Professional Documents
Culture Documents
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES vs. ROBERTO QUIACHON
G.R. No. 170236 August 31, 2006
Justice Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of qualified
rape. On or about May 12, 2001, the accused, by means of force and
intimidation had sexual intercourse with one Rowena Quiachon, his
daughter, 8 years old, a deaf-mute minor. Rowel recounted that on the
night of May 12, 2001, Rowel saw his father on top of his sister Rowena
and they were covered by a blanket or "kumot." His father's buttocks were
moving up and down, and Rowel could hear Rowena crying. He could not
do anything because he was afraid of their father. Rowel remained in the
room but the following morning, he told his aunt, Carmelita Mateo about
what he had witnessed. Together, Carmelita and Rowel went to the police
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
VISMARCK UY over-all chair, APRIL CABEZA chair academics operations, ALDEAN
LIM chair hotel operations,
AYN SARSABA vice chair for operations, ANTHONY PURGANAN vice chair for
academics,
RONALD JOHN DECANO vice chair for secretariat, KARLA FUNTILA vice chair for
finance,
JEFFREY GALLARDO vice chair for edp, ULYSSES GONZALES vice chair for
logistics
CRIMINAL LAW
CARLA DIANA P. ALCALA subject chair
LAUREN ROSE TANYAG assistant chair
LAVIA RAE JACOBA edp
LEANNE MAUREEN APOLINAR and CONEY ROSE DE VERA criminal law 1, ART
RYAN SEACHON criminal law 2, NORMAN PAUL TURINGAN special penal laws
MEMBERS: Michael Samuel Tulay, Maria Del Carmen Beatriz Loinaz, Ari Vergil
Fabros, Genesis L. Sampaga, Pia Callueng, Christian Joy Ocampo, Anne Marie
Calonge, Ezekiel Joshua Villena, Reyjie Torres, Mary Christine Dabu, Heide Rosales,
Sheena Abella, Kat Contacto, Mark Steven Pastor, Deepee Salazar, Nabil Mutya,
Benny Claravall, Anthony Menzon, Joe Alban, Marlyn Bacani, JB Arquero, Roehl
Joson
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
to report what had transpired.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant can benefit from R.A. 9346 which abolished
the death penalty law.
HELD:
Yes. In view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 on
June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty
to be meted on appellant is reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section
2 thereof which reads:
2
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Frustrated v. Attempted Stage
FACTS:
Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted within the ShoeMart
(SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard
who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the
supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card
with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)," hauling a push cart
with cases of detergent of the well-known "Tide" brand. Petitioner
unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was
waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5)
minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again
unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of consummated theft?
HELD:
Yes. An easy distinction lies between consummated and
frustrated felonies on one hand, and attempted felonies on the other. So
long as the offender fails to complete all the acts of execution despite
commencing the commission of a felony, the crime is undoubtedly in the
attempted stage. Since the specific acts of execution that define each
crime under the Revised Penal Code are generally enumerated in the code
itself, the task of ascertaining whether a crime is attempted only would
need to compare the acts actually performed by the accused as against
3
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
the acts that constitute the felony under the
Revised Penal Code.
4
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
G.R. No. 157057 June 26, 2007
Justice Austria-Martinez
FACTS:
On August 15, 1990, Crisaldo Alberto (Crisaldo) and his cousin, Allan
Perez (Allan), were walking to their respective homes after spending time
at the house of Crisaldo's father. Since the pavement going to Crisaldo's
house followed a narrow pathway along the local shrubs called banganga,
Allan walked ahead of Crisaldo. Suddenly, Crisaldo felt the piercing thrust
of a bladed weapon on his back, which caused him to cry out in pain. He
made a quick turnaround and saw his attacker, petitioner, also known as
"Iyo (Uncle) Kingkoy." Petitioner stabbed Crisaldo again but only hit the
latter's left arm. When Allan heard Crisaldo's outcry, he rushed to
Crisaldo's side which caused petitioner to run away. Allan then brought
Crisaldo to his father's house where Crisaldo's wounds were wrapped in a
blanket. Crisaldo was then brought to the Peaplata Hospital where he
was given first aid and then transferred to the Davao Medical Center
where he stayed for three weeks to recuperate from his wounds.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused was guilty of frustrated murder.
HELD:
No. It must be stressed that it is not the gravity of the wounds
alone which determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated, but
whether the assailant had passed the subjective phase in the commission
of the offense.
5
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
In the present case, the intent to kill is very evident and was
established beyond reasonable doubt through the unwavering testimony
of Crisaldo on the manner of execution of the attack as well as the
number of wounds he sustained. Crisaldo was stabbed from behind by
petitioner. When Crisaldo turned around, petitioner continued his assault,
hitting Crisaldo on the left arm as the latter tried to defend himself. The
treacherous manner in which petitioner perpetrated the crime is shown
not only by the sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting
victim but also by the deliberate manner in which the assault was
perpetrated. Nonetheless, petitioner failed to perform all the acts of
execution, because Allan came to the aid of Crisaldo and petitioner was
forced to scamper away. He did not voluntarily desist from stabbing
Crisaldo, but he had to stop stabbing when Allan rushed to help Crisaldo
and recognized petitioner. Thus, the subjective phase of the crime had not
been completed.
CONSPIRACY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HENRY TOGAHAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 174064 June 8, 2007
Justice Tinga
FACTS:
Appellants Henry Togahan (Togahan) and Emeldo Lauro (Lauro)
together with 2 other accused still at large were charged under separate
informations for two counts of murder committed by shooting one Ananias
Villar, Sr. (Villar) and David Gene Richardson (Richardson).
In the course of the trial, the prosecution stated that at around 6:30
p.m., Magdalena Villar (Mrs. Villar), her daughter Vilma Villar-Richardson
(Mrs. Richardson), son-in-law Richardson, grandchildren Kenneth, Kevin,
Junelyn, Jovelyn and Michelle, and brother Pedro Castillo were all watching
television in the living room of their residence in Surigao del Sur. Without
warning, two armed men (Togahan and Lauro) wearing bonnets suddenly
arrived. At that time, the victim Villar, husband of Mrs. Villar, was in his
room. When Villar heard the commotion, he went to the door and tried to
prevent the armed men from entering, but he was shot twice, pulled
towards the balcony and clubbed to death.
6
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Togahan, pointed a gun at Mrs. Richardson and pulled the trigger
thrice. The gun did not fire however. Lauro, then, approached Richardson
and likewise pointed a gun at him. Mrs. Richardson told her husband to
run away but the latter, in an attempt to protect his wife, struggled and
tried to wrestle the gun away from Togahan instead. In the course thereof,
Lauro shot Richardson then ran out of the house with Richardson's 3-year
old son. Villar and Richardson were brought to Plaza Memorial Hospital in
Patin-ay, Surigao del Sur but were dead upon arrival.
ISSUE:
Was there conspiracy?
HELD:
Yes. The existence of conspiracy among the assailants is patent. In
the instant case, by the concurrent acts of rushing into the residence of
the victims, holding them at gunpoint and shooting and attacking the
victims, Lauro, Togahan and their co-accused are deemed to have agreed
to commit the crime of murder. Each of their contributory acts without
semblance of desistance reflected their resolution to commit the crime.
From a legal standpoint, there is conspiracy if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the appellants had the same purpose and
were united in its execution. Direct proof of previous agreement to
commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be deduced from the
mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from
the acts of the appellants themselves when such acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action, and community of intent. Where
conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.
ENTRAPMENT v. INSTIGATION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON QUIAOIT, JR.
G.R. No. 175222 July 27, 2007
Justice Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
At around 11:00 o'clock in the evening of 12 April 2004, the Tarlac
PNP received a report from a confidential informant that someone was
selling shabu at the Golden Miles, a videoke bar located in Barangay San
Roque, Tarlac City. Acting on said information, a team was immediately
organized by PNP Provincial Director Rudy Gamido Lacadin to conduct a
surveillance in order to verify the information and perform a buy-bust
operation.
7
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
The appellant contends that the arrest was illegal since he was
framed up by the police and the court should consider the arrest as a
result of instigation and not entrapment contrary to the arresting officers
claim.
ISSUE:
Was the arrest of the accused a result of instigation or inducement?
HELD:
No. The demarcation line distinguishing "instigation" from
"entrapment" is clearly drawn. In the case of People v. Quintana, the Court
explained the distinction between the two:
In instigation, the instigator practically induces the accused into the
commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal;
in entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the law breaker in the execution of his criminal
plan.
8
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
a co-criminal. Under the last instance, the crime has already been
committed and all that is done is to entrap and capture the law breaker. In
the case at bar, the Court finds appellant's claim of instigation to be
baseless.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Self-Defense
FACTS:
On 16 March 1996, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, Arnel
Tanael was on his way to the house of Romulo Cario. He passed in front
of the house of [petitioner] Manuel Oriente and saw the latter and his
companions having a drinking spree at the terrace of the petitioner's
house. He arrived at Romulo's house where the latter was drinking beer
alone. Thereafter, Romulo went out of the house to buy cigarettes. While
watching television in the house of Romulo, Arnel Tanael heard two
gunshots. Hence, he rushed outside the house to check on what the
gunshots were all about.
The accused pleaded self-defense, arguing that the victim was the
one who shot the gun and that he was only defending himself and his
family when he hit the victim. The RTC rendered a Decision convicting the
petitioner of the crime of Homicide. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this appeal.
9
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
ISSUE:
Whether accused may claim self-defense.
HELD:
No. The petitioner emphasizes that the victim, allegedly a
troublemaker in the vicinity, was drunk, fired his gun twice, and then
proceeded towards the petitioner and his companions. The Court is not
convinced.
10
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
ISSUE:
Can the petitioner claim the justifying circumstance of lawful
performance of a duty?
HELD:
No. The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under
paragraph 5, Article 11, of the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only
after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the accused acted in the
11
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is
the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of
such duty. Having admitted the fatal shooting of Contreras, petitioner is
charged with the burden of adducing convincing evidence to show that
the killing was done in the fulfillment of his duty as a policeman.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with parricide for allegedly shooting his wife
with a dart from a rubber sling, hitting her at the neck and causing her
instantaneous death. In his defense, the accused said that he had no
intention of killing his wife and that he was practicing the use of the
weapon when his wife was accidentally hit by the arrow. However, the
trial court nonetheless found him guilty on the ground that the evidence
showed that the infliction of the fatal injury upon his wife was preceded by
a quarrel between her and the appellant, thus negating the latters
defense. The same was affirmed on appeal. In the present petition, the
appellant contends that assuming that he was the one who killed his wife
the same was accidental and not intentional.
ISSUE:
Is the exempting circumstance of accident applicable in the instant
case?
HELD:
No. Article 12, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, provides:
12
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
"Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened
to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. The defense miserably
failed to discharge its burden of proof. The essential requisites for this
exempting circumstance, are:
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Voluntary Surrender
FACTS:
On 25 October 1999, at about 10:00 in the evening, Ever Sales left
his workplace and proceeded home using his bicycle. While traversing the
Velasquez Road, he saw Beltran (appellant) holding a bolo and standing in
front of his house situated at the side of Velasquez Road. On the opposite
side of the same road, he saw Norman H. Concepcion (Norman) standing
in front of an automobile repair shop. Exhausted by the travel, Ever
decided to stop by and rest momentarily at a nipa hut near the same
road. Minutes later, he saw appellant, from a distance of six meters,
stalking Norman who was then walking near the automobile shop.
