Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRIMINAL LAW
BOOK 1 (ARTICLES 1-99, RPC)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
PADILLA v. DIZON
(158 SCRA 127)
The respondent-judge has shown gross ignorance of
the law in holding that to convict the accused for
violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960 i.e.,
smuggling of foreign currency out of the country, the
prosecution must establish that the accused had the
criminal intent to violate the law. The respondent ought
to know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens
rea) is not essential in offenses punished by special
laws, which are mala prohibita.
PEOPLE v ORANDE
(415 SCRA 699)
November 12, 2003
G.R. No. 141724
The trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape
due to the fact that the latter did not succeed in inserting
his penis in the victims vagina. There is no such crime as
frustrated rape. Instead, the accused is guilty of
consummated rape since perfect penetration is not
essential for the consummation of rape.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
INTOD ET. AL. v CA
(215 SCRA 52)
G.R. No. 103119
VALENZUELA v PEOPLE
(525 SCRA 306)
STAGES OF EXECUTION
PEOPLE v LAMAHANG
(91 Phil 703)
The accused was caught in the act of making an opening
with an iron bar on the wall of a store, and succeeded in
breaking one board and in unfastening another from the
wall. The crime committed was not attempted robbery but
only attempted trespass to dwelling, since based on the
facts established, his intention was to enter by means of
force into the said store against the will of its owner.
PEOPLE v CANTUBA
(183 SCRA 289)
G. R. No. 79811
PEOPLE v TUMLOS
(67 PHIL 320)
April 13, 1939
G.R. No. 46248
The theft of the thirteen (13) cows committed by the
defendant took place at the same time and in the same
place. Consequently, he performed but one act. The fact
that eight (8) of the said cows belong to one owner and
five (5) to another does not make him criminally liable for
two (2) distinct offenses for the reason that to be liable for
two (2) distinct offenses, the act must be divided into two
(2). In this case, the act is not susceptible of division. The
intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the
purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen (13) cows
which he found grazing in the same place.
PEOPLE v COMADRE
(431 SCRA 366)
June 8, 2004
G.R. No. 153559
The accused dropped a hand grenade inside a house,
killing one and causing 4 others to suffer shrapnel
wounds on their bodies. The accused was found guilty of
the complex crime of murder with multiple attempted
murder under Article 48, and the penalty for the most
serious crime (murder) shall be imposed.
PEOPLE v JARANILLA
(55 SCRA 563)
February 22, 1974
G.R. No. L-28547
The taking of the six fighting cocks from their coop should
be characterized as a single offense of theft as the
assumption is that the accused were animated by a
single criminal impulse. The taking of the fighting cocks in
the same place and on the same occasion cannot give
rise to separate crimes of theft.
SANTIAGO v GARCHITORENA
(228 SCRA 214)
G.R. No. 109266
Public prosecutors filed thirty-two (32) Amended
Informations against Santiago for violation of Section 3(e)
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly
committed by giving "unqualified" aliens with the benefits
of the Alien Legalization Program. The thirty-two (32)
Amended Informations charged the accused with what is
known as delito continuado or "continued crime" and
hence, there should only be one information to be filed
against Santiago. The concept of delito continuado is
applicable to crime penalized under special laws.
PEOPLE v SABREDO
(331 SCRA 663)
May 11, 2000
G.R. 126114
PEOPLE v BARBAS
(60 PHIL 241)
The defendant, a public officer, altered the duplicates of
the cedulas by erasing the names originally written on
them and replacing the same with new names for the
purpose of selling them to other people and
misappropriating the money. The falsification of public
documents was, therefore, the means which the
defendant availed himself of in committing the crime of
malversation.
PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA
(424 SCRA 63)
February 27, 2004
G.R. No. 139530
PEOPLE v ESCARLOS
(410 SCRA 463)
September 10, 2003
G.R. No. 148912
PEOPLE v TAC-AN
(182 SCRA 601)
G.R. Nos. 76338-39
PEOPLE v APOLINAR
C.A., 38 O.G. 2870
The accused, while looking over his land and believing
that the victim had stolen his palay, shouted for the latter
to stop, fired his gun in the air and then at the victim,
causing the latters death. Defense of property is not of
such importance as the right to life and it can be invoked
only as a justifying circumstance when it is coupled with
an attack on the person of the one entrusted with the said
property.
U.S. V. TANEDO
(15 PHIL 196)
The accused, while hunting fired a shot at wild chickens;
however, the slug recoiled and fatally hit another man. A
person who, while performing a legal act with due care,
causes some injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it, is not criminally liable.
PEOPLE v FALLORINA
(428 SCRA ___)
May 4, 2004
G.R. No. 137347
PEOPLE v GENOSA
September 8, 2010
G.R. No. 135981
PEOPLE v AYAYA
(52 PHIL 354)
The accused, in order to prevent the door from crushing
her son's head, jabbed her husband with her umbrella
which later led to her husband's death. The Court
concluded that in thrusting her umbrella in the opening of
the door in question, the accused did so to free her son
from the imminent danger of having his head crushed or
being strangled and if she consequently caused her
husband's injury, it was by a mere accident, without any
fault or intention to cause it.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE v DOMINGO
(580 SCRA 436)
PEOPLE V. GENITA
(425 SCRA 343)
March 11, 2004
G.R. No. 126171
LLAVE v PEOPLE
(488 SCRA 376)
April 26, 2006
G.R. No. 166040
PEOPLE v CASTILLO
(526 SCRA 215)
June 29, 2007
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE v JAURIGUE
(C.A. NO. 384)
The deceased placed his hand on the upper portion of
the woman's thigh without her consent, which led to the
woman stabbing the neck of the deceased to defend her
honor. The means employed in the defense of her honor
was excessive and she cannot be declared completely
exempt from criminal liability. However, the fact that she
had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
committed against her a few moments before, and upon
such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation,
or temporary loss of reason and self-control, should be
considered as mitigating circumstance in her favor.
