You are on page 1of 37

PEOPLE v LAMAHANG

CRIMINAL (91 Phil 703)

LAW
The accused was caught in the act of making
an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store, and succeeded in breaking one board
and in unfastening another from the wall. The
BOOK 1 (ARTICLES 1-99, RPC) crime committed was not attempted robbery
but only attempted trespass to dwelling, since
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES based on the facts established, his intention
was to enter by means of force into the said
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA store against the will of its owner.

PADILLA v. DIZON
(158 SCRA 127)
PEOPLE v PANCHO
The respondent-judge has shown gross (416 SCRA 506)
ignorance of the law in holding that to November 27, 2003
convict the accused for violation of Central G.R. 136592-93
Bank Circular No. 960 i.e., smuggling of
foreign currency out of the country, the Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the
prosecution must establish that the accused Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when
had the criminal intent to violate the law. The the offender commences the commission of
respondent ought to know that proof of rape directly by overt acts, but does not perform
malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not all the acts of execution which should produce
essential in offenses punished by special the crime of rape by reason of some cause or
laws, which are mala prohibita. accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. There is no attempted rape in this
case because the accused just dragged the
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
victim and held her feet, which are not indicative
of an intent or attempt to rape the victim.
INTOD ET. AL. v CA
(215 SCRA 52) PEOPLE v ORANDE
G.R. No. 103119 (415 SCRA 699)
November 12, 2003
Intod fired at Palangpangan's room, G.R. No. 141724
although in reality, the latter was not present
in his room; thus, Intod failed to kill him. The
The trial court convicted the accused of
factual situation in the case at bar presents
frustrated rape due to the fact that the latter did
an inherent impossibility of accomplishing
not succeed in inserting his penis in the victims
the crime. Under Article 4, paragraph 2 of
vagina. There is no such crime as frustrated
the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient
rape. Instead, the accused is guilty of
to make the act an impossible crime.
consummated rape since perfect penetration is
not essential for the consummation of rape.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended
acts even if completed, would not amount to a
VALENZUELA v PEOPLE
crime.
(525 SCRA 306)
PEOPLE v DOMASIAN
The accused argued that he should only be
(219 SCRA 245)
convicted of frustrated theft for taking cartons of
detergent from the supermarket since he was
The accused illegally detained a child and sent immediately apprehended by the security
a ransom note to the latter's parents, but the guard. Thus, was not able to freely dispose of
child was rescued even before the ransom note the said stolen articles. Theft cannot have a
was received. The act cannot be considered an frustrated stage and the accused is guilty of
impossible crime because there was no consummated theft since he has obtained
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or possession over the stolen item and the
the employment of inadequate or ineffective presumed inability of the offender to freely
means, and the delivery of the ransom note dispose of the stolen property does not negate
after the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the fact that the owners have already been
the offense, which had already been deprived of their right to possession upon the
consummated when the accused deprived the completion of the taking. Unlawful taking is
child of his liberty. deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing. The
STAGES OF EXECUTION ability of the offender to freely dispose of the

1
property stolen is not a constitutive element of appropriating or selling the thirteen (13) cows
the crime of theft. which he found grazing in the same place.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL PEOPLE v JARANILLA


(55 SCRA 563)
PEOPLE v RECONES, ET. AL. February 22, 1974
(310 SCRA 809) G.R. No. L-28547
July 20, 1999
G. R. No. 129535 The taking of the six fighting cocks from their
coop should be characterized as a single
Three (3) accused were charged with murder. offense of theft as the assumption is that the
The first one hit the victim repeatedly with a accused were animated by a single criminal
stone marker, the second one pummeled the impulse. The taking of the fighting cocks in the
victim with his fists while the third only watched same place and on the same occasion cannot
and acted as lookout in case others will try to give rise to separate crimes of theft.
intervene. All of them, including the lookout, are
guilty of murder and are accountable for the SANTIAGO v GARCHITORENA
death of the victim on the principle that the act (228 SCRA 214)
of one is the act of all. G.R. No. 109266

Proof of a previous agreement to commit a Public prosecutors filed thirty-two (32)


felony is not necessary to establish conspiracy, Amended Informations against Santiago for
it being sufficient that the acts of the accused, violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and
before, during, and after the commission of the Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by
felony, demonstrate its existence. giving "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of
PEOPLE v CANTUBA the Alien Legalization Program. The thirty-two
(183 SCRA 289) (32) Amended Informations charged the
G. R. No. 79811 accused with what is known as delito
continuado or "continued crime" and hence,
The accused was correctly convicted as a co- there should only be one information to be filed
conspirator. His knowledge of the plot to against Santiago. The concept of delito
assassinate the victim, the fact that he had continuado is applicable to crime penalized
been ordered to scout for a man who could do under special laws.
the job and his knowledge of the place, date
and time of the assault are sufficient to show
unity of purpose. At the very least, therefore,
he had to know the plot and decided to join the
execution. From the legal viewpoint,
conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had ILAGAN v COURT OF APPEALS
the same purpose and were united in its (239 SCRA 575)
execution. G.R. No. 110617

The degree of actual participation in the The series of acts committed against the seven
commission of the crime is immaterial in (7) lot buyers were not the product of a single
conspiracy. criminal intent. The misrepresentation or deceit
was employed against each lot buyer on
CONTINUING CRIMES different dates and in separate places, hence,
they originated from separate criminal intents
PEOPLE v TUMLOS and consequently resulted in separate felonies.
(67 PHIL 320)
April 13, 1939 COMPOUND CRIMES
G.R. No. 46248
PEOPLE v CASTROMERO
The theft of the thirteen (13) cows committed
(280 SCRA 421)
by the defendant took place at the same time
G.R. No. 118992
and in the same place. Consequently, he
performed but one act. The fact that eight (8)
The rape victim jumped from a window of her
of the said cows belong to one owner and five
house to escape from the accused; as a result,
(5) to another does not make him criminally
she suffered serious physical injuries
liable for two (2) distinct offenses for the
specifically a broken vertebra which required
reason that to be liable for two (2) distinct
medical attention and surgery for more than
offenses, the act must be divided into two (2).
ninety days. Here, the rape was complexed with
In this case, the act is not susceptible of
the crime of serious physical injuries, in
division. The intention was likewise one,
accordance with the settled principle that a
namely, to take for the purpose of

2
person who creates in anothers mind an
immediate sense of danger that causes the PEOPLE v
latter to try to escape is responsible for SABREDO (331
whatever injuries the other person may SCRA 663)
consequently suffer. May 11, 2000
G.R. 126114
PEOPLE v
COMADRE (431 The accused, using a blade, forcibly took away
SCRA 366) the victim from Cebu to Masbate, and
June 8, 2004 eventually raped her. The crime committed is
G.R. No. 153559 simple rape only since the information failed to
allege that the forcible taking of the victim was
The accused dropped a hand grenade inside a done with lewd designs (an element of forcible
house, killing one and causing 4 others to suffer abduction). Hence, the crime of rape may
shrapnel wounds on their bodies. The accused absorb forcible abduction.
was found guilty of the complex crime of murder
with multiple attempted murder under Article 48, PEOPLE v BARBAS
and the penalty for the most serious crime (60 PHIL 241)
(murder) shall be imposed.
The defendant, a public officer, altered the
PEOPLE v MELECIO duplicates of the cedulas by erasing the names
ROBINOS (382 originally written on them and replacing the
SCRA 581) May 29, same with new names for the purpose of selling
2002 them to other people and misappropriating the
G.R. No. 138453 money. The falsification of public documents
was, therefore, the means which the defendant
The accused stabbed his pregnant wife with a availed himself of in committing the crime of
knife, causing the instantaneous death of the malversation.
latter and the fetus inside her womb. He was
convicted of the complex crime of parricide with CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
unintentional abortion, and the penalty to be LIABILITY JUSTIFYING
imposed on him should be that for the graver CIRCUMSTANCES
offense which is parricide.
PEOPLE v ABRAZALDO
When a single act constitutes two or more grave (397 SCRA 137)
or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed. While the accused admitted the commission of
the crime in order to preserve his own life, he
PEOPLE v BALOTOL maintained that the victim accidentally stabbed
(84 Phil 289) himself while they were grappling for the knife.
The justifying circumstance of selfdefense
The accused stabbed the victim at the back with cannot be appreciated considering the
the use of a bolo. The bolo pierced through the accusedappellants flight from the crime scene,
victim's abdominal region which also wounded his failure to inform the authorities of the
another person, resulting to the death of both incident and his failure to surrender the knife to
victims. The crime committed was double the authorities. The aforesaid circumstances
murder, defined and penalized in Article 248, in are inconsistent with having a clean conscience
relation to Article 48, of the Revised Penal and, instead, indicate his culpability to the crime
Code. charged.

PEOPLE v TAC-
AN (182 SCRA
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER 601)
G.R. Nos. 76338-39
PEOPLE v TALO
October 25, 2000 The accused killed the victim but claimed self-
G.R. No. 125542 defense. The victim previously uttered some
threatening words against him. Assuming that
The accused forcibly took the victim from her the victim uttered those words, such utterances
parents' house and, in a ricefield about 800 cannot be regarded as the unlawful aggression
meters away, forced her to have sexual which is the first and most fundamental
intercourse with him. The accused was found requirement of self-defense, and such
guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction statements could not reasonably inspire the
with rape, as the crime of forcible abduction "well grounded and reasonable belief" claimed
was a necessary means for committing the by Renato that "he was in imminent danger of
crime of rape. death or bodily harm." PEOPLE v PATOTOY

3
(261 SCRA 37) knife from the latter. After the accused had
G.R. No. 102058 successfully seized it, there was no longer any
unlawful aggression to speak of that would have
The accused admitted to having killed the victim necessitated the need to kill the victim. Hence,
but claims to have done so in self-defense. The the accused became the unlawful aggressor
victim appeared to draw something from his when he stabbed the victim.
waist during their confrontation. The victim's
alleged act of drawing "something" from his
waist certainly is not the "unlawful aggression"
meant in the law that would justify a fatal strike PEOPLE v APOLINAR
at him and no veritable physical force on the C.A., 38 O.G. 2870
part of the latter has been shown that could
have really endangered the life of the accused. The accused, while looking over his land and
Hence, self-defense cannot exist in this case. believing that the victim had stolen his palay,
shouted for the latter to stop, fired his gun in the
Without unlawful aggression, self-defense air and then at the victim, causing the latters
cannot exist nor be an extenuating death. Defense of property is not of such
circumstance. importance as the right to life and it can be
invoked only as a justifying circumstance when
PEOPLE VS. it is coupled with an attack on the person of the
GENEBLAZO one entrusted with the said property.
(361 SCRA 572)
July 20, 2001 BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
G.R. No. 133580
PEOPLE v GENOSA
Assuming that the version of the accused of the September 8,
incidents is true, that unlawful aggression 2010 G.R. No.
emanated from the victim and his companion by 135981
throwing stones at him, the aggression ceased
to exist when the victim and his companion ran Marivic Genosa, charged with parricide for the
away. There was no longer any real danger to killing of her husband, anchored her defense on
the life or personal safety of the accused. When the theory of battered woman syndrome (BWS),
the perpetrator does not persist in his purpose which constituted a form of cumulative
or when he discontinues his attitude to the provocation that broke down her psychological
extent that the object of his attack is no longer resistance and self-control. The Court convicted
in peril, an act of aggression is not unlawful Genosa as the defense failed to establish all the
aggression warranting selfdefense. elements of self-defense arising from BWS: (1)
each of the phases of the cycle of violence must
PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA be proven to have characterized at least two
(424 SCRA 63) battering episodes between the appellant and
February 27, her intimate partner; (2) the final acute battering
2004 G.R. No. episode preceding the killing of the batterer
139530 must have produced in the battered person's
mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from
There is no self-defense in this case because her batterer and an honest belief that she
even if the accused believed that the victim did needed to use force in order to save her life; (3)
try to kill him when he saw him raise his bolo, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have
such aggression ceased when accused posed probable -- not necessarily immediate
succeeded in grabbing the bolo and he was not and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based
hit by the stone hurled at him by the victim; on the history of violence perpetrated by the
hence, the accused no longer faced any danger former against the latter.
to his life and limb. When an unlawful
aggression no longer exists, the one making a EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
defense has no right to kill or even injure the
former aggressor. PEOPLE v DOMINGO
(580 SCRA 436)
PEOPLE v ESCARLOS
(410 SCRA 463) The accused asserted that he was insane or
September 10, 2003 completely deprived of intelligence during the
G.R. No. 148912 commission of the crimes and presented the
results of a medical examination showing that
Even assuming arguendo that there was an he was suffering from Schizophrenia. The
altercation before the stabbing incident and that medical examination was taken four years after
some danger did in fact exist, the imminence of the crimes were committed. The alleged
that danger had already ceased the moment the insanity of an accused should relate to the
accused disarmed the victim by seizing the period immediately before or at the very

4
moment the felony is committed, not at any time was by a mere accident, without any fault or
thereafter. Medical findings of mental disorder intention to cause it.
referring to a period after the time the crime was
committed will not exempt him from criminal PEOPLE V. GENITA
liability. (425 SCRA 343)
March 11, 2004
LLAVE v PEOPLE G.R. No. 126171
(488 SCRA 376)
April 26, 2006 The appellant's claim that he "accidentally shot"
G.R. No. 166040 the two victims is incredible. In this case, it is
clear that the requisites of accident as an
The accused (a minor), with methodical fashion, exempting circumstance were not proven: (1)
dragged the resisting victim behind a pile of appellant's manner of carrying his rifle negates
hollow blocks to ensure that passersby would his claim of due care in the performance of an
not discover his acts. When he was discovered, act since he should have seen to it that its
he hastily fled from the scene to escape arrest. safety lock was intact; (2) the fact that both
The Court ruled that he acted with discernment victims sustained more than one wound shows
when he had carnal knowledge with the victim. that the shooting was not merely accidental; (3)
Based on the circumstances, the minor knew appellant manifested an unmistakable intent to
what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such kill the victims when he reloaded his rifle after
circumstances included the gruesome nature of his first unsuccessful attempt to kill them.
the crime and the minors cunning and
shrewdness. PEOPLE v
CASTILLO (526
U.S. V. TANEDO SCRA 215)
(15 PHIL 196) June 29, 2007
G.R. No. 172695
The accused, while hunting fired a shot at wild
chickens; however, the slug recoiled and fatally Appellant contends that assuming he was the
hit another man. A person who, while one who killed his wife, the same was
performing a legal act with due care, causes accidental and not intentional. However, the
some injury by mere accident without fault or Court does not agree. By no stretch of
intention of causing it, is not criminally liable. imagination could playing with or using a deadly
sling and arrow be considered as performing a
PEOPLE v lawful act. Thus, on this ground alone,
FALLORINA appellants defense of accident must be struck
(428 SCRA ___) down because he was performing an unlawful
May 4, 2004 act during the incident.
G.R. No. 137347
PEOPLE v BANDIAN
The accused claims that the victim's death was (63 PHL 530)
caused by his gun accidentally going off. The September 30, 1936
Court convicted him for the victim's death due to G.R. No. 45186
his failure to prove with clear and convincing
evidence his defense of accident. The following The mother who went to the thicket to respond
proved otherwise that the accused accidentally to the call of nature but, instead, gave birth
shot the victim: (1) his refusal to answer therein is not criminally liable for infanticide for
clarificatory questions of the prosecutor, which leaving the child behind. She should not be
casted doubt on his defense; (2) his refusal to blamed for the act of abandonment because it
surrender himself and his firearm after the all happened by mere accident, she was
shooting; and (3) other pieces of evidence overcome by strong dizziness and extreme
which belie his claim that the death of the victim debility (also considered as an insuperable
was accidental and that he was not negligent. cause). Any person who acts and behaves
under such circumstances is exempted from
PEOPLE v AYAYA liability.
(52 PHIL 354)
PEOPLE v MORENO
The accused, in order to prevent the door from (77 PHIL 548)
crushing her son's head, jabbed her husband
with her umbrella which later led to her The accused admitted to having killed the victim
husband's death. The Court concluded that in but claimed that he should be exempted from
thrusting her umbrella in the opening of the liability because he did so in obedience to an
door in question, the accused did so to free her order given him by Japanese officers of the
son from the imminent danger of having his navy. The latter informed him that the victim
head crushed or being strangled and if she was one of those who were encountered by the
consequently caused her husband's injury, it Japanese in a mountain and wounded a

