People vs.

Kiichi Omine
61 Phil 609
July 24, 1935
Facts:
Defendants Autor, Ladio, and Cortesano were working on the hemp plantation of
Angel Pulido under the direction of their co-defendant Kiichi Omine, who was the
overseer or manager, with a compensation of 10% of the receipts.
Omine asked Pulido for permission to open a new road through the plantation, but
there was a misunderstanding because Pulido contends that he refused to grant this
request because there was already an unfinished road. On the other hand, Omine
contends that Pulido gave him the permission.
When Pulido, with his son Hilario, accompanied by Saito Paton and a moro named
Barabadan, were returning home from a cockpit they noticed that a considerable
number of hemp plants had been destroyed for the purpose of opening a new road.
Angered by the destruction of hemp plants, Pulido and his party went to the house
of the defendants where the crime happened.
According to the prosecution:
While offended part was talking with Omine, Autor attempted to intervene but was
prevented by Hilario and so he attacked him with a bolo but wounded him only on
the left thumb. Ladion and Coretesano then held Pulido by the arms and Autor
struck Pulido in the breast with his bolo.
According to the defendants:
First to arrive was Hilario, who after applying to Omine an offensive epithet, struck
him in the breast with brass knuckles. When Autor attempted to intervene, Pulido
and his son attacked him with their fists, HIlario striking him on the right cheek.
Ladion and Cortesano ran away before Pulido was wounded by Autor.
Issue:
WON Autor, Ladio, Cortesano, and Omine can be convicted as principals.
Held:
US v Indanan: In order that a person may be convicted of a crime by inducement, it
is necessary that the inducement it is necessary that the inducement be made
directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such
inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime.
SC of Spain: Although the phrases pronounced were imprudent and culpable, they
were not so to the extent that they may be considered the principal and moving
cause of the effect produced. Direct inducement cannot be inferred from such
phrases, as in inducement must be precede the act induced and must be so

influential in producing the criminal act that without it the act would not have been
performed.
It is necessary that such advice or such words have great dominance and great
influence over the person who acts, that it is necessary that they may be as direct,
as efficacious, and as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself.
Hence, the 3 co-defendants of Autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by
him on Angel Pulido. Judging from the nature of the wound, w/c was abt 11 inches
in length, it is probable that it was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward
stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was probably given during a commotion and
w/o being aimed at any particular part of the body. Moreover, as Autor struck the
offended only once, it is indicative that it was not his intention to take the offended
partys life.
Thus, Omine, Ladion, and Cortesano are acquitted and Autor is liable only of lesion
graves.

People vs. Watimar

GR Nos. 121651 52
August 16, 2000

Facts:
20 year old Myra Watimar testified that one evening, she slept together with her
brothers and sisters, namely Bernardo, Marilou, Leonardo, Ariel and Lea, without her
mother who went to the hospital as her aunt was about to give birth; that her father
slept with them in the same room. At early dawn, she felt that somebody was on top
of her and kissing her neck. The defendant proceeded to threaten the victim and
succeeded in having sexual intercourse against her will. Another incident happened
shortly thereafter; when the victim was again assaulted in their communal kitchen
while she was preparing her meals. Afterwards, she was threatened by her father
not to tell anyone about the incident. The accused denied the incident and alleged
the defense of alibi, and that he was not at home when the said crime happened.
Issue:
Whether or not the possibility of rape is negated by the presence of family member
sin the place where the crime happened
Held:
The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of
the accused inside the same room with the likelihood of being discovered. Indeed,
the Court pointed out only recently in People v. Arteche Antonio y Payagan that for
rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to

be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil
deed. Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone,
or while the rapists spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other family
members also slept, as in the instant case. The presence of people nearby does not
deter rapists from committing their odious act.

