You are on page 1of 41

90 Ong Chuin Kwan vs.

Court of Appeals

Facts:
After filing against the petitioner Ong Chuin Kwan on January 31,
1991 by assistant city prosecutor Andres Bayona before the Municipal trial
court of Bacolod city, charging the accused unjust vexation for cutting the
electric wires, water pipes, and telephone lines of crazy feet. A business
establishment owned and operated by the complainant Mildred Ong. The
accused did not deny the allegations and rendering such actions not having
acquired a permit from proper authorities while such electric wires, water
pipes, and telephone line crossed his property lines. After due trial, the MTC
of Bacolod city, found the accused guilty of unjust vexation, rendering him of
20 days of imprisonment and to pay private complainant moral dames,
exemplary damages, and attorneys fee. On appeal to the RTC of Bacolod
city, affirmed the decision of the lower court, without stating the reason for
doing so. Hence, the accused appealed on CA, where affirmed the decision of
the lower court despite of the nullity of the decision of RTC, where it violated
the constitutional provision in rendering a decision.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in rendering the penalties for the
accused.

Held:
The accused admitted the allegations and failed to show the he had
acquired the authority to relocate the lines, where it happened affects the
business operation of the complainant. The petitioner unjustly annoyed or
vexed the complainant. Consequently, the petitioner is liable for unjust
vexation as defined under Art.287 par.2 of RPC. However, the court found
that the award for moral, exemplary damages and attorneys fee has no
basis in law, hereby it was deleted. The decision of the lower courts is
reversed and set aside. The accused was sentenced to pay 200.00ph and the
costs.

91 People vs. Reyes


Facts:
On October 12, 1997, PO1 Molato caught the accused Danilo Reyes
and his co-perpetrator at about 2am forcibly took the wristwatch and
stabbed from behind by one of the assailants the victim Donaldo Salmorin Jr.
PO1 Molato has been the star witness for the prosecution, it happened when
he had witnessed the actual commission of the crime by the accused
together with his conspirator. Where the Regional Trial Court of Malabon
rendered its decision after trial, convicted Danilo Reyes y Batac beyond
reasonable doubt, guilty of the crime robbery with homicide, sentenced to
reclusion perpetua and to pay the father of the victim the sum of 50,000.00
for the victims life, and another 50,000.00 for moral damages for the pain
suffered by the victim and his family, and 47,000.00 for the actual damages
such as the burial of the victim. Hence, the accused appealed after his
conviction, contending that the lower court erred in proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, and giving, credence to the testimony of PO1 Molato.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the accused?
Held:
No, the lower court did not erred in convicting the accused. Despite
the contention of the accused as to whom the wristwatch belong, the
contention of the accused has no merit that he argues that the intention of
the perpetrators is to retrieve the watch, hence, the actual taking of the
property which its possession belongs to another by using force and violence
produce a felony which is robbery. The alibi by the accused was not able to
convince court, but the testimony of PO1 Molato is more convincing to prove
the guilt of the accused, a single witness may held the guilt of the accused.
However, where the accused convicted as co-principal of the crime
contented that theyre not conspiracy in committing the crime, in the case at
bar, perpetrators performs different parts in performing the execution of the
crime, even if theres an absence of formal conspiracy, it is sufficient that
they had performed concerted efforts in executing the crime. Hence, the

court affirms the decision of the lower court, wherefore Danilo Salmorin Jr. y
Batac found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime robbery with
homicide.

92 People vs. Suela


Facts:
Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, together with Edgardo Batocan,
covered with masks and bonnets and gloves, barnishing handguns and knife
threatening Director Rosas to give the location of their money whom with his
adopted son, Norman and his friend Gabilo watching television at his room.
Culprits succeeded in taking the money and valuables. However, the
perpetuators dragged Gabilo downstairs with them, upon Nerios instruction,
Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which caused the latters death. The trial
court convicted the assailants and sentenced the penalty of death. The
charge against Edgar Suela where he wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
rob/extort the complainant in a situation, he called the latter and demanded
a 200,000 PHP in exchange for information which could lead/solve the
robbery and the slaying of Gabilo where in fact Edgar Suela took the said
amount to prejudice the offended party.

Issue:
Whether or not Suela is guilty of robbery

Held:
Under the law, robbery is committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to show
that Edgar Suela used force and violence upon the offended party in taking
the aforementioned amount in exchange for information regarding the
identity of those who robbed and killed Gabilo. There is no showing that
Edgar Suela exerted intimidation to gain the money. It was clearly the choice

of the private complainant to give the money to the latter in exchange for
information. Hence, Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that charge.

93 People vs. Del Rosario


Facts:
Donato Del Rosario was charged of robbery with homicide alleging that
the accused stole and carried away jewelleries belonging to Emelita Paragua.
On the occasion of the said crime, the accused with intent to kill
treacherously attacked, assaulted Raquel Lopez, the niece of Emelita
Paragua, was hit by a hard object in the head and was tied in the neck to
prevent her from making an outcry, and suffered from asphyxia injuries,
which directly caused her death. Emelitas house was set on fire and some
of her jewelleries were found missing. Few days later, the accused himself
surrendered to proper authority and helped them to recover the jewellery,
which the latter has sold. The accused then was convicted by the RTC of
Olongapo City, the crime of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:
Whether or not the essential requisites of the crime of robbery with
homicide are present

Held:
Yes. Intent to gain is assumed where it is alleged that there was
unlawful taking and appropriation by the offender of the properties stolen.
Homicide may occur before or after the robbery, what is important is that
there is an intimate connection between the killing and the robbery.

94 People vs. Hipona


Facts:
At some time on June 12, 2000 in Cagayan De Oro, Michael Hipona
together with Romulo Seva Jr. and John Doe, his co-accused, conspired and
feloniously had a carnal knowledge to the offended party AAA, whom was the
aunt of Michael Hipona. While on the occasion, the accused, with evident
premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength and dwelling,
choked and strangulated the victim.
The accused-appellant stole the
valuable items of the victim but was confiscated when he was apprehended.

Issue:
Whether accused-appellant is liable of the crime of robbery with
homicide

Held:
Yes. Robbery was the main intent of the latter as shown on the case at
bar, rape should have been appreciated as aggravating circumstance
instead. The decision of CA wherefore, is affirmed with modification. Michael
Hipona was guilty of robbery with homicide. So ordered.

95 People vs. Hernandez


Facts:
Amado V. Hernandez was one of the defendant-appellant change in a
criminal case for rebellion, with multiple murder, arsons and robberies.

Issue: Whether or not the defendants-appellants are liable for the crime of
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion under Article 136 of the RPC.

Held: The court found the dependant-appellant Hernandez, member of the


communist party, President of the CLO, and had connections with other
leaders and members of the Communist Party, guilty as principal of the
crime charged. However, upon appeal and testimonies shown in court,
defendants-appellants are absolved from the changes contained in the
information with their proportionate share of the costs de oficio.

