was
ob$iously to e$ade payment of the correct ta!es to the go$ernment and sa$e money for the
seller4s5, bro%er4s5 and who %nows, probably e$en for the %ic%bac%s going to certain officials
of R8-8, the buyer.
.ursuant to the recommendation of the 8enate -lue Ribbon )ommittee to &prosecute
andPor cause the prosecution of Ien. 7ose Ramiscal 7r. 4Ret5, past AD.#R8-8 .resident, who
had signed the unregistered deeds of sale co$ering the acquisition of certain parcels of land,&
Ombudsman 3n$estigators conducted a fact#finding in$estigation. *hey e!ecuted a 7oint
Affida$it#)omplaint, stating that based on their findings, -PIen. 7ose Ramiscal, 7r., among
others, may be charged with falsification of public documents and $iolation of 8ection 04e5
and 4g5 of Republic Act 4R.A.5 6o. 01/.
ISSUE:
2hether petitioner may be charged and prosecuted for all fi$e 4=5 counts of estafa
thru falsification of public documents.
HELD:
Yes. *he question of the number of criminal charges that must be instituted against a
criminal respondent 4whether one count or multiple counts of the same offense5 is one
addressed to the sound discretion of the prosecution ser$ice. 3t is enough, as this )ourt has
already ruled, that the informations filed in these cases are based on facts establishing
probable cause for the offenses charged. *his )ourt will not compel the Office of the
Ombudsman to file only one information for :stafa through Dalsification of .ublic
>ocuments when its preliminary in$estigation established the commission of se$eral counts
thereof as such action on the part of this )ourt would constitute undue interference with the
Office of the Ombudsman(s control o$er the prosecution of these cases. 3n the second place,
this )ourt is not persuaded that what is in$ol$ed in these cases is a continuous crime, that is
to say, a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or
intent not susceptible of di$ision, with each act in that series being merely the partial
e!ecution of a single delict. On the contrary, the )ourt is of the $iew that what is in$ol$ed
herein are se$eral completed and distinct purported criminal acts which should be prosecuted
as multiple counts of the same type of offense. *hus, as correctly percei$ed by the
prosecution, there are as many alleged offenses as there are alleged anomalous transactions
in$ol$ed in these cases.
21
Criminal Law case
digest
PENALTIES
Graduated Scale8 600ect o0 Ae&de&t to t-e 2eat- 1e&alt, .a/9 RA #3*6
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO BON
G.R. No. 166*01 :cto$er 30, 2006
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
:ight 4"5 3nformations were filed within the period 21 August 2 to 20 Debruary
21 by the Assistant .ro$incial .rosecutor of Iumaca, Que+on against Alfredo -on
4appellant5, charging him with the rape of AAA and ---, the daughters of his older brother.
All these cases were consolidated for trial. *he rapes were alleged to ha$e been committed in
se$eral instances o$er a span of si! 4,5 years. -oth AAA and --- testified against appellant,
their uncle, and both identified him as the man who had raped them.
*he R*) con$icted appellant on all eight 4"5 counts of rape. 3t further considered the
qualifying circumstances of minority of the $ictims and the relationship of the $ictims and
appellant, the latter being the former(s relati$e by consanguinity within the third degree.
*he )ourt of Appeals downgraded the con$ictions in )riminal )ase 6os. ,/, and
,/" to attempted rape. *he sentence was prescribed by the appellate court prior to the
enactment of R.A. 6o. /01, which ended the imposition of death penalty. *he pro!imate
concern as to the appellant is whether his penalty for attempted qualified rape which under
the penal law should be two degrees lower than that of consummated rape, should be
computed from death or reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
2hat is the properly penalty for the crimes con$ictedA
HELD:
*he sentence of death imposed by the R*) and affirmed by the )ourt of Appeals can
no longer be affirmed in $iew of Rep. Act 6o. /01,, 8ection 2 of which mandates that in lieu
of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. )orrespondingly, the
)ourt can no longer uphold the death sentences imposed by lower courts, but must, if the
guilt of the accused is affirmed, impose instead the penalty of reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment when appropriate.
@pon the other hand, Article =1 of the Re$ised .enal )ode establishes that the
penalty to be imposed upon the principals of an attempted felony must be a penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon
the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
*he penalty &lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law& for attempted rape is
the prescribed penalty for the consummated rape of a $ictim duly pro$en to ha$e been under
eighteen years of age and to ha$e been raped by her uncle, is death under Article 2,,#- of
the Re$ised .enal )ode. *he determination of the penalty two degrees lower than the death
22
Criminal Law case
digest
penalty entails the application of Articles ,1 and O1 of the Re$ised .enal )ode. Dollowing
the scale prescribed in Article O1, the penalty two degrees lower than death is reclusion
temporal, which was the ma!imum penalty imposed by the )ourt of Appeals on appellant for
attempted rape.
'ence, the )ourt of Appeals sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty for attempted
rape, with a ma!imum penalty within the range of reclusion temporal, and a minimum
penalty within the range of the penalty ne!t lower, or prision mayor. 3f Rep. Act 6o. /01,
had not been enacted, the )ourt would ha$e affirmed such sentence without complication.
'owe$er, the enactment of the law has gi$en rise to the problem concerning the imposable
penalty. Appellant was sentenced to a ma!imum term within reclusion temporal since that is
the penalty two degrees lower than death. 2ith the elimination of death as a penalty, does it
follow that appellant should now be sentenced to a penalty two degrees lower than reclusion
perpetua, the highest remaining penalty with the enactment of Rep. Act 6o. /01,A 3f it so
followed, appellant would be sentenced to prision mayor in lieu of reclusion temporal.
*he consummated felony pre$iously punishable by death would now be punishable
by reclusion perpetua. At the same time, the same felony in its frustrated stage would, under
the foregoing premise in this section, be penali+ed one degree lower from death, or also
reclusion perpetua. 3t does not seem right, of course, that the same penalty of reclusion
perpetua would be imposed on both the consummated and frustrated felony.
*hus, RA /01, should be construed as ha$ing downgraded those penalties attached to
death by reason of the graduated scale under Article O1. Only in that manner will a clear and
consistent rule emerge as to the application of penalties for frustrated and attempted felonies,
and for accessories and accomplices. 3n the case of appellant, the determination of his penalty
for attempted rape shall be rec%oned not from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees
lower than reclusion perpetua. 'ence, the ma!imum term of his penalty shall no longer be
reclusion temporal, as ruled by the )ourt of Appeals, but instead, prision mayor.
Sus!e&sio& o0 Se&te&ce9 1.2. 603
RENNIE DECLARADOR vs. SALVADOR GUBATON
G.R. No. 1"#20+ August 1+, 2006
Justice Callejo
FACTS:
*he 3nformation filed charged Dran% -ansales with murder for the death of N$onne
>eclarador. >uring trial, the prosecution showed that at around /91= am on 7uly 2=, 22,
inside a classroom in )abug#)abug 6ational 'igh 8chool in .resident Ro!as, )api+, accused
-ansales attac%ed, assaulted and stabbed with a %nife $ictim >eclarador. )onsequently, the
accused inflicted 1= fatal stab wounds in the different parts of the body which caused the
immediate death of >eclarador. *he trial court con$icted -ansales of murder since the crime
was committed with the attendance of the qualifying aggra$ating circumstances of e$ident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength considering the accused carried a long %nife
along with him from his house to the school and used it against the $ictim who was unarmed
and defenseless at that time. 'owe$er, pursuant to .residential >ecree 6o. ,0 4..>. 6o.
,05, the court suspended the sentence of the accused and ordered his commitment to the
23
Criminal Law case
digest
Regional Rehabilitation for Nouth at )oncordia, 6ue$a Ealencia, Iuimaras on the ground
that he was only 1O years old at the time of the commission of the crime.
.etitioner Rennie >eclarador, the sur$i$ing spouse of the deceased, filed a petition
for certiorari under Rule ,= of the Rules of )ourt assailing the trial court(s decision of
suspending the sentence of the accused and committing him to the rehabilitation center.
.etitioner claimed that under Article 1/2 of ..>. 6o. ,0, as
well as the Rule on 7u$eniles in )onflict with the ?aw, the benefit of a suspended sentence
does not apply to a Hu$enile who is con$icted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.
-ansales a$ers that 8ection 02 of Rule on 7u$eniles in )onflict with the ?aw entitles
the accused to an automatic suspension of sentence and allows the court to commit the
Hu$enile to the youth center; hence, the court did not abuse its discretion in suspending the
sentence of the accused.
ISSUE:
3s respondent -ansales entitled to the automatic suspension granted by ..>. 6o. ,0A
HELD:
No. *he accused was found guilty of murder, a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. 3t is clear from the words of 8ection 02 of ..>. 6o. ,0 that a person who
is con$icted of an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is
disqualified from a$ailing the benefits of a suspended sentence. *he word &punishable& does
not mean &must be punished,& but &liable to be punished& as specified. *he term refers to the
possible, not to the actual sentence. 3t is concerned with the penalty which may be, and not
which is imposed. *he disqualification is based on the nature of the crime charged and the
imposable penalty therefor, and not on the penalty imposed by the court after trial. 3t is not
the actual penalty imposed but the possible one which determines the disqualification of a
Hu$enile. >espite the disqualification of -ansales, respondent 7udge 8al$ador Iubaton,
ne$ertheless, ordered the suspension of the sentence meted against him. -y this act,
respondent 7udge committed gra$e abuse of discretion amounting to e!cess of Hurisdiction.
*hus, the )ourt granted the petition.
Civil 3&terdictio&
VIRGILIO MAQUILAN vs. DITA MAQUILAN
G.R. No. 1""*0# Ju&e +, 2007
Justice Austri'(arti&e)
FACTS:
'erein petitioner and herein pri$ate respondent are spouses who once had a blissful
married life and out of which were blessed to ha$e a son. 'owe$er, their once sugar coated
romance turned bitter when petitioner disco$ered that pri$ate respondent was ha$ing illicit
se!ual affair with her paramour, which thus, prompted the petitioner to file a case of adultery
against pri$ate respondent and the latter(s paramour. )onsequently, both accused were
con$icted of the crime charged.
24
Criminal Law case
digest
*hereafter, pri$ate respondent, through counsel, filed a .etition for >eclaration of
6ullity of Marriage, >issolution and ?iquidation of )onHugal .artnership of Iains and
>amages imputing psychological incapacity on the part of the petitioner. >uring the pre#trial
of the said case, petitioner and pri$ate respondent entered into a )OM.ROM38:
AIR::M:6*.
8ubsequently, petitioner filed a motion for the repudiation of the AIR::M:6*.
*his motion was denied. .etitioner then filed a .etition for )ertiorari and .rohibition with
the )ourt of Appeals on the ground that the con$iction of the respondent of the crime of
adultery disqualify her from sharing in the conHugal property. *he .etition was dismissed.
ISSUE:
3s the con$iction of the respondent of the crime of adultery a disqualification for her
to share in the conHugal propertyA
HELD:
No. *he con$iction of adultery does not carry the accessory of ci$il interdiction.
Article 01 of the Re$ised .enal )ode pro$ides for the consequences of ci$il interdiction9
Art. 01. )i$il 3nterdiction. < )i$il interdiction shall depri$e the offender during
the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as
to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage
his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
con$eyance inter $i$os.
@nder Article 000 of the same )ode, the penalty for adultery is prision correccional
in its medium and ma!imum periods. Article 000 should be read with Article 10 of the same
)ode. *he latter pro$ides9
Art. 10. .rision correccional < 3ts accessory penalties. < *he penalty of prision
correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right
to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from
the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall e!ceed eighteen
months. *he offender shall suffer the disqualification pro$ided in this article
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall ha$e been
e!pressly remitted in the pardon.
3t is clear, therefore, and as correctly held by the )A, that the crime of adultery does
not carry the accessory penalty of ci$il interdiction which depri$es the person of the rights to
manage her property and to dispose of such property inter $i$os.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LA#
PUCAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1670+* :cto$er 31, 2006
FACTS:
.etitioner Monina .ucay 4.ucay5 was charged with the crime of estafa attended by
25
Criminal Law case
digest
the aggra$ating circumstance of gra$e abuse of confidencePunfaithfulness. .ri$ate respondent
Asian Retailers, 3nc. 4AR35 is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of lending
money and gift chec%s to go$ernment employees. .etitioner Monina .ucay 4.ucay5 was a
)ashier 33 at the *reasury 8ection of the ?and *ransportation Office 4?*O5. 3n 8eptember
1/"", AR3 started its lending operation at the ?*O Main Office at :ast A$enue, Que+on )ity.
*he operation started with the lending of gift chec%s to ?*O employees. A year later, the
operation e!panded to include lending of money at an interest. *he arrangement was for
AR3(s .resident -enHamin Iochangco 4Iochangco5 to pro$ide blan% sets of promissory notes
for the employees to fill up by indicating the amount of loan they wanted to obtain whether in
the form of cash or gift chec%s with their signatures affi!ed. *his form ser$ed as promissory
note where the amount and the maturity date of the loan were shown. *he amount of loan that
had become due and demandable was to be automatically deducted from the pay en$elopes of
the debtor#employees e$ery payday and remitted to AR3. *he 'ead of the *reasury 8ection
and two other employees, including the petitioner, were responsible for carrying out the
aforesaid tas%s.
2hen the collection to be remitted to AR3 was stolen inside the *reasury 8ection
Office, the ?*O Administration directed AR3 to discontinue its lending operation in order to
a$oid similar incidents in the future. .etitioner, together with Iochangco, howe$er, decided
to continue the lending acti$ities on their own. 3n a $erbal agreement entered between
petitioner and Iochangco, the former undertoo% to deduct the amount of the loan from the
pay en$elopes of the indebted employees and remit the collection to the latter or to any of his
representati$es. Iochangco, in turn, will pay petitioner 2S of the interest earned by AR3
e$ery month as her commission. *his agreement went on without the %nowledge of the ?*O
Administration. 8ubsequently, .ucay failed to remit her collection in the amount of
.2=,,/=.. 2hen Iochangco confronted her, petitioner reasoned that the collection was
again stolen inside the *reasury 8ection Office. After repeated $erbal demands made upon
her, petitioner wrote a letter to Iochangco pleading to gi$e her time to remit the amount of
.2=,.. >espite the demand letter ser$ed by Iochangco, petitioner still failed to remit
the amount of collection.
*he trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa
through misappropriation as punished under Article 01=, par. 14b5 of the Re$ised .enal )ode.
.etitioner mo$ed for new trial before the )ourt of Appeals on the ground of newly
disco$ered e$idence. 8he claimed that the alleged e$idence is of such weight and materiality
that if introduced and admitted, would probably change the Hudgment. *he appellate court
granted a new trial, thereby setting aside the trial courtMs Hudgment. Accordingly, a new trial
was conducted by the lower court where the newly disco$ered e$idence was introduced and
admitted in the proceedings of the case. 8imilarly, the trial court found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa but modified the penalty. On appeal, the
appellate court affirmed the trial courtMs decision. .etitionerMs Motion for Reconsideration
was denied. 'ence, this petition.
ISSUE:
2hat is the correct penalty to be imposedA
HELD:
T$e %&'e(e)*%&+(e ,e&+-(. o/ 0 .e+)s +&' 1 *o&($s o/ ,)%s%o& 2o))e22%o&+- (o 13
.e+)s o/ )e2-4s%o& (e*,o)+-, %& +''%(%o& (o ($e ,+.*e&( o/ +2(4+- '+*+5es %& ($e +*o4&(
26
Criminal Law case
digest
o/ P136,333.33. 3n this case, the penalty of prision correccional in its ma!imum period to
prision mayor in its minimum period is the imposable penalty if the amount of the fraud is
o$er .12, but not o$er .22,. 3f the amount of the fraud e!ceeds .22,, the penalty
pro$ided shall be imposed in its ma!imum period, adding one year for each additional
.1,. *he total penalty, howe$er, shall not e!ceed twenty years.
*o get the ma!imum period of the indeterminate sentence, the total number of years
included in the two periods should be di$ided into three. *he di$ision of the time included in
the prescribed penalty should be di$ided into three equal periods of time, forming one period
for each of the three portions. *he ma!imum, medium and minimum periods of the
prescribed penalty are therefore9 (i&iu !eriod # 1 years, 2 months and 1 day to = years, =
months and 1 days; (ediu !eriod < = years, = months and 11 days to , years, " months
and 2 days; and (a;iu !eriod < , years, " months and 21 days to " years. 'ence, the
amount defrauded, being in e!cess of .22,, the penalty imposable should be the
ma!imum period. 'owe$er, Art. 01= also pro$ides that an additional one year shall be
imposed for each additional .1,. 'ere, the total amount of the fraud is .2=,.
4.2=, < .22, T .1"0,5. 'ence, an additional penalty of 1" years should be
imposed. 'owe$er, the total penalty should not in any case e!ceed 2 years of imprisonment.
