Petitioner: Elvira Yu Oh Respondent(s): Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines FACTS: Petitioner purchased pieces of je elr!

fro" Solid #old $nternational Traders% $nc& 'ue to her failure to pa! the purchase price% the co"pan! filed civil cases a(ainst her for specific perfor"ance )efore the RTC of Pasi(& On Septe")er *+% *,,-% petitioner and Solid #old throu(h it (eneral "ana(er% .oa/uin 0ovales $$$ entered into a co"pro"ise a(ree"ent to settle said civil cases& $t as approved )! the trial court provided that petitioner shall issue a total of ninet!1nine post1dated chec2s in the a"ount of P3P 4-%---&-- each% dated ever! *4 th and 5-th of the "onth startin( Octo)er *% *,,- and the )alance of over P3P *"illion to )e paid in lu"p su" on 0ove")er *6% *,,7 (the due date of the ,, th post dated chec2)& Petitioner then issued ten chec2s at Php 4-%---&-- each for a total of Php 4--%---&-- dra n a(ainst her account at the E/uita)le 8an2in( Corporation (E8C)& 0ovales then deposited each of the ten chec2s on their respective due dates to the co"pan! )an2 account& 3o ever% said chec2s ere dishonored )! the E8C for the reason 9Account Closed:& 'ishonor slips ere issued for each chec2 that as returned to 0ovales& On Octo)er 4% *,,;% 0ovales filed *- separate infor"ations )efore the RTC of <ue=on Cit! char(in( the petitioner ith violation of 8atas Pa")ansa 8l(& ;;& >pon arrai(n"ent% petitioner pleaded not (uilt!& 0onetheless% RTC convicted her of ten counts of violation of 8P ;;& CA affir"ed the decision& $SS>ES: (*) ?hether or not appellate court as "ista2en in not (rantin( retroactive effect to RA +6,* in vie of Art ;; of the RPC& (;) ?hether or not 9notice of dishonor: is indispensa)le in this case& 3E@': (*) 0o& RA +6,* is not a penal la and therefore% Art ;; of the RPC does not appl! in the present case& A penal la is an act of the le(islature that prohi)its certain acts and esta)lishes penalties for its violations& $t also defines cri"e% treats of their nature and provides for its punish"ent& RA +6,* is a la that vests additional jurisdiction on courts% thus% it is su)stantive& The court further held that it cannot )e (iven retroactive effect& (;) Yes& $t is necessar! that a 9notice of dishonor: )e received )! the issuer and the prosecution has the )urden of provin( the fact of service& $t thus stated in section ; of 8P ;;& $t is essential for the dra er to )e notified of the dishonor of her chec2s so she could "a2e arran(e"ents for its pa!"ent ithin the period prescri)ed )! la (4 da!s)& 3ence% SC reversed the decision of the CA and ac/uits the petioner&

People of the Philippines vs Ca!at Equal Protection Requisites of a Valid Classification Bar from Drinking Gin FACTS: $n *,5+% there eAists a la cau(ht (Act *65,) hich )ars native non1Christians fro" drin2in( (in or an! as as then char(ed and sentenced to pa! other li/uor outside of their custo"ar! alcoholic drin2s& Ca!at% a native of the Cordillera% ith an A1*1* (in in violation of this Act& 3e

P4&-- and to )e i"prisoned in case of insolvenc!& Ca!at ad"itted his (uilt )ut he challen(ed the constitutionalit! of the said Act& 3e averred% a"on( others% that it violated his ri(ht to e/ual protection afforded )! the constitution& 3e said this an atte"pt to treat the" or 9"ar2 the" as inferior or less capa)le race and less entitled: challen(e& The la ill "eet ith discri"ination ith their instant

sou(ht to distin(uish and classif! native non1Christians fro" Christians&

ISSUE: ?hether or not the said Act violates the e/ual protection clause& HELD: The SC ruled that Act *65, is valid for it "et the re/uisites of a reasona)le classification& The SC e"phasi=ed that it is not enou(h that the "e")ers of a (roup have the characteristics that distin(uish the" fro" others& The classification "ust% as an indispensa)le re/uisite% not )e ar)itrar!& The re/uisites to )e co"plied ith areB (*) "ust rest on su)stantial distinctionsB (;) "ust )e (er"ane to the purposes of the la B (5) "ust not )e li"ited to eAistin( conditions onl!B and (7) "ust appl! e/uall! to all "e")ers of the sa"e class& Act 0o& *65, satisfies these re/uire"ents& The classification rests on real or su)stantial% not "erel! i"a(inar! or hi"sical% distinctions& $t is not )ased upon 9accident of )irth or parenta(e&: The la % then% does not see2 to "ar2 the non1Christian tri)es as 9an inferior or less capa)le race&: On the contrar!% all "easures thus far adopted in the pro"otion of the pu)lic polic! to ards the" rest upon a reco(nition of their inherent ri(ht to e/ualit! in the enjo!"ent of those privile(es no enjo!ed )! their Christian )rothers& 8ut as there can )e no true e/ualit! )efore the la % if there is% in fact% no e/ualit! in education% the (overn"ent has endeavored% )! appropriate "easures% to raise their culture and civili=ation and secure for the" the )enefits of their pro(ress% ith the ulti"ate end in vie of placin( the" ith their Christian )rothers on the )asis of true e/ualit!&

Cit! of Canila vs .ud(e Perfecto @a(uio Police Power FACTS:On 5- Car *,,5% Ca!or @i" si(ned into la Ord ++D5 entitled A0 OR'$0A0CE PRO3$8$T$0# T3E ESTA8@$S3CE0T OR OPERAT$O0 OF 8>S$0ESSES PROE$'$0# CERTA$0 FORCS OF AC>SECE0T% E0TERTA$0CE0T% SERE$CES A0' FAC$@$T$ES $0 T3E ERC$TA1CA@ATE AREA% PRESCR$8$0# PE0A@T$ES FOR E$O@AT$O0 T3EREOF% A0' FOR OT3ER P>RPOSES& $t )asicall! prohi)ited esta)lish"ents such as )ars% 2arao2e )ars% "otels and hotels fro" operatin( in the Calate 'istrict hich as notoriousl! vie ed as a red li(ht district har)orin( thrill see2ers& Calate Tourist 'evelop"ent Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it includes hotels and "otels in the enu"eration of places offerin( a"use"ent or entertain"ent& CT'C reiterates that the! do not "ar2et such nor do the! use o"en as tools for entertain"ent& CT'C also avers that under the @#C% @#>s can onl! re(ulate "otels )ut cannot prohi)it their operation& The Cit! reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid eAercise of Police Po er as provided as ell in the @#C& The Cit! li2e ise e"phasi=ed that the purpose of the la is to pro"ote "oralit! in the Cit!& ISSUE: ?hether or not Ordinance ++D5 is valid& HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void& The SC noted that for an ordinance to )e valid% it "ust not onl! )e ithin the corporate po ers of the local (overn"ent unit to enact and "ust )e passed accordin( to the procedure prescri)ed )! la % it "ust also confor" to the follo in( su)stantive re/uire"ents: (*) "ust not contravene the Constitution or an! statuteB (;) "ust not )e unfair or oppressiveB (5) "ust not )e partial or discri"inator!B (7) "ust not prohi)it )ut "a! re(ulate tradeB (4) "ust )e (eneral and consistent ith pu)lic polic!B and (6) "ust not )e unreasona)le& The police po er of the Cit! Council% ho ever )road and far1reachin(% is su)ordinate to the constitutional li"itations thereonB and is su)ject to the li"itation that its eAercise "ust )e reasona)le and for the pu)lic (ood& $n the case at )ar% the enact"ent of the Ordinance invalid eAercise of dele(ated po er as it is unconstitutional and repu(nant to (eneral la s& as an

CASE DIGEST ON In Re: KAY VILLEGAS KAMI [35 SCRA 429 (197 !"

