You are on page 1of 7

CRIMINAL LAW II CASES

LAUREL VS MISA 77 PHIL 856


PEOPLE VS PEREZ 83 PHIL 314
PEOPLE VS PRIETO GR NO L-399
PEOPLE VS AGPANGAN GR NO L-778
PEOPLE VS LOL-LO AND SARAW 43 PHIL 19
PEOPLE VS DORIA 301 SCRA 668
PEOPLE VS ELAMPARO 329 SCRA 404
PEOPLE VS LOVEDORIO
PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ 99 PHIL 515
ENRILE VS SALAZAR GR NO 92163
UMIL VS RAMOS
PEOPLE VS CABRERA GR NO 17748
CABANSAG VS FERNANDEZ GR NO L-8974
MARTINEZ VS MORFE GR NO L-34022
VILLAVICENCIO VS LUKBAN GR NO L-14639
SAYO VS CHIEF OF POLICE
US VS CAPULE
BATULANON VS PEOPLE
PEOPLE VS DIAZ 191 SCRA 86
PEOPLE VS TIRA GR NO 139615
PEOPLE VS LAGATA 404 SCRA 671
PEOPLE VS MERENCILLO 521 SCRA 31
DELOSO VS SANDIGANBAYAN 173 SCRA 409
US VS CATAHAY
PEOPLE VS ROMUALDEZ GR NO 166510

https://berneguerrero.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/2005nr21-38_cons2poli-freespeech.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/201402330/Cases#scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/167807606/Crim-Case-Digest#scribd
http://docslide.us/documents/crim-rev-digests-compilation.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/240006025/Cases#scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/280883138/Criminal-Law-Digests#scribd

http://www.academia.edu/8296690/PALS_CRIMINAL_LAW

DRUGS

PEOPLE v LAGATA (396 SCRA ___) June 25, 2003


G.R. 135323
Appellant's lack of knowledge of the contents of the plastic bag becomes all the more credible
considering that when the NBI agents conducted a test buy to validate the tip given to them by their
confidential informant, they relied entirely on the information that a certain "Baby" and "Chinggay"
were selling "shabu." Moreover, the testimony of the poseur-buyer becomes material and
indispensable when the appellant denies having committed the prohibited act and without the
testimony of the poseur-buyer especially if there are no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction, the
nonpresentation of the poseur buyer can be fatal to the case of the prosecution, thus a hearsay.
PERJURY
DIAZ v PEOPLE
(191 SCRA 86)
A person who stated under oath in his application to take a police examination that he had never
been convicted of any crime, when as a matter of fact he has previous convictions, committed
perjury. The elements of the crime of the crime of perjury are: 1) the accused made a statement
under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter 2) that the statement or affidavit was
made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath 3) accused made a willful
and deliberate assertion of falsehood 4) that a sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is
required by law or made for a legal purpose

UMIL v RAMOS (187 SCRA 311)


Subversion is a continuing crime. As such, authorities, upon determination of probable cause may
execute a valid arrest pursuant to Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
UMIL v RAMOS (187 SCRA 85) July 9, 1990 G.R. 81567
Being a member of the New Peoples Army, an outlawed
organization, is punishable. Subversion like rebellion or insurrection is perceived as a continuing
offense and
unlike other so called common offenses i.e.
adultery, murder, arson, etc. which generally end upon their commission, subversion and rebellion
are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness
and violence until the overriding objective of overthrowing organized government is attaine

BURGOS v CHIEF OF STAFF (133 SCRA 800)


When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in
connection with the publication of subversive materials, the application and/ or its supporting

affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he
has published or intending to publish since mere generalization will not suffice. Also, ownership is of
no consequence and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control
or possession of the property sought to be seized.
Sedition
PEOPLE v UMALI (96 PHIL 185) November 29, 1954 G.R. L-5803
Where the purpose of the raid and acts of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms, were not
exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code under rebellion, but rather, by means of force and intimidation, to inflict an act of
hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official, the crime committed is sedition. The
raiders did not even attack the seat of the local government rather, the object was to attain by means
of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property
of a public official.

14
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. The Philippine Law on sedition (Act No. 292), makes all
persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods
any one of five objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any official or agent of the Insular Government or of a provincial or municipal government,
guilty of sedition. In order to be a violation of paragraph 3 of section 5 of Act No. 292, it is not
necessary that the offender be a private citizen and the offended party a public functionary since the
law makes no distinction between the persons to which it applies.

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.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/240006025/Cases#scribd
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 ORITA (184 SCRA 105) March 3, 2008
G.R. No. 170723
For the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Entry of the labia or
lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is
sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration
of the female organ because although the offender has commenced the commission of
a felony directly by overt acts, not all acts of execution was performed.
People vs. Cabrera

Phil Constabulary vs. the Manila police wherethe PC vowed revenge.

Sedition in its more general sense is theraising of commotions or disturbances in


theState.

The Phil Law on the subject makes allpersons guilty of sedition who rise publiclyand
tumultously in order to obtain by force oroutside of legal methods any one of fiveobjects,
including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or propertyof any
official or agent of the Insular Govt orof a provincial or municipal govt.

It is not necessary that the offender shouldbe a private citizen and the offended party
apublic functionary.