*he minimum period of the indeterminate sentence, on the other hand, should be
within the range of the penalty ne!t lower to that prescribed by Article 01=4154b5, Re$ised
.enal )ode, for the crime committed. *he penalty ne!t lower to prision correccional
ma!imum to prision mayor minimum is prision correccional minimum 4si! months, one day,
to two years, four months5 to prision correccional medium 4two years, four months and one
day to four years and two months5.
PROBATION LA#
URBANO M. MORENO vs. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 16+""0. August 10, 2006
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
6orma ?. MeHes 4MeHes5 filed a petition to disqualify Moreno from running for
.unong -arangay on the ground that the latter was con$icted by final Hudgment of the crime
of Arbitrary >etention. *he )omelec en banc granted her petition and disqualified Moreno.
Moreno filed an answer a$erring that the petition states no cause of action because he was
already granted probation. Allegedly, following the case of -aclayon $. Mutia, the imposition
of the sentence of imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties, was thereby suspended.
Moreno also argued that under 8ec. 1, of the .robation ?aw of 1/O, 4.robation ?aw5, the
final discharge of the probation shall operate to restore to him all ci$il rights lost or
suspended as a result of his con$iction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine
imposed.
'owe$er, the )omelec en banc assails 8ec. 14a5 of the ?ocal Io$ernment )ode
which pro$ides that those sentenced by final Hudgment for an offense in$ol$ing moral
27
Criminal Law case
digest
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one 415 year or more of imprisonment, within two
425 years after ser$ing sentence, are disqualified from running for any electi$e local position.
8ince Moreno was released from probation on >ecember 2, 2, disqualification shall
commence on this date and end two 425 years thence. *he grant of probation to Moreno
merely suspended the e!ecution of his sentence but did not affect his disqualification from
running for an electi$e local office.
On his petition, Moreno argues that the disqualification under the ?ocal Io$ernment
)ode applies only to those who ha$e ser$ed their sentence and not to probationers because
the latter do not ser$e the adHudged sentence. *he .robation ?aw should allegedly be read as
an e!ception to the ?ocal Io$ernment )ode because it is a special law which applies only to
probationers. Durther, e$en assuming that he is disqualified, his subsequent election as
.unong -arangay allegedly constitutes an implied pardon of his pre$ious misconduct.
ISSUE:
>oes MorenoMs probation grant him the right to run in public officeA
HELD:
Yes. 8ec. 1, of the .robation ?aw pro$ides that &JtKhe final discharge of the
probationer shall operate to restore to him all ci$il rights lost or suspended as a result of his
con$iction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which
probation was granted.& *hus, when Moreno was finally discharged upon the court(s finding
that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation, his case was deemed
terminated and all ci$il rights lost or suspended as a result of his con$iction were restored to
him, including the right to run for public office.
3t is important to note that the disqualification under 8ec. 14a5 of the ?ocal
Io$ernment )ode co$ers offenses punishable by one 415 year or more of imprisonment, a
penalty which also co$ers probationable offenses. 3n spite of this, the pro$ision does not
specifically disqualify probationers from running for a local electi$e office.
.robation ?aw should be construed as an e!ception to the ?ocal Io$ernment )ode.
2hile the ?ocal Io$ernment )ode is a later law which sets forth the qualifications and
disqualifications of local electi$e officials, the .robation ?aw is a special legislation which
applies only to probationers. 3t is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general
in its terms and not e!pressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the
special pro$isions of such earlier statute.
ETINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
EMMA P. NUGUID vs. CLARITA S. NICDAO
G.R. No. 1"07+" Se!te$er 1", 2006
Justice Coro&a
FACTS:
Accused )larita 8. 6icdao is charged with ha$ing committed the crime of Eiolation
of -. 22 in fourteen 4115 counts. *he criminal complaints allege that respondent and her
husband approached petitioner and as%ed her if they could borrow money to settle some
obligations. 'a$ing been con$inced by them and because of the close relationship of
28
Criminal Law case
digest
respondent to petitioner, the latter lent the former her money. *hus, e$ery month, she was
persuaded to release .1,. to the accused until the total amount reached
.1,1=,..
As security for the .1,1=,., respondent ga$e petitioner open dated chec%s with
the assurance that if the entire amount is not paid within one 415 year, petitioner can deposit
the chec%s.
8ubsequently, petitioner demanded payment of the sums abo$e#mentioned, but
respondent refused to ac%nowledge the indebtedness. *hereafter, petitioner deposited all
aforementioned chec%s in the ban% totaling .1,1=,.. *he chec%s were all returned for
ha$ing been drawn against insufficient funds.
A $erbal and written demand was made upon respondent to pay the amount
represented by the bounced chec%s, but to no a$ail. 'ence, a complaint for $iolation of -. 22
was filed against the respondent. *he trial court con$icted the defendant. *he )A re$ersed
the decision, thus acquitting 6icdao. .etitioner now contends that the ci$il liability of the
defendant was not e!tinguished by the acquittal.
ISSUE:
2hether respondent remains ci$illy liable to petitioner despite her acquittal.
HELD:
No. Drom the standpoint of its effects, a crime has a dual character9 415 as an offense
against the 8tate because of the disturbance of the social order and 425 as an offense against
the pri$ate person inHured by the crime unless it in$ol$es the crime of treason, rebellion,
espionage, contempt and others 4wherein no ci$il liability arises on the part of the offender
either because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no pri$ate person inHured
by the crime.
2hat gi$es rise to the ci$il liability is really the obligation of e$eryone to repair or to
ma%e whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission, whether done
intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law.
:!tinction of penal action does not carry with it the eradication of ci$il liability,
unless the e!tinction proceeds from a declaration in the final Hudgment that the fact from
which the ci$il liability might arise did not e!ist.
*he basic principle in ci$il liability e! delicto is that e$ery person criminally liable is
also ci$illy liable, crime being one of the fi$e sources of obligations under the )i$il )ode. A
person acquitted of a criminal charge, howe$er, is not necessarily ci$illy free because the
quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution 4proof beyond reasonable doubt5 is greater
than that required for ci$il liability 4mere preponderance of e$idence5. 3n order to be
completely free from ci$il liability, a person(s acquittal must be based on the fact that he did
not commit the offense. 3f the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may
still be held ci$illy liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act complained of. 3t
may only be that the facts pro$ed did not constitute the offense charged.
Acquittal will not bar a ci$il action in the following cases9 415 where the acquittal is
29
Criminal Law case
digest
based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of e$idence is required in ci$il cases; 425
where the court declared the accused(s liability is not criminal but only ci$il in nature and 405
where the ci$il liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the
accused was acquitted.
3n this petition, we find no reason to ascribe any ci$il liability to respondent. As
found by the )A, her supposed ci$il liability had already been fully satisfied and
e!tinguished by payment. *he statements of the appellate court lea$e no doubt that
respondent, who was acquitted from the charges against her, had already been completely
relie$ed of ci$il liability.
REBELLION
VICENTE P. LADLAD vs. EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO
G.R. Nos. 172070'72, 17207*'76 < 17"013 Ju&e 1, 2007
Justice Car!io
FACTS:
*hese are consolidated petitions for the writs of prohibition and certiorari to enHoin
petitioners( prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulings of the >epartment of 7ustice
4>O75 and the Regional *rial )ourt of Ma%ati )ity 4R*) Ma%ati5 on the in$estigation and
prosecution of petitioners( cases.
Dollowing the issuance by .resident Iloria Macapagal#Arroyo of .residential
.roclamation 6o. 11O on 21 Debruary 2, declaring a &8tate of 6ational :mergency,&
police officers arrested )rispin -eltran on 2= Debruary 2,, while he was en route to
Marilao, -ulacan, and detained him in )amp )rame, Que+on )ity. An inquest was held and
-eltran was later charged with rebellion before the R*). -eltran mo$ed for a Hudicial
determination of probable cause. *he trial court affirmed the e!istence of probable cause.
ISSUE:
3s there probable cause to charge -eltran with rebellionA
HELD:
No. Rebellion under Article 101 of the Re$ised .enal )ode is committed <
J-Ky rising publicly and ta%ing arms against the Io$ernment for the purpose of
remo$ing from the allegiance to said Io$ernment or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the .hilippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, na$al, or other
armed forces or depri$ing the )hief :!ecuti$e or the ?egislature, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogati$es.
*he elements of the offense are9
1. *hat there be a 4a5 public uprising and 4b5 ta%ing arms against the
Io$ernment; and
2. *hat the purpose of the uprising or mo$ement is either <
30
Criminal Law case
digest
4a5 to remo$e from the allegiance to said Io$ernment or its
laws9
415 the territory of the .hilippines or any part thereof;
or
425 any body of land, na$al, or other armed forces; or
4b5 to depri$e the )hief :!ecuti$e or )ongress, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers and prerogati$es.
*hus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes in$ol$ing crowd
action done in furtherance of a political end. *he e$idence before the panel of prosecutors
who conducted the inquest of -eltran for Rebellion consisted of the affida$its and other
documents. *he bul% of the documents consists of affida$its, some of which were sworn
before a notary public, e!ecuted by members of the military and some ci$ilians. :!cept for
two affida$its, e!ecuted by a certain Ruel :scala 4:scala5, dated 2 Debruary 2,, and Raul
)achuela 4)achuela5, dated 20 Debruary 2,, none of the affida$its mentions -eltran. 3n his
affida$it, :scala recounted that in the afternoon of 2 Debruary 2,, he saw -eltran and
other indi$iduals on board a $ehicle which entered a chic%en farm in -ucal, .adre Iarcia,
-atangas and that after the passengers alighted, they were met by another indi$idual. Dor his
part, )achuela stated that he was a former member of the ).. and that 415 he attended the
)..(s &1th .lenum& in 1//2 where he saw -eltran; 425 he too% part in criminal acti$ities;
and 405 the arms he and the other ).. members used were purchased partly from
contributions by )ongressional members, li%e -eltran, who represent party#list groups
affiliated with the )...
*he allegations in these affida$its are far from the proof needed to indict -eltran for
ta%ing part in an armed public uprising against the go$ernment. 2hat these documents pro$e,
at best, is that -eltran was in -ucal, .adre Iarcia, -atangas on 2 Debruary 2, and that 11
years earlier, he was present during the 1//2 ).. .lenum. 6one of the affida$its stated that
-eltran committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion as found in
the >O7 Resolution of 2O Debruary 2,. 6one of the affida$its alleged that -eltran is a
leader of a rebellion. -eltran(s alleged presence during the 1//2 ).. .lenum does not
automatically ma%e him a leader of a rebellion.
3n his )omment to -eltran(s petition, the 8olicitor Ieneral points to Duentes(
affida$it, dated 2= Debruary 2,, as basis for the finding of probable cause against -eltran
as Duentes pro$ided details in his statement regarding meetings with -eltran and the other
petitioners attended in 2= and 2, in which plans to o$erthrow $iolently the Arroyo
go$ernment were allegedly discussed, among others. 'owe$er, what the allegations in
Duentes( affida$it ma%e out is a case for )onspiracy to )ommit Rebellion, punishable under
Article 10, of the Re$ised .enal )ode, not Rebellion under Article 101. Attendance in
meetings to discuss, among others, plans to bring down a go$ernment is a mere preparatory
step to commit the acts constituting Rebellion under Article 101. :$en the prosecution
ac%nowledged this, since the felony charged in the 3nformation against -eltran in the
criminal case is )onspiracy to )ommit Rebellion and not Rebellion. *he 3nformation merely
alleged that -eltran, 8an 7uan, and others conspired to form a &tactical alliance& to commit
Rebellion. *hus, the R*) Ma%ati erred when it ne$ertheless found probable cause to try
-eltran for Rebellion based on the e$idence before it.
31
Criminal Law case
digest
FALSIFICATION
LEONILA BATULANON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. N:. 13#+"7 Se!te$er 1", 2006
FACTS:
.olomo% )redit )ooperati$e 3ncorporated 4.))35 employed ?eonila -atulanon as its
)ashierPManager from May 1/" up to >ecember 22, 1/"2. 8he was in charge of recei$ing
deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the cooperati$e.
>uring an audit conducted in >ecember 1/"2, certain irregularities concerning the
release of loans were disco$ered. 3t was found that -atulanon falsified four commercial
documents, all chec%sPcash $ouchers representing granted loans to different persons namely9
Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo and >ennis -atulanon, ma%ing it appear that said names were
granted a loan and recei$ed the amount of the chec%sPcash $ouchers when in truth and in fact
the said persons ne$er recei$ed a grant, ne$er recei$ed the chec%s, and ne$er signed the
chec% $ouchers issued in their names. 3n furtherance, -atulanon released to herself the
chec%s and recei$ed the loans and thereafter misappropriated and con$erted it to her own use
and benefit.
*hereafter, four 3nformations for :stafa through Dalsification of )ommercial
>ocuments were filed against -atulanon. *he prosecution presented Medallo, Iopio, 7r. and
7ayoma as witnesses. Medallo, the posting cler% whose Hob was to assist -atulanon in the
preparation of cash $ouchers testified that -atulanon forged the signatures of Omadlao,
Oracion and Arroyo. Iopio, 7r. stated that Oracion is -atulanonM sister#in#law and >ennis
-atulanon is her son who was only 0 years old in 1/"2. 'e a$erred that membership in the
cooperati$e is not open to minors.
On April 1=, 1//0, the trial court rendered a >ecision con$icting -atulanon of :stafa
through Dalsification of )ommercial >ocuments. *he )ourt of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
2hether the crime committed by -atulanon was Dalsification of .ri$ate >ocuments.
HELD9
Yes. Although the offense charged in the 3nformation is :stafa through Dalsification
of )ommercial >ocuments, -atulanon could be con$icted of Dalsification of .ri$ate
>ocuments under the well#settled rule that it is the allegation in the information that
determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name gi$en in the preamble of the
information.
As there is no comple! crime of :stafa through Dalsification of .ri$ate >ocuments, it
is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with Dalsification of a .ri$ate
>ocument or with :stafa. 3f the falsification of a pri$ate document is committed as a means
to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. 3f the :stafa can be
committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime is :stafa. 2e
find that the )ourt of Appeals correctly held -atulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
32
Criminal Law case
digest
Dalsification of .ri$ate >ocuments in the cases of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.
3n the case of >ennis -atulanon, records show that -atulanon did not falsify the
signature of >ennis. 2hat she did was to sign9 Bby9 3batulanonC to indicate that she recei$ed
the proceeds of the loan in behalf of >ennis. 8aid act does not fall under any of the modes of
Dalsification under Article 1O1 because there is nothing untruthful about the fact that she used
the name of >ennis and that as representati$e of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan
from .))3. *he essence of falsification is the act of ma%ing untruthful or false statements,
which is not attendant in this case. As to whether, such representation in$ol$es fraud which
caused damage to .))3 is a different matter which will ma%e her liable for estafa, but not for
falsification. 'ence, it was an error for the courts below to hold that -atulanon is also guilty
of Dalsification of .ri$ate >ocument with respect to the case in$ol$ing the cash $oucher of
>ennis -atulanon.
NESTOR A. BERNARDINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. N:S. 170*"3 < 170"1+ :cto$er 30, 2006
FACTS:
*he 8andiganbayan found 6estor -ernardino, a former Mayor of Iuimba, 6ue$a
:ciHa, and other .requalification -id and Awards )ommittee 4.-A)5, guilty of falsification
of public document. On >ecember ", 1//O, the .-A) members con$ened as alleged.
.-A), assisted by )OA representati$e Rolando Ronquillo, assessed the qualifications of
four bidders who participated and thereafter awarded the construction proHect to MA8)OM.
.rior to construction, 7ose >i+on was elected Mayor of Iuimba and conducted a public
bidding for the same construction proHect and awarded it to FNRO. )onsequently,
MA8)OM filed before the Ombudsman a criminal compliant against Mayor >i+on for
$iolation of 8ection 04e5 of RA 6o. 01/, otherwise %nown as the Anti#Iraft and )orrupt
.ractices Act. Mayor >i+onMs contention was manifested in an affida$it stating that no
public bidding was held in connection with the construction proHect nor was the .-A)
con$ened on >ecember ", 1//O. On the basis of the admission of the affiants, the
Ombudsman dismissed the case against Mayor >i+on and instead filed the case for
falsification of public documents under Article 1O1425 of the R.) against all .-A)
members. *he 3nformation charged -ernardino and the .-A) members of falsification by
ma%ing it appear in the &Minutes of the opening of bids,& &.requalification -id and Award
)ommittee,& &Abstract of .roposal,& and &Abstract of -idding,& that they and )OA
representati$e conducted a public bidding on >ecember ", 1//O, when no such bidding was
in fact conducted.
At the trial, Ronquillo declared that he did not attend any public bidding regarding
the construction proHect on >ecember ", 1//O. 'e admitted, howe$er, that he has no personal
%nowledge whether a bidding was conducted or not. *he same was made by Mayor >i+on
who admitted that he does not %now whether the .-A) conducted a public bidding. *he
prosecution also offered in e$idence the affida$its of some .-A) members in support of its
theory that no public bidding was held.