Facts: Fa! Eille(as Fa"i $nc& clai"in( to )e a reco(ni=ed non1stoc2% non1profit corporation contests validit! of RA G 6*5; Sec& D sa!in( it violates due process ri(hts of association% freedo" of eApression and is an eA post facto la $ssues: *& ?O0 it violates three ri(htsH 0o& $tIs set up to prevent prostitution of electoral process and e/ual protection of la s& ;& ?O0 it is an eA post facto la H 0o& EA post facto la defined: a& "a2es cri"inal an act done )efore la as passed and punishes act innocent hen done& )& a((ravates a cri"e% "a2es it (reater than it as c& inflicts (reater punish"ent than the la prescri)ed hen co""itted d& alters le(al rules of evidence and authori=es conviction upon less or different tests e& assu"in( to re(ulate civil ri(hts and re"edies onl! in effect i"poses penalt! or deprivation of ri(ht hich hen done as la ful f& deprives a person accused of a cri"e so"e la ful protection to hich he has )eco"e entitled% such as the protection of a for"er conviction of ac/uittal or a procla"ation of a"nest!& 3eld: Petition denied& Constitutional act& Constitutional inhi)ition refers onl! to cri"inal la s& Penalt! in la i"posed to acts co""itted after approval of la

TITLE O# THE CASE: SALVADOR V$ MA%ADATE O# %ROMULGATION: N&'e()e* 2+, 2 7SU-.ECT AREA: C/'/0 %*&1e23*e4 C*/(/n50 L56KEY DOCTRINES7CONCE%TS: S8e1/50 C/'/0

A19/&n :&* Ce*9/&*5*/ (R30e ;5! '<$ %e9/9/&n :&* Re'/e6 &n Ce*9/&*5*/ (R30e 45!4 %*e<1*/89/&n4 E= %&<9 #519& L56< #ACTS: On Octo)er D% *,,; then President Fidel E& Ra"os issuedAd"inistrative Order 0o& *5 creatin( the Presidential Ad 3ocFact1Findin( Co""ittee on 8ehest @oans& 8ehest loans areloans (ranted )! (overn"ent )an2s or #OCC at the )ehest%co""and% or ur(in( )! previous (overn"ent officials to thedisadvanta(e of the Philippine (overn"ent& The Co""ittee as tas2ed to inventor! all )ehest loans and deter"ine thecourses of action that the (overn"ent should ta2e to recover these loans&8! Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6* dated 0ove")er ,% *,,;% the functions of the Co""ittee ere eApanded to include all non1 perfor"in( loans hich shall e")race )ehest and non1)ehestloans& Said Ce"orandu" also na"ed criteria to )e utili=ed asa fra"e of reference in deter"inin( a )ehest loan S e v e r a l l o a n a c c o u n t s e r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e C o " " i t t e e f o r investi(atio n% includin( the loan transactions )et een CetalsEAploration Asia% $nc& (CEA)% no Philippine Ea(le Cines% $nc&(PEC$) and the 'evelop"ent 8an2 of the Philippines ('8P)& The Co""ittee deter"ined that the! )ore the characteristics of )ehest loans% as defined under Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6*)ecause the stoc2holders and officers of PEC$ ere 2no n c r o n i e s o f t h e n P r e s i d e n t F e r d i n a n d C a r c o s B t h e l o a n a s under1 collaterali=edB and PEC$ as undercapitali=ed at theti"e the loan as (ranted&Conse/uentl!% Att!& Orlando @& Salvador% Consultant of theFact1Findin( Co""ittee% and representin( the PC##% filed i t h t h e O " ) u d s " a n a s o r n c o " p l a i n t f o r v i o l a t i o n o f Sections 5(e) and (() of Repu)lic Act 0o& 5-*,% or the Anti1# r a f t a n d C o r r u p t P r a c t i c e s A c t % a(ainst the respondentsCapa% .r& et& al&The O")uds"an dis"issed the co"plaint on the (round of prescription& $t stressed that Section ** of R&A& 0o& 5-*, asori(inall! enacted% provides that the prescriptive period for v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e s a i d A c t ( R & A & 5 - * , ) i s t e n ( * - ) ! e a r s & Coreo ver% the co"putation of the prescriptive period of a cri"eviolatin( a special la li2e R&A& 5-*, is (overned )! Act 0o&55;6 hich provides that prescription shall )e(in to run fro"the da! of the co""ission of the violation of la % and if the sa"e )e not 2no n at the ti"e% fro" the discover! thereof andthe institution of the judicial proceedin(s for its investi(ation and punish"ent& Corollar! thereto% the Supre"e Court in thecase of People vs& 'insa!% C&A& 7- O&#& *; th Supp&% 4-% ruledthat hen there is nothin( hich as concealed or needed to)e discovered )ecause the entire series of transactions ere )! pu)lic instru"ents% the period of prescription co""enced torun fro" the date the said instru"ent ere eAecuted&$ n t h e c a s e a t ) a r % t h e l o a n s e r e e n t e r e d i n t o ) ! v i r t u e o f pu)lic docu"ents (e&(&% notari=ed contracts% )oard resolutions%approved letter1re/uest) durin( the period of *,+D to *,D*&Records sho that the co"plaint as referred and filed ith the O")uds"an on Octo)er 7% *,,6 or after the lapse of "orethan fifteen !ears fro" the violation of the la & Therefore% theoffenses char(ed had alread! prescri)ed&Also pointed out as that the Presidential Ad 3oc Co""itteeo n 8 e h e s t @ o a n s a s c r e a t e d o n O c t o ) e r D % * , , ; u n d e r Ad"inistrative Order 0o& *5& Su)se/uentl!% Ce"orandu"Order 0o& 6*% dated 0ove")er ,% *,,;% as issued definin( the criteria to )e utili=ed as a fra"e of reference in deter"inin() e h e s t l o a n s & A c c o r d i n ( l ! % i f t h e s e O r d e r s a r e t o ) e c o n s i d e r e d t h e ) a s e s o f c h a r ( i n ( r e s p o n d e n t s f o r a l l e ( e d offenses