5
Japanese soldier. The accused was held guilty
because the law provides that to be exempted U.S. v AMPAR
from criminal liability, it is not enough to prove (37 Phil 201)
that the act was committed in obedience to an
order, it must also be established that the order The accused, a 70-year old man, killed the
being followed is lawful. deceased for telling him, "Come here and I will
make roast pig of you." The offense which the
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT defendant was trying to vindicate would be
OF 2006 considered a mere trifle to the average person
(R.A. NO. 9344); ALSO REFER TO CHILD but it was evidently a serious matter to be made
AND YOUTH the butt of a joke for the old man. Hence, he
WELFARE CODE (P.D. 603, AS AMENDED) was given the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance.
VALCESAR ESTIOCA v
PEOPLE (556 SCRA PEOPLE v IGNAS
300) June 27, 2008 (412 SCRA 311)
G.R. No. 173876 September 30,
2003 G.R. No.
The accused was 14 years old at the time he 140514
committed the robbery which occurred in 2001.
Although R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and The accused killed his wife's lover 2 weeks after
Welfare Act of 2006 took effect only on May 20, he discovered his wife's extramarital dalliance,
2006, the said law should be given retroactive but the court did not consider the mitigating
effect in favor of the accused who was not circumstance of passion and obfuscation
shown to be a habitual criminal (penal laws because for the same to be well founded, the
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they following requisites must concur: (1) there
favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
habitual criminal).Hence, the accused was produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act
exempt from criminal liability. which produced the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a
JOEMAR ORTEGA v PEOPLE considerable length of time, during which the
(562 SCRA 450) perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.
August 20, 2008 The period of two weeks between the discovery
G.R. No. 151085 of his wifes extramarital dalliance and the killing
of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to
reflect and cool off.
The accused was only 13 years old at the time
of the commission of the rape and under R.A.
No. 9344 (which was applied retroactively), he PEOPLE v
is exempted from criminal liability. Section 64 of BENITO (74
the law further provides that cases of children SCRA 271)
December 17, 1976
15 years old and below, at the time of the
commission of the crime, shall immediately be G.R. No. L-38091
dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
appropriate Local Social Welfare and The accused (who had a pending case with the
Development Officer (LSWDO). Civil Service) contended that the victim insulted
him when he (the victim) remarked that a thief
was loitering in the premises of the Civil Service
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Commission and further argued that that remark
"was tantamount to kicking a man already down
PEOPLE v JAURIGUE and to rubbing salt into a raw wound" and that,
(C.A. NO. 384) as it was made publicly and in a loud voice, he
was exposed to ridicule in the presence of his
The deceased placed his hand on the upper officemates. Assuming that the remark was
portion of the woman's thigh without her directed at the accused, the Court did not apply
consent, which led to the woman stabbing the the mitigating circumstance of vindication for a
neck of the deceased to defend her honor. The grave offense for the killing of the victim
means employed in the defense of her honor because the accused had more than sufficient
was excessive and she cannot be declared time to suppress his emotion over said remark if
completely exempt from criminal liability. he ever did resent it.
However, the fact that she had acted in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense U.S. V. HICKS
committed against her a few moments before, (14 PHIL 217)
and upon such provocation as to produce
passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of The accused and the victim illicitly lived together
reason and self-control, should be considered for 5 years. After they separated, the accused
as mitigating circumstance in her favor. killed the victim for living with another man. No

6
mitigating circumstance was considered in his
favor, not even the loss of reason and self- Going to the police station to clear his name
control produced by jealousy as alleged by the does not show any intent of the accused to
defense, inasmuch as the only causes which surrender unconditionally to the authorities. The
mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of act of surrender must be spontaneous,
self-control are those which originate from accompanied by an acknowledgment of guilt, or
legitimate feelings and not those which arise an intention to save the authorities the trouble
from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions. and the expense that search and capture would
require.
U.S. V. DELA CRUZ
March 29, 1912 PEOPLE v ABOLIDOR
G.R. No. L-7094 (423 SCRA 260)
February 18, 2004
The accused, in the heat of passion, killed his G.R. No. 147231
former lover upon discovering her in flagrante in
carnal communication with a mutual The accused surrendered to the authorities
acquaintance. The accused was entitled to the more than one year after the incident in order to
mitigating circumstance because in this case, disclaim responsibility for the killing of the
the impulse upon which defendant acted and victim. The Court did not consider the mitigating
which naturally "produced passion and circumstance of voluntary surrender because:
obfuscation" was not that the woman declined (1) the facts of the case do not show
to have illicit relations with him but the sudden repentance or acknowledgment of the crime nor
revelation that she was untrue to him, and his intention to save the government the trouble
discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of and expense necessarily incurred in his search
another. and capture; and (2) at the time of his
surrender, there was a pending warrant of
PEOPLE v RABAO arrest against him.
(67 PHIL 255) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
April 10, 1939
G.R. No. L-46530 PEOPLE v
CALISO (58
The accused and his wife had a heated PHIL 283) July
argument because the wife wanted to give their 1, 1933
sick child a bath which was against the wishes G.R. No. L-37271
of the accused. The Court considered mitigating
circumstance in his favor since, although he In the commission of the crime, the aggravating
transgressed the law by an unjust attack on his circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was
wife, the accused did not really have the present since the appellant was the domestic
intention of committing so grave a crime as servant of the family and was sometimes the
parricide, and the quarrel that led to the deceased child's "amah". The circumstance that
aggression had its origin from the natural and the crime had been committed in the dwelling of
justifiable desire of the accused, as a father, to the offended party which was considered by the
prevent his child, which was then ill, from being lower court as another aggravating
given a bath. circumstance should be disregarded as both the
victim and the appellant were living in the same
PEOPLE v DAWATON house.
(389 SCRA 277)
September 17, 2002 PEOPLE v LORA
G.R. No. 146247 (113 SCRA 366)
March 30, 1982
In trying to avail of the mitigating circumstance G.R. No. L-49430
of voluntary surrender, the accused argues that
he was not arrested but "fetched" as he The accused was charged for the crime of
voluntarily went with the policemen when they serious illegal detention with murder for illegally
came for him. That he did not try to escape or detaining a 3-year old child, and attacking the
resist arrest after he was taken into custody by same, which resulted to the child's death. There
the authorities did not amount to voluntary are three aggravating circumstances in this
surrender and it is also settled that voluntary case, namely: (1) lack of respect due to the
surrender cannot be appreciated where the tender age of the victim; (2) cruelty, for gagging
evidence adduced shows that it was the the victim's mouth with stockings thereby
authorities who came looking for the accused. causing slow suffocation; and (3) abuse of
confidence since the main duty of the accused
PEOPLE v VIERNES in the household was to take care of the minor
(372 SCRA 231) child.
December 13, 2001
G.R. No. 136733 PEOPLE v LAGUARDIA

7
(148 SCRA 133) Zausa to commit the crime, and that he took no
February 27, part in the latter's attack with the spear.
1987 G.R. No. L-
63243 VINO v PEOPLE
(178 SCRA 626)
The following aggravating circumstances were October 19, 1989
present in this case of robbery with homicide: G.R. No. 84163
(1) despoblado or uninhabited place since
evidence shows that the accused lay in wait for The information was correct. An accused can be
the truck being driven by the victim at an validly convicted as an accomplice or accessory
isolated portion of the highway, choosing that under an information charging him as a
particular spot where they could commit the principal. Also, the trial of an accessory can
crime without disturbance or discovery and with proceed without awaiting the result of the
easy opportunity for escape; and (2) use of separate charge against the principal for the
motor vehicles because the conspirators took corresponding responsibilities of the principal,
the vehicle of the victim to facilitate their escape accomplice and accessory are distinct from
and to prevent the other passengers from each other.
reporting the offense to the authorities. The
following aggravating circumstances were PEOPLE v
rejected: (1) nighttime because it was not FERNANDEZ
especially sought, as the victim's trip schedule (183 SCRA 511)
and not the discretion of the culprits determined March 22, 1990
the time of its commission; (2) evident G.R. No. L-62116
premeditation because it is inherent in the crime
of robbery and was not proved in the The accused entered the bathroom together
commission of the killing; and (3) treachery, as with accused Fernandez. In the bathroom, the
there is no evidence of its employment since latter tied a piece of cloth around the victims
none of the witnesses actually saw the neck while accused Conrado held her hands
shooting. placing them behind her body. Thereafter, they
raped the victim one after the other. Hence ,the
PEOPLE v ZETA Court was correct in imposing on each of the
(549 SCRA 541) accused of the penalty corresponding to two
March 27, 2008 crimes of rape because each of them (accused)
G.R. No. 178541 cooperated in the commission of the rape
perpetrated by the others, by acts without which
The span of thirty minutes or half an hour from it would not have been accomplished.
the time the accused showed their
determination to kill the victim (2:00 in the PEOPLE v
morning of 28 October 1995) up to the time the CASTILLO (17
accused shot to death the victim (2:15-2:30 in SCRA 721) July
the morning of 28 October 1995) could not have 26, 1966
afforded them full opportunity for meditation and G.R. No. L-19238
reflection on the consequences of the crime
they committed. The Court held that the lapse After his son had fatally hacked the victim with a
of thirty minutes between the determination to bolo and was about to strike the victim a second
commit a crime and the execution thereof is time, the accused shouted: "You kill him." The
insufficient for a full meditation on the accused is not guilty as principal by inducement
consequences of the act. Hence, the because in determining whether the utterances
aggravating circumstance of evident of an accused are sufficient to make him guilty
premeditation cannot be appreciated in this as co-principal by inducement, it must appear
case. that the inducement was of such nature and
was made in such a way as to become the
ACCESSORIES determining cause of the crime and that such
inducement was uttered with the intention of
PEOPLE v ORTIZ AND ZAUSA producing the result.
(55 PHIL 993)
August 27, 1986 PEOPLE v DUMANCAS
G.R. No. L-3507 (320 SCRA 584)
December 13, 1999
Ortiz and Zausa were charged with conspiracy G.R. No. 13352728
to kill the victim but Ortiz contends that he
should be acquitted because he did not take The accused cannot be held guilty as principal
part in the attack. The Court ruled that Ortiz by inducement when she told the policemen to
cannot be convicted either as principal or as "take care of the two" victims, who were later
accessory, for it has been shown that there was killed by the said policemen. There are 2 ways
neither plan nor agreement between him and of directly inducing another to commit a crime,

8
namely: (i) by giving a price, or offering reward may have attended the commission of the
or promise, and (ii) by using words of command crime.
and in this case, there is no evidence that the
accused offered any price or reward should PEOPLE v
they kill the victims, nor can the remark of the MANTALABA
accused be deemed as a command required by (654 SCRA 188)
law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a July 20, 2011
principal by inducement. G.R. No. 186227

CARINO v PEOPLE The privileged mitigating circumstance of


(7 SCRA 900) minority was appreciated in fixing the penalty
April 30, 1963 necessarily reducing the penalty from reclusion
G.R. No. L-14752 perpetua to reclusion temporal, which is one
degree lower. The ISLAW is also applicable in
The accused cannot be held guilty as an the present case because the penalty which
accomplice in the crime of rebellion through his has been originally an indivisible penalty
acts of sending or furnishing cigarettes and food (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is
supplies to a famous Huk, as well as changing inapplicable, became a divisible penalty
$6,000 to Philippine money or in helping Huks (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of
to open accounts (which were said to be part of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
his functions as an employee of a bank). These minority. Hence, the minimum penalty should be
acts by themselves do not and cannot carry or taken from the penalty next lower in degree
prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in which is prision mayor and the maximum
committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion penalty shall be taken from the medium period
and they cannot be said to constitute acts of of reclusion temporal.
cooperation in the execution of the act of
overthrowing the government. PEOPLE v ESCARES
(102 PHIL 677)
PEOPLE v DELA CERNA December 23, 1957
(21 SCRA 569) G.R. Nos. L-11128-33
October 30, 1967
G.R. No. L-20911 It should be noted that the imposable penalty in
each of the six cases where appellant pleaded
The accused furnished the gun that was used to guilty in accordance with paragraph 5, Article
kill the victim Casiano, however, he cannot be 294, of the Revised Penal Code, is prision
held liable as an accomplice because he merely correccional in its maximum period to prision
conspired with the principal to kill another mayor in its medium period, which should be
victim, Rafael. The accused here was not aware applied in its minimum period in view of the
that the principal would use the gun to kill mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, not
Casiano. Hence, for other acts done outside the offset by any aggravating circumstance, or from
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which 4 years 2 months and 1 day to 6 years one
are not the necessary and logical month and 10 days. In applying the
consequences of the intended crime, only the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant
actual perpetrators are liable. should be sentenced for each crime to an
indeterminate penalty the minimum of which
shall not be less than 4 months and 1 day of
DURATION OF PENALTIES
arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional, and the
PEOPLE v maximum shall not be less than 4 years 2
ALVARADO months and 1 day of prision correccional nor
(275 SCRA 727) more than 6 years 1 month and 10 days of
July 21, 1997 prision mayor. The trial court; however,
G.R. No. 117402
committed an error in applying the proper
penalty by using the threefold rule. Hence, the
The Supreme Court reiterated the ruling in penalty imposed upon appellant by the trial
People v. Lucas, January 9, 1995, where it was court should be modified in the sense that he
clarified that Although Section 17 of R.A. No. should suffer in each of the six cases an
7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion indeterminate penalty of not less than 4 months
perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) and 1 day of arresto mayor and not more than 4
day to forty (40) years, there was no clear years 2 months and 1 day of prision
legislative intent to alter its original classification correccional, plus the corresponding accessory
as an indivisible penalty. Reclusion perpetua, penalties provided for by law.
therefore, retains its nature as having no
minimum, medium and maximum periods and is MEJORADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
imposed in its entirety regardless of any
(151 SCRA 399)
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that June 30, 1987

