Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vs.
FACTS:
Petitioner and co-accused Ildefonsa were arraigned on 20 July 1994 while co-
accused Concepcion was never arrested. During the initial trial, Atty. Gines
Abellana, counsel for all the accused, manifested that co-accused Valentine
was already dead and requested that his name be dropped from the
information.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of
Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 81981, raising the sole issue of
whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in
denying the application for probation.
The petitioner prays that the instant petition be granted by allowing her to
apply for probation and ordering the RTC through respondent Judge to act on
the application for probation by the petitioner, based upon the
recommendation of the probationer who may be assigned to conduct the
investigation of said application.
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not retroactive application of the law is valid taken into
account that the commission of the offense was on July 10, 1996 wherein the
governing law was PD 1866 which provides the penalty of reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
HELD:
(1) YES. RA 8294 amended PD 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency of
the case with the trial court. The law looks forward, never backward
(prospectivity).Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a prospective, not
retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not
a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.(Exception and exception
to the exception on effectivity of laws).
FACTS:
In the evening of January 28, 2003 at about 6 oclock in the evening, FFF, the
father of the victim AAA, sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy cigarettes
at the store of Rudy Hatague. AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without
AAA, FFF was not worried as he thought AAA was watching television at her
aunt Rita Lingcays house. Julito Apike went to the same store at around 6:20
PM to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum and saw appellant place AAA on his lap.
Julio, Hermie and AAA left the store at the same time, Julito proceeded to
Ritas house while Hermieand AAA to the lower area. AAA was brought by
Hermie to the ricefield near the house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria
Perocho, there AAA was made to lie down on the ground, her panties
removed and was boxed by the accused in the chest. Half-naked, accused
mounted AAAand made a push and pull movement causing AAA to cry.
Appellant then went to the house of thePerochos while the victim went home
crying. Medico-legal exam revealed hymenal laceration at 5 and 9 oclock.
RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP 75,000 as rape indemnity and PHP 50,000
as moral damages.CA on appeal affirmed the lower courts decision with the
following modifications: (1) accused should suffer an indeterminate penalty
from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years
and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum and fined PHP 75,000 as
civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000 as exemplary
damages..
ISSUE:
RULING:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Calimutan v. People
FACTS:
February 4, 1996 around 10 am: Cantre and witness Saano, together with
two other companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar but as they
were headed home, they crossed paths with Calimutan and Michael
Bulalacao.
Cantre, 26 years old and 5 ft. 9 inches, had a grudge against Bulalacao, a 15
year-old boy of 5ft. for suspecting that he threw stones at the his house on a
previous night so he punched him
Cantre stopped for a moment and held his back and Calimutan desisted from
any other act of violence
By night time, he felt cold then warm then he was sweating profusely and his
entire body felt numb
Having no vehicle, they could not bring him to a doctor so his mother just
continue to wipe him with a piece of cloth and brought him some food when
he asked.
RTC: Essentially adopting the prosecutions account of the incident, held that
Calimutan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide with a penalty of
imprisonment from 8 years of Prision Mayor as minimum, to 12 years and 1
day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of Philip
Cantre the sum of P50,000 as compensatory damages and the sum of
P50,000 as moral damages
NOT defense of stranger , because after the boxing Bulalacao, he was able to
run thereby the unlawful aggression by Cantre ceased
The act of throwing a stone from behind which hit the victim at his back on
the left side was a treacherous
criminally liable for all the direct and natural consequences of this unlawful
act even if the ultimate result had not been intended
Facts:
That while the private respondent driving and preparing to turn left as he is
reaching the said intersection, petitioner suddenly came bump into his car
from his right hand side.
Patrolman Ernesto Santos interrogated both the petitioner and the private
respondent and thenafter a traffic accident investigation report (TAIR) was
forthwith issued by P/Cpl. Antonio N. Nato of the Eastern Police District,
indicating that the private respondent had no right of way and that the
petitioner exceeding lawful speed.
In lieu with the proceedings, petitioner entered with a not guilty plea on the
arraignment; however, he was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to
damage of property before Regional Trial Court of Pasig City and was
affirmed by CA but mitigated the award of civil indemnity.
Issue:
Held:
But it must be asked: do the facts of the case support a finding that Arnold
was likewise negligent in executing the left turn? The answer is in the
negative. It is as much unsafe as it is unjust to assume that Arnold, just
because the TAIR so indicated that he at the time had no right of way, that
Arnold had performed a risky maneuver at the intersection in failing to keep
a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles. In fact, aside from petitioners bare
and self-serving assertion that Arnolds fault was the principal determining
cause of the mishap as well as his allegation that it was actually Arnolds car
that came colliding with his car, there is no slightest suggestion in the
records that could tend to negate what the physical evidence in this case has
established. Clearly, it was petitioners negligence, as pointed out by the
OSG that proximately caused the accident.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not appellate court was mistaken in not granting retroactive
effect to RA 7691 in view of Art 22 of the RPC.
HELD:
(1) No. RA 7691 is not a penal law and therefore, Art 22 of the RPC does not
apply in the present case. A penal law is an act of the legislature that
prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also
defines crime, treats of their nature and provides for its punishment. RA 7691
is a law that vests additional jurisdiction on courts, thus, it is substantive.
The court further held that it cannot be given retroactive effect.