co""itted% the! )eco"e eA1post facto la s hich areproscri)ed )! the Constitution&The Co""ittee filed a Cotion for Reconsideration% )ut theO")uds"an denied it on .ul! ;+% *,,D& ISSUE 1: >ON THE %RESENT %ETITION #OR REVIE> ONCERTIORARI SHOULD -E DISMISSED #OR -EING THE>RONG REMEDY IN ELEVATING THE CASE TO THE SC$DECISION: N&$RATIO: A petition for revie on certiorari under Rule 74 is not theproper "ode )! hich resolutions of the O " ) u d s " a n i n preli"inar! investi(ations of cri"inal cases are revie ed )! theS C & T h e r e " e d ! f r o " t h e a d v e r s e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e O")u ds"an is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64&3 o e v e r % t h o u ( h c a p t i o n e d a s a Petition for Revie o n Certiorari % the SC treated the petition as one filed under Rule 64 since a readin( of its contents reveals that petioner i"putes(rave a)use of discretion to the O")uds"an for dis"issin( t h e c o " p l a i n t & T h e a v e r " e n t s i n t h e c o " p l a i n t % n o t t h e no"enclature (iven )! the parties% deter"ine the nature of theaction& ISSUE 2: >ON THE CRIME DE#INED -Y SEC$ (e!A N D ( ? ! O # R $ A $ 3 1 9 H A S A L R E A D Y %RES CRI-EDDECISION: N& RATIO: $t is ell1ni(h i"possi)le for the State to have 2no nt h e v i o l a t i o n s o f R & A & 0 o & 5 - * , a t t h e t i " e t h e / u e s t i o n e d t r a n s a c t i o n s e r e " a d e ) e c a u s e t h e pu)lic officials concerned connived or conspired iththe )eneficiaries of the loans& Thus% the prescriptiveperiod should )e co"puted fro" the discover! of thec o " " i s s i o n t h e r e o f a n d n o t f r o " t h e d a ! o f s u c h co""ission& ISSUE 3: >ON ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO$ 13A N D M E M O R A N D U M O R D E R N O $ ; 1 A R E EJ1 POST FACTO LA>S DECISION: N&$RATIO: T h e S C d i d n o t s u s t a i n t h e O " ) u d s " a n I s d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t Ad"inistrative Order 0o& *5 and Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6* violate the prohi)ition a(ainst eA post facto la s for ostensi)l! inflictin( punish"ent upon a person for an act done prior to their issuance and hich as innocent hen done&The constitutionalit! of la s is presu"ed& To justif! nullificationof a la % there "ust )e a clear and une/uivocal )reach of theC o n s t i t u t i o n % n o t a d o u ) t f u l o r a r ( u a ) l e i " p l i c a t i o n & Fur ther"ore% the O")uds"an has no jurisdiction to entertain/uestions on the constitutionalit! of a la & The O")uds"an%t h e r e f o r e % a c t e d i n e A c e s s o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n d e c l a r i n ( unco nstitutional the su)ject ad"inistrative and "e"orandu"orders&$n an! event% the SC held that Ad"inistrative Order 0o& *5 andCe"orandu" Order 0o& 6* are not eA post facto la s&An eA post facto la has )een defined as one K (a) hich "a2es an action done )efore the passin( of the la and hich as innocent hen done cri"inal% and punishes such actionBor ()) hich a((ravates a cri"e or "a2es it (reater than it as hen co""ittedB or (c) hich chan(es the punish"ent and inflicts a (reater punish"ent than the la anneAed to the

cri"e hen it as co""ittedB or (d) hich alters the le(al rules of evidence and receives less or different testi"on! than the la re/uired at the ti"e of the co""ission of the offense in order to convict the defendant& This Court added t o (;) "ore to thelist% na"el!: (e) that hich assu"es to re(ulate civil ri(hts andre"edies onl! )ut in effect i"poses a penalt! or deprivation of a ri(ht hich hen done as la fulB or (f) that hich deprivesa person accused of a cri"e of so"e la ful protection to hichhe has )eco"e entitled% such as the protection of a for"er conviction or ac/uittal% or a procla"ation of a"nest!&The constitutional doctrine that outla s an eA post facto la (enerall! prohi)its the retrospectivit! of penal la s& Penal la sare those acts of the le(islature hich prohi)it certain acts andesta)lish penalties for their violationsB or those that define cri"es% treat of their nature% and provide for their punish"ent&The su)ject ad"inistrative and "e"orandu" orders clearl! donot co"e ithin the shado of this definition& Ad"inistrativeOrder 0o& *5 creates the Presidential Ad 3oc Fact1Findin(Co""ittee on 8ehest @oans% and provides for its co"positiona n d f u n c t i o n s & $ t d o e s n o t " e t e o u t p e n a l t ! f o r t h e a c t o f (rantin( )ehest loans& Ce"orandu" Order 0o& 6* "erel!provides a fra"e of reference for deter"inin( )ehest loans& 0 o t ) e i n ( p e n a l l a s % A d " i n i s t r a t i v e O r d e r 0 o & * 5 a n d Ce" orandu" Order 0o& 6* cannot )e characteri=ed as eA post facto la s&

Case 'i(est: >&S& vs& Ah Chon( #&R& 0o& @1+,;, Carch *,% *,*Facts: 8ecause of the "an! )ad ele"ents happenin( at Fort CcFinle!% Ah Chon(% a coo2% loc2ed hi"self in his roo" )! placin( a chair a(ainst the door& After havin( (one to )ed% he as a a2ened )! so"eone tr!in( to open the door of his roo"& 3e called out t ice% ?ho is there% )ut received no ans er& Fearin( that the intruder as a ro))er% he leaped fro" his )ed and called out a(ain% $f !ou enter the roo" $ ill 2ill !ou& 8ut at the precise "o"ent% he as struc2 )! the chair and )elievin( that he as )ein( attac2ed% he sei=ed a 2itchen 2nife and struc2 and fatall! ounded the intruder ho turned out to )e his roo""ate& $ssue: ?hether or not Ah Chon( as (uilt! of "urder& Rulin(: >nder Article ** para(raph * of the Revised Penal Code provides that to justif! the act% there should )e: First& >nla ful a((ression on the part of the person 2illedB Second& Reasona)le necessit! of the "eans e"plo!ed to prevent or repel itB Third& @ac2 of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendin( hi"self& Ah Chon( as not held lia)le for the death of his roo""ate& The Supre"e Court reversed the lo er courts conviction of ho"icide% sa!in( that Ah Chon( co""itted a "ista2e of fact& 3e ould not have sta))ed his roo""ate had he 2no n the identit! of the person ho entered the roo"& $f the person ho opened the door had reall! )een a ro))er instead of his roo""ate% he ould not )e cri"inall! lia)le if he had sta))ed that person in self1defense&

%e&80e '<$ O5n/<

.ul! ;+% *,75 (+7 Phil ;4+)

PART$ES:

Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines

'efendants and appellant: Antonio Oanis% Al)erto #alanta

FACTS:

Antonio Oanis and Al)erto #alanta ere instructed to arrest a notorious cri"inal and escaped convict% Ansel"o 8ala(tas% and if overpo ered% to (et hi" dead or alive& The! ent to the suspected house then proceeded to the roo" here the! sa the supposedl! 8ala(tas sleepin(

ith his )ac2 to ards the door& Oanis and #alanta si"ultaneousl! or successivel! fired at hi" hich resulted to the victi"Is death& The supposedl! 8ala(tas turned out to )e Serepio Tecson% an innocent "an&

$SS>E:

*& ?O0 Oanis and #alanta incur no lia)ilit! due to innocent "ista2e of fact in the honest perfor"ance of their official duties&

;& ?O0 Oanis and #alanta incur no cri"inal lia)ilit! in the perfor"ance of their dut!&

3E@':

*& 0o& $nnocent "ista2e of fact does not appl! to the case at )ar& 9$(norance facti eAcusat: applies onl! hen the "ista2e is co""itted ithout fault or carelessness& The fact that the supposedl! suspect as sleepin(% Oanis and #alanta could have chec2ed hether it is the real 8ala(tas&

;& 0o& Oanis and #alanta are cri"inall! lia)le& A person incurs no cri"inal lia)ilit! hen he acts in the fulfill"ent of a dut! or in the la ful eAercise of a ri(ht or office& There are ; re/uisites to justif! this: (*) the offender acted in teh perfo"ance of a dut! or in the la ful eAercise of a ri(ht or office% (;) that the injur! or offense co""itted )e the necessar! conse/uence of the due perfor"ance of such dut! or the la ful eAercise of such ri(ht or office& $n this case% onl! the first re/uisite is present&

CASE DIGEST ON %EO%LE '$ -INDOY [5; %@/0$ 15 (1931!"