9
G.R. Nos. L-51065-72 reduce or even correct the penalties imposed
by the MeTC, but to assert his innocence; (4)
The Sandiganbayan imposed eight penalties for the application for probation was filed way
the eight informations (for violating Section 3E beyond the period allowed by law, in this case
of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as was filed "only after a warrant for the arrest of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) filed petitioner had been issued . . . (and) almost two
against the accused. The penalties totaled to months after (his) receipt of the Decision" of the
fifty-six years and eight days of imprisonment RTC.
which the accused impugns as contrary to the
three-fold rule and insists that the duration of SORIANO v CA
the aggregate penalties should not exceed forty (304 SCRA 231)
(40) years. The accused is mistaken in his March 4, 1999
application of the three-fold rule as set forth in G.R. No. 123936
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code since this
article is to be taken into account not in the Petitioner, whose probation was revoked since
imposition of the penalty but in connection with he was not able to comply with one of the
the service of the sentence imposed. It merely conditions of probation which is to indemnify the
provides that the prisoner cannot be made to heirs of the victim in the amount of P98,560.00,
serve more than three times the most severe of asserts that his non-compliance was due to his
these penalties the maximum of which is forty poor financial condition and that his enjoyment
years. of probation should not be made to depend on
the satisfaction of his civil liability. The Supreme
PEOPLE v ALFREDO BON Court, in ruling that the revocation of probation
(506 SCRA 168) was lawful and proper, held that his continued
October 30, 2006 refusal to submit a program of payment creates
G.R. No. 166401 the impression that he wants to completely
avoid paying his civil liability and that the
In view of the statutory disallowance of the conditions of probation must be satisfied in
death penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346, order that the purposes of probation be fulfilled,
"death," as provided in Article 71 of the Revised which include promoting the correction and
Penal Code shall no longer form part of the rehabilitation of an offender by providing him
equation in the graduation of penalties. In the with individualized treatment, and providing an
case of the accused, the determination of his opportunity for the reformation of a penitent
penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned offender which might be less probable if he
not from two degrees lower than death, but two were to serve a prison sentence.
degrees lower than reclusion perpetua.
Therefore, the maximum term of his penalty TOLENTINO v JUDGE ALCONCEL
shall no longer be reclusion temporal but prision (121 SCRA 92)
mayor.
Petitioner Tolentino, who pleaded not guilty to
PROBATION LAW the charge of violation of Section 4 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, changed his plea of not
FRANCISCO v CA guilty to the lesser offense of illegal possession
(243 SCRA 384) of marijuana, which Judge Alconcel allowed,
April 6, 1995 sentencing petitioner to imprisonment of 6
G.R. No. 108747 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months plus
fines. The Supreme Court, in upholding the
The accused who was found guilty by the MeTC decision of Judge Alconcel to deny Tolentino's
of grave oral defamation in 4 of the 5 cases filed subsequent application for probation on the
against him and sentenced to a prison term of 1 ground that "probation will depreciate the
year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of seriousness of the offense committed", held that
prision correccional in each crime committed the potentiality of the offender to reform is not
appealed his case before the RTC but the sole or primordial factor that should be
eventually applied for probation. The Court, in considered and that the demands of justice and
ruling that the accused is no longer eligible for public interest must be observed in the grant or
probation, listed the following reasons: (1) Sec. denial of an application for probation.
4 of the Probation Law clearly mandates that
"no application for probation shall be CABATINGAN v SANDIGANBAYAN
entertained or granted if the defendant has (102 SCRA 187)
perfected the appeal from the judgment of January 22, 1981
conviction;" (2) the penalties imposed by the G.R. No. L-55333
MeTC were already probationable, hence, there
was no need to appeal if only to reduce the Sandiganbayan, in denying the application for
penalties to within the probationable period probation by the petitioner, merely relied on a
(multiple prison terms should not be added up); report of the probation officer which in itself,
(3) the accused appealed to the RTC not to was mostly hearsay, and did not give the

10
petitioner a chance to be heard before it issued accusedappellant is about 31 years of age, the
its resolution denying the application for suspension of sentence has become moot and
probation. The Supreme Court held that academic but he is still entitled to confinement
respondent court appears to have wholly relied in agricultural camps and other training facilities
on the probation report and did not make its under Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 9344.
own determination as to whether or not
probation would serve the ends of justice and PEOPLE v HERMIE
the best interest of the public and the applicant. JACINTO (645
It was not enough for the respondent court to SCRA 590) March
deny petitioner's application solely on the report 16, 2011
that she was involved in "maisiao" and that she G.R. No. 182239
was facing another preliminary investigation for
the "additional shortage" of the funds of which The benefits of a suspended sentence can no
she had already pleaded guilty. longer apply to appellant who is now 25 years
old since the suspension of sentence lasts only
until the child in conflict with the law reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
However, the offender shall be entitled to the
BALA v JUDGE MARTINEZ right of restoration, rehabilitation and
(181 SCRA 459) reintegration in accordance with Republic Act
January 29, 1990 No. 9344 in order that he/she will have the
G.R. No. L-67301 chance to live a normal life and become a
productive member of the community. Thus,
Petitioner violated the terms and conditions of appellant may be confined in an agricultural
his probation but contends that there was no camp or any other training facility in accordance
valid reason for its revocation since his with Sec. 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.
probation period had already terminated on
August 10, 1983 (although no order of final
discharge was issued as the probation officer
had not yet submitted his final report). The
Supreme Court, in holding that the probation is
revocable before the final discharge of the
probationer by the court, held that: (1) the PADUA v PEOPLE
expiration of the probation period alone does (559 SCRA 519)
not automatically terminate probation; (2) July 23, 2008
nowhere in the provisions of the probation law G.R. No. 168546
can be found the ipso facto termination of
probation; (3) probation is not coterminous with The suspension of sentence under Section 38
its period; (4) there must first be issued by the of R.A. No. 9344 could no longer be
court of an order of final discharge based on the retroactively applied for petitioners benefit as
report and recommendation of the probation Section 38 provides that once a child under 18
officer and only from such issuance can the years of age is found guilty of the offense
case of the probationer be deemed terminated. charged, instead of pronouncing the judgment
of conviction, the court shall place the child in
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT conflict with the law under suspended sentence.
OF 2006 Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344) once the child reaches 18 years of age, the
court shall determine whether to discharge the
PEOPLE v SARCIA child, order execution of sentence, or extend
(599 SCRA 20) the suspended sentence for a certain specified
September 10, 2009 period or until the child reaches the maximum
G.R. No. 169641 age of 21 years. However, since petitioner has
already reached 21 years of age or over, he
If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below could no longer be considered a child for
18 years old is charged, accused with, or may purposes of applying Rep. Act No. 9344.
have committed a serious offense, and may
have acted with discernment, then the child REMIENDO v PEOPLE
could be recommended by the Department of (603 SCRA 274)
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), by October 9, 2009
the G.R. No. 184874
Local Council for the Protection of Children
(LCPC), or by Office of Juvenile Welfare and The accused, being above 15 and under 18
Restoration to go through a judicial proceeding; years of age at the time of the rape, and having
but the welfare, best interests, and restoration acted with discernment, claimed for the benefits
of the child should still be a primordial or of R.A. No. 9344 in view of Section 40, which
primary consideration. In this case, since the provides that "if the child in conflict with the law

11
has reached eighteen (18) years of age while same may be filed on the next succeeding
under suspended sentence, the court shall business day) held that "where the sixtieth and
determine whether to discharge the child in last day to file an information falls on a Sunday
accordance with this Act, to order execution of or legal holiday, the sixty-day period cannot be
sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence extended up to the next working day for
for a certain period or until the child reaches the prescription has automatically set in.
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years."
However, the application of Section 40 is PEOPLE v BAYOTAS
rendered moot and academic since the (236 SCRA 239)
accused was already 22 years old and could no September 2, 1994
longer be considered a child for the purposes of G.R. No. 102007
applying R.A. No. 9344.
The Supreme Court held that the death of the
MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF
accused Bayotas extinguished his criminal
CRIMINAL
liability and civil liability based solely on the act
LIABILITY complained of, i.e., rape. The Court ruled that:
(1) death of the accused pending appeal of his
DAMASCO v conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
LAQUI (166 well as the civil liability based solely thereon; (2)
SCRA 214) the claim for civil liability survives
September 30, 1988 notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
G.R. No. 81381 same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict, such as law,
The petitioner was charged with the crime of contracts, quasi-contracts or quasi-delicts; (3)
grave threats (the crime was committed on 8 where the civil liability survives, as explained in
July 1987 and the information was filed only on Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor
17 September 1987 or after the lapse of 71 may be pursued but only by way of filing a
days), but was only found guilty by the court of separate civil action and subject to Section 1,
light threats (with a prescriptive period of 2 Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
months or 60 days). The Supreme Court, in Procedure; and (4) the private offended party
agreeing with petitioner's contention that he need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this
cannot be convicted of light threats since it had separate civil action by prescription, in cases
already prescribed, held that where an accused where during the prosecution of the criminal
has been found to have committed a lesser action and prior to its extinction, the private-
offense includible with the graver offense offended party instituted together therewith the
charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser civil action for in such case, the statute of
offense if it has already prescribed. To hold limitations on the civil liability is deemed
otherwise would be to sanction a circumvention interrupted during the pendency of the criminal
of the law on prescription by the simple case.
expedient of accusing the defendant of the
graver offense. SERMONIA v CA
(233 SCRA 155)
June 14, 1994
G.R. NO. 109454

Petitioner, in contending that his criminal liability


YAPDIANGCO v for bigamy has been obliterated by prescription,
BUENCAMINO (122 insists that since the second marriage contract
SCRA 713) June 24, was duly registered with the Office of the Civil
1983 Registrar in 1975, such fact of registration
G.R. No. L-28841 makes it a matter of public record and
constitutes notice to the whole world. Hence,
On February 1, 1965, the fiscal filed an the offended party is considered to have had
information for slight physical injuries (with a constructive notice of the subsequent marriage
prescriptive period of 60 days) allegedly as of 1975 and that prescription commenced to
committed by the petitioner on December 2, run on the day the marriage contract was
1964. Thereafter, petitioner moved to quash the registered. The Supreme Court held that unlike
criminal prosecution on the ground that the in the case of real property, the principle of
information having been filed on the sixty first constructive notice should not be applied in
day following the commission of the offense, the regard to the crime of bigamy as judicial notice
sixty days prescriptive period had lapsed. The may be taken of the fact that a bigamous
Supreme Court (in disagreeing with the lower marriage is generally entered into by the
court's denial of the motion to quash due to the offender in secrecy from the spouse of the
fact that the 60th day fell on a Sunday and previous subsisting marriage and that a
considering the rule that when the last day for bigamous marriage is generally entered into in
the filing of a pleading falls on a Sunday, the a place where the offender is not known to be

12
still a married person in order to conceal his three (3) years from the time of discovery. Thus,
legal impediment to contract another marriage. the filing of the complaint was well within the
prescriptive period of 15 years.
CABRAL V. PUNO
(70 SCRA 606)
April 30, 1976
G.R. No. L-41692

Petitioner was charged with the crime of PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES


falsification (with a prescriptive period of 10
years) for allegedly forging a document that was DEL CASTILLO v TORRECAMPO
registered in the Register of Deeds on August (394 SCRA 221)
26, 1948. The complaint of respondent, filed on December 18, 2002
September 24, 1974, was dismissed on the G.R. No. 139033
ground of prescription since the respondent had
actual if not constructive notice of the alleged 10 years after the petitioner was found guilty for
forgery upon its registration in the Register of violating the Election Code (whereby he was
Deeds. never apprehended and remained at large), he
filed before the trial court a motion to quash the
Act No. 3326, As Amended warrant issued for his arrest on the ground of
prescription of the penalty imposed upon him.
ZALDIVIA v He based his claims on Article 93 of the
REYES (211 Revised Penal Code which provides that the
SCRA 277) July period of prescription shall commence to run
3, 1992 from the date when the culprit should evade the
G.R. No. 102342 service of his sentence. The petition must be
denied since under Article 93, prescription shall
The prescriptive period for the crime imputed to commence to run from the date the felon
the petitioner (quarrying for commercial evades the service of his sentence, which is
purposes without a mayor's permit in violation of inapplicable in the case at bar since the
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of the petitioner was never brought to prison and
Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
Rizal) commenced from its alleged commission
on May 11, 1990, and ended two months PANGAN v GATBALITE
thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance with (449 SCRA 144)
Section 1 of Act No. 3326 and it was not January 21, 2005
interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the G.R. No. 141718
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on May 30,
1990, as this was not a judicial proceeding. The
Petitioner, who failed to appear during the
judicial proceeding that could have interrupted
promulgation of the decision in the MTC on
the period was the filing of the information with
August 9, 1991, questioned his arrest on
the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez, but this
January 24, 2000 on the ground that the same
was done only on October 2, 1990, after the
was illegal since the straight penalty of two
crime had already prescribed.
months and one day of arresto mayor
prescribes in five years under No. 3, Article 93
PCGG v [of the] Revised Penal Code. In ruling against
DESIERTO the petitioner, the Court held that the
(527 SCRA 61)
prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of
July 9, 2007
the Revised Penal Code applies only to those
G.R. No. 140231
who are convicted by final judgment and are
serving sentence which consists of deprivation
The respondents were charged with violation of of liberty. Hence, the period for prescription of
R.A. No. 3019 (amending said law, Section 4, penalties begins only when the convict evades
Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 increased the service of sentence by escaping during the term
prescriptive period from 10 to 15 years), and the of his sentence.
applicable law in the computation of the
prescriptive period is Section 2 of Act No. 3326,
PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY
which provides that "prescription shall begin to
run from the day of the commission of the
PEOPLE v
violation of the law, and if the same not be
TADULAN (271
known at the time, from the discovery thereof
SCRA 233) April
and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
15, 1997
investigation and punishment". Records show
G.R. No. 117407
that the act complained of was discovered in
1992 and the complaint was filed with the Office
The supposed pardon of the accused was
of the Ombudsman on April 5, 1995, or within
allegedly granted only by the mother (BBB)

13
without the concurrence of the offended minor, should not be begun unless the appeal is
AAA. Hence, even if it be assumed for the sake withdrawn.
of argument that the initial desistance of the
said mother from taking any action against the BOOK II (ARTICLES 114-365, RPC) AND
accused constitutes pardon, it is clear that upon SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED SPECIAL LAWS
the authorities cited above, such pardon is
ineffective without the express concurrence of CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
the offended minor herself. (ARTS. 114- 123)

PEOPLE v LIM TREASON


(206 SCRA 176)
February 13, 1992 LAUREL v MISA
G.R. No. 95753 (77 Phil. 856)