Appellant approached Norman, and, without a warning, hacked him with a
bolo. Norman tried to avoid the blow by moving backwards and shielding
his face with his left arm. However, Norman's left hand was hit and
wounded by the bolo. When Norman turned around and ran, appellant
hacked him at the back causing him to fall down on a grassy area.
Appellant repeatedly hacked Norman with a bolo and nearly decapitated
the victim which caused the latters instant death.
ISSUE:
1. Can the accused avail of self-defense in committing the crime?
13
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
2. If self-defense is not availing, can voluntary surrender be
appreciated as mitigating circumstance?
HELD:
1. No. As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to an
assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate
manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. It is an act
positively strong showing the intent of the aggressor and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude. It is also described as a sudden and
unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind to the life, safety or
rights of the person attacked.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Relationship and Minority
FACTS:
Appellant, Orlando Ubina, was charged with rape of his 15-year old
14
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
niece. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After trial, the RTC
found him guilty of rape. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the
RTC. However, the appellate court disregarded the aggravating
circumstance of craft and the special qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship of the parties in the imposition of penalty because it
noted that they were not alleged in the information. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Did the court err in disregarding the qualifying circumstance of
relationship and minority?
HELD:
The twin circumstances of minority and relationship under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, are in the
nature of qualifying circumstances because they alter the nature of the
crime of rape and increase the penalty. As special qualifying
circumstances they must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty
in the information; . . . If the offender is merely a relation not a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of
the victim the specific relationship must be alleged in the information,
i.e., that he is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be]
within the third civil degree. The information in the instant case only
mentioned appellant as AAA's uncle, without specifically stating that he is
a relative within the third civil degree, either by affinity or consanguinity.
Even granting that during trial it was proved that the relationship was
within the third civil degree either of consanguinity or affinity, still such
proof cannot be appreciated because appellant would thereby be denied
of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Appellant cannot be charged with committing the crime of
rape in its simple form and then be tried and convicted of rape in its
qualified form. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded the
qualifying circumstance of relationship.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Evident Premeditation and Abuse of Superior Strength
15
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Justice Ynares-Santiago
FACTS:
Accused was employed as a family driver by Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho
since 1998. On February 12, 2001, at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening,
the accused drove Atty. Sua Kho to her condominium unit. After handing
his employer's bag to Marissa Hiso, the housemaid, accused proceeded to
the kitchen where he drank a glass of water. Shortly thereafter, Marrisa
heard her employer screaming, and she saw the accused stabbing her
with their kitchen knife. She tried to stop the accused, shouting "Kuya
Bert!", but the latter continued to stab Atty. Sua-Kho.
The accused fled using the victim's car. He was arrested soon
afterwards in Calapan, Mindoro, while on his way to his home province.
The trial court ruled against the accused. The Court of Appeals
disregarded appellant's claim of self defense for lack of evidence and for
being incredible considering the number and location of wounds sustained
by the victim and his flight from the crime scene.
ISSUE:
Whether accused is guilty of murder.
HELD:
Yes. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that evident
premeditation was adequately established which qualified the killing to
murder. Likewise, it appreciated abuse of superior strength as an
aggravating circumstance. Like any other circumstance that qualifies a
killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and
positive evidence; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The essence
16
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool
thought and reflections upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. To be
considered, the following elements must be proven: (1) the time when the
accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly
indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse
of time between the decision and the execution, to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequences of his act.
Treachery
FACTS:
After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni Kristo church in
his barangay, Michael proceeded home. While Michael was casually
walking along the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, appellant
and his two companions, who were drinking nearby, suddenly approached
and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself at the back of
Michael while his two companions stood in front of Michael. In an instant,
they grabbed the shoulders of Michael and overpowered the latter. One of
the appellant's companions, whom the prosecution witnesses described as
a male with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Michael on
17
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
the stomach. Unsatisfied, the appellant's other companion, whom the
prosecution witnesses described as a male with flat top hair, took the
knife and stabbed Michael on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in
front of Michael, took the knife and also stabbed Michael on the stomach.
When Michael fell on the ground, appellant kicked him at the body. Upon
noticing that the bloodied Michael was no longer moving, appellant and
his two companions fled the scene. The appellant was convicted by the
trial court with the crime of murder. On appeal, appellant contends that
even if he were held liable for the death of Michael, there was no
treachery which will qualify the killing as murder. According to him, there
is no evidence to show that appellant and his two companions had
deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack to ensure its
execution without risk to themselves. The stabbing incident occurred in a
place that was properly lighted. There were many people in the area then
walking in different directions. He claims that if he and his two
companions wanted to ensure that no risk would come to them, then they
could have chosen another time and place to attack Michael.
ISSUE:
Can treachery be properly appreciated in the instant case?
HELD:
Yes. Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under the
circumstances that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend
himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. It is an
aggravating circumstance that qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
Article 14, paragraph (16) of the Revised Penal Code states the concept
and essential elements of treachery as an aggravating circumstance.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
18
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Further, he was merely seventeen years of age then. In such a helpless
situation, it was absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to defend
himself against the assault of appellant and his two companions. Being
young and weak, Michael is certainly no match against adult persons like
appellant and his two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since
he had three assailants and was unarmed when he was stabbed to death.
Appellant and his two companions took advantage of their size, number,
and weapon in killing Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and
methods in exacting the cruel death of Michael by first surrounding him,
then grabbing his shoulders and overpowering him. Afterwards, each of
them repeatedly stabbed Michael with a knife at the stomach until the
latter fell lifeless to the ground. The stab wounds sustained by Michael
proved to be fatal as they severely damaged the latter's large intestine.
The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and
many people were walking then in different directions does not negate
treachery. It should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the
slightest provocation on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is
an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their
tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an
adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.
FACTS:
Two informations charged the accused with Murder and Frustrated
Murder committed by means of treachery, evident premeditation, taking
advantage of superior strength, using disguise, fraud and craft to enter
the dwelling and with insult to or in disregard of the respect due on
account of rank, age and sex. In the course of the trial, the prosecution
alleged that appellant Dela Cruz presented an I.D. with the name Allan B.
Reyes to Sgt. Esgana, the guard-on-duty at Gate 3 of the Cinco Hermanos
Subdivision. Upon reaching the house of Pelagio, Dela Cruz was let in by
Rebecca, Pelagio's daughter. Dela Cruz went straight to the kitchen.
19
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Dela Cruz chased and kept on stabbing him at the back of his left
shoulder. At this point, Juliana appeared and rushed to him begging, "Leo,
tama na, tama na, tama na." Dela Cruz dropped the knife and ran towards
the garage.
ISSUE:
In a case, can all aggravating circumstances alleged be
appreciated?
HELD:
No. When treachery is present, an allegation of abuse of superior
strength can no longer be appreciated as an independent aggravating
circumstance. The same holds true with the circumstance of disregard of
the respect on account of rank, age or sex, which in this case could not be
aggravating. In like manner, we do not find that disguise, fraud or craft
attended the commission of the crimes. Also, we find no intellectual
trickery nor cunning resorted to by appellant to lure his victims into a trap
and conceal his identity.
ACCOMPLICE
ERNESTO GARCES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 173858 July 17, 2007
Justice Ynares-Santiago
FACTS:
Rosendo Pacursa, Senando Garces, Antonio Pira, Jr., Aurelio Pira, and
petitioner Ernesto Garces, were charged with Forcible Abduction with
20
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Rape. On August 2, 1992, while AAA was on her way to the chapel, the
five accused suddenly appeared and approached her. Rosendo Pacursa
covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be
killed. He then brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four
companions stood guard outside. Inside the barn, Pacursa started kissing
AAA. Private complainant fought back but to no avail. Thereafter,
Pacursa succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After a while, they
heard people shouting and calling the name of AAA. At this point,
petitioner Ernesto Garces entered the barn, covered AAAs mouth, then
dragged her outside. He also threatened to kill her if she reports the
incident.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision finding
Pacursa guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape while petitioner Garces was
found guilty as an accessory to the crime. Antonio Pira, Jr. and Aurelio Pira
were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Both Pacursa and petitioner
appealed the decision with the Court of Appeals. However, Pacursa
subsequently withdrew his appeal. The Court of Appeals rendered its
Decision affirming with modification the decision of the trial court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but same was denied. Hence,
the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty as an accessory to the crime of
rape.
HELD:
No. The facts show that petitioner participated in the commission of
the crime even before complainant was raped. He was present when
Pacursa abducted complainant and when he brought her to the barn. He
positioned himself outside the barn together with the other accused as a
lookout. When he heard the shouts of people looking for complainant, he
entered the barn and took complainant away from Pacursa.
21
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose; and (2) performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the
crime.
ABSORPTION OF CRIMES
EUGENE GONZALES, ET AL. vs. NARCISO ABAYA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006.
Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez
FACTS:
In relation to the celebrated Oakwood mutiny where a total of 321
soldiers including petitioners herein declared their withdrawal of support
to the Commander-in-chief, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a
state of rebellion and ordered the arrest of the said soldiers. In order to
avoid a bloody confrontation, the government sent negotiators to dialogue
with the soldiers. After several hours of negotiation, the government panel
succeeded in convincing them to lay down their arms and defuse the
explosives placed around the premises of the Oakwood Apartments.
Eventually, they returned to their barracks.
On August 5, 2003, the DOJ filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Makati City an Information for coup d'etat against those soldiers,
Subsequently, this case was consolidated involving the other accused,
pending before Branch 148 of the RTC, Makati City.
On the same date, respondent Chief of Staff issued Letter Order No.
625 creating a Pre-Trial Investigation Panel tasked to determine the
propriety of filing with the military tribunal charges for violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 408, 4 (otherwise known as "The Articles of War"),
as amended, against the same military personnel.
22
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Of the original 321 accused in Criminal Case No. 03-2784, only 243
(including petitioners herein) filed with the RTC, Branch 148 an Omnibus
Motion praying that the said trial court assume jurisdiction over all the
charges filed with the military tribunal. They invoked Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 7055.
For its part, the RTC, on February 11, 2004, issued an Order stating
that "all charges before the court martial against the accused . . . are
hereby declared not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in
furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d'etat." The trial court then
proceeded to hear petitioners' applications for bail.
ISSUE:
1.Whether the court martial may assume jurisdiction over those
who have been criminally charged of coup dtat before the
regular courts.
2. Whether the doctrine of absorption of crimes is applicable.
HELD:
1. Yes. Article 96 of the Articles of War is service-connected. This is
expressly provided in Section 1 (second paragraph) of R.A. No. 7055 i. It
23
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners concerns the
alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the
Constitution and the duly-constituted authorities. Such violation allegedly
caused dishonor and disrespect to the military profession. In short, the
charge has a bearing on their professional conduct or behavior as military
officers. Equally indicative of the "service-connected" nature of the
offense is the penalty prescribed for the same dismissal from the
service imposable only by the military court. Such penalty is purely
disciplinary in character, evidently intended to cleanse the military
profession of misfits and to preserve the stringent standard of military
discipline.
