CRIMINAL LAW II

Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Martinez v. Morfe Nature: This a petition for certiorari Case Gist: Petitioners Martinez and Bautista, Sr. against judges Morfe and Chanco for issuing a warrant of arrest against them. They argued that they are exempted from arrest by virtue of their parliamentary immunity and freedom from arrest, as espoused in Sec. 15, Art 6 in relation to Art. 145, RPC. FACTS: Petitioner Martinez y Festin 8 alleged that on June 10, 1971, an information against him for falsification a public document was filed. Its basis was his stating under oath in his certificate of candidacy for delegate to that Constitutional Convention that he was born on June 20, 1945, when in truth and in fact he knew that he was born on June 20, 1946. There was on July 9, 1971, a special appearance on his part questioning the power of respondent Judge to issue a warrant of arrest and seeking that the information be quashed. On the same day, there was an order from the lower court suspending the release of the warrant of arrest until it could act on such motion to quash. Then came on July 22, 1971 an omnibus motion from him, with previous leave of court, to quash the information, to quash the warrant of arrest, or to hold in abeyance further proceeding in the case. It was not favorably acted on. On August 21, 1971, respondent Judge rendered an order denying the petitioner omnibus motion to quash. In his belief that the information and the warrant of arrest in this case are null and void, the petitioner did not post the required bond. He was arrested by the City Sheriff in the afternoon of September 6, 1971. At the time of the filing of the petition he was confined at the City Jail in the custody of respondent City Warden of Manila. He was on his way to attend the plenary session of the Constitutional Convention. Such arrest was against his will and over his protest. He was arraigned on September 9, 1971. There was at such a time a motion by petitioner to reconsider the court's order of August 21, 1971. It was denied in open court. On the very same day, he filed the petition for certiorari and habeas corpus, but having been released thereafter on bail on September 11, 1971, the petition is now in the nature solely of a certiorari proceeding. 9 As for petitioner Fernando Bautista, Sr., 10 it was alleged that he is a duly elected and proclaimed delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. He took his oath of office and assumed the functions of such office on June 1, 1971. He has continued since then to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of a delegate. Two criminal complaints, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 146(57) and 148(58), were directly filed with the Court of First lnstance of Baguio and Benguet by a certain Moises Maspil, a defeated delegateaspirant who placed 15th in the order of votes garnered against the petitioner, and his coaccused for alleged violation of Section 51 of the Revised Penal Code in that they gave and distributed free of charge food, drinks and cigarettes at two public meetings, one held in This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
Sablan and the other in Tuba, both towns being in Province of Benguet. Respondent Presiding Judge conducted the preliminary investigation of said criminal complaints. Thereafter on August 7, 1971, he issued an order for the filing of the corresponding informations. Before a warrant of arrest in said criminal cases could be issued, petitioner in a motion of August 14, 1971 invoked the privilege of immunity from arrest and search, pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6132, otherwise known as the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, in relation to Sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution and Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent Judge, on the very same day, issued an order, holding in abeyance the issuance of a warrant of arrest and setting the hearing of said Motion on August 23, 1971. As scheduled on August 23, 1971, there was a hearing on such motion. Petitioner however did not prevail notwithstanding his vigorous insistence on his claim for immunity, a warrant of arrest being ordered on the same day. On September 11, 1971, there was a motion to quash such order of arrest filed by petitioner. He was unsuccessful, respondent Judge, in an order of said date, ordering his immediate arrest. His petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed with this Court on September 15, 1971. 11 What is thus sought by petitioners Martinez y Festin and Bautista, Sr. is that the respective warrants of arrest issued against them be quashed on the claim that by virtue of the parliamentary immunity they enjoy as delegates, ultimately traceable to Section 15 of Article VI of the Constitution as construed together with Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code, they are immune from arrest. In the case of petitioner Martinez y Festin, he is proceeded against for falsification of a public document punishable by prision mayor. 12 As for petitioner Bautista, Sr., the penalty that could be imposed for each of the Revised Election Code offense, of which he is charged, is not higher than prision mayor. 