The accused, who was charged with the crime Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus
of rape, insists that he was pardoned by the claiming that a Filipino citizen who adhered to
offended party when she executed an Affidavit the enemy, giving the latter aid and comfort
of Desistance, stating that the rape case arose during the Japanese occupation, cannot be
out of a mere misunderstanding. The Supreme prosecuted for the crime of treason for the
Court did not agree and held that to warrant the reasons that: (1) the sovereignty of the
dismissal of the complaint, the victim's legitimate government in the Philippines and,
retraction or pardon should be made prior to the consequently, the correlative allegiance of
institution of the criminal action. Hence, the Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended;
alleged pardon could not be considered in his and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty
favor since the Affidavit was executed after the over these Islands upon the proclamation of the
present case was filed.
Philippine Republic. The Supreme Court
dismissed the petition and ruled that the
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE absolute and permanent allegiance of the
inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy
PEOPLE v of their legitimate government or sovereign is
SALLE (250 not abrogated or severed by the enemy
SCRA 581) occupation because the sovereignty of the
December 4, 1995 government or sovereign de jure is not
G.R. No. 103567 transferred thereby to the occupier, and if it is
not transferred to the occupant it must
The accused was granted conditional pardon, necessarily remain vested in the legitimate
but for the said pardon to take effect, he must government.
first withdraw his appeal. The conditional
pardon granted the said appellant shall be PEOPLE v PEREZ
deemed to take effect only upon the grant of (83 PHIL 314)
such withdrawal and in case of non-compliance
with this Resolution, the Director of the Bureau
7 counts of treason were filed against Perez for
of Corrections must exert every possible effort
recruiting, apprehending and commandeering
to take back into his custody the said accused,
numerous girls and women against their will for
for which purpose he may seek the assistance
the purpose of using them to satisfy the immoral
of the Philippine National Police or the National
purposes of Japanese officers. The Supreme
Bureau of Investigation.
Court held that his "commandeering" of women
to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or
PEOPLE v to enliven the entertainment held in their honor
BACANG (260 was not treason even though the women and
SCRA 44) July
the entertainment helped to make life more
30, 1996
pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit;
G.R. NO. 116512
he was not guilty any more than the women
themselves would have been if they voluntarily
The conditional pardons were granted to and willingly had surrendered their bodies or
accusedappellants during the pendency of their organized the entertainment.
appeal. The Court held that such conditional
pardons are void since the conviction by final
PEOPLE v ADRIANO
judgment limitation under Section 19, Article VII
(78 PHIL 561)
of the present Constitution prohibits the grant of
pardon, whether full or conditional, to an
accused during the pendency of his appeal from Adriano was convicted for the crime of treason
for being a member of the Makapili, a military
his conviction by the trial court and any
organization established and designed to assist
application therefor, if one is made, should not
and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial forces
be acted upon or the process toward its grant
in the Philippines in the said enemy's war
efforts and operations against the United States

14
and the Philippines. The Supreme Court in other parties and deposited them in a distant
upholding the conviction held that the mere fact region, deprived these women of freedom of
of having joined a Makapili organization is locomotion just as effectively as if they had
evidence of both adherence to the enemy and been imprisoned. There is no law expressly
giving him aid and comfort and that being a authorizing the deportation of prostitutes to a
Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act. new domicile against their will and in fact Article
Hence, it is not necessary, except for the 127 punishes public officials, not expressly
purpose of increasing the punishment, that the authorized by law or regulation, who compel
defendant actually went to battle or committed any person to change his residence.
nefarious acts against his country or
countrymen. SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED
PEOPLE v MANAYAO
(78 PHIL 721) STONEHILL v DIOKNO
(20 SCRA 383)
Manayao argues that he cannot be charged
with treason because he had already lost his Search warrant authorizing the seizure of books
Filipino citizenship when he joined the Makapili, and records showing all the business
having considered himself a member of the
transactions of certain persons regardless of
Japanese armed forces. Manayao cannot
whether the transactions were legal or illegal is
divest himself of his Philippine citizenship,
a general warrant which contravenes the
otherwise, his very crime would be the shield
Constitution and the Rules of Court which
that would protect him from punishment and
require that the things to be seized should be
would essentially place himself beyond the arm
of our treason law. particularly described.

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL BURGOS v CHIEF OF STAFF


LAWS OF (133 SCRA 800)
THE STATE
When the search warrant applied for is directed
ARBITRARY DETENTION against a newspaper publisher or editor in
connection with the publication of subversive
materials, the application and/ or its supporting
UMIL v RAMOS
affidavits must contain a specification, stating
(187 SCRA 311)
with particularity the alleged subversive material
he has published or intending to publish since
Subversion is a continuing crime. As such,
mere generalization will not suffice. Also,
authorities, upon determination of probable
ownership is of no consequence and it is
cause may execute a valid arrest pursuant to
sufficient that the person against whom the
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
warrant is directed has control or possession of
Procedure.
the property sought to be seized.
PEOPLE v
OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
BURGOS (144
SCRA 1)
PEOPLE v BAES
When the accused is arrested on the sole basis 68 Phil 203
of a verbal report, the arrest without a warrant
under Section 6(a) of Rule 113 is not lawful and Whether or not the act complained of is
legal since the offense must also be committed offensive to the religious feelings of the
in his presence or within his view. It is not Catholics, is a question of fact which must be
enough that there is reasonable ground to judged only according to the feelings of the
believe that the person to be arrested has Catholic and not those of other faithful ones. It
committed a crime for an essential precondition is possible that certain acts may offend the
under the rule is that the crime must in fact or feelings of those who profess a certain religion,
actually have been committed first. while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of
those professing another faith.
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED
PERSONS CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

EXPULSION REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D


ETAT
VILLAVICENCIO v LUKBAN
(39 Phil 778) UMIL v RAMOS
(187 SCRA 85)
The forcible taking of the women from Manila by July 9, 1990
officials of that city, who handed them over to G.R. 81567

15
the crime committed is sedition. The raiders did
Being a member of the New Peoples Army, an not even attack the seat of the local government
outlawed organization, is punishable. rather, the object was to attain by means of
Subversion like rebellion or insurrection is force, intimidation, etc. one object, to inflict an
perceived as a continuing offense and unlike act of hate or revenge upon the person or
other so called common offenses i.e. adultery, property of a public official.
murder, arson, etc. which generally end upon
their commission, subversion and rebellion are PEOPLE v CABRERA
anchored on an ideological base which compels (43 PHIL 64)
the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness March 6, 1922
and violence until the overriding objective of G.R. 17748
overthrowing organized government is attained.
Seventy-seven members of the Philippine
PEOPLE v LOVERDIORO Constabulary who rose publicly and
(250 SCRA 389) tumultuously in order to attain by force and
November 29, outside of legal methods the object of inflicting
1995 G.R. an act of hate or revenge upon the police of
112235 the City of Manila were found guilty of the
crime of sedition as defined and punished by
In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.
not murder, it becomes imperative for the courts
to ascertain whether or not the act was done in The Philippine Law on sedition (Act No. 292),
furtherance of a political end. The political makes all persons who rise publicly and
motive of the act should be conclusively tumultuously in order to obtain by force or
demonstrated as it is not enough that the overt outside of legal methods any one of five
acts of rebellion are duly proven otherwise if no objects, including that of inflicting any act of
political motive is established and proved, the hate or revenge upon the person or property of
accused should be convicted of the common any official or agent of the Insular Government
crime and not of rebellion. or of a provincial or municipal government,
guilty of sedition. In order to be a violation of
PEOPLE v GERONIMO paragraph 3 of section 5 of Act No. 292, it is
(100 PHIL 90) not necessary that the offender be a private
October 23, 1956 citizen and the offended party a public
G.R. L-8936 functionary since the law makes no distinction
between the persons to which it applies.
Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in
the crime of rebellion solely because it was PEOPLE v HADJI
committed simultaneously with or in the course (9 SCRA 252)
of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were October 24, 1963
done for private purposes or profit, without any G.R. L-12686
political motivation, the crime would be
separately punishable and would not be The rule in this jurisdiction allows the treatment
absorbed by the rebellion and the individual of the common offenses of murder etc. as
misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to distinct and independent acts separable from
constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive sedition. Where the acts of violence were
acts and intent would be unrelated to each deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion, the
other. The individual crime would not be a same does not apply in the crime of sedition.
means necessary for committing the rebellion,
as it would not be done in preparation or in INCITING TO SEDITION
furtherance of the latter.
US v TOLENTINO
SEDITION (5 PHIL 682)
March 6, 1906
PEOPLE v UMALI G.R. L-1451
(96 PHIL 185)
November 29, 1954 The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the
G.R. L-5803 play, in view of the time, place, and manner of
its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of
Where the purpose of the raid and acts of the hatred and enmity against the American
raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms, people and the Government of the United
were not exactly against the Government and States. The principal object and intent of its
for the purpose of doing the things defined in author was to incite the people of the
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under Philippines to open armed resistance to the
rebellion, but rather, by means of force and constituted authorities, and to induce them to
intimidation, to inflict an act of hate or revenge conspire together for the secret organization of
upon the person or property of a public official, armed forces, to be used when the opportunity

16
present itself, for the purpose of overthrowing offense, they would be considered immune
the present Government and the setting up during their attendance in Congress and in
another in its stead. The manner and form in going to and returning from the same.
which the drama was presented at such a time
and under such conditions renders absurd the ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION
pretense that it was merely or even principally
a literary or artistic production. PEOPLE v EVANGELISTA
(57 PHIL 372)
ESPUELAS v PEOPLE October 26, 1932
December 17, 1951 G.R. L-36277
G.R. L-2990
The principal defense that the Communist Party
A published writing which calls our government of the Philippines is not an illegal association in
one of crooks and dishonest persons ("dirty") that it preaches only a social but not an armed
infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators, revolution is obviously useless, since a mere
and which reveals a tendency to produce reading of the constitution of the Communist
dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with Party will show that the purpose of such
the disposition to remain loyal to the association is to incite class struggle and to
government, is a scurrilous libel against the overthrow the present government by peaceful
Government. The violent and provocative means or by armed revolution. Therefore, the
statements made by the accused against the purpose of such association is to alter the social
state was neither constructive nor with reason. order and to commit the crimes of rebellion and
It, instead, went beyond the ambit of criticism sedition. An association having such an object
legally permitted since it had the dangerous must necessarily be illegal.
tendency of appealing to the common mind
and suggesting or inciting rebellious
conspiracies and riots against the duly
constituted government.
PEOPLE v RODIL
MENDOZA v PEOPLE (109 SCRA 306)
(90 PHIL 524) November 20 1981
December 17 1951 G.R. L-35156
G.R. L-2990
While the evidence definitely demonstrated that
A published writing which calls our government the appellant knew because the victim, who
one of crooks and dishonest persons ("dirty") was in civilian clothing, told him that he was an
infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators, agent of a person in authority, he cannot be
and which reveals a tendency to produce convicted of the complex crime of homicide with
dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the assault upon an agent of a person in authority
disposition to remain loyal to the government, is for the simple reason that the information does
a scurrilous libel against the Government. Any not allege the fact that the accused then knew
citizen may criticize his government and that, before or at the time of the assault, the
government officials and submit his criticism to victim was an agent of a person in authority.
the "free trade of ideas" but such criticism Such knowledge must be expressly and
should be specific and constructive, specifying specifically averred in the information,
particular objectionable actuations of the otherwise, in the absence of such allegation,
government. It must be reasoned or tempered the required knowledge, like a qualifying
and not a contemptuous condemnation of the circumstance, although proven, would only be
entire government set-up. appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
PEOPLE v TAC-AN
MARTINEZ v MORFE (182 SCRA 601)
(44 SCRA 22) February 26, 1990
March 24, ___ G.R. 76338-39
G.R. L-34022
The last paragraph of Article 152 shows that
The members of the legislature are privileged while a teacher or professor of a public or
from arrest on civil process during the session recognized private school is deemed to be a
of that body, and for a reasonable time before "person in authority," such teacher or professor
and after, to enable them to go to and return is so deemed only for purposes of application of
from the same. Prosecution for a criminal Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in
offense is excluded from this grant of immunity. authority), and 151 (resistance and
It would amount to the creation of a privileged disobedience to a person in authority or the
class, without justification in reason, if agents of such person) of the Revised Penal
notwithstanding their liability for a criminal Code. A teacher or professor of a public or

17
recognized private school cannot be regarded and order in the community, appellants are
as a "public authority" within the meaning of guilty of attempted murder with direct assault.
paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code. PEOPLE v
DOLLANTES
ILLEGAL POSSESION OF FIREARMS (PD (151 SCRA 592)
1866, AS June 30, 1987
AMENDED BY RA 8294 AND RA 9516) G.R. 70639

PEOPLE v When a barangay Captain is in the act of trying


QUIJADA (259 to pacify a person who was making trouble in
SCRA 191) July the dance hall, he is therefore killed while in the
24, 1996 performance of his duties. As the barangay
G.R. 115008-09 captain, it was his duty to enforce the laws and
ordinances within the barangay and if in the
The killing of a person with the use of an enforcement thereof, he incurs, the enmity of
unlicensed firearm cannot serve to increase the his people who thereafter treacherously slew
penalty for homicide or murder but rather, by him, the crime committed is murder with assault
express provision of P.D. No. 1866, shall upon a person in authority.
increase the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm. When an accused is prosecuted for JUSTO v COURT OF APPEALS
homicide or murder and for aggravated illegal (99 PHIL 453)
possession of firearm, the constitutional bar June 28, 1956
against double jeopardy will not apply since G.R. L-8611
these offenses are quite different from one
another, with the first punished under the The character of person in authority is not
Revised Penal Code and the second under a assumed or laid off at will, but attaches to a
special law. public official until he ceases to be in office.
Assuming that the complainant is not actually
CELINO v CA performing the duties of his office when
(526 SCRA 195) assaulted, this fact does not bar the existence
June 29, 2007 of the crime of assault upon a person in
G.R. 170562 authority, so long as the impelling motive of the
attack is the performance of official duty.||| Also,
When the other offense is one of those where there is a mutual agreement to fight, an
enumerated under RA 8294, any information for aggression ahead of the stipulated time and
illegal possession of firearms should be place would be unlawful since to hold otherwise
quashed because the illegal possession of would be to sanction unexpected assaults
firearm would have to be tried together with contrary to all sense of loyalty and fair play.
such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or PEOPLE v RECTO
homicide, or absorbed as an element of (367 SCRA ___)
rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted October 17, 2001
coup d etat and conversely, when the other G.R. 129069
offense involved is not one of those enumerated
under RA 8294, then the separate case for The victim is considered a mere bystander even
illegal possession of firearm should continue to if he is a Barangay Chief Tanod, an agent of a
be prosecuted. The constitutional bar against person in authority, if he is not acting and had
double jeopardy will not apply since these no occasion to act in the performance of his
offenses are quite different from one another, official duties. As such, the attacks on him do
with the first punished under the Revised Penal not amount to direct assault.
Code and the second under a special law.

