121.

People v Fontanilla
Facts:
A 15-year old virgin, who was brought by her mother to the house of the accused and his wife to serve
as a helper, repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she was induced by his promises
of marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation. he appellant Mariano Fontanilla was prosecuted
in the justice of the peace court (now municipal court) of San Fernando, La Union for qualified
seduction.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of qualified seduction.

Ruling:
Yes. It is clear from the above testimony that Fe Castro had experienced numerous distinct acts of sexual
intercourse, a fact which affirms her claim that the appellant had carnal knowledge of her repeatedly
during her three-month stay in his house. Presumption of a woman's virginity arises whenever it is shown
that she is single, and continues until overthrown by proof to the contrary.This is in accord with the
presumption of innocence which "includes, also, that of morality and decency, and, as a consequence, of
chastity. The seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, committed by any of the
persons enumerated in art. 337 "is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction ... even though no
deceit intervenes or even when such carnal knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin, because
in such a case, the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said
crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction ... taking into account the
abuse of confidence on the part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of confidence which implies deceit or
fraud.

121. Rabantgo v Zosa

Facts:
The victim, Leonida Dagohoy, a 13-year old girl of considerably low mentality, was seated in the market
when accused, Eusebio Babanto, a policeman, approached and held her right hand and brought her to the
ABC Hall. The accused exposed his penis, laid down on top of the girl and commenced the sexual act.
Afterwards, he threatened to shoot her if she was going to tell her parents and left. The girl felt pain in
her vagina which emitted blood. Initially, accused was charged with rape but the RTC found him guilty of
the lesser offense of qualified seduction due to lack of violence or intimidation.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting accused of qualified seduction

Ruling:
Yes. The complaint alleged that the accused abused his position as a policeman, that Leonida Dagohoy
was of the tender age of 13, and that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant. However,
there is no allegation that the complainant was a "virgin". It is true that virginity is presumed if the girl is
over 12 and under 18 years of age, is unmarried and of good reputation. The presumption
notwithstanding, virginity is still an essential element of the crime of qualified seduction and must be
alleged in the complaint. A conviction for the crime of qualified seduction without the allegation of
virginity would violate the petitioner's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

123. Perez v. CA

Facts:
Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal complaint for Consented Abduction against petitioner Eleuterio Perez
in the CFI of Pampanga Br. VI for having sexual intercourse with her twice but reneged on his promise to
marry her. On appeal, the CA reversed and acquitted Perez of Consented Abduction and later the
Mendoza filed again for Qualified seduction.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of Qualified seduction

Ruling:
Yes.. There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) that
the offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of
age. However, two elements differentiate the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition to the two
common elements, requires that: (1) the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent,
after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2) the taking away of the offended party must be
with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for Qualified Seduction also requires that: (1) the
crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, and, (2) the offender has sexual
intercourse with the woman.

124. People v Sunpongco

Facts:
Sunpongco et. al. abducted Angeles from the jeepney from the jeepney she’s riding, forced into a car, and
brought in Tagaytay. In Tagaytay, Sunpongco succeeded having carnal knowledge with her by using force.
Defense was that he and Angeles is supposed to elope but Angeles didn’t arrive.

Issue: WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED HEREIN TO
COMMIT THE CRIME OF FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.

Ruling:
The elements of both rape and forcible abduction are proven. The presence of lewd designs in forcible
abduction is manifested by the subsequent rape of the victim. Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code
defines and penalizes the crime of forcible abduction. Forcible abduction with rape is accomplished when
offenders abduct a woman with a lewd design and succeed in having carnal knowledge of her, both against
her will and with the use of force and intimidation.
125. People v Jose

Facts:
Maggie’s car collided with another, then the driver of the other car dragged her in his car. Inside the car,
Jose and Aquino dragged kissed and touched her. She was blindfolded, brought in a hotel, made to dance
naked, then raped by four men. She was later set free. The complainant, Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva,
was, at the time of the incident, 25 years old and single. he complainant crossed her legs tightly, but her
attacker was able to force them open. Jose succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the complainant. He
then left the room. The other three took their turns.

