1.

People vs De Vera
308 SCRA 750
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONALD DE
VERA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:
Irma Aspurias De Vera was at home with Francing, Lorna, Rowena and the latter’s
husband Arnel Jesuitas. At about 3:00 p.m., Ronald, Irma’s husband, arrived. Ronald
asked Irma to join him in the bedroom upstairs in order to discuss an important
matter. Within minutes, Lorna heard a commotion in the couple’s bedroom. After a while,
sensing that all was well again, Lorna went upstairs. To her surprise, she saw Ronald,
assisted by Arnel, carrying a disabled Irma out of the room. The latter was brought to
the Quezon City Medical Center where she was pronounced dead on arrival. Looking
over at the couples bedroom, Lorna and Francing saw that the place was in disarray.
In the medico-legal examination conducted by the police, the cause of death was said
to be asphyxia by hanging. The NBI undertook its own investigation of the case and
found that the cause of death was found to be asphyxia compatible with strangulation.

ISSUE:
WON Ronald is guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Held:
Yes, because the court has found no reason to distrust the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses. Under The Rules of Court, on circumstantial evidence, it shall be
sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance;(b) The facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, the Court finds accused Ronald De Vera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of parricide charged herein, defined and punished in Art. 246 of the Revised Penal
Code, as principal in the commission thereof and, accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Irma
Aspurias De Vera in the sum of fifty thousand pesos as death indemnity; to pay her
mother, Melanda Aspurias, the sum of fifteen thousand four hundred fifteen pesos as
actual damages; and, to pay the costs, without prejudice to the application of Rep. Act
No. 6127 in his favor.

2. 360 SCRA 60
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERARDO LATUPAN y
SIBAL, alias JERRY, accused-appellant.
Facts:

Ceferino Dagulo heard shouts of a woman and a child coming from the north. He
saw accused Gerardo Latupan walking in his direction, carrying a thin, bloodied knife. It
is found out that Latupan went to the house of Emilio Asuncion, which was 100 meters
away from Ceferino's house. Emilio found his wife, Lilia, dead on the ground with
several stab wounds on her body and his 3 children (Leo, Jaime, and Jose) wounded.
Doctors treated the injuries of Leo and Jaime. Jose was declared dead on arrival.

On August 25, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused Latupan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex offense of Double Murder and sentenced
him to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs.

Issue:

Whether or not trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of the complex crime of
double murder

Decision:

The trial court, erred in convicting accused-appellant of the "complex crime of

double murder" and separate offenses of serious physical injuries. The instant case does
not fall under any of the two mentioned instances when a complex crime is
committed. The killing of Lilia Asuncion and Jose Asuncion and the wounding of Jaime
and Leo Asuncion resulted not from a single act but from several and distinct acts of
stabbing.
Thus, accused-appellant is liable, not for a complex crime of double murder, but for
two separate counts of murder, and separate counts of physical injuries.

3. 433 SCRA 640

People of the Philippines, appellee

V.
Efren Mateo y Garcia, appellant

FACTS:
On October 30, 1996, ten (10) informations, one for each count of rape, were filed
against appellant Efren Mateo. The lower court found Mateo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Solicitor General, however, assails
the factual findings of the trial court and recommends an acquittal of the appellant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the case should directly be forwarded to the Supreme Court by virtue
of the express provision in the constitution on automatic appeal where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death

HELD: The case is REMANDED, and all pertinent records are ordered to be forwarded
to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. Up until now, the Supreme
Court has assumed the direct appellate review over all criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving
offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that gave
rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment is imposed).

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO COMADRE et al.,

appellant

Facts:
 Robert, Jimmy, Gerry, Rey and Lorenzo were having a drinking spree on the terrace
of the house of Robert’s father, Jaime Agbanlog, who was seated on the banister of the
terrace listening to the conversation of the companions of his son.

As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio
Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking. The three stopped in front of the
house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed a a hand grenade,
exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Robert Agbanlog and his companions
were hit by shrapnel and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the
hospital for medical treatment. However, Robert died before reaching the hospital for
wounds sustained which the grenade explosion inflicted. Robert’s companions sustained
shrapnel injuries.