Facts: On Ca! 6% *,5-% 'onato 8indo! offered so"e tu)a to Ti)a!% Faustino PacasI ife& She refused and 8indo! threatened to injure her if she did not accept& Pacas stepped in to defend his ife and atte"pted to ta2e a a! fro" 8indo! the )olo he carried& The distur)ance attracted the attention of E"i(dio O"a"da"& $n the course of the stru((le% 8indo! succeeded in disen(a(in( hi"self fro" Pacas% renchin( the )olo fro" the latterIs hand% ith such violence that the point of the )olo reached O"a"da"Is chest% ho as then )ehind 8indo!& The trial court held that 8indo! as (uilt! of the cri"e of ho"icide& 8indo! appealed% alle(in( that the death of O"a"da" as caused accidentall! and ithout "alicious intent& $ssue: ?O0 the cri"e of hich 8indo! as found (uilt! of can )e "iti(ated on the (round of accident& 3eld: Yes& 'ecision is reversed& 8indo! is ac/uitted accordin( to Article D% 0o& D of the Revised Penal Code Ratio: *& There is no evidence to sho that 8indo! deli)eratel! and intentionall! 2illed O"a"da"& H 0o evidence that O"a"da" too2 part in the fi(ht )et een 8indo! and Pacas& H 0o evidence that 8indo! as a are of O"a"da"Is presence& H 0o evidence that there as disa(ree"ent or ill feelin(s )et een 8indo! L O"a"da"& On the contrar!% the! ere nephe L uncle% L ere on (ood ter"s ith each other& ;& The itness for the defense corro)orates the defendant to the effect that Pacas and 8indo! ere actuall! stru((lin( for the possession of the )olo% and that hen the latter let (o% the for"er had pulled so violentl! that it fle to ards O"a"da"% ho as therefore hit in the chest% ithout 8indo!Is seein( hi"% )ecause O"a"da" had passed )ehind hi"& The testi"on! of this itness as not contradicted )! an! re)uttal evidence adduced )! the fiscal& 5& $f% in the stru((le% the defendant had atte"pted to ound his opponent% and instead of doin( so% had ounded O"a"da"% he ould )e lia)le for his act% since hoever illfull! co""its a felon! or a "isde"eanor incurs cri"inal lia)ilit!% althou(h the ron(ful act done is different fro" that hich he intended& This is not the case here& 8indo! did not tr! to ound Pacas& 3e as onl! tr!in( to defend his possession of the )olo% hich Pacas as tr!in( to rench a a! fro" hi"& 3is conduct as perfectl! la ful&

C5<e D/?e<9: A(52& A0'5*52& G5*1/5 '<$ %e&80e &: 9@e %@/0/88/ne< G.R. No. 171951 28 August 2009

#ACTS:

The Fo=es ere havin( a drin2in( spree at their apart"ent hen Ch! as2ed the" to /uiet do n to hich #arcia co""ented that Ch! as )ein( arro(ant and that one da! he ould la! a hand on hi"& T o da!s later% the (roup decided to drin2 at a store o ned )! Ch!Is sister% Es/ui)el& Ch! as a)out to co"e out of his house and upon )ein( su""oned% #arcia suddenl! punched hi"& Ch! continued to parr! the )lo s and hen he found an opportunit! to escape% he ran ho"e and phoned his ife to call the police re(ardin( the "aulin(& 3e also co"plained of difficult! in )reathin(& 3e as found later unconscious on the 2itchen floor% salivatin(&

Cause of death is heart attac2 to hich #arcia appeals that the injuries he caused ere not as violent in nature as to have caused the death of Ch!& #arcia pleaded not (uilt! to the cri"e of ho"icide& The autops! doctor confir"s that the )oAin( and the stri2in( of the )ottle )eer on the victi" could not have caused an! direct ph!sical effect to cause the heart attac2 if the victi"Is heart is health!& ?hat could have caused said heart attac2 is the victi"s e"otions concernin( the violence inflicted upon hi"&

ISSUE: ?hether the circu"stance of havin( no intention to co""it so (rave a should )e appreciated

ron( as that co""itted

RULING:

The circu"stance that the petitioner did not intend so (rave an evil as the death of the victi" does not eAe"pt hi" fro" cri"inal lia)ilit!& Since he deli)eratel! co""itted an act prohi)ited )! la % said condition si"pl! "iti(ates his (uilt in accordance ith Article *5(5) of the Revised Penal Code& 0evertheless% said circu"stance "ust )e appreciated in favour of the petitioner& The fact that the ph!sical injuries he inflicted on the victi" could not have naturall! and lo(icall! caused the actual death of the victi"% if the latterIs heart is in (ood condition&

Considerin( this "iti(atin( circu"stance% i"posa)le penalt! should )e in the "ini"u" period% that is% reclusion te"poral in its "ini"u" period& Appl!in( the $ndeter"inate Sentence @a % the trial court properl! i"posed upon petitioner an indeter"inate penalt! of ten (*-) !ears of prision "a!or% as "ini"u"% to fourteen (*7) !ears and ei(ht (D) "onths of reclusion te"poral as "aAi"u"&

Co"pleA cri"e PEOP@E vs TO@$0#

FACTS: Antonio Tolin( and .ose Tolin(% t ins% )oth "arried% are natives of 8arrio 0enita Sa"ar& The! are illiterate far"ers tillin( their o n lands& AntonioMs dau(hter% @eonora% as or2in( in Canila& .oseMs three children had sta!ed in Canila also since *,67& Antonio decided to (o to Canila after receivin( a letter fro" @eonora tellin( hi" that she ould (ive hi" "one!& To have "one! for his eApenses% Antonio 2illed a pi( and sold the "eat to .oseMs ife for siAt! pesos& .ose decided to (o ith Antonio in order to see his children& 3e as a)le to raise ei(ht!1 five pesos for his eApenses& @eonora (ave her father fift! pesos& AntonioMs (randson% (ave hi" thirt! pesos& Antonio placed the ei(ht! pesos in the ri(ht poc2et of his pants& $t as then noonti"e After )u!in( their tic2ets% the! )oarded the ni(ht 8icol eApress train at a)out five oMcloc2 in the afternoon& The train left at siA oMcloc2 that evenin(& The t ins ere in coach 0o& , hich as the third fro" the rear of the dinin( car& The coach had one ro of t o1passen(er seats and another ro of three1 passen(er seats& Each seat faced an opposite seat& An aisle separated the t o ro s& The )rothers ere seated side )! side on the fourth three1passen(er seat fro" the rear% facin( the )ac2 door& .ose as seated )et een Antonio% ho as near the indo % and a three1!ear old )o!& 8eside the )o! as a o"an )reast1feedin( her )a)! ho as near the aisle& That o"an as Cora=on 8ernal& There ere "ore than one hundred t ent! passen(ers in the coach& So"e passen(ers ere standin( on the aisle& Sittin( on the third seat and facin( the )rothers ere t o "en and an old o"an ho as sleepin( ith her head restin( on the )ac2 of the seat (EAh& ;)& on the t o1passen(er seat across the aisle in line ith the seat here the )rothers ere sittin(% there ere seated a fat o"an% ho as near the indo % and one Cipriano Re(anet ho as on her left& On the opposite seat ere seated a o"an