13 The respondents in the above petitions were required to answer by resolutions of this Court issued on September 10 and September 20, 1971, respectively. An answer on behalf of respondent Judge Jesus P. Morfe in the case of petitioner Martinez y Festin was filed on September 20, 1971 with an answer in intervention filed by respondent Executive Sheriff of Manila and the Chief of Warrant Division likewise filed on the same date. His petition was duly heard on September 14, 1971, Delegate Estanislao A. Fernandez vehemently pressing his claim to immunity. Thereafter on October 29, 1971, a memorandum, comprehensive in scope and persuasive in its analysis of the constitutional question presented, was filed on behalf of respondent Judge Morfe by Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, two Assistants Solicitors General Bernardo P. Pardo and Rosalio A. de Leon as well as Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza. A memorandum on behalf of President Diosdado Macapagal of the Constitutional Convention, who was given permission to submit such a pleading, was submitted on March 8, 1972 by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Constitutional Convention. 14 As for the petitions of Bautista, Sr., the answer on behalf of respondent Judge was filed on September 29, 1971. When the matter was heard on October 14, 1971, he appeared through counsel, Delegate Juanito R. Remulla, while respondent Judge was represented by Assistant Solicitor General Rosalio A. de Leon and Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza. With the This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
submission, on October 30, 1971, of an able memorandum on behalf of respondent judge, again, by the same counsel from the Office of the Solicitor General as well as a carefullyprepared memorandum of petitioner Bautista, Sr., on December 1, 1971, the matter was deemed submitted for adjudication. Held: As noted at the outset, certiorari does not lie to quash the warrants of arrest issued against petitioner Martinez y Festin as well as petitioner Bautista, Sr. Their reliance on the constitutional provision which for them should be supplemented by what was provided for in the Revised Penal Code is futile. There is no justification then for granting their respective pleas. 1.) "By common parliamentary law, the members of the legislature are privileged from arrest on civil process during the session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to enable them to go to and return from the same." A prosecution for a criminal offense, is thus excluded from this grant of immunity. So it should be Philippine law, if deference were to be paid to what was explicitly agreed upon in the Constitutional Convention. 2.) In the language of the constitutional provision then that portion of Article 145 penalizing a public official or employee who shall while the Congress is in regular or special session arrest or search any member thereof except in case he has committed a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor is declared inoperative. There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the necessity to have members of Congress, and likewise delegates to the Constitutional Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to enable them to discharge their vital responsibilities, bowing to no other force except the dictates of their conscience. Necessarily the utmost latitude in free speech should be accorded them. When it comes to freedom from arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same. There is likely to be no dissent from the proposition that a legislator or a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well, without the need for any transgression of the criminal law. Should such an unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated like any other citizen considering that there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished. To the fear that may be expressed that the prosecuting arm of the government might unjustly go after legislators belonging to the minority, it suffices to answer that precisely all the safeguards thrown around an accused by the Constitution, solicitous of the rights of an individual, would constitute an obstacle to such an attempt at abuse of power. This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
The presumption of course is that the judiciary would main independent. It is trite to say that in each and every manifestation of judicial endeavor, such a virtue is of the essence.

DIRECT ASSAULT
People v. Beltran Nature: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan which indicted appellants for murder and double attempted murder with direct assault. Case Gist: Appellants in this case are convicted by the CIF of Cagayan for murder and double attempted murder with direct assault for firing a Mayor and his colleagues who are at that time in the performance of their duties. Facts: In the evening of January 11, 1972, between 9:00 and 10:00, in Ballesteros, Cagayan, Ernesto Alvarado was bringing Calixto Urbi home in a jeep. Passing by the Puzon Compound, Delfino Beltran alias Minong, shouted at them, "Oki ni inayo" (Vulva of your mother). They proceeded on their way and ignored Delfino. After Alvarado had brought Urbi to his house he went to the house of Mayor Bienvenido Quirolgico and reported the matter. The newly elected Mayor told the Chief of Police that something should be done about it. They decided to go to the Puzon Compound with the intention to talk to Delfino Beltran and his companions to surrender considering that he knew them personally as all of them were once working for Congressman David Puzon When they came near the compound, they saw appellants Delfino Beltran, Rogelio Bugarin and Domingo Hernandez and suddenly there was a simultaneous discharge of gunfire, The mayor's son, Vicente, who