Issue: WON the accused are guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

Ruling:
Yes. As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes
committed, the latter is definitely the more serious; hence, pursuant the provision of Art. 48 of the Revised
Penal Code, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the appellants
should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there is hardly any necessity to consider the
attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be
imposed.

126. People v ALburo

Facts:
which the girls complied. When Evelyn was about to alight, she was threatened that her skirt will be raised.
They sped off. She was again threatened with a knife. Alburo succeeded having carnal knowledge with her
while she was unconscious because her head was bumped in the steering wheel. The jeepney on the way
back was flagged. Alburo was charged with Forcible Abduction with Rape.

Issue:WON Alburo is guilty of the crime of forcible abduction with rape.

Ruling:
The court ruled that Appellant had taken Evelyn away against her will, with lewd designs, subsequently
forced her to submit to his lust and rendering her unconscious in the process, thereby justifying his
conviction for the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Article 48 in relation to Articles
335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which he has herein been charged. Taking a person against
her will and forcing the person to engage in sexual intercourse constitutes the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape.

127. People v Godines

Facts:
Private complainant Esther Ancajas was awakened from her sleep by a commotion emanating from an
adjacent room. She saw appellants Rolando Godines and Danny Moreno talking to the spouses Vilaksi.
Godines exacted money from the couple and eventually hacked Milagros Vilaksi. Ancajas tried to escape
with her child but she was grabbed by appellants. They dragged her and the child out of the house about
600 meters therefrom to a vacant grassy lot. There, appellants took turns in having carnal knowledge of
Ancajas under threats to kill the latter if she would resist. appellants were charged of forcible abduction
with rape but was convicted by the RTC of rape only holding that forcible abduction is absorbed in the
latter crime.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting appellants for rape only.

Ruling:
NO. Appellants are guilty of two counts of rape with forcible abduction absorbed in the former offense.
As to the crime committed by the appellants, the trial court correctly held that forcible abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the appellant is to rape the victim. The appellants
are charged of conspiring and confederating with each other in the commission of the offense charged.
No doubt the evidence show the appellants through force and intimidation and conspiring with each other
successfully raped the victim by taking turns in raping her while the other held the child of the victim and
threatened her against resisting. Obviously two (2) rapes were committed by the appellants. In a
conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.

128. Pilapil v Ibay-Somera

Facts:
Filipina and a German were married in Germany and cohabited for some years in Manila. German spouse
obtained divorce in Germany. Later, he filed 2 complaints of adultery against wife before the CFI of Manila
because while the 2 were still married, Imelda had affairs with 2 men. Pilapil’s motion to quash was
denied. Hence, this special civil action.

Issue: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they
are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued.

Ruling:
Under Art. 344 of the RPC, adultery can’t be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by
the offended spouse. This is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the
prosecution proceedings. Without which, court can’t exercise jurisdiction to try the case. The law
specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally file the
complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else.

129. People v Sangalang

Facts:
The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido were charged of the crime of simulation of
birth. The information alleged that a child was furnished by Gloria to the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido
registered the birth of said child in the local civil registrar by supplying to said office the necessary
information required so that a birth certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as the child’s
parents. A birth certificate was hence issued. Information did not contain any specific allegation as to
what the spouses did, except that they had conspired with Gloria and Bienvenido.

Issue: WON the accused committed a crime as stated in Art. 347 of the RPC

Ruling:
No. In the crime of simulation of births, it must be shown that the “pretending parents” have registered
or caused in the registration of the child as their own with the Registry of Births, or that in doing so they
were motivated by a desire to cause the loss of any trace as to the child’s true filiation to his prejudice.
In the instant case, SC found no evidence to sport the finding of TC that the registration was effected by
the Sangalangs. As the evidence would show, it was their daughter Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not
the spouses) who had a hand in the registration of the child.