PEOPLE v BANDIAN
(63 PHL 530)
September 30, 1936
G.R. No. 45186
The motherwho went to the thicket to respond to the call
of nature but,instead, gave birth therein is not criminally
liable for infanticide for leaving the child behind. She
should not be blamed for the act of abandonment
because it all happened by mere accident,she was
overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility (also
considered as an insuperable cause). Any person who
acts and behaves under such circumstances is exempted
from liability.
U.S. v AMPAR
(37 Phil 201)
The accused, a 70-year old man, killed the deceased for
telling him, "Come here and I will make roast pig of you."
The offense which the defendant was trying to vindicate
would be considered a mere trifle to the average person
but it was evidently a serious matter to be made the butt
of a joke for the old man.Hence, he was given the benefit
of a mitigating circumstance.
PEOPLE v MORENO
(77 PHIL 548)
The accused admitted to having killed the victim but
claimed that he should be exempted from liability
because he did so in obedience to an order given him by
Japanese officers of the navy. The latter informed him
that the victim was one of those who were encountered
by the Japanese in a mountain and wounded a Japanese
soldier. The accused was held guilty becausethe law
provides that to be exempted from criminal liability, it is
not enough to prove that the act was committed in
obedience to an order, it must also be established that
the order being followed is lawful.
PEOPLE v IGNAS
(412 SCRA 311)
September 30, 2003
G.R. No. 140514
The accused killed his wife's lover 2 weeks after he
discovered his wife's extramarital dalliance, but the court
did not consider the mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation because for the same to be well
founded, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such condition of mind; and (2) the act which produced
the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator might recover his moral
equanimity. The period of two weeks between the
discovery of his wifes extramarital dalliance and the
killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to
reflect and cool off.
PEOPLE v BENITO
(74 SCRA 271)
December 17, 1976
G.R. No. L-38091
The accused (who had a pending case with the Civil
Service) contended that the victim insulted him when he
(the victim) remarked that a thief was loitering in the
premises of the Civil Service Commission and further
argued that that remark "was tantamount to kicking a
man already down and to rubbing salt into a raw wound"
and that, as it was made publicly and in a loud voice, he
was exposed to ridicule in the presence of his
PEOPLE v VIERNES
(372 SCRA 231)
December 13, 2001
G.R. No. 136733
Going to the police station to clear his name does not
show any intent of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities. The act of surrender
must be spontaneous, accompanied by an
acknowledgment of guilt, or an intention to save the
authorities the trouble and the expense that search and
capture would require.
U.S. V. HICKS
(14 PHIL 217)
The accused and the victim illicitly lived together for 5
years. After they separated, the accused killed the victim
for living with another man. No mitigating circumstance
was considered in his favor, not even the loss of reason
and self-control produced by jealousy as alleged by the
defense, inasmuch as the only causes which mitigate the
criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are those
which originate from legitimate feelings and not those
which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral
passions.
PEOPLE v ABOLIDOR
(423 SCRA 260)
February 18, 2004
G.R. No. 147231
The accused surrendered to the authorities more than
one year after the incident in order to disclaim
responsibility for the killing of the victim. The Court did
not consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender because: (1) the facts of the case do not show
repentance or acknowledgment of the crime nor intention
to save the government the trouble and expense
necessarily incurred in his search and capture; and (2) at
the time of his surrender, there was a pending warrant of
arrest against him.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE v CALISO
(58 PHIL 283)
July 1, 1933
G.R. No. L-37271
PEOPLE v RABAO
(67 PHIL 255)
April 10, 1939
G.R. No. L-46530
PEOPLE v LORA
(113 SCRA 366)
March 30, 1982
G.R. No. L-49430
The accused was charged for the crime of serious illegal
detention with murder for illegally detaining a 3-year old
child, and attacking the same, which resulted to the
child's death. There are three aggravating circumstances
in this case, namely: (1) lack of respect due to the tender
age of the victim; (2) cruelty, for gagging the victim's
mouth with stockings thereby causing slow suffocation;
and (3) abuse of confidence since the main duty of the
accused in the household was to take care of the minor
child.
PEOPLE v DAWATON
(389 SCRA 277)
September 17, 2002
G.R. No. 146247
In trying to avail of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, the accused argues that he was not
arrested but "fetched" as he voluntarily went with the
policemen when they came for him. That he did not try to
escape or resist arrest after he was taken into custody by
the authorities did not amount to voluntary surrender and
it is also settled that voluntary surrender cannot be
appreciated where the evidence adduced shows that it
was the authorities who came looking for the accused.
PEOPLE v LAGUARDIA
(148 SCRA 133)
February 27, 1987
G.R. No. L-63243
PEOPLE v FERNANDEZ
(183 SCRA 511)
March 22, 1990
G.R. No. L-62116
The accused entered the bathroom together with
accused Fernandez. In the bathroom, the latter tied a
piece of cloth around the victims neck while accused
Conrado held her hands placing them behind her body.
Thereafter, they raped the victim one after the other.
Hence ,the Court was correct in imposing on each of the
accused of the penalty corresponding to two crimes of
rape because each of them (accused) cooperated in the
commission of the rape perpetrated by the others, by
acts without which it would not have been accomplished.
