Case digests for Book 2 RPC 1.

People vs Reyes In barrio of Macalong, La Paz, Tarlac, there is a chapel where it is customary to hold what is known in local parlance as a pabasa which used to begin on Palm Sunday and continue day and night, without any interruption whatsoever, until Good Friday. While the pabasa was going on the evening of April 10, 1933, between 11 and 12 o'clock, the defendants arrived at the place, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. Alfonso Castillo, who was chairman of the committee in charge of the pabasa, tried to persuade them to refrain from carrying out their plan, by reminding them of the fact that it was Holy Week and that it was highly improper to construct a fence at that time of the evening. A verbal altercation ensued. When the people attending the pabasa in the chapel and those who were eating in the yard thereof noticed what was happening, they became excited and left the place hurriedly and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were broken and benches toppled over. The pabasa was discontinued and it was not resumed until after an investigation conducted by the chief of police on the following morning, which investigation led to the filing of the complaint for violation of Art. 133 of the RPC. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant committed the crime charged. Ruling: It is to be noted that article 133 of the Revises Penal Code punishes acts "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful." The construction of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious under the circumstances to those present, is not such an act as can be designated as "notoriously offensive to the faithful", as normally such an act would be a matter of complete indifference to those not present, no matter how religious a turn of mind they might be.

2. people vs jacalne On March 8, 1996, at 8:00 in the morning, the victim Jomarie Rosales (Jomarie), then seven (7) years of age, female, residing at No. 142 Mabuhay Street, Las Pias City and a grade 1 pupil, attended her classes at the CAA Elementary School in Las Pias from 8:00 to 10:00 in the morning. While on her way home, Jomarie noticed that appellant was following her. She ran, but appellant eventually caught up with her. Appellant told her that she should go with him, but Jomarie refused and told him that her mother would be angry. Jomarie held on to a post, but appellant dragged and forced her to go to his house at Patola Street which is 100 to 150 meters away.

When they reached appellants house, appellant placed Jomarie at the back of the steel gate of his fenced residence. Thereafter, appellant went inside the house then returned with a piece of rope. He used the rope in tying the hands of Jomarie. Jomarie pleaded that she be released because her mother would be worried, but appellant refused. After more or less one hour, appellant untied Jomaries hands and instructed her to walk straight toward the road. He even told her not to turn left, otherwise, she would not be able to reach home. Appellant also threatened her not to tell anybody of what happened or else he would kill her. Issue: Whether or not appellant committed the crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Ruling: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention, or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. In this case, appellant dragged Jomarie, a minor, to his house after the latter refused to go with him. Upon reaching the house, he tied her hands. When Jomarie pleaded that she be allowed to go home, he refused. Although Jomarie only stayed outside the house, it was inside the gate of a fenced property which is high enough such that people outside could not see what happens inside. Moreover, when appellant tied the hands of Jomarie, the formers intention to deprive Jomarie of her liberty has been clearly shown. For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Because of her tender age, and because she did not know her way back home, she was then and there deprived of her liberty. This is irrespective of the length of time that she stayed in such a situation. It has been repeatedly held that if the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial.

3. Lopez vs people Facts: In early November 2002, while exercising his official duties as Mayor of Cadiz City, private respondent saw billboards with the printed phrase CADIZ FOREVER with a blank space before the word NEVER directly under said phrase. Those billboards were posted on the corner of Gustilo and Villena streets, in front of Cadiz

Hotel and beside the old Coca-Cola warehouse in Cadiz City. He became intrigued and wondered on what the message conveyed since it was incomplete. Some days later, on November 15, 2002, private respondent received a phone call relating that the blank space preceding the word NEVER was filled up with the added words BADING AND SAGAY. The next day, he saw the billboards with the phrase CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER printed in full. Reacting and feeling that he was being maligned and dishonored with the printed phrase and of being a tuta of Sagay, private respondent, after consultation with the City Legal Officer, caused the filing of a complaint for libel against petitioner. issues: 1) whether the printed phrase CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER is libelous; and 2) whether the controversial words used constituted privileged communication. Ruling: Although all the elements must concur, the defamatory nature of the subject printed phrase must be proved first because this is so vital in a prosecution for libel. Were the words imputed not defamatory in character, a libel charge will not prosper. Malice is necessarily rendered immaterial. An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. Moreover, [a] charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. Tested under these established standards, we cannot subscribe to the appellate courts finding that the phrase CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER tends to induce suspicion on private respondents character, integrity and reputation as mayor of Cadiz City. There are no derogatory imputations of a crime, vice or defect or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his dishonor. Neither does the phrase in its entirety, employ any unpleasant language or somewhat harsh and uncalled for that would reflect on private respondents integrity. Obviously, the controversial word NEVER used by petitioner was plain and simple. In its ordinary sense, the word did not cast aspersion upon private respondents integrity and reputation much less convey the idea that he

was guilty of any offense. Simply worded as it was with nary a notion of corruption and dishonesty in government service, it is our considered view to appropriately consider it as mere epithet or personal reaction on private respondents performance of official duty and not purposely designed to malign and besmirch his reputation and dignity more so to deprive him of public confidence.