130. People v Aragon

Facts:
Aragon contracted a 2nd marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting. Eventually the first wife
died. He contracted a third marriage. Aragon was charged of bigamy.

Issue: WON Aragon is guilty of Bigamy

Ruling:
No. The 2nd marriage (Faicol and Aragon) is void ab ibnitio because it was celebrated during the
subsistence of a previous marriage. 3rd marriage is valid. Aragon is not guilty of bigamy.

131. Malit v Peopla

Facts:
Atty. Malit was cross-examining Dr. Macaspac and asked a question on whether she knew the person who
“made” the exhibit. Macaspac replied that she didn’t understand the word “made”. Petitioner said it
means “prepared” but Macaspac still didn’t answer. Petitioner said: “I doubt how you become a doctor”.
A complaint for slander was filed against petitioner and later, for unjust vexation.

Issue: WON statements uttered in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged and exempt
from liability in libel or slander cases

Ruling:
Yes. Utterances made in the course of judicial or administrative proceedings are absolutely privileged in
aid and for the advantage of the administration of justice, so that members of the legislature, judges,
jurors, lawyers and witnesses may speak freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring
the risk of a criminal prosecution or action for damages.
132. Mercado v CFI

Facts:
A telegram sent by Rafael Mercado (petitioner) to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways is the
subject of a libel case. Said telegram requests an investigation of the activities of Virginia Mercado for
there is a reason to believe that she is enriching herself via corrupt practices. After sending the said
telegram, petitioner also filed other charges against Virginia but they are either dismissed for lack of
evidence or Virginia is proven to be innocent.

Issue: Whether or not the landmark case of United States v. Bustos, 1 enunciating the doctrine that the
free speech and free press guarantees of the Constitution constitute a bar to prosecutions for libel arising
from a communication addressed to a superior complaining against the conduct of a subordinate, is
impressed with significance.

Ruling:
There is no bar to libel prosecutions in lieu of the free speech and free press guarantees of the
Constitution. Qualified privilege of free speech may be lost by proof of malice.
Statement found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is
made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual

133. Agbayani v Sayo

Facts:
Mahinan is the manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of GSIS at Cauayan, Isabela. Libel charges were
based on 1) the affidavits of Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan, Isabela, 2) Bautista’s undated letter
and 3) Agbayani’s unusual incident report which was notarized in Manila. The 4 accused filed a motion to
quash claiming that the offense charged comes within the jurisdiction of CFI Isabela.

Issue: whether the venue of the criminal action for written defamation filed by Mahinan is Nueva Vizcaya
or Isabela

Ruling:
Article 360, which lays down the rules on venue in cases of written defamation and which specifies the
officer or court that should conduct the preliminary investigation. the proper venue of Mahinan's criminal
action for written defamation against the petitioners is the Court of First Instance of Isabela, since as a
GSIS branch manager, he was a public official stationed at Cauayan, Isabela and the alleged libel was
committed when he was (as he still) in the public service. The preliminary investigation of the complaint
should have been conducted by the provincial fiscal of Isabela, or by the municipal judge of ILAGAN, the
provincial capital, or by the Court of First Instance of the same province.
134. Newsweek v IAC

Facts:
A Newsweek article entitled “An Island of Fear” portrayed the province of Negros Occidental as a place
dominated by big landowners/ sugarcane planters, who “not only exploited the impoverished and
underpaid sugarcane workers but also brutalized and killed them with impunity.

Issue: WON Newsweek committed libel.

Ruling:
Dismissed. To maintain a libel suit, the specific victim must be identifiable. Defamatory remarks directed
at a group of persons are not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific
for victim to be identifiable. An action for libel allegedly directed against a group of sugar planters cannot
be done by resort to filing a class suit as each victim has his specific reputation to protect. In this case,
each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the community.