G$R$ N&$ 1;254 .ul! *5% ;--,

GEMMA T$ .ACINTO, Petitionervs& %EO%LE O# THE %HILI%%INES, Re<8&n2en9 %ERALTA, . A petition for revie on certiorari filed )! petitioner #e""a T& .acinto see2in( the reversal of the 'ecision of the Court of Appeals affir"in( petitionerMs conviction of the cri"e of <ualified Theft% and its Resolution den!in( petitionerMs "otion for reconsideration& #519<: 8a)! A/uino handed petitioner #e""a .acinto a 8anco 'e Oro (8'O) Chec2 in the a"ount of P*-%---&--& The chec2 as pa!"ent for 8a)! A/uinoMs purchases fro" Ce(a Foa" $ntMl&% $nc&% and petitioner as then the collector of Ce(a Foa"& So"eho % the chec2 as deposited in the @and 8an2 account of #eneroso Capitle% the hus)and of .ac/ueline CapitleB the latter is the sister of petitioner and the for"er pricin(% "erchandisin( and inventor! cler2 of Ce(a Foa"&@ater% Ro ena Rica )lanca% another e"plo!ee of Ce(a Foa"% received a phone call fro" an e"plo!ee of @and 8an2% ho as loo2in( for #eneroso Capitle& The reason for the call as to infor" Capitle that the su)ject 8'O chec2 deposited in his account had )een dishonored& Rica )lanca then called and rela!ed the "essa(e throu(h accused Anita Ealencia% a for"er e"plo!eeNcollector of Ce(a Foa"% )ecause the Capitles did not have a phoneB )ut the! could )e reached throu(h Ealencia% a nei(h)or and for"er co1e"plo!ee of .ac/ueline Capitle at Ce(a Foa"&Ealencia then told Rica)lanca that the chec2 ca"e fro" 8a)! A/uino% and instructed Rica )lanca to as2 8a)! A/uino to replace the chec2 ith cash& Ealencia also told Rica)lanca of a plan to ta2e the cash and divide it e/uall! into four: for herself% Rica )lanca% petitioner .acinto and .ac/ueline Capitle& Rica)lanca% upon the advise of Ce(a Foa"Ms accountant% reported the "atter to the o ner of Ce(a Foa"% .oseph '!hen(co&Thereafter% .oseph '!hen(co tal2ed to 8a)! A/uino and as a)le to confir" that the latter indeed handed petitioner a 8'O chec2 for P*-%---&-- as pa!"ent for her purchases fro" Ce(a Foa"& 8a)! A/uino further testified that petitioner .acinto also called her on the phone to tell her that the 8'O chec2 )ounced& Eerification fro" co"pan! records sho ed that petitioner never re"itted the su)ject chec2 to Ce(a Foa"& 3o ever% 8a)! A/uino said that she had alread! paid Ce(a Foa" P*-%---&-- cash as replace"ent for the dishonored chec2&'!hen(co filed a Co"plaint ith the 0ational 8ureau of $nvesti(ation (08$) and or2ed out an entrap"ent operation ith its a(ents& Ten pieces of P*%---&-- )ills provided )! '!hen(co ere "ar2ed and dusted ith fluorescent po der )! the 08$& Thereafter% the )ills ere (iven to Rica)lanca% ho as tas2ed to pretend that she as (oin( alon( ith EalenciaMs plan&Rica)lanca% petitioner% her hus)and% and Ealencia then )oarded petitionerMs jeep and ent on to 8a)! A/uinoMs factor!& Onl! Rica)lanca ali(hted fro" the jeep and entered the pre"ises of 8a)! A/uino% pretendin( that she as (ettin( cash fro" 8a)! A/uino& 3o ever% the cash she actuall! )rou(ht out fro" the pre"ises as theP*-%---&-- "ar2ed "one! previousl! (iven to her )! '!hen(co& Rica)lanca divided the "one! and upon returnin( to the jeep% (ave P4%---&-- each to Ealencia and petitioner& Thereafter% petitioner and Ealencia ere arrested )! 08$ a(ents% ho had )een atchin( the hole ti"e& A case as filed a(ainst the three accused% .acinto% Ealencia and Capitle& RTC rendered its 'ecision findin( the"

GUILTY )e!ond reasona)le dou)t of the cri"e of <>A@$F$E' T3EFT and sentenced each i"prison"ent of #IVE (5! YEARS, #IVE (5! MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11! DAYS, as "ini"u" , 9& SIA(;! YEARS, EIGHT (+! MONTHS AND T>ENTY (2 ! DAYS, as "aAi"u" &The three appealed to the CA and the decision of the trial court as MODI#IED % in that:(a) the sentence a(ainst accused #e""a .acinto standsB ()) the sentence a(ainst accused Anita Ealencia is reduced to 7 "onths arresto "a!or "ediu"% and (c) The accused .ac/ueline Capitle is ac/uitted& 3ence%the present Petition for Revie on Certiorari filed )! petitioner alone% I<<3e: ?hether or not a orthless chec2 can )e the o)ject of theft& He02: As "a! )e (leaned fro" the afore"entioned Articles of the Revised Penal Code% 9@e 8e*<&n50 8*&8e*9B <3)Ce19 &: 9@e 9@e:9 (3<9 @5'e <&(e '503e, 5< 9@e /n9en9/&n &: 9@e 5113<e2 /< 9& (ain :*&( 9@e 9@/n? <9&0en & This is further )olstered )! Article 5-,% here the la provides that the penalt! to )e i"posed on the accused is dependent on the value of the thin( stolen&$n this case% petitioner unla full! too2 the postdated chec2 )elon(in( to Ce(a Foa"% )ut the sa"e as apparentl! ithout value% as it as su)se/uentl! dishonored& Thus% the /uestion arises on hether the cri"e of /ualified theft as actuall! produced& The Court "ust resolve the issue in the ne(ative& $ntod v& Court of Appeals is hi(hl! instructive and applica)le to the present case& $n $ntod (see doctrines laid out in $ntod) % the Court ent on to (ive an eAa"ple of an offense that involved factual i"possi)ilit!% i&e&% a "an puts his hand in the coat poc2et of another ith the intention to steal the latterMs allet% )ut (ets nothin( since the poc2et is e"pt!& 3erein petitionerMs case is closel! a2in to the a)ove eAa"ple of factual i"possi)ilit! (iven in $ntod&$n this case%petitioner perfor"ed all the acts to consu""ate the cri"e of /ualified theft% hich is a cri"e a(ainst propert!&PetitionerMs evil intent cannot )e denied% as the "ere act of unla full! ta2in( the chec2 "eant for Ce(a Foa" sho ed her intent to (ain or )e unjustl! enriched& ?ere it not for the fact that the chec2 )ounced% she ould have received the face value thereof% hich as not ri(htfull! hers& Therefore% it as onl! due to the eAtraneous circu"stance of the chec2 )ein( unfunded% a fact un2no n to petitioner at the ti"e% that prevented the cri"e fro" )ein( produced& The thin( unla full! ta2en )! petitioner turned out to )e a)solutel! orthless% )ecause the chec2 as eventuall! dishonored% and Ce(a Foa" had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored chec2&The fact that petitioner as later entrapped receivin( the P4%---&-- "ar2ed "one!% hich she thou(ht as the cash replace"ent for the dishonored chec2% is of no "o"ent& The Court held in Ealen=uela v& People that under the definition of theft in Article 5-D of the Revised Penal Code there is onl! one operative act of eAecution )! the actor involved in theft O the ta2in( of personal propert! of another&: A< &: 9@e 9/(e 9@59 8e9/9/&ne* 9&&D 8&<<e<</&n &: 9@e 1@e1D (e5n9 :&* Me?5 #&5(, <@e @52 8e*:&*(e2 500 9@e 519< 9& 1&n<3((59e 9@e 1*/(e &: 9@e:9,@52 /9 n&9 )een /(8&<</)0e &: 511&(80/<@(en9 /n 9@/< 15<e & O)viousl!% the plan to convince 8a)! A/uino to (ive cash as replace"ent for the chec2 as hatched onl! after the chec2 had )een dishonored )! the