was with them, cried: " I am already hit, Daddy." As he fell, Vicente pushed his father and both fell down. Mayor Quirolgico and Patrolman Rolando Tolentino also suffered injuries. When the firing had stopped, they decided to bring Vicente to the hospital. As the jeep left the compound three (3) men came out of the Puzon Compound and fired at the fleeing vehicle. They were Cresencio Siazon, Ceferino Beltran and Noling Puzon. Likewise, Domingo Hernandez and Minong Beltran and Boy Bugarin tried to give chase. After a while, all the six men returned inside the compound. An hour after admission to the hospital Vicente Quirolgico died. Held: Considering that Mayor Quirolgico is a person in authority and Pat. Rolando Tolentino is a policeman who at the time was in his uniform, and both were performing their official duties to maintain peace and order in the community, the finding of the trial court that appellants This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
are guilty of attempted murder with direct assault on the persons of Mayor Quirolgico and Pat. Tolentino is correct. Relative to the last assigned error, following Our latest ruling in People vs. Nicolas Canamo, et al., G.R. No. 62043, promulgated on August 13, 1985, We agree with appellants that they should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as they in fact presented themselves voluntarily to the authorities. However, this mitigating circumstance is offset by the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. People v. Dollantes Nature: This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, convicting the nine (9) accused, Pedro Dollantes, Hamlet Dollantes, Lauro Dollantes, Monico Dollantes, Sidrito Lokesio, Merlando Dollantes, Hugo Grengia, Danny Esteban and Leonilo Villaester, all equally guilty of the complex crime of "Assault upon a Person in Authority Resulting in Murder". Case Gist: Appellants killed the Brgy. Captain who admonished them when they were acting menacingly during the town fiesta. The Brgy. Captain was in the performance of his duty at that time. Facts: Deceased Marcos Gabutero at the time of his death was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Maglihe, Tayasan, Negros Oriental; that due to the approaching fiesta of barangay Maglihe, a dance was held in said barangay in the evening of April 21, 1983; that while the Barangay Captain was delivering a speech to start the dance, the accused Pedro Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing floor, making a dance movement known in the visayan as "nagkorantsa", brandishing his knife and challenging everyone as to who was brave among the people present; the Barangay Captain approached Pedro Dollantes and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance. However, the accused, instead of heeding to the advice of the Barangay Captain, stabbed the latter on the left arm; that accused Hugo Grengia held the left hand of accused Pedro Dollantes and Dionilo Garol was able to get from the hand of Pedro Dollantes the hunting knife. Immediately thereafter, accused Hamlet Dollantes, who rushed towards the Barangay Captain, stabbed the Barangay Captain at the back and the other co-accused also took turns in stabbing the Barangay Captain; the Barangay Captain at that time was not armed. Except for the accused Hugo Grengia, Danny Esteban and Leonilo Villaester who were merely holding stones, the other co-accused participated in the stabbing incident. When the Barangay Captain fell to the ground and died, the accused in this case took turns in kicking the dead body of the Barangay Captain and were dancing around said dead body; that the Barangay Captain suffered eleven (11) wounds in the different parts of his body, two of which happened to be at the back of his dead body. According to the attending physician, Dr. Rogelio Kho who examined the body of

This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
the deceased, the victim died of "Severe hemorrhage and cardiac tamponade due to stab wounds." Dionilo Garol who was six (6) meters away, saw clearly what happened. He testified that when the Barangay Captain started to deliver his speech, the accused Pedro Dollantes brandishing a knife shouted "Who is brave here?" The victim then approached to admonish him t the latter stabbed the victim on the arm. Garol immediately approached the accused Pedro Dollantes and tried to wrest the knife away from the hand of the accused. The accused Hugo Grengia also tried to grab the knife but it was Garol who succeeded. The accused Grengia then told him "Do not try to intervene because you might be included in the plan." Then Grengia made some signs by nodding his head and the accused Hamlet Dollantes and Alfredo Dollantes rushed to and attacked the victim followed by the other coaccused in this case who also rushed at and stabbed the victim. He specified that accused Alfredo Dollantes, Lauro Dollantes, Monico Dollantes and Sidrito Lokesio were carrying knives while the accused Merlando Dollantes was carrying a bolo; and that they stabbed the victim one after another. He said that the accused Danny Esteban, Hugo Grengia andLeonilo Villaester were all carrying stones which they threw at the store of the victim's wife. This testimony was fully corroborated by another prosecution eyewitness Bonifacio Cero who was about three (3) meters away and whose narration tallied on all material ints with that of Dionilo Garol as to what transpired that night. He stated further that when he saw the Barangay Captain being stabbed he tried to approach the group but