CASE 21

Mupas et al vs. People GR No. 172834

June 6, 2003
FACTS:
On or about February 18, 1993, an altercation occurred
involving complainant Rogelio and petitioners Jun and Gil /
Banjo. According to Rogelio, petitioners attempted to kill him
by stabbing him and when having failed, they punched and
threw stones at him instead, and that the incident was
witnessed by several people. As a result, Rogelio suffered
slight physical injuries, which were treated in a hospital. On
the other hand, petitioners alleged that Jun only had a
punching brawl with Rogelio and that Gil stopped the fight
without any physical involvement. The defenses testimonies
were corroborated by several witnesses. The RTC ruled
against petitioners, convicting them guilty of frustrated
homicide, which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, the present
case.
ISSUE:
Were the lower courts erroneous in their ruling that the
petitioners were indeed guilty of frustrated homicide?
HELD:
Yes, they erred in their decisions. The SC ruled that for a
crime of frustrated homicide, the most essential element,
which is the intent to kill, has to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution. The witness testimonies were more
consistent with the petitioners defense and the physical
injuries sustained by the Rogelio were merely slight. Thus,
the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence to
suggest that petitioners had the intent to kill. In sum, absent
competent proof, the SC acquitted petitioners of frustrated
homicide and made Jun liable for the crime of less serious
physical injuries under Art 265.
CASE 22
Monge vs. People GR No. 1703008
March 7, 2008
FACTS:
On July 20, 1994 in Iriga City, Galo Monge (petitioner) and
Edgar Potencio (Potencio) were apprehended by barangay
tanods for the possession and transportation of 3 pieces of
mahogany lumber without the requisite permit and/or
authority from the DENR. Petitioner fled whereas Potencio
was taken into custody. Later on, petitioner was arrested and
a case was filed with the RTC charging him to be in violation of
Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended by EO No. 277.
Potencio on the other hand was discharged by the court as a
state witness. Trial ensued. Petitioner did not contest
allegations but gave his version of the story which was not
given credit and was thus adjudged as guilty by the RTC.
Aggrieved, petitioner brought the case to the CA challenging
the RTCs decision of discharging Potencio as a state witness.
This, as well as his Motion for Reconsideration, were dismissed
and denied respectively. Thus, this petition for review on
certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners conviction should be reversed
with respect to his contentions.
HELD:
Not. The petitioner, along with Potencio, were caught in
flagrante delicto (red-handed) in their violations and these
facts were never denied by the petitioner. PD No. 705 is a
special penal statute that punishes acts essentially malum
prohibitum (prohibited, thus wrong). Regardless of whom the
owner of the lumber was or even with the absence of malice
or criminal intent, their violations were blatant. With regards
to Potencios discharge, the RTC was deemed competent to
have declared him as state witness. Thus, the petition was
denied.
CASE 23
Fajardo vs. People
GR No. 190889
January 10, 2011
FACTS:
In the evening of August 27, 2002, members of the PISOG
surrounded the house of petitioner Elenita Fajardo in Kalibo,
Aklan due to the reported presence of men who were
indiscriminately firing guns from her house. Upon the arrival
of the PISOG, several men ran away leaving petitioner and
Zaldy Valerio retreating into the house. It was then seen by
the officers that Valerio emerged twice on top of the house
and threw something, which turned out to be two receivers
of .45 caliber pistols. A search warrant was then effected in
the morning which led to the discovery of several ammos and
gun paraphernalia in the petitioners house, leading to their
arraignment. An information was filed with the RTC charging
the accused party to be in violation of P.D. No. 1866 as
amended by R.A. No. 8294 or illegal possession of firearms
and explosives. The RTC held them guilty. The petitioner
brought the case to the CA, and found the accused to be
guilty only for the illegal possession of a part of a firearm,
since the search warrant was found void negating the other