dra ee )an2&Since the cri"e of theft is not a continuin( offense% petitionerMs act of receivin( the cash replace"ent should not )e considered as a continuation of the theft& At "ost% the fact that petitioner as cau(ht receivin( the "ar2ed "one! as "erel! corro)oratin( evidence to stren(then proof of her intent to (ain& Coreover% the fact that petitioner further planned to have the dishonored chec2 replaced ith cash )! its issuer is a different and separate fraudulent sche"e& >nfortunatel!% since said sche"e as not included or covered )! the alle(ations in the $nfor"ation% the Court cannot pronounce jud("ent on the accusedB other ise% it ould violate the due process clause of the Constitution& $f at all% that fraudulent sche"e could have )een another possi)le source of cri"inal lia)ilit!&$0 E$E? OF T3E FORE#O$0#% the petition is GRANTED & The 'ecision of the Court of Appeals% are MODI#IED &Petitioner #e""a T& .acinto is found GUILTY of an IM%OSSI-LE CRIME as defined and penali=ed in Articles 7%para(raph ;% and 4, of the Revised Penal Code% respectivel!& Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalt! of siA(6) "onths of arrresto "a!or % and to pa! the costs&

-ALEROS, .R$ '<$ %EO%LE O# THE %HILI%%INES C5<e D/?e<9 RENATO -ALEROS, .R$ '<$ %EO%LE O# THE %HILI%%INES G$R$ NO$ 13+ 33 .5n35*B 3 , 2 7

#ACTS: At a)out *:4- in the "ornin( or so"eti"e thereafter of *5 'ece")er *,,* in Canila% the accused% )! forcefull! coverin( the face of Cartina @ourdes T& Al)ano ith a piece of cloth soa2ed in che"ical ith di==!in( effects% tried to rape the victi" )! l!in( on top of her ith the intention to have carnal 2no led(e ith her )ut as una)le to perfor" all the acts of eAecution )! reason of so"e cause or accident other than his o n spontaneous desistance% said acts )ein( co""itted a(ainst her ill and consent to her da"a(e and prejudice&

Renato 8aleros% .r& "oved for a partial reconsideration of a SC decision ac/uittin( hi" of the cri"e of atte"pted rape )ut adjud(in( hi" (uilt! of li(ht coercion& $t is 8alerosM su)"ission that his conviction for li(ht coercion under an $nfor"ation for atte"pted rape% runs counter to the en )anc rulin( in People v& Contreras here the Court held: The SO@#E0 contends that Contreras should )e held lia)le for unjust veAation under Art& ;D+(;) of the RPC& 3o ever% the ele"ents of unjust veAation do not for" part of the cri"e of rape as defined in Art& 554& Coreover% the circu"stances stated in the infor"ation do not constitute the ele"ents of the said cri"e& Contreras% therefore% cannot )e convicted of unjust veAation&

ISSUE: ?hether Renato 8aleros% .r& is (uilt! of unjust veAation&

HELD: Yes& 3e ar(ues that the $nfor"ation a(ainst hi" does not alle(e that the act of coverin( the face of the victi" ith a piece of cloth soa2ed in che"ical caused her anno!ance% irritation% tor"ent% distress and distur)ance& The SC ish to stress that "alice% co"pulsion or restraint need not )e alle(ed in an $nfor"ation for unjust veAation& >njust veAation eAists even ithout the ele"ent of restraint or co"pulsion for the reason that the ter" is )road enou(h to include an! hu"an conduct hich% althou(h not productive of so"e ph!sical or "aterial har"% ould unjustl! anno! or irritate an innocent person&

The para"ount /uestion in a prosecution for unjust veAation is hether the offenderMs act causes anno!ance% irritation% tor"ent% distress% or distur)ance to the "ind of the person to ho" it is directed& That the victi"% after the incident cried hile relatin( to her class"ates hat she perceived to )e a seAual attac2 and the fact that she filed a case for atte"pted rape proved )e!ond cavil that she as distur)ed% if not distressed% )! the acts of the 8aleros&

ARTICLE IV: IM%OSSI-LE CRIMES %EO%LE VS$ DOMASIAN FACTS: Ponente: .ustice Cru=% *,,5 Petitioner: Pa)lito 'o"asian1the 2idnapper

'r& Sa"son Tan P he as a resident ph!sician in the hospital o ned )! EnricoIs father& Respondent: People of the Philippines% Solicitor1#eneral Eicti": Enrico Paulo A(ra ?itnesses: Enrico A(ra Tirso Ferreras PEnricoIs Class"ate AleAander #rate PTric!cle 'river here A(ra and 'o"asian rode% he speculated that the latter as a 2idnapper and reported the incident to the tanods& Events: Enrico as al2in( ith a class"ate hen a "an% 'o"asian% approached hi" and as2ed for his assistance in (ettin( his fatherIs si(nature on a "edical certificate& Enrico a(reed and rode ith hi" in a tric!cle& Enrico )eca"e apprehensive hen instead of (oin( to the hospitalB he as forced )! petitioner inside a "ini1)us% holdin( hi" fir"l! all the hile&The! rode another tric!cle and ali(hted fro" here the! al2ed in a "ar2et& 'o"asian tal2ed to a jeepne! driver and handed a letter address to 'r& Enri/ue A(ra% the )o!Is father& The! then )oarded the tric!cle of #rate% hich aroused his the latterIs suspicion and reported the incident to the )aran(a! tanods% to(ether ith #rate% the! ent after 'o"asian and Enrico&The! ere a)le to recover Enrico% 'o"asian escaped& Afternoon of that da!% a ranso" note arrived to 'r& A(ra% as2in( for * "illion pesos in eAchan(e of his son% Enrico% ho as a)le to return ho"e earlier that da!% after havin( )een recovered fro" 'o"asian& 'r& A(ra identified the hand ritin( in the letter as 'r& TanIs% and this as confir"ed )! an investi(ation "ade )! the 08$& Fillin( of the Case: Re(ional Trial Court convicted 'o"asian and Tan of Fidnappin( $SS>ES: Convictions of Reclusion Perpetua are su)ject to revie )! the Supre"e Court&H 'o"asian petitions that he as forced to confess the cri"e in violation of his constitutional ri(htsH Tan petitions that his act of cri"e% if indeed proven% onl! constituted an i"possi)le cri"eH ?O0 the act co""itted )! 'r& Tan constitutes an $"possi)le Cri"eH R>@$0#: The decision of the Re(ional Trial Court as affir"ed& Article 7 Section ; of the Revised Penal Code States: Cri"inal @ia)ilit! shall )e incurred 8! a person co""ittin( an act hich ould )e an offense a(ainst persons or propert!% ere it not for the inherent i"possi)ilit! of its acco"plish"ent% or on account of the e"plo!"ent of inade/uate or ineffectual "eans& On the "atter of Conspirac! : the acts done )! 'o"asian and Tan ere co"ple"entar! to each other& Fidnappin( of Enrico )! 'o"asian% and Ranso" note of Tan% ith one end (oal in "ind% hich is% the ranso" of * "illion pesos fro" 'r& A(ra& Court held that even )efore the ranso" note as received% the cri"e of 2idnappin( ith serious ille(al detention had alread! )een co""itted& The deliver! of the ranso" note after the rescue of the victi" did not eAtin(uish the offense% hich had alread! )een consu""ated hen 'o"asian deprived Enrico of his li)ert!& E2?5* E<E3e25 '< %e&80e &: 9@e %@/0/88/ne< G$R$ N&$ 17 222 #519<: A petition for revie on certiorari as filed to the Supre"e Court re(ardin( the affir"ation of the Court of Appeals to the decision rendered )! the Re(ional Trial Court 8ranch 55 of 'u"a(uete Cit! on Cri"inal Case 0os& *76*; and *76-, of herein respondents co""on1la spouses #audencio <ui/uinto and Eenancia Aliser respectivel! a(ainst