2. No. The trial court aggravated its error when it justified its ruling by
holding that the charge of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
Gentleman is absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup
d'etat. Firstly, the doctrine of absorption of crimes' is peculiar to criminal
law and generally applies to crimes punished by the same statute, unlike
here where different statutes are involved. Secondly, the doctrine applies
only if the trial court has jurisdiction over both offenses. Here, Section 1 of
R.A. 7055 deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-connected
offenses, including Article 96 of the Articles of War. Thus, the doctrine of
absorption of crimes is not applicable to this case.
CONTINUOUS CRIME
JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August 18, 2006
Justice Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
In 1998, the Senate Committees on Accountability of Public Officers
24
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
and Investigation (Blue Ribbon) and on National Defense and Security
(collectively, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) carried out an extensive
joint inquiry into the "coup rumors and the alleged anomalies" in the
Armed Forces of the Philippines-Philippine Retirement Benefits Systems
(AFP-RSBS). In its Report, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee outlined,
among others, the anomalies in the acquisition of lots in Tanauan,
Batangas, Calamba, Laguna and Iloilo City by the AFP-RSBS, and
described the modus operandi of the perpetrators as follows:
The modus operandi in the buying of the lots was to cover the same
transactions with two deeds of sale. One deed of sale would be signed
only by the seller or sellers (unilateral deed). Another deed of sale would
be signed by the seller or sellers and the buyer, AFP-RSBS (bilateral deed).
These Unilateral Deeds of Sale recorded lower consideration paid by the
System to the buyer(s) than those stated in the Bilateral Deeds. The
motivation was obviously to evade payment of the correct taxes to the
government and save money for the seller(s), broker(s) and who knows,
probably even for the kickbacks going to certain officials of RSBS, the
buyer.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner may be charged and prosecuted for all five (5)
counts of estafa thru falsification of public documents.
HELD:
Yes. The question of the number of criminal charges that must be
instituted against a criminal respondent (whether one count or multiple
counts of the same offense) is one addressed to the sound discretion of
the prosecution service. It is enough, as this Court has already ruled, that
the informations filed in these cases are based on facts establishing
probable cause for the offenses charged. This Court will not compel the
Office of the Ombudsman to file only one information for Estafa through
Falsification of Public Documents when its preliminary investigation
established the commission of several counts thereof as such action on
the part of this Court would constitute undue interference with the Office
of the Ombudsman's control over the prosecution of these cases. In the
second place, this Court is not persuaded that what is involved in these
cases is a continuous crime, that is to say, a single crime consisting of a
25
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not
susceptible of division, with each act in that series being merely the
partial execution of a single delict. On the contrary, the Court is of the
view that what is involved herein are several completed and distinct
purported criminal acts which should be prosecuted as multiple counts of
the same type of offense. Thus, as correctly perceived by the prosecution,
there are as many alleged offenses as there are alleged anomalous
transactions involved in these cases.
PENALTIES
Graduated Scale; Effect of Amendment to the Death Penalty Law: RA
9346
FACTS:
Eight (8) Informations were filed within the period 21 August 2000
to 23 February 2001 by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Gumaca,
Quezon against Alfredo Bon (appellant), charging him with the rape of
AAA and BBB, the daughters of his older brother. All these cases were
consolidated for trial. The rapes were alleged to have been committed in
several instances over a span of six (6) years. Both AAA and BBB testified
against appellant, their uncle, and both identified him as the man who had
raped them.
ISSUE:
What is the properly penalty for the crimes convicted?
HELD:
The sentence of death imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the
Court of Appeals can no longer be affirmed in view of Rep. Act No. 9346,
26
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Section 2 of which mandates that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Correspondingly, the Court can no
longer uphold the death sentences imposed by lower courts, but must, if
the guilt of the accused is affirmed, impose instead the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when appropriate.
The penalty "lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law" for
attempted rape is the prescribed penalty for the consummated rape of a
victim duly proven to have been under eighteen years of age and to have
been raped by her uncle, is death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code. The determination of the penalty two degrees lower than the death
penalty entails the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal
Code. Following the scale prescribed in Article 71, the penalty two degrees
lower than death is reclusion temporal, which was the maximum penalty
imposed by the Court of Appeals on appellant for attempted rape.
27
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
accessories and accomplices. In the case of appellant, the determination
of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees
lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence,
the maximum term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as
ruled by the Court of Appeals, but instead, prision mayor.
FACTS:
The Information filed charged Frank Bansales with murder for the
death of Yvonne Declarador. During trial, the prosecution showed that at
around 9:45 am on July 25, 2002, inside a classroom in Cabug-Cabug
National High School in President Roxas, Capiz, accused Bansales
attacked, assaulted and stabbed with a knife victim Declarador.
Consequently, the accused inflicted 15 fatal stab wounds in the different
parts of the body which caused the immediate death of Declarador. The
trial court convicted Bansales of murder since the crime was committed
with the attendance of the qualifying aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength considering the
accused carried a long knife along with him from his house to the school
and used it against the victim who was unarmed and defenseless at that
time. However, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603 (P.D. No. 603), the
court suspended the sentence of the accused and ordered his
commitment to the Regional Rehabilitation for Youth at Concordia, Nueva
Valencia, Guimaras on the ground that he was only 17 years old at the
time of the commission of the crime.
well as the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, the benefit of a
suspended sentence does not apply to a juvenile who is convicted of an
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
28
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
ISSUE:
Is respondent Bansales entitled to the automatic suspension
granted by P.D. No. 603?
HELD:
No. The accused was found guilty of murder, a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. It is clear from the words of Section 32 of P.D.
No. 603 that a person who is convicted of an offense punishable by death,
life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is disqualified from availing the
benefits of a suspended sentence. The word "punishable" does not mean
"must be punished," but "liable to be punished" as specified. The term
refers to the possible, not to the actual sentence. It is concerned with the
penalty which may be, and not which is imposed. The disqualification is
based on the nature of the crime charged and the imposable penalty
therefor, and not on the penalty imposed by the court after trial. It is not
the actual penalty imposed but the possible one which determines the
disqualification of a juvenile. Despite the disqualification of Bansales,
respondent Judge Salvador Gubaton, nevertheless, ordered the
suspension of the sentence meted against him. By this act, respondent
Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. Thus, the Court granted the petition.
Civil Interdiction
FACTS:
Herein petitioner and herein private respondent are spouses who
once had a blissful married life and out of which were blessed to have a
son. However, their once sugar coated romance turned bitter when
petitioner discovered that private respondent was having illicit sexual
affair with her paramour, which thus, prompted the petitioner to file a
case of adultery against private respondent and the latter's paramour.
Consequently, both accused were convicted of the crime charged.
29
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
ISSUE:
Is the conviction of the respondent of the crime of adultery a
disqualification for her to share in the conjugal property?
HELD:
No. The conviction of adultery does not carry the accessory of civil
interdiction. Article 34 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the
consequences of civil interdiction:
Under Article 333 of the same Code, the penalty for adultery is
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Article 333
should be read with Article 43 of the same Code. The latter provides:
It is clear, therefore, and as correctly held by the CA, that the crime
of adultery does not carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction which
deprives the person of the rights to manage her property and to dispose
of such property inter vivos.
FACTS:
Petitioner Monina Pucay (Pucay) was charged with the crime of
estafa attended by the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of
confidence/unfaithfulness. Private respondent Asian Retailers, Inc. (ARI) is
a domestic corporation engaged in the business of lending money and gift
checks to government employees. Petitioner Monina Pucay (Pucay) was a
30
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Cashier II at the Treasury Section of the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
In September 1988, ARI started its lending operation at the LTO Main
Office at East Avenue, Quezon City. The operation started with the lending
of gift checks to LTO employees. A year later, the operation expanded to
include lending of money at an interest. The arrangement was for ARI's
President Benjamin Gochangco (Gochangco) to provide blank sets of
promissory notes for the employees to fill up by indicating the amount of
loan they wanted to obtain whether in the form of cash or gift checks with
their signatures affixed. This form served as promissory note where the
amount and the maturity date of the loan were shown. The amount of
loan that had become due and demandable was to be automatically
deducted from the pay envelopes of the debtor-employees every payday
and remitted to ARI. The Head of the Treasury Section and two other
employees, including the petitioner, were responsible for carrying out the
aforesaid tasks.
The trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of estafa through misappropriation as punished under Article 315,
par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner moved for new trial before
the Court of Appeals on the ground of newly discovered evidence. She
claimed that the alleged evidence is of such weight and materiality that if
introduced and admitted, would probably change the judgment. The
appellate court granted a new trial, thereby setting aside the trial courts
judgment. Accordingly, a new trial was conducted by the lower court
where the newly discovered evidence was introduced and admitted in the
proceedings of the case. Similarly, the trial court found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa but modified the penalty.
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision.
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.
31
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
ISSUE:
What is the correct penalty to be imposed?
HELD:
The indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of
prision correccional to 20 years of reclusion temporal, in addition
to the payment of actual damages in the amount of P205,000.00.
In this case, the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its minimum period is the imposable penalty if the
amount of the fraud is over P12,000 but not over P22,000. If the amount
of the fraud exceeds P22,000, the penalty provided shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000. The total
penalty, however, shall not exceed twenty years.
PROBATION LAW
URBANO M. MORENO vs. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 168550. August 10, 2006
Justice Tinga
FACTS:
32
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a petition to disqualify Moreno from
running for Punong Barangay on the ground that the latter was convicted
by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention. The Comelec en
banc granted her petition and disqualified Moreno. Moreno filed an answer
averring that the petition states no cause of action because he was
already granted probation. Allegedly, following the case of Baclayon v.
Mutia, the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment, as well as the
accessory penalties, was thereby suspended. Moreno also argued that
under Sec. 16 of the Probation Law of 1976 (Probation Law), the final
discharge of the probation shall operate to restore to him all civil rights
lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed.
ISSUE:
Does Morenos probation grant him the right to run in public office?
HELD:
Yes. Sec. 16 of the Probation Law provides that "[t]he final
discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights
lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was
granted." Thus, when Moreno was finally discharged upon the court's
finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation, his
case was deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or suspended as a
result of his conviction were restored to him, including the right to run for
public office.
33
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
the Local Government Code covers offenses punishable by one (1) year or
more of imprisonment, a penalty which also covers probationable
offenses. In spite of this, the provision does not specifically disqualify
probationers from running for a local elective office.
FACTS:
Accused Clarita S. Nicdao is charged with having committed the
crime of Violation of BP 22 in fourteen (14) counts. The criminal
complaints allege that respondent and her husband approached petitioner
and asked her if they could borrow money to settle some obligations.
Having been convinced by them and because of the close relationship of
respondent to petitioner, the latter lent the former her money. Thus, every
month, she was persuaded to release P100,000.00 to the accused until
the total amount reached P1,150,000.00.