DIRECT ASSAULT RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A


PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS
PEOPLE v BELTRAN OF SUCH PERSONS
(138 SCRA 521)
September 13, 1985 VYTIACO v CA
G.R. L-37168-69 (19 SCRA 744)
April 24, 1967
Shooting the mayor and a policeman on duty is G.R. L-20246-48
attempted murder with assault. Considering that
Mayor Quirolgico is a person in authority and The accused cannot be held liable when the
Pat. Rolando Tolentino is a policeman who at evidence shows that the Constabulary Soldier
the time was in his uniform, and both were was in civilian clothes, did not exhibit any badge
performing their official duties to maintain peace and simply identified himself verbally after the

18
petitioner had wrested his gun from him since
before a person can be held guilty of the crime TORRES v GONZALES
of resistance or disobedience to a person in (152 SCRA 272)
authority or the agent of such person it must be
shown beyond reasonable doubt that the A convict granted conditional pardon with an
accused knew that the person he disobeyed or undertaking that he would not again violate any
resisted is a person in authority or the agent of of the penal laws of the Philippines who is
such person who is actually engaged in the recommitted should be convicted by final
performance of his official duties. Moreover, the judgment of a court of the subsequent crime or
refusal of petitioner to return the Constabulary crimes with which he was charged before the
Soldier's gun was but a continuation of his criminal penalty for such subsequent
efforts to defend himself from whatever harm offense(s) can be imposed upon him. Article
that could come from. 159 of the Revised Penal Code defines a
distinct and substantive felony, the parolee or
DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL convict who is regarded as having violated the
provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted
ALBERTO v DELA and convicted by final judgment before he can
CRUZ (98 SCRA be made to suffer the prescribed penalty.
406)
June 30, 1980 QUASI-RECIDIVISM
G.R. L-31839
PEOPLE v DIOSO
The crime delivering prisoners from jail under
October 23, 1964
Article 156 is usually committed by an outsider
G.R. L-38346-47
who removes from jail any person confined
therein or helps him escape and not by a jailer
When the accused is a quasi-recidivist, having
of the province and by an assistant provincial
committed the crime charged while serving
warden since if the offender is a public officer
sentence for a prior offense, the maximum
who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is
penalty prescribed by law for murder is death,
liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
regardless of the presence or absence of
However in Article 223, it is necessary that the
mitigating or aggravating circumstance such as
public officer had consented to, or connived in,
voluntary surrender and plea of guilty or the
the escape of the prisoner under his custody or
complete absence thereof.
charge.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
COUNTERFEITING
TANEGA v MASAKAYAN
(19 SCRA 564)
PEOPLE v KONG LEON
February 28, 1967
G.R. L-27191 (48 O.G. 664)

The making of false coins of a foreign country is


Prescription shall only begin to run when he
punishable under Article 163, paragraph 3 of
escapes confinement. When the accused is
the Revised Penal Code even if said country
never placed in confinement, prescription of
has withdrawn the coins from circulation
penalty will not run in his favor.
therein.
PEOPLE v ABILONG
FORGERY
(82 PHIL ___)
November 26, 1948
DEL ROSARIO v PEOPLE
G.R. L-1960
(3 SCRA 650)
Although destierro does not constitute
imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty, Possession of genuine treasury notes of the
though partial, in the sense that as in the Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or
present case, the appellant by his sentence of signs contained" in which had been erased
destierro was deprived of the liberty to enter the and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure
City of Manila. Thus, if a person sentenced to and alteration, and with the intent to use such
destierro by virtue of final judgment and notes of the Philippines, is punishable under
prohibited from entering the City of Manila Art. 168 in relation to Art. 166, subdivision (1) of
enters said city within the period of his the Revised Penal Code. Thus, possession of
sentence, he is guilty of evasion of sentence genuine treasury notes of the Philippine
under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. Government where one of the digits of the
penultimate had been altered and changed from
9 so as to read 0 is punishable.
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON

19
FALSIFICATION BERADIO VS CA
(103 SCRA 567)
SIQUIAN v PEOPLE
(171 SCRA 223) The crime of falsification of public document
cannot be imputed to the accused when it is
Falsification of public document is committed found that no criminal intent to commit
when the accused issues a certification which falsification can be imputed on the accused who
states that funds are available for the position to in submitting daily time records not as a legal
which a person is appointed and the accused obligation but as a matter of practice, made
knows that, in reality, the position itself does not entries therein that were not absolutely false but
even exist and no funds had been appropriated had a color of truth and who had caused no
therefor. The existence of a wrongful intent to damage to the government, or to third parties
injure a third person is not necessary when the but on the contrary rendered service in the
falsified document is a public document. In interest of the public with proper permission
falsification of public documents, the controlling from the superiors.
consideration is the public character of a
document and the existence of any prejudice
caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to
cause such damage becomes immaterial.

PEOPLE v VILLALON LUAGUE v CA


(192 SCRA 521) (112 SCRA 97)

The charge of estafa thru falsification of a public If the accused acted in good faith when she
document has sufficient basis to exist in fact signed her spouse's name to the checks and
and in law since falsification of a public encashed them to pay for the expenses of the
document may be a means of committing estafa spouses last illness and burial upon the belief
because before the falsified document is that the accused is entitled to them and
actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of considering that the government sustained no
falsification has already been consummated, damage due to such encashment, criminal
damage or intent to cause damage not being an intent may not be ascribed, and the accused
element of the crime of falsification of public, should be acquitted to such crime.
official or commercial documents. The damage
to another is caused by the commission of PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
estafa and not by the falsification of the (81 SCRA 120)
document, hence, the falsification of the public,
official or commercial document is only a If the falsification is resorted to for the purpose
necessary means to commit the estafa. of hiding the malversation, the falsification and
malversation are separate offenses. Thus,
US v CAPULE where the provincial treasurer, as the custodian
(24 PHIL 12) of the money forming part of the road and
January 2, 1913 bridge fund, effected payments to his co-
G.R. L-7447 accused for construction materials supposedly
delivered to the province for various projects
A person who, taking advantage of the occasion when in fact no such materials were delivered,
when a power of attorney is presumably being and to camouflage or conceal the defraudation,
drawn up, prepares instead thereof, contrary to the accused used six vouchers which had
the wishes of the interested parties and with genuine features and which appear to be
malice aforethought, an instrument of sale in his extrinsically authentic but which were
own favor, using deceit as to the parties and the intrinsically fake, the crimes committed are not
witnesses, and afterwards induces a notary to complex but separate crimes of falsification and
certify falsely that the supposed vendors malversation and the falsifications cannot be
actually appeared and ratified such instrument, regarded as constituting one continuing offense
is guilty of the falsification of a notarial or public impelled by a single criminal impulse.
document.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT
PEOPLE v MANANSALA
(58 PHIL 796) US v CASTILLO
November 18, 1933 (6 PHIL 453)
G.R. L-38948 September 19, 1906
G.R. 2829
When a person has in his possession a falsified
document and makes use of the same, the The Court held that the unexplained fact that
presumption or inference is justified that such the accused altered a forged check which is
person is the forger. strong evidence tending to prove that the
accused either forged the check himself or

20
caused it to be forged when accompanied by to an office to which he knowingly was deprived
proof of other facts, which render it difficult to of is correct only when an accused is charged
understand how the check could have been with Usurpation of Official Function but not if
forged without the intervention of the accused, one is charged with Usurpation of Authority.
is sufficient to sustain a conviction for forgery.
ESTRADA v DESIERTO
DAVA v PEOPLE (445 SCRA 655)
(202 SCRA 62) December 9, 2004
G.R. 73 GR 156160

A blank form of the driver's license which is filled When a person who issued a notice has
up with personal data and the signature of the obtained an authority to issue the same, for
registrar of the San Fernando LTC agency was instance being an officerin-charge of a
affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, Philippine Government or agency, a charge for
becomes a public document within the purview Usurpation of Official Function does not apply.
of Articles 171 and 172.The driver's license In order for one to be held liable for Usurpation
being a public document, proof of the fourth of Official Function, there must be a clear
element of damage caused to another person showing that the person being charged had
or at least intent to cause such damage has performed an act pertaining to any person in
become immaterial since the principal thing authority or public officer of the Philippine
being punished is the violation of the public faith Government or any agency thereof, under
and the destruction of the truth proclaimed pretense of official position, and without being
therein. lawfully entitled to do so.

USING FICTITIOUS NAME

CA 142 AS AMENDED BY RA 6085 (ACT


REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES)

ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE BANK HOCK LIAN v REPUBLIC


NOTES (17 SCRA 188)

MARTINEZ v Aside from using one name, a person using


PEOPLE (652 another name wherein no evidence is shown
SCRA ___) that he was baptized with the latter name or that
June 15, 2011 he has been known by it since childhood or that
G.R. 194367 the court has authorized the use thereof may be
liable for Using a Fictitious Name.
Possession of false treasury or bank notes
alone, without anything more, is not a criminal LEGAMIA v IAC
offense since the possession must be with (131 SCRA 478)
intent to use said false treasury or bank notes.
Hence, the pieces of counterfeit bills allegedly A woman who has been living with a married
seized are not sufficient to show the element of man for almost 20 years, where the latter
intent to use any of such forged or falsified introduced the woman to the public as his wife,
instruments, for there must be an overt act to assumed the role of being a wife and the family
manifest such intent. name of the man without any sinister purpose
or personal material gain in mind cannot be
USURPATION held liable of the crime Using Fictitious Name.
The absence of sinister purpose or personal
GIGANTONI v PEOPLE material gain has removed the act from being a
(162 SCRA 158) crime herein mentioned.

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to PERJURY


establish by positive evidence the allegation
that an accused falsely represents himself. It is
DIAZ v PEOPLE
essential to present proof that one actually
(191 SCRA 86)
knows at the time of the alleged commission of
the offense that he is already dismissed from
A person who stated under oath in his
the service.
application to take a police examination that he
had never been convicted of any crime, when
An argument that it makes no difference
as a matter of fact he has previous convictions,
whether the accused was suspended or
committed perjury. The elements of the crime of
dismissed from the service, for both imply the
the crime of perjury are: 1) the accused made a
absence of power to represent oneself as
statement under oath or executed an affidavit
vested with authority to perform acts pertaining

21
upon a material matter 2) that the statement or presumption, it is necessary to present clear
affidavit was made before a competent officer and convincing evidence to the contrary.
authorized to receive and administer oath 3)
accused made a willful and deliberate assertion PEOPLE v SUZUKI
of falsehood 4) that a sworn statement or (414 SCRA 43)
affidavit containing the falsity is required by law October 23, 2003
or made for a legal purpose. G.R. 120670

MACHINATION IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS It bears stressing that mere possession of the


prohibited substance is a crime per se and the
OUANO v CA burden of proof is upon appellant to show that
(188 SCRA 799) he has a license or permit under the law to
possess the prohibited drug. Here, appellant
Once two persons have promised to share in a failed to prove that he has a license to possess
property subject to an issue as a consideration the marijuana and so the Court held that such
for one to refrain from taking part in the public possession constitutes prima facie evidence of
auction, and have attempted to cause and animus possidendi sufficient to convict an
succeeded in causing another bidder to stay accused in the absence of any satisfactory
away from an auction in order to cause explanation.
reduction of the price of the property auctioned,
machination in public auctions under Art 185 of PEOPLE v CHUA
the RPC has been committed. Causing another (396 SCRA 657)
bidder to stay away from the auction in order to
cause reduction of the price of the property The crime under consideration is malum
auctioned is an act constituting the crime of prohibitum, hence, lack of criminal intent or
machination in public auctions. good faith does not exempt appellants from
criminal liability. Mere possession of a regulated
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER drug without legal authority is punishable under
PROHIBITED DRUGS the Dangerous Drugs Act.

PEOPLE v PEOPLE v CASIMIRO


LAGATA (396 (383 SCRA 390)
SCRA ___)
June 25, 2003 Failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana
G.R. 135323 examined by the forensic chemist was that
seized from the accused was fatal to the
Appellant's lack of knowledge of the contents of prosecution's case. The prosecution failed to
the plastic bag becomes all the more credible prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody
considering that when the NBI agents when the prosecution witnesses admitted that
conducted a test buy to validate the tip given to they did not write their initials on the brick of
them by their confidential informant, they relied marijuana immediately after allegedly seizing it
entirely on the information that a certain "Baby" from accusedappellant outside the grocery
and "Chinggay" were selling "shabu." Moreover, store but only did so in their headquarters and
the testimony of the poseur-buyer becomes the narcotics field test, which initially identified
material and indispensable when the appellant the seized item as marijuana, was likewise not
denies having committed the prohibited act and conducted at the scene of the crime, but only at
without the testimony of the poseur-buyer the narcotics office; leading to a reasonable
especially if there are no other eyewitness to doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized
the illicit transaction, the non- presentation of from accused-appellant is the same brick of
the poseur buyer can be fatal to the case of marijuana marked by the policemen in their
the prosecution, thus a hearsay. headquarters and given by them to the crime
PEOPLE v BONGCARAWAN laboratory for examination.
(384 SCRA 525)
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
The possession of dangerous drugs must be
with knowledge of the accused, or that animus IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
possidendi existed together with the possession PUBLICATIONS AND
or control of such articles but the possession of EXHIBITIONS
dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi PEOPLE v KOTTINGER
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence (45 PHIL 352)
of a satisfactory explanation of such
possession. Another is that the things in Obscenity is something which is offensive to
possession of a person are presumed by law to chastity, decency or delicacy. The test to
be owned by him and that to overcome this determine the existence of obscenity is whether
the tendency of the matter charged as obscene

22
is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are MEJORADA v SANDIGANBAYAN
open to such immoral influences and into (151 SCRA 399)
whose hands a publication or other article
charged as being obscene may fall. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 refers to
any public officer. It makes no distinction or
PEOPLE v APARICI qualification and specifies the acts declared
(52 OG 249) unlawful. A violation may occur when an officer
takes advantage of his position and divests
In a dark theater with stage dimly lit where a private parties of compensation they must
person is swaying to and fro with the middle receive.
part of her body, and dancing with her hips
swaying and sometimes raising her feet, the MALVERSATION
Court provided that the test whether a particular
act is obscene is its tendency to deprave or LABATAGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN
corrupt those whose minds are open to such (183 SCRA 415)
immoral influences, be they cultured or not.
When a collecting officer of a government
PEOPLE v PADAN institution assigns his or her work to another
(101 PHIL 749) without the former being the one to
misappropriate a government fund or property
In an actual exhibition of a sexual act, preceded malversation may still be at hand. Malversation
by acts of lasciviousness, there can be no consists not only in misappropriation or
redeeming features; in it there is no room for converting public funds or property to ones
art. It is clear and an unmitigated obscenity, personal use but also by knowingly allowing
indecency and an offense to public morals and others to make use of them.
causing as it does, nothing but lust and
lewdness, and exerting a corrupting influence
ILOGON v SANDIGANBAYAN
especially on the youth of the land.
(218 SCRA 766)
FERNANDO v CA
An official custodian who fails to show
(510 SCRA 351)
possession of a public fund or property may be
December 6, 2006
held liable for malversation. In malversation, all
G.R. No. 159751
that is necessary for conviction is proof that the
accountable officer had received public funds
To be held liable for obscenity, the prosecution and that he did not have them in possession
must prove that (a) the materials, publication, when demand therefore was made; no need of
picture or literature are obscene; and (b) the direct evidence of personal misappropriation as
offender sold, exhibited, published or gave long as there is shortage in his account and that
away such materials; that which shocks the it must be said that the return of the thing
ordinary and common sense of men as an malversed is not a defense.
indecency. A picture being obscene or indecent
must depend upon the circumstances of the
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF
case, and that ultimately, the question is to be
PRISONERS
decided by the judgment of the aggregate
sense of the community reached by it. It is an
issue proper for judicial determination and RODILLAS v SANDIGANBAYAN
should be treated on a case to case basis and (161 SCRA 347)
on the judges sound discretion.
Failure to undertake necessary precautions take
CRIMES COMMITED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS for instance, allowing a prisoner to have lunch
with family when the former should be brought
to jail, failing to follow the prisoner in the
RA 3019 AS AMENDED (ANTI GRAFT AND
restroom or assigning someone to watch over
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
the former leading to the prisoners escape, will
make the officers act as a laxity or negligence
TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN
amounting to deliberate non-performance of
(146 SCRA 508)
duty. A claim that there was no connivance with
the prisoner must fail considering that
An official involved need not dispose of his connivance or giving ones consent to evasion
shares in a corporation as long as he does not is a distinct crime from infidelity in the custody
do anything for the firm in its contract with of prisoner through negligence.
another. The matter contemplated in Section
3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law is the actual
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
intervention in the transaction in which one has
(ARTICLES 246-266)
financial or pecuniary interest in order that
liability may attach.
PARRICIDE

