PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

JOVEN BAUSING
and MANUEL LOROSO, accused-appellants.
[G.R. No. 64965. July 18, 1991.]
Facts: Accused, Mantilla the victim who is a Barangay Councilman, witnesses, and the son of Bausing,
were in a billiard hall in the evening. The son of Bausing clattered the billiard balls which caused the
victim to admonish the former to stop his act. Thereafter, Loroso who came from the back of the victim,
held the hands of the latter and Bausing unsheathed a bolo hidden inside the umbrella, then stabbed the
victim inflicting 17 incised wounds. Loroso released the victim when the latter was staggering
unconsciously who later fell dead outside the billiard hall. Then, the accused walked away.

Accused were charged with murder with assault upon an agent of person in authority. The accused were
clearly identified by the witnesses who were all present at the billiard hall.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder qualified with treachery?

Ruling: The Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified
with treachery.
The victim was not only unarmed but was also deprived of every means to defend himself from
the treacherous attack. Loroso held both hands of the deceased victim while Bausing suddenly appeared
and started stabbing the victim. The accused executed the crime in a manner that tended directly and
specially to ensure its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the deceased
might have made.

People vs. Gutual

G.R. No. 115233
Feb. 22, 1996
FACTS: The respondents Wilson Gutual and Joaquin Nadera were members of the Civilian Armed
Forces Georgraphic Unit of San Vicente, Davao. Gutual and Nadera were charged with the crime if
murder by the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao Del Norte, for the death of Celestino Maglinte.
There were two versions of the incident during the trial.

According to the prosecution, on December 29, 1990, Maglinte, the victim, who was a farmer and was
carrying his bolo was walking along the barangay road along with his four-year-old child, when he was
suddenly surprised by an explosion from a firecracker. Because of this, he left his child by the side of
the road and he went to store of Barangay Captain Wayne Gutual and started to call the latter.
Unfortunately, no one was answering him. So Maglinte went in search for Brgy Capt Gutual, and went
to the nearest basketball court. Then all of a sudden, Wilson Gutual and Joaquin Nandera appeared in
the picture who were carrying their own firearms (Garand rifle and M-14 rifle). Gutual fired around
several warning shots, which causes Maglinte to drop into the ground during the first time and later on,
he raised his hand to show that he was surrendering to Nadera and Gutual. But still, Gutual fired more
shots which injured Maglinte. Afterwards, both Gutual and Nadera shot Maglinte, which led to the
latters death. Both Gutual and Nadera left the scene immediately. The next morning, Maglinte was
buried immediately, according to Brgy Capt Gutuals order.

On the other hand, the defendants argument, the killing was committed because of self-defense and in
defense of a relative or stranger. Maglinte was running amuck and chasing Brgy Capt. Gutual in front of
his home. Upon hearing the shouts for help of the onlookers, Gutual and Nadera went to the scene and
the former fired warning shots to get the attention of Maglinte, who stopped chasing Brgy Capt Gutual
and started advancing towards Gutual instead with his bolo out in the open. The latter continued to fire
warning shots and retreated backwards until he was pinned against the wall, as Maglinte continued to
advance and started hacking away at Gutual. To stop the former, Nadera fired several warning shots
again as Gutual evaded the hacking blows of Maglinte. The former fired at Maglintes hand to disarm
him of his bolo, but unfortunately, the bullet pierced the latters bolo wielding arm, then it went to his
chest and went out of his back. Almost two months after the incident, Gutual and Nadera were arrested
and both were charged of the murder of Maglinte. But then, Nadera was later acquitted and was asked
instead, to pay for the civil liabilities, while Gutual was convicted as per the first decision in January of
1996. The latter appealed that the decision and alleges have some errors. These errors were divided intp
two issues.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Joaquin Nadera should be held civilly liable despite his acquittal?
2) Whether or not Wilson Gutual has sufficiently proved self-defense or defense of a relative or of a
stranger on at the very least the incomplete justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of a
stranger.

RULING: The Courts granted Gutuals appeal. The decision of Branch 1 of RTC Tagum in Criminal
Case no. 7851 which charges accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
and sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the civil liabilities too, was REVERSED
and SET ASIDE by the Courts and Gutual was later on acquitted of the charge.
People v. Salvatierra G.R. No. 111124 June 20, 1996
Facts:
Enrique Constantino (Accused appellant) is found guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide in the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
commission of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Art. 294, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to jointly and
severally pay to the heirs of Hichiro Kubota the amounts of P50,000.00 for the loss of his life, (P50,000)
moral damages, (P807,000.00, 26,000yen, and US$2,400.00) corresponding to the stolen jewelries and
cash money, and the heirs of Hazel Arjona (P50,000.00) for the loss of her life and (P30,000.00) moral
damages.

Accused-appellants claims that he is under the exempting circumstance because he had acted under the
impulse of uncontrollable fear. He also claims that the RTC