After trial, the court a quo convicted appellants of the complex crime of Murder with
Multiple Attempted Murder for having conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and with the use of an
explosive.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the use of explosive qualifies the crime to murder
(2) Whether or not appellants conspired to kill the victims

Decision:

(1)Yes, the killing by means of explosives qualifies the crime to murder. The
information alleges that both treachery and the “use of explosive attended the crime.
Since both circumstances can qualify the killing to murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court held that when the killing is perpetrated with
treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance.

(2) No, there was no conspiracy. The undisputed facts show that when Antonio Comadre
was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano merely
looked on without uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act to assist
him. A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence.

5.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
REYNALDO VELASQUEZ y OCAMPO, accused-appellant.
345 scra 228
FACTS:

While walking home, a girl, 15 years old, was approached by accused who asked
where she was going. Accused then poked a gun to the side of the girl and held her arms
then rode a taxi which brought them to the house of the former’s grandmother. There,
accused ravished the girl as he held her at gunpoint. As the accused sexually assaulted the
helpless girl a second time, the girl pulled out a screwdriver she hid in her pocket and
stabbed accused on the neck. The girl found the opportunity to escape and run towards a
neighbor’s house where she reported to a man what accused did to her who then called
the barangay tanods. Accused was apprehended after his voluntary surrender. The RTC
rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of
rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erroneously convicted accused of two counts of simple
rape only.

HELD:

Yes, the trial court erroneously convicted accused of two counts of simple rape only.
The subsequent rape committed by Velasquez can no longer be considered as a separate
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape but only as a separate act of rape
punishable by reclusion perpetua.

6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PEDRO ABUNGAN,

et. Al. Appellant

341 scra 258

Facts:

The accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed
with long firearms, attack, assault and shoot Camilo Dirilo, [Sr.] y Pajarito, inflicting
upon him wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused his death.
The trial court rendered a decision finding Abungan guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder. During appeal, in a letter dated August 7, 2000, however,
Joselito A. Fajardo, assistant director of the Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court
that Appellant Abungan had died on July 19, 2000 at the NBP Hospital.

Issue:

Whether or not the criminal and civil liability of the appellant is extinguished by
reason of her death?

Decision:

In the present case, it is clear that, following the case of People vs.Bayotas, the
death of appellant extinguished his criminal liability. Moreover, because he died during
the pendency of the appeal and before the finality of the judgment against him, his civil
liability arising from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto) was also
extinguished. It must be added, though, that his civil liability may be based on sources of
obligation other than delict. For this reason, the victims may file a separate civil action
against his estate, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.

7. ANICETO RECEBIDO, appellee vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellant

346 SCRA 881

Facts:
Petitioner was charged and convicted by the trial court of falsifying the signature of
Caridad Dorol, causing it to appear that said Caridad has signed her name on a Deed of
Absolute Sale of Real Property in his favor, when in truth and in fact he well knew, that
Caridad Dorol did not execute said document, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court except for the
award for damage.

Issues:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed gave abuse of discretion in sustaining the
conviction of the petitioner?

Held:
No.The petitioner is presumed to be the author of the forged deed of sale, despite the
absence of any direct evidence of his authorship of the forgery. Since the petitioner is the
only person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the document found in his
possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of the falsification.

8. People, appellee v. Lourdes Gatbalite, appellant Digest

449 SCRA 114

Facts:

On September 16, 1987, the petitioner was convicted of the offense charged and was
sentenced to serve a penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor. On appeal, the
Regional Trial Court, on October 24, 1988, affirmed in toto the decision of the MTC.
Petitioner never got to serve his sentence and hid for about nine years.
Issue: Whether or not the penalty already prescribed

Held: NO.The period of prescription of penalties – the succeeding Article 93 provides

– "shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his
sentence". In this case, the petitioner was never brought to prison. As the record would
show, even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, he was already in
hiding. He now begs for the compassion of the Court because he has ceased to live a life
of peace and tranquility after he failed to appear in court for the execution of his sentence.
But it was petitioner who chose to become a fugitive. The Court accords compassion only
to those who are deserving. Petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt but he
refused to answer for the wrong he committed. He is therefore not to be rewarded
therefor.

9. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE PATRIARCA, JR.,

respondent, appellant
341 scra 464

Facts:

Accused-appellant Jose Patriarca, Jr. was also charged with Murder for the killing of
one Rudy de Borja and a certain Elmer Cadag. 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. Thus the accused was granted of his amnesty.

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

Decision:

Yes. 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. 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.

10. RAFAEL RENDON, petitioner, vs. People, respondent

Facts:
Rafael and Rodolfo went into a fight. Rodolfo sustained a stab wound at the left
side of his neck, incised wound at the buttock and five (5) abrasions in different parts of
his body. He died as a result of the wound in his neck. Rafael also suffered a lacerated
wound in his left arm and four (4) incised wounds in his hands. He immediately went to
the police station and voluntarily surrendered. Rafael Rendon, petitioner herein, and his
wife Teresita, were charged with the crime of murder for the death of Rodolfo Magrare.

Petitioner appealed and claims that the findings of fact are conflicting thus the Court
erred in convicting him.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE FINDINGS OF FACTS ARE CONFLICTING

Held:

No, while it is true that there are diametrically opposed versions of how the event
happened but when this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties,
and analyse, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, affirmed by the
appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence
and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will not
do the same. Moreover, the rule is that the conclusions of the lower court on the
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect.

Unless there are substantial facts and circumstances that have been overlooked,
which if considered might affect the result of the case, such findings are generally not
disturbed on appeal. Thus, the Petition was denied and the Court affirmed the decision.

10. Phil. Rabbit vs People

G.R. No. 147703

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, INC., petitioner
v People of the Philippines, respondent

Facts:
Napoleon Roman was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to
property and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay damages.

Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. The CA ruled that the
institution of a criminal case implied the institution also of the civil action arising from
the offense. Thus, once determined in the criminal case against the accused-employee, the
employer’s subsidiary civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code
becomes conclusive and enforceable.

Issue: Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of its
accused-employee, may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused.

Held: No. It is well-established in our jurisdiction that the appellate court may, upon
motion or motu proprio, dismiss an appeal during its pendency if the accused jumps bail.
This rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose their standing in court when they
abscond. As a matter of law, the subsidiary liability of petitioner now accrues. Under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the
adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter’s insolvency. Thus,
in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the
subsidiary liability of the employer. In the absence of any collusion between the accused-
employee and the offended party, the judgment of conviction should bind the person who
is subsidiarily liable.

11. Panganorca vs People

G.R. No. 143380. April 11, 2005

OLIMPIO PANGONOROM and METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

FACTS:
The RTC finds accused Olimpio Pangonorom guilty of the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple slight physical injuries and to indemnify the offended
parties of the damages incurred by their motor vehicle and to reimburse their medical
expenses.
Herein petitioners appealed the trial court’s decision which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals in toto. Likewise, the appellate court held that his employer, Metro
Manila Transit Corporation was already estopped in assailing the trial court’s decision
considering that it never appealed said decision within the reglementary period.

ISSUE:
Whether or not MMTC is subsidiarily liable considering its due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees.
HELD: NO. Due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a defense
in the present case.

The law involved in the present case is Article 103 of the RPC, which implies than an
employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee’s civil liability in a criminal action
when there is adequate evidence establishing (1) that he is indeed the employer of the
convicted employee; (2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the
employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties; and (4) that the execution
against the employee has not been satisfied due to insolvency. However, there is no proof
here of Olimpio’s insolvency. The judgment of conviction against Olimpio has not
attained finality. This being so, no writ of execution can issue against him to satisfy his
civil liability. Only after proof of the accused-employee’s insolvency may the subsidiary
liability of his employer be enforced. Thus the petition was denied.

13. ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent. (460 SCRA 547)

FACTS:

Herein accused was found guilty by the RTC for the crime of Reckless Imprudence
resulting to Double Homicide, aggravated by his failure to help the victim/s, as provided
for in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and appreciating in his favor the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months of Arresto Mayor as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision
Correcional as maximum.