PEOPLE v CASTILLO
(17 SCRA 721)
July 26, 1966
G.R. No. L-19238
PEOPLE v ZETA
(549 SCRA 541)
March 27, 2008
G.R. No. 178541
After his son had fatally hacked the victim with a bolo and
was about to strike the victim a second time, the accused
shouted: "You kill him." The accused is not guilty as
principal by inducement because in determining whether
the utterances of an accused are sufficient to make him
guilty as co-principal by inducement, it must appear that
the inducement was of such nature and was made in
such a way as to become the determining cause of the
crime and that such inducement was uttered with the
intention of producing the result.
PEOPLE v DUMANCAS
(320 SCRA 584)
December 13, 1999
G.R. No. 13352728
The accused cannot be held guilty as principal by
inducement when she told the policemen to "take care of
the two" victims, who were later killed by the said
policemen. There are 2 ways of directly inducing another
to commit a crime, namely: (i) by giving a price, or
offering reward or promise, and (ii) by using words of
command and in this case, there is no evidence that the
accused offered any price or reward should they kill the
victims, nor can the remark of the accused be deemed as
a command required by law to justify a finding that she is
guilty as a principal by inducement.
ACCESSORIES
PEOPLE v ORTIZ AND ZAUSA
(55 PHIL 993)
August 27, 1986
G.R. No. L-3507
Ortiz and Zausa were charged with conspiracy to kill the
victim but Ortiz contends that he should be acquitted
because he did not take part in the attack. The Court
ruled that Ortiz cannot be convicted either as principal or
as accessory, for it has been shown that there was
neither plan nor agreement between him and Zausa to
commit the crime, and that he took no part in the latter's
attack with the spear.
CARINO v PEOPLE
(7 SCRA 900)
April 30, 1963
G.R. No. L-14752
The accused cannot be held guilty as an accomplice in
the crime of rebellion through his acts of sending or
furnishing cigarettes and food supplies to a famous Huk,
as well as changing $6,000 to Philippine money or in
helping Huks to open accounts (which were said to be
part of his functions as an employee of a bank). These
acts by themselves do not and cannot carry or prove any
criminal intent of helping the Huks in committing the
crime of insurrection or rebellion and they cannot be said
to constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the
act of overthrowing the government.
VINO v PEOPLE
(178 SCRA 626)
October 19, 1989
G.R. No. 84163
The information was correct. An accused can be validly
convicted as an accomplice or accessory under an
information charging him as a principal. Also, the trial of
an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of
the separate charge against the principal for the
corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice
and accessory are distinct from each other.
The accused furnished the gun that was used to kill the
victim Casiano, however, he cannot be held liable as an
accomplice because he merely conspired with the
principal to kill another victim, Rafael. The accused here
was not aware that the principal would use the gun to kill
Casiano. Hence, for other acts done outside the
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the
necessary and logical consequences of the intended
crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable.
DURATION OF PENALTIES
MEJORADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
(151 SCRA 399)
June 30, 1987
G.R. Nos. L-51065-72
PEOPLE v ALVARADO
(275 SCRA 727)
July 21, 1997
G.R. No. 117402
PEOPLE v ESCARES
(102 PHIL 677)
December 23, 1957
G.R. Nos. L-11128-33
PROBATION LAW
FRANCISCO v CA
(243 SCRA 384)
April 6, 1995
G.R. No. 108747
SORIANO v CA
(304 SCRA 231)
March 4, 1999
G.R. No. 123936
PEOPLE v SARCIA
(599 SCRA 20)
September 10, 2009
G.R. No. 169641
CABATINGAN v SANDIGANBAYAN
(102 SCRA 187)
January 22, 1981
G.R. No. L-55333
PADUA v PEOPLE
(559 SCRA 519)
July 23, 2008
G.R. No. 168546
YAPDIANGCO v BUENCAMINO
(122 SCRA 713)
June 24, 1983
G.R. No. L-28841
REMIENDO v PEOPLE
(603 SCRA 274)
October 9, 2009
G.R. No. 184874
PEOPLE v BAYOTAS
(236 SCRA 239)
September 2, 1994
G.R. No. 102007
SERMONIA v CA
(233 SCRA 155)
June 14, 1994
G.R. NO. 109454
10
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
DEL CASTILLO v TORRECAMPO
(394 SCRA 221)
December 18, 2002
G.R. No. 139033
CABRAL V. PUNO
(70 SCRA 606)
April 30, 1976
G.R. No. L-41692
PANGAN v GATBALITE
(449 SCRA 144)
January 21, 2005
G.R. No. 141718
ZALDIVIA v REYES
(211 SCRA 277)
July 3, 1992
G.R. No. 102342
PCGG v DESIERTO
(527 SCRA 61)
July 9, 2007
G.R. No. 140231
PEOPLE v TADULAN
(271 SCRA 233)
April 15, 1997
G.R. No. 117407
11
PEOPLE v LIM
(206 SCRA 176)
February 13, 1992
G.R. No. 95753
The accused, who was charged with the crime of rape,
insists that he was pardoned by the offended party when
she executed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating that the
rape case arose out of a mere misunderstanding. The
Supreme Court did not agree and held that to warrant the
dismissal of the complaint, the victim's retraction or
pardon should be made prior to the institution of the
criminal action.Hence, the alleged pardon could not be
considered in his favor since the Affidavit was executed
after the present case was filed.