23
PEOPLE v DALAG at least two battering episodes between the
(402 SCRA 254) appellant and her intimate partner; (2) the final
April 30, 2003 acute battering episode preceding the killing of
G.R. No. 129895 the batterer must have produced in the battered
person's mind an actual fear of an imminent
In the crime of parricide, the prosecution is harm from her batterer and an honest belief that
mandated to prove the following essential she needed to use force in order to save her
elements: (1) a person is killed; (2) the life; and (3) at the time of the killing, the batterer
deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the must have posed probable -- not necessarily
deceased is the father, mother or child, whether immediate and actual -- grave harm to the
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his accused, based on the history of violence
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse. In perpetrated by the former against the latter.
the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof Under the existing facts of the present case,
of the relationship between the accused and the however, not all of these elements were duly
deceased would be the marriage certificate established.
which in this case, the prosecution was able to
present and prove together with all the essential DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
elements of parricide. UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ
(612 SCRA 364) PEOPLE v
February 11, 2010 ABARCA (153
G.R. No. 187683 SCRA 735)
September 14,
In the case of a Parricide of a spouse, the best 1987 G.R. No.
proof of the relationship between the accused 74433
and the deceased would be the marriage
certificate. In this case, the testimony of the The provision in Article 247 of the Revised
accused that he was married to the victim, in Penal Code that the accused shall kill any or
itself, is ample proof of such relationship as the both of them immediately after surprising his
testimony can be taken as an admission against spouse and her paramour in the act of
penal interest. intercourse does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. Although about
PEOPLE V JUMAWAN one hour had passed between the time the
(116 SCRA 739) husband discovered his wife having sexual
September 23, 1982 intercourse with the victim and the time the
G.R. No. L-50905 latter was actually shot, the shooting falls within
the provision as the death caused was the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming
Presentacion should have been accused of
the accused after chancing upon his spouse in
parricide but since her relationship to the
the basest act of infidelity.
deceased, as wife, is not alleged in the
information, she can be convicted of murder
only qualified by abuse of superior strength. PEOPLE v OYANIB
(354 SCRA 196)
March 12, 2001
PEOPLE v TOMOTORGO
G.R. Nos. 130634-35
(136 SCRA 238)
April 30, 1985
G.R. No. L-47941 To be relieved of any criminal liability, the
accused having admitted the killing must prove
that the death caused is the proximate result of
The fact that the appellant intended to maltreat
the outrage overwhelming him after chancing
the victim only or inflict physical injuries does
upon his spouse in the act of infidelity. Further,
not exempt him from liability for the resulting
he must have not promoted or facilitated the
and more serious crime of parricide. Appellant
prostitution of his wife nor consented to her
is only entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
infidelity.
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
(Article 13 (3 Id).)
MURDER
PEOPLE V GENOSA
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ
(419 SCRA 537)
(612 SCRA 738)
January 15, 2004
G.R. No. 135981 February 16, 2010
G.R. No. 188353
To appreciate battered woman syndrome (BWS)
as selfdefense, appellant must prove the For the charge of murder to prosper, the
following: (1) each of the phases of the cycle of prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender
violence must be proven to have characterized killed the victim, (2) through treachery, or by any

24
of the other five qualifying circumstances, duly
alleged in the Information. Generally, the PEOPLE v ORITA
elements of murder are: 1. That a person was (184 SCRA 105)
killed. 2. That the accused killed him. 3. That March 3, 2008
the killing was attended by any of the qualifying G.R. No. 170723
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. 4. The
killing is not parricide or infanticide. For the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Entry of the labia or
HOMICIDE lips of the female organ without rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
PEOPLE v PUGAY warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
(167 SCRA 439) attempted if there is no penetration of the
November 17, 1988 female organ because although the offender
G.R. No. 74324 has commenced the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, not all acts of execution
Having taken the can with the stinging smell of was performed.
flammable liquid from the engine of the Ferris
wheel and holding it before pouring its contents PEOPLE v
on the body of the deceased, the accused knew CASTRO (196
that the can contained gasoline. Clearly, he SCRA 679)
failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to May 6, 1991
avoid every undesirable consequence arising G.R. No. 91490
from any act that may be committed by his
companions who at the time were making fun of Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen and
the deceased. laceration of the vagina are not essential for the
offense of consummated rape as entry, to the
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION least extent, of the labia or lips of the female
organ is sufficient. Thus, the victim's remaining
PEOPLE v a virgin does not negate rape.
SALUFRANIA
(159 SCRA 401) PEOPLE v ACHAS
March 30, 1988 (595 SCRA 341)
G.R. No. L-50884 August 4, 2009
G.R. No. 185712
That the accused boxed his pregnant wife on
the stomach which caused her to fall and then The absence of external signs or physical
strangled her is not sufficient proof to show injuries on the complainants body does not
intent to cause an abortion. Thus, the accused necessarily negate the commission of rape.
should not be held guilty of the complex crime This is because hymenal laceration is not an
of Parricide with Intentional Abortion but the element of the crime of rape, albeit a healed or
complex crime of Parricide with Unintentional fresh laceration is a compelling proof of
Abortion. defloration.

MUTILATION PEOPLE v CRUZ


(595 SCRA 411)
AGUIRRE v SECRETARY OF JUSTICE August 4, 2009
(547 SCRA 431) G.R. No. 186129
March 3, 2008
G.R. No. 170723 Most important in a prosecution for statutory
rape is to prove the following elements: 1. that
Mutilation under the first paragraph of Article the accused had carnal knowledge with a
262 of the Revised Penal Code requires (1) that woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12
there be a castration, that is, mutilation of years of age. These elements were sufficiently
organs necessary for generation and (2) that established during trial and were not rebutted
the mutilation is caused purposely and by the defense with any solid evidence to the
deliberately to deprive the offended party of contrary.
some essential organ for reproduction. In this PEOPLE v MANGALINO
present petition, the bilateral vasectomy done (182 SCRA 329)
on Larry could not have amounted to the crime February 15,
of mutilation because though undeniably, 1990 G.R. No.
vasectomy denies a man his power of 79011
reproduction, such procedure does not deprive
him, "either totally or partially, of some essential In statutory rape, proof of intimidation or force
organ for reproduction." used on the 12 year old victim, or lack of it is
immaterial. Further, the absence of penetration
RAPE due to the one-centimeter diameter of the

25
victims hymen is also inconsequential for proof Jurisprudence firmly holds that the force or
of entrance of the male organ within the labia or violence required in rape cases is relative; it
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient to does not need to be overpowering or
warrant conviction. irresistible; it is present when it allows the
offender to consummate his purpose. In this
PEOPLE v ERINIA case, the appellant employed that amount of
(50 PHIL 998) force sufficient to consummate rape.
January 20, 1927
G.R. No. L-26298 PEOPLE v
MIRANDILLA
The crime of rape may be committed upon child (654 SCRA 761)
of the age of 3 years and 11 months. July 27, 2011
G.R. No. 186417
PEOPLE V
ATENTO (196 The sweetheart theory as a defense however,
SCRA 357) April necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first
26, 1991 element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the
G.R. No. 84728 prosecution the burden to prove only force or
intimidation, the coupling element of rape.
The accused was held guilty under paragraph 3
of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code even if PEOPLE v MADSALI
the circumstances of force and intimidation or of (611 SCRA 596)
the victim being deprived of reason or otherwise February 4, 2010
unconscious are absent. If sexual intercourse G.R. No. 179570
with a victim under twelve years of age is rape,
then it should follow that carnal knowledge with Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to
a seventeen-year old girl whose mental death threats does not affect the credibility of
capacity is that of a seven year old child would the complainant, nor can it be taken against her
constitute rape. such as in this case when BBB explained that
she did not immediately report the abduction,
PEOPLE v PORAS rape, and detention of her daughter to the
(612 SCRA 624) authorities because Egap threatened to kill
February 16, AAA, who was then in his custody. The charge
2010 G.R. No. of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay
177747 was unreasonable and unexplained.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
the appellant succeeded in inserting his fingers AND
in AAAs vagina, this act still would not suffice to SECURITY (ARTICLES 267-292)
convict the appellant of rape because in 1994,
the insertion of one or more fingers into a KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION
womans vagina without her consent did not
constitute rape. It was only in 1997 that the law PEOPLE v MUIT
on rape expanded to include this act. (568 SCRA 251)
October 8, 2008
DE CASTRO v FERNANDEZ G.R. No. 181043
(515 SCRA 682)
February 14, The elements of the crime of kidnapping and
2007 G.R. No. serious illegal detention are the following: (a)
155041 the accused is a private individual; (b) the
accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any
Petitioner insists that a finger does not manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the
constitute an object or instrument in act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (d)
contemplation of RA 8353. The insertion of the commission of the offense, any of the four
ones finger into the genital of another circumstances mentioned in Article 267 is
constitutes rape through sexual assault. present. The totality of the prosecutions
Hence, the prosecutor did not err in charging evidence in this case established the
petitioner with the crime of rape under Article commission of kidnapping for ransom with
266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. homicide.

PEOPLE v PEOPLE v
FUNESTO (655 GUTTIEREZ (658
SCRA 357) SCRA ___ )
August 3, 2011 October 3, 2011
G.R. No. 182237 G.R. No. 168552

26
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the immediately otherwise she might not be able to
actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled go home anymore," other than that the money
with the intent of the accused to effect it. It was intended as ransom, i.e., as consideration
includes not only the imprisonment of a person for her release from captivity.
but also the deprivation of his liberty in
whatever form and for whatever length of time. KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE
It involves a situation where the victim cannot TO RETURN A MINOR
go out of the place of confinement or detention,
or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. PEOPLE v TY
(263 SCRA 754)
May 12, 1978
G.R. No. L-32529

What is actually punishable is not the


PEOPLE V TOMIO kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate
(202 SCRA 77) failure or refusal of the custodian of the minor to
September 30, 1991 restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
G.R. No. 74630 Said failure or refusal, however, must not only
be deliberate but must also be persistent as to
Even granting for the sake of argument that, in oblige the parents or the guardians of the child
effect, there was created a simple loan contract to seek the aid of the courts in order to obtain
between appellants and Mr. Nagao, as asserted custody.
by appellant Tomio Maeda, the deprivation of
the former's liberty until the amount shall have
been fully "paid" to them, is still kidnapping or
illegal detention for ransom. GRAVE THREATS

PEOPLE V LIM REYES v PEOPLE


(190 SCRA 706) (27 SCRA 686)
March 28, 1969
The fact of detention which is an essential G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529
element in the kidnapping was not clearly
established as there was no showing that there The demonstration led by petitioner against the
was actual confinement or restriction on the complainant in front of the main gate of the
person of the offended party. The two minors naval station; the fact that placards with
voluntarily entered the appellant's residence threatening statements were carried by the
and there is no indication that one of the minors demonstrators; their persistence in trailing
was locked up, physically restrained of her Hallare in a motorcade up to his residence; and
liberty or unable to communicate with anyone. the demonstration conducted in front thereof,
culminating in repeated threats flung by
PEOPLE V PADICA petitioner in a loud voice show that the threats
(221 SCRA 362) were made with deliberate purpose of creating
in the mind of Hallare the belief that the threat
Where the taking of the victim was incidental to would be carried into effect. Indeed, Hallare
the basic purpose of killing, the crime is only became so apprehensive of his safety that he
murder and this is true even if before the killing, sought the protection of Col. Monzon therefore,
the victim was taken from one place to another. the appellate court was correct in upholding
From the acts of the accused, it cannot be petitioner's conviction for the offense of grave
inferred that the latter's purpose was actually to threats.
detain or deprive the victims of their liberty and
the fact alone that ransom money was CALUAG v
demanded did not per se qualify the crime to PEOPLE (580
kidnapping in the absence of other elements. SCRA 575)
March 4, 2009
PEOPLE v RAMOS G.R. No. 171511
(297 SCRA ___ )
October 12, 1998 In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts
G.R. No. 118570 to a crime which may or may not be
accompanied by a condition. Considering the
Actual restraint of the victim's liberty was mauling incident which transpired earlier
evident from the moment she was forcibly between petitioner and Julias husband,
prevented by accused-appellant from going to petitioners act of pointing a gun at Julias
work at MERALCO and taken instead against forehead clearly enounces a threat to kill or to
her will to Bulacan. Further, no other logical inflict serious physical injury on her person
meaning can be ascribed to the victim's which constituted grave threat.
statement to that "she needed P200, 000.00

27
GRAVE COERCION against or intimidation of person takes place
without entering an inhabited house, under the
TIMONER v PEOPLE conditions set forth in Article 299 of the Revised
(125 SCRA 830) Penal Code. When the elements of both
November 25, 1983 provisions are present, the crime is a complex
G.R. No. L-62050 one, calling for the imposition as provided in
Article 48 of the Code of the penalty for the
Grave coercion is committed when "a person most serious offense, in its maximum period,
who, without authority of law, shall by means of which, in the case at bar, is reclusion temporal
violence, prevent another from doing something in its maximum period.
not prohibited by law or compel to do something
against his will, either it be right or wrong." In PEOPLE v
the case at bar, the Mayor is not guilty of grave BIRUAR (130
coercion as the element that the restraint made SCRA 513)
by the Mayor upon complainant, the owner of July 25, 1984
the barbershop considered as a public G.R. Nos. L-32202-04
nuisance, was not made under authority of law
or in the exercise of a lawful right, is absent. In this case, the accused, after committing the
crime of robbery in band in the house of
LEE v CA Gorgonio Mosende, went to the neighboring
(201 SCRA 405) house of George Kalitas where they committed
September 6, 1991 the crimes of Arson and Robbery with Homicide
G.R. No. 90423 and Physical Injuries. Obviously, the rule
enunciated in People v De Leon cannot be
made applicable since the herein accused
There is nothing unlawful when petitioner
performed different acts with distinct purposes
demanded that the private respondent return
which resulted in juridically independent crimes.
the proceeds of the check accompanied by a
threat to file criminal charges. Her lengthy stay
in the bank and return of money was not due to ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
petitioners threat but to show good faith. The
most telling proof of the absence of intimidation PEOPLE v MANGULABNAN
was the fact that the complainant refused to (99 PHIL 992)
sign the promissory note in spite of the alleged September 28, 1956
threats of the petitioner. G.R. No. L-8919

In order to determine the existence of the crime


UNJUST VEXATION of robbery with homicide, it is enough that a
homicide would result by reason or on the
PEOPLE v REYES occasion of the robbery and it is immaterial that
(60 PHIL 369) the death would supervene by mere accident
provided that the homicide produced by reason
The disturbance or interruption of any ceremony or on occasion of the robbery inasmuch as it is
of a religious character under the old Penal only the result obtained, without reference or
Code was denounced by article 571 and was distinction as to the circumstances, causes,
punished by arrest from one to ten days and a modes or persons intervening in the
fine ranging from 15 to 125 pesetas. But this commission of the crime, that has to be taken
article was omitted from the Revised Penal into consideration.
Code and the offense, if any was committed by
the appellants, is denounced in Article 287 as PEOPLE v CALIXTO
an "unjust vexation" and punished by arresto (123 SCRA 369)
menor or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos or
both. The appellants committed robbery in band with
homicide despite the fact that Cuevas was one
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY of them and not a robbery victim, an innocent
(ARTICLES 293-332) bystander or a stranger because Article 294 (1)
of the Revised Penal Code says so.
ROBBERY
PEOPLE v
QUINONES (183
NAPOLIS v COURT OF APPEALS
SCRA 747)
(43 SCRA 301)
March 28, 1990
February 28,
G.R. No. 80042
1972 G.R. No. L-
28865
There is no crime of robbery with multiple
homicide under the Revised Penal Code thus
It is more plausible to believe that Article 294
the charge should have been for robbery with
applies only where robbery with violence

28
homicide only regardless of the fact that three G.R. No. L-19491
persons were killed in the commission of the
robbery. In this special complex crime, the The circumstance of band is a qualifying
number of persons killed is immaterial and does circumstance only in robbery punished by
not increase the penalty prescribed in Article subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 and a
294 of the said Code. generic aggravating circumstance in robbery
with homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, and
ROBBERY WITH RAPE lesiones graves resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness. Hence, if robbery with
PEOPLE v DINOLA homicide is committed by a band, the indictable
(183 SCRA 747) offense would still be "robbery with homicide"
March 22, 1990 under Article 294(1) and not
G.R. No. L-54567 robbery with homicide in band."