CA affirmed the decision as to the damages awarded including moral and exemplary
damages, and the indemnity awarded for the victims. Hence, this appeal, wherein
Petitioner insists that he should not be made liable for the mishap as it was actually the
Honda motorcycle (the victims’) that rammed into the bus he was driving. He seeks the
reversal of his present conviction.

ISSUE
(1): Whether the awarding of the exemplary damages to the victim is correct.
(2): Whether the accused-appellant’s employer, Vallacar Transit, Inc. is
subsidiarily liable
 (3): Whether the CA correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment.

HELD
(1): YES. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages, which under
the prevailing jurisprudence should be in the amount of P25,000, may also be imposed
when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Here,
petitioner failed to render aid or assistance to his victims after the collision.
(2): YES. The Supreme Court (SC) adopted the ruling of the CA as to appellant’s
employer. Under Article 103 of the RPC, an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the
employee’s civil liability in the criminal action if it can be shown that: (1) the employer is
engaged in any kind of industry; (2) the employee committed the offense in the discharge
of his duties and (3) the accused is insolvent. However, subject to prevailing
jurisprudence, the subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon a motion for subsidiary
writ of execution against Vallacar Transit, Inc. and upon proof that petitioner is insolvent.
(3): NO. The SC was constrained to amend the penalty herein imposed by the
CA. The imposable penalty, under Article 365 (2) of the RPC for homicide resulting from
reckless imprudence in the use of the motor vehicle is Prision Correcional in its medium
and maximum period, which ranges from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years.

14. SALVADOR S. ABUNADO and ZENAIDA BIÑAS ABUNADO, Petitioners,

vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent 562 scra 568

FACTS:
Salvador Abunado married Narcisa Arceno on September 18, 1967. Salvador later
contracted a second marriage with Zenaida Binas. On May 18, 1995, a case for bigamy
was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida and was affirmed by CA.
Salvador avers that the information filed against him was defective as it stated that
the alleged bigamous marriage was contracted in 1995 when in fact it should have been
1989.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner has been sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him

Decision:

No, the statement in the information that the crime was committed in “January 1995”
was an obvious typographical error, for the same information clearly states that petitioner
contracted a subsequent marriage to Zenaida Abunado on January 10, 1989.
15. People vs Jarillo

VICTORIA S. JARILLO, petitioner

v
. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent 601 SCRA 249

FACTS:
On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil
wedding ceremony and again celebrated marriage in a church wedding on May 4, 1975.
Out of the marital union, appellant begot a daughter.
November 26, 1979 at the City Court of Pasay, Victoria Jarillo contracted a
subsequent marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy and exchanged marital vows anew
in a church wedding in Manila on April 16, 1995.
In 1999, Emmanuel Uy filed against the appellant for annulment of marriage
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Regional Trial Court finds the accused
Victoria Soriano Jarillo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of BIGAMY.
For her defense, petitioner insisted that (1) her 1974 and 1975 marriages to
Alocillo were null and void because Alocillo was allegedly still married to a certain
Loretta Tillman at the time of the celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to both
Alocillo and Uy were null and void for lack of a valid marriage license; and (3) the action
had prescribed, since Uy knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
bigamy even with the defense that her two marriages were null & void.

HELD:
Yes, the subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was
immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been
consummated. Moreover, petitioner’s assertion would only delay the prosecution of
bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his
previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in
the criminal case. We cannot allow that.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to [private
complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in
the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is
contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be
deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if
petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the
point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage
was annulled.

16. People vs Hu

567 SCRA 696

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - NENITA B. HU,
Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
Nenita Hu with Merry Ann Genoves both helping and aiding one another,
feloniously recruit, promise employment/job placement abroad for an overseas
employment and collect fees from the persons.
Upon arraignment, Hu assisted by counsel entered a plea of not guilty while
Genoves remained at large. Private complainants went to NBI to file a complaint for
illegal recruitment against Hu and Genoves.
For her defense, Hu admitted knowing the private complainants because these
individuals went to her office demanding the return of their placement fees by showing
their official receipts. Hu averred that when she examined such receipts, she found that
private complainants paid their placement fees to Riverland and not to Brighturn as
shown in the heading of the said receipts which bore the name and address of Riverland
and its proprietress, Genoves. Hu denied knowing Genoves.
The trial court rendered a Decision finding Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Such conviction was affirmed by the CA
and joined by the Solicitor General. Thus, a petition for review in the Certiorari was filed
by the accused-complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale.