PEOPLE v PEREZ
(83 PHIL 314)
PEOPLE v SALLE
(250 SCRA 581)
December 4, 1995
G.R. No. 103567
The accused was granted conditional pardon, but for the
said pardon to take effect, he must first withdraw his
appeal. The conditional pardon granted the said appellant
shall be deemed to take effect only upon the grant of
such withdrawal and in case of non-compliance with this
Resolution, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
must exert every possible effort to take back into his
custody the said accused, for which purpose he may
seek the assistance of the Philippine National Police or
the National Bureau of Investigation.
PEOPLE v ADRIANO
(78 PHIL 561)
Adriano was convicted for the crime of treason for being
a member of the Makapili, a military organization
established and designed to assist and aid militarily the
Japanese Imperial forces in the Philippines in the said
enemy's war efforts and operations against the United
States and the Philippines. The Supreme Court in
upholding the conviction held that the mere fact of having
joined a Makapili organization is evidence of both
adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort
and that being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an
overt act. Hence, it is not necessary, except for the
purpose of increasing the punishment, that the defendant
actually went to battle or committed nefarious acts
against his country or countrymen.
PEOPLE v BACANG
(260 SCRA 44)
July 30, 1996
G.R. NO. 116512
The conditional pardons were granted to accusedappellants during the pendency of their appeal. The Court
held that such conditional pardons are void since the
conviction by final judgment limitation under Section 19,
Article VII of the present Constitution prohibits the grant
of pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused
during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction by
the trial court and any application therefor, if one is made,
should not be acted upon or the process toward its grant
should not be begun unless the appeal is withdrawn.
PEOPLE v MANAYAO
(78 PHIL 721)
Manayao argues that he cannot be charged with treason
because he had already lost his Filipino citizenship when
he joined the Makapili, having considered himself a
member of the Japanese armed forces. Manayao cannot
divest himself of his Philippine citizenship, otherwise, his
very crime would be the shield that would protect him
from punishment and would essentially place himself
beyond the arm of our treason law.
ARBITRARY DETENTION
12
PEOPLE v BAES
68 Phil 203
UMIL v RAMOS
(187 SCRA 311)
PEOPLE v LOVERDIORO
(250 SCRA 389)
November 29, 1995
G.R. 112235
In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not
murder, it becomes imperative for the courts to ascertain
whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a
political end. The political motive of the act should be
conclusively demonstrated as it is not enough that the
overt acts of rebellion are duly proven otherwise if no
political motive is established and proved, the accused
should be convicted of the common crime and not of
rebellion.
PEOPLE v GERONIMO
(100 PHIL 90)
October 23, 1956
G.R. L-8936
Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the
crime of rebellion solely because it was committed
simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the
killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or
profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be
separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the
rebellion and the individual misdeed could not be taken
with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the
constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each
other.The individual crime would not be a means
necessary for committing the rebellion, as it would not be
done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter.
SEDITION
PEOPLE v UMALI
(96 PHIL 185)
13
ESPUELAS v PEOPLE
December 17, 1951
G.R. L-2990
A published writing which calls our government one of
crooks and dishonest persons ("dirty") infested with Nazis
and Fascists i.e. dictators, and which reveals a tendency
to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with
the disposition to remain loyal to the government, is a
scurrilous libel against the Government. The violent and
provocative statements made by the accused against the
state was neitherconstructive nor with reason. It, instead,
went beyond the ambit of criticism legally permitted since
it had the dangerous tendency of appealing to the
common mind and suggesting or inciting rebellious
conspiracies and riots against the duly constituted
government.
PEOPLE v CABRERA
(43 PHIL 64)
March 6, 1922
G.R. 17748
Seventy-seven members of the Philippine Constabulary
who rose publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by
force and outside of legal methods the object of inflicting
an act of hate or revenge upon the police of the City of
Manila were found guilty of the crime of sedition as
defined and punished by Act No. 292 of the Philippine
Commission.
MENDOZA v PEOPLE
(90 PHIL 524)
December 17 1951
G.R. L-2990
PEOPLE v HADJI
(9 SCRA 252)
October 24, 1963
G.R. L-12686
MARTINEZ v MORFE
(44 SCRA 22)
March 24, ___
G.R. L-34022
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. Prosecution for a criminal
offense is excluded from this grant of immunity. 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.
INCITING TO SEDITION
US v TOLENTINO
(5 PHIL 682)
March 6, 1906
G.R. L-1451
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view
of the time, place, and manner of its presentation, was to
inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity against the
American people and the Government of the United
States. The principal object and intent of its author was to
incite the people of the Philippines to open armed
resistance to the constituted authorities, and to induce
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION
PEOPLE v EVANGELISTA
(57 PHIL 372)
October 26, 1932
14
G.R. L-36277
CELINO v CA
(526 SCRA 195)
June 29, 2007
G.R. 170562
When the other offense is one of those enumerated
under RA 8294, any information for illegal possession of
firearms should be quashed because the illegal
possession of firearm would have to be tried together
with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or
absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d etat and conversely, when
the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated
under RA 8294, then the separate case for illegal
possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
The constitutional bar against double jeopardy will not
apply since these offenses are quite different from one
another, with the first punished under the Revised Penal
Code and the second under a special law.
PEOPLE v RODIL
(109 SCRA 306)
November 20 1981
G.R. L-35156
While the evidence definitely demonstrated that the
appellant knew because the victim, who was in civilian
clothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in
authority, he cannot be convicted of the complex crime of
homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in
authority for the simple reason that the information does
not allege the fact that the accused then knew that,
before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an
agent of a person in authority. Such knowledge must be
expressly
and
specifically
averred
in
the
information,otherwise, in the absence of such allegation,
the required knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance,
although proven, would only be appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance.