96 People vs. Reyes


Facts: On 30th day of December, 1992, in the municipality of Cordon,
province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, together with John Doe, Peter Doe and Ricardo Doe,
whose identities are still to be determined, conspiring, confederating
together and helping one another, all armed with different kinds of firearms,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain and
by means of violence and intimidation against person, take, steal and carry
away one (1) unit chainsaw valued at and two canvas of palay all with a total
value of P20,400.00 and all belonging to Spouses Alfredo Macadaeg and
Felicidad David against their will and consent to the damage and prejudice of
the said owners in the aforesaid total amount of P20,400.00, that on the
occasion of the said Robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take,
steal and carry away the said items, the herein accused, in pursuance of
their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to kill, assault, attack and shoot the said Alfredo Macadaeg, inflicting
upon him a gunshot wound on the chest and on the left wrist which directly
caused his death. At around 6 oclock in the evening of December 30, 1992,
Alfredo Macadaeg and his wife, Felicidad, were sitting in the kitchen at the
first floor of their two-storey house in Wigan, Cordon, Isabela. Their children,
14-year-old Reynaldo and his younger siblings named Juanito, Danilo and
Marilyn, were at the second floor of their house. As Felicidad arose to

prepare dinner, she heard gunfire and saw Alfredo fall to the ground. She
rushed to embrace the bleeding Alfredo who then told her that he had been
shot. Felicidad shouted for her children, and then fainted. Alarmed by the
bursts of gunfire, the children rushed downstairs and saw their bloodied
father lying on the floor beside their unconscious mother. Seconds later,
Felicidad regained consciousness and told the children that their father was
already dead. Appellant Reyes pointed his gun to Felicidad and Nestor
pointed his gun to Reynaldo who is about 8 meters away from him, the two
unidentified malefactor asked for the chainsaw, and one of the 5 accused
enter the house of the victim, where they found the chainsaw and the palay
which they unlawfully took from the victim. After seeking for help and by the
statements of the victims who identified appellant Ronnie Reyes and Nestor
Pagal and despite of the denial of the culprits, the Court finds the accused
Ronnie Reyes and Nestor Pagal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of robbery in band with homicide and hereby sentences each of them to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are also ordered to pay, jointly and
severally, to the heirs of Alfredo Macadaeg representing death indemnity,
actual damages and compensatory damages.

Issue: Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
FELICIDAD MACADAEG AND REYNALDO MACADAEG AND IN DISREGARDING
THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF
THE CRIME OF ROBBERY IN BAND WITH HOMICIDE DESPITE THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION THAT WOULD
WARRANT A CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Held: The testimonies of the prosecution prove that only two members
of the group, the appellants, were armed and, therefore, under the law, there
could not have been a band to aggravate the commission of the crime.
Appellants are, therefore, guilty of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide because the homicide was perpetrated by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery.
The fact that Felicidad did not see who among the malefactors shot her
husband, does not absolve appellants from liability therefrom. The

concerted manner by which appellants and their companions perpetrated the


crime showed beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. Where
conspiracy is established, it matters not who among the accused actually
shot and killed the victim. The consistent doctrinal rule is that when a
homicide takes place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those
who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless there
is proof that they had endeavoured to prevent the killing.
WHEREFORE, the herein appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that the appellants shall be solidarily liable for actual
damages

97 People vs. Daniela


Facts:

An information for robbery with homicide was filed in the RTC of Cebu
City against Manuel and Jose that the said accused, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping each other, armed with bladed
weapons and handguns, with deliberate intent to kill, then and there attack,
assault and use personal violence upon one Renito Enero by stabbing him on
the vital parts of his body, thereby inflicting him physical injuries which
caused his death, and with intent to gain, did then and take and carry away
the jewelleries consisting of earrings, necklaces, wristwatch and rings.
The accused contended that they never had the original design to rob
when they enter the compound.

Issue: Whether or not the prosecution proved the crime of robbery with
homicide.

Held: The law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is
robbery and commits homicide by reason or by occasion thereof; what is
primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, cause, modes, or persons intervening in the commission of
the crime. Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of robbery
is different from the victim of homicide, as long as the killing is committed by
reason or by occasion thereof.

98 People vs. Napalit

Facts:
The Information charges accused-appellant with robbery in band with
homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 (as amended by R.A. 7659)
and Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accused-appellant argues nevertheless that assuming that he had
indeed participated in the incident, he should only be held liable for robbery
and not for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. For so he
claims, the shooting of Gomez by his companions was beyond his
contemplation and he never intended to perpetrate any killing, hence, only
the actual perpetuators of the killing should be held liable therefore and the
killing should not be appreciated to increase his liability. He further adds that
his carrying pf a firearm was only for the purpose of threatening the victims
so that they would not offer any resistance to him and his companions.

Issue: Whether or not accused shall be held liable for robbery and not for
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Held: That accused-appellant did not shoot Gomez is immaterial. Article


294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code is clear and leaves no room for any other
interpretation. For, for robbery with homicide to exist, it is sufficient that a
homicide results by reason or on the occasion of robbery. The law of course
exculpates a person who takes part in the robbery from the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide and punishes him only for simple robbery
when there is proof that he tried to prevent the homicide. No such proof,
however, was offered.
Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion
of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also
be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it is clearly
shown that they endeavoured to prevent the homicide.

99 People vs. Campos


Facts:

On or about the 17th day of August 1989, in Calookan City, Metro-

Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with intent
to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation employed on the
person of one MERCELINA ALFARO DE JACOBE, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away cash money amounting
to P10,000.00 belonging to said complainant, to the damage and prejudice of
the latter in the aforestated amount of P10,000.00; that on the occasion of
the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, rob and carry
away the said amount of P10,000.00, the herein accused in pursuance of
their conspiracy did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
intent to kill the victim, attack and stab on the different vital parts of the
body, thereby inflicting upon said MERCELINA ALFARO DE JACOBE, serious
physical injuries, which directly caused her death; and also with deliberate
intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab with a bladed instrument on the vital parts of the body one
FELICIDAD ALFARO y CRUZ, thus, performing all the acts of execution which
would have produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but which
nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the herein accused, that is due to the timely, able and efficient medical
attendance rendered the victim at the Quezon City General Hospital, which
prevented the victim's death. At around midnight, Felicidad roused from her
sleep and stood up. Suddenly, someone stabbed her on her left arm. She
started to shout as her assailant continued to stab her. She was hit on her
abdomen, left arm, and left side. She fell to the floor in a sitting position and
she looked at the person who stabbed her. She recognized accused
Alejandro Campos, who worked at the neighboring gravel and sand area and
frequented their store to buy gas. She also noticed accused Renato dela
Cruz standing near the door of the room. She knew accused dela Cruz
because they used to work together in the Cefel's General Merchandise
Store, a hardware store adjacent to the mini-mart. Suddenly, accused
Campos moved towards Mercelina and started stabbing her. Mercelina, still
lying on the bed, woke up and shouted for help. Accused Campos kept
stabbing her. Thereafter, the two accused left hurriedly, exiting through the
storeroom of the minimart. Felicidad identified accused Campos and accused
dela Cruz as the persons who entered the room in the early morning of
August 17, 1989 and stabbed her and her sister. Accused Alejandro Campos
denied any participation in the stabbing incident. He testified that at that