HELD:
No, in the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the
prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense
with which he is charged. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to prove that illegal recruitment was committed against three or more persons.
The Court will have to discard the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale meted
out by the RTC, since only one applicant abroad was recruited by Hu without license and
authority from the POEA. Accordingly, Hu should be held responsible for simple illegal
recruitment only.

17. 511 SCRA 471

DEMIE L. URIARTE, Petitioner,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

FACTS: On July 5, 1999, Arpilleda, through counsel, sent a letter to the Office of the
Ombudsman (Mindanao) stating the alleged unlawful acts of petitioner in altering the tax
declarations of Joventino Correos and Antioco Uriarte. It was alleged that the alterations
prejudiced her since they became the basis of petitioners forceful and unlawful
possession of the subject property.
Petitioner, for his part, admitted that he had made changes on the tax declarations.
He however justified the changes, stating that they were the result of the general revision
made in 1978. He also claimed that as municipal assessor, he has absolute authority to
determine the barangay to which a particular property belongs.

ISSUE: CAN AN ACCUSED BE CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 (E) OF

R.A. 3019 BASED ON CONCLUSION OF FACTS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT
THAT HE COMMITTED LANDGRABBING AND/OR DISPOSSESSING THE
COMPLAINANT OF HER PROPERTY, WHICH OFFENSES WERE NOT CHARGED
IN THE INFORMATION?

HELD:
No. It is evident from the decisions of both the RTC and the Sandiganbayan that
petitioner was charged and convicted of violating Section 3(e), R.A. 3019; he was not
civilly held liable for dispossession of property or eviction. The anti-graft court correctly
held that the finding of the RTC that there was hidden intention on the part of the
petitioner to grab and dispossess private complainant from their property was merely
descriptive of how petitioner acted with evident bad faith. There was thus no need for this
matter to be alleged in the information.
18. 535 SCRA 656
PEOPLE, PETITIONER, VS. Maria Benita A. Dulay, Et Al., RESPONDENT

FACTS:
Corazon Domingo, Ricardo, Pedro, Juanito, Abelardo, Anastacio, Lydia,
Aurelio, Marcelina, and Elmer, all surnamed Hidalgo, were sitting on a bench in front of
the house of Juanito. They were conversing when the motorcycle driven by Rogelio
Campos passed by. On the third time, a certain Pilo Cabingas was backriding on the
motorcycle. Shortly thereafter, shots were heard and the witnesses saw all of the accused
firing long and short firearms at the direction of those sitting on the bench. The witnesses
positively identified appellant and Camat as the ones holding long firearms while the
other accused as the ones holding short firearms. As a result of the shooting
incident, Marcelina and Elmer Hidalgo were killed while Juanito and Pedro Hidalgo were
wounded.

All the accused denied the charges against them. Appellant alleged that at the time of
the incident, he was at the place of his brother Maximo Dulay at Salcedo, Ilocos Sur. He
was borrowing money for his wifes placement fee. Appellant alleged that, together with
Bong De Guia and Marcos Suyat, he helped his brother dry palay from 12:00 noon to
5:00 p.m.

The RTC acquitted Laurean, Rogelio Campos, Ibot Campos, and Dulay. However,
the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against him.

ISSUE:
Whether appellants guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
Yes. Appellant argues that he was convicted based on contradictory and improbable
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He argues that it was improbable for the witnesses
to look at the faces of the persons firing at them when they were more concerned with
taking cover for their safety. Appellant further argues that since his supposed co-
conspirators were acquitted, he should also be acquitted since they were alleged to
have conspired to commit the crimes charged.