Motion for reconsideration as well as a motion for new trial on the basis of the
33
Criminal Law case
digest
alleged newly disco$ered e$idence in form of affida$its stating that the falsification was
caused by fear and intimidation of Mayor >i+on to bolster his defense in the charges against
him, was denied. *hus the petition for re$iew.
ISSUE:
2hether the guilt of -ernardino was pro$en beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
No. 3n the instant case, -ernardino was charged with falsification under Article
1O1425 of the R.), by causing it to appear that persons ha$e participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact participate. 3ts elements are9 415 that the offender is a
public officer, employee or notary public; 425 that he ta%es ad$antage of his official position;
405 that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that a person or persons ha$e
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
*he e$idence presented by the prosecution to establish that no bidding was conducted
on >ecember ", 1//O were the affida$its of .-A) members and the testimonies of Ronquillo
and Mayor >i+on could not be considered for purposes of determining whether a public
bidding was indeed held on that day because of their admission that they do not ha$e
personal %nowledge whether or not said bidding was indeed conducted. *he affida$it and
testimonies were merely an e!pression of an opinion and not a fact since the affiants were not
in the place where the alleged bidding was held and are not in the position to declare with
moral certainty that no such bidding in fact occurred.
PEDRO S. GIRON, ET AL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 1*"3"7'"# August 23, 2006
Justice Car!io
FACTS:
*he present petition in$ol$es alleged irregularities in the construction of a two#
%ilometer road connecting -arangays Finayan and Fauswagan in *andag, 8urigao del 8ur
4&Finayan#Fauswagan Road .roHect&5. )ontrary to what was stated in the Monthly 8tatus
Report dated 2= 7anuary 1/"/ and the .hysical 8tatus Report dated 01 7anuary 1/"/
4collecti$ely, &Reports&5, the Finayan#Fauswagan Road .roHect was not 1S complete as
of 2= 7anuary 1/"/.
3n a communication dated 7anuary 2=, 1/"/, >istrict :ngr. Iiron submitted to the
Regional >irector of >.2' Regional Office 6o. U3 4>a$ao )ity5 the Monthly 8tatus
Report of )N 1/"" 3nfrastructure .rogram where it appeared that Fauswagan#Finayan Road
was 1S complete as of 7anuary 2=, 1/"/.
*hereafter, in a letter dated 7anuary 01, 1/"/, :ngr. ?ala, for and in the absence of
the >istrict :ngineer, submitted the .hysical 8tatus Reports of .roHect )osting .2. M and
below under ).N. 1/"" 3nfra .rogram to the same Regional Office of the >.2' wherein it
appeared that the Fauswagan#Finayan Road, -arobo 8urigao del 8ur is 1S complete.

)ontrary to the Reports, the road was not finished by 2= 7anuary 1/"/. On 0 7une
1/"/, the -arangay )ouncil of Finayan, -arobo, 8urigao del 8ur resol$ed to request the
34
Criminal Law case
digest
Ombudsman to ma%e an immediate in$estigation on the irregularities of the Finayan#
Fauswagan Road .roHect.
*he Ombudsman, through the >eputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, ordered the
.ro$incial Auditor to conduct an in$estigation. On 1/ 7une 1//, in a report addressed to the
>eputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, 8tate Auditor 333 :usebia Iamulo of the Office of the
.ro$incial Auditor of 8urigao del 8ur wrote that9 Actual implementation of the proHect was
$ery much delayed. 3n an inter$iew made it was disclosed that while the road opening started
in 6o$ember 1/"", spreading of the deli$ered soil lime base course was done in October
1/"/ only, which was contrary to the >.2' report that said proHect was 1S completed as
of 7anuary 2=, 1/"/.
ISSUE:
2hether Iiron, )ri+aldo and Arre+a are indeed guilty of falsification of documents
under Article 1O1415 of the Re$ised .enal )ode.
HELD:
No. *here are three elements in the crime of falsification of documents under Article
1O1415. Dirst, the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public. 8econd, the
offender ta%es ad$antage of his official position. *hird, the offender falsifies a document by
ma%ing untruthful statements in a narration of facts. *here is no doubt that all three are
public officials, as they were employees of the >epartment of .ublic 2or%s and 'ighways
4>.2'5 at the time of the questioned act.
*here is serious doubt, howe$er, as to whether anyone among Iiron, )ri+aldo and
Arre+a actually too% ad$antage of his official position. *he offender ta%es ad$antage of his
official position when he has the duty to ma%e or to prepare or otherwise to inter$ene in the
preparation of the document, or he has the official custody of the document which he
falsifies. According to the 8andiganbayan, Iiron testified that9 3n preparing these reports, the
proHect engineer reports to the )onstruction 8ection the degree of wor% they had
accomplished with respect to the proHect assigned to them. *he reports of the proHect
engineers were to be consolidated into one hence arri$ing at a Monthly 8tatus Report. *hese
reports were being submitted e$ery 2=th of the month and it ta%es the Office of the >istrict
:ngineer three 405 to fi$e 4=5 days to prepare the said report. *he Monthly 8tatus Report was
typed by )ri+aldo, chec%ed by )edro, and submitted by 8alang in lieu of Iiron. :ngr. )edro,
who super$ised the preparation of the Monthly 8tatus Report and chec%ed the same, was
acquitted by the 8andiganbayan because &he ne$er signed the subHect reports.& 8alang was
also acquitted by the 8andiganbayan because &his participation was seemingly limited to the
acts before the actual construction of the proHect.&
)ri+aldo(s item was that of a Ieneral )onstruction Doreman but she was not assigned
to the proHect site. )ri+aldo was assigned in the office and was tas%ed to type the Monthly
8tatus Report. *he prosecution ne$er pro$ed that )ri+aldo had %nowledge of the actual status
of the Finayan#Fauswagan Road .roHect at the time she prepared the Monthly 8tatus Report.
)ri+aldo could ha$e merely relied on field reports submitted to her, precluding her from
ma%ing, on her own, untruthful statements at the time she prepared the Monthly 8tatus
Report. )ri+aldo could not ha$e conspired with any other party because the 8andiganbayan
found that &there is reasonable doubt as to the e!istence of conspiracy on the part of the
accused herein to falsify the subHect reports.& *he 8andiganbayan ruled that &any criminal
35
Criminal Law case
digest
liability should be based on their indi$idual participation in the questioned act.&
Iiron(s testimony as to the usual procedure cannot be used against him because he
did not sign the Monthly 8tatus Report. Iiron(s facsimile signature was merely stamped on
the Monthly 8tatus Report. *he stamped facsimile signatures of Iiron do not establish his
personal participation in the preparation of the Monthly 8tatus Report. *o use this portion of
Iiron(s testimony to establish his personal participation is to e!trapolate and speculate. *his
will not suffice in a criminal action, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for
con$iction.
Arre+a was the .roHect :ngineer of the Finayan#Fauswagan Road .roHect. 'owe$er,
li%e Iiron and )ri+aldo, the prosecution was unable to pro$e his actual participation in the
questioned reports. *he 8andiganbayan found that Arre+a &had no participation in the
preparation and e!ecution of the said documentJsK.& *he 8andiganbayan also found that
Arre+a &did not ta%e ad$antage of his public position,& and thus Arre+a is liable under Artcle
1O2 of the Re$ised .enal code for falsification of a pri$ate document.
3n sum, Iiron, )ri+aldo and Arre+a are acquitted for failure of the prosecution to
satisfy the requisites for the con$iction of the crime of falsification of public documents. All
are public officers, 'owe$er, the prosecution has failed to pro$e their criminal culpability
beyond reasonable doubt. *here is no moral certainty that Iiron, )ri+aldo, and Arre+a too%
ad$antage of their positions to ma%e a false statement in a narration of facts in a public
document.
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
GABRIEL L. DUERO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
G.R. No. 162212, Ja&uar, 30, 2007
Justice 7uisu$i&g
FACTS:
*he )ommission on Audit 4)OA5 ordered the e!amination of the cash and accounts
of the Municipal *reasurer and all other accountable officers of, among others, *andag,
8urigao del 8ur. *he 8pecial Audit *eam 6o. 1 went to petitionerMs office, as then Municipal
*reasurer of *andag, to conduct an audit of his cash and accounts from 7une 0, 1/" to
March 1,, 1/"1. *he audit team made the e!amination from March 1, to May 2,, 1/"1. 3t
appeared that certain infrastructure funds from the Ministry of .ublic 2or%s and 'ighways
4M.'5 and interest earned on the municipalityMs time deposit with the .hilippine 6ational
-an% 4.6-5 were not entered by petitioner in his -oo%s of Account. As a result, the audit
team amended petitionerMs cash accountability and declared these items as missing funds.
After se$eral in$estigations, the audit team submitted to the Regional >irector the Re!orts o0
6;ai&atio& o0 t-e Cas- a&d Accou&ts of petitioner and a Narrative Re!ort. 3n both
documents, howe$er, the petitionerMs accountability was further reduced. -ased on the audit
teamMs findings, the %a&od$a,a& 8pecial .rosecutor filed with the Sa&diga&$a,a& an
3nformation charging petitioner Iabriel ?. >uero with Mal$ersation of .ublic Dunds, defined
and penali+ed under Article 21O of the Re$ised .enal )ode. *he Sa&diga&$a,a& found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt but considering the mitigating circumstances of
full restitution and $oluntary surrender, reduced the penalty. 'ence this appeal.
36
Criminal Law case
digest
ISSUE:
2hether the petitioner is guilty of mal$ersation of public funds.
HELD:
Yes. *he elements of the offense of mal$ersation of public funds are as follows9 415
the offender is a public officer; 425 he has the custody or control of the funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office; 405 the funds or property in$ol$ed are public funds or
property for which he is accountable; and 415 he has appropriated, ta%en or misappropriated,
or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the ta%ing by another
person of, such funds or property.
)oncededly, the first three elements are present in this case. 3t is the last element,
i.e., whether petitioner misappropriated said public funds, that ser$es as the petitionerMs
focus. 'e claims that he used the missing funds for disbursement of cash ad$ances, and not
for his personal use. *he Sa&diga&$a,a& held that this defense is unacceptable, and
indicati$e of petitionerMs guilt.
-esides, e$en assuming that petitionerMs defense could be acceptable, no vale slips
e$idencing the cash ad$ances were presented before the Sa&diga&$a,a&. *rue enough,
petitioner presented his demand letters to .ere+ and Orquina for the payment of their cash
ad$ances. Net, we find the same wanting for failing to state with particularity the e!act
amounts of cash ad$ances made by these officials. 3n fact, both of them e$en testified that
their computation $aried from petitionerMs own.
MURDER
RODOLFO CONCEPCION vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 16713" Nove$er 27, 2006
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
On 6o$ember 11, 1//=, Ramil ?ope+, along with Drancisco Dlores, :duardo Dlores
and 6estor -auson, was drin%ing and discussing a business proHect at the sulambi of Ramil(s
house. 8uddenly, the group(s attention was drawn to the sound of footsteps coming from the
%itchen. Ramil focused his flashlight towards the direction of the approaching footsteps and
saw petitioner Rodolfo )oncepcion aiming a gun at him and thereupon firing it, hitting Ramil
on his left arm. :duardo was also hit on the right arm. Drancisco Dlores went out of the
house and focused his own flashlight to the source of the gunshot and he saw the petitioner
carrying a firearm and running away. Ramil was treated and diagnosed to ha$e sustained a
fracture which had a healing period of more than thirty 405 days.
An 3nformation for Drustrated Murder was filed against the petitioner before the R*)
of .inamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. .etitioner entered a plea of &6ot Iuilty.&
*he trial court found the petitioner guilty of only the lesser crime of Attempted
Murder because the prosecution failed to present sufficient and con$incing e$idence to show
that Ramil(s wound was fatal. On appeal the accused a$erred that he was only guilty of
serious physical inHuries and not that of attempted murder. *he appellate court affirmed that
37
Criminal Law case
digest
of the trial court. 'ence, this petition.
ISSUE:
2hether accused is liable only for the crime of serious physical inHuries.
HELD:
No. .etitioner would argue that e$en assuming he shot Ramil, at most he could only
be held liable for the crime of serious physical inHuries because the wound sustained by
Ramil on his left arm was not mortal, as in fact it was medically determined to require a
healing period of more than 0 days.
*he presence of the element of intent to %ill determines whether the infliction of the
inHury should be punished as attempted murder or consummated physical inHuries. 2hen such
intent is lac%ing, the resulting felony is not attempted murder but only physical inHuries, and
being a mental process, the intent to %ill may be inferred from the weapon used, the e!tent of
the inHuries sustained by the offended party and the circumstances of the aggression.
'ere, e$idence abounds as to the clear intent on the part of the petitioner to finish off
his $ictim. .etitioner attac%ed Ramil ?ope+ with the use of a gun, a weapon capable of %illing
from a distance. *he weapon was aimed at the upper portion of Ramil(s body as e$idenced by
the fact that he suffered a gunshot wound on his left arm. *he attac% on Ramil could ha$e
been fatal had the bullet entered any of the $ital parts of his upper body. 6onetheless, e$en as
the prosecution had duly established the presence of intent to %ill, there was no showing,
howe$er, that the wound sustained by Ramil was fatal and would ha$e caused his death
without immediate medical attention. *he resulting crime, therefore, is only attempted
murder, the accused not ha$ing performed all the acts of e!ecution that would ha$e brought
about the $ictim(s death.
HOMICIDE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARD MAPALO
G.R. No. 17260+ Fe$ruar, 6, 2007
FACTS:
Appellant, together with .eter >oe, 7ohn >oe and .eter >oe, 7r., was charged before
the R*) of Agoo, ?a @nion with the crime of Murder. >uring trial, the lone eyewitness for
the prosecution, )ali!to Iarcia, established that in the early morning of 10 Debruary 1//1, at
around 09 a.m., a fight erupted between Manuel .iamonte and the group of ?ando Mapalo,
7immy Drigillana, and the appellant. 'e saw the appellant club .iamonte with a lead pipe
from behind, hitting him on the right side of the head. At that time when the appellant struc%
.iamonte with a lead pipe, he saw 7immy Drigillana and ?ando Mapalo standing in front of
.iamonte. ?ater, he saw the dead body of .iamonte, which had suffered multiple stab
wounds. Iarcia disclosed that he neither witnessed how .iamonte was stabbed, nor did he
see the act of stabbing .iamonte. 'e does not %now who stabbed the latter. Apellant
interposed the defense of denial and alibi. *he lower court, thereafter, con$icted appellant of
the crime of murder and ruled that conspiracy was established by the prosecution. On appeal,
the )ourt of Appeals modified the decision of the lower court, con$icting appellant of the
crime of frustrated murder and saying that conspiracy was not properly established.
38
Criminal Law case
digest
ISSUE:
2hether appellant is guilty of frustrated murder.
HELD:
2e cannot con$ict appellant of Attempted or Drustrated Murder or 'omicide. *he
principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder is the
assailant(s intent to ta%e the life of the person attac%ed. 8uch intent must be pro$ed clearly
and con$incingly, so as to e!clude reasonable doubt thereof. 3ntent to %ill may be pro$ed by
e$idence of9 4a5 moti$e; 4b5 the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the
crime; 4c5 the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the $ictim; 4d5 the manner the crime
was committed; and 4e5 words uttered by the offender at the time the inHuries are inflicted by
him on the $ictim.
3n the case at bar, no moti$e on the part of appellant to %ill .iamonte was shown
either prior or subsequent to the incident. 6or can such intent to %ill be inferred from his acts.
3t bears reiterating that no inHury on the body of the deceased was attributed to the appellant(s
act of hitting the $ictim with a lead pipe.
'omicidal intent must be e$idenced by the acts that, at the time of their e!ecution,
are unmista%ably calculated to produce the death of the $ictim by adequate means. 2e
cannot infer intent to %ill from the appellant(s act of hitting .iamonte in the head with a lead
pipe. 3n the first place, wounds were not shown to ha$e been inflicted because of the act.
8econdly, absent proof of circumstances to show the intent to %ill beyond reasonable doubt,
this )ourt cannot declare that the same was attendant.
RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FILOMINO LIZANO
G.R. No. 17**70 A!ril 27, 2007
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
On 2 Debruary 1//O, appellant was charged with three 405 counts of rape in three 405
separate 3nformations, which allege that accused raped the $ictim, a minor, 11 years of age,
against her will. *he prosecution presented the mother to testify on the age of her daughter.
*he mother stated in court that she was born on 11 May 1/"=. 'er birth certificate attesting
to the same data was li%ewise presented in court. Appellant testified on his behalf, raising
denial and alibi as defenses.
ISSUE:
2hether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.
HELD:
3n the prosecution of rape cases, con$iction or acquittal depends on the credence to be
accorded to the complainant(s testimony because of the fact that usually the participants are
the only witnesses to the occurrences. *hus, the issue boils down to credibility.
@nder Article 00= of the Re$ised .enal )ode, rape, which is punishable by reclusion
39
Criminal Law case
digest
perpetua is committed by ha$ing carnal %nowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances9
1. -y using force or intimidation;
2. 2hen the woman is depri$ed of reason or otherwise unconscious;
0. 2hen the woman is under twel$e years of age or is demented.