135. Lacsa v IAC

Facts:
Pedro Lacsa volunteered his services to the Philippine Columbian’s Association’s Board of Directors to act
as an auditor. He had access to records of its members and discovered that the association’s President
Ponciano Marquez is just an associate member and not a proprietary member. Hence, disqualified to be
the president. He sent a letter to Marquez addressing him as de facto president and asked him to yield
the presidency. Lacsa even published the letter in the newsletter of the association. Lacsa contends that
the term “de facto president” isn’t libelous per se.

Issue: WON the appellate court err in affirming Lacsa’s conviction for Libel?

Ruling:
SolGen correct in saying that calling Marquez a “de facto president” is equivalent to saying that the latter
is a pretender/fraud/impostor – who arrogated unto himself powers/rights/privileges to which he is not
entitled. Exposed Marquez to public contempt and ridicule Created an impression in the minds of the
readers of the libelous materials. The test for libelous meaning is the import conveyed by the entirety of
the language to the ordinary reader.

136. Soriano v IAC

Facts:
Commission on Audit personnel were caught opening election returns. Cesar Villegas portrayed in a press
release in Leyte that Tantuico is the person responsible for such incident. The full text of the press release
was published in the newspaper “The Guardian”, whose editor-publisher is Marcelo Soriano. Tantuico
charged Soriano and 6 others for libel. Case was docketed at RTC of Leyte. Soriano contends that libel case
should have been filed at QC, where Tantuico holds office and where publishing house of “The Guardian”
is located.
Issue: WON the RTC has the jurisdiction to try the libel case.

Ruling:
No. The applicable law is Art. 360 of the RPC, as amended by RA 1289 and RA 4363. Marcelo Soriano was
included as one of the accused in the libel case in his capacity as editor-publisher of the “Guardian”.
Soriano’s criminal liability, as based on Art. 360 of the RPC was based on a press release prepared in
Tacloban City and mailed or delivered to various newspapers. The press release was the basis for the
article published in the “Guardian”. This article, “Impeach Tantuico Case Looms” prepared by accused
Cesar Villegas in Tacloban was reproduced in Soriano’s newspaper, whose publishing house is in Quezon
City.
As the respondent COA Chairman held office in Quezon City and the offending newspaper is published in
Quezon City, the case should be filed with a Quezon City court.

137. Bulletin Publishing v Noel

Facts:
21 relatives of the late Amir Mindalano filed a libel case against the writer who published that Amir was
the only leader in Lanao del Sur who did not come from any royal house and had lived with an American
family which resulted in their family's ridicule and dispute.

Issue: hether or not the complaint states a valid cause of action, the Court finds that libel has not here
been committed

Ruling:
Applying the foregoing to the facts of the present Petition, we note that the subject matter of the article
"A Changing of the Guard" is clearly one of legitimate public interest. As pointed out earlier, petitioners
in the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press have kept well within the generally accepted moral
and civil standards of the community as to what may be characterized as defamatory. The complaint in
the court below failed to state a cause of action and should have been dismissed by respondent Judge.
We hold that such dismissal, in the circumstances of this case, including in particular the nature of the
basic issue here at stake, may be compelled by certiorari and prohibition. 16 This conclusion renders the
third and last issue raised by petitioners quite moot.

138. Publication v Islamic Da’wah

Facts:
lamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., a local federation of more than seventy (70) Muslimreligious
organizations, and individual Muslims Linzag, Arcilla, De Guzman, Da Silva and Junio, filed acomplaint for
damages in their own behalf and as a class suit in behalf of the Muslim members nationwideagainst MVRS
Publications, Inc. for publishing an article which reads as:"ALAM BA NINYO?Na ang mga baboy at kahit
anong uri ng hayop sa Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng mga Muslim?Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang
sagradong bagay. Hindi nila ito kailangang kainin kahit na sila pa aymagutom at mawalan ng ulam sa
tuwing sila ay kakain. Ginagawa nila itong Diyos at sinasamba pa nila itosa tuwing araw ng kanilang
pangingilin lalung-lalo na sa araw na tinatawag nilang ‘Ramadan’."The complaint alleged that the libelous
statement was insulting and damaging to the Muslim

Issue: WON Islamic Da’Wah has a cause of action for libel.