A verbal and written demand was made upon respondent to pay the
amount represented by the bounced checks, but to no avail. Hence, a
complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed against the respondent. The trial
court convicted the defendant. The CA reversed the decision, thus
acquitting Nicdao. Petitioner now contends that the civil liability of the
defendant was not extinguished by the acquittal.
ISSUE:
34
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Whether respondent remains civilly liable to petitioner despite her
acquittal.
HELD:
No. From the standpoint of its effects, a crime has a dual character:
(1) as an offense against the State because of the disturbance of the
social order and (2) as an offense against the private person injured by
the crime unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage,
contempt and others (wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the
offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or
there is no private person injured by the crime.
Acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases: (1) where
the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required in civil cases; (2) where the court declared the
accused's liability is not criminal but only civil in nature and (3) where the
civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of
which the accused was acquitted.
35
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
REBELLION
VICENTE P. LADLAD vs. EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO
G.R. Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76 & 175013 June 1, 2007
Justice Carpio
FACTS:
These are consolidated petitions for the writs of prohibition and
certiorari to enjoin petitioners' prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside
the rulings of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City (RTC Makati) on the investigation and prosecution of
petitioners' cases.
ISSUE:
Is there probable cause to charge Beltran with rebellion?
HELD:
No. Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed
[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for
the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government
or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any
part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces or
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially,
of any of their powers or prerogatives.
36
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
(2) any body of land, naval, or other armed
forces; or
(b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly
or
partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives.
The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to
indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against the
government. What these documents prove, at best, is that Beltran was in
Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February 2006 and that 14 years
earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP Plenum. None of the affidavits
stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or
heading a rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006.
None of the affidavits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion.
Beltran's alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not
automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.
37
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Article 134. Even the prosecution acknowledged this, since the felony
charged in the Information against Beltran in the criminal case is
Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion and not Rebellion. The Information merely
alleged that Beltran, San Juan, and others conspired to form a "tactical
alliance" to commit Rebellion. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it
nevertheless found probable cause to try Beltran for Rebellion based on
the evidence before it.
FALSIFICATION
LEONILA BATULANON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 139857 September 15, 2006
Justice Ynares-Santiago
FACTS:
Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Leonila
Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to December 22,
1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to
the member of the cooperative.
ISSUE:
38
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Whether the crime committed by Batulanon was Falsification of
Private Documents.
HELD:
Yes. Although the offense charged in the Information is Estafa
through Falsification of Commercial Documents, Batulanon could be
convicted of Falsification of Private Documents under the well-settled rule
that it is the allegation in the information that determines the nature of
the offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the
information.
FACTS:
The Sandiganbayan found Nestor Bernardino, a former Mayor of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and other Prequalification Bid and Awards
Committee (PBAC), guilty of falsification of public document. On
December 8, 1997, the PBAC members convened as alleged. PBAC,
assisted by COA representative Rolando Ronquillo, assessed the
qualifications of four bidders who participated and thereafter awarded the
39
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
construction project to MASCOM. Prior to construction, Jose Dizon was
elected Mayor of Guimba and conducted a public bidding for the same
construction project and awarded it to KYRO. Consequently, MASCOM
filed before the Ombudsman a criminal compliant against Mayor Dizon for
violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Mayor Dizons contention was manifested in an
affidavit stating that no public bidding was held in connection with the
construction project nor was the PBAC convened on December 8, 1997.
On the basis of the admission of the affiants, the Ombudsman dismissed
the case against Mayor Dizon and instead filed the case for falsification of
public documents under Article 171(2) of the RPC against all PBAC
members. The Information charged Bernardino and the PBAC members of
falsification by making it appear in the "Minutes of the opening of bids,"
"Prequalification Bid and Award Committee," "Abstract of Proposal," and
"Abstract of Bidding," that they and COA representative conducted a
public bidding on December 8, 1997, when no such bidding was in fact
conducted.
At the trial, Ronquillo declared that he did not attend any public
bidding regarding the construction project on December 8, 1997. He
admitted, however, that he has no personal knowledge whether a bidding
was conducted or not. The same was made by Mayor Dizon who admitted
that he does not know whether the PBAC conducted a public bidding. The
prosecution also offered in evidence the affidavits of some PBAC members
in support of its theory that no public bidding was held.
ISSUE:
Whether the guilt of Bernardino was proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
HELD:
No. In the instant case, Bernardino was charged with falsification
under Article 171(2) of the RPC, by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact participate.
Its elements are: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee or
notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that
he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that a person or persons
have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate.
40
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
members and the testimonies of Ronquillo and Mayor Dizon could not be
considered for purposes of determining whether a public bidding was
indeed held on that day because of their admission that they do not have
personal knowledge whether or not said bidding was indeed conducted.
The affidavit and testimonies were merely an expression of an opinion and
not a fact since the affiants were not in the place where the alleged
bidding was held and are not in the position to declare with moral
certainty that no such bidding in fact occurred.
FACTS:
The present petition involves alleged irregularities in the
construction of a two-kilometer road connecting Barangays Kinayan and
Kauswagan in Tandag, Surigao del Sur ("Kinayan-Kauswagan Road
Project"). Contrary to what was stated in the Monthly Status Report dated
25 January 1989 and the Physical Status Report dated 31 January 1989
(collectively, "Reports"), the Kinayan-Kauswagan Road Project was not
100% complete as of 25 January 1989.
Thereafter, in a letter dated January 31, 1989, Engr. Lala, for and in
the absence of the District Engineer, submitted the Physical Status
Reports of Project Costing P2.0 M and below under C.Y. 1988 Infra
Program to the same Regional Office of the DPWH wherein it appeared
that the Kauswagan-Kinayan Road, Barobo Surigao del Sur is 100%
complete.
41
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
opening started in November 1988, spreading of the delivered soil lime
base course was done in October 1989 only, which was contrary to the
DPWH report that said project was 100% completed as of January 25,
1989.
ISSUE:
Whether Giron, Crizaldo and Arreza are indeed guilty of falsification
of documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
No. There are three elements in the crime of falsification of
documents under Article 171(4). First, the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public. Second, the offender takes advantage of his
official position. Third, the offender falsifies a document by making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts. There is no doubt that all
three are public officials, as they were employees of the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH) at the time of the questioned act.
42
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
the accused herein to falsify the subject reports." The Sandiganbayan
ruled that "any criminal liability should be based on their individual
participation in the questioned act."
In sum, Giron, Crizaldo and Arreza are acquitted for failure of the
prosecution to satisfy the requisites for the conviction of the crime of
falsification of public documents. All are public officers, However, the
prosecution has failed to prove their criminal culpability beyond
reasonable doubt. There is no moral certainty that Giron, Crizaldo, and
Arreza took advantage of their positions to make a false statement in a
narration of facts in a public document.
FACTS:
The Commission on Audit (COA) ordered the examination of the
cash and accounts of the Municipal Treasurer and all other accountable
officers of, among others, Tandag, Surigao del Sur. The Special Audit
Team No. 1 went to petitioners office, as then Municipal Treasurer of
Tandag, to conduct an audit of his cash and accounts from June 3, 1980 to
March 16, 1981. The audit team made the examination from March 16 to
May 26, 1981. It appeared that certain infrastructure funds from the
Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPH) and interest earned on the
municipalitys time deposit with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) were
not entered by petitioner in his Books of Account. As a result, the audit
43
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
team amended petitioners cash accountability and declared these items
as missing funds. After several investigations, the audit team submitted to
the Regional Director the Reports of Examination of the Cash and
Accounts of petitioner and a Narrative Report. In both documents,
however, the petitioners accountability was further reduced. Based on
the audit teams findings, the Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor filed with
the Sandiganbayan an Information charging petitioner Gabriel L. Duero
with Malversation of Public Funds, defined and penalized under Article 217
of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt but considering the mitigating circumstances of
full restitution and voluntary surrender, reduced the penalty. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is guilty of malversation of public funds.
HELD:
Yes. The elements of the offense of malversation of public funds are
as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has the custody or
control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3)
the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is
accountable; and (4) he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or
has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the
taking by another person of, such funds or property.
MURDER
RODOLFO CONCEPCION vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 167135 November 27, 2006
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
On November 14, 1995, Ramil Lopez, along with Francisco Flores,
44
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Eduardo Flores and Nestor Bauson, was drinking and discussing a
business project at the sulambi of Ramil's house. Suddenly, the group's
attention was drawn to the sound of footsteps coming from the kitchen.
Ramil focused his flashlight towards the direction of the approaching
footsteps and saw petitioner Rodolfo Concepcion aiming a gun at him and
thereupon firing it, hitting Ramil on his left arm. Eduardo was also hit on
the right arm. Francisco Flores went out of the house and focused his
own flashlight to the source of the gunshot and he saw the petitioner
carrying a firearm and running away. Ramil was treated and diagnosed to
have sustained a fracture which had a healing period of more than thirty
(30) days.
The trial court found the petitioner guilty of only the lesser crime of
Attempted Murder because the prosecution failed to present sufficient and
convincing evidence to show that Ramil's wound was fatal. On appeal the
accused averred that he was only guilty of serious physical injuries and
not that of attempted murder. The appellate court affirmed that of the trial
court. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether accused is liable only for the crime of serious physical
injuries.
HELD:
No. Petitioner would argue that even assuming he shot Ramil, at
most he could only be held liable for the crime of serious physical injuries
because the wound sustained by Ramil on his left arm was not mortal, as
in fact it was medically determined to require a healing period of more
than 30 days.
45
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
upper body. Nonetheless, even as the prosecution had duly established
the presence of intent to kill, there was no showing, however, that the
wound sustained by Ramil was fatal and would have caused his death
without immediate medical attention. The resulting crime, therefore, is
only attempted murder, the accused not having performed all the acts of
execution that would have brought about the victim's death.
HOMICIDE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARD MAPALO
G.R. No. 172608 February 6, 2007
Justice Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
Appellant, together with Peter Doe, John Doe and Peter Doe, Jr., was
charged before the RTC of Agoo, La Union with the crime of Murder. During
trial, the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Calixto Garcia, established
that in the early morning of 13 February 1994, at around 3:00 a.m., a fight
erupted between Manuel Piamonte and the group of Lando Mapalo, Jimmy
Frigillana, and the appellant. He saw the appellant club Piamonte with a
lead pipe from behind, hitting him on the right side of the head. At that
time when the appellant struck Piamonte with a lead pipe, he saw Jimmy
Frigillana and Lando Mapalo standing in front of Piamonte. Later, he saw
the dead body of Piamonte, which had suffered multiple stab wounds.
Garcia disclosed that he neither witnessed how Piamonte was stabbed,
nor did he see the act of stabbing Piamonte. He does not know who
stabbed the latter. Apellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi. The
lower court, thereafter, convicted appellant of the crime of murder and
ruled that conspiracy was established by the prosecution. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals modified the decision of the lower court, convicting
appellant of the crime of frustrated murder and saying that conspiracy
was not properly established.
ISSUE:
Whether appellant is guilty of frustrated murder.