evidence. The petitioner contended that she could not be

held guilty for the offense, hence the present recourse.
ISSUE:
Will the petitioner be held liable for the offense, a Malum
Prohibitum, discussed above?
HELD:
No. Although the petitioner's possession of the receivers was
merely incidental, it was Valerio who was in actual physical
possession. Further, even if petitioner was found to be in
actual or constructive possession of the said receivers, animus
possidendi must be shown, which was not proven in the case.
Without the concrete proof of the petitioners intent to
possess the said receivers, her conviction must fail. Thus, the
SC has acquitted petitioner on grounds of reasonable doubt.
CASE 24
Lejano vs. People
GR No. 176389
December 14, 2010 / January
18, 2011
FACTS:
On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters were
brutally slain at their home in Paraaque City, which has
commonly referred to as the Vizconde massacre. In 1995, the
NBI presented Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers as starwitness, pointing to accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Lejano,
and 6 others as the culprits. Relying primarily on Alfaro's
testimony, the public prosecutors filed an information for rape
with homicide against Webb, et al. Webbs alibi appeared the
strongest since he claimed that he was in the USA. He
presented the testimonies of witnesses as well as
documentary and object evidence to prove this. On January 4,
2000, the RTC rendered judgment against the accused party.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs decision with
modifications.
On April 20, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution granting the
request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen
specimen taken from Carmelas cadaver, which specimen was
then believed still under the safekeeping of the NBI.
Unfortunately, said specimen was lost. This outcome
prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on
the ground that the governments failure to preserve such
vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due
process.
ISSUE:
1) Did Webb present sufficient evidence to prove his
alibi and rebut Alfaros testimony and thus acquit him
and his fellow accused?
2) Can the aggrieved party make an appeal towards the
acquittal of the accused?
HELD:
1)

Yes, sufficient enough to have them acquitted on the

grounds of reasonable doubt. Webbs documented
alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not
only with respect to him, but also with respect to
Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez,
and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition
that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took place,
Alfaros testimony will not hold together. Webbs
participation is the anchor of Alfaros story. Without
it, the evidence against the others must necessarily
fall. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

2)

On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G.

Vizconde, an immediate relative of the victims, asked
the Court to reconsider its decision. But, as a rule, a
judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered
because it places the accused under double jeopardy.
The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III,
that: Section 21. No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Thus,
the appeal was denied for lack of merit.

CASE 25
Fernan, Jr. vs. People
GR No.
145927 August 24, 2007
FACTS:
Due to severe irregularities in release of funds for the MPH via
fake LAAs and other dubious documents sometime from
February 1977 to June 1978 in Region VII particularly Cebu
area, President Marcos created a Special Cabinet Committee
cracking down on the Ghost Projects Anomalies. These
occurrences were eventually busted by the NBI, with the
cases filed with the SB, finding several MPH officials guilty of

conspiracy. Among them were petitioners MPH Central Office

Supervising Accountant Leonardo Tordecilla and Cebu I HED
Civil Engineer Simon Fernan, Jr. who were tried guilty of estafa
thru falsification of public and commercial documents.
Petitioners submitted their supplication to the SB which was
declined, hence this petition:
ISSUE:
Did the SB err in convicting petitioners of being coconspirators of the above-case?
HELD:
No, the SB erred not at all. First of all, the SB was able to
solidly establish the essential elements of the crime of estafa.
Petitioners sealed their fate in this by their own testimonies.
Arising from this, the SB correctly implied conspiracy since
they have proved that two or more persons aimed their acts
towards the accomplishment of the estafa cooperatively.
Direct evidence was not necessary, as was demonstrated in
People vs. Pagalasan, a settled jurisprudence similar to the
instant case.