'ence, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for rape of
the $ictim, who was then under 12 years old, as pro$en by the prosecution through the
testimony of her mother and the presentation of her birth certificate.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAYMOND BATIANCILA
G.R. No. 17*2+0 Ja&uar, 30, 2007
FACTS:
On 7une 0, 22, then 12#year#old pri$ate complainant UNV was alone in their
house in Que+on )ity when appellant Raymond -atiancila, %nown to her as &Fuya -onbon,&
came by to watch tele$ision. After an hour, appellant summoned UNV to go inside her
mother(s bedroom. Once inside, he suddenly held UNV(s hands abo$e her head, pushed her
against the wall, and began to undress her. UNV tried to resist, but appellant threatened to %ill
her and her mother. Appellant then proceeded to remo$e his pants and briefs, inserted his
penis into her $agina, and had se!ual intercourse with her while standing up.
After the se!ual intercourse, UNV went to the house of her relati$e, AAA, and
narrated what -atiancila did to her. ?ater, appellant was arrested, he a$ers that there was no
e$idence of his alleged use of irresistible force and serious intimidation as he had no weapon
to threaten UNV with during the afternoon of the alleged rape, and that there was no e$idence
showing the resistance of UNV as there were no torn clothes to pro$e any struggle between
the two of them. *hese, according to -atiancila, show that UNV actually had consensual
intercourse with him for they were then sweethearts.
ISSUE:
2as force, $iolence, or intimidation employed in the commission of the crimeA
HELD:
Yes. *he force, $iolence, or intimidation in rape is a relati$e term, depending not
only on the age, si+e, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.
Records show that UNV was only 12 years old when she was raped by -atiancila who was 21
years old. @nderstandably, a girl of such young age could only cower in fear and yield into
submission to such an adult, more especially so as he is her cousin who has moral
ascendancy o$er her. Rape, after all, is nothing more than a conscious process of
intimidation by which a man %eeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation. *hus, it is not
e$en impossible for a $ictim of rape not to ma%e an outcry against an unarmed assailant.
3t is also well settled that physical resistance need not be established in rape when
intimidation is e!ercised upon the $ictim and the latter submits herself against her will to the
rapist(s ad$ances because of fear for her life and personal safety. -esides, physical resistance
is not the sole test to determine whether a woman in$oluntarily succumbed to the lust of an
40
Criminal Law case
digest
accused. Rape $ictims show no uniform reaction. 8ome may offer strong resistance while
others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. *hus, the law does not impose a
burden on the rape $ictim to pro$e resistance. 2hat needs only to be pro$ed by the
prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in ha$ing se!ual intercourse
with the $ictim.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HENRY BIDOC
G.R. No. 16#*30 :cto$er 31, 2006
FACTS:
AAA testified that she was only 11 years of age when the first rape incident happened
on 21 6o$ember 1///. 8he narrated that on the said date, she was in their house. At that
time, her mother, ---, was washing clothes in a broo%, which was quite far from their
house. 'er sister, ))), who was then si! years old, went with their mother, while her other
siblings >>> and :::, who were then three and two years old, respecti$ely, were playing
outside their house. On that $ery moment, when only AAA and her father, herein appellant,
were left inside the house, the latter started %issing her and went on remo$ing her clothes.
8he resisted but the appellant was much stronger, hence, despite her resistance, appellant
succeeded in undressing her, then e$entually raping her. After raping her, appellant e$en
threatened to %ill her if she will re$eal to anybody what had happened. *erribly frightened
and hardly able to comprehend the situation, she could only cry out in utter helplessness and
desperation. 2hen her mother came bac%, she did not tell what happened for fear that
appellant might carry out his threat. AAA was then raped for the second time one e$ening in
>ecember 1///.
3n 7anuary 2, AAA too% chances in going to the .6. 8tation located in Fabugao,
Apayao, and reported that she was raped twice by the appellant. 8.O1 Agculao testified that
on , 7anuary 2, AAA $oluntarily came to the police station to report that her own father,
herein appellant, had raped her.
2itnesses for the defense testified that the appellant was with them wor%ing in a
construction proHect a few %ilometres away from their house, when the alleged rape incidents
occurred hence appellant could not ha$e raped his daughter. According to appellant, her
daughter was moti$ated in filing the present cases against him to get e$en with him because
he slapped her on 0 7anuary 2 in front of her &bar%adas& and he e$en threatened to %ill her
for fear that she might get pregnant because of her going out at night and coming home late.
AAAMs mother on the other hand tried to refute these by saying that during the months of
6o$ember and >ecember 1///, her husband, herein appellant, was at their house.
*he R*) con$icted the appellant of two counts of rape. *his was affirmed by the )A.
'ence this appeal. *he appellant a$erred that the courts erred in con$icting him not on the
basis of the strength of the prosecution(s e$idence but rather on the wea%ness of the defense(s
e$idence. And also, he should not be con$icted because of the failure of the prosecution to
state the precise date of commission of the alleged rape, it being an essential element of the
crime charged.
ISSUE:
41
Criminal Law case
digest
2hether stating the precise date of commission is an essential element of rape.
HELD:
No. *he 8) said that the precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its
commission. *he e!act date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime of
rape, for the gra$amen of the offense is carnal %nowledge of a woman without her consent. 3n
this case, the prosecution adequately pro$ed the fact of se!ual intercourse by appellant
against the will of AAA sometime in >ecember 1///. *he $eracity of the rape charge is not
dependent on the time of the commission of the offense but on the credibility of the offended
party.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL HERMOCILLA
G.R. No. 17"+30 Jul, 10, 2007
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with two counts of rape for allegedly molesting his minor
step# daughter. 3t was alleged that on those occasions, he would force her to ha$e se!ual
intercourse with him or would forcibly insert his finger inside her $agina. After trial, the
R*) found the accused guilty of 2 counts of rape. *he same was affirmed by the )A. 3n this
appeal, appellant assails the $ictimMs credibility claiming that her failure to confide the
alleged rape to her mother, father and grandmother despite se$eral opportunities to do so
renders such accusations doubtful.
ISSUE:
1. >id the )A correctly uphold the accusedMs con$ictionA
2. )an the qualifying circumstance of relationship be considered in the imposition of
the proper penaltyA
HELD:
1. Yes. *he trial court and the )ourt of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of
two counts of rape. 3n the first rape incident, the prosecution pro$ed that appellant had carnal
%nowledge of M by inserting his penis into her $agina through force and intimidation. @nder
Art. 2,,#-, in relation to Art. 2,,#A of the Re$ised .enal )ode, carnal %nowledge of a
woman through force or intimidation shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. *he second
incident whereby appellant inserted his fingers into M(s $agina li%ewise constituted rape
through se!ual assault. 3n .eople $. .alma, it was held that the insertion of the appellant(s
finger into the $ictim(s $agina constituted the crime of rape through se!ual assault under
Republic Act 6o. "0=0 or &*he Anti#Rape ?aw of 1//O&.
2. No. Rape by se!ual assault is punishable by reclusion temporal if committed with
any aggra$ating or qualifying circumstances. *he 3nformation in the present case mentioned
the $ictim as appellant(s stepdaughter and an 11#year old minor. A stepdaughter is a daughter
of one(s spouse by pre$ious marriage, while a stepfather is the husband of one(s mother by
$irtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spo%en of is the offspring. 3n the
instant case, appellant and the $ictimMs mother were ne$er married. 'ence, appellant is not
the $ictimMs stepfather; $ice#$ersa, the $ictim is not appellant(s stepdaughter. Appellant is the
common law spouse of the $ictimMs mother. 'owe$er, since this relationship was not
42
Criminal Law case
digest
specifically pleaded in the information, it cannot be considered in the imposition of the
proper penalty.
QUALIFIED RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LITO BEJIC
G.R. No. 17*060 Ju&e 2", 2007
FACTS:
An information was filed against the accused wherein he was charged with qualified
rape for allegedly se!ually molesting his 11 year old daughter. *he qualifying aggra$ating
circumstances of minority and relationship were stated in the information. *rial ensued with
the R*) finding him guilty of the said crime. *he same was affirmed on appeal. 3n this
petition, appellant contends that the court erred in con$icting him of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
3s the appellant guilty of simple rape onlyA
HELD:
No. *he appellant is guilty of qualified rape and not Hust simple rape. .aragraph 1
415, Article 2,,#- of the Re$ised .enal )ode, as amended by Republic Act 6o. "0=0, states
that one circumstance which qualifies or aggra$ates the crime of rape is when the $ictim is
under eighteen 41"5 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step#parent,
guardian, relati$e by consanguinity or affinity within the third ci$il degree, or the common#
law spouse of the parent of the $ictim.
3n the instant case, it was specifically alleged in the information that the $ictim was
11 years old at the time she was raped by appellant. 3t was also categorically alleged therein
that accused#appellant is her father. 3n pro$ing the minority of the $ictim at the time she was
raped, the prosecution presented the certified true copy of the $ictimMs birth certificate,
showing that she was 11 years old when she was raped by appellant. As regards her paternal
relation with appellant, the prosecution submitted the same certified true copy of AAA(s birth
certificate naming appellant as her father. *he prosecution also submitted the marriage
contract of appellant and the $ictimMs mother which stated that they were legally married.
Moreo$er, the $ictim testified that appellant was her father, and significantly, appellant
admitted that that the $ictim is his daughter; was a minor at the time she was raped; and that
the $ictimMs mother is his legal wife.
STATUTORY RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREGORIO CARPIO
G.R. No. 170+*0 Nove$er 2#, 2006
43
Criminal Law case
digest
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
*wo informations charged the appellant with two counts of statutory rape committed
against AAA, his grandniece. *he se!ual assault on AAA began sometime in 1//1, when the
child was nine 4/5 years old. Around after lunch on the day she was raped, the appellant
summoned AAA from her home to remo$e his earwa!. 'e brought her to a nipa hut, about
only si! 4,5 meters away from his house. After remo$ing the earwa! of appellant, he brought
her to the room of his house. *he appellant loc%ed the door, lay the $ictim on the bed and
undressed her. *hereafter, he succeeded in ha$ing carnal %nowledge of AAA.
---, mother of AAA, testified that her %umadre told her that she saw appellant
%issing AAA. 2hen she confronted her daughter, the latter told her e$erything. *he
following day, --- too% AAA to the >oGa Iregoria Memorial 'ospital. *he medical
e!amination conducted on AAA re$ealed that AAA(s genetalia bore reddish discoloration,
with &old hymenal lacerations at / and 09 o(cloc% positions.& >r. :lflida -autista 4>r.
-autista5, who e!amined AAA, testified that she e!amined AAA when the child was Hust
ele$en 4115 years old and found old lacerations of the hymen which could ha$e been obtained
two 425 months to two 425 years prior to the e!amination. >r. -autista opined that the two
lacerations she found on the hymen of AAA are not normal to an 11#year old child whose
hymen should still be intact.
ISSUE:
2as statutory rape sufficiently pro$edA
HELD:
Yes. *he medical certificate and testimony of >r. -autista corroborate AAA(s
allegations of rape. >r. -autista found two old hymenal lacerations at / o(cloc% and 0 o(cloc%
positions in her e!amination of AAA. *he rupture of AAA(s hymen, she e!plained, was
caused by the insertion of a hard obHect, possibly an erect human penis.
2hat is material is that all the elements of statutory rape ha$e been properly alleged
and adequately pro$ed in this case. 3n statutory rape, only two elements need to be
established9 415 that the accused had carnal %nowledge of the offended party; and 425 that the
offended party was below twel$e 4125 years of age at the time of the se!ual assault. Dorce or
intimidation, not being an essential element of the crime, need not be pro$en.
QUALIFIED THEFT
LORBE REBUCAN BALTAZAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 16*"*" Nove$er 20, 2006
FACTS:
.etitioner was employed as a saleslady of *humbelina -oo%s and Office 8upplies
4*-O85 owned by pri$ate complainant Ira+ia Athena Vaulda. 8he was later promoted
therein as a cashier. 2hile pri$ate complainant was inspecting the operations of *-O8, she
noticed that her employees used the sheets of paper containing the lists and computations of
purchases as wrappers for the rolled cartolina paper and Manila paper merchandises of
*-O8. Out of curiosity, pri$ate complainant too% one of the lists dated 2O Debruary 1//1 and
44
Criminal Law case
digest
computed the figuresPpurchases stated therein. *o her shoc% and disbelief, she disco$ered that
the computationPaddition in one of the columns under the name &-hing& 4the nic%name of
petitioner5 was understated. 8he remo$ed the other lists from the stoc%s of rolled cartolina
paper and Manila paper and e!amined the same. Again, she found that the computations in
some of the columns under the name &-hing& were understated. 2hen confronted, petitioner
trembled and told her in their nati$e dialect, &2hate$er the amount is, 3 will pay.C .ri$ate
complainant as%ed petitioner to elaborate on the understatements in the listings but the latter
did not say a word. 'ence, she told petitioner to ta%e a $acation. More understated listings
were found under the nic%name of petitioner. 2hen the petitioner arri$ed at the *-O8, she
showed to her the understated lists but the latter merely loo%ed at it and %ept her silence. 8he
told the petitioner that her employment was already terminated. *hereafter, she filed a
complaint for O2 counts of qualified theft against petitioner.
*he R*) found petitioner guilty of 10 counts of qualified theft. *he )ourt of Appeals
affirmed with modifications the ruling of the R*). *he modifications pertain only to the
penalties imposed by the R*).
ISSUE:
2hether petitionerMs guilt has been pro$en beyond reasonable doubt
HELD:
Yes. >uring the trial, all of the witnesses for the prosecution testified under oath that
the understatement of the figures in the lists were made by the petitioner since they are all
$ery familiar with her handwriting as they were co#employees for many years. Moreo$er, a
closer e!amination of the lists re$eals that the handwritten understated figures are uniform
and consistent. .etitioner admitted that, as the former cashier of *-O8, she wrote and
computed the understated figures in the lists. Although she claimed that there were
insertionsPalterations in the lists, she failed to point out or identify such during the trial.
-ased on Article 0" of the Re$ised .enal )ode, the elements of the crime of theft may be
deduced as follows9 1. *hat there be ta%ing of personal property; 2. *hat said property
belongs to another; 0. *hat the ta%ing be done with intent to gain; 1. *hat the ta%ing be done
without the consent of the owner; and =. *hat the ta%ing be accomplished without the use of
$iolence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Relati$ely, Article 01 of
the same )ode states that the crime of theft becomes qualified when it is, among others,
committed with gra$e abuse of confidence. *he elements of theft as well as the
circumstances that made the same as qualified theft were sufficiently established by the
prosecution.
ROBBERY #ITH RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO SUYU
G.R. No. 1701#1 August 16, 2006
Justice Callejo
FACTS:
At around O91= in the e$ening on 7anuary 10, 1//,, )larissa Angeles, a third#year
student of 8t. .aul @ni$ersity, was with her boyfriend, 2illiam Derrer. *hey were eating
snac%s inside a pic%#up truc% par%ed in a $acant lot. 8uddenly, a man, who turned out to be
Rommel Macarubbo, appeared in front of the truc%, pointed a gun at them and said9 &*his is a
holdup. 3f you will start the engine of the car, 3 will shoot you.& *hereafter, another man, who
45
Criminal Law case
digest
turned out to be 2illy 8uyu, lifted the loc% on 2illiam(s side and entered the pic%#up. 2illy
8uyu then too% Derrer(s wallet which contained around .1=.. A third man, who turned out
to be Drancis )ainglet, too% )larissa(s Hewelry $alued at around .2, =. and cash
amounting to .1.. *hereafter, 2illy 8uyu clubbed 2illiam and dragged him out of the
truc%. Dortunately, 2illiam was able to escape and immediately went to the police station to
report the incident. Meanwhile, 2illy 8uyu lifted the loc% of the pic%#up truc% at )larissa(s
side. Macarubbo then opened the door. *he two and )ainglet dragged the girl to a hilly place,
not far away. Macarubbo and 2illy 8uyu held her by the arms, while )ainglet po%ed a fan
%nife at her. *here, they ra$ished her.
ISSUE:
2hat was the crime committedA
HELD:
Ro77e). 8%($ )+,e 'e/%&e' +&' ,e&+-%9e' 4&'e) A)(%2-e 1:0, ,+)+5)+,$ " o/ ($e
RPC. 2hile it is true that the $ictim initially did not re$eal to the authorities the fact that she
was raped after the robbery, this does not cast doubt on her testimony for it is not uncommon
for a rape $ictim right after her ordeal to remain mum about what really transpired.
7urisprudence has established that delay in re$ealing the commission of rape is not an
indication of a fabricated charge, and the same is rendered doubtful only if the delay was
unreasonable and une!plained.
Appellants also assert that the medical report issued by >r. .intucan does not
conclusi$ely suggest that )larissa was raped, for during the e!amination, her deportment was
not of that of a rape $ictim and the e!amination of her cer$i! did not e$en suggest forcible
assault.*he said argument is, howe$er, without merit. 'ymenal lacerations which are usually
inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in establishing the crime of rape
as it is enough that a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the $agina ta%es
place. .artial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration; the rape is deemed
consummated in either case. >r. .intucan further found contusion and hematoma on the
$ictim, which bolsters )larissa(s recount that she was dragged, forced to lie down, and raped.