DIRECT ASSAULT
PEOPLE v BELTRAN
(138 SCRA 521)
September 13, 1985
G.R. L-37168-69
Shooting the mayor and a policeman on duty is
attempted murder with assault. 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, appellants
are guilty of attempted murder with direct assault.
PEOPLE v TAC-AN
(182 SCRA 601)
February 26, 1990
G.R. 76338-39
PEOPLE v DOLLANTES
(151 SCRA 592)
June 30, 1987
G.R. 70639
PEOPLE v QUIJADA
(259 SCRA 191)
July 24, 1996
G.R. 115008-09
15
PEOPLE v RECTO
(367 SCRA ___)
October 17, 2001
G.R. 129069
VYTIACO v CA
(19 SCRA 744)
April 24, 1967
G.R. L-20246-48
TORRES v GONZALES
(152 SCRA 272)
A convict granted conditional pardon with an undertaking
that he would not again violate any of the penal laws of
the Philippines who is recommitted should be convicted
by final judgment of a court of the subsequent crime or
crimes with which he was charged before the criminal
penalty for such subsequent offense(s) can be imposed
upon him. Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code defines
a distinct and substantive felony, the parolee or convict
who is regarded as having violated the provisions thereof
must be charged, prosecuted and convicted by final
judgment before he can be made to suffer the prescribed
penalty.
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
PEOPLE v DIOSO
October 23, 1964
G.R. L-38346-47
FORGERY
DEL ROSARIO v PEOPLE
(3 SCRA 650)
16
FALSIFICATION
SIQUIAN v PEOPLE
(171 SCRA 223)
Falsification of public document is committed when the
accused issues a certification which states that funds are
available for the position to which a person is appointed
and the accused knows that, in reality, the position itself
does not even exist and no funds had been appropriated
therefor. The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a
third person is not necessary when the falsified document
is a public document. In falsification of public documents,
the controlling consideration is the public character of a
document and the existence of any prejudice caused to
third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such
damage becomes immaterial.
LUAGUE v CA
(112 SCRA 97)
If the accused acted in good faith when she signed her
spouse's name to the checks and encashed them to pay
for the expenses of the spouses last illness and burial
upon the belief that the accused is entitled to them and
considering that the government sustained no damage
due to such encashment, criminal intent may not be
ascribed, and the accused should be acquitted to such
crime.
PEOPLE v VILLALON
(192 SCRA 521)
The charge of estafa thru falsification of a public
document has sufficient basis to exist in fact and in law
since falsification of a public document may be a means
of committing estafa because before the falsified
document is actually utilized to defraud another, the
crime of falsification has already been consummated,
damage or intent to cause damage not being an element
of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial
documents. The damage to another is caused by the
commission of estafa and not by the falsification of the
document, hence, the falsification of the public, official or
commercial document is only a necessary means to
commit the estafa.
PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
(81 SCRA 120)
If the falsification is resorted to for the purpose of hiding
the malversation, the falsification and malversation are
separate offenses. Thus, where the provincial treasurer,
as the custodian of the money forming part of the road
and bridge fund, effected payments to his co-accused for
construction materials supposedly delivered to the
province for various projects when in fact no such
materials were delivered, and to camouflage or conceal
the defraudation, the accused used six vouchers which
had genuine features and which appear to be
extrinsically authentic but which were intrinsically fake,
the crimes committed are not complex but separate
crimes of falsification and malversation and the
falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting one
continuing offense impelled by a single criminal impulse.
US v CAPULE
(24 PHIL 12)
January 2, 1913
G.R. L-7447
A person who, taking advantage of the occasion when a
power of attorney is presumably being drawn up,
prepares instead thereof, contrary to the wishes of the
interested parties and with malice aforethought, an
instrument of sale in his own favor, using deceit as to the
parties and the witnesses, and afterwards induces a
notary to certify falsely that the supposed vendors
actually appeared and ratified such instrument, is guilty of
the falsification of a notarial or public document.
PEOPLE v MANANSALA
(58 PHIL 796)
November 18, 1933
G.R. L-38948
17
DAVA v PEOPLE
(202 SCRA 62)
G.R. 73
A blank form of the driver's license which is filled up with
personal data and the signature of the registrar of the
San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even if
the same was simulated, becomes a public document
within the purview of Articles 171 and 172.The driver's
license being a public document, proof of the fourth
element of damage caused to another person or at least
intent to cause such damage has become immaterial
since the principal thing being punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed
therein.
LEGAMIA v IAC
(131 SCRA 478)
MARTINEZ v PEOPLE
(652 SCRA ___)
June 15, 2011
G.R. 194367
PERJURY
DIAZ v PEOPLE
(191 SCRA 86)
USURPATION
GIGANTONI v PEOPLE
(162 SCRA 158)
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish by
positive evidence the allegation that an accused falsely
represents himself. It is essential to present proof that
one actually knows at the time of the alleged commission
of the offense that he is already dismissed from the
service.
An argument that it makes no difference whether the
accused was suspended or dismissed from the service,
for both imply the absence of power to represent oneself
as vested with authority to perform acts pertaining to an
office to which he knowingly was deprived of is correct
only when an accused is charged with Usurpation of
Official Function but not if one is charged with Usurpation
of Authority.
ESTRADA v DESIERTO
(445 SCRA 655)
December 9, 2004
GR 156160
When a person who issued a notice has obtained an
authority to issue the same, for instance being an officerin-charge of a Philippine Government or agency, a
charge for Usurpation of Official Function does not apply.