HELD:
We cannot convict appellant of Attempted or Frustrated Murder or
Homicide. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated
homicide or murder is the assailant's intent to take the life of the person
attacked. Such intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as to
exclude reasonable doubt thereof. Intent to kill may be proved by
evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the
commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted
on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words
uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the
victim.
46
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
In the case at bar, no motive on the part of appellant to kill
Piamonte was shown either prior or subsequent to the incident. Nor can
such intent to kill be inferred from his acts. It bears reiterating that no
injury on the body of the deceased was attributed to the appellant's act of
hitting the victim with a lead pipe.
RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FILOMINO LIZANO
G.R. No. 174470 April 27, 2007
Justice Tinga
FACTS:
On 20 February 1997, appellant was charged with three (3) counts
of rape in three (3) separate Informations, which allege that accused
raped the victim, a minor, 11 years of age, against her will. The
prosecution presented the mother to testify on the age of her daughter.
The mother stated in court that she was born on 14 May 1985. Her birth
certificate attesting to the same data was likewise presented in court.
Appellant testified on his behalf, raising denial and alibi as defenses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.
HELD:
In the prosecution of rape cases, conviction or acquittal depends on
the credence to be accorded to the complainant's testimony because of
the fact that usually the participants are the only witnesses to the
occurrences. Thus, the issue boils down to credibility.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape, which is punishable
by reclusion perpetua is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
47
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
perpetua for rape of the victim, who was then under 12 years old, as
proven by the prosecution through the testimony of her mother and the
presentation of her birth certificate.
FACTS:
On June 30, 2002, then 12-year-old private complainant XYZ was
alone in their house in Quezon City when appellant Raymond Batiancila,
known to her as "Kuya Bonbon," came by to watch television. After an
hour, appellant summoned XYZ to go inside her mother's bedroom. Once
inside, he suddenly held XYZ's hands above her head, pushed her against
the wall, and began to undress her. XYZ tried to resist, but appellant
threatened to kill her and her mother. Appellant then proceeded to
remove his pants and briefs, inserted his penis into her vagina, and had
sexual intercourse with her while standing up.
After the sexual intercourse, XYZ went to the house of her relative,
AAA, and narrated what Batiancila did to her. Later, appellant was
arrested, he avers that there was no evidence of his alleged use of
irresistible force and serious intimidation as he had no weapon to threaten
XYZ with during the afternoon of the alleged rape, and that there was no
evidence showing the resistance of XYZ as there were no torn clothes to
prove any struggle between the two of them. These, according to
Batiancila, show that XYZ actually had consensual intercourse with him for
they were then sweethearts.
ISSUE:
Was force, violence, or intimidation employed in the commission of
the crime?
HELD:
Yes. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term,
depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also
on their relationship with each other. Records show that XYZ was only 12
years old when she was raped by Batiancila who was 21 years old.
Understandably, a girl of such young age could only cower in fear and
yield into submission to such an adult, more especially so as he is her
cousin who has moral ascendancy over her. Rape, after all, is nothing
more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a
woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it is not even impossible
for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed assailant.
48
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
fear for her life and personal safety. Besides, physical resistance is not the
sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the
lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may
offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any
resistance at all. Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape
victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the
prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having
sexual intercourse with the victim.
FACTS:
AAA testified that she was only 14 years of age when the first rape
incident happened on 21 November 1999. She narrated that on the said
date, she was in their house. At that time, her mother, BBB, was washing
clothes in a brook, which was quite far from their house. Her sister, CCC,
who was then six years old, went with their mother, while her other
siblings DDD and EEE, who were then three and two years old,
respectively, were playing outside their house. On that very moment,
when only AAA and her father, herein appellant, were left inside the
house, the latter started kissing her and went on removing her clothes.
She resisted but the appellant was much stronger, hence, despite her
resistance, appellant succeeded in undressing her, then eventually raping
her. After raping her, appellant even threatened to kill her if she will reveal
to anybody what had happened. Terribly frightened and hardly able to
comprehend the situation, she could only cry out in utter helplessness and
desperation. When her mother came back, she did not tell what happened
for fear that appellant might carry out his threat. AAA was then raped for
the second time one evening in December 1999.
Witnesses for the defense testified that the appellant was with them
working in a construction project a few kilometres away from their house,
when the alleged rape incidents occurred hence appellant could not have
raped his daughter. According to appellant, her daughter was motivated
in filing the present cases against him to get even with him because he
slapped her on 3 January 2000 in front of her "barkadas" and he even
threatened to kill her for fear that she might get pregnant because of her
going out at night and coming home late. AAAs mother on the other hand
49
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
tried to refute these by saying that during the months of November and
December 1999, her husband, herein appellant, was at their house.
The RTC convicted the appellant of two counts of rape. This was
affirmed by the CA. Hence this appeal. The appellant averred that the
courts erred in convicting him not on the basis of the strength of the
prosecution's evidence but rather on the weakness of the defense's
evidence. And also, he should not be convicted because of the failure of
the prosecution to state the precise date of commission of the alleged
rape, it being an essential element of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
Whether stating the precise date of commission is an essential
element of rape.
HELD:
No. The SC said that the precise time of the crime has no
substantial bearing on its commission. The exact date of the commission
is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the
offense is carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent. In this case,
the prosecution adequately proved the fact of sexual intercourse by
appellant against the will of AAA sometime in December 1999. The
veracity of the rape charge is not dependent on the time of the
commission of the offense but on the credibility of the offended party.
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with two counts of rape for allegedly
molesting his minor step- daughter. It was alleged that on those
occasions, he would force her to have sexual intercourse with him or
would forcibly insert his finger inside her vagina. After trial, the RTC found
the accused guilty of 2 counts of rape. The same was affirmed by the CA.
In this appeal, appellant assails the victims credibility claiming that her
failure to confide the alleged rape to her mother, father and grandmother
despite several opportunities to do so renders such accusations doubtful.
ISSUE:
1. Did the CA correctly uphold the accuseds conviction?
2. Can the qualifying circumstance of relationship be considered in
the imposition of the proper penalty?
HELD:
1. Yes. The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found
appellant guilty of two counts of rape. In the first rape incident, the
50
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
prosecution proved that appellant had carnal knowledge of M by inserting
his penis into her vagina through force and intimidation. Under Art. 266-B,
in relation to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, carnal knowledge of a
woman through force or intimidation shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua. The second incident whereby appellant inserted his fingers into
M's vagina likewise constituted rape through sexual assault. In People v.
Palma, it was held that the insertion of the appellant's finger into the
victim's vagina constituted the crime of rape through sexual assault under
Republic Act No. 8353 or "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997".
QUALIFIED RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LITO BEJIC
G.R. No. 174060 June 25, 2007
Justice Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
An information was filed against the accused wherein he was
charged with qualified rape for allegedly sexually molesting his 14 year
old daughter. The qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority and
relationship were stated in the information. Trial ensued with the RTC
finding him guilty of the said crime. The same was affirmed on appeal. In
this petition, appellant contends that the court erred in convicting him of
the crime charged.
ISSUE:
Is the appellant guilty of simple rape only?
HELD:
No. The appellant is guilty of qualified rape and not just simple
rape. Paragraph 1 (1), Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353, states that one circumstance which
qualifies or aggravates the crime of rape is when the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
51
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
STATUTORY RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREGORIO CARPIO
G.R. No. 170840 November 29, 2006
Justice Tinga
FACTS:
Two informations charged the appellant with two counts of statutory
rape committed against AAA, his grandniece. The sexual assault on AAA
began sometime in 1991, when the child was nine (9) years old. Around
after lunch on the day she was raped, the appellant summoned AAA from
her home to remove his earwax. He brought her to a nipa hut, about only
six (6) meters away from his house. After removing the earwax of
appellant, he brought her to the room of his house. The appellant locked
the door, lay the victim on the bed and undressed her. Thereafter, he
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA.
BBB, mother of AAA, testified that her kumadre told her that she
saw appellant kissing AAA. When she confronted her daughter, the latter
told her everything. The following day, BBB took AAA to the Doa
Gregoria Memorial Hospital. The medical examination conducted on AAA
revealed that AAA's genetalia bore reddish discoloration, with "old
hymenal lacerations at 9 and 3:00 o'clock positions." Dr. Elflida Bautista
(Dr. Bautista), who examined AAA, testified that she examined AAA when
52
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
the child was just eleven (11) years old and found old lacerations of the
hymen which could have been obtained two (2) months to two (2) years
prior to the examination. Dr. Bautista opined that the two lacerations she
found on the hymen of AAA are not normal to an 11-year old child whose
hymen should still be intact.
ISSUE:
Was statutory rape sufficiently proved?
HELD:
Yes. The medical certificate and testimony of Dr. Bautista
corroborate AAA's allegations of rape. Dr. Bautista found two old hymenal
lacerations at 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions in her examination of AAA.
The rupture of AAA's hymen, she explained, was caused by the insertion
of a hard object, possibly an erect human penis.
QUALIFIED THEFT
LORBE REBUCAN BALTAZAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 164545 November 20, 2006
Justice Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
Petitioner was employed as a saleslady of Thumbelina Books and
Office Supplies (TBOS) owned by private complainant Grazia Athena
Zaulda. She was later promoted therein as a cashier. While private
complainant was inspecting the operations of TBOS, she noticed that her
employees used the sheets of paper containing the lists and computations
of purchases as wrappers for the rolled cartolina paper and Manila paper
merchandises of TBOS. Out of curiosity, private complainant took one of
the lists dated 27 February 1994 and computed the figures/purchases
stated therein. To her shock and disbelief, she discovered that the
computation/addition in one of the columns under the name "Bhing" (the
nickname of petitioner) was understated. She removed the other lists
from the stocks of rolled cartolina paper and Manila paper and examined
the same. Again, she found that the computations in some of the columns
under the name "Bhing" were understated. When confronted, petitioner
trembled and told her in their native dialect, "Whatever the amount is, I
will pay. Private complainant asked petitioner to elaborate on the
understatements in the listings but the latter did not say a word. Hence,
she told petitioner to take a vacation. More understated listings were
53
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
found under the nickname of petitioner. When the petitioner arrived at
the TBOS, she showed to her the understated lists but the latter merely
looked at it and kept her silence. She told the petitioner that her
employment was already terminated. Thereafter, she filed a complaint for
72 counts of qualified theft against petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners guilt has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt
HELD:
Yes. During the trial, all of the witnesses for the prosecution
testified under oath that the understatement of the figures in the lists
were made by the petitioner since they are all very familiar with her
handwriting as they were co-employees for many years. Moreover, a
closer examination of the lists reveals that the handwritten understated
figures are uniform and consistent. Petitioner admitted that, as the former
cashier of TBOS, she wrote and computed the understated figures in the
lists. Although she claimed that there were insertions/alterations in the
lists, she failed to point out or identify such during the trial. Based on
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime of theft
may be deduced as follows: 1. That there be taking of personal property;
2. That said property belongs to another; 3. That the taking be done with
intent to gain; 4. That the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and 5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Relatively, Article
310 of the same Code states that the crime of theft becomes qualified
when it is, among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence. The
elements of theft as well as the circumstances that made the same as
qualified theft were sufficiently established by the prosecution.