*he con$iction thus of appellants for robbery with rape defined and penali+ed under
Article 2/1, paragraph 1 of the Re$ised .enal )ode is correct. *he intent to rob must precede
the rape. 3n robbery with rape, the intention of the felony is to rob and the felony is
accompanied by rape. *he rape must be contemporaneous with the commission of the
robbery. *here is only one single and indi$isible felony of robbery with rape and any crimes
committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a
single and indi$isible felony of robbery with rape.
ROBBERY #ITH HOMICIDE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN CABBAB, JR.
G.R. No. 173*7# Jul, 12, 2007
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
Appellant was charged along with his cousin#in#law 8egundino )alpito, with the
crimes of >ouble Murder and Attempted Murder with Robbery committed with treachery,
e$ident premeditation, with intent to %ill and intent to gain. *he prosecution alleges that
46
Criminal Law case
digest
father and son Eidal Agbulos and 2inner Agbulos, together with :ddie Quindasan, Delipe
Abad and .olice Officer 4.O5 2illiam -elmes, attended a &fiesta& celebration, but it was
already o$er when they got there. On their way home, they were met by accused#appellant
7uan )abbab, 7r. and )alpito who in$ited them to play &pepito,& a local $ersion of the game
of &russian po%er.& 2inner Agbulos won the game. 2hile wal%ing on their way home, .O
2illiam -elmes, who was behind 2inner Agbulos and :ddie Quindasan pic%ing#up gua$a
fruits from a tree, saw accused#appellant, accused )alpito and a companion running up a hill.
8uddenly, he heard gunshots and saw 2inner Agbulos and :ddie Quindasan, who were then
wal%ing ahead of the group, hit by the gunfire. -y instant, .O 2illiam -elmes do$e into a
canal to sa$e himself from the continuous gunfire of accused#appellant. .O 2illiam -elmes
ran towards Eidal Agbulos and Delipe Abad, who were wal%ing behind the group, and
informed the two that 2inner Agbulos and :ddie Quindasan were ambushed by accused#
appellant and )alpito. *he three 405 proceeded to the crime scene where they saw the dead
body of 2inner Agbulos together with :ddie Quindasan whom they mistoo% for dead. *he
three sought help from the police authorities of .ilar, Abra and returned to the scene of the
crime where they found :ddie Quindasan who was still ali$e and who narrated that it was
7uan )abbab, 7r. and )alpito who ambushed them and too% the money, estimated at
.12,., of 2inner Agbulos which he won in the card game. :ddie Quindasan was
brought to the Abra .ro$incial 'ospital but died the following day.
*he *rial )ourt acquitted )alpito but found appellant 7uan )abbab, 7r. guilty of two
crimes, i.e. 415 robbery with double homicide and 425 attempted murder. *he )A modified
the trial court(s decision and found appellant guilty of the special comple! crime of Robbery
with 'omicide and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. *he )A also
affirmed appellant(s con$iction, as well as the penalty imposed, for the separate crime of
attempted murder.
ISSUE:
2hat crime did appellant commitA
HELD:
Ro77e). 8%($ Ho*%2%'e. *o warrant con$iction for the crime of Robbery with
'omicide, the prosecution is burdened to pro$e the confluence of the following elements9
4a5the ta%ing of personal property is committed with $iolence or intimidation against persons;
4b5the property ta%en belongs to another; 4c5the ta%ing is characteri+ed by intent to gain or
animo lucrandi; and 4d5by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is
committed.
3n Robbery with 'omicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the %illing
may occur before, during or after the robbery. 3t is immaterial that death would super$ene by
mere accident, or that the $ictim of homicide is other than the $ictim of robbery, or that two
or more persons are %illed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery, the felony committed is the special comple! crime of Robbery with 'omicide. 3n
pursuit of his plan to rob Agbulos of his winnings, appellant shot and %illed him as well as
his companion, :ddie Quindasan.
'owe$er, that the two courts below erred in con$icting appellant of the separate
crime of attempted murder for the shooting of .O 2illiam -elmes. Attempted homicide or
attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of the robbery, as in this case, is
47
Criminal Law case
digest
absorbed in the crime of Robbery with 'omicide which is a special comple! crime that
remains fundamentally the same regardless of the number of homicides or inHuries committed
in connection with the robbery.
;IDNAPPING
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL CENAHONON
G.R. No. 16##62 Jul, 12, 2007
Justice Nac-ura
FACTS:
On 6o$ember 2=, 1///, around /9 a.m., 7ometh Magaway 4Magaway5, the dri$er
of spouses Dortunato and >aisy Medina, was dri$ing out of the Medina residence in -D
'omes, .araGaque )ity, to bring the couple(s four#year#old son, Fenneth, to school. A man,
later identified as :rdaHe, suddenly approached, po%ed a gun at Magaway, opened the $ehicle
door, and told Magaway to mo$e o$er from the dri$er(s seat. Magaway followed and sat with
Fenneth at the front passenger seat. :rdaHe(s companion, later identified as )enahonon,
occupied the bac% seat. :rdaHe handed the gun to )enahonon, who po%ed it at Magaway from
behind. :rdaHe then dro$e the car away.
*he maid of the Medinas, who saw the incident, immediately reported to Dortunato,
then descending from the house, what happened. Dortunato tried to intercept the )RE at the
$illage gate, but failed. 'e returned home and called >aisy at their office in Alabang,
Muntinlupa )ity. 'e told her about the incident and instructed her to call the .residential
Anti#Organi+ed )rime *as% Dorce 4.AO)*D5. 'e, in turn, called the .araGaque )ity .olice
>epartment.
Meanwhile, inside the )RE, both accused informed Magaway that they would call
the Medina family to demand a .= million ransom. @pon reaching ?as .iGas )ity, the former
ordered Magaway to alight.
Magaway proceeded to Medina(s office in Alabang and related to >aisy how Fenneth
was abducted. >aisy instructed Magaway to return to the Medina residence where the
.araGaque .olice and the .AO)*D men were waiting.
Around 19 p.m. that day, somebody called the Medina residence and tal%ed to
Dortunato. A spea%er phone was used so e$eryone in the house heard the telephone
con$ersation. *he caller demanded .=,,. for Fenneth(s release. A .AO)*D member
instructed Dortunato to negotiate. *he caller made se$eral calls that same afternoon to
negotiate for the ransom. Dortunately the culprits were later apprehended and Fenneth was
rescued.
ISSUE:
2hat was the crime committedA
HELD:
Fidnapping for ransom was committed. *he elements of %idnapping for ransom
under Article 2,O of the Re$ised .enal )ode 4R.)5, as amended by R.A. O,=/ warranting
the imposition of the death penalty, are as follows9 4a5 intent on the part of the accused to
48
Criminal Law case
digest
depri$e the $ictim of his liberty; 4b5 actual depri$ation of the $ictim of his liberty; and 4c5
moti$e of the accused, which is e!torting ransom for the release of the $ictim. 6either actual
demand for nor payment of ransom is necessary for the consummation of the felony. 3t is
sufficient that the depri$ation of liberty was for e!torting ransom e$en if none of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 2,O were present in its perpetration. -ased on the
e$idence pro$en during trial and as abo$e discussed, the elements of the crime were present.
UNJUST VEATION
RENATO BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. N:. 13+033 Ja&uar, 30, 2007
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
At about 19= in the morning or sometime thereafter of 10 >ecember 1//1 in Manila,
the accused, by forcefully co$ering the face of Martina ?ourdes *. Albano with a piece of
cloth soa%ed in chemical with di++ying effects, tried to rape the $ictim by lying on top of her
with the intention to ha$e carnal %nowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of
e!ecution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance,
said acts being committed against her will and consent to her damage and preHudice.
Renato -aleros, 7r. mo$ed for a partial reconsideration of a 8) decision acquitting
him of the crime of attempted rape but adHudging him guilty of light coercion. 3t is -aleros(
submission that his con$iction for light coercion under an 3nformation for attempted rape,
runs counter to the en banc ruling in .eople $. )ontreras where the )ourt held9 *he 8O?I:6
contends that )ontreras should be held liable for unHust $e!ation under Art. 2"O425 of the
R.). 'owe$er, the elements of unHust $e!ation do not form part of the crime of rape as
defined in Art. 00=. Moreo$er, the circumstances stated in the information do not constitute
the elements of the said crime. )ontreras, therefore, cannot be con$icted of unHust $e!ation.
ISSUE:
2hether Renato -aleros, 7r. is guilty of unHust $e!ation.
HELD9
Yes. 'e argues that the 3nformation against him does not allege that the act of
co$ering the face of the $ictim with a piece of cloth soa%ed in chemical caused her
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and disturbance. *he 8) wish to stress that malice,
compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an 3nformation for unHust $e!ation. @nHust
$e!ation e!ists e$en without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the
term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not producti$e of some
physical or material harm, would unHustly annoy or irritate an innocent person.
*he paramount question in a prosecution for unHust $e!ation is whether the offender(s
act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to
whom it is directed. *hat the $ictim, after the incident cried while relating to her classmates
what she percei$ed to be a se!ual attac% and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape
pro$ed beyond ca$il that she was disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the -aleros.
49
Criminal Law case
digest
ESTAFA
MIGUEL COSME, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1*#7"3 Nove$er 27, 2006
FACTS:
7udith Rodrigue+ and the pri$ate complainant, .aul -unda, entered into a
Memorandum Agreement concerning lots nos. 1 and 2 situated at -arrio Alman+a, ?as .iGas,
Metro Manila. @nder the agreement, 7udith agreed to assign and con$ey 1S of the
aforementioned lots in fa$or of the complainant as consideration for the payment by the latter
of the accrued real estate ta!es on the property. *he complainant then $isited the property
and, for the first time, met the accused who represented himself as the o$erseer of the
property where he also resided. 8ubsequently, the complainant and the accused met at the
Aurelio 'otel on Ro!as -l$d., Manila and the accused con$inced the complainant to entrust
to him *wo Million .esos for the payment of the accrued real estate ta!es on the property,
telling the complainant that he was a nephew of the then incumbent mayor of ?as .iGas and
had good connections with the Mayor(s Office as well as with the Offices of the *reasurer
and of the Assessor of ?as .iGas. *he complainant again met the accused in 2 different
occasions and ga$e to the latter a total of .2, .. -oth payments were unreceipted.
2hen the accused failed to comply, information for estafa was filed against the
former. @pon being arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty. *hereafter, R*) rendered its
decision con$icting the accused with the crime of estafa under Article 01= 415 4b5 of the
Re$ised .enal )ode. .etitioner appealed the case to the )A. *he latter found petitioner guilty
of :stafa as defined under Article 01= 425 4a5 of the R.).
ISSUE:
2hether accused is guilty of estafa under Article 01= 425 4a5 as ruled by the )A.
HELD:
No. As correctly enumerated by the )A, the elements of :stafa by means of deceit as
defined under Article 01= 425 4a5 of the R.) are as follows9 415 that there must be a false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; 425 that such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or e!ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud; 405 that the offended party must ha$e relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and 4d5 that as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.
*he )A ruled that the deceit employed by petitioner consisted in his act of
pretending &that he had the authority and capability to co$er the payment of the realty ta!es
for he is influential in ?as .iGas and has connections with the Assessor(s W *reasurer(s
Offices being an alleged nephew of then incumbent Mayor )asimiro of ?as .iGas )ity.&
'owe$er, a reading of the 3nformation filed against petitioner shows that while it
contains conclusions that petitioner committed fraud against pri$ate complainant, there are no
allegations indicating specific acts which constitute fraud as contemplated under Article 01=
425 4a5 of the R.), more particularly petitioner(s alleged act of falsely pretending that he had
the needed connections to settle the realty ta!es due on the subHect property.
50
Criminal Law case
digest
3n .eople $. Almendral, the )ourt held thus9 *he information filed against an accused
is intended to inform him of the accusations against him in order that he could adequately
prepare his defense. 3t is thus te!tboo% doctrine that an accused cannot be con$icted of an
offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. 3t must embody the
essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that ha$e
a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for
and underta%e his defense.
3n the present case, the 3nformation filed against petitioner did not specify the alleged
fraudulent acts or false pretenses that supposedly induced pri$ate complainant to part with his
money. 'ence, petitioner may not be con$icted of :stafa as defined under Article 01= 425 4a5
of the R.) since the prosecution failed to allege the essential elements of this %ind of
offense.
'owe$er, the R*) correctly found that petitioner has been properly charged with
estafa as defined under Article 01= 415 4b5 of the R.). 3n ?ee $. .eople, this )ourt held that
the elements of :stafa by con$ersion or misappropriation as defined under Article 01= 415 4b5
of the R.) are as follows9 415 that money, goods, or other personal properties are recei$ed by
the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
in$ol$ing the duty to ma%e deli$ery of, or to return, the same; 425 that there is a
misappropriation or con$ersion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his
part of such receipt; 405 that such misappropriation or con$ersion or denial is to the preHudice
of another.
)learly, the aforequoted 3nformation filed by the prosecution against petitioner was
able to allege all the essential elements of estafa under Article 01= 415 4b5 of the R.).
ALFONSO FIRAZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1"*721 (arc- 22, 2007
Justice Car!io
FACTS:
'enry 8amar, 7r. 4pri$ate complainant5 was the owner of a parcel land located in
.eGafrancia, >araga, Albay. 3n an agreement dated 10 May 1//1, pri$ate complainant sold
the land to Alfon+o Dira+a to be paid on se$eral occasion. 2hen pri$ate complainant
presented .6- )hec% 6o. 0/==02#8 for payment, the .hilippine 6ational -an% 4.6-5
dishonored the chec% by reason of Baccount closed.C Meanwhile, petitioner subdi$ided the
land, sold the subdi$ided lots, and retained the unsold lots.
>espite $erbal and written demands for the payment of the $alue of the chec%,
petitioner failed to pay the amount of the dishonored chec%. *hus, pri$ate complainant
charged petitioner with estafa for $iolation of paragraph 2 4d5, Article 01= of the re$ised
.enal )ode.
@pon his arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. After due trial, the
trial court con$icted petitioner and ruled that petitioner %new t the time of the issuance of the
chec% that it was not funded. *he trial court did not accept petitionerMs defense that the
51
Criminal Law case
digest
pri$ate complainant %new that said chec% was not funded and that the same was issued only
as a guaranty for the payment of the balance of the purchase price of the land.
@pon appeal, the decision was appealed by the )ourt of Appeals. 'ence, the present
case.
ISSUE:
2hether petitioner is guilty of estafa under paragraph 2 4d5, Articled 01= of the
Re$ised .enal )ode.
HELD:
*he elements of estafa under paragraph 2 4d5, Article 01= of the R.) are the
following9
1. .ostdating or issuance of a chec% in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the chec% was issued;
2. ?ac% of sufficiency of funds to co$er the chec%; and
0. >amage to payee.
All the elements are present in this case. .etitioner issued .6- )hec% 6o. 0/==02#8
to obtain the title of the land from pri$ate complainant. As found by the )ourt of Appeals,
petitioner issued the chec% to induce pri$ate complainant to e!ecute the deed of sale in his
fa$or. .etitionerMs claim that pri$ate complainant %new that the chec%s did not ha$e sufficient
funds was denied by pri$ate complainant who testified that he was informed that petitionerMs
account was in good standing and that there were sufficient funds for the postdated chec%s
issued. 3t was established that pri$ate complainant would not ha$e parted with his property if
he %new that the chec%s were not funded. *he damage suffered by pri$ate complainant had
also been established. .ri$ate complainant had already transferred the title to the property to
petitioner who subsequently subdi$ided the land and started selling the subdi$ided portions
of the land. Net, despite se$eral demands, petitioner failed to pay the $alue of the dishonored
chec%.
LIBEL
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. vs. MANUEL M. SERRANO
G.R. No. 1632"" Ju&e 22, 2007.
C-ie0 Justice 1u&o
FACTS:
3n 7une 1/"O, respondent Manuel M. 8errano bought from petitioner 3nsular ?ife
Assurance )ompany, ?imited, a life insurance policy called &>iamond 7ubilee, .articipating&
on his understanding that he shall be paying premiums for se$en 4O5 years only. >i$idend
accumulations and earned interests were to be applied to subsequent premium payments.
Respondent obtained si! >iamond 7ubilee ?ife 3nsurance policies, and religiously paid the
premiums.
3n early 1//,, respondent was informed by his accountant that he had been paying
premiums on some of his policies e$en beyond the se$en#year period of their effecti$ity.