he was held by Danny Esteban who said "do not try to interfere, you are not a party to this. We have already gotten what we have been aiming for." Thereafter, he ran away but Alfredo Dollantes, Pedro Dollantes and Danny Esteban stoned him because they intended to kill him also. He also testified that when he returned to the crime scene, he saw Hugo Grengia, Danny Esteban and companions simultaneously kicking the dead body and shouting "who is brave among here. " Marciana Gabutero, the wife of the victim funy corroborated the testimonies of Garol and Cero. She also added that Hugo Grengia wanted to be a Barangay Captain and she happened to know that as a fact, because he told the crowd not to long as Barangay Captain. She also testified that the accused Leonilo Villaester splashed one glass of tuba on the face of the deceased and that the victim had had a misunderstanding with the Dollantes on a theft case involving Hamlet Dollantes. Held: It will be noted that the above witnesses were categorical and straightforward when they stated that they saw appellants stab the victim. They even specified the type of weapon used by each of said appellants. There is no possibility that they could have been mistaken in their Identification for apart from being near the crime scene which was well illuminated with two Petromax lamps, these This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
witnesses are familiar with the appellants since they are all residents of the same locality. Furthermore, there is no showing that the witnesses had any motive to testify falsely against the appellants. In fact, under similar circumstances, the Court has held that where the scene of the stabbing was clearly lighted and no motive was shown why prosecution witnesses would incriminate the appellants, identification would be given full faith and credit. The lower court also found that treachery was present in the commission of the crime, and that the accused Alfredo Dollantes, Lauro Dollantes, Monico Dollantes, Sidrito Lokesio and Merlando Dollantes are as equally guilty as principals by direct participation. These accused took turns in stabbing the victim. In fact the victim was caught by surprise and did not have time to defend himself. Finally, the records show that the Barangay Captain was in the act of trying to pacify Pedro Dollantes who was making trouble in the dance hall when he was stabbed to death. He was therefore killed while in the performance of his duties. In the case of People v. Hecto (135 SCRA 113), this Court ruled that "As the barangay captain, it was his duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay. If in the enforcement thereof, he incurs, the enmity of his people who thereafter treacherously slew him the crime committed is murder with assault upon a person in authority." There is no question that the trial court's conclusions on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal. (People v. Oliverio, 120 SCRA 22). After a careful review of the records, no plausible reason could be found to disturb the findings of fact and of law of the lower court in this case. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL

Alberto v. Dela Cruz Nature: This is a petition for certiorari. Case Gist: Eligio Orbita, a Provincial guard, is prosecuted for the crime of Infedelity in the Custody of Prisoner, defined and punished under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, Facts: That on or about the 12th day of September. 1968, in the barrio of Taculod, municipality of Canaman, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then a member of the Provincial Guard of Camarines Sur and specially charged with the duty of keeping under custody and vigilance detention prisoner Pablo Denaque, did then and there with great carelessness and This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II

CRIMINAL LAW II
Cases (SY 2013-2014) Eliza Den A. Devilleres
unjustifiable negligence leave the latter unguarded while in said barrio, thereby giving him the opportunity to run away and escape, as in fact said detention prisoner Pablo Denaque did run away and escape from the custody of the said accused. In the course of the trial thereof, or more particularly during the cross-examination of prosecution witness Jose Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden of Camarines Sur, the defense brought forth and confronted the witness with a note, purportedly written by Gov. Armando Cledera, asking Jose Esmeralda to send five men to work in the construction of a fence at his house at Taculod, Canaman, Camarines Sur, then leased by the province and used as an official guest house. Jose Esmeralda, declared, however, that he could not remember who handed the note for him; that he was not sure as to genuineness of the signature appearing therein and that he was not present when the note was made and signed by Gov. Cledera. Believing that the escape of Pablo Denaque was made possible by the note of Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda and that Cledera and Esmeralda are equally guilty of the offense for which the accused Eligio Orbita had been charged, the defense counsel filed a motion in court seeking the amendment of the information so as to include Gov. Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants therein. Issue: W/N the Governor as jailer of the Province and his assistant have any criminatory participation in the circumstances of Pablo Denaque's escape from judicial custody. Held:

This is a compilation of cases from the syllabus of Atty. Teodoro Angel | CRIMLAW II