FACTS:
At around 7:15 in the evening on January 13, 1996, Clarissa
Angeles, a third-year student of St. Paul University, was with her
boyfriend, William Ferrer. They were eating snacks inside a pick-up truck
parked in a vacant lot. Suddenly, a man, who turned out to be Rommel
Macarubbo, appeared in front of the truck, pointed a gun at them and
said: "This is a holdup. If you will start the engine of the car, I will shoot
you." Thereafter, another man, who turned out to be Willy Suyu, lifted the
54
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
lock on William's side and entered the pick-up. Willy Suyu then took
Ferrer's wallet which contained around P150.00. A third man, who turned
out to be Francis Cainglet, took Clarissa's jewelry valued at around P2,
500.00 and cash amounting to P10.00. Thereafter, Willy Suyu clubbed
William and dragged him out of the truck. Fortunately, William was able to
escape and immediately went to the police station to report the incident.
Meanwhile, Willy Suyu lifted the lock of the pick-up truck at Clarissa's side.
Macarubbo then opened the door. The two and Cainglet dragged the girl
to a hilly place, not far away. Macarubbo and Willy Suyu held her by the
arms, while Cainglet poked a fan knife at her. There, they ravished her.
ISSUE:
What was the crime committed?
HELD:
Robbery with rape defined and penalized under Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the RPC. While it is true that the victim initially did not
reveal to the authorities the fact that she was raped after the robbery, this
does not cast doubt on her testimony for it is not uncommon for a rape
victim right after her ordeal to remain mum about what really transpired.
Jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of
rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge, and the same is rendered
doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.
Appellants also assert that the medical report issued by Dr. Pintucan
does not conclusively suggest that Clarissa was raped, for during the
examination, her deportment was not of that of a rape victim and the
examination of her cervix did not even suggest forcible assault.The said
argument is, however, without merit. Hymenal lacerations which are
usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in
establishing the crime of rape as it is enough that a slight penetration or
entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes place. Partial penile
penetration is as serious as full penetration; the rape is deemed
consummated in either case. Dr. Pintucan further found contusion and
hematoma on the victim, which bolsters Clarissa's recount that she was
dragged, forced to lie down, and raped.
The conviction thus of appellants for robbery with rape defined and
penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is
correct. The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery with rape, the
intention of the felony is to rob and the felony is accompanied by rape.
The rape must be contemporaneous with the commission of the robbery.
There is only one single and indivisible felony of robbery with rape and
any crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are
merged and integrated into a single and indivisible felony of robbery with
rape.
55
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN CABBAB, JR.
G.R. No. 173479 July 12, 2007
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
Appellant was charged along with his cousin-in-law Segundino
Calpito, with the crimes of Double Murder and Attempted Murder with
Robbery committed with treachery, evident premeditation, with intent to
kill and intent to gain. The prosecution alleges that father and son Vidal
Agbulos and Winner Agbulos, together with Eddie Quindasan, Felipe Abad
and Police Officer (PO) William Belmes, attended a "fiesta" celebration,
but it was already over when they got there. On their way home, they
were met by accused-appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Calpito who invited
them to play "pepito," a local version of the game of "russian poker."
Winner Agbulos won the game. While walking on their way home, PO
William Belmes, who was behind Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan
picking-up guava fruits from a tree, saw accused-appellant, accused
Calpito and a companion running up a hill. Suddenly, he heard gunshots
and saw Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, who were then walking
ahead of the group, hit by the gunfire. By instant, PO William Belmes dove
into a canal to save himself from the continuous gunfire of accused-
appellant. PO William Belmes ran towards Vidal Agbulos and Felipe Abad,
who were walking behind the group, and informed the two that Winner
Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan were ambushed by accused-appellant and
Calpito. The three (3) proceeded to the crime scene where they saw the
dead body of Winner Agbulos together with Eddie Quindasan whom they
mistook for dead. The three sought help from the police authorities of
Pilar, Abra and returned to the scene of the crime where they found Eddie
Quindasan who was still alive and who narrated that it was Juan Cabbab,
Jr. and Calpito who ambushed them and took the money, estimated at
P12,000.00, of Winner Agbulos which he won in the card game. Eddie
Quindasan was brought to the Abra Provincial Hospital but died the
following day.
The Trial Court acquitted Calpito but found appellant Juan Cabbab,
Jr. guilty of two crimes, i.e. (1) robbery with double homicide and (2)
attempted murder. The CA modified the trial court's decision and found
appellant guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide
and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The CA also
affirmed appellant's conviction, as well as the penalty imposed, for the
separate crime of attempted murder.
ISSUE:
What crime did appellant commit?
HELD:
Robbery with Homicide. To warrant conviction for the crime of
Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution is burdened to prove the
56
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
confluence of the following elements: (a)the taking of personal property is
committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (b)the property
taken belongs to another; (c)the taking is characterized by intent to gain
or animo lucrandi; and (d)by reason of the robbery or on the occasion
thereof, homicide is committed.
KIDNAPPING
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL CENAHONON
G.R. No. 169962 July 12, 2007
Justice Nachura
FACTS:
On November 25, 1999, around 9:00 a.m., Jometh Magaway
(Magaway), the driver of spouses Fortunato and Daisy Medina, was driving
out of the Medina residence in BF Homes, Paraaque City, to bring the
couple's four-year-old son, Kenneth, to school. A man, later identified as
Erdaje, suddenly approached, poked a gun at Magaway, opened the
vehicle door, and told Magaway to move over from the driver's seat.
Magaway followed and sat with Kenneth at the front passenger seat.
Erdaje's companion, later identified as Cenahonon, occupied the back
seat. Erdaje handed the gun to Cenahonon, who poked it at Magaway
from behind. Erdaje then drove the car away.
57
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). He, in turn, called the
Paraaque City Police Department.
Around 1:00 p.m. that day, somebody called the Medina residence
and talked to Fortunato. A speaker phone was used so everyone in the
house heard the telephone conversation. The caller demanded
P5,000,000.00 for Kenneth's release. A PAOCTF member instructed
Fortunato to negotiate. The caller made several calls that same afternoon
to negotiate for the ransom. Fortunately the culprits were later
apprehended and Kenneth was rescued.
ISSUE:
What was the crime committed?
HELD:
Kidnapping for ransom was committed. The elements of kidnapping
for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by R.A. 7659 warranting the imposition of the death penalty, are
as follows: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of
his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c)
motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release of the
victim. Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is necessary for
the consummation of the felony. It is sufficient that the deprivation of
liberty was for extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances
mentioned in Article 267 were present in its perpetration. Based on the
evidence proven during trial and as above discussed, the elements of the
crime were present.
UNJUST VEXATION
RENATO BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 138033 January 30, 2007
Justice Garcia
FACTS:
At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13
December 1991 in Manila, the accused, by forcefully covering the face of
Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with
dizzying effects, tried to rape the victim by lying on top of her with the
58
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all
the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against her will
and consent to her damage and prejudice.
ISSUE:
Whether Renato Baleros, Jr. is guilty of unjust vexation.
HELD:
Yes. He argues that the Information against him does not allege
that the act of covering the face of the victim with a piece of cloth soaked
in chemical caused her annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and
disturbance. The SC wish to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint
need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation
exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason
that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly
annoy or irritate an innocent person.
ESTAFA
MIGUEL COSME, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 149753 November 27, 2006
Justice Austria-Martinez
FACTS:
Judith Rodriguez and the private complainant, Paul Bunda, entered
into a Memorandum Agreement concerning lots nos. 1 and 2 situated at
59
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Barrio Almanza, Las Pias, Metro Manila. Under the agreement, Judith
agreed to assign and convey 40% of the aforementioned lots in favor of
the complainant as consideration for the payment by the latter of the
accrued real estate taxes on the property. The complainant then visited
the property and, for the first time, met the accused who represented
himself as the overseer of the property where he also resided.
Subsequently, the complainant and the accused met at the Aurelio Hotel
on Roxas Blvd., Manila and the accused convinced the complainant to
entrust to him Two Million Pesos for the payment of the accrued real
estate taxes on the property, telling the complainant that he was a
nephew of the then incumbent mayor of Las Pias and had good
connections with the Mayor's Office as well as with the Offices of the
Treasurer and of the Assessor of Las Pias. The complainant again met the
accused in 2 different occasions and gave to the latter a total of P200,
000.00. Both payments were unreceipted.
When the accused failed to comply, information for estafa was filed
against the former. Upon being arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, RTC rendered its decision convicting the accused with the
crime of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner appealed the case to the CA. The latter found petitioner guilty
of Estafa as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
ISSUE:
Whether accused is guilty of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) as
ruled by the CA.
HELD:
No. As correctly enumerated by the CA, the elements of Estafa by
means of deceit as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC are as
follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is,
he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (d) that as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
60
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
which constitute fraud as contemplated under Article 315 (2) (a) of the
RPC, more particularly petitioner's alleged act of falsely pretending that
he had the needed connections to settle the realty taxes due on the
subject property.
In the present case, the Information filed against petitioner did not
specify the alleged fraudulent acts or false pretenses that supposedly
induced private complainant to part with his money. Hence, petitioner
may not be convicted of Estafa as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the
RPC since the prosecution failed to allege the essential elements of this
kind of offense.
However, the RTC correctly found that petitioner has been properly
charged with estafa as defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC. In Lee
v. People, this Court held that the elements of Estafa by conversion or
misappropriation as defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC are as
follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received
by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt;
(3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another.
FACTS:
Henry Samar, Jr. (private complainant) was the owner of a parcel
land located in Peafrancia, Daraga, Albay. In an agreement dated 13 May
1994, private complainant sold the land to Alfonzo Firaza to be paid on
61
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
several occasion. When private complainant presented PNB Check No.
395532-S for payment, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) dishonored the
check by reason of account closed. Meanwhile, petitioner subdivided the
land, sold the subdivided lots, and retained the unsold lots.
Despite verbal and written demands for the payment of the value of
the check, petitioner failed to pay the amount of the dishonored check.
Thus, private complainant charged petitioner with estafa for violation of
paragraph 2 (d), Article 315 of the revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is guilty of estafa under paragraph 2 (d), Articled
315 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
The elements of estafa under paragraph 2 (d), Article 315 of the
RPC are the following:
1. Postdating or issuance of a check in 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 payee.
All the elements are present in this case. Petitioner issued PNB
Check No. 395532-S to obtain the title of the land from private
complainant. As found by the Court of Appeals, petitioner issued the
check to induce private complainant to execute the deed of sale in his
favor. Petitioners claim that private complainant knew that the checks did
not have sufficient funds was denied by private complainant who testified
that he was informed that petitioners account was in good standing and
that there were sufficient funds for the postdated checks issued. It was
established that private complainant would not have parted with his
property if he knew that the checks were not funded. The damage
suffered by private complainant had also been established. Private
complainant had already transferred the title to the property to petitioner
who subsequently subdivided the land and started selling the subdivided
portions of the land. Yet, despite several demands, petitioner failed to pay
the value of the dishonored check.