)onsequently, respondent wrote a letter to Atty. :rnesto I. Montalban, petitioner(s 8enior
52
Criminal Law case
digest
Eice .resident, 8ales Operations Iroup, requesting that the o$erpayments be applied as
premium payments of his other policies which ha$e not reached the se$en#year period. *he
request was denied on the ground that the self#liquidating option of the policies was not
guaranteed because it was based on di$idends which $ary. Atty. Montalban, howe$er,
assured respondent that some of his policies will self#liquidate but only on specific dates. On
October " and 11, 1//,, respondent caused a notice to be published in the Manila -ulletin,
$i+9
@RI:6* 6O*3): *O A?? 368@?AR ?3D: >3AMO6> 7@-3?:: .O?3)N#
'O?>:R8 3D NO@ AR: A E3)*3M OD 368@?AR ?3D: A88@RA6):(8
R:D@8A? *O 'O6OR 3*8 R:.R:8:6*A*3O6 *'A* NO@R .O?3)N
-:)OM:8 8:?D#?3Q@3>A*36I AD*:R A ?A.8: OD 8:E:6 4O5 N:AR8,
.?:A8: A**:6> A 8.:)3A? M::*36I OD 83M3?AR?N 83*@A*:>
.O?3)N 'O?>:R8 A6> )O#O26:R8 OD 368@?AR ?3D: O6 O)*O-:R 1,,
1//,, 29 ..M. A* *': MAFA*3 8.OR*8 )?@-, A?DARO 8*., 8A?):>O
E3??AI:, MAFA*3, *O )O683>:R )O??:)*3E: A)*3O6 *O .RO*:)*
NO@R 36*:R:8*8. R8E. < )A?? MR8. E3??ARONA OR MR8. )AR3AIA
A* "1O#22#0= OR "1,#2=#,1
3n addition, respondent filed on >ecember 11, 1//, a ci$il case for specific
performance, sum of money, and damages before the Regional *rial )ourt of Ma%ati )ity
against petitioner and some of its officers. 3n turn, petitioner filed in May 1//O a complaint
for libel against respondent before the )ity .rosecution Office of Ma%ati )ity. On October ,,
1//O, the )ity .rosecutor of Ma%ati dismissed petitioner(s complaint for lac% of probable
cause, ruling that there was no defamatory imputation, and no malice in the publication.
.etitioner(s motion for reconsideration was denied. .etitioner sought a re$iew before the
8ecretary of 7ustice. On April 1", 22, the 8ecretary of 7ustice affirmed the dismissal of
petitioner(s complaint for lac% of probable cause. .etitioner assailed the ruling before the
)ourt of Appeals $ia a petition for certiorari which was dismissed. .etitioner(s motion for
reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE:
2as there probable cause for respondent to be charged with libelA
HELD:
No. *he )ity .rosecutor dismissed petitioner(s complaint for libel because two
elements of the crime were missing, defamatory imputation and malice. @nder Article 0=0 of
the Re$ised .enal )ode, an accused may be held liable for the crime if the following
elements concur, $i+9 415 the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another,
425 publication of the charge, 405 identity of the person defamed, and 415 e!istence of malice.
3n determining whether there was prima facie case for libel against respondent,
the )ity .rosecutor and the 8ecretary of 7ustice $iewed the subHect article in its entirety, and
considered the same as a mere notice of meeting addressed to >iamond 7ubilee
policyholders. *he words &$ictim& and &refusal to honor its representation,& although used in
the notice, were dismissed as not defamatory per se. Mere assertion that a person failed or
refused to perform a contractual obligation does not, in and of itself, inHure that person(s
business reputation or depri$e him of public confidence. 2hate$er defamatory interpretation
of which the subHect notice may ha$e been susceptible of was considered debun%ed by the
53
Criminal Law case
digest
good faith that moti$ated the respondent in causing the publication of the notice, i.e., to
redress what he considered to be a $iolation of his rights and those of others similarly situated
as himself. Respondent(s action was considered inconsistent with &malice& which is
characteri+ed by a rec%less disregard of the truth or falsity of one(s remar%s.
GMA NET#OR;, INC., ET AL. vs. JESUS G. BUSTOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 1*6+*+ :cto$er 17, 2006
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
A libel complaint was filed against IMA 6:*2ORF, 36) and newscaster, Rey
Eidal. *he issue started from the .etition for Mandamus filed by the unsuccessful e!aminees
of the physicianMs licensure e!aminations before the R*) of Manila to compel the .R) and
the board of medical e!aminers to re#chec% and ree$aluate the test papers. As alleged,
mista%es in the counting of the total scores and erroneous chec%ing of answers to test
questions $itiated the results of the e!aminations.
As news writer and reporter of petitioner IMA 6etwor%, 3nc. assigned to gather
news from courts, among other beats, its co#petitioner Rey Eidal co$ered the filing of the
mandamus petition. After securing a copy of the petition, Eidal composed and narrated the
news co$erage for the ten o(cloc% e$ening news edition of IMA(s )hannel O 'eadline 6ews,
quoting thereof the allegations of the unsuccessful e!aminers that the gross, massi$e,
hapha+ard, whimsical and capricious chec%ing that must ha$e been going on for years should
now be stopped once and for all. 8imultaneous with the news, was an old $ideo footage
showing physicians wearing blac% armbands.
Along these lines, respondents claimed that the said report was false, malicious and
one#sided. Eidal and IMA 6etwor%, 3nc., in rec%less disregard for the truth, defamed them
by word of mouth and simultaneous $isual presentation on IMA 6etwor%, 3nc.(s )hannel O.
*hey added that, the showing of the unrelated old footage was done purposely so as to ma%e
a forceful impact on their audience ma%ing it appear that other doctors were supporting and
sympathi+ing with the complaining unsuccessful e!aminees.
3n defense of the alleged libel, IMA 6etwor% argued that the same was but a
pri$ileged communication.
ISSUE:
1. 2hether the said news report was within the ambit of pri$ileged communication
2. 2hether the said narration of the news reporter and the used of $ideo footage were
libelous
HELD:
1. Yes. *he disputed news report consists merely of a summary of the allegations in
the said .etition for Mandamus filed by the medical e!aminees ma%ing the same fall within
the protected ambit of pri$ileged communication. IMA and Eidal cannot be held liable for
damages claimed by respondents for simply bringing to fore information on subHects of
public concern.
.ri$ileged matters may be absolute or qualified. Absolutely pri$ileged matters are
54
Criminal Law case
digest
not actionable regardless of the e!istence of malice in fact. 3n absolutely pri$ileged
communications, the mala or bona fides of the author is of no moment as the occasion
pro$ides an absolute bar to the action. On the other hand, in qualifiedly or conditionally
pri$ileged communications, the freedom from liability for an otherwise defamatory utterance
is conditioned on the absence of e!press malice or malice in fact. *he second %ind of
pri$ilege, in fine, renders the writer or author susceptible to a suit or finding of libel pro$ided
the prosecution established the presence of bad faith or malice in fact. *o this genre belongs
&pri$ate communications& and &fair and true report without any comments or remar%s& falling
under and described as e!ceptions in Article 0=1 of the Re$ised .enal )ode.
'owe$er, the enumeration under the aforecited Article 0=1 is not an e!clusi$e list of
conditional pri$ilege communications as the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the
speech and of the press has e!panded the pri$ilege to include fair commentaries on matters of
public interest.*he news telecast in question clearly falls under the second %ind of pri$ileged
matter.
2. No, the statement in the news report falls within the ambit of pri$ileged
communication. Dor, although e$ery defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, the
presumption does not e!ist in matters considered pri$ileged.
Durthermore, neither the insertion of the file $ideo constitute malice on the part of the
petitioners. )ontrary to the )A(s findings, the identifying character#generated words &file
$ideo& appeared to ha$e been superimposed on screen, doubtless to disabuse the minds of
tele$iewers of the idea that a particular footage is current. 3n the words of the trial court, the
phrase &file $ideo& was &indicated on screen purposely to pre$ent misrepresentation so as not
to confuse the $iewing public.& *he trial court added the obser$ation that &the use of file
footage in *E news reporting is a standard practice.& the absence of the accompanying
character#generated words &file $ideo& would not ne$ertheless, change the legal situation
insofar as the pri$ileged nature of the audio#$ideo publication complained of is concerned. 3n
$iew of the state of things, the $ideo footage was not libel in disguise; standing without
accompanying sounds or $oices, it was meaningless, or, at least, con$eyed nothing
derogatory in nature.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 12"+13 Fe$ruar, 6, 2007
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
An 3nformation for ?ibel was filed before the R*) of Manila against pri$ate
respondents -as%inas and Manapat, with petitioner Drancisco )ha$e+ as the complainant.
.ri$ate respondents mo$ed to quash the 3nformation and the warrants of arrest which
was denied by the R*). .ri$ate respondents then filed a .etition for )ertiorari with the )A,
which was granted holding that the fact that the 3nformation against pri$ate respondents
states that the libelous matter was &caused to be published in 8mart Dile, a maga+ine of
general circulation in Manila.& )A held that the 3nformation failed to allege where the written
defamation was &printed and first published,& an allegation sine qua non &if the circumstances
55
Criminal Law case
digest
as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the basis of the $enue of the
publication.& *he 3nformation, it was noted, did not indicate that the libelous articles were
printed or first published in Manila, or that petitioner resided in Manila at the time of the
publication of the articles.
*he )A further obser$ed that e$en during the preliminary in$estigation, pri$ate
respondents had already interposed that 8mart Dile was actually printed and first published in
the )ity of Ma%ati, and that the address of the publisher Animal Darms .ublication as
indicated in the editorial page of the publication itself was a post office bo! with the Ma%ati
)entral .ost Office.
ISSUE:
>oes the subHect information sufficiently $est Hurisdiction in the Manila trial courts to
hear the libel charge, in consonance with Article 0, of the Re$ised .enal )odeA
HELD:
NO. *he rules on $enue in article 0, may be restated thus9
1. 2hether the offended party is a public official or a pri$ate person, the
criminal action may be filed in the )ourt of Dirst 3nstance of the pro$ince or
city where the libelous article is printed and first published.
2. 3f the offended party is a pri$ate indi$idual, the criminal action may also be
filed in the )ourt of Dirst 3nstance of the pro$ince where he actually resided
at the time of the commission of the offense.
0. 3f the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time
of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the )ourt of Dirst
3nstance of Manila.
1. 3f the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the
action may be filed in the )ourt of Dirst 3nstance of the pro$ince or city where
he held office at the time of the commission of the offense.
*he 3nformation states that the libelous articles were published in 8mart Dile, and not
that they were published in Manila. *he place &Manila& is in turn employed to situate where
8mart Dile was in general circulation, and not where the libel was published or first printed.
*he fact that 8mart Dile was in general circulation in Manila does not necessarily establish
that it was published and first printed in Manila, in the same way that while leading national
dailies such as the .hilippine >aily 3nquirer or the .hilippine 8tar are in general circulation
in )ebu, it does not mean that these newspapers are published and first printed in )ebu.
.etitioner does submit that there is no need to employ the clause &printed and first
published& in indicating where the crime of libel was committed, as the term &publish& is
&generic and within the general conte!t of the term (print( in so far as the latter term is utili+ed
to refer to the physical act of producing the publication.& 2here the law does not distinguish,
we should not distinguish.
3ndeed, if we hold that the 3nformation at hand sufficiently $ests Hurisdiction in
Manila courts since the publication is in general circulation in Manila, there would be no
impediment to the filing of the libel action in other locations where 8mart Dile is in general
circulation.
56
Criminal Law case
digest
3f this disquisition impresses an unduly formalistic reading of the 3nformation at
hand, it should be reiterated that the flaws in the 3nformation stri%e at the $ery heart of the
Hurisdiction of the Manila R*). 3t is settled that Hurisdiction of a court o$er a criminal case is
determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and the offense must ha$e
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients too% place within the territorial
Hurisdiction of the court. Article 0, states, in as unequi$ocal a manner as possible, that the
criminal and ci$il action for libel shall be filed with the court of the pro$ince 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.& 3f the 3nformation for libel does not
establish with particularity any of these two $enue requirements, the trial court would ha$e
no Hurisdiction to hear the criminal case.
R.A. <3":: ANTI=GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT vs. ANIANO
DESIERTO
G.R. No. 1*0231 Jul, #, 2007
FACTS:
On October ", 1//2, then .resident Didel E. Ramos issued Administrati$e Order 6o.
10 creating the .residential Ad 'oc Dact#Dinding )ommittee on -ehest ?oans 4)ommittee5
which was tas%ed to in$entory all behest loans, determine the parties in$ol$ed and
recommend whate$er appropriate actions to be pursued thereby.
On 6o$ember /, 1//2, .resident Ramos issued Memorandum Order 6o. ,1
e!panding the functions of the )ommittee to include the in$entory and re$iew of all non#
performing loans, whether behest or non#behest. Among the accounts referred to the
)ommittee(s *echnical 2or%ing Iroup 4*2I5 were the loan transactions between 6O)O833
and .6-. After it had e!amined and studied all the documents relati$e to the said loan
transactions, the )ommittee classified the loans obtained by 6O)O833 from .6- as behest
because of 6O)O833(s insufficient capital and inadequate collaterals.
-ased on the 8worn 8tatement of .)II consultant Orlando 8al$ador, petitioner filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman the criminal complaint against respondents. .etitioner
alleges that respondents $iolated the pro$isions of 8ection 0 4e5 and 4g5 of R.A. 6o. 01/.
3n a Resolution dated 7anuary 12, 1//" in OM-##/=#"/, I3O >ia+#8alcedo
recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of e$idence or lac% of
probable cause against the respondents and for prescription of the offense. Ombudsman
>esierto appro$ed the recommendation on May 21, 1///. .etitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but it was denied by I3O >ia+#8alcedo in the Order dated 7uly /, 1///,
which was appro$ed by Ombudsman >esierto on 7uly 20, 1///. .etitioner ele$ated the case
57
Criminal Law case
digest
to this )ourt.
ISSUE:
2hether the Ombudsman committed gra$e abuse of discretion in ruling that the
offense le$eled against respondents has prescribed.
HELD:
*he petition is partly meritorious. Respondent Ombudsman committed gra$e abuse of
discretion in dismissing the subHect complaint on the ground of prescription. Respondents
members of the .6- -oard of >irectors and Officers of 6O)O833 are charged with $iolation
of R.A. 6o. 01/, a special law. Amending said law, 8ection 1, -atas .ambansa -lg. 1/=,
increased the prescripti$e period from ten to fifteen years. *he applicable law in the
computation of the prescripti$e period is 8ection 2 of Act 6o. 002,, as amended.3n cases
in$ol$ing $iolations of R.A. 6o. 01/ committed prior to the Debruary 1/", :dsa Re$olution
that ousted .resident Derdinand :. Marcos, we ruled that the go$ernment as the aggrie$ed
party could not ha$e %nown of the $iolations at the time the questioned transactions were
made. Moreo$er, no person would ha$e dared to question the legality of those transactions.
*hus, the counting of the prescripti$e period commenced from the date of disco$ery of the
offense in 1//2 after an e!hausti$e in$estigation by the .residential Ad 'oc )ommittee on
-ehest ?oans. As to when the period of prescription was interrupted, the second paragraph of
8ection 2, Act 6o. 002,, as amended, pro$ides that prescription is interrupted (when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. Records show that the act complained of
was disco$ered in 1//2. *he complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman on April
=, 1//=, or within three 405 years from the time of disco$ery. *hus, the filing of the complaint
was well within the prescripti$e period of 1= years.
SANTOS NACAYTUNA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1711** Nove$er 2*, 2006
FACTS:
.etitioner 8antos ?. 6acaytuna, who was then Municipal Mayor of 8an Miguel,
8urigao del 8ur appointed his wife, the pri$ate complainant Marydole E. 6acaytuna as
Municipal 'ealth Officer. 3n the course of her employment, Marydole drafted a letter of
resignation dated April O, 2 which petitioner purportedly recei$ed on e$en date. 3n May
21, Marydole left the conHugal home and li$ed separately from petitioner. 8ometime in
April 22, a certain Marly .rieto informed Marydole that petitioner has accepted her
resignation effecti$e at the end of April 22. Marydole questioned the acceptance of her
resignation before the )i$il 8er$ice )ommission 4)8)5 and the Office of the Ombudsman
claiming that she ne$er tendered the resignation letter to which the )8) declared the
acceptance of Marydole(s resignation illegal. 2ith the recommendation of the Ombudsman,
an information was filed against petitioner for $iolation of 8ec. 04e5 of R.A. 6o. 01/,
otherwise %nown as the Anti#Iraft and )orrupt .ractices Act.
*he 8andiganbayan found 6acaytuna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of $iolating
8ec. 0 4e5 of R.A. 01/ as charged, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
58
Criminal Law case
digest
2hether the prosecution sufficiently pro$ed petitioner(s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt $iolating 8ec. 0 4e5 of R.A. 01/.
HELD:
Yes. Eiolation of 8ection 04e5 of R.A. 6o. 01/ requires proof of the following facts9
1.5*he accused is a public officer discharging administrati$e or official functions or pri$ate
persons charged in conspiracy with them; 2.5 *he public officer committed the prohibited act
during the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position; 0.5 *he public
officer acted with manifest partiality, e$ident bad faith or gross, ine!cusable negligence; and
1.5'is action caused undue inHury to the Io$ernment or any pri$ate party, or ga$e any party
any unwarranted benefit, ad$antage or preference to such parties.
