Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2)
CASE 25
Fernan, Jr. vs. People
GR No.
145927 August 24, 2007
FACTS:
Due to severe irregularities in release of funds for the MPH via
fake LAAs and other dubious documents sometime from
February 1977 to June 1978 in Region VII particularly Cebu
area, President Marcos created a Special Cabinet Committee
cracking down on the Ghost Projects Anomalies. These
occurrences were eventually busted by the NBI, with the
cases filed with the SB, finding several MPH officials guilty of
CASE 26
Eugenio vs. People
GR No. 168163
March 26, 2008
FACTS:
Sometime in November 1995 in Malabon, Metro Manila, Lolita
Y. Eugenio (petitioner) along with Saquitan and Ablaza
persuaded Mangali to loan them P 100,000.00 in exchange for
a parcel of land owned by Saquitan. Subsequently, petitioner
in behalf of one Lourdes Ty sought another P100,000.00 loan
from Mangali assured by a parcel of land owned by Ty.
Convinced, Mangali released an initial of P 75,000.00. When
the loans lapsed, Mangali inquired from the Register of Deeds
of Manila and Quezon City and discovered that TCT No.
171602 deed of sale (1st lot) had been canceled on October
15, 1995 while TCT No. 92585 (2nd lot) was not registered with
the said offices. This prompted Mangali to contact the NBI
and an entrapment operation was initiated arresting
petitioner, Albanza, and two other unidentified persons. Upon
investigation, the real Epifania Saquitan was found who issued
an affidavit denying any connection with the accused party.
The case was filed with the RTC charging petitioners party
with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents, wherein
petitioner and Albanza pleaded not guilty. Albanza settled
bail and went into hiding. On the part of the defense,
petitioner contended that she was merely a victim of
circumstance. The RTC, contending that fraud was involved
through conspiracy and misrepresentation, ruled against
petitioner and the case was brought to the CA. The CA
affirmed the RTCs decision and denied the petitioners motion
for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a conspiracy was involved in the case at bar
HELD:
Not. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove
conspiracy to render petitioner liable as principal to Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Documents. The lower courts
reliance upon mere allegations and testimonies absent the
material evidence to implicate petitioner as principal,
accomplice, or accessory beyond reasonable doubt where the
act of conspiracy was being inferred from led to petitioners
acquittal.
CASE 27
People vs. Glino GR No. 173793
December 4, 2007
FACTS:
In the evening of November 15, 1998 in Las Pinas City,
complainant Virginia Boji and her husband Domingo Boji rode
a PUJ wherein the accused Glino and Baloes were also
passengers. The accused were intoxicated, with Glino leaning
on Virginia violating her personal space. Virginia and
Domingo reminded Glino to sit properly but Glino and Baloes
took offense and made their retorts. Later, the accused were
seen whispering together. When the accused announced their
plan to alight from the PUJ, they suddenly and repeatedly
stabbed Domingo, with Virginia sustaining a wounded hand
from the scuffle. The accused were then apprehended by
authorities. While in custody, Baloes died of cardiopulmonary
arrest, leaving Glino to contend with the case. Glino denied
the allegations against him, stating that he was merely one of
the passengers in the PUJ and not a participant of the crime.
It was alleged that Baloes stabbed Domingo first and that
Virginia was unable to identify her assailant. Still, the RTC and
CA held Glino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
attempted murder. Hence, this present appeal.
ISSUE:
Should Glino still be convicted guilty of murdering Domingo
even if it was Baloes who initiated the action?
HELD:
Yes, as the SC held in way of conspiracy. It matters not who
among the accused actually killed the victim. In conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. Each of the accused will be
deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. Also, proof
that accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to
fulfill the common design to kill the victim will suffice to
support a conviction, as further demonstrated in the case of
People vs. Deuna. Thus, Glino was rightly convicted.
CASE 28
Ramos-Andan vs. People GR No.
136388 March 14, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioner Ramos-Andan and Potenciana approached
complainant Elizabeth Calderon to buy the latters diamond
ring. Elizabeth agreed to the three post-dated checks issued
by Potenciana and a receipt of transaction was signed by
them with petitioner being the witness. Upon encashment,
the checks bounced for the reason Account Closed. An
information was filed with the RTC which led to the
arraignment of petitioner; however, Potenciana remained at
large. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and denied buying the
ring, maintaining that she signed the checks and the receipts
merely as a witness. The RTC held that petitioner induced
CASE 32
Ladonga vs. People
GR No. 141066
February 17, 2005
FACTS:
Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses Adronico and
Evangeline obtained a P9,075.55 loan from Alfredo Otculam,
guaranteed by a post-dated UCPB Check issued by Adronico;
sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first
week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an
additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by another postdated UCPB check issued by Adronico; between May and June
1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the
amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by a post-dated UCPB
Check issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon
presentment for the reason CLOSED ACCOUNT; when the
Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite
repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against
them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico
bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the
account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the
checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an
agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when
they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the
checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The
RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22.
Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner.
Issue: Should the provision of the RPC Article 10 be invoked
to apply the principle of conspiracy in the above-case?
Held: Yes, since B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law and does not
proscribe the suppletory application of Article 10 of the RPC.
In general, Article 10 of the RPC is provided to supplement
special laws, unless it expresses otherwise. However, the
conviction of the petitioner as a co-conspirator must fail
because the prosecution failed to prove this beyond
reasonable doubt. In the present case, the only semblance of
overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was
present when the first check was issued. However, this
inference cant be stretched to mean concurrence w the
criminal design.
CASE 33
Go-Tan vs. Tan et al GR No. 168852
September 30, 2008
FACTS:
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven)
were married, having two female children from their union.
Barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition
with Prayer for the Issuance of a TPO against Steven and her
parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan
(respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in
conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal,
psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of
Republic Act R.A. No. 9262, aka Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004. This was granted by the RTC;
however, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss contending
that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as
parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A.
No. 9262. On March 7, 2005, the RTC dismissed the case as
to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of
the petitioner, they were not included/covered as respondents
under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law
expressio unius est exclusio alterius. After several motions
between the 2 parties, the RTC reasoned that to include
respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would be a
strained interpretation of the provisions of the law. Hence, the
present petition on a pure question of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents may be included in the petition
for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with
republic act no. 9262
HELD:
Yes. The court rules in favor of the petitioner. Indeed, Section
47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory
application of the RPC, stating that: SEC. 47. Suppletory
Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code
and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application.
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides The RPC shall
be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles
developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special
laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in wc the special law is silent on
a particular matter.
CASE 34
People vs. Tabuelog
GR No. 178059
January 22, 2008
FACTS:
On October 12, 2002, the accused Christopher Tabuelog and
the victim Clinton Badinas along with other students from
Abra Valley College went on a field trip to Fort Ilocandia,
Laoag City. According to the facts found by the trial court,