People s. Pincalin
102 SCRA 136
January 22, 1981

Facts:
To avenge those killings, the herein accused, Jose Pincalin, Rodolfo Beltran, Eduardo
Empleo and Alejandro Jandomon, all Visayans (except Beltran) and members of the
Oxo and Happy-Go-Lucky gangs, conspired at about ten oclock in the morning of
that same Good Friday to kill some of their fellow-prisoners in dormitory 8-A of the
New Bilibid Prison, Mun-tinlupa, Rizal, who were members of the Sputnik gang.
They agreed that Pincalin would kill Leonardo Francisco, that Beltran and Empleo
would kill Victorino Abril, and that Jandomon would kill Florentino Tilosa. The
accused armed themselves with improvised bladed weapons known among
prisoners as matalas.
About an hour later, the accused proceeded to implement the objective of the
conspiracy. While Abril was seated on his bed watching someone who was making a
basket, Beltran and Empleo approached him frontally and stabbed him. Abril fell on
the floor. While in that position, Empleo stabbed him six times while Beltran stabbed
him five times.
The second victim, Tilosa, was standing near the door of the dormitory when
Jandomon stabbed him on the right side of his body. As Tilosa resisted, Jandomon
stabbed him repeatedly until he collapsed on the floor.
The third victim, Francisco, was standing near a wall facing the prison hospital and,
as he heard Abril asking why he was assaulted when he had not done anything
wrong, Francisco was stabbed by Pincalin in the abdomen near the waist. Francisco
avoided further assaults from Pincalin by climbing a window.
Afterwards, Pincalin, Empleo, Beltran and Jandomon surrendered with their weapons
to a prison inspector named Maalac and a prison guard named Pantua. On that
same day they executed separate extrajudicial confessions in Tagalog which were
sworn to before the Assistant Director of Prisons. The autopsy disclosed that Tilosa,
37, a native of Mulanay, Quezon, suffered six gaping stab wounds in the chest and
abdomen, two of which penetrated his right lung and liver, and two stab wounds in
the left forearm, or eight stab wounds in all.

Issue:
WON the accused is liable for complex crime of murder and frustrated murder.
Held:
Yes - We find that the four accused are guilty of the complex crime of double murder
and frustrated murder aggravated by quasi-recidivism. This case is governed by the
rule that when for the attainment of a single purpose, which constitutes an offense
various acts are executed, such acts must be considered as only one offense, a
complex one. In other words, where a conspiracy animates several, persons with a
single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked
upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a complex offense. Various
acts committed under one criminal impulse may constitute a single complex
offense.

Batulanon vs. People

GR No. 139857
September 15, 2006

Facts:
This petition assails the October 30, 1998 decision of the ca in ca-gr no.1524,
affirming with modification the april 15, 1993 decision of the RTC of Genera Santos
City, convicting Leonila batulanon of Estafa through falsification of commercial
documents. The complainant Polomok Credit cooperative incorporated (PCCI)
employed batulanon as its cashier/manager from May 1980 up to December11,
1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the
member of the cooperative. During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain
irregularities concerning the release of loans were discovered. Thereafter, four
informations of estafa thru falsifications was filed.
Issue:
WON Estafa through falsification of commercial documents are complex crime.
Held:
No - There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document; If
the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa,
the proper crime to be charged is falsification; If the estafa can be committed
without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is
estafa.

People vs. Patriarcha

GR No. 135457
September 29, 2000
Facts:
On August 16, 1990, an Information for murder was filed against Jose Patriarca, Jr.,
alias "Ka Django," "Carlos Narra", "Ka Jessie," et al., for killing Alfredo Arevalo.
Accused-appellant Jose Patriarca, Jr. was also charged with Murder for the killing of
one Rudy de Borja and a certain Elmer Cadag under Informations docketed as
Criminal Cases Nos. 2665 and 2672, respectively.
On January 20, 1998, the lower court rendered its decision convicting the herein
accused-appellant.
Thus, Accused-Appellant filed his appeal. However, while his appeal was pending,
he applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 724 amending Proclamation No.
347, dated March 25, 1994, entitled "Granting Amnesty to Rebels, Insurgents, and
All Other Persons Who Have or May Have Committed Crimes Against Public Order,
Other Crimes Committed in Furtherance of Political Ends, and Violations of the
Article of War, and Creating a National Amnesty Commission." His application was
favorably granted by the National Amnesty Board.
After a careful verification and evaluation on the claims of the applicant, the Local
Amnesty Board concluded that his activities were done in the pursuit of his political
beliefs. It, thus, recommended on 20 May 1998 the grant of his application for
amnesty.
The Commission, in its deliberation on the application on 22 October 1999, resolved
to approve the recommendation of the Local Amnesty Board.
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its letter dated June 23, 2000 to the National
Amnesty Commission, requested information as to whether or not a motion for
reconsideration was filed by any party, and the action, if there was any, taken by
the NAC. In his reply dated June 28, 2000, NAC Chairman Tadiar wrote, among other
things, that there has been no motion for reconsideration filed by any party.
Accused-appellant Jose N. Patriarca, Jr. was granted amnesty under Proclamation No.
724 on May 17, 1996.
Issue:
Whether or not the grant of amnesty in favor of Jose Patriarca, Jr. - while the various
criminal cases filed against him were pending - shall completely extinguished his
criminal liability?
Held:
Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their treason or other
high political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grant to the subjects
of another, who have offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Amnesty looks

backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself; it so overlooks
and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, that the person released by
amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.
Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is
totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all
its effects.
In the case of People vs. Casido, the difference between pardon and amnesty is
given:
"Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must
be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice
thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence
of Congress, is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is
granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or
communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the
institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks
forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he
has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for that
reason it does 'not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the
right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the
pardon,' and it 'in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence' (Article 36, Revised Penal Code).
While amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense
itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the
person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had
committed no offense."
This Court takes judicial notice of the grant of amnesty upon accused-appellant Jose
N. Patriarca, Jr. Once granted, it is binding and effective. It serves to put an end to
the appeal.

Salgado vs. CA
189 SCRA 304
August 30, 1990

Facts:
Petitioner was charged with the crime of serious physical injuries before the RTC of
Quezon City. After trial, judgment was rendered on October 16, 1986 finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
On October 17, 1986, petitioner filed an application for probation with the trial
court. The application was granted in an Order dated April 15, 1987. The order

contained with condition to pay the victim in the amount of 2,000 every month
during the entire period of his probation.
For the months of May, June, July, August, September and October, 1987, petitioner
complied with the above condition by paying in checks the said sum of P2, 000.00
monthly, through the City Probation Officer, Perla Diaz Alonzo. Private respondent
Francisco Lukban, Jr. voluntarily accepted the checks and subsequently encashed
them.
On September 19, 1987, private respondent Francisco Lukban, Jr. filed a motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the civil liability adjudged
in his favor in the criminal case. Few months later, the motion was granted by the
court.
Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but it was denied
on December 22, 1987. After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, the
petitioner filed directly with this Court a petition for review of the trial courts order
granting the motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
On March 16, 1989, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the
order of the trial court granting the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. A
motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but respondent Court of Appeals
denied the motion in a resolution dated August 3, 1989.
Issue:
WON the court of appeals erred in holding that the condition in the probation order
modifying or altering the civil liability of the offender is unauthorized and not
sanctioned by law.
Held:
Yes - wherein we ruled that, although the execution of sentence is suspended by
the grant of probation, it does not follow that the civil liability of the offender, if any,
is extinguished.

Heirs of Raymundo Castro vs. Bustos

27 SCRA 327
February 28, 1969
Facts:
Bustos was convicted of homicide for killing Castro, 2 mitigating circumstance
passion or obfuscation & voluntary surrender.
Issue:

WON the claim therefor is made in the criminal proceedings itself or in a separate
civil action.
Held:
The items of damages in cases of death caused by a crime are recoverable either
claim is made in the criminal proceedings itself or in a separate civil action. In the
instant case, recovery of such damages is being sought in the criminal proceedings,
but even if it were claimed otherwise, the indemnity and damages would be the
same, for generally, the items of damages are identical in both procedures, except
with respect to attorneys fees and expenses of litigation which can be awarded only
when a separate civil action is instituted.
When the commission of a crime results in death, the civil obligations arising
therefrom are governed by the penal laws, x x x subject to the provisions of Art.
2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter XVIII of this Book (Book IV)
regulating damages. (Art. 1161, Civil Code)
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (Art. 100, Revised
Penal Code) This civil liability, in case the felony involves death, includes
indemnification for consequential damages (Art. 104, id.) and said consequential
damages in turn include x x x those suffered by his family or by a third person by
reason of the crime. (Art. 107, id.)