19. 575 SCRA 412

People of the Philippines v. Pablo De La Cruz
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pablo De La Cruz, Defendant
Appellant

Facts:
In the morning of October 14, 1950, Eduardo Bernardo, Jr. went to the De La Cruz's
store in Sampaloc, Manila, and purchased from him a six-ounce tin of "Carnation" milk
for thirty centavos.
As the purchase had been made for Ruperto Austria, who was not in good terms with
Pablo de la Cruz the matter reached the City Fiscal's office and resulted in this criminal
prosecution, because Executive Order No. 331 (issued by authority of Republic Act No.
509) fixed 20 centavos as the maximum price for that kind of commodity.
Having retailed a can of milk at ten centavos more than the ceiling price, Pablo de la
Cruz was sentenced, after trial, in the court of first instance of Manila, to imprisonment
for five years, and to pay a fine of five thousand pesos plus costs. He was also barred
from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years.

Issue/s:
WON the trial judge erred in imposing a punishment wholly disproportionate to the
offense

Held:
Yes. The court may decrease the penalty, exercising that discretion vested in the
courts by the same statutory enactment. Wherefore, reducing the imprisonment to six
months and the fine to two thousand pesos, we hereby affirm the appealed decision in all
other respects.
The constitution directs that "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishment inflicted."
20. G.R. No. 174483
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER vs.RAMON REGALARIO,
RESPONDENT

FACTS:

There was a commotion in the area assigned to accused Ramon Regalario.

Bienvenido Regalario, the barangay tanod, was instructed by Marciano, the barangay
captain to effect the arrest of Rolando Sevilla for the crime of shooting Ramon. So, he
tied the hands and feet of Rolando Sevilla for fear that he might be able to escape. On the
early morning, dead body of Rolando Sevilla was found.

For automatic review is the decision of the CA which affirmed with modification, an
earlier decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero,
Bienvenido and Noel, all surnamed Regalario guilty of murder.

ISSUE:

WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DECEASED
WAS KILLED IN SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

HELD:

When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with murder or homicide he

necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape criminal liability by proving that it was
justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. By Ramon’s own account,
after he was shot, he hit the victim at the back of the latter’s head and he continued hitting
the victim who retreated backward. From that moment, the inceptive unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim ceased to exist and the continuation of the offensive stance of
Ramon put him in the place of an aggressor. There was clearly no longer any danger, but
still Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation.
21. G.R. NO. 173473
People of the Philippines, PETITIONER
vs.
Beth Temporada, RESPONDENT

FACTS:
Accused Rosemarie Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan, Jojo Resco and
Beth Temporada are all employees of a Travel and Tour Company, recruited and promised
overseas employment for a fee to Rogelio Legaspis Jr, as a technician in Singapore, and
other overseas workers. The accused were holding office in Makati but eventually
transferred to Manila. After paying placements fees, none of the overseas recruits was
able to leave or recover what they have paid, thus they filed separate criminal complaints
against accused in Manila.

The accused were then sentenced to life imprisonment for illegal recruitment and
estafa. Then the case was referred to the CA for intermediate review, CA affirmed with
modification on the penalty. The penalty was lowered for the lower court due to
insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused were guilty of 5 counts of estafa and illegal recruitment, and be
charged of the penalty of life imprisonment.

HELD:
The Court affirms the modification of the CA, except for the penalty on the 5 counts of
estafa. Although Temporada is saying that she is not a principal to the illegal recruitment
and estafa because she is a mere employee of ATTC and that she was just echoing the
requirement of her employer, the Court believes that Temporada actively and consciously
participated in illegal recruitment.
The Court agrees with the lower court that the accused were guilty of illegal
recruitment by a syndicate with the penalty of life imprisonment. The accused were
convicted separately also for 5 counts of estafa.
22. People vs SoriAO

ANTONIO SORIAO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 56481 July 21, 1989

