ARTICLE 15

1. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People and Sato G.R.
No. 181409, February 11, 2010
FACTS:
William Sato, the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was already 79 years old and
blind). induced the latter to sign and thumbmark an SPA in favor of his daughter. Wendy. The
old woman believed that the SPA involved only her taxes, while in fact, it authorized Wendy,
to sell Manolitas properties.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the death of Williams wife and Manolitas daughter, Zenaida,
extinguished the relationship by affinity between William and Manolita.
2. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his
relationship to Manolita.
HELD:
1. No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased
spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the
marriage produced children or not.
2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the
felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State
condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said
crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly
liable.
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein.
The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it applies
exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply
where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such
as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the offender
criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief and
considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against
certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability. The
waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to property is achieved through (and
therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and
presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no
longer simply the property right of a family relation but a paramount public interest.

2. People v. Atop
FACTS: Sec. 11 of RA 7659, which amended Art. 335 of the RPC, provides that the death
penalty for rape may be imposed if the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3 rd civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim
ISSUE: Whether the common-law husband of the girls grandmother included
RULING: No! Courts must not bring cases within the provisions of the law which are not
clearly embraced by it.
No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly within the terms of a statute can be
brought within them.
Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused
3. People v. Camano
115 SCRA 688
FACTS: On February 17, 1970, in the barrio of Nato, Municipality of Sagnay, Province of
Camarines Sur, between four and five in the afternoon, after the accused had been drinking
liquor, he stabbed twice the victim Godofredo Pascua with a bolo, called in the vernacular of
Bicol palas which is a sharp bladed and pointed instrument about 2 feet long including the
black handle, tapering to the end, about and one-half inches in width, while the latter was
walking alone along the barrio street almost in front of the store of one Socorro Buates.
Godofredo Pascua sustained two mortal wounds for which he died instantaneously. After
hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua, the accused proceeded to the seashore
and on finding Mariano Buenaflore leaning at the gate of the fence of his house, in a
kneeling position, with both arms on top of the fence, and his head stooping down hacked
the latter with the same bolo.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not there is not evident premeditation;
2) Whether or not treachery is not present;
3) Whether or not superior strength is absorbed in treachery;
4) Whether or not alternative circumstance of intoxication was erroneously appreciated as
an aggravating circumstance;
5) Whether or not death is cruel and unusual penalty.
RULING:
1) As there is no direct evidence of the planning or preparation in the killing of Pascua and
Buenaflor and of the marked persistence to accomplish that plan, the trial courts conclusion
cannot be sustained;
2) The contention is without merit;
3) The contention is correct. The rule is already settled the abuse of superiority is absorbed
in treachery;
4) There is merit in the contention. The alternative circumstance of intoxication should be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
5) Death penalty is not cruel, unjust or excessive.
The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding the accused Filomeno Camano guilty of
Murder in each of the two cases. The offense being attended by the mitigating circumstance
of intoxication, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, the imposable penalty is

the minimum of that provided by law or 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years
of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant should be, as
he is hereby, sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day
of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, in each case.

4. People vs. Lapaz GR. No. 68898 March 31, 1989

5. People v. Florencio Doria [ Jun ] and Violeta Gaddao [ Neneth ]
22 Jan 1999 / Puno / Appeal from a Pasig RTC decision
Search and seizure > Nature, scope and definition > Types > Warrantless search and
seizure > Plain view doctrine
FACTS
Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one Jun [Doria] was
engaged in illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust
operation. He was arrested. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him, and
upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house of his associate Neneth [Gaddao], so
he led the police team to her house.
The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. Jun identified her
as Neneth, and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit
looked over her house [he was still outside the house]. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit
noticed a carton box under the dining table. One of the box s flaps was open, and inside it
was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared similar to the marijuana earlier sold to
him by Jun. His suspicion aroused, so he entered the house and took hold of the box. He
peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth and they arrested her. The bricks
were examined and they were found to be dried marijuana leaves.
Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA
6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972], Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution
and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and Conspiracy].
RTC convicted them.
ISSUE AND HOLDING
WON RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its warrantless
seizure valid. NO
RATIO
Re: warrantless arrest
Gaddao s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the basis of the
alleged identification made by Doria. Doria did not point to her as his associate in the drug
business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not
necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs. If there is no showing
that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had knowledge of facts implicating the
person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal offense, the arrest is legally
objectionable.
Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of her person and
home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal
as an incident to her arrest.
Plain view issue
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that
view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence.