Ruling: NO.
Defamation - which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person'scharacter, fame or
reputation through false and malicious statements.

It is that which tends toinjure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in
the plaintiff orto excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff.

It is the publication of anythingwhich is injurious to the good name or reputation of another or tends to
bring him intodisrepute.

Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion whichothers in the
community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff.

Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and merewords of general
abuse however ill-natured, whether written or spoken, do not constitute abasis for an action for
defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages.

Thefact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.

139. Santos v CA

Facts:
February 23, 1970 ± Nanerico Santos was a columnist of the Manila Daily Bulletin. He wrote in his column
anarticle entitled ³Charges Against CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc.´ which was quoted verbatim from an
unverifiedcomplaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 13 by Rosario
Sandejas and herdaughters charging CMS Stock Brokerage Inc., particularly its board chairman and
controlling stockholder CarlosMoran Sison and its president-general manager Luis Sison, of engaging in
fraudulent practices in the stock market. March 4 ± Complaint for libel was lodged against Santos and
other persons of the Manila Daily Bulletin by Carlosand Luis Sison.

Issue: WON the publication of a complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission before
any judicial action is taken thereon is privileged as a report of a judicial proceeding

Ruling: YES.
he applicable provision of law is Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.
enerally, malice is presumed (malice in law) in every defamatory imputation. This presumption, however,
does
not arise if the communication is privileged under Article 354.The character of the privilege is a matter of
defense which may be lost by positive proof of express malice. In other words, the onus of proving actual
malice is placed on the plaintiff who must then convince the court that theoffender was prompted by
malice or ill will. Once this is accomplished, the defense of privilege is unavailing.

The controversial publication being a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding and made without
malice, we

find the author entitled to the protection and immunity of the rule on privileged matters under Article
354 (2). Itfollows that he cannot be held criminally liable for libel

140. SAZON v CA

Facts:
Private complainant and the petitioner ran in the election held by PML-Parang Bagong LipunanCommunity
Association, Inc. (PML-BLCA), an association of homeowners of PML Homes. The petitioner waselected as
a director and president of the homeowners' association.Unable to accept defeat, the private complainant
contested the said election. Private complainant also wrotehis co-homeowners explaining to them his
election protest and urging them not to recognize the petitioner and theother members who won in the
election.A phrase "Sazon (petitioner), nasaan ang pondo ng simbahan?" was seen boldly written on the
walls near the entrance gate of the subdivision. Thinking that only private complainant was responsible,
petitioner Sazon wrotein an issue of PML-Homemakers, in which he is the editor, an article against the
complainant using words such as"mandurugas," "mag-ingat sa panlilinlang," "matagal na tayong niloloko,"
"may kasamang pagyayabang," "angating pobreng super kulit," "patuloy na kabulastugan," "mastermind
sa paninirang puri," etc. to describe him.

Issue: Whether the questioned article written by the petitioner is libelous.

Ruling: Petitioner concedes the existence of the third (it must be given publicity) and fourth (the victim
must be identifiable) requisites of Art. 353 in the case at bench. Accordingly, only the first and second
elements need to be discussed herein. Furthermore, the questioned article cannot come under the
protective mantle of privileged
communication because the rule on privilege impose thatsuch complaints should be addressed solely to
some official having jurisdiction to inquire into the charges. In the instant case, none of the homeowners
for whom the newsletter was published was vested with the power of supervision over the private
complainant or the authority to investigate the charges made against the latter. Another rule is that rule
is that defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are related to
the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation. A perusal of the petitioner's article reveals that it has no reference whatsoever to the
performance of private complainant's position as a public relations consultant in the Department of Trade
and Industry.