petitioner Ed(ar Es/ueda and one .ohn 'oe of ;counts of Frustrated 3o"icide&The private respondents ere a a2ed on of )efore ** oI cloc2 in the evenin( on Carch 5% *,,, )! the accused petitioner ho concealed their identities as "e")ers of rovin( patrol in their place and as2in( for a drin2 fro" the household& One of the respondents% #audencio <ui/uinto opened the door and ent outside hile his lived1in partner Eenancia Aliser follo ed hi" and sta!ed )! the door& The! found t o "en outside% one is positivel! identified as the accused petitioner hile the other is not identified& The accused petitioner alle(edl! sta))ed #audencio i""ediatel!& Aliser tried to ran a a! )ut as alle(edl! sta))ed and fell on the (round and as continuall! inflicted "ortal ounds a(ainst the victi"s&The defense anchored on ali)i and denial& Presented three itnesses% Claudio% Eiviana and 'o"in(o testified )efore the court that the accused as out sea fishin( durin( the ti"e of the cri"e& I<<3e: ?hether the trial court (ravel! erred in findin( the latter (uilt! )e!ond reasona)le dou)t of frustrated ho"icide and totall! disre(ardin( the latterIs defense& He02: The 3onora)le Court did not disre(ard the defense of the accused petitioner in renderin( its decision& The presented ali)is and denial )! the defense are essentiall! ea2 a(ainst the positive identifications "ade )! the respondents& For an ali)i to prosper% the accused "ust prove that he is so"e here else and it is ph!sicall! i"possi)le for hi" to )e in the scene for the cri"e& Ph!sicall! i"possi)le refers to the distance )et eenthe place here the cri"e has transpired and the place here it as co""itted% also the facilit! of access )et een the t o places& >sin( the testi"onies of the itnesses as evidence% the accused petitioner failed to prove that it as ph!sicall! i"possi)le for hi" to ent to the scene of the cri"e atthe ti"e of the incident& $n this case% the defense of ali)i failed& The positive identification destro!s the defense of ali)i (ivin( to such effect to )e ea2% (iven as the identification as "ade ith resound and credi)le&

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES G.R. No. 152589 & 152758. J !" #$ %1& 2''5

F ()*+ B,-o#, "* .* )/, Mo).o! -o# R,(o!*.0,# ).o! -.1,0 2$ /,#,.! (("*,03 44,11 !) o- o"# D,(.*.o! 0 ),0 25 O()o2,# 2''% .! G.R. No. 152589 !0 No. 152758. I! * .0 0,(.*.o!& 6, 7o0.-.,0 )/, #"1.!8 o- )/, R,8.o! 1 T#. 1 9o"#) :RT9;& B# !(/ <1& G"7 ( & =",>o!& .! 9#.7. 9 *, No. <<%<3G -.!0.!8 (("*,03 44,11 !) 8".1)$ o- # 4, "!0,# A#).(1,* 2<<3A !0 2<<3B o)/, R,?.*,0 P,! 1 9o0, !0 .!*), 0& 6, 0@"08,0 /.7 8".1)$ o!1$ o- )),74),0 # 4,. A,& /o6,?,#& "4/,10 )/, #"1.!8 o- )/, (o"#) B"o 6.)/ #,8 #0 )o 9#.7. 9 *, No. <<%73G -.!0.!8 (("*,03 44,11 !) 8".1)$ o- .!(,*)"o"* # 4, o- 7.!o# "!0,# A#). 2<<3B o- )/, R,?.*,0 P,! 1 9o0, * 7,!0,0 2$ R,4"21.( A() No. 8%5% !0 -o# )/.*& 6, *,!),!(,0 (("*,03 44,11 !) )o *"--,# )/, "1).7 ), 4,! 1)$ o- 0, )/. I**",+ A/,)/,# o# !o) )/, (("*,0 (o77.)),0 )),74),0 # 4, o# ()* o- 1 *(.?.o"*!,**. H,10+ A-),# )/o#o"8/ #,?.,6 !0 ,? 1" ).o! o- )/, #,(o#0* o- )/.* ( *,& 6, -.!0 !o *"--.(.,!) 2 *.* )o 7o0.-$ o"# , #1.,# 0,(.*.o! (o!?.().!8 (("*,03 44,11 !) o- )),74),0 # 4, .! 9#.7. 9 *, No. <<%<3G.T/,#, .* ! )),74) )o (o77.) # 4, 6/,! )/, o--,!0,# (o77,!(,* .)* (o77.**.o! 0.#,()1$ 2$ o?,#) ()* 2") 0o,* !o) 4,#-o#7 11 )/, ()* o,C,(").o! 6/.(/ */o"10 4#o0"(, )/, -,1o!$ 2$ #, *o! o- *o7, ( "*, o# ((.0,!) o)/,# )/ ! /.* o6! *4o!) !,o"* 0,*.*) !(,. U4o! )/, o)/,# / !0& A#).(1, %<< o- )/, R,?.*,0 P,! 1 9o0, *) ),*+ D: ;!$ 4,#*o! 6/o */ 11 (o77.) !$ () o- 1 *(.?.o"*!,** "4o! )/, o)/,# 4,#*o! o- ,.)/,# *,C& "!0,# !$ o- )/, (.#("7*) !(,* 7,!).o!,0 .! )/, 4#,(,0.!8 #).(1,& */ 11 2, 4"!.*/,0 2$ 4#.*.o! (o##,((.o! 1.E A* ,C41 .!,0 2$ ! ,7.!,!) ")/o# o- (#.7.! 1 1 6& # 4, !0 ()* o- 1 *(.?.o"*!,** / ?, )/, * 7, ! )"#,. T/,#, .*& /o6,?,#& -"!0 7,!) 1 0.--,#,!(, 2,)6,,! )/, )6o. I! # 4,& )/,#, .* )/, .!),!) )o 1., 6.)/ 6o7 ! 6/,#, * )/.* ,1,7,!) .* 2*,!) .! ()* o- 1 *(.?.o"*!,**. I! )/.* ( *,& )/, *,#.,* o- 44 11.!8 ,?,!)* 6/.(/ )ooF 41 (, o! )/, !.8/) o- 18 M #(/ 1998 .!*.0, )/, /"721, /o7, o- 4#.? ), (o741 .! !) !0 o- (("*,03 44,11 !)& ,*) 21.*/ 2,$o!0 0o"2) )/ ) )/, 1 )),# .!),!0,0 )o # ?.*/ /.* ?,#$ o6! -1,*/ !0 21oo0. A* ?.?.01$ ! ## ),0 2$ 4#.? ), (o741 .! !) 2,-o#, )/, )#. 1 (o"#)& (("*,03 44,11 !)& ) F.!8 0? !) 8, o- )/, (o?,# o- 0 #F!,** !0 o- )/, 2*,!(, o- /.* 6.-,& #,7o?,0 /,# :4#.? ), (o741 .! !)G*; (1o)/.!8 !0 )/,#, -),# 41 (,0 /.7*,1- o! )o4 o- /,#. A(("*,03 44,11 !)& 6/o 6 * *.7.1 #1$ ! F,0 * 4#.? ), (o741 .! !)& )/,! 4#o(,,0,0 )o F.** )/, 1 )),# !0 /, 1.F,6.*, )o"(/,0 /,# 2#, *)* "!).1 -.! 11$& /, #,!0,#,0 4#.? ), (o741 .! !) "!(o!*(.o"* 2$ 2oC.!8 /,# .! )/, *)o7 (/. T/,*, 0 *) #01$ ()* o- (("*,03 44,11 !) (o!*).)"), D)/, -.#*) o# *o7, *"2*,B",!) *),4 .! 0.#,() 7o?,7,!) )o6 #0* )/, (o77.**.o! o- )/, o--,!*, -),# )/, 4#,4 # ).o!* #, 7 0,.E F # -#o7 2,.!8 7,#, o2*(,!.)$ o# 1,60!,**& )/,$ #, .!0.*4") 21$ o?,#) ()* ,C,("),0 .! o#0,# )o (o!*"77 ), )/, (#.7, o- # 4, 8 .!*) )/, 4,#*o! o- 4#.? ), (o741 .! !).