If the intention of the accused was to commit ROBBERY WITH USE OF FORCE UPON
robbery but rape was also committed even THINGS
before the robbery, the crime of robbery with
rape is committed however, if the original PEOPLE V JARANILLA
design was to commit rape but the accused (55 SCRA 563)
after committing rape also committed robbery February 22, 1974
because the opportunity presented itself, the G.R. No. L-28547
criminal acts should be viewed as two distinct
offenses. In the case at bar, after the One essential requisite of robbery with force
complainant was raped by the accused, the upon things under Articles 299 and 302 is that
latter threatened to kill her if she did not give the malefactor should enter the building or
watch on her wrist to him and forcibly took it dependency where the object to be taken is
from her. Hence, the accused was convicted for found. In the instant case, the chicken coop
two crimes of rape and robbery. where the six roosters were taken cannot be
considered a building within the meaning of
PEOPLE v MORENO Article 302, thus, it cannot be said that the
(220 SCRA 292) accused entered the same in order to commit
January 25, 2002 the robbery by means of any of the five
G.R. No. 140033 circumstances enumerated in Article 302.

Accused Juan Moreno, who took no part in the ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. 1612) AND ITS
rape, is guilty of robbery only under Article 294, IMPLEMENTING RULES AND
No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code but as to REGULATIONS
appellant Reynaldo Maniquez, who had raped
Mary Ann Galedo, he should be guilty of the DIZON-PAMINTUAN v
special complex crime of robbery with rape, PEOPLE (234
under Article 294, No. 2 of the Revised Penal SCRA 63) July 11,
Code. 1994
G.R. No. 111426
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES
The elements of the crime of fencing are: 1. A
PEOPLE v crime of robbery or theft has been committed; 2.
SALVILLA (184 The accused, who is not a principal or
SCRA 671) April accomplice in the commission of the crime of
26, 1990 robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses,
G.R. No. 86163 keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
It is not a defense that appellant and his co- article, item, object or anything of value, which
accused had no opportunity to dispose of the has been derived from the proceeds of the said
personalities taken. From the moment the crime; 3. The accused knows or should have
offender gained possession of the thing, even if known that the said article, item, object or
the culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the anything of value has been derived from the
same, the unlawful taking is complete. proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and 4.
There is, on the part of the accused, intent to
gain for himself or for another.

ROBBERY IN BAND RAMON TAN v PEOPLE


(313 SCRA 220)
PEOPLE v APDUHAN August 26, 1999
(24 SCRA 798) G.R. No. 134298
August 30, 1968

29
The crimes of robbery and theft, on the one be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking
hand, and fencing on the other, are separate be done without the consent of the owner; and,
and distinct offenses thus, the State may (5) that the taking be accomplished without the
choose to prosecute the accused either under use of violence against or intimidation of
the Revised Penal Code or Presidential Decree persons or force upon things.
No. 1612, although the preference would seem
inevitable considering that fencing is malum PEOPLE v GULINAO
prohibitum, and Presidential Decree No. 1612 (180 SCRA ___)
creates a presumption of fencing and December 4, 1989
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value G.R. No. 82264-66
of property. Further, the law on fencing does not
require the accused to have participated in the Gulinao should have been convicted of the
criminal design to commit, or to have been in crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised
any wise involved in the commission of, the Penal Code and not robbery with the use of
crime of robbery or theft. violence against or intimidation of a person
under par. 5, Article 294 since the taking of the
ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972 ring of Dr. Chua was merely an afterthought.
(R.A. NO. 6539), AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. The force employed in the killing of Dr. Chua
7659 has no bearing on the taking of his ring.

PEOPLE v DELA
CRUZ (183
SCRA ___ )
March 29, 1990
G.R. No. 83798 SANTOS v PEOPLE
(181 SCRA ___ )
The crime committed is Carnapping with January 29, 1990
Homicide. Carnapping is defined under RA No. G.R. No. 77429
6539 as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the The principal distinction between the theft and
latter's consent, or by means of violence against estafa is that in theft, the thing is taken while in
or intimidation of persons, or by using force estafa, the accused receives the property and
upon things." The same law prescribes the converts it to his own use or benefit. However,
penalty of life imprisonment to death when the there may be theft even if the accused has
owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped possession of the property such as when he
motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the was entrusted only with the material or physical
carnapping. (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his
misappropriation of the same constitutes theft,
IZON v PEOPLE but if he has the juridical possession of the
(107 SCRA ___) thing, his conversion of the same constitutes
August 31, 1981 embezzlement or estafa."
G.R. No. L-51370
QUALIFIED THEFT
Under the Anti-Carnapping law, any vehicle
which is motorized using the streets which are EMPELIS v IAC
public, not exclusively for private use, comes (132 SCRA ___ )
within the concept of motor vehicle. Thus, September 28,
stealing a motorized tricycle running in droves 1984 G.R. No. L-
along public highways going to the north like 66136
Baguio City is a crime falling under the Anti-
Carnapping law and not a crime of simple The stealing of coconuts when they are still in
robbery punishable under the Revised Penal the tree or deposited on the ground within the
Code. premises is qualified theft but when the
coconuts are stolen in any other place, it is
THEFT simple theft. In the case at bar, petitioners
committed only frustrated qualified theft
VALENZUELA v because although they were seen carrying
PEOPLE (525 away fifty coconuts while they were still in the
SCRA __ ) June premises of the plantation, they were not able to
21, 2007 carry the coconuts away from the plantation due
G.R. No. 160188 to the timely arrival of the owner.

The elements of theft as provided for in Art. 308 ESTAFA THROUGH UNFAITHFULNESS OR
of the Revised Penal Code are (1) that there be ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
taking of personal property; (2) that said
property belongs to another; (3) that the taking SADDUL v CA

30
(192 SCRA ___) B.P. Blg. 22 or "Bouncing Checks Law,"
December 10, 1990 enumerates the elements of the crime, to wit:
G.R. No. 91041 (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any
check to apply for account or for value; (2) the
The accused was acquitted of the crime of knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that
estafa with abuse of confidence for the following at the time of issue he does not have sufficient
reasons: (1) Saddul received the spare parts funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
from AFP in trust for Land Rover which payment of the check in full upon its
authorized him to sell; (2) Saddul sold them in presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor
accordance with the authority given to him; (3) of the check by the drawee bank for
AMPI or Cuevas not being the owner of the insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
property incurred no loss and suffered injury on been dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
account of Saduls retention of proceeds and;
the bank to stop payment.
(4) no demand for return was made by AMPI or
Cuevas who knew that the spare parts are to be
NIERRAS v DACUYCUY
sold for the account of Land Rover.
(181 SCRA 1)
January 11, 1990
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSE PRETENSES,
G.R. Nos. 59568-76
FARUDULENT ACTS OR MEANS
Deceit and damage are essential elements in
PEOPLE v MONTANER
Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, but
(656 SCRA ___ )
are not required in Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
August 31, 2011
Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check
G.R. No. 184053
that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption
of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he
The elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d),
issued the same without sufficient funds and
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1)
hence punishable which is not so under the
the post-dating or issuance of a check in
Penal Code.
payment of an obligation contracted at the time
the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of
funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to VACA v CA
the payee. (298 SCRA ___ )
November 16, 1998
G.R. No. 131714

PEOPLE v ONG While it may be true that it was the company's


(204 SCRA ___) accountant who actually prepared the rubber
December 20, 1991 check, petitioners in this case cannot pretend
G.R. No. 93849 ignorance of the insufficiency of funds since
they are the owners and officers of the
In the crime of estafa by postdating or issuing a company. The testimony of petitioner Nieto that
bad check, deceit and damage are essential after the check in question was dishonored, he
elements of the offense and have to be instructed their company accountant to prepare
established with satisfactory proof to warrant a replacement check belies petitioners' claim
conviction. In the present case, the prosecution that they had no hand in the preparation of
failed to prove that the accused-appellant had checks and shows that petitioners were in
such knowledge with respect to the subject control of the finances of the company.
checks that he indorsed.

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. BLG. 22), PEOPLE v


PLUS ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12- NITAFAN (207
SCRA ___)
2000 RE: PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF B.P.
April 6, 1992
22 AND ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.
G.R. Nos. 81559-60
13-2001 RE:
CLARIFICATION OF ADMIN. CIRCULAR NO.
12-2000; Acts involving the violation of trust receipt
agreements occurring after 29 January 1973
AND P.D. NO. 1689 (INCREASING THE
(date of enactment of P.D. 115) would make the
PENALTY FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF
accused criminally liable for estafa under
SWINDLING OR ESTAFA)
paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) pursuant to the explicit
DOMAGSANG v CA
provision in Section 13 of P.D. 115. The failure,
(347 SCRA 75)
therefore, to account for the P114,884.22
December 5,
balance in 1980 or during the effectivity of P.D.
2000 G.R. No.
115. makes the accused-respondent criminally
139292
liable for estafa.

31
he obtained the said loan under such deliberate
LIM LAO v CA pretenses.
(274 SCRA 472)
June 20, 1997 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
G.R. No. 119178
TAGUINOD v PEOPLE
The fact that petitioner was a signatory to the (659 SCRA ___)
checks that were subsequently dishonored October 12, 2011
merely engenders the prima facie presumption G.R. 185833
that she knew of the insufficiency of funds, but it
does not render her automatically guilty under The elements of the crime of malicious mischief
B.P. 22. The trial court itself found that no under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code
personal notice of dishonor to petitioner Lina are: (1) That the offender deliberately caused
Lim Lao was made by the drawee bank hence, damage to the property of another; (2) That
the prima facie presumption that she knew such act does not constitute arson or other
about the insufficiency of funds cannot apply. crimes involving destruction; (3) That the act of
damaging anothers property be committed
IDOS v CA merely for the sake of damaging it.
(296 SCRA ___)
September 25, CABALLES V DAR
1998 G.R. No. (168 SCRA 247)
110782 December 5, 1988
G.R. No. 78214
When there was no consideration whatsoever
for the issuance of the check such as when the The private respondent cannot be held
subject check was issued merely to evidence criminally liable for malicious mischief in cutting
complainant's interest in the partnership and the banana trees because, as an authorized
was not intended to apply on account or for occupant or possessor of the land, and as
value and when the check was issued without planter of the banana trees, he owns said crops
actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, including the fruits thereof. Thus, an essential
there is no violation of BP 22. Further, the element of the crime of malicious mischief,
failure of the complainant or by the drawee which is "damage deliberately caused to the
bank to send a notice of dishonor to the property of another," is absent because the
petitioner precludes any finding of prima facie private respondent merely cut down his own
evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. plantings.

WONG v CA CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY


(351 SCRA 100) (ARTICLES 333-334, 336-346)
February 2, 2001
G.R. No. 117857 QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

When private respondent deposited the checks PEOPLE v


157 days after the date of the checks, the FONTANILLA
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of (23 SCRA 127)
funds was lost. But such knowledge could still June 28, 1968
be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence G.R. No. L-25354
such as in this case, the trial court found that
petitioner made reassurance that he would While deceit is an essential element of ordinary
issue new checks but failed to do so, was duly or simple seduction, it does not have to be
notified of the dishonour of the checks and proved or established in a charge of qualified
failed to make arrangements for full payment seduction. It is replaced by abuse of
within five (5) banking days thereof. confidence. Under Art. 337 of the Revised
Penal Code, the seduction of a virgin over
OTHER DECEITS twelve and under eighteen years of age,
committed by any person in public authority,
VILLAFLOR V CA priest, house servant, domestic guardian,
(192 SCRA 680) teacher, or any person who, in any capacity,
shall be entrusted with the education or custody
Appellant was guilty of fraudulent of the woman seduced is "constitutive" of the
misrepresentation when, knowing that the car crime of qualified seduction even though no
was then owned by the Northern Motors, Inc., deceit intervenes or even when such carnal
still told the complainant that the car was knowledge was voluntary on the part of the
actually owned by him for purposes of and at virgin.
the time he obtained the loan from the latter.
Indubitably, the accused was in bad faith when BABANTO v ZOSA
(120 SCRA 834)