Conspiracies are generally proved by anumber of indefinite acts, conditions


andcircumstances which vary according to thepurposes to be accomplished. IF it be
provedthat the defendants pursued by their acts thesame object, one performing one
part andanother part of the same so as to complete itwith a view to the attainment of
that sameobject one will be justified in the conclusionthat they were engaged in a
conspiracy toeffect that object
artinez vs. Morfe

Martinez and Bautista were members of theConstitutional Convention. They


werearrested for falsification of docs-birthday anddistribution of free food, drinks and
cigs at 2public meetings

Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes itclear that parliamentary immunity fromarrest
does not cover any prosecution fortreason, felony, and breach of the peace.

American law: Bu common parliamentarylaw, the members of the legislature


areprivileged from arrest on civil process during

the session of that body, and for areasonable time before and after, to enablethem to go
to and return from the same. Aprosecution for a criminal offense is thusexcluded from
this grant of community
People vs. Siyoh141SCRA356
Facts:The group of Antonio de Guzman is merchants.On July 11, 1979, the group of
Antonio de Guzman went to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan tosell the goods they
received from Alberto Aurea. After selling their goods in Pilas, they went to the houseof
accused Omarkayam Kiraam at Pilas. The following day, the group together with Kiram
and JulaideSiyoh started selling goods. The next day, they were again accompanied by
Kiram and Siyoh.On July 13, 1979, Kiram suggested the group to go to Baluk-Baluk to
sell their goods. The groupthen went to Baluk

Baluk. Thereafter, they returned to Pilas Island for the night but Kiram did not sleepwith
them.On July 14, 1979, the group went again to Baluk-Baluk accompanied by Kiram
and Siyoh. They
used the pumpboat of Kiram. At that time, Kiram and Siyoh were armed with barongs
Upon arrival at
Baluk-Baluk, Kiam and Siyoh went to a house about 15 meters away from the place
where the group wasselling their goods.KIram and Siyoh were seen talking with two
persons whose faces the group saw butcould not recognize. After selling their goods,
the group, together with Kiram and Siyoh, prepared to returnto Pilas Island. Kiram was
the one who operated the engine of the pumpboat. On their way to Pilas,Antonio de
Guzman saw another pumpboat painted with red and green about 200 meters away
from theirpumpboat. Thereafter, two gun shots were fired from the pumpboat as it
moved toward them. There weretwo persons on the other pumpboat who were armed
with armalites. De Guzman recognized them to be thesame person he saw Kiram
conversing with in the house at Baluk-Baluk Island. Whenthe boat came close
to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other boat which towed de Guzmans group towards
Mataja Island. O
ntheir way to Mataja, de Guzman and his companions were divested of their money and
their goods byKiram. Kiram and his companions ordered the group to undress.After
taking theirmoney and dress, Siyohhacked Danilo Hiolen while Kiram hacked Rodolfo
de Castro. Antonio de Guzman then jumped into thewater and he was able to
survive.An order of arrest was then issued against all of the accused but only Jlaide
Siyoh and OmarkayamKiram were apprehended. After trial, the accused were convicted
of the crime Qualified Piracy with TripleMurder and Frustrated Murde under P.D.532,
and was sentenced each one of them to death, however, acommutation to life
imprisonment was recommended in consideration of the provision of the Sec. 106Code
of Mindanao and Sulu.On appeal, the accused contends that the lower court erred in
finding that their guilt has beenproven beyond reasonable doubt.Issue:Whether or not
the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Held:The caused of
death of the victims as attested by the death certificate is Hemorrhage due to

hackedwounds, possible gun shots wounds. The cause is consistent with the testimony
of Antonio de Guzman that
the victims were hacked and that the appellants were armed with barongs while
Indanan
and Jamahaliwere armed with armalites.Thus, finding the decision to be in accord with
both the facts and the law, the Supreme Courtaffirmed the decision of the lower court.
EOPLE vs LOVEDIORO Rebellion FACTS :
That on or about the 27th day of July, 1992, at more or less 5:30 o'clock in the
afternoon, at Burgos Street, Municipality of Daraga, Albay, Elias Lovedioro together with
Gilberto Longasa, and three (3) others whose true identities are at present unknown
and remain at large, conniving, conspiring, confederating and helping one another for a
common purpose, armed with firearms, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire and shoot one
SPO3 JESUS LUCILO, a member of the Daraga Police Station, inflicting upon the latter
multiple gunshot wounds causing his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal
heirs. The trial court found the accused guilty. The accused appealed contesting the
ruling of him guilty of the crime of murder and not rebellion. He further claims that in the
testimony of the witness, he is a member of the NPA. Additionally, he contends that
because the killing of Lucilo was "a means to or in furtherance of subversive ends,"
said killing should have been deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion under Arts. 134
and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, claiming that he did not fire the fatal shot
but merely acted as a look-out in the liquidation of Lucilo, he avers that he should have
been charged merely as a participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under
paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code and should therefore have been
meted only the penalty of
prison mayor
by the lower court.
ISSUE
: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder and not rebellion.
HELD
: YES. The accused of guilty of murder.
RATIO:
The RTC was correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder because overt
act and purpose are essential components of the crime of rebellion, which either of
these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist. Political motive should be
established before a person charged with a common crime- alleging rebellion in order to
lessen the possible imposable penaltycould benefit from the laws relatively benign
attitude towards political crimes. No political motive is established and proved, the
accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of
rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated
to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice. In cases of rebellion,
motive relates to the act and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the

furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice. The killing of the victim, as
observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution to the achievement
of the NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of the victims that can
be
considered as offending to the NPA.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/10359660/A2015-Digest-CRIM-II-Martinez-v-Morfe/