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARIVI9 GENOSA G.R. No. 1%5981. S,4),72,# 29& 2'''

F ()*+ O! o# 2o") )/, 15)/ 0 $ o- No?,72,# 1995& ) B # !8 $ B.16 !8& M"!.(.4 1.)$ oI* 2,1& 4#o?.!(, o- L,$),& (("*,0 M #.?.( G,!o* & 6.)/ .!),!) )o F.11& 6.)/ )#, (/,#$ !0 ,?.0,!) 4#,7,0.) ).o!& 0.0 )/,! !0 )/,#, 6.11-"11$& "!1 6-"11$ !0 -,1o!.o"*1$ )) (F& ** "1)& /.) !0 6o"!0 BEN GENOSA& /,# 1,8.).7 ), /"*2 !0& 6.)/ )/, "*, o- / #0 0, 01$ 6, 4o!& 6/.(/ )/, (("*,0 / 0 4#o?.0,0 /,#*,1- -o# )/, 4"#4o*,& .!-1.().!8 *,?,# 1 6o"!0* 6/.(/ ( "*,0 /.* 0, )/. T/, 1o6,# (o"#) -o"!0 )/, (("*,0& M #.?.( G,!o* $ I*.0#o& GUILTY 2,$o!0 #, *o! 21, 0o"2) o- )/, (#.7, o- 4 ##.(.0, !0 *,!),!(,0 )/, (("*,0 6.)/ )/, 4,! 1)$ o- DEATH. O! 44, 1& )/, 44,11 !) 11,8,0 )/ ) 0,*4.), )/, ,?.0,!(, o! #,(o#0 o- #,4, ),0 !0 *,?,#, 2, ).!8* */, / 0 *"--,#,0 ) )/, / !0* o- /,# /"*2 !0& )/, 1o6,# (o"#) - .1,0 )o 44#,(. ), /,# *,1-30,-,!*, )/,o#$. S/, (1 .7,0 )/ ) "!0,# )/, *"##o"!0.!8 (.#("7*) !(,*& /,# () oF.11.!8 /,# /"*2 !0 6 * ,B".? 1,!) )o *,1-30,-,!*,. I**",+ A/,)/,# o# !o) )/, D2 )),#,0 6o7 ! *$!0#o7,E * ?. 21, 41, 6.)/.! )/, (o!(,4) o*,1-30,-,!*, .* 441.( 21, .! )/.* ( *,. H,10+ No. T/, (o"#)& /o6,?,#& .* !o) 0.*(o"!).!8 )/, 4o**.2.1.)$ o- *,1-30,-,!*, #.*.!8 -#o7 )/, 2 )),#,0 6o7 ! *$!0#o7,. A, !o6 *"7 "4 o"# 7 .! 4o.!)*. F.#*)& , (/ o- )/, 4/ *,* o)/, ($(1, o- ?.o1,!(, 7"*) 2, 4#o?,! )o / ?, (/ # (),#.>,0 ) 1, *) )6o 2 )),#.!8 ,4.*o0,* 2,)6,,! )/, 44,11 !) !0 /,# .!).7 ), 4 #)!,#. S,(o!0& )/, -.! 1 ("), 2 )),#.!8 ,4.*o0, 4#,(,0.!8 )/, F.11.!8 o- )/, 2 )),#,# 7"*) / ?, 4#o0"(,0 .! )/, 2 )),#,0 4,#*o!G* 7.!0 ! ()" 1 -, # o- ! .77.!,!) / #7& -#o7 /,# 2 )),#,# !0 ! /o!,*) 2,1.,- )/ ) */, !,,0,0 )o "*, -o#(, .! o#0,# )o * ?, /,# 1.-,. T/.#0& ) )/, ).7, o- )/, F.11.!8& )/, 2 )),#,# 7"*) / ?, 4o*,0 4#o2 21,H!o) !,(,** #.1$ .77,0. ), !0 ()" 1H8# ?, / #7 )o )/, (("*,0& 2 *,0 o! )/, /.*)o#$ o- ?.o1,!(, 4,#4,)# ),0 2$ )/, -o#7,# 8 .!*) )/, 1 )),#. T F,! 1)o8,)/,#& )/,*, (.#("7*) !(,* (o"10 * ).*-$ )/, #,B".*.),* o- *,1-30,-,!*,. U!0,# )/, ,C.*).!8 - ()* o)/, 4#,*,!) ( *,& /o6,?,#& !o) 11 o- )/,*, ,1,7,!)* 6,#, 0"1$ ,*) 21.*/,0.

%EO%LE '$ CASTANITO GANO G$R$ N&$ 134373 #e)*35*B 2+, 2

FACTS: Accused as convicted of the cri"e of ro))er! ith ho"icide% and sentenced to the penalt! of death& The core issue no )efore us is hether the three (5) 2illin(s should )e appreciated as separate a((ravatin( circu"stances to arrant the i"position of the penalt! of death& $SS>E: ?O0 the 5 2illin(s should )e appreciated as separate a((ravatin( circu"stances to arrant the i"position of death penalt!H 3E@': The SC found the accused (uilt! of ro))er! ith ho"icide% )ut i"posed the penalt! of reclusion perpetua& $t should )e noted that there is no la providin( that the additional rapeNs or ho"icideNs should )e considered as a((ravatin( circu"stance& The enu"eration of a((ravatin( circu"stances under Article *7 of the Revised Penal Code is eAclusive as opposed to the enu"eration in Article *5 of the sa"e Code re(ardin( "iti(atin( circu"stances here there is specific para(raph (para(raph *-) providin( for analo(ous circu"stances& $t is true that the additional rapes (or 2illin(s in the case of "ultiple ho"icide on the occasion of the ro))er!) ould result in an 9ano"alous situation: here fro" the standpoint of the (ravit! of the offense% ro))er! ith one rape ould )e on the sa"e level as ro))er! ith "ultiple rapes& 3o ever% the re"ed! lies ith the le(islature& A penal la is li)erall! construed in favor of the offender and no person should )e )rou(ht ithin its ter"s if he is not clearl! "ade so )! the statute&