CASE 26
Eugenio vs. People
GR No. 168163
March 26, 2008
FACTS:
Sometime in November 1995 in Malabon, Metro Manila, Lolita
Y. Eugenio (petitioner) along with Saquitan and Ablaza
persuaded Mangali to loan them P 100,000.00 in exchange for
a parcel of land owned by Saquitan. Subsequently, petitioner
in behalf of one Lourdes Ty sought another P100,000.00 loan
from Mangali assured by a parcel of land owned by Ty.
Convinced, Mangali released an initial of P 75,000.00. When
the loans lapsed, Mangali inquired from the Register of Deeds
of Manila and Quezon City and discovered that TCT No.
171602 deed of sale (1st lot) had been canceled on October
15, 1995 while TCT No. 92585 (2nd lot) was not registered with
the said offices. This prompted Mangali to contact the NBI
and an entrapment operation was initiated arresting
petitioner, Albanza, and two other unidentified persons. Upon
investigation, the real Epifania Saquitan was found who issued
an affidavit denying any connection with the accused party.
The case was filed with the RTC charging petitioners party
with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, wherein
petitioner and Albanza pleaded not guilty. Albanza settled
bail and went into hiding. On the part of the defense,
petitioner contended that she was merely a victim of
circumstance. The RTC, contending that fraud was involved
through conspiracy and misrepresentation, ruled against
petitioner and the case was brought to the CA. The CA
affirmed the RTCs decision and denied the petitioners motion
for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a conspiracy was involved in the case at bar
HELD:
Not. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove
conspiracy to render petitioner liable as principal to Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Documents. The lower courts
reliance upon mere allegations and testimonies absent the
material evidence to implicate petitioner as principal,
accomplice, or accessory beyond reasonable doubt where the
act of conspiracy was being inferred from led to petitioners
acquittal.
CASE 27
People vs. Glino GR No. 173793
December 4, 2007
FACTS:
In the evening of November 15, 1998 in Las Pinas City,
complainant Virginia Boji and her husband Domingo Boji rode
a PUJ wherein the accused Glino and Baloes were also
passengers. The accused were intoxicated, with Glino leaning
on Virginia violating her personal space. Virginia and
Domingo reminded Glino to sit properly but Glino and Baloes
took offense and made their retorts. Later, the accused were
seen whispering together. When the accused announced their
plan to alight from the PUJ, they suddenly and repeatedly
stabbed Domingo, with Virginia sustaining a wounded hand
from the scuffle. The accused were then apprehended by
authorities. While in custody, Baloes died of cardiopulmonary
arrest, leaving Glino to contend with the case. Glino denied
the allegations against him, stating that he was merely one of
the passengers in the PUJ and not a participant of the crime.
It was alleged that Baloes stabbed Domingo first and that
Virginia was unable to identify her assailant. Still, the RTC and
CA held Glino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
attempted murder. Hence, this present appeal.
ISSUE:
Should Glino still be convicted guilty of murdering Domingo
even if it was Baloes who initiated the action?
HELD:
Yes, as the SC held in way of conspiracy. It matters not who
among the accused actually killed the victim. In conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. Each of the accused will be
deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. Also, proof
that accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to
fulfill the common design to kill the victim will suffice to
support a conviction, as further demonstrated in the case of
People vs. Deuna. Thus, Glino was rightly convicted.

CASE 28
Ramos-Andan vs. People GR No.
136388 March 14, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioner Ramos-Andan and Potenciana approached
complainant Elizabeth Calderon to buy the latters diamond
ring. Elizabeth agreed to the three post-dated checks issued
by Potenciana and a receipt of transaction was signed by
them with petitioner being the witness. Upon encashment,
the checks bounced for the reason Account Closed. An
information was filed with the RTC which led to the
arraignment of petitioner; however, Potenciana remained at
large. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and denied buying the
ring, maintaining that she signed the checks and the receipts
merely as a witness. The RTC held that petitioner induced