18
PEOPLE v BONGCARAWAN
(384 SCRA 525)
The possession of dangerous drugs must be with
knowledge of the accused, or that animus possidendi
existed together with the possession or control of such
articles but the possession of dangerous drugs
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation of such
possession. Another is that the things in possession of a
person are presumed by law to be owned by him and that
to overcome this presumption, it is necessary to present
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
PEOPLE v APARICI
(52 OG 249)
In a dark theater with stage dimly lit where a person is
swaying to and fro with the middle part of her body, and
dancing with her hips swaying and sometimes raising her
feet, the Court provided that the test whether a particular
act is obscene is its tendency to deprave or corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences, be
they cultured or not.
PEOPLE v SUZUKI
(414 SCRA 43)
October 23, 2003
G.R. 120670
PEOPLE v PADAN
(101 PHIL 749)
PEOPLE v CHUA
(396 SCRA 657)
The crime under consideration is malum prohibitum,
hence, lack of criminal intent or good faith does not
exempt appellants from criminal liability. Mere possession
of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable
under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
PEOPLE v CASIMIRO
(383 SCRA 390)
Failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana
examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from
the accused was fatal to the prosecution's case. The
prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the
19
TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN
(146 SCRA 508)
PARRICIDE
PEOPLE v DALAG
(402 SCRA 254)
April 30, 2003
G.R. No. 129895
MEJORADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
(151 SCRA 399)
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 refers to any public
officer. It makes no distinction or qualification and
specifies the acts declared unlawful. A violation may
occur when an officer takes advantage of his position and
divests private parties of compensation they must
receive.
MALVERSATION
LABATAGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN
(183 SCRA 415)
PEOPLE V JUMAWAN
(116 SCRA 739)
September 23, 1982
G.R. No. L-50905
ILOGON v SANDIGANBAYAN
(218 SCRA 766)
An official custodian who fails to show possession of a
public fund or property may be held liable for
malversation. In malversation, all that is necessary for
conviction is proof that the accountable officer had
received public funds and that he did not have them in
possession when demand therefore was made; no need
of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long
as there is shortage in his account and that it must be
said that the return of the thing malversed is not a
defense.
RODILLAS v SANDIGANBAYAN
(161 SCRA 347)
Failure to undertake necessary precautions take for
instance, allowing a prisoner to have lunch with family
when the former should be brought to jail, failing to follow
the prisoner in the restroom or assigning someone to
watch over the former leading to the prisoners escape,
will make the officers act as a laxity or negligence
amounting to deliberate non-performance of duty. A claim
that there was no connivance with the prisoner must fail
considering that connivance or giving ones consent to
PEOPLE V GENOSA
(419 SCRA 537)
January 15, 2004
G.R. No. 135981
To appreciate battered woman syndrome (BWS) as selfdefense, appellant must prove the following: (1) each of
the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to
20
PEOPLE v SALUFRANIA
(159 SCRA 401)
March 30, 1988
G.R. No. L-50884
PEOPLE v ABARCA
(153 SCRA 735)
September 14, 1987
G.R. No. 74433
MUTILATION
AGUIRRE v SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
(547 SCRA 431)
March 3, 2008
G.R. No. 170723
MURDER
RAPE
PEOPLE v ORITA
(184 SCRA 105)
March 3, 2008
G.R. No. 170723
PEOPLE v OYANIB
(354 SCRA 196)
March 12, 2001
G.R. Nos. 130634-35
PEOPLE v CASTRO
(196 SCRA 679)
May 6, 1991
G.R. No. 91490
HOMICIDE
PEOPLE v PUGAY
(167 SCRA 439)
21
PEOPLE v ACHAS
(595 SCRA 341)
August 4, 2009
G.R. No. 185712
DE CASTRO v FERNANDEZ
(515 SCRA 682)
February 14, 2007
G.R. No. 155041
PEOPLE v CRUZ
(595 SCRA 411)
August 4, 2009
G.R. No. 186129
PEOPLE v FUNESTO
(655 SCRA 357)
August 3, 2011
G.R. No. 182237
PEOPLE v MIRANDILLA
(654 SCRA 761)
July 27, 2011
G.R. No. 186417
The sweetheart theory as a defense however,
necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element of
rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the burden to
prove only force or intimidation, the coupling element of
rape.
PEOPLE v ERINIA
(50 PHIL 998)
January 20, 1927
G.R. No. L-26298
PEOPLE v MADSALI
(611 SCRA 596)
February 4, 2010
G.R. No. 179570
PEOPLE v PORAS
(612 SCRA 624)
February 16, 2010
G.R. No. 177747
PEOPLE v MUIT
(568 SCRA 251)
October 8, 2008
G.R. No. 181043
22
PEOPLE v GUTTIEREZ
(658 SCRA ___ )
October 3, 2011
G.R. No. 168552
PEOPLE v TY
(263 SCRA 754)
May 12, 1978
G.R. No. L-32529
What is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the
minor but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents
or guardians. Said failure or refusal, however, must
notonly be deliberate but must also be persistent as to
oblige the parents or the guardians of the child to seek
the aid of the courts in order to obtain custody.
PEOPLE V TOMIO
(202 SCRA 77)
September 30, 1991
G.R. No. 74630
GRAVE THREATS
REYES v PEOPLE
(27 SCRA 686)
March 28, 1969
G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529
PEOPLE V LIM
(190 SCRA 706)
The fact of detention which is an essential element in the
kidnapping was not clearly established as there was no
showing that there was actual confinement or restriction
on the person of the offended party. The two minors
voluntarily entered the appellant's residence and there is
no indication that one of the minors was locked up,
physically restrained of her liberty or unable to
communicate with anyone.