62
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
LIBEL
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. vs. MANUEL M. SERRANO
G.R. No. 163255 June 22, 2007.
Chief Justice Puno
FACTS:
In June 1987, respondent Manuel M. Serrano bought from petitioner
Insular Life Assurance Company, Limited, a life insurance policy called
"Diamond Jubilee, Participating" on his understanding that he shall be
paying premiums for seven (7) years only. Dividend accumulations and
earned interests were to be applied to subsequent premium payments.
Respondent obtained six Diamond Jubilee Life Insurance policies, and
religiously paid the premiums.
63
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
malice in the publication. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied. Petitioner sought a review before the Secretary of Justice. On April
18, 2002, the Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's
complaint for lack of probable cause. Petitioner assailed the ruling before
the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari which was dismissed.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE:
Was there probable cause for respondent to be charged with libel?
HELD:
No. The City Prosecutor dismissed petitioner's complaint for libel
because two elements of the crime were missing, defamatory imputation
and malice. Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, an accused may
be held liable for the crime if the following elements concur, viz: (1) the
allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another, (2)
publication of the charge, (3) identity of the person defamed, and (4)
existence of malice.
FACTS:
A libel complaint was filed against GMA NETWORK, INC and
newscaster, Rey Vidal. The issue started from the Petition for Mandamus
filed by the unsuccessful examinees of the physicians licensure
examinations before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC and the board of
medical examiners to re-check and reevaluate the test papers. As alleged,
mistakes in the counting of the total scores and erroneous checking of
answers to test questions vitiated the results of the examinations.
64
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
As news writer and reporter of petitioner GMA Network, Inc.
assigned to gather news from courts, among other beats, its co-petitioner
Rey Vidal covered the filing of the mandamus petition. After securing a
copy of the petition, Vidal composed and narrated the news coverage for
the ten o'clock evening news edition of GMA's Channel 7 Headline News,
quoting thereof the allegations of the unsuccessful examiners that the
gross, massive, haphazard, whimsical and capricious checking that must
have been going on for years should now be stopped once and for all.
Simultaneous with the news, was an old video footage showing physicians
wearing black armbands.
Along these lines, respondents claimed that the said report was
false, malicious and one-sided. Vidal and GMA Network, Inc., in reckless
disregard for the truth, defamed them by word of mouth and simultaneous
visual presentation on GMA Network, Inc.'s Channel 7. They added that,
the showing of the unrelated old footage was done purposely so as to
make a forceful impact on their audience making it appear that other
doctors were supporting and sympathizing with the complaining
unsuccessful examinees.
In defense of the alleged libel, GMA Network argued that the same
was but a privileged communication.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the said news report was within the ambit of privileged
communication
2. Whether the said narration of the news reporter and the used of
video footage were libelous
HELD:
1. Yes. The disputed news report consists merely of a summary of
the allegations in the said Petition for Mandamus filed by the medical
examinees making the same fall within the protected ambit of privileged
communication. GMA and Vidal cannot be held liable for damages claimed
by respondents for simply bringing to fore information on subjects of
public concern.
65
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
comments or remarks" falling under and described as exceptions in Article
354 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. No, the statement in the news report falls within the ambit of
privileged communication. For, although every defamatory imputation is
presumed to be malicious, the presumption does not exist in matters
considered privileged.
FACTS:
An Information for Libel was filed before the RTC of Manila against
private respondents Baskinas and Manapat, with petitioner Francisco
Chavez as the complainant.
66
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
where the written defamation was "printed and first published," an
allegation sine qua non "if the circumstances as to where the libel was
printed and first published is used as the basis of the venue of the
publication." The Information, it was noted, did not indicate that the
libelous articles were printed or first published in Manila, or that petitioner
resided in Manila at the time of the publication of the articles.
ISSUE:
Does the subject information sufficiently vest jurisdiction in the
Manila trial courts to hear the libel charge, in consonance with Article 360
of the Revised Penal Code?
HELD:
NO. The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated thus:
67
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Petitioner does submit that there is no need to employ the clause
"printed and first published" in indicating where the crime of libel was
committed, as the term "publish" is "generic and within the general
context of the term 'print' in so far as the latter term is utilized to refer to
the physical act of producing the publication." Where the law does not
distinguish, we should not distinguish.
FACTS:
On October 8, 1992, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued
Administrative Order No. 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) which was tasked to inventory
all behest loans, determine the parties involved and recommend whatever
appropriate actions to be pursued thereby.
68
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
and review of all non-performing loans, whether behest or non-behest.
Among the accounts referred to the Committee's Technical Working Group
(TWG) were the loan transactions between NOCOSII and PNB. After it had
examined and studied all the documents relative to the said loan
transactions, the Committee classified the loans obtained by NOCOSII
from PNB as behest because of NOCOSII's insufficient capital and
inadequate collaterals.
ISSUE:
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in
ruling that the offense leveled against respondents has prescribed.
HELD:
The petition is partly meritorious. Respondent Ombudsman
committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the subject complaint
on the ground of prescription. Respondents members of the PNB Board of
Directors and Officers of NOCOSII are charged with violation of R.A. No.
3019, a special law. Amending said law, Section 4, Batas Pambansa Blg.
195, increased the prescriptive period from ten to fifteen years. The
applicable law in the computation of the prescriptive period is Section 2 of
Act No. 3326, as amended.In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019
committed prior to the February 1986 Edsa Revolution that ousted
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, we ruled that the government as the
aggrieved party could not have known of the violations at the time the
questioned transactions were made. Moreover, no person would have
dared to question the legality of those transactions. Thus, the counting of
the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discovery of the
offense in 1992 after an exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad
Hoc Committee on Behest Loans. As to when the period of prescription
was interrupted, the second paragraph of Section 2, Act No. 3326, as
amended, provides that prescription is interrupted 'when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person. Records show that the act complained
of was discovered in 1992. The complaint was filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman on April 5, 1995, or within three (3) years from the time of
69
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
discovery. Thus, the filing of the complaint was well within the prescriptive
period of 15 years.
FACTS:
Petitioner Santos L. Nacaytuna, who was then Municipal Mayor of
San Miguel, Surigao del Sur appointed his wife, the private complainant
Marydole V. Nacaytuna as Municipal Health Officer. In the course of her
employment, Marydole drafted a letter of resignation dated April 7, 2000
which petitioner purportedly received on even date. In May 2001,
Marydole left the conjugal home and lived separately from petitioner.
Sometime in April 2002, a certain Marly Prieto informed Marydole that
petitioner has accepted her resignation effective at the end of April 2002.
Marydole questioned the acceptance of her resignation before the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) and the Office of the Ombudsman claiming that
she never tendered the resignation letter to which the CSC declared the
acceptance of Marydole's resignation illegal. With the recommendation of
the Ombudsman, an information was filed against petitioner for violation
of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved petitioner's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt violating Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019.
HELD:
Yes. Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 requires proof of the
following facts:
70
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
hence petitioner was evidently acting in bad faith when he made it appear
that it was submitted. Worse, he accepted the same knowing that it was
never tendered in the first place. Petitioner's actuations caused undue
injury to Marydole because it resulted to her removal from office and the
withholding of her salaries.
FACTS:
In the Audit Report prepared by COA Regional Office, the amount of
P603,265.00 was shown to have been released to the DECS Division of
Davao del Sur for distribution to the newly nationalized high schools
located within the region. Through the initiative of accused Venancio
Nava, a meeting was called among his seven (7) schools division
superintendents whom he persuaded to use the money or allotment for
the purchase of Science Laboratory Tools and Devices (SLTD). In other
71
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
words, instead of referring the allotment to the one hundred fifty-five
(155) heads of the nationalized high schools for the improvement of their
facilities, accused Nava succeeded in persuading his seven (7) schools
division superintendents to use the allotment for the purchase of science
education facilities for the calendar year 1990.
ISSUE:
Is Nava guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?
HELD:
Yes. To sustain a conviction under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No.
3019, it must be clearly proven that 1) the accused is a public officer; 2)
the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and 3) the contract or transaction was grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the Sandiganbayan did not err in
ruling that the evidence presented warranted a verdict of conviction.
Petitioner is a public officer, who approved the transactions on behalf of
the government, which thereby suffered a substantial loss. The
discrepancy between the prices of the SLTDs purchased by the DECS and
the samples purchased by the COA audit team clearly established such
undue injury. Indeed, the discrepancy was grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.
72
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption.
Nevertheless, the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest
and gross. Penal laws are strictly construed against the government.
FACTS:
A team from the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime
(PARAC) of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) went
to the Cityland Condominium in Makati to implement a search warrant.
Upon arrival, they went directly to the Security Office of said building to
seek assistance in serving a warrant. Security Officer Celedonio Punsaran
(Punsaran) accompanied the group and they proceeded to Unit 615.
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty of violating Section 16,
Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?
HELD:
Yes. In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the
following essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is found
in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law
or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that
the said drug is a regulated drug.
More importantly, the prosecution must prove that the accused had
73
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
the intent to possess the drug. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession
or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession
exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or
when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place
where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The
fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and
any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution
must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and
presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion, as well
as the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the
existence and character of the drug in the place where he exercises
dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from
the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the
accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence
of any satisfactory explanation.
Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on his
person but in the bedroom of the subject premises, appellant is deemed in
possession thereof since he was the only person in said premises.
Moreover, at the time of entry of the searching team in the subject
premises, appellant was half-naked from the waist up which, as the trial
court correctly concluded, only "indicates extreme familiarity and gives
the impression of he being at home" in the premises, of which he was the
registered owner.
Illegal Sale
FACTS:
The information charged appellant with illegal sale of shabu in
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. In the course of
the trial, the prosecution alleged that a team comprised of police officers
was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation to apprehend suspected drug
peddlers. The suspects have previously been under a week-long
surveillance after the police officers received reports about their illegal
activities. The appointed poseur-buyer SPO1 Ramos, together with the
informant, approached the two (2) suspects Leng Leng and Buboy while
the back-up team positioned itself nearby. SPO1 Ramos purchased one (1)
sachet of shabu for One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) from Buboy. Then, SPO1
Ramos gave the pre-arranged signal. Immediately, the rest of the team
rushed to the scene and placed the two (2) suspects under arrest. After a
body search, the marked money was recovered from Buboy and another
sachet of shabu was confiscated from Leng Leng. Thereafter, the suspects
74
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
were brought to Camp Macabulos where Buboy identified himself as
Gerardo Orteza. Later upon examination, Engr. Marcene Agala of the
Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga,
confirmed that the two (2) sachets recovered from the scene were
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
ISSUE:
Is the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer fatal to this case?
HELD:
Yes. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following must be proven: (a) that the transaction or sale took place; (b)
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (c)
that the buyer and seller were identified. What is material is the proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation
in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the
contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money
consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers
and the accused.
The Court believes that the prosecution was not able to establish
with certainty all the elements necessary for the conviction of appellant
for illegal sale of shabu.