Elizabeth to agree with the transaction thus cannot escape

liability. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision with some
modification, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not conspiracy was involved in the case at bar
HELD:
Yes, conspiracy was involved and thus the SC held petitioner
guilty of Estafa. While Potenciana was the drawer of the
checks, it was petitioner who directly and personally
negotiated the same. It was she who signed the receipt
evidencing the sale and endorsed them as payment to
Elizabeth. It is thus clear that petitioner and Potenciana acted
in concert for the purpose of inducing and defrauding
Elizabeth to part with her jewelry.
CASE 29
Serrano vs. People
GR No. 179038
March 6, 2010
FACTS:
On January 18, 2003 in Pasig City, a buy-bust operation by
police officers and PDEA agents led to the arrest of appellants
Joseph Serrano and Anthony Serrano due to illegal sale and
possession of shabu. The appellants were reported to have
acted together in carrying out the transaction. In their
defense, appellants denied the charges against them. The
RTC and the CA ruled against them, hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Did the lower courts err in finding the existence of conspiracy
in the case at bar?
HELD:
No. While it was with Joseph that the police transacted
regarding the acquisition of shabu and to whom they paid the
buy bust money, it was from Anthony that Joseph actually got
the drugs subject of the transaction. From the above
scenario, no other conclusion can be drawn but that both
accused were engaged in the illegal trade.
CASE 30
Palaganas vs. People
GR No. 165483
September 12, 2006
FACTS:
In the late evening of January 16, 1998 at Manaoag,
Pangasinan, the Ferrer brothers Servillano, Melton, and
Michael were having a drinking spree at the Tidbits Videoke
Bar when Ferdinand Palaganas, Jaime Palaganas, and Virgilio
Bautista arrived and occupied another table. While Jaime was
singing My Way he took insult when Melton sang along with
him. A brawl ensued; however, Ferdinand escaped and went
to fetch his brother Rujjeric Palaganas (petitioner) who was
asleep at his house nearby. When the Ferrer brothers went
out of the bar, petitioner opened fire at them, hitting Melton in
the head leading to his instant death, mortally wounding
Servillano in the abdomen, and wounding Michael in the right
shoulder. An information was filed at the RTC against the
petitioner wherein he was held guilty for homicide and two
counts of frustrated homicide. Likewise, the CA upon notice of
the case affirmed the RTCs decision with some modification.
The petitioner was aggrieved, alleging that he acted on selfdefense, hence this instant case.
ISSUE:
Were the lower courts correct in ruling that petitioner was
guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide against Michael
Ferrer who was shot in the right shoulder?
HELD:
No, as this was changed by the SC into attempted homicide.
The petitioner merely commenced the commission of a felony
directly by overt act and did not perform all the acts of
execution, which fits the definition of an attempted felony.
Further, Michaels wound was not fatal or mortal, as was
stipulated by his medical certificate. If Michael were to have
been shot in the head and survives due to timely medical
intervention, then the petitioner would have been deemed
guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide.
CASE 31
People vs. Opang
GR No. 177822
June 17, 2008
FACTS:
Complainant AAA, a 15-year-old female, was employed as a
housemaid in Supt. Macadindangs quarters in Davao City. In
the eve of May 2, 1999, appellant Hilario Opang, employed as
a grass cutter in that vicinity, allegedly forced AAA into her
room and raped her twice that evening. Allegedly, this was
again repeated in the eve of May 9, 1999. On June 4, 1999,
AAA admitted to Mrs. Macadindang about the incident. AAA
and appellant were then brought to the precinct for
investigation. Medico-legal report stated that AAA had an
intact and distensible hymen. Appellant denied these
allegations. After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant of two
counts of simple rape, which was also affirmed by the CA.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:

Did the trial court err in ruling the appellant guilty of

consummated rape instead of attempted rape?
HELD:
No. Carnal knowledge occurred, basing it on AAAs testimony,
which was established to be trial courts. There is carnal
knowledge from the time the penis enters through the labia.
In rape, the consummated stage is reached once carnal
knowledge occurs. Hymen may remain unbroken even after
several sexual intercourse especially when it is elastic and
distensible, as was proven by the medico-legal report. It does
not qualify under attempted rape since carnal knowledge
occurred, nor would it fall under frustrated rape because there
was no failure in penetration. In general, rape has no
frustrated stage.