PEOPLE V PADICA
(221 SCRA 362)
CALUAG v PEOPLE
(580 SCRA 575)
March 4, 2009
G.R. No. 171511
PEOPLE v RAMOS
23
GRAVE COERCION
PEOPLE v BIRUAR
(130 SCRA 513)
July 25, 1984
G.R. Nos. L-32202-04
TIMONER v PEOPLE
(125 SCRA 830)
November 25, 1983
G.R. No. L-62050
LEE v CA
(201 SCRA 405)
September 6, 1991
G.R. No. 90423
PEOPLE v MANGULABNAN
(99 PHIL 992)
September 28, 1956
G.R. No. L-8919
UNJUST VEXATION
PEOPLE v CALIXTO
(123 SCRA 369)
PEOPLE v REYES
(60 PHIL 369)
PEOPLE v QUINONES
(183 SCRA 747)
March 28, 1990
G.R. No. 80042
ROBBERY
NAPOLIS v COURT OF APPEALS
(43 SCRA 301)
February 28, 1972
G.R. No. L-28865
PEOPLE v DINOLA
(183 SCRA 747)
March 22, 1990
G.R. No. L-54567
If the intention of the accused was to commit robbery but
rape was also committed even before the robbery, the
crime of robbery with rape is committed however, if the
original design was to commit rape but the accused after
committing rape also committed robbery because the
24
PEOPLE v MORENO
(220 SCRA 292)
January 25, 2002
G.R. No. 140033
PEOPLE v SALVILLA
(184 SCRA 671)
April 26, 1990
G.R. No. 86163
ROBBERY IN BAND
PEOPLE v APDUHAN
(24 SCRA 798)
August 30, 1968
G.R. No. L-19491
IZON v PEOPLE
(107 SCRA ___)
August 31, 1981
G.R. No. L-51370
25
THEFT
SADDUL v CA
(192 SCRA ___)
December 10, 1990
G.R. No. 91041
VALENZUELA v PEOPLE
(525 SCRA __ )
June 21, 2007
G.R. No. 160188
The elements of theft as provided for in Art. 308 of the
Revised Penal Code are (1) that there be taking of
personal property; (2) that said property belongs to
another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)
that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and, (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use
of violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.
PEOPLE v GULINAO
(180 SCRA ___)
December 4, 1989
G.R. No. 82264-66
SANTOS v PEOPLE
(181 SCRA ___ )
January 29, 1990
G.R. No. 77429
PEOPLE v ONG
(204 SCRA ___)
December 20, 1991
G.R. No. 93849
QUALIFIED THEFT
EMPELIS v IAC
(132 SCRA ___ )
September 28, 1984
G.R. No. L-66136
DOMAGSANG v CA
(347 SCRA 75)
December 5, 2000
G.R. No. 139292
26
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check
in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
IDOS v CA
(296 SCRA ___)
September 25, 1998
G.R. No. 110782
When there was no consideration whatsoever for the
issuance of the check such as when the subject check
was issued merely to evidence complainant's interest in
the partnership and was not intended to apply on account
or for value and when the check was issued without
actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, there is no
violation of BP 22. Further, the failure of the complainant
or by the drawee bank to send a notice of dishonor to the
petitioner precludes any finding of prima facie evidence
of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
NIERRAS v DACUYCUY
(181 SCRA 1)
January 11, 1990
G.R. Nos. 59568-76
Deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315
(2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, but are not required in
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Under the latter law, mere
issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the
presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that
he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence
punishable which is not so under the Penal Code.
WONG v CA
(351 SCRA 100)
February 2, 2001
G.R. No. 117857
VACA v CA
(298 SCRA ___ )
November 16, 1998
G.R. No. 131714
OTHER DECEITS
VILLAFLOR V CA
(192 SCRA 680)
Appellant was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation
when, knowing that the car was then owned by the
Northern Motors, Inc., still told the complainant that the
car was actually owned by him for purposes of and at the
time he obtained the loan from the latter. Indubitably, the
accused was in bad faith when he obtained the said loan
under such deliberate pretenses.
PEOPLE v NITAFAN
(207 SCRA ___)
April 6, 1992
G.R. Nos. 81559-60
Acts involving the violation of trust receipt agreements
occurring after 29 January 1973 (date of enactment of
P.D. 115) would make the accused criminally liable for
estafa under paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) pursuant to the explicit provision in
Section 13 of P.D. 115. The failure, therefore, to account
for the P114,884.22 balance in 1980 or during the
effectivity of P.D. 115. makes the accused-respondent
criminally liable for estafa.
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
TAGUINOD v PEOPLE
(659 SCRA ___)
October 12, 2011
G.R. 185833
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under
Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) That the
offender deliberately caused damage to the property of
another; (2) That such act does not constitute arson or
other crimes involving destruction; (3) That the act of
damaging anothers property be committed merely for the
sake of damaging it.
LIM LAO v CA
(274 SCRA 472)
June 20, 1997
G.R. No. 119178
The fact that petitioner was a signatory to the checks that
were subsequently dishonored merely engenders the
prima facie presumption that she knew of the
insufficiency of funds, but it does not render her
automatically guilty under B.P. 22. The trial court itself
found that no personal notice of dishonor to petitioner
Lina Lim Lao was made by the drawee bank hence,
theprima facie presumption that she knew about the
insufficiency of funds cannot apply.