32
February 28, 1983 A medical examination is not an indispensable
G.R. No. L-32895 element in a prosecution of rape. Further, the
defense of alibi cannot prosper because the
The complaint alleged that the accused abused distance between the alleged whereabouts of
his position as a policeman; that Leonida the appellants at the time of the commission of
Dagohoy was of the tender age of 13; and that the crime and the scene of the crime itself may
the accused had carnal knowledge of the be easily negotiated by ordinary means and in
complainant. However, there is no allegation light of the positive identification of the accused
that the complainant was a "virgin". Although it as the authors of the crime.
may be true that virginity is presumed if the girl
is over 12 and under 18 years of age, is PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE OFFENSES
unmarried and of good reputation, the accused
charged with rape cannot be convicted of PILAPIL v IBAY-
qualified seduction for failure to allege virginity SOMERA (174
in the complaint which is an essential element SCRA 653) June
of the same. 30, 1989
G.R. No. 80116
PEREZ v CA
(168 SCRA 236) Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code,
November 29, 1988 the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted
G.R. No. L-80838 except upon a sworn written complaint filed by
the offended spouse. Private respondent, being
There are similar elements between no longer the husband of petitioner for having
Consented obtained a valid divorce decree in Germany,
Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) had no legal standing to commence the adultery
that the offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that case under the imposture that he was the
she must be over twelve (12) and under offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
eighteen (18) years of age. However,
Consented Abduction, in addition to the two CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
common elements, requires that: (1) the taking (ARTICLES 347-352)
away of the offended party must be with her
consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the BIGAMY
offender, and, (2) the taking away of the
offended party must be with lewd designs while TEVES v PEOPLE
Qualified Seduction requires that: (1) the crime (656 SCRA 307)
be committed by abuse of authority, confidence August 24, 2011
or relationship, and, (2) the offender has sexual G.R. No. 188775
intercourse with the woman.
The elements of bigamy are as follows: 1. That
ABDUCTION, FORCIBLE ABDUCTION the offender has been legally married; 2. That
WITH RAPE the marriage has not been legally dissolved, or
in case his/her spouse is absent, the absent
PEOPLE v spouse could not yet be presumed dead
ALBURO (184 according to the Civil Code; 3. That he
SCRA 655) contracts a second or subsequent marriage
April 26, 1990 which has all the essential requisites for validity.
G.R. No. 85822
NOLLORA v PEOPLE
The Court is not persuaded by the theory that (657 SCRA 330)
appellant and Evelyn were sweethearts September 17,
because if they were, surely, Evelyn would not 2011 G.R. No.
have jeopardized their relationship by accusing 191425
him of having deflowered her and, on top of it
all, filing a criminal charge against him. The circumstances in the present case satisy all
Moreover, appellant was not able to present any the elements of bigamy. (1) Nollora is legally
convincing evidence to substantiate his claim married to Pinat; (2) Nollora and Pinats
like love letters, notes and other symbols of marriage has not been legally dissolved prioir to
affection. the date of the second marriage; (3) Nollora
admitted the existence of the second marriage
PEOPLE v to Geraldino; and (4) Nollora and Geraldinos
GODINES (196 marriage has all the essential requisites for
SCRA 765) May validity except for lack of capacity of Nollora
7, 1991 due to his prior marriage.
G.R. No. 93410
PEOPLE v ARAGON
(100 PHIL 103)

33
February 28, 1957 denomination or sect, or civil authorities who
G.R. No. L-10016 shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony shall be punished in accordance with
A subsequent marriage contracted by any the provisions of the Marriage Law." This is
person during the lifetime of his first spouse is within the province of the prosecutorial
illegal and void from its performance, and no agencies of the Government.
judicial decree is necessary to establish its
invalidity, as distinguished from mere annullable CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
marriages. (ARTICLES 353-364)

MERCADO V TAN LIBEL


(337 SCRA ___ )
August 1, 2000 ALCANTARA v PONCE
G.R. No. 137110 (517 SCRA 74)
February 28, 2007
The fact that petitioner subsequently obtained a G.R. No. 156183
judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
marriage after having contracted the second The crime of libel, as defined in Article 353 of
marriage was already immaterial since the the Revised Penal Code, has the following
crime had already been consummated. By elements: (1) imputation of a crime, vice or
contracting a second marriage while the first defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
was still subsisting, he committed that acts condition, status or circumstance; (2) publicity
punishable under Article 349 of the Revised or publication; (3) malice; (4) direction of such
Penal Code. imputation at a natural or juridical person, or
even a dead person and (5) tendency to cause
MORIGO v PEOPLE the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the
(422 SCRA 376) person defamed.
February 6, 2004
G.R. No. 145226 DIAZ v PEOPLE
(523 SCRA 194)
Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage May 25, 2007
being declared void ab initio, the petitioner and G.R. No. 159787
Lucia Barrete were never married "from the
beginning." Thus, when petitioner contracted For an imputation to be libelous, the following
marriage with Maria Jececha, no bigamy was requisites must be present: (a) it must be
committed since the first element of existence defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must
and the validity of the first marriage is lacking. be given publicity; and (d) the victims must be
identifiable. Absent one of these elements, a
TENEBRO v CA case for libel will not prosper.
(422 SCRA ___ )
February 18,
2004 G.R. No.
150758 GONZALES v ARCILLA
(203 SCRA 609)
As a second or subsequent marriage contracted November 18, 1991
during the subsistence of petitioner's valid G.R. No. L-27923
marriage to Villareyes, petitioner's marriage to
Ancajas would be null and void ab initio "Mang-aagaw ng asawa ng may asawa," even if
completely regardless of petitioner's translated as "one who grabs another's
psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a husband," does not necessarily mean an
marriage contracted during the subsistence of a adulteress but at most, it may imply that the
valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity person to whom it is addressed is a "flirt, a
of this second marriage is not per se an temptress, or one who indulges in enticing other
argument for the avoidance of criminal liability husbands." Hence, it is more of an imputation of
for bigamy. a vice, condition or act not constituting a crime.
Further, the phrases "tibihon," "putang ina,"
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED "walang hiya," and "patay gutom" do not impute
AGAINST PROVISION OF THE LAW the commission of a crime but were uttered to
impute a condition, defect, status or vice
COSCA v PALAYPAYON intended to cause dishonor, discredit or
(237 SCRA 249) contempt on the offended party.
September 30, 1994
A.M. No. MTJ-92-721 SAZON v CA
(255 SCRA 692)
The Revised Penal Code provides that March 29, 1996
"(p)riests or ministers of any religious G.R. No. 120715

34
matter to a third person, there was no
The test to determine the defamatory character actionable publication.
of words was satisfied in the case at bench
because the words and phrases "mandurugas," BUATIS v PEOPLE
"mag-ingat sa panlilinlang," "matagal na tayong March 24, 2006
niloloko," "may kasamang pagyayabang," "ang G.R. No. 142509
ating pobreng super kulit." "patuloy na
kabulastugan," "mastermind sa paninirang puri," The element of publication in libel is present in
etc are indisputably defamatory for they impute this case when petitioner's subject letter-reply
upon the private complainant a condition that is itself addressed to respondent states that the
dishonorable and shameful, since they tend to same was copy furnished to all concerned, its
describe him as a swindler and/or a deceiver. contents were dictated to his secretary and was
found in the mailbox, open, not contained in an
VASQUEZ v CA envelope thus, open to public. Such publication
(314 SCRA 460) had already created upon the minds of the
September 15, readers a circumstance which brought discredit
1999 G.R. No. and shame to respondent's reputation.
118971
NEWSWEEK v IAC
Petitioner was able to prove the truth of his (142 SCRA 171)
charges against the barangay official while the May 30, 1986
prosecution failed to prove not only that the G.R. No. L-63559
charges made by petitioner were false but also
that petitioner made them with knowledge of The disputed portion of the news article which
their falsity or with reckless disregard of refers to plaintiff Sola and which was claimed to
whether they were false or not. If the be libelous never singled out plaintiff Sola as a
defamatory matter either constitutes a crime or sugar planter as it merely stated that the victim
concerns the performance of official duties, and had been arrested by members of a special
the accused proves the truth of his charge, he police unit brought into the area by Pablo Sola,
should be acquitted. the mayor of Kabankalan. Hence, the report,
referring as it does to an official act performed
BRILLANTE v CA by an elective public official, is within the realm
(440 SCRA 541) of privilege and protected by the constitutional
October 19, 2004 guarantees of free speech and press.
G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571
MERCADO v CFI
In the cases at bar, it was proven that Brillante August 25, 1982
uttered defamatory statements during the press G.R. No. L-38753
conference attended by some fifty journalists
and caused the open letter which explicitly A libel prosecution must survive the test of
referred to reprehensible acts allegedly whether or not the offending publication is
committed by Binay, Prudente and their within the guarantees of free speech and free
associates, such as the use of goons to press.
threaten Binay's opponents in the election and
the plotting of Syjuco's assassination, to be BULLETIN PUBLISHING v NOEL
published in several newspapers. (167 SCRA 255)
November 9, 1988
G.R. No. 76565

No libel has been committed because the


published work alleged to contain libelous
statements is not founded on the late Amir
Mindalano or his family and appears simply
ALONZO v CA expository in character, matter-of-fact, and
(241 SCRA 51) unemotional in tone and tenor, without any
February 1, 1995 evidence of malevolent intent, either on the part
G.R. No. 110088 of the author or the publisher of the article.
Further, personal hurt or embarrassment, even
There was no publication when Atty. Balasabas, if real, is not automatically equivalent to
a third person to whom the private respondents defamation; community standards not personal
entrusted the documents with the request that or family standards are the basis for evaluating
he give them to their counsel, read the a publication claimed to be defamatory.
complaint against Dr. Velasco and the report of SANTOS v CA
the petitioner attached thereto. Where the (203 SCRA 110)
plaintiff himself communicated or by his acts October 21, 1991
caused the communication of the libelous G.R. No. L-45031

35
G.R. No. 157643
Publication of a complaint, being a true and fair
report of a judicial proceeding, made in good Proof adduced during the trial showed that
faith and without comments or remarks, is accused was the manager of the publication
privileged and comes under without the corresponding evidence that, as
Item 2 of Article 354. such, he was directly responsible for the
writing, editing, or publishing of the matter
BORJAL v CA contained in the said libelous article. Article 360
January 14, 1999 of the Revised Penal Code, however, includes
G.R. No. 126466 not only the author but also the person who
prints or published it. Thus, proof of knowledge
The doctrine of fair comment means that or participation in the publication of the
while in general every discreditable imputation offending article is not required.
publicly made is deemed false because every
man is presumed innocent until his guilt is SLANDER
judicially proved, and every false imputation is
deemed, malicious, nevertheless, when the GONZALES v ARCILLA
discreditable imputation is directed against a (203 SCRA 609)
public person in his public capacity, it is not November 18, 1991
necessarily actionable. In order that such G.R. No. L-27923
discreditable imputation to a public official may
be actionable, it must either be a false Slander is oral defamation while libel is
allegation of fact or a comment based on a false defamation in writing. In both, there is a public
supposition. and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice
or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
FLOR v PEOPLE omission, condition, status, or circumstance
(454 S 440) tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
March 31, 2005 contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
G.R. No. 139987 blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Where the issue of cash advances against the BALITE v PEOPLE


coffers of the provincial government was a (18 SCRA 280)
major political topic in that locality at that time, it September 30,
was clearly a legitimate topic to be discussed 1966 G.R. No. L-
not only by the members of the media but by 21475
public as what was involved was the
dispensation of taxpayers money. The Defamatory words constitute either grave or
inference that the accused media men drew light slander depending not only upon their
from the note given by their source that the sense and grammatical meaning, judging them
governor prodded some of the provincial separately, but also upon the special
government officials to take out cash advances circumstances of the case, antecedents or
may have been false but the same does not relationship between the offended party and the
warrant a conviction for libel nor support a claim offender, which might tend to prove the intention
for damages. of the offender at the time. In the case at bar,
the statements of the accused, alluding to the
AGUSTIN v PAMINTUAN offended party that he has sold the union, he
(467 SCRA 601) has swindled the money of the members, he
August 22, 2005 received P6,000.00; he is engaged in
G.R. No. 164938 racketeering and enriching himself with
capitalist; he has spent funds of the union for
his own personal use are serious and insulting,
Under the old rule, the offended party could
and no amount of sophistry will take them out of
harass the accused in a libel case by laying the
the compass of grave oral defamation.
venue of the criminal action in a remote or
distant places. To obviate controversies as to
the venue of the criminal action from written REYES v PEOPLE
defamation, the complaint or Information should (27 SCRA 686)
contain allegations as to whether the offended March 28, 1969
party was a public officer or a private individual G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529
at the time the offense was committed, and
where he was actually residing at that time. The words, "Agustin, putang ina mo" is a
Whenever possible, the place where the written common enough expression in the dialect that
defamation was printed and first published is often employed, not really to slander but
should likewise be alleged. rather to express anger or displeasure. In the
instant case, it should be viewed as part of the
FERMIN v PEOPLE threats voiced by appellant against Agustin
March 28, 2008

36
Hallare, evidently to make the same more
emphatic. QUIZON v JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
(97 PHIL. 342)
VICTORIO V CA
(173 SCRA 645) Damage to property through reckless
May 3, 1989 negligence is not a variant of malicious
G.R. Nos. L-32836-37 mischief. Malicious mischief, as used in sec.
87, par. 6, of the Judiciary Act, has exclusive
Appellant-petitioner admitted having called Atty. reference to the willful and deliberate crimes
Vivencio described in Arts. 327 to 331 of the Revised
Ruiz, kayabang, tunaw na utak, swapang, Penal Code and to no other.
and "estapador", which attributes to the latter
the crime of estafa, a serious and insulting PEOPLE v FALLER
imputation. Defamatory words uttered (67 Phil. 529)
specifically against a lawyer when touching on
his profession are libellous per se. Under an information for malicious damage to
anothers property, the accused may be
convicted of the crime of damage through
reckless imprudence.

INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR GAN v COURT OF APPEALS


(165 SCRA 378)
BETGUEN v MASANGCAY
(238 SCRA 475) Article 364 of Under the emergency rule, one who suddenly
the Revised Penal Code defines "intriguing finds himself in a place of danger, and is
against honor" as any intrigue which has for its required to act without time to consider the best
principal purpose to blemish the honor and means that may be adopted to avoid the
reputation of a person. This felony undoubtedly impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if
falls under the coverage of crimes involving he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon
moral turpitude, the latter term having been reflection may appear to have been a better
defined as "an act of baseness, vileness, method, unless the emergency in which he
depravity in the private and social duties which finds himself is brought about by his own
a man owes his fellow man, or to society in negligence. Applying the above test to the case
general, contrary to the accepted and at bar, we find the petitioner not guilty of the
customary rule of right and duty between man crime of Simple Imprudence resulting in
and man, or conduct contrary to justice, Homicide because there was no evidence
honesty, modesty and good morals." presented that would tend to prove that
petitioner did have sufficient time to reflect on
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (ARTICLE 365) the consequences of her instant decision to
swerve her car to the light without stepping on
CARILLO v PEOPLE her brakes.
(229 S 386)
PEOPLE v BUAN
Petitioner anesthesiologist when summoned (22 SCRA 1383)
could not be readily found and when he finally
appeared at 10:30 in the evening, he was The exoneration of Jose Buan, by the Justice of
evidently in a bad temper, commenting critically the Peace (now Municipal Court) of Guiguinto,
on the dextrose bottles before ordering their Bulacan, of the charge of slight physical injuries
removal, a circumstance indicative that he was through reckless imprudence, prevents his
not disposed to attend to this unexpected call, being prosecuted for serious physical injuries
in violation of the canons of his profession that through reckless imprudence in the Court of
as a physician, he should serve the interest of First Instance of the province, where both
his patient "with the greatest of solicitude, giving charges are derived from the consequences of
them always his best talent and skill." In the one and the same vehicular accident, because
crime of simple negligence, the gravamen of the the second accusation places the appellant in
offense is the failure to exercise the diligence second jeopardy for the same offense.
necessitated or called for the situation which
was not immediately life-destructive but which
culminated, in the present case, in the death of
a human being three (3) days later.

37