Secondly, the Court observes that the prosecution did not present
the poseur-buyer who had personal knowledge of the transaction. In this
case, though, after the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Ramos, failed to appear in
court despite having been subpoenaed six (6) times, the prosecution did
not even bother to offer any explanation for his non-appearance
considering that he, a police officer, was no different from the other
witnesses who were presented in the end by the prosecution. In Ramos's
place, the prosecution presented two other police officers, who although
members of the back-up team of the buy-bust operation were, in the
Court's view, not reliable eyewitnesses to the transaction.
Moreover, the testimonies of the two police officers did not include
any positive face-to-face identification in open court of appellant as the
seller of shabu, an aspect which was crucial to establish appellant's role in
the alleged transaction. As such, the testimony of the poseur-buyer, in
75
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
this case Ramos, was pivotal as only he could testify on what had really
transpired during the moment of the alleged sale of shabu. His non-
presentation in this case was fatal, absent any explanation for his non-
appearance and reliable eyewitness who could testify in his place.
Buy-Bust Operation
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS
G.R. No. 170234 February 8, 2007
Justice Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
In an Information dated 7 August 2002, accused-appellant Bernardo
Felizardo Nicolas, a.k.a. Bernie, was charged with Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for allegedly having sold one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.42 gram of white crystalline
substance which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, to PO2 Danilo S. Damasco.
During trial, the prosecution testified that the accused was caught
in a buy-bust operation conducted by the team of PO2 Danilo S. Damasco,
PO2 Montefalcon, PO2 Orig and SPO2 Zipagan through the information
given by a confidential informant, who went with the said team during the
operation. Accused, however, refuted said claims, saying that: 1) there
was no buy-bust operation and that the shabu (methamphetamine
hydrochloride) allegedly sold by him to the poseur buyer was planted
evidence; and 2) the trumped-up charge is a way of getting even with him
because he, together with his wife, had filed a case before the National
Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for grave misconduct against several
policemen (PO2 Joel Tapec, PO1 Christopher Semana and five John Does)
assigned at the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig Police Station,
for entering and robbing their house on 5 February 2002.
After trial, the lower court decided convicting the accused. The
Court of Appeals then affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE:
Are the non-conduct of surveillance and the absence of any
agreement as regards the money to be used in buying the shabu and as
76
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
regards the signal to inform the back-up policemen that the transaction
has been consummated essential to establish the existence of a buy-bust
operation?
HELD:
No. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or
test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to
the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is
not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by
their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police
work. In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted without
need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant
accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous
drugs.
The fact that the team leader and the other members of the team
did not discuss or talk about the marked money does not necessarily
mean that there was no buy-bust operation. As explained by SPO2
Zipagan, since PO2 Damasco was the designated poseur buyer it was the
latter's discretion as to how to prepare the marked money. It is not
required that all the members of the buy-bust team know how the marked
money is to be produced and marked inasmuch as they have their
respective roles to perform in the operation. As this Court sees it, the
other members of the team left the matter of the marked money to one
person the poseur buyer because it was he who was to deal directly
with the drug pusher.
77
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
:
FACTS:
Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. was a client of Atty. Ismael F. Mejia,
petitioner. Sometime in January 1985, Bernardo requested petitioner to
pay his real estate taxes. Bernardo then delivered to petitioner a blank
check. Petitioner wrote the amount of P27,700.00 with his name as payee.
Thereafter, he encashed the check. On March 14, 1985, petitioner
furnished Bernardo a statement of account showing that only P17,700.00
was actually spent for realty taxes. Petitioner explained that he spent the
remaining P10,000.00 for the hospitalization of his wife. Both parties
treated this amount of P10,000.00 as petitioner's loan. Thereupon,
petitioner requested Bernardo to lend him an additional amount of
P40,000.00 as he needed the money for his wife's medication. Bernardo
agreed and gave P40,000.00 more to petitioner. To secure the payment of
his P50,000.00 loan, petitioner issued Philippine National Bank (PNB)
Check No. 156919 dated May 15, 1985 in the amount of P50,000.00 in
favor of Bernardo. Petitioner also handed to Bernardo a Promissory Note,
also of the same date, stating that he will pay the loan on or before May
15, 1985.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. 22.
HELD:
For violation of B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove the following
essential elements: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to
apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue there are no sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
The trial court found that petitioner issued the check as guarantee
for his loan obtained from Bernardo. At the time he issued the check, he
78
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
knew that his account with the PNB had been closed. When Bernardo
deposited the check, it was dishonored by the PNB, the drawee bank, for
the reason "account closed." Petitioner was duly notified of such dishonor.
In fact, he admitted having received Bernardo's demand letter urging him
to make good the check within five (5) banking days from notice. But
petitioner failed to heed such demand.
FACTS:
An information for violation of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7610 was filed against appellant Simplicio Delantar y Redondo.
The testimony of AAA shows that appellant procured her as a child
prostitute for at least two clients: the first, an Arab national named Mr.
Hammond and the second, then Congressman Romeo Jalosjos. AAA
testified that she was brought to the first client at least eleven (11) times
between the period 1994 to June 1996. Once left alone with AAA, the
client would perform lascivious acts on AAA, the recurrent salient points of
her harrowing experience revolved around the client's kissing her,
touching her breasts, embracing her, and inserting his finger in her
private parts. After their first visit to the client, AAA told appellant that she
did not want to go back because the client was "bastos." Appellant
promised her that they would no longer go back but the promise was
broken as they went back a few more times.
79
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
As with the first client, appellant would tell AAA that they had to go
to the second client because they had obligations to pay. During each of
these visits, the client would give AAA money ranging from P2,000.00 to
P10,000.00. The details of what transpired when AAA was left alone with
the second client were vividly recounted in People v. Jalosjos, where the
second client was convicted of two (2) counts of rape and six (6) counts of
acts of lasciviousness, all committed against AAA on various dates.
ISSUE:
Was the accused guilty for violation of R.A. No. 7610?
HELD:
Yes. There is no doubt, drawing from the evidence, that AAA was a
child who was exploited in prostitution as defined in Section 5, Article III of
R.A. No. 7610. The law punishes not only the person who commits the acts
of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with the child but also those
who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution. Appellant
is one such person. Appellant, in his brief, does not deny that he brought
AAA to the clients. He, however, attempts to exculpate himself by stating
that he did not coerce or influence AAA to go to the two clients to be
exploited in prostitution. Verily, it was against AAA's will and consent to
see the two clients. But even if AAA had in fact consented, appellant may
still be prosecuted for child prostitution under Section 5, Article III of R.A.
No. 7610 because the child's consent or lack of it is not an element of the
offense.
FACTS:
The facts show that BBB, who was at that time five years old, and
petitioner were neighbors. On October 30, 1995, at around past 9:00 in
the evening, BBB went to petitioner's house to watch television, which
was something she often did. Only petitioner and BBB were there that
night. BBB testified that it was on this occasion that petitioner sexually
abused her.
80
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
The next day, on October 31, 1995, Dr. Noel Minay, medico-legal
officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, examined BBB. He found
that her maidenhead was short, intact and had a narrow opening at 0.3
cm. in diameter. He concluded that these findings precluded complete
penetration by an average-sized Filipino male organ in full erection.
ISSUE:
Can the accused be convicted of acts of lasciviousness in relation to
Section 5 (b) of RA 7610?
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner was found guilty of violating Article 336 of the RPC in
relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610: Sec. 5. Child Prostitution
and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuseThose who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended], for
rape or lascivious conduct as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty
for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age
shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Under this provision, when the victim is under 12 years old, the
accused shall be prosecuted under either Article 335 (for rape) or Article
81
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
336 (for acts of lasciviousness) of the RPC. Accordingly, although an
accused is charged in the information with the crime of statutory rape
(i.e., carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age), the
offender can be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness,
which is included in rape.
FACTS:
Two separate informations were filed before the RTC charging
petitioner with violation of the gunban and illegal possession of firearms.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash contending that he "cannot be
prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms (R.A. 8294) . . . if he was also
charged of having committed another crime of [sic] violating the Comelec
gun ban under the same set of facts. The trial court denied the motion
to quash on the ground that "the other offense charged . . . is not one of
those enumerated under R.A. 8294 . . . ." The denial was affirmed on
appeal. Hence this petition, where petitioner contends that the mere
filing of an information for gun ban violation against him necessarily bars
his prosecution for illegal possession of firearms.
ISSUE:
Did the court err in denying the Motion to Quash?
HELD:
No. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal
possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime was committed by
the person arrested." If the intention of the law in the second paragraph
were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said
so. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing
that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. Consequently,
the proviso does not yet apply.
82
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated
under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should
be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be
tried together with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an
element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those
enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession
of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
FACTS:
Nestor Ong, who had been engaged in the trucking business in
Iligan City since 1986, was allegedly introduced by his friend Gamad
Muntod to Lolong Bertodazo who signified his intent to rent the trucks of
Ong to transport construction materials from Larapan, Lanao del Norte to
Dipolog City. A Contract to Transport was supposedly entered into
between Ong and Bertodazo.
After an investigation was held by the police and the DENR office in
the city, an Information was filed against Nestor Ong, Sumagang, Lolong
Bertodazo and petitioner Tigoy for possession of forest products without
legal permit in violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree 705, as
amended by Executive Order No. 277, Series of 1987, in relation to Article
309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
83
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
Ong and petitioner Tigoy entered pleas of not guilty during the
arraignment. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found both Ong and Tigoy
guilty. On appeal, Ong was acquitted while Tigoys conviction was upheld.
ISSUE:
Is Tigoy guilty of possession of forest products without permit?
HELD:
Yes. There are two ways of violating the said Section 68: 1) by
cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products
without a license; and, 2) by possessing timber or other forest products
without the required legal documents.
FACTS:
On April 16, 1994, private complainant Rita Khayad of Bontoc, Mt.
Province discovered that her 3-year-old white and black-spotted cow was
84
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
missing. She and her children searched for it but to no avail. She was
later informed by her grandson, Ronnie Faluyan, that in the afternoon of
April 15, 1994, while the latter was with his friends, he saw a cow similar
to that of his grandmother's loaded in a blue Ford Fiera driven along the
national highway by accused Manochon. With Manochon in the Fiera was
his helper, petitioner Pil-ey. Manochon was a butcher and meat vendor.
After having ascertained from people in the market that the cow was
already slaughtered, Rita reported the matter to the police. During the
confrontation between the parties, petitioner Pil-ey admitted that they
were the ones who took the cow.
On May 27, 1994, an Information was filed with the RTC charging
petitioner Ernesto Pil-ey and his two co-accused, Constancio Manochon
and Waclet Anamot, with of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. After trial, the
trial court found the three guilty of the crime charged. Hence, the present
case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, based on the evidence on record, petitioner is guilty
of violating the provisions of P.D. No. 533 or the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of
1974.
HELD:
Cattle-rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme,
without the consent of the owner or raiser, of any cow, carabao, horse,
mule, ass or other domesticated member of the bovine family, whether or
not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of any person or force upon things; and it includes
the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of
the owner or raiser.
85
Criminal Law case
digest
San Beda College of Law 2008 Centralized Bar Operations
raiser, conviction for the same need only be supported by the fact of
taking without the cattle owner's consent.
86
i