Case # 10

People vs. Umali

G.R. No. L-5803 November 29, 1954
Considering that, assuming for the moment that there is no such complex crime of
rebellion with murder, etc., and that consequently appellants could not have been legally
charged with, much less convicted of said complex crime, and the information should
therefore, be regarded as having charged more than one offense, contrary to Rule 106,
section 12 and Rule 113, section 2 (e), of the Rules of Court, but that appellants having
interposed no objection thereto, they were properly tried for and lawfully convicted if
guilty of the several, separate crimes charged therein, we have decided and we rule that
the appellants may properly be convicted of said several and separate crimes, as
hereinafter specified.
We are convinced that the principal and main crime committed here was not
rebellion but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders
was 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 the object was to attain by
means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of
Tiaong.
In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition, multiple murder, arson,
frustrated murder and physical injuries. And with these modifications, the decision
appealed from is hereby affirmed.
FACTS:
Armed men staged a raid in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00 and 9:00 in
the evening of November 14, 1951. It resulted in the burning down and complete
destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan; the house of Valentin Robles, and
the house of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente
Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five
civilians; and that during and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders
engaged in looting, robbing one house and two Chinese stories.
The masterminds behind the raid in the town of Tiaong were Narciso Umali,
Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino, herein defendants. It was to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon the person or property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then
Mayor of Tiaong, the political nemesis of Umali, and Pasumbals then opponent in the
1951 Mayoral elections in Tiaong.
After considering the pieces of evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses, the
lower court found defendants, Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino guilty
of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and
robbery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court is correct in finding the defendants guilty of the
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery.
Case # 48
People vs. Jose
G.R. No. L-28232 February 6, 1971
Undoubtedly, rape is that which is punishable by the penalty reclusion perpetua to
death, under paragraph 3, Article 335, as amended by Republic Act 4111 which took
effect on June 20, 1964. Under the law, rape is committed by having canal knowledge of
a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force and intimidation;
(2) when the woman is deprived of reason and otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the
woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. The crime of rape
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed the use of a
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first
of the crimes committed, and the latter is the more serious; hence, pursuant to the
provision of Art 48 of the RPC, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum
period. Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this
regard, there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating
circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed.
In the presence of conspiracy, the SC ruled that since the element of conspiracy
was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the accused is also liable for
the crime committed by each of the other persons who conspired to commit the crime.
Jose, Pineda, Jr., and Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape, and each and every one of them likewise convicted of three (3) of
the crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to four
(4) death penalties; all of them shall jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of
the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall
pay one-fourth of the costs.
FACTS:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo
Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually helped
one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design to
forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and single, a movie actress
by profession at the time of the incident, where the four principal accused, by means of
force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the complainant
against her will, and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence
committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the penalties imposed on the accused were proper.
Case # 86
Aquino vs. Acosta
A.M. No. CTA-01-1 April 2, 2002
A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall
within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877. Section 3 (a). Clearly,
under the foregoing provisions, the elements of sexual harassment are as follows:
1) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or
moral ascendancy over another;
2) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment;
3) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having authority, influence or
moral ascendancy makes a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor.
Indeed, from the records on hand, there is no showing that respondent judge
demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from complainant in exchange for
"favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges" specified under
Section 3 of R.A. 7877. Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics
or the Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
Judge Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeal, was charged with
sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and
Code of Professional Responsibility for allegedly having sexually harassed Atty. Susan M.
Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals, six times, when
Judge Acosta kissed Atty. Aquino in the cheeks, allegedly, were carried out with lustful
and lascivious desires and were motivated by malice or ill-motive.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the casual buss on the cheek would constitute sexual harassment
under R.A. 7877.