.etitioner, as Municipal Mayor, was a public officer. 'is acceptance of Marydole(s
resignation was done in the performance of his official duty. 3t was also pro$ed that
Marydole ne$er tendered the resignation letter hence petitioner was e$idently acting in bad
faith when he made it appear that it was submitted. 2orse, he accepted the same %nowing
that it was ne$er tendered in the first place. .etitioner(s actuations caused undue inHury to
Marydole because it resulted to her remo$al from office and the withholding of her salaries.
Resignation is the &act of gi$ing up or the act of an officer by which he declines his
office and renounces the further right to use it. 3t implies an e!pression of the incumbent in
some form, e!press or implied, of the intention to surrender, renounce, and relinquish the
office and its acceptance by competent and lawful authority.& *o constitute a complete and
operati$e resignation from public office, there must be9 4a5 an intention to relinquish a part of
the term; 4b5 an act of relinquishment; and 4c5 an acceptance by the proper authority.
3n the instant case, the intention to relinquish and the act of relinquishment are clearly
absent. 2hile Marydole admits ha$ing written and prepared the resignation letter dated April
O, 2, the e$idence shows that she did not actually tender the same and refrained from
pursuing her intention to resign.
As obser$ed by the 8andiganbayan, petitioner(s account of how he recei$ed the
resignation letter is rife with inconsistencies. -efore the )8), he claimed that Marydole(s
resignation letter &reached him not through the normal course of transmitting written
communications& because protocol is not strictly obser$ed between them as husband and
wife.
Otherwise he could ha$e Hust as%ed the complainant if she was resigning or not, but
he failed to do so. 8uch failure and his belated acceptance of the complainant(s untendered
resignation, which may ha$e been moti$ated by their apparent marital problems, are clear
indications of e$ident bad faith.
VENANCIO R. NAVA vs. RODOLFO G. PALATTAO
G.R. No. 160211 August 2+, 2006.
C-ie0 Justice 1a&ga&i$a&
59
Criminal Law case
digest
FACTS:
3n the Audit Report prepared by )OA Regional Office, the amount of .,0,2,=.
was shown to ha$e been released to the >:)8 >i$ision of >a$ao del 8ur for distribution to
the newly nationali+ed high schools located within the region. *hrough the initiati$e of
accused Eenancio 6a$a, a meeting was called among his se$en 4O5 schools di$ision
superintendents whom he persuaded to use the money or allotment for the purchase of
8cience ?aboratory *ools and >e$ices 48?*>5. 3n other words, instead of referring the
allotment to the one hundred fifty#fi$e 41==5 heads of the nationali+ed high schools for the
impro$ement of their facilities, accused 6a$a succeeded in persuading his se$en 4O5 schools
di$ision superintendents to use the allotment for the purchase of science education facilities
for the calendar year 1//.
3n the purchase of 8?*>(s, the pro$ision on the conduct of a public bidding was not
followed. 3nstead the purchase was done through negotiation. *he items were purchased from
two stores in Metro Manila. As disclosed by the audit report, the prices of the J8?*>sK as
purchased from the abo$e#named sellers e!ceeded the pre$ailing mar%et price ranging from
=,S to 1,1O=S based on the mathematical computation done by the )OA audit team. *he
report concluded that the go$ernment lost .0",10.,.
6a$a was charged with the of crime of $iolation of the Anti#Iraft and )orrupt
.ractices Act particularly 8ection 04g5 thereof, or entering on behalf of go$ernment in any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disad$antageous to the same whether or not the
pubic officer profited or will profit thereby. *he 8andiganbayan found the accused guilty as
charged.
ISSUE:
3s 6a$a guilty of the crime for which he was con$ictedA
HELD:
Yes. *o sustain a con$iction under 8ection 04g5 of Republic Act 6o. 01/, it must be
clearly pro$en that 15 the accused is a public officer; 25 the public officer entered into a
contract or transaction on behalf of the go$ernment; and 05 the contract or transaction was
grossly and manifestly disad$antageous to the go$ernment.
Drom the foregoing, it is clear that the 8andiganbayan did not err in ruling that the
e$idence presented warranted a $erdict of con$iction. .etitioner is a public officer, who
appro$ed the transactions on behalf of the go$ernment, which thereby suffered a substantial
loss. *he discrepancy between the prices of the 8?*>s purchased by the >:)8 and the
samples purchased by the )OA audit team clearly established such undue inHury. 3ndeed, the
discrepancy was grossly and manifestly disad$antageous to the go$ernment.
3t must be emphasi+ed howe$er, that the lac% of a public bidding and the $iolation of
an administrati$e order do not by themsel$es satisfy the third element of Republic Act 6o.
01/, 8ection 04g5; namely, that the contract or transaction entered into was manifestly and
grossly disad$antageous to the go$ernment?ac% of public bidding alone does not result in a
manifest and gross disad$antage. 3ndeed, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the
go$ernment was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its fa$or and may open the door to
graft and corruption. 6e$ertheless, the law requires that the disad$antage must be manifest
and gross. .enal laws are strictly construed against the go$ernment.
60
Criminal Law case
digest
R.A. :">6: COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1331
3llegal 1ossessio&
ANDY QUELNAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1"0#17 Se!te$er 27, 2006.
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
A team from the .olice Assistance and Reaction Against )rime 4.ARA)5 of the
>epartment of 3nterior and ?ocal Io$ernment 4>3?I5 went to the )ityland )ondominium in
Ma%ati to implement a search warrant. @pon arri$al, they went directly to the 8ecurity Office
of said building to see% assistance in ser$ing a warrant. 8ecurity Officer )eledonio .unsaran
4.unsaran5 accompanied the group and they proceeded to @nit ,1=.
At their %noc%ing, a male person na%ed from the waist up opened the door. 'e was
later identified as petitioner. 8.O2 8inag presented the search warrant to petitioner. @pon
entry, the police operati$es searched the unit, which was composed of a small room with a
plywood di$ider separating the sala from the bedroom. 3n the presence of petitioner and
.unsaran, the group started searching the place and e$entually found on top of the bedroom
table three 405 pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances
later confirmed by the 6ational -ureau of 3n$estigation 46-35 forensic chemist as shabu,
plastic tubings, weighing scales, an impro$ised burner, and empty transparent plastic sachets.
*hereafter, the group prepared a receipt of the properties sei+ed and an Affida$it of Orderly
8earch allegedly signed by petitioner in their presence and that of .unsaran. .etitioner was
arrested and subsequently charged in court.
After trial, the R*) found petitioner guilty of $iolating 8ection 1,, Article 333 of
Republic Act 4R.A.5 6o. ,12=, as amended.
ISSUE:
3s petitioner guilty of the crime for which he was con$ictedA
HELD:
Yes. 3n e$ery prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the following essential
elements must be established9 4a5 the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; 4b5
the person is not authori+ed by law or by duly constituted authorities; and 4c5 the accused has
%nowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.
More importantly, the prosecution must pro$e that the accused had the intent to
possess the drug. .ossession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructi$e possession. Actual possession e!ists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructi$e possession e!ists when
the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to e!ercise
dominion and control o$er the place where it is found. :!clusi$e possession or control is not
necessary. *he fact of possession may be pro$ed by direct or circumstantial e$idence and any
reasonable inference drawn therefrom. 'owe$er, the prosecution must pro$e that the accused
had %nowledge of the e!istence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and
dominion, as well as the character of the drug. 8ince %nowledge by the accused of the
61
Criminal Law case
digest
e!istence and character of the drug in the place where he e!ercises dominion and control is
an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the
house or place o$er which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in
the absence of any satisfactory e!planation.
Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on his person but in the
bedroom of the subHect premises, appellant is deemed in possession thereof since he was the
only person in said premises. Moreo$er, at the time of entry of the searching team in the
subHect premises, appellant was half#na%ed from the waist up which, as the trial court
correctly concluded, only &indicates e!treme familiarity and gi$es the impression of he being
at home& in the premises, of which he was the registered owner.
3llegal Sale
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GERARDO ORTEZA
G.R. No. 1730"1 Jul, 31, 2007
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
*he information charged appellant with illegal sale of shabu in $iolation of 8ection =,
Article 33 of Republic Act 6o. /1,=. 3n the course of the trial, the prosecution alleged that a
team comprised of police officers was formed to conduct a buy#bust operation to apprehend
suspected drug peddlers. *he suspects ha$e pre$iously been under a wee%#long sur$eillance
after the police officers recei$ed reports about their illegal acti$ities. *he appointed poseur#
buyer 8.O1 Ramos, together with the informant, approached the two 425 suspects ?eng ?eng
and -uboy while the bac%#up team positioned itself nearby. 8.O1 Ramos purchased one 415
sachet of shabu for One 'undred .esos 4.1.5 from -uboy. *hen, 8.O1 Ramos ga$e the
pre#arranged signal. 3mmediately, the rest of the team rushed to the scene and placed the two
425 suspects under arrest. After a body search, the mar%ed money was reco$ered from -uboy
and another sachet of shabu was confiscated from ?eng ?eng. *hereafter, the suspects were
brought to )amp Macabulos where -uboy identified himself as Ierardo Orte+a. ?ater upon
e!amination, :ngr. Marcene Agala of the Regional )rime ?aboratory, )amp Oli$as, 8an
Dernando, .ampanga, confirmed that the two 425 sachets reco$ered from the scene were
positi$e for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
ISSUE:
3s the non#presentation of the poseur#buyer fatal to this caseA
HELD:
Yes. 3n a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be
pro$en9 4a5 that the transaction or sale too% place; 4b5 the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as e$idence; and 4c5 that the buyer and seller were identified. 2hat is material is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually too% place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the prohibited or regulated drug. *he deli$ery of the contraband to the poseur#buyer
and the receipt of the mar%ed money consummate the buy#bust transaction between the
entrapping officers and the accused.
*he )ourt belie$es that the prosecution was not able to establish with certainty all the
elements necessary for the con$iction of appellant for illegal sale of shabu.
62
Criminal Law case
digest
Dirst, there appears nothing in the records showing that police officers complied with
the proper procedure in the custody of sei+ed drugs as specified in .eople $. ?im, i.e., any
apprehending team ha$ing initial control of said drugs andPor paraphernalia should,
immediately after sei+ure or confiscation, ha$e the same physically in$entoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representati$e, who
shall be required to sign the copies of the in$entory and be gi$en a copy thereof.
8econdly, the )ourt obser$es that the prosecution did not present the poseur#buyer
who had personal %nowledge of the transaction. 3n this case, though, after the poseur#buyer,
8.O1 Ramos, failed to appear in court despite ha$ing been subpoenaed si! 4,5 times, the
prosecution did not e$en bother to offer any e!planation for his non#appearance considering
that he, a police officer, was no different from the other witnesses who were presented in the
end by the prosecution. 3n Ramos(s place, the prosecution presented two other police officers,
who although members of the bac%#up team of the buy#bust operation were, in the )ourt(s
$iew, not reliable eyewitnesses to the transaction.
Moreo$er, the testimonies of the two police officers did not include any positi$e
face#to#face identification in open court of appellant as the seller of shabu, an aspect which
was crucial to establish appellant(s role in the alleged transaction. As such, the testimony of
the poseur#buyer, in this case Ramos, was pi$otal as only he could testify on what had really
transpired during the moment of the alleged sale of shabu. 'is non#presentation in this case
was fatal, absent any e!planation for his non#appearance and reliable eyewitness who could
testify in his place.
=u,'=ust :!eratio&
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS
G.R. No. 17023* Fe$ruar, +, 2007
FACTS:
3n an 3nformation dated O August 22, accused#appellant -ernardo Deli+ardo
6icolas, a.%.a. -ernie, was charged with Eiolation of 8ection =, Article 33 of Republic Act
6o. /1,=, for allegedly ha$ing sold one 415 heat#sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
.12 gram of white crystalline substance which was found positi$e to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride 4shabu5, a dangerous drug, to .O2 >anilo 8. >amasco.
>uring trial, the prosecution testified that the accused was caught in a buy#bust
operation conducted by the team of .O2 >anilo 8. >amasco, .O2 Montefalcon, .O2 Orig
and 8.O2 Vipagan through the information gi$en by a confidential informant, who went with
the said team during the operation. Accused, howe$er, refuted said claims, saying that9 15
there was no buy#bust operation and that the shabu 4methamphetamine hydrochloride5
allegedly sold by him to the poseur buyer was planted e$idence; and 25 the trumped#up
charge is a way of getting e$en with him because he, together with his wife, had filed a case
before the 6ational .olice )ommission 46A.O?)OM5 for gra$e misconduct against se$eral
policemen 4.O2 7oel *apec, .O1 )hristopher 8emana and fi$e 7ohn >oes5 assigned at the
8tation >rug :nforcement @nit of the .asig .olice 8tation, for entering and robbing their
house on = Debruary 22.
63
Criminal Law case
digest
3n support of his first argument, accused claimed that the non#conduct of a
sur$eillance and the absence of any agreement as regards the money to be used in buying the
shabu and as regards the signal to inform the bac%#up policemen that the transaction has been
consummated shows that there is so much doubt as to the e!istence of a buy#bust operation.
After trial, the lower court decided con$icting the accused. *he )ourt of Appeals then
affirmed the decision of the lower court. 'ence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Are the non#conduct of sur$eillance and the absence of any agreement as regards the
money to be used in buying the shabu and as regards the signal to inform the bac%#up
policemen that the transaction has been consummated essential to establish the e!istence of a
buy#bust operationA
HELD:
No. 8ettled is the rule that the absence of a prior sur$eillance or test#buy does not
affect the legality of the buy#bust operation. *here is no te!tboo% method of conducting buy#
bust operations. *he )ourt has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of
effecti$e means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior sur$eillance, much less a lengthy one, is
not necessary especially where the police operati$es are accompanied by their informant
during the entrapment. Dle!ibility is a trait of good police wor%. 3n the case at bar, the buy#
bust operation was conducted without need of any prior sur$eillance for the reason that the
informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs.
*he fact that the team leader and the other members of the team did not discuss or
tal% about the mar%ed money does not necessarily mean that there was no buy#bust operation.
As e!plained by 8.O2 Vipagan, since .O2 >amasco was the designated poseur buyer it was
the latter(s discretion as to how to prepare the mar%ed money. 3t is not required that all the
members of the buy#bust team %now how the mar%ed money is to be produced and mar%ed
inasmuch as they ha$e their respecti$e roles to perform in the operation. As this )ourt sees it,
the other members of the team left the matter of the mar%ed money to one person < the
poseur buyer < because it was he who was to deal directly with the drug pusher.
As to the absence of a pre#arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the
prosecution. *he employment of a pre#arranged signal, or the lac% of it, is not indispensable
in a buy#bust operation. 2hat determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is
proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. A buy#bust operation is a form of
entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a $alid means of arresting $iolators of
the >angerous >rugs ?aw. *he elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs
are 415 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the obHect, and consideration; and 425 the
deli$ery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. 2hat is material to the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually too% place,
coupled with the presentation in court of e$idence of corpus delicti. 3n the case under
consideration, all these elements ha$e been established.
B.P. 11: BOUNCING CHEC; LA#
ISMAEL F. MEJIA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1*##37 Ju&e 21, 2007
64
Criminal Law case
digest
Justice Sa&doval'Gutierre)
9
FACTS:
Rodolfo M. -ernardo, 7r. was a client of Atty. 3smael D. MeHia, petitioner. 8ometime
in 7anuary 1/"=, -ernardo requested petitioner to pay his real estate ta!es. -ernardo then
deli$ered to petitioner a blan% chec%. .etitioner wrote the amount of .2O,O. with his
name as payee. *hereafter, he encashed the chec%. On March 11, 1/"=, petitioner furnished
-ernardo a statement of account showing that only .1O,O. was actually spent for realty
ta!es. .etitioner e!plained that he spent the remaining .1,. for the hospitali+ation of
his wife. -oth parties treated this amount of .1,. as petitioner(s loan. *hereupon,
petitioner requested -ernardo to lend him an additional amount of .1,. as he needed
the money for his wife(s medication. -ernardo agreed and ga$e .1,. more to
petitioner. *o secure the payment of his .=,. loan, petitioner issued .hilippine
6ational -an% 4.6-5 )hec% 6o. 1=,/1/ dated May 1=, 1/"= in the amount of .=,. in
fa$or of -ernardo. .etitioner also handed to -ernardo a .romissory 6ote, also of the same
date, stating that he will pay the loan on or before May 1=, 1/"=.
2hen the chec% became due and demandable, petitioner requested -ernardo not to
encash it until 7uly 1=, 1/"=. -ut petitioner failed to pay on that day. 3nstead, he as%ed
-ernardo again to defer the encashment of the chec%. On October ", 1/"=, -ernardo
deposited the chec% but it was dishonored by the .6-, the drawee ban%, due to petitioner(s
closed account. -ernardo then sent petitioner a letter informing him that the chec% was
dishonored and demanding payment therefor. -ut petitioner refused to pay. 'e then deli$ered
a list of his attorney(s fees to -ernardo which the latter did not pay. *hus, the petitioner was
charged with the $iolation of -. 22 4-ouncing )hec%s ?aw5 to which the trial court and the
)ourt of Appeals held him guilty, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
2hether or not the petitioner is guilty of $iolating -... 22.