time, he was at home in Malaria, Ilang-Ilang Street, Tala, Caloocan City. Upon
further questioning, accused Alejandro Campos admitted that he went to the
mini-mart on the evening of August 16, 1989, at the call of accused Renato
dela Cruz. Accused Campos claimed that he stayed outside the store when
accused dela Cruz entered the minimart. Moments later, accused Campos
heard shouts of women inside and saw accused dela Cruz emerge from the
store. Accused dela Cruz entrusted a knife into the hands of accused
Campos and told him to keep it. Accused Campos walked away from the
store, holding the knife. He failed to notice that the knife was bloodied.
Accused Renato dela Cruz, driver and caretaker of the hardware store owned
by Felipa Jacobe, denied any involvement in the crime. He alleged that
Alejandro Campos implicated him in this serious crime because the latter
was envious that he was receiving a higher salary than the other employees
of Felipa Jacobe.He claimed that at around 9:00 in the evening of August 16,
1989, he was at his residence, 40 meters away from the minimart, on the
night in question.He played several games of Russian poker or pusoy with his
friends until 11:00 in the evening when his wife told him to go to sleep. At
around 1:00 in the morning, his wife woke him up because somebody was
calling him outside their house. When accused dela Cruz opened the door,
he saw several policemen who told him that Mrs. Felipa Jacobe wanted to see
him. He went with the policemen but later realized that he was being taken
to the police station. There, the policemen informed him that something
happened to Mercelina and Felicidad Alfaro. Accused dela Cruz stated that
he knew nothing about the incident. Later, policemen took him to the
hospital where Felicidad Alfaro was lying unconscious. Accused dela Cruz
saw Patrolman Antonio Paras attempting to talk to Felicidad. Later, accused
dela Cruz and the policemen left the hospital. Accused dela Cruz did not see
Felicidad point to him as one of the suspects. It was only Pat. Antonio Paras
who told him that Felicidad identified him as one of the suspects. On October
24, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision, the Court finds the accused
Alejandro Campos y Armado and Renato dela Cruz y Borac guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide with Frustrated Homicide as
charged and hereby sentences each accused to suffer imprisonment of
RECLUSION PERPETUA. Both accused are also directed to indemnify jointly
and severally Felipa Jacobe for shouldering the burial and miscellaneous
expenses of Mercelina Alfaro Jacobe, shouldering the hospitalization,
operation and the purchase of medicine in the treatment of Felicidad Alfaro
and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Mercelina Alfaro Jacobe the
amount of P10,000.00 which was stolen from Mercelina Alfaro. Both accused
are also directed to pay the costs. Both of the accused shall be entitled to be

credited with the full period of their preventive imprisonment pursuant to Art.
29 of the Revised Penal Code provided the requirements listed therein have
been complied with.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant


Dela Cruz in his participation in the crime.

Held: We find insufficient evidence to show that accused-appellant dela


Cruz was guilty of the first three elements of robbery with homicide. In
robbery with homicide cases, the robbery itself must be proved as
conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. Robbery is the
taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force
upon things. In this case, all that the witness Felicidad saw that night was the
stabbing of her sister, not the taking of personal property. The taking cannot
be assumed from the actions of accused-appellant as seen by Felicidad. She
saw him at the doorway and then noticed him running out the store after the
stabbing occurred. Felicidad claimed that the bag purportedly containing
money was recovered empty the next day. However, it was undisputed that
various persons had entered the store of the victims after the incident,
including investigators and onlookers. The bag was not conclusively shown
to contain money nor was the money ever recovered. Further, there was no
substantial link from the loss of the contents of the bag to the accused, for
the money was never seen in the possession of the accused. In this case, there
was no clear indication of the existence of conspiracy. First, eyewitness' identification of
accused-appellant at the scene of the crime was not clear. Although the
witness was familiar with the accused-appellant, the lack of lighting in the
store at the time left doubt as to her proper identification of accusedappellant, who was several meters away from her. Second, Felicidad merely
stated that she saw him standing by the door of the store. Mere presence at
the scene of the crime is insufficient to prove conspiracy, a conspirator must
perform an overt act in furtherance of the plan to commit a felony; mere
presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence
thereto is not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. Mere
presence, knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance
of the common design and purpose. The Court REVERSES the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 124, convicting accused-appellant
Renato dela Cruz y Borac of robbery with homicide. Accused-appellant

Renato dela Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is ordered


released immediately from confinement unless he is held for another case.

100 People vs. Verceles

Facts:
On October 19, 1996, in the morning, in barangay Malibong in
Pangasinan, the accused, Mario Verceles, Felix Corpus, Mamerto Soriano,
Pablo Ramos and Jerry Soriano, entered the house of Mrs. Rosita Quilates by
forcibly destroying the grills of the window which they used as an ingress and

once inside, did, then and there, wilfully and unlawfully cart away the
following personal properties: 1 colored TV, 1 VHS, assorted jewelleries, 1
alarm clock and 1 radio cassette, all valued at P60,000.00, and that on the
same occasion, the said accused feloniously have sexual intercourse with
Maribeth Bolito against her will to the damage of the said victims.

Issue: Whether accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of Robbery with


Rape.

Held:
On the matter of whether rape was committed, the SC agreed with
the trial courts ruling that the healed lacerations on the vagina of the victim
nor the absence of spermatozoa negates rape. The victims declaration of
her sexual ordeal given in a convincing manner shows no other intent than to
obtain justice for the wrong done to her. Wherefore, the court finds the
accused-appellants guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape.