CABALLES V DAR
(168 SCRA 247)
December 5, 1988
G.R. No. 78214
The private respondent cannot be held criminally liable
for malicious mischief in cutting the banana trees
because, as an authorized occupant or possessor of the
land, and as planter of the banana trees, he owns said
27
PEOPLE v ALBURO
(184 SCRA 655)
April 26, 1990
G.R. No. 85822
The Court is not persuaded by the theory that appellant
and Evelyn were sweethearts because if they were,
surely, Evelyn would not have jeopardized their
relationship by accusing him of having deflowered her
and, on top of it all, filing a criminal charge against him.
Moreover, appellant was not able to present any
convincing evidence to substantiate his claim like love
letters, notes and other symbols of affection.
PEOPLE v GODINES
(196 SCRA 765)
May 7, 1991
G.R. No. 93410
BABANTO v ZOSA
(120 SCRA 834)
February 28, 1983
G.R. No. L-32895
PILAPIL v IBAY-SOMERA
(174 SCRA 653)
June 30, 1989
G.R. No. 80116
PEREZ v CA
(168 SCRA 236)
November 29, 1988
G.R. No. L-80838
BIGAMY
TEVES v PEOPLE
(656 SCRA 307)
August 24, 2011
G.R. No. 188775
28
PEOPLE v ARAGON
(100 PHIL 103)
February 28, 1957
G.R. No. L-10016
LIBEL
ALCANTARA v PONCE
(517 SCRA 74)
February 28, 2007
G.R. No. 156183
MERCADO V TAN
(337 SCRA ___ )
August 1, 2000
G.R. No. 137110
The fact that petitioner subsequently obtained a judicial
declaration of the nullity of the first marriage after having
contracted the second marriage was already immaterial
since the crime had already been consummated. By
contracting a second marriage while the first was still
subsisting, he committed that acts punishable under
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
DIAZ v PEOPLE
(523 SCRA 194)
May 25, 2007
G.R. No. 159787
For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites
must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be
malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the
victims must be identifiable. Absent one of these
elements, a case for libel will not prosper.
MORIGO v PEOPLE
(422 SCRA 376)
February 6, 2004
G.R. No. 145226
Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being
declared void ab initio, the petitioner and Lucia Barrete
were never married "from the beginning." Thus, when
petitioner contracted marriage with Maria Jececha,
nobigamy was committed since the first element of
existence and the validity of the first marriage is lacking.
GONZALES v ARCILLA
(203 SCRA 609)
November 18, 1991
G.R. No. L-27923
TENEBRO v CA
(422 SCRA ___ )
February 18, 2004
G.R. No. 150758
SAZON v CA
(255 SCRA 692)
March 29, 1996
G.R. No. 120715
COSCA v PALAYPAYON
(237 SCRA 249)
September 30, 1994
A.M. No. MTJ-92-721
29
VASQUEZ v CA
(314 SCRA 460)
September 15, 1999
G.R. No. 118971
NEWSWEEK v IAC
(142 SCRA 171)
May 30, 1986
G.R. No. L-63559
MERCADO v CFI
August 25, 1982
G.R. No. L-38753
A libel prosecution must survive the test of whether or not
the offending publication is within the guarantees of free
speech and free press.
BRILLANTE v CA
(440 SCRA 541)
October 19, 2004
G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571
ALONZO v CA
(241 SCRA 51)
February 1, 1995
G.R. No. 110088
SANTOS v CA
(203 SCRA 110)
October 21, 1991
G.R. No. L-45031
BUATIS v PEOPLE
March 24, 2006
G.R. No. 142509
30
FLOR v PEOPLE
(454 S 440)
March 31, 2005
G.R. No. 139987
REYES v PEOPLE
(27 SCRA 686)
March 28, 1969
G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529
AGUSTIN v PAMINTUAN
(467 SCRA 601)
August 22, 2005
G.R. No. 164938
Under the old rule, the offended party could harass the
accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal
action in a remote or distant places. To obviate
controversies as to the venue of the criminal action from
written defamation, the complaint or Information should
contain allegations as to whether the offended party was
a public officer or a private individual at the time the
offense was committed, and where he was actually
residing at that time. Whenever possible, the place where
the written defamation was printed and first published
should likewise be alleged.
VICTORIO V CA
(173 SCRA 645)
May 3, 1989
G.R. Nos. L-32836-37
Appellant-petitioner admitted having called Atty. Vivencio
Ruiz, kayabang, tunaw na utak, swapang, and
"estapador", which attributes to the latter the crime of
estafa, a serious and insulting imputation. Defamatory
words uttered specifically against a lawyer when touching
on his profession are libellous per se.
FERMIN v PEOPLE
March 28, 2008
G.R. No. 157643
Proof adduced during the trial showed that accused was
the manager of the publication without the corresponding
evidence that, as such, he was directly responsible for
the writing, editing, or publishing of the matter contained
in the said libelous article. Article 360 of the Revised
Penal Code, however, includes not only the author but
also the person who prints or published it. Thus, proof of
knowledge or participation in the publication of the
offending article is not required.
SLANDER
GONZALES v ARCILLA
(203 SCRA 609)
November 18, 1991
G.R. No. L-27923
Slander is oral defamation while libel is defamation in
writing. In both, there is a public and malicious imputation
of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending
to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural
or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who
is dead.
BALITE v PEOPLE
(18 SCRA 280)
31
PEOPLE v BUAN
(22 SCRA 1383)
PEOPLE v FALLER
(67 Phil. 529)
Under an information for malicious damage to anothers
property, the accused may be convicted of the crime of
damage through reckless imprudence.
GAN v COURT OF APPEALS
32