HELD:
Dor $iolation of -... 22, the prosecution must pro$e the following essential elements9
415 the ma%ing, drawing, and issuance of any chec% to apply for account or for $alue; 425 the
%nowledge of the ma%er, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there are no sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee ban% for the payment of such chec% in full upon its
presentment; and 405 the subsequent dishonor of the chec% by the drawee ban% for
insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any $alid cause, ordered the ban% to stop payment.
*he trial court found that petitioner issued the chec% as guarantee for his loan
obtained from -ernardo. At the time he issued the chec%, he %new that his account with the
.6- had been closed. 2hen -ernardo deposited the chec%, it was dishonored by the .6-,
the drawee ban%, for the reason &account closed.& .etitioner was duly notified of such
dishonor. 3n fact, he admitted ha$ing recei$ed -ernardo(s demand letter urging him to ma%e
good the chec% within fi$e 4=5 ban%ing days from notice. -ut petitioner failed to heed such
demand.
3t must be emphasi+ed that the gra$amen of the offense charge is the issuance of a
bad chec%. *he purpose for which the chec% was issued, the terms and conditions relating to
65
Criminal Law case
digest
its issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irrele$ant to the prosecution and
con$iction of petitioner. *o determine the reason for which chec%s are issued, or the terms
and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability
and commercial $alue of chec%s as currency substitutes, and bring ha$oc in trade and in
ban%ing communities. *he clear intention of the framers of -... 22 is to ma%e the mere act of
issuing a worthless chec% malum prohibitum.
R.A. ?>"3: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE,
EPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SIMPLICIO DELANTAR
G.R. No. 16#1*3 Fe$ruar, 2, 2007
Justice %i&ga
FACTS:
An information for $iolation of 8ection =, Article 333 of Republic Act 4R.A.5 6o.
O,1 was filed against appellant 8implicio >elantar y Redondo. *he testimony of AAA
shows that appellant procured her as a child prostitute for at least two clients9 the first, an
Arab national named Mr. 'ammond and the second, then )ongressman Romeo 7alosHos.
AAA testified that she was brought to the first client at least ele$en 4115 times between the
period 1//1 to 7une 1//,. Once left alone with AAA, the client would perform lasci$ious
acts on AAA, the recurrent salient points of her harrowing e!perience re$ol$ed around the
client(s %issing her, touching her breasts, embracing her, and inserting his finger in her pri$ate
parts. After their first $isit to the client, AAA told appellant that she did not want to go bac%
because the client was &bastos.& Appellant promised her that they would no longer go bac%
but the promise was bro%en as they went bac% a few more times.
As with the first client, appellant would tell AAA that they had to go to the second
client because they had obligations to pay. >uring each of these $isits, the client would gi$e
AAA money ranging from .2,. to .1,.. *he details of what transpired when
AAA was left alone with the second client were $i$idly recounted in .eople $. 7alosHos,
where the second client was con$icted of two 425 counts of rape and si! 4,5 counts of acts of
lasci$iousness, all committed against AAA on $arious dates.
*he R*) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of $iolation
of 8ection = 4a5, paragraphs 1, 1 and = of Article 333 of R.A. 6o. O,1. On appeal, the )A
found the appellant guilty of only one count of $iolation of 8ection = 4a5, paragraphs 1, 1 and
= of Article 333 of R.A. 6o. O,1.
ISSUE:
2as the accused guilty for $iolation of R.A. 6o. O,1A
66
Criminal Law case
digest
HELD:
Yes. *here is no doubt, drawing from the e$idence, that AAA was a child who was
e!ploited in prostitution as defined in 8ection =, Article 333 of R.A. 6o. O,1. *he law
punishes not only the person who commits the acts of se!ual intercourse or lasci$ious
conduct with the child but also those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child
prostitution. Appellant is one such person. Appellant, in his brief, does not deny that he
brought AAA to the clients. 'e, howe$er, attempts to e!culpate himself by stating that he did
not coerce or influence AAA to go to the two clients to be e!ploited in prostitution. Eerily, it
was against AAA(s will and consent to see the two clients. -ut e$en if AAA had in fact
consented, appellant may still be prosecuted for child prostitution under 8ection =, Article 333
of R.A. 6o. O,1 because the child(s consent or lac% of it is not an element of the offense.
CLEMENT JOHN FERDINAND M. NAVARRETE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 1*7#13 Ja&uar, 31, 2007
Justice Coro&a
FACTS:
*he facts show that ---, who was at that time fi$e years old, and petitioner were
neighbors. On October 0, 1//=, at around past /9 in the e$ening, --- went to petitioner(s
house to watch tele$ision, which was something she often did. Only petitioner and ---
were there that night. --- testified that it was on this occasion that petitioner se!ually
abused her.
*he ne!t day, on October 01, 1//=, >r. 6oel Minay, medico#legal officer of the
6ational -ureau of 3n$estigation, e!amined ---. 'e found that her maidenhead was short,
intact and had a narrow opening at .0 cm. in diameter. 'e concluded that these findings
precluded complete penetration by an a$erage#si+ed Dilipino male organ in full erection.
*estifying in his own behalf, petitioner denied the accusation against him and
claimed that the childMs mother, AAA merely concocted the charge against him. 'e alleged
that she had ill feelings against his mother who she thought had something to do with the
separation of her 4AAA(s5 son from the .hilippine .ostal )orporation. 'e also posited that
she resented the 6a$arretes( refusal to allow her to place a &Humper& on their electrical
connection.
*he R*) con$icted petitioner for acts of lasci$iousness under Article 00, of the
Re$ised .enal )ode 4R.)5 in relation to 8ection = 4b5, Article 333 of RA O,1 48pecial
.rotection of )hildren Against )hild Abuse, :!ploitation and >iscrimination Act5.
.etitioner insists that 8ection = 4b5 of RA O,1 refers only to those who commit the
act of se!ual intercourse or lasci$ious conduct with a child e!ploited in prostitution and
argues that this does not apply in this case since the $ictim is not a child e!ploited in
prostitution.
ISSUE:
67
Criminal Law case
digest
)an the accused be con$icted of acts of lasci$iousness in relation to 8ection = 4b5 of
RA O,1A
HELD:
Yes. .etitioner was found guilty of $iolating Article 00, of the R.) in relation to
8ection = 4b5, Article 333 of RA O,19 8ec. =. )hild .rostitution and Other 8e!ual Abuse. <
)hildren, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due
to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in se!ual intercourse or
lasci$ious conduct, are deemed to be children e!ploited in prostitution and other se!ual
abuseX*hose who commit the act of se!ual intercourse or lasci$ious conduct with a child
e!ploited in prostitution or subHected to other se!ual abuse9 .ro$ided, *hat when the $ictim is
under twel$e 4125 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 00=,
paragraph 0, for rape and Article 00, of Act 6o. 0"1=, as amendedK, for rape or lasci$ious
conduct as the case may be9 .ro$ided, *hat the penalty for lasci$ious conduct when the
$ictim is under twel$e 4125 years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
@nder this pro$ision, when the $ictim is under 12 years old, the accused shall be
prosecuted under either Article 00= 4for rape5 or Article 00, 4for acts of lasci$iousness5 of
the R.). Accordingly, although an accused is charged in the information with the crime of
statutory rape 4i.e., carnal %nowledge of a woman under twel$e years of age5, the offender
can be con$icted of the lesser crime of acts of lasci$iousness, which is included in rape.
3n .eople $. ?arin 4and reiterated in se$eral subsequent cases5, we emphasi+ed that
the law co$ers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit but also one in which
a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lasci$ious conduct. *he $ery title of
8ection =, Article 333 4)hild .rostitution and Other 8e!ual Abuse5 of RA O,1 shows that it
applies not only to a child subHected to prostitution but also to a child subHected to other
se!ual abuse. A child is deemed subHected to &other se!ual abuse& when he or she indulges in
lasci$ious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. 'ere, --- was se!ually
abused because she was coerced or intimidated by petitioner 4who po%ed her nec% with a
%nife5 to indulge in lasci$ious conduct.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
ANGEL CELINO, SR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 170"62 Ju&e 2#, 2007
Justice Car!io'(orales
FACTS:
*wo separate informations were filed before the R*) charging petitioner with
$iolation of the gunban and illegal possession of firearms. .etitioner filed a Motion to Quash
contending that he &cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms 4R.A. "2/15 . . . if
he was also charged of ha$ing committed another crime of JsicK $iolating the )omelec gun
ban under the same set of facts.C *he trial court denied the motion to quash on the ground
that &the other offense charged . . . is not one of those enumerated under R.A. "2/1 . . . .&
*he denial was affirmed on appeal. 'ence this petition, where petitioner contends that the
mere filing of an information for gun ban $iolation against him necessarily bars his
prosecution for illegal possession of firearms.
68
Criminal Law case
digest
ISSUE:
>id the court err in denying the Motion to QuashA
HELD:
No. *he law is clear9 the accused can be con$icted of simple illegal possession of
firearms, pro$ided that &no other crime was committed by the person arrested.& 3f the
intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it
should ha$e e!pressly said so. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no
showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. )onsequently, the
pro$iso does not yet apply.
3n sum, when the other offense in$ol$ed is one of those enumerated under R.A. "2/1,
any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal
possession of firearm would ha$e to be tried together with such other offense, either
considered as an aggra$ating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element
of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d(etat. )on$ersely, when the other
offense in$ol$ed is not one of those enumerated under R.A. "2/1, then the separate case for
illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
P.D. ?36: FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RODOLFO TIGOY vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 1**6*0. Ju&e 26, 2006
Justice A)cu&a
FACTS:
6estor Ong, who had been engaged in the truc%ing business in 3ligan )ity since 1/",,
was allegedly introduced by his friend Iamad Muntod to ?olong -ertoda+o who signified his
intent to rent the truc%s of Ong to transport construction materials from ?arapan, ?anao del
6orte to >ipolog )ity. A )ontract to *ransport was supposedly entered into between Ong
and -ertoda+o.
3n the e$ening of October 0, 1//0, Ong allegedly ordered 6estor 8umagang and
petitioner Rodolfo *igoy to bring the two truc%s to ?olong -ertoda+o in ?arapan, ?anao del
6orte. 'e instructed the two dri$ers to lea$e the truc%s in ?arapan for the loading of the
construction materials by ?olong -ertoda+o. *hus, after meeting with -ertoda+o, 8umagang
and petitioner *igoy allegedly went home to return to ?arapan at four o(cloc% in the morning
the ne!t day. 2hen they arri$ed, the truc%s had been laden with bags of cement and were
half#co$ered with can$as.
*hat same morning of October 1, 1//0, the O+amis )ity police recei$ed a report that
two truc%s, a blue and green loaded with cement, did not stop at the chec%point. *hus, some
police officers boarded their patrol $ehicle to intercept the two truc%s. @pon inspection, the
police officers disco$ered piles of sawn lumber beneath the cement bags in both truc%s. *he
police officers inquired if the dri$ers had a permit for the lumber but the latter could not
produce any.
After an in$estigation was held by the police and the >:6R office in the city, an
3nformation was filed against 6estor Ong, 8umagang, ?olong -ertoda+o and petitioner *igoy
for possession of forest products without legal permit in $iolation of 8ection ," of
69
Criminal Law case
digest
.residential >ecree O=, as amended by :!ecuti$e Order 6o. 2OO, 8eries of 1/"O, in relation
to Article 0/ and 01 of the Re$ised .enal )ode.
Ong and petitioner *igoy entered pleas of not guilty during the arraignment. After
trial, the Regional *rial )ourt found both Ong and *igoy guilty. On appeal, Ong was
acquitted while *igoyMs con$iction was upheld.
ISSUE:
3s *igoy guilty of possession of forest products without permitA
HELD:
Yes. *here are two ways of $iolating the said 8ection ,"9 15 by cutting, gathering
andPor collecting timber or other forest products without a license; and, 25 by possessing
timber or other forest products without the required legal documents.
.etitioner was charged with and con$icted of transporting lumber without a permit
which is punishable under 8ection ," of the )ode. *he appellant, 8umagang and the rest of
their companions were apprehended by the police officers in flagrante delicto as they were
transporting the subHect lumber from ?arapan to >ipolog )ity. *igoy contends that he did not
%now that the truc% was loaded with timber without the necessary permit. 'owe$er, the
circumstances shows otherwise. 2hy would the dri$ers refuse to stop when requiredA >id
they fear inspection of their cargoA 2hy would &8.O...& 4which in street parlance is grease
money5 be offered to facilitate the passage of the truc%sA *he only logical answer to all these
questions is that the dri$ers %new that they were carrying contraband lumber.
3n offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the doing of an act is prohibited by
a special law such as in the present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime
itself. 3t is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the
special law, and that it is done %nowingly and consciously. >irect proof of pre$ious
agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to pro$e conspiracy. )onspiracy may be
pro$en by circumstantial e$idence. 3t may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by
which the offense is perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts
point to a Hoint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. 3t is not e$en
required that the participants ha$e an agreement for an appreciable period to commence it.
P.D. 6<<: ANTI=CATTLE RUSTLING LA# OF ":?0
ERNESTO PIL=EY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1"*#*1. Jul, #, 2007
Justice Nac-ura
FACTS:
On April 1,, 1//1, pri$ate complainant Rita Fhayad of -ontoc, Mt. .ro$ince
disco$ered that her 0#year#old white and blac%#spotted cow was missing. 8he and her
children searched for it but to no a$ail. 8he was later informed by her grandson, Ronnie
Daluyan, that in the afternoon of April 1=, 1//1, while the latter was with his friends, he saw
a cow similar to that of his grandmother(s loaded in a blue Dord Diera dri$en along the
national highway by accused Manochon. 2ith Manochon in the Diera was his helper,
petitioner .il#ey. Manochon was a butcher and meat $endor. After ha$ing ascertained from
70
Criminal Law case
digest
people in the mar%et that the cow was already slaughtered, Rita reported the matter to the
police. >uring the confrontation between the parties, petitioner .il#ey admitted that they were
the ones who too% the cow.
*ra$ersing the prosecution e$idence, accused Manochon and .il#eyMs defense was
that there was a mista%e of fact when they too% the wrong cow they belie$ed belonged to
Anamot. Dor his part, Anamot denied ha$ing conspired with his co#accused in ta%ing the
subHect cow. 'e denied seeing and tal%ing to Manochon and .il#ey on April 1=, 1//1 and
instructing them to get the cow. 'e stated that after the meeting on April 12, 1//1, he saw his
co#accused again when they were already behind bars.
On May 2O, 1//1, an 3nformation was filed with the R*) charging petitioner :rnesto
.il#ey and his two co#accused, )onstancio Manochon and 2aclet Anamot, with of the Anti#
)attle Rustling ?aw. After trial, the trial court found the three guilty of the crime charged.
'ence, the present case.
ISSUE:
2hether or not, based on the e$idence on record, petitioner is guilty of $iolating the
pro$isions of ..>. 6o. =00 or the Anti#)attle Rustling ?aw of 1/O1.
HELD:
)attle#rustling is the ta%ing away by any means, method or scheme, without the
consent of the owner or raiser, of any cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass or other domesticated
member of the bo$ine family, whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or
without $iolence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things; and it includes
the %illing of large cattle, or ta%ing its meat or hide without the consent of the owner or raiser.
)on$iction for cattle#rustling necessitates the concurrence of the following elements9
415 large cattle is ta%en; 425 it belongs to another; 405 the ta%ing is done without the consent of
the owner or raiser; 415 the ta%ing is done by any means, method or scheme; 4=5 the ta%ing is
done with or without intent to gain; and 4,5 the ta%ing is accomplished with or without
$iolence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. )onsidering that the gra$amen
of the crime is the ta%ing or %illing of large cattle or ta%ing its meat or hide without the
consent of the owner or raiser, con$iction for the same need only be supported by the fact of
ta%ing without the cattle owner(s consent.
3n the instant case, the prosecution pro$ed beyond reasonable doubt that Rita
Fhayad(s white and blac%#spotted cow was ta%en from 8itio *aed where it was gra+ing; that
its ta%ing was without Rita(s consent; and that the said cattle was later seen in the possession
of the petitioner and his co#accused. *hus, the foregoing elements of the crime of cattle#
rustling are present.3ts ta%ers ha$e not offered a satisfactory e!planation for their possession
of the missing bo$ine. 3t is the rule that when stolen property is found in the possession of
one, not the owner, and without a satisfactory e!planation of his possession, he is presumed
to be the thief. *his is in consonance with the disputable presumption that a person found in
possession of a thing ta%en in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the ta%er and the doer of
the whole act.
71
i

Crim Law Case Digests 2008 Mat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law Case Digests 2008 Mat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law case

You might also like