101 People vs. Tamayo


Facts:
On March 29, 1998, Mary Ann Guazon, a 24-year old sewer, was alone
in her home in Tatalon, Quezon City, her husband at work in Baliwag,
Bulacan, while her children are with her aunt in Fairview, Quezon City. At 1 in

the morning, she was suddenly roused from her sleep by a man, who
simultaneously covered her mouth and poked a knife to at the side of her
neck. She was told not to move or she would be killed. The light on her
house has been turned off, but she recognized the man as accused-appellant
Nelson Tamayo, because of the light coming from the market outside.
Despite the fierce resistance Mary Ann showed, the accused succeeded on
raping her. After he had finished, she sensed that the accused was going to
kill her. She thus pretended that she enjoyed the encounter and pleaded
with him to spare her. Accused relented and warned her not to report the
incident or else she will be killed. He told her to get dressed and hand over
her clothes. It was then that she discovered that the P500.00 she earned
from doing laundry that day, which she kept in her shorts pocket, was gone.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty of


special complex crime of robbery with rape, despite his guilt not having been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Held: Yes. The court finds his identification as the perpetrator of the crime
to be positive and certain. It was sufficiently explained that the light coming
from the market was bright enough to enable complainant to identify him as
the one who raped her. The offended party, after the crime, strengthened
her account and fortified her credibility. No decent and sensible woman will
publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt
unless she is in fact a rape victim.

102 People vs. Domingo


Facts:

Around 11:00 p.m. of October 23, 1993, private complainant Valentin


Gabertan was lounging outside his house while his children lay asleep, when
he heard the incessant barking of dogs in the compound. The Gabertan
compound, located at Sitio Malasin, Balintocatoc, Santiago, Isabela, consist
of two main houses; one, where the children and a young houseboy stay and
sleep and the other, where Valentin and his wife, Clara retire for the
evening. There are also several barns to house the cows, goats and
domestic fowls. Clara, who was then reposed on the bed, heard the barking
at the same time. Instinctively, Clara stood up and took out a flashlight. She
immediately gave it to her husband, who was then armed with a bolo, to aid
him in checking out the disturbance. Valentin ha[d] not walked far from the
house when three men suddenly entered the compound while two others
stayed outside. The men, initially identifying themselves as members of the
New Peoples Army (NPA), ferociously asked Valentin for money. Turned off
by the demand, Valentin at once retorted that they could not be members of
the NPAs as NPAs do not ask for money. The men, however, were
unmasked. Valentin instantly recognized their faces as that of appellant and
his co-accused. It was easy for Valentin to recognize appellant, having
known him for the past ten years, as the latter usually passed by their house
when he went fishing. Appellant and his co-accused were each armed with a
piece of wood. Unruffled by Valentins response, appellant and his coaccused nonetheless persisted. They demanded guns and documents or
certificates for the large cattle and asked who the owner of the cows was.
Valentin, however, attempted to ward off the impending danger now reposed
[i]n him. He promptly hacked one of the men [identified as Joel Temporal] on
his right arm. A struggle ensued. Valentin, however, was easily outnumbered
by the intruders as the latter clubbed him at the same time. Valentin soon
let go of his defense when the intruders attempted to hurt his son. At this
time, Clara sensed an intense level of fear as she stood frozen beside a table
where a kerosene lamp was lighted. It only took a few minutes when Joel
Temporal barged in, struck the kerosene lamp and ominously threatened, I
will kill you if you will not give me what I want. Joel Temporal thereafter
pulled Clara out of the house where she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass.
Meantime, Valentin could only watch his wife being pulled away as he was
rendered weak and immobile at the clubbing he received at a moments
resistance. Jessing Valdez and Heherson Rivera stood guard. His attempt to
rescue his wife was overtaken by the necessity to protect the son he was
now embracing lest the intruders vent their rage on him. Claras dress and
panty were torn away. Her hands were held by appellant and her feet also
held by Benedicto Pedro. Joel Temporal put himself on top of Clara and went

inside her. After he consummated his lust, appellant came in next. Benedicto
Pedro also took his turn. For his part, Jessing Valdez left Valentin and his son
and rushed in to satiate, too, his carnal desire. Once finished, all four men
checked on Valentin but came back to see Clara, stepping on her vagina in
the process. Agonized, Clara could only utter, Dont you have pity on me,
you people from Bannawag? Appellant and his co-accused thereafter left,
bringing with them two chickens and nine turkeys which were carried around
their necks. Valentin rushed to his wifes side and could only embrace her. A
few minutes, later, neighbors and friends Leonardo Palafox and Celestino
Capa came to their succour. At this time, Valentin had difficulty
breathing. He could not be rushed to the hospital immediately because
there was no transport available. Valentin and Clara had to content
themselves to await the dawn. Back at the house, however, money and a
Seiko gold-plated watch were found missing from Claras bag.
Both Valentin and Clara exhibited no qualms in identifying the perpetrators
of the crime pinpointing their neighbors from Bannawag Norte, Santiago City
--- Joel Temporal, Benedicto Pedro, appellant Boy Domingo, Heherson Rivera
and Jessing Valdez.
Appellant, on the other hand, argues that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
The defense presented in evidence the testimony of accused Boy
Domingo. He testified that in the month of October 1993, he was harvesting
palay somewhere in Barangay Salvador, Santiago City. On October 23, 1993,
he started working at 7:00 oclock in the morning up to 5:00 oclock in the
afternoon. Afterwards, he proceeded to the house of his sister. While in the
house of his sister, he rested for [a while], ate supper at 8:00 oclock in the
evening and went to sleep. After finishing his work on October 31, 1993, he
went home to the house of his mother in Bannawag, Santiago City. He was
apprehended on July 27, 1998 while driving a tricycle. The next witness
presented was Florentina Pingaron, the sister of accused Boy Domingo. She
testified that her brother Boy Domingo stayed at her place in Salvador,
Santiago City from October 3, 199[3] in order to do some harvesting. Her
brother stayed with her for about a month. On October 23, 199[3] at around
8:00 oclock in the evening [her] brother was at home sleeping and did not
leave the house. During the month [her] brother stayed with her, he did not
leave the place at all except when he [went] to the farm to harvest. The next
witness was Pepito Martin who corroborated the testimony of accused-

appellant Boy Domingo that the latter worked in his farm from October 5,
1993 up to October 31, 1993. He claimed that the accused worked on his
farm from 7:00 oclock up to 11:00 oclock in the morning and from 2:00
oclock up to 5:00 oclock in the afternoon. On October 24, 1993, he saw the
accused-appellant harvesting on his farm the whole day. The next witness
was Sonny Solomon. He testified that on October 23, 1993 as well as
October 24, 1993 he saw the accused-appellant work [o]n the farm of Mr.
Martin because they were together at that time. The last witness for the
defense was Barangay Captain Rodante Angel. He testified that he had
known the accused Boy Domingo Jr. since the latter was a child. According to
him, the accused ha[d] no derogatory record at all. He issued a certification
attesting to this fact. Consequently, RTC ruled that appellant was guilty of
the special complex crime of robbery with multiple raped. It concluded that
the principal intention of appellant and his co-accused was to rob
complainants and that the rape was a mere afterthought.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the defense of
alibi interposed by accused-appellant Boy Domingo.