Facts:
M/B Sweet Lord departed from the log pond of Dibet, Casiguran, Quezon. The boat
was around 44 feet in length, 5 feet in height and five feet in width. On board were 23
passengers, animals, cash and other valuables In addition, there were five (5) crew
members among whom was the petitioner who boarded the boat in Dinalungan, Quezon
The boat was overloaded as evidenced by the fact that only a palm's width of its height
was above the water and its waterline was already submerged). When the boat left
Casiguran, it was piloted by Domingo Zamora until the petitioner boarded.
At around 1:00 o'clock the following morning the boat left Dinalungan, but this time,
upon the orders of the petitioner. The waves then were as big as a hut so that the boat had
to stop at the port of Dinadiawan. After three hours of waiting, the petitioner ordered the
boat to resume its voyage despite the fact that the sea was still rough .
The boat sank causing the death of most of the passengers and the loss and
destruction of the cargoes. Soriao is charged with multiple homicide with damage to
property thru reckless imprudence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Antonio Soriao is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
multiple homicide with damage to property thru reckless imprudence.

Held:
Yes, even if Soriao asserts that he is neither the owner nor the captain but only a
passenger of M/B Sweet Lord and that he merely suggested that the voyage continue
despite the stormy weather to which the other passengers did not object. We are not
dealing here with the issue of ownership of the boat but of Soriao's criminal liability
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The survivors of the ill-fated M/B Sweet
Lord positively declared that Soriao piloted the boat from Dinalungan up to the time just
before it sank in the waters of Bale.
23. Juno Batestes, petitioner vs People of the Philippines, respondent
G.R. NO. 181571

Facts:
Juno Batistis was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of infringement of trademark
and unfair competition for actively being engaged in the manufacture, sale and
distribution of counterfeit Fundador brandy products.
Batistis appealed to the CA. He submits that the only direct proofs of his guilt were
the self-serving testimonies of the NBI raiding team; that he was not present during the
search; that one of the NBI raiding agents failed to immediately identify him in court; and
that aside from the two bottles of Fundador brandy, the rest of the confiscated items were
not found in his house. The CA rejected his motion for reconsideration.

Issue: W/n THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED ON THE BASIS OF THE SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVITS AND
TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO CONDUCTED THE RAID ON
THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED.

Held:
No, The petition for review has no merit. The petition for review replicates
Batistis appellant's brief filed in the CA. This is a true indication that the errors he
submits for court’s review and reversal are those he had attributed to the RTC. He thereby
rests his appeal on his rehashed arguments that the CA already discarded. His appeal is,
therefore, improper, considering that his petition for review on certiorari should raise only
the errors committed by the CA as the appellate court, not the errors of the RTC.
24. People pf the PH, apellee vs Jaranilla, plaintiff-appellant
G.R. NO. L-28574

FACTS:

Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo, which convicted them of robbery with homicide, sentenced each
of them to reclusion perpetua and ordered them to pay solidarily the sum of six thousand
pesos to the heirs of Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred pesos to Valentin
Baylon as the value of fighting cocks.
Jaranilla appealed that mere taking of roosters does not qualify robbery or theft since
he was only told to do so.

ISSUE:
WON the taking of the roosters robbery or theft

HELD:
Yes. There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or cages in the
yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed.
As co-principals with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the six fighting cocks, they are (a)
each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as
minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months ofprision correccional as maximum and
(b) ordered to indemnify solidarily the complainant, Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five
hundred pesos (P500). Each appellant should pay one-third of the costs.
25.
ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA, G.R. No. 170964
Petitioner,

- versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner Elsa Macandog Magtira seeks in this petition for review on certiorari. The
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of seven (7) counts of estafa penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The CA denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration;
hence, the petition.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioner should be held liable for the crimes of estafa.
Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper.

HELD:
(1)Yes. The court ruled that estafa is committed with abuse of confidence and have the
following elements: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on
his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.

(2)Yes. As provided by law, the maximum indeterminate penalty when the amount
defrauded exceeds P22,000.00 is pegged at prision mayor in its minimum period or
anywhere within the range of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, plus one
year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 of the amount defrauded but not to
exceed twenty years. In turn, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall be one degree
lower from the prescribed penalty for estafa, which in this case is anywhere within the
range of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. Applying this formula, we affirm the
penalty imposed by the CA as it is fully in accordance with the law.