CASE 32
Ladonga vs. People
GR No. 141066
February 17, 2005
FACTS:
Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses Adronico and
Evangeline obtained a P9,075.55 loan from Alfredo Otculam,
guaranteed by a post-dated UCPB Check issued by Adronico;
sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first
week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an
additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by another postdated UCPB check issued by Adronico; between May and June
1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the
amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by a post-dated UCPB
Check issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon
presentment for the reason CLOSED ACCOUNT; when the
Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite
repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against
them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico
bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the
account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the
checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an
agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when
they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the
checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The
RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22.
Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner.
Issue: Should the provision of the RPC Article 10 be invoked
to apply the principle of conspiracy in the above-case?
Held: Yes, since B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law and does not
proscribe the suppletory application of Article 10 of the RPC.
In general, Article 10 of the RPC is provided to supplement
special laws, unless it expresses otherwise. However, the
conviction of the petitioner as a co-conspirator must fail
because the prosecution failed to prove this beyond
reasonable doubt. In the present case, the only semblance of
overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was
present when the first check was issued. However, this
inference cant be stretched to mean concurrence w the
criminal design.
CASE 33
Go-Tan vs. Tan et al GR No. 168852
September 30, 2008
FACTS:
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven)
were married, having two female children from their union.
Barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition
with Prayer for the Issuance of a TPO against Steven and her
parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan
(respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in
conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal,
psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of
Republic Act R.A. No. 9262, aka Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004. This was granted by the RTC;
however, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss contending
that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as
parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A.
No. 9262. On March 7, 2005, the RTC dismissed the case as
to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of
the petitioner, they were not included/covered as respondents
under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law
expressio unius est exclusio alterius. After several motions
between the 2 parties, the RTC reasoned that to include
respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would be a
strained interpretation of the provisions of the law. Hence, the
present petition on a pure question of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents may be included in the petition
for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with
republic act no. 9262
HELD:
Yes. The court rules in favor of the petitioner. Indeed, Section
47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory
application of the RPC, stating that: SEC. 47. Suppletory
Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code
and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application.
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides The RPC shall
be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles
developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special
laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in wc the special law is silent on
a particular matter.
CASE 34
People vs. Tabuelog
GR No. 178059
January 22, 2008
FACTS:
On October 12, 2002, the accused Christopher Tabuelog and
the victim Clinton Badinas along with other students from
Abra Valley College went on a field trip to Fort Ilocandia,
Laoag City. According to the facts found by the trial court,

Clinton Badinas had an encounter with Roger Domingo, one of

the companions of the accused. Suddenly, the accused
appeared behind Clinton and stabbed him with a knife on the
left side just under his armpit. The accused on the other hand
alleged that he acted in self-defense as Clinton was about to
attack him. Finding the defense testimony weak, the RTC
gave credence to the prosecution and the accused was
convicted guilty of the crime of murder. This was affirmed in
toto by the CA, hence, the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the plea of self-defense worked in favor of the
accused.
HELD:
No. Self-defense, like an alibi, can be easily concocted. In
invoking self-defense, the onus probandi is shifted to the
accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence all the
justifying circumstance. Further, the accused must rely on the
strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecutions evidence. The court found the defenses
testimonies inconsistent and unreliable; however, they
modified the trial courts findings convicting him instead guilty
of homicide.
CASE 35
Baxinela vs. People GR No. 149652
March 24, 2006
FACTS:
According to petitioners defense, they went to Superstar
Disco Pub in response to Manubas claim that a man armed
with a gun was creating trouble. Upon their arrival, they saw
Ruperto F. Lajo with a gun tucked behind his waist. Petitioner
approached him and inquired about the gun; however, Lajo
suddenly drew his gun and aimed it at petitioner but the latter
was able to beat him with the draw shooting Lajo on the left
arm, acting in self-defense. The prosecution on the other
hand refuted the statements and alleged that petitioner while
approaching Lajo already had his gun aimed at the latter.
When Lajo was about to draw his wallet to identify himself for
the petitioner, he was then shot on the left side, leading to his
mortal wounds. Upon discovery of his identity, petitioner and
his companion Insp. Joel Regimen fled. The RTC found the
prosecutions allegations more convincing and held petitioner
guilty of homicide, with mitigating circumstances. Upon
appeal, the CA ruled the same, only disallowing the mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the justifying circumstances of self-defense
under Article 11 paragraph 1 of the RPC should be in favor of
the petitioner.
HELD:
No. Under paragraph 1 (self-defense), petitioners defense
failed to establish unlawful aggression which is a sine qua non
element to that justifying circumstance. As the evidence
shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated
shooting Lajo at that moment. In fact, it was petitioner who
was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajos shoulder and
started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears
that he was just turning around to face the petitioner. None of
these acts could be deemed as unlawful aggression on the
part of Lajo.