Held: A woman will not expose herself to the humiliation of a trial, with its
attendant publicity and the morbid curiosity it would arouse, unless she has
been truly wronged and seeks atonement for her abuse. We are not
convinced. Well-settled is the rule that alibi is always viewed with suspicion,
because it is inherently weak and unreliable. The defense of alibi assumes
significance or strength when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness.
For alibi to prosper, the accused must be able to prove his presence at
another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and demonstrate
that it was physically impossible for him at that time to have been at the
scene of the crime. Based on the foregoing, the alibi of appellant cannot
prevail over the positive identification made by credible witnesses. Absent
any plausible imputation of ill motive on their part to falsely accuse or
implicate him, their candid and consistent testimonies should be given full
faith and credit. Hence, the appeal is DENIED, and the RTC Decision
is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is convicted of robbery
with rape and shall pay actual damages, indemnity ex delicto, another moral
damages and exemplary damages.

103 People vs. Lago


Facts:
The accused Reyderick Lago, armed with a bladed weapon,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping [or] aiding each
other, with intent to gain, by means of force upon things, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Benjamin Raymundo y
Sta. Teresa, by then and there removing one blade of the glass window
jalousie near the door, and once inside the house, take, steal and carry away
cash, money and jewelries belonging to said Benjamin Raymundo y Sta.
Teresa, to the damage and prejudice of the latter; that on the occasion of the
said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry
away the said cash, money and jewelries, in pursuance of their conspiracy
and to insure the success of their criminal act, with intent to kill, did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab said Benjamin Raymundo y

Sta. Teresa on the vital part of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter
stab wounds which directly caused his death. The RTC rendered its decision
finding the accused beyond reasonable doubt the crime of robbery with
homicide.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting accusedappellant Reyderick Lago of the crime of robbery with homicide despite
insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution.

Held:
The records and the pleadings show that all the above-mentioned
elements are present in the case at bar. Appellant and his cohorts broke into
the house of Aragons uncle, took the victims wallet and cash, wrist watch
and several pieces of jewellery and, in the course of the robbery, stabbed
and killed the victim. As aforesaid, whenever a homicide is committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in
the aspiration will be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless it
appears that those who did not do so endeavoured to prevent the killing.
Appellant, upon hearing the groaning emanating from the bedroom, did not
do anything to check on what was happening. Thinking that his cohorts were
stabbing the victim, appellant simply allowed them to finish their dastardly
deed. He hid for two years first in the house of his grandmother and, later
on, in that of his mother. It is therefore clear that appellant did not do
anything to prevent his co-conspirators from stabbing and ultimately killing
the victim. When he left the scene of the crime; he could have gone to the
police to report the crime, but he hid and tried to escape the arm of the
law. Because he did not do anything to prevent the homicide, he is therefore
equally guilty of robbery with homicide. We affirm the awards of actual
damages which were duly proven. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and
the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.

104 People vs. Sultan


Facts:
On 2 June 1997 at 9:00 oclock in the evening she was on her way
home from a visit to her cousin Cristina Mansilongan in Novaliches, Quezon

City; when she passed the dark alley in her cousin's compound she was
accosted by someone, later identified as accused-appellant Fernando L.
Sultan, who pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and announcing it was a
"hold-up." He grabbed her and brought her to a house along the alley which
turned out to be his. Once inside the house, he made her sit down. He
offered her a drink; she refused it. Then he started divesting her of her
watch, ring, earrings, and necklace, and her cash. After taking her valuables,
he started kissing her on the lips and cheeks. As if to discourage him from
making further sexual advances, she told him that she was married with two
children but accused-appellant was not dissuaded from pursuing his
intentions. While pointing an ice pick at her he ordered her to undress. She
acceded for fear that he would kill her as she was under constant threat.
After she had completely undressed, accused-appellant ordered her to lie
down on the floor. He then kissed her again from head down. Still she could
not resist him because of fear. He went on top of her, held her two hands on
the level of her head, spread her thighs and inserted his penis into her
vagina. The coital encounter lasted for ten to fifteen minutes. After satisfying
his lust, he ordered her to put on her bra and panty, tied her hands and went
out of the room to smoke. After ten to fifteen minutes, he came back, untied
her, and once again with threat and intimidation sexually abused her.
Thereafter, he tied her hands to a protruding piece of wood in the room and
held her in his arms. She cried. He told her that he loved her and that he
would answer for what he had done to her. They talked until noon the
following day without sleeping. In her effort to release herself from his
clutches she "agreed" to elope with him. Perhaps convinced that she was
going to run away with him, he allowed her to go home at noon to get her
things. She was then staying with her cousin Nita Del Rosario. He even
accompanied her to the highway to get a ride home. Juditha lost no time in
narrating her harrowing experience to her sister. Immediately Antonette
called her brother SPO1 Fernando M. Bautista who resides in Bulacan SPO1
Bautista arrived at around 3:00 or 4:00 oclock in the afternoon and was told
about what happened. He then advised Juditha to go back to the house of
accused-appellant for the "planned elopement" so that he and his two
companions could stage an arrest. On their way to the house of accusedappellant, Juditha rode in a passenger jeep with her sister Antonette and
cousin Nita while her brother and his two companions followed them on
board an XLT Van. Juditha alighted near the house of accused-appellant while
her companions waited for her and accused-appellant along the highway.
When she arrived at accused-appellants place, he was already waiting for
her outside the store nearby. They went inside his house and came out

twenty minutes later. They boarded a passenger bus while SPO1 Bautista
and his companions trailed them. When the bus reached the corner of Forest
Hill Subdivision, Gulod, Novaliches, it slowed down because of the traffic thus
making it easier for SPO1 Bautista and his companions to board the bus.
Upon seeing her brother and his companions, Juditha motioned to them.
They immediately approached accused-appellant and boxed him before they
could arrest him. The other passengers of the bus joined in hitting accusedappellant. This caused a commotion in the bus. Some policemen who were in
the barangay hall across the street saw the disturbance. They boarded the
bus to find out what happened. Then they assisted in facilitating the arrest of
accused-appellant and brought him to the barangay hall. On 5 June 1997 An
Information for the special complex crime of robbery with rape was filed
against accused-appellant Fernando Sultan. The trial court, on 5 June 1998,
found accused-appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to reclusion
perpetua. He was ordered to return to Juditha Bautista one wrist watch, one
ring, one pair of earrings, one necklace and cash in the amount of P130.00,
or the payment of 5,180.00 if return was not possible. Accused-appellant was
further directed to pay his victim 50,000.00 for moral damages.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged.


Held:
The prosecution has established that he committed both robbery and
rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding the
rape. Complaining witness Juditha Bautista was raped twice on the occasion
of the robbery, wherefore, the Decision of the court finding accusedappellant FERNANDO SULTAN Y LATO GUILTY of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

105 Laurel vs. Abrogar


Facts:
On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto Makati City, the
accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and without the
knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the
international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting
International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and
completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae
and/or airwave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic
exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively
stealing this business from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimated
amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said
amount.