Requisites
a.
The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area
b.
The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent
c.
It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises
when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed
package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a
warrant. If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It
must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box
were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. On crossexamination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana
because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana." Each of the ten
bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside
plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on crossexamination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. He did not
know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its
contents. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was
marijuana; hence, it was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search
warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree
and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court.
The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao s house
Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of
proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation
of the drug as evidence in court.
Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1,600.00 he received,
Doria sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer
Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in
the sale of said drug
DORIA SENTENCED TO SUFFER RECLUSION PERPETUA + 500K FINE
GADDAO ACQUITTED

6. People vs. Casio

G.R. No. 211465
December 3, 2014
Chicks mo dong?
These words led to the arrest of a sex trafficker and the rescue of two minors in Cebu City in
2008, and her subsequent conviction by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court.
The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC) in a 21-page ponencia by Associate
Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen in People v. Casio.

The SC's Second Division, through Leonen, upheld the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling which in
turn had affirmed the conviction of accused Shirley A. Casio for violation of Republic Act No.
9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
The accused was caught recruiting two girls, including a 17-year-old minor "for the purpose
of prostitution and sexual exploration, by acting as their procurer for different customers."
The SC said that [b]ased on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of
acts of trafficking in persons, accused performed all the elements in the commission of the
offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys.in exchange
for money.
It was not convinced by the defense that the victims had given their consent and ruled that
(t)he victims consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive
means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive,
abusive, or deceptive means, a minors consent is not given out of his or her own free will.
Two police officers testified that during an entrapment operation where they acted as decoys
in Cebu City's red-light district, accused Casio called their attention by saying Chicks mo
dong? (Do you like girls, guys?)
The accused told the officers to wait and then, returned after a few minutes with two girls
whose services would cost P500 each.
The rescued minor described [that] her job as a prostitute required her to display herself,
along with other girls, between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. She received P400 for every customer who
selected her."
The entrapment operation was instigated by the International Justice Mission, a human
rights organization that rescues victims of violence, sexual exploitation, slavery, and
oppression, which coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in
human trafficking in Cebu City.
In his ponencia, Leonen said that Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the
kind of poverty and its accompanying desperation that compels our women to endure
indignities... We should continue to strive for the best of our world, where our choices of
human intimacies are real choices, and not the last resort taken just to survive.
He also noted that it should be the people and the government that should unite and
contribute to a commitment to finally stamp out slavery and human trafficking.
The SC sentenced Casio to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2 million.
It also raised the award of moral damages from P150,000 to P500,000, and awarded
exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000 in accordance with a previous ruling.

In her defense, the accused claimed that the minor admitted engaging in prostitution prior
to the accused's recruitment and that she was predisposed to having sex with customers
for money.
However, the ruling stressed that trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the
victim gives consent.
It is the second time since the passage in 2003 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law that the
SC took a strong stance on the trafficking of persons.
The first was in 2011 when the SC upheld in the case of People v. Lalli, written by Senior
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the conviction of two illegal recruiters after they sent
four women, including a minor, to Malaysia to work as prostitutes.

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

7. People vs Balgos
January 26, 2000
FACTS:
The accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed that he only inserted his left
index finger into her vagina because he was sexually aroused at that time. The trial court
convicted accused.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape and not just
acts of lasciviousness?

Held:
The trial is court correct in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the accused-appellant.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659, Further amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as The Anti-Rape Law.
the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child below
seven (7) years of age. In the present case, there is no dispute that the victim was six (6)
years of age when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her. The victims age
was duly established by the prosecution, through the testimony of the victims mother,
Criselda Fuentes, and further corroborated by Crisselles Certificate of Live Birth.

8. People vs. Ladjaalam

G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Appellant: Walpan Ladjaalam alias Warpan

FACTS:
Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of which he was found guilty, to wit: 1)
maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972); 2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation
of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act. No. 8294; and 3) direct assault
with multiple attempted homicide. The following information was provided by the
prosecution:
1) In the afternoon of September 24, 1997, more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to
the house of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they were met by a
volley of gunfire coming from the second floor of the said house. They saw that it was the
appellant
who
fired
the
M14
rifle
towards
them.
2) After gaining entrance, two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where
they earlier saw appellant firing the rifle. As he noticed their presence, the appellant jumped
from the window to the roof of a neighboring house. He was subsequently arrested at the
back
of
his
house
after
a
brief
chase.
3) Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellants house. Also found was
a pencil case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside, each containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded
positive
for
gunpowder
nitrates.
5) Records show that appellant had not filed any application for license to possess firearm
and ammunition, nor has he been given authority to carry firearms.
ISSUE:
Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.

HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess
any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was committed.
Furthermore, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the
crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of
firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.