Issue: Whether international long distance calls and the business of


providing telecommunication or telephone services are considered as
personal properties subjected to theft.

Held: In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally
connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs
telephone system, through which petitioners able to resell or re-route

international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes


all three acts of subtraction mentioned above.

107 Lucas vs CA
Facts:
Herminigildo Lucas was charged with theft before the Regional Trial
Court of Binangonan, Rizal, together with Wilfredo Navarro and Enrique
Lovena. The information alleged that on or about June 8, 1990, the three (3)
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with
intent to gain, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously stole and carried away one
stereo component, a 14-inch colored TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23)
pieces of cassette tapes, one (1) box of car toys, four (4) pieces of Pyrex
crystal bowls, cash of P20,000.00 and jewellery worth P10,000.00, valued at
P100,000.00 all belonging to Luisito Tuazon. Petitioner Herminigildo Lucas
and his co-accused Wilfredo Navarro pleaded not guilty. Their co-accused
Enrique Lovena remains at large.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred to prove the conspiracy between the
accused; whether the trial court erred in proving the credibility of the
witnesses; and whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalties therein
of the accused-appellant.

Held: The court ruled that conspiracy need not be proved by direct
evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. It may be deduced from
the concerted acts of the accused, indubitably demonstrating their unity of

purpose, intent and sentiment in committing the crime. Thus, it is not


required that the accused were acquainted with one another or that there
was an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence.

108 People vs. Manero


Facts:
A hapless foreign religious minister was riddled with bullets, his head
shattered into bits and pieces amidst the revelling of his executioners as
they danced and laughed around their quarry, chanting the tune "Mutya Ka
Baleleng", a popular regional folk song, kicking and scoffing at his prostrate,
miserable, spiritless figure that was gasping its last. Seemingly unsaturated
with the ignominy of their manslaughter, their leader picked up pieces of the
splattered brain and mockingly displayed them before horrified spectators.
Some accounts swear that acts of cannibalism ensued, although they were
not sufficiently demonstrated. However, for their outrageous feat, the gang
leader already earned the moniker "cannibal priest-killer" But, what is
indubitable is that Fr. Tulio Favali was senselessly killed for no apparent
reason than that he was one of the Italian Catholic missionaries labouring in
their vineyard in the hinterlands of Mindanao. In the aftermath of the
murder, police authorities launched a massive manhunt which resulted in the
capture of the perpetrators except Arsenio Villamor, Jr., and two unidentified
persons who eluded arrest and still remain at large. Information for
Murder, attempted Murder and arson were accordingly filed against those
responsible for the frenzied orgy of violence that fateful day of 11 April 1985.

As these cases arose from the same occasion, they were all consolidated in
Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato. The Court finds
the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero
alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias
Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the offense of Murder, and with the aggravating circumstances of superior
strength and treachery, hereby sentences each of them to a penalty of
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; to pay the Pontifical Institute of Foreign
Mission Brothers, the congregation to which Father Tulio Favali belonged, a
civil indemnity of P12,000.00; attorney's fees in the sum of P50,000.00 for
each of the 8 accused or a total sum of P400,000.00; court appearance fee of
P10,000.00 for every day the case was set for trial; moral damages in the
sum of P100,000.00; and to pay proportionately the costs. Further, the Court
finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Arson and with the application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years, nine months, one day
of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years of prision correccional, as
maximum, and to indemnify the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME)
Brothers, the congregation to which Father Tulio Favali belonged, the sum of
P19,000.00 representing the value of the motorcycle and to pay the costs.
Finally, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr., alias Commander
Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy
Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleago and Roger Bedao GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Attempted Murder and with the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences each of
them to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of not less than two
years, four months and one day of prision correccional, and minimum, to
eight years and twenty days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the
complainant Rufino Robles the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and
P2,000.00 as court appearance fee for every day of trial and to pay
proportionately the costs. The foregoing penalties shall be served by the said
accused successively in the order of their respective severity in accordance
with the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accusedappellant.

Held: It is clear that appellants were not merely innocent bystanders but
were in fact vital cogs in perpetrating the savage murder of Fr. Favali and the

attempted murder of Rufino Robles by the Manero brothers and their


militiamen. For sure, appellants all assumed a fighting stance to discourage if
not prevent any attempt to provide assistance to the fallen priest. They
surrounded the house of Domingo Gomez to stop Robles and the other
occupants from leaving so that the wounded Robles may die of
haemorrhage. Undoubtedly, these were overt acts to ensure success of the
commission of the crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy.
The appellants acted in concert in the murder of Fr. Favali and in the
attempted murder of Rufino Robles. While accused-appellants may not have
delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective action showed a
common intent to commit the criminal acts. Conspiracy or action in concert
to achieve a criminal design being sufficiently shown, the act of one is the
act
of
all
the
other
conspirators,
and
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from being in accord with law and the
evidence is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity which is
increased from 12,000.00 to 50,000.00 is awarded to the lawful heirs of the
deceased plus exemplary damages of 100,000.00; however, the award of
moral damages is deleted.

109 Anuncio vs. Sandiganbayan


Facts: In 1995, the Office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner,
then incumbent mayor of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, and his daughter
Rowena Bustillo, in the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Official
Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No.
23076. The Information alleged: The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer
I, Office of the Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses ANUNCIO C. BUSTILLO and

ROWENA G. BUSTILLO of the crime of Falsification of Official Documents,


defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows: That on or about September 6, 1991, in Bunawan,
Agusan del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, accused ANUNCIO C. BUSTILLO, a public officer, being then the
Municipal Mayor of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, committing the crime herein
charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of his
official functions, and conspiring and confederating with accused ROWENA G.
BUSTILLO, his daughter, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make it appear in official documents that municipal funds
totalling THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) were expended for the
purchase of lumber from Estigoy Lumber when, in truth and in fact, as both
accused well knew, said lumber were actually purchased from Rowena
Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned by accused Rowena G. Bustillo. The
accused were charged of falsifying three vouchers in which the name of the
original payee was erased and replaced with Estigoy Lumber. Rowena Bustillo
received the payments covered by the vouchers. The accused sought to
quash the Information on the ground that the Sandiganbayan lacked
jurisdiction over petitioner and that, at any rate, the Information did not
charge an offense. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. The accused
apparently did not appeal this ruling. In May 1998, the Sandiganbayan
arraigned the accused who entered not guilty pleas. Trial ensued. After the
prosecution rested its case, it moved for petitioners suspension from
office pendent lite under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 or the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195
Petitioner sought an extension of time to Comment on the motion. The
Sandiganbayan granted the extension. However, despite the extension,
petitioner still failed to file his Comment.

Issue: Whether the Information filed against the accused is valid; and
whether petitioners suspension from office pendente lite finds basis in
Section 13 of RA 3019.

Held: The Sandiganbayan already settled the question of the Informations


validity when it denied the motion of the accused to quash the same. That
ruling had long become final. Thus, petitioner can no longer resurrect this

issue. At any rate, the allegation of intent to gain, the party benefited or
prejudiced by the falsification, or tarnishing of a documents integrity, is not
essential to maintain a charge for falsification of official documents. Such
charge stands if the facts alleged in the Information fall under any of the
modes of committing falsification under Article 171 of the RPC. Here, the
Information alleges that petitioner, a public officer, conspiring with a private
individual feloniously made it appear in official documents that municipal
funds totalling thirty thousand pesos were expended for the purchase of
lumber from Estigoy Lumber when, in truth and in fact, as both accused well
knew, said lumber were actually purchased from Rowena Woodcraft, a single
proprietorship owned by accused Rowena G. Bustillo. This falls under
paragraph 2 of Article 171 which makes it punishable for anyone to cause it
to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate, as the accused allegedly made it appear that
Estigoy Lumber delivered the pieces of lumber to the municipality of
Bunawan when it did not. Nor can petitioner rely on lustres recommendation
to dismiss the complaint against the accused. Then Ombudsman Aniano
Desierto disapproved lustres recommendation, paving the way for the filing
of Criminal Case No. 23076. Petitioner raises this contention in the wrong
proceeding. The only relevant inquiry in this appeal is whether petitioner was
charged under valid Information for any of the offenses covered in Section 13
of RA 3019. The Court cannot expand the scope of this review and pass upon
the merits of the governments case against petitioner that would not only
be procedurally improper but also preventive of whatever judgment the
Sandiganbayan will render in Criminal Case No. 23076. WHEREFORE,
we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Resolutions dated 28 August
2000 and 4 December 2000 of the Sandiganbayan.

110 People vs. Salvilla


Facts:
April 12, 1986, at about noon time Petitioner, together with Reynaldo,
Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares), staged a robbery at the
New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They were armed with homemade guns and a hand
grenade. On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Habiero, an
employee there who was on her way out for her meal break, and informed
her that it was a hold-up. They went inside the office and the petitioner
pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Mary
and Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money.
Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed 20,000 cash and
handed it to the petitioner. Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and
wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita
were kept inside the office. According to the appellant, he stopped Severino
from getting the wallet and watches. At about 2:00 of the same day, the
appellant told Severino to produce 100,000 so he and the other hostages can
be released. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are
closed because it was a Saturday. The police and military authorities had
surrounded the lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander
of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to
surrender. The accused refused to surrender and release the hostages. Rosa
Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the negotiations. Appellant demanded
100,000, a coaster, and some rain coats. Caram offered 50,000
instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to release Rodita
to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the accused
gave a key to Mayor Caram and with the key Mayor Caram unlocked the door
and handed to Rodita 50,000, which Rodita gave to one of the accused.
Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office. The police
and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still
wouldnt budge after more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls,
as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Marys right leg
had to be amputated due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that the
money, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were never
touched by them. He also claimed that they never fired on the military
because they intended to surrender.

Issue: Whether or not the crime of robbery was consummated and there
was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Held:
Yes, prosecution was able to establish the consummation of the
crime of robbery.
No. The surrender of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be
considered in their favour to mitigate their liability. To be mitigating,
surrender must have the following requisites: that the offender had not been
actually arrested, that the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to his agent, and that the surrender was voluntary. The
surrender by the appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these
requirements. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of. Hence, the
judgment is AFFIRMED.

111 Roque vs. People

Facts:
On November 16, 1989 accused Asuncion Roque, a teller of the Basa
Air Base savings and loan Association Inc., Florida Blanca, Pampanga. As a
teller he was authorized and responsible to receive and collect capital
contributions from the members of the said corporations. Consequently, she
had collect the sum of 10,000 ph. Roque with intent to gain, and with grave
abuse of confidence and without the knowledge and consent of the
corporation, take away the amount of 10,000. Petitioner Asuncion Roque was
charged of qualified theft in the RTC of Guagua Pampanga. After trial, the RTC
found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged

Issues: 1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified the ff.


2. Whether or not qualified thief way be committed when the
personal property is in the lawful possession of the accused prior to the
commission of the alleged felony.

Held:
The SC acquitted the accused for the crime of qualified theft. The
prosecution failed to prove by direct or sufficient evidence that there was a
taking of personal property.

While it is true that the petitioner still doubt have possession of the
thing; since, the teller occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places
many in the tellers possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller,
the felony of qualified theft would be committed.

112 People vs. Bustinera


Facts:
Sometime in 1996, Edwin Cipriano, manages ESC Transport hired
appellant, Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver and assigned him to drive a
Daewoo Racer. It was agreed that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m., after which he would return it to ESC Transports garage
and remit the boundary fee in the amount of P780.00 per day.
On December 25, 1996, appellant admitted reported for work and
drove the taxi, but he did not return it on the same day as he was supposed
to.
The following day, Cipriano went to appellants house to ascertain why
the taxi was not returned. Arriving at appellants house, he did not find the
taxi there, appellants wife telling him that her husband had not yet arrived.
Thereafter, Cipriano went to the Commonwealth Avenue police station and
reported that his taxi was missing.
On January 9, 1997, appellants wife went to the garage of ESC
Transport and revealed that the taxi had been abandoned in Regalado Street,
Lagro, Quezon City. Cipriano recovered the said taxi. Bustinera was charged
for the crime of qualified theft.
The RTC convicted the accused for the crime of qualified theft.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime of qualified theft.

Held: The Supreme Court acquitted Luisito D. Bustinera for the crime of
qualified theft but, convicted him for the crime of carnapping under Republic
Act No. 6539.
Appellant was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
However, Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by
Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as an act preventing
and penalizing carnapping.
In the case at bar, the information alleges that appellant, with intent to
gain, took the taxi owned by Cipriano without the latters consent. Thus, the
indictment alleges every element of the crime of carnapping, and the
prosecution proved the same.

113 People vs. Salonga


Facts:
Accused-appellant was employed by Metrobank as an acting
assistant cashier. In such capacity, he was in charge of managing money
market placements and payments of maturing money placement
investments. Accused-appellant was the custodian of blank Metrobank
cashiers check which was processed and enchased. When a spot audit was
conducted by Arthur Christy Mariano it was discovered that there was a
discrepancy in the proof sheet brought by the issuance of a cashiers check
made payable to Firebrake sales and Services in the amount of P36,480.00.
In order to facilitate the illegal transaction, accused-appellant falsified the
signature of the bank manager.
Salonga was charged of qualified theft through falsification of commercial
document. On July 19, 1993, the RTC rendered its decision finding Salonga
beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft through Falsification of
Commercial Document.

Issues: Whether or not, Abelardo Salonga is guilty of the crime of Qualified


Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document with penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

Held:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with
modification, reducing the penalty to reclusion temporal. Considering the
capacity of the accused as a cashier, he committed the crime of qualified
theft through falsification of commercial document with grave abuse of
confidence. In addition, falsification in this case would be absorb as complex
crime, under article 48 of the RPC where an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other, the penalty for more serious crime in its maximum
period shall be imposed.

114 Cariaga vs. CA


Facts:
Luis Miguel Aboitiz, employed as system Analyst of the Davao Light
& Power Company, Inc. received reports that some private electricians were
engaged in the clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. He initiated
a covert operation and sought the assistance of Sgt Fermin Villasis, Chief
Theft & Robbery Section, San Pedro Patrol Station, DLPC also hired one
Florencio Siton, a welder as undercover agent under the pseudonym Canuto
Duran, an electrician from Kabakan, Cotabato.
Canuto Duran struck an acquaintance with one Ricardo Cariaga, who offered
to supply Canuto Duran with electrical materials, saying that he has a
cousin from whom he can procure the same. His cousin is petitioner Jonathan

Cariaga. The latter is an employee of DLPC; permanently assigned as a truck


driver. He was charge then all of the equipment and supplies kept in his
vehicle. One night when stockroom was closed that he had access to the
electrical supplies of said company; and that with grave abuse of confidence,
he stole electrical materials belonging to DLPC.
The RTC found one Jonathan Cariaga guilty of theft, qualified by grave abuse
of confidence, aggravated by the use of motor vehicle which is not offset of
by any mitigating circumstance. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of
lower court.

Issue: Whether or not Jonathan Cariaga is guilty of the crime of qualified


theft.

Held:
The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. It has been held
that access to the place where taking took place or access to the stolen
items changes the complexion of the crime committed to that of qualified
theft. Thus, theft by a truck driver who takes the load of his truck belonging
to his employer is guilty of qualified theft as was proven in this case.

115 Quianao vs. People


Facts:
On February 2, 1993, at about 9:00 in the morning, at Sitio Bagacay,
Brgy. Petong, Lapinig, Northern Samar, accused Salvador Cases and Conchita
Quianao, together with their other close relatives suddenly appeared and
with use of force, violence and intimidation, usurped and took possession of
real property owned by Francisco F. del Monte, claiming that the same is their
inheritance for their ascendants and while there, driven out by the accused

from their landholding and was threatened that if he will try to return to the
land in question, something will happen to him. Complainant was thus forced
to seek assistance from Lapinig PNP. The trial court rendered its decision and
found both of the accused guilty of the crime of usurpation of real rights of
property. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of the usurpation
of real property.

Held:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding the
accused guilty of usurpation of real property penalized under the revised
penal code article 312. AS shown in this case, the accused took possession of
the real property by means of force, violence, and intimidation which the
property belongs a third person. However, in order to absolve the liability of
the offender contended that elements of the crime are not present and she
owns the said property. Hence, the issue of ownership over the land in
question have been decided in Civil Case in favour of the complainant.
Further, as established by the commissioner appointed by the court to look
into petitioners defense, it was found out that the area claimed by the
accused encroached the area of the plaintiffs.

116 ONG vs. People


Facts:

Accused Goretti Ong, had for years been buying jewelry from Gold
Asia which is owned by the family of Rosa Cabuso, private complainant.
While she normally bought on cash basis, she was allowed to issue postdated checks to cover the jewelry she bought in December 1994 up to
February 1995, upon her issuance that the checks would be funded on their
dates. When, on maturity, of checks were deposited, they returned with the
stamp Account Closed. Hence, petitioner was indicted for Estafa. However,
the information filed before the RTC of manila, without specification under
what mode in article 315 of the RPC. The RTC then convicted the accused of
the crime of Estafa under article 315 par. 2(a) of the RPC. Upon appeal, the
CA affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification of the penalty
and indemnity.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant can be convicted of the crime


of estafa despite the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Held:
The Supreme Court acquitted Goretti Ong, of the crime charged for
failure of the prosecution to establish all the elements of Estafa under Article
315, par. 2 of the RPC. In the case at bar, the information alleged that the
accused issued the questioned checks knowing that she had no funds in the
bank and failing to fund them despite notice that they were dishonored.
These allegations clearly constitute charge, not under par 2(a) as the lower
courts found but, under par. 2(d) of the RPC. The defense of good faith and
lack of criminal intent on part of the accused, she offered to pay the said
value which the private complainant agreed.

117 Veloso vs. People


Facts:
Shangri-la Finest Chinese Cuisine, at No. 4 Times Street, West
Triangle, Quezon City, is a restaurant owned and operated by the Developers
Group of Companies, Inc. Ramon Sy Hunilong was its president and general
manager. Petitioner Rolando Veloso, claiming to be a consultant of then
Congressman Antonio V. Cuenco, was an occasional guest at the restaurant.
Before the May 1995 elections, petitioner and then Congressman Cuenco,
while at the said restaurant, had a conversation with Ramon. This led to a
friendly bet between petitioner and Ramon on whether or not Ferdinand
Marcos, Jr. would win as a senator. Ramon assured that Marcos, Jr. is a sure
winner, but petitioner claimed otherwise. They both agreed that the loser will
host a dinner for ten persons. After the elections, official results showed that
Marcos, Jr. lost in his senatorial bid. Hence petitioner won in the bet.
On sometime in august, Congressman Cuencos secretary called Eva Anne
Nanette Sto. Domingo, the restaurants assistant dining manager, to reserve
a dinner for one table corresponding to ten persons on behalf of petitioner.
Ramon, the loser, informed Eva that he would pay for one table, his
commitment to petitioner.
However, when the petitioner arrived
additional 4 tables, promising he would
prepared another 4 tables in addition
account. It was then included into the
tables.

at the restaurant, he asked for


pay for the same. Hence, Eva had
to the one table under Ramons
sales invoice for the 4 additional

When the sales invoice was presented to petitioner, he refused to pay,


contending that he was a guest of Ramon. Due to petitioners refusals to pay,
Eva then asked where she would send the bill; petitioner instructed the latter
to send the bill to Congressman Cuencos office. When it was sent by Eva to
the said office, it still rejected. Consequently, the petitioner was charged of
estafa before the MTC of Quezon city.
Upon trila, the MTC rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty of the
crime charged. Its decision was affirmed by the RTC and the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the RTC
decision finding the petitioner guilty of estafa under article 315 of the revised
penal code.

Held:
The SC affirmed the decision of the CA finding the petitioner Ronaldo
Veloso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa.
The court found that petitioner and his guests, occupying four tables, ate the
food he ordered. When asked to pay, he refused to pay; he refused and
insisted he was a mere guest of Ramon. It manifest that the understanding
between petitioner and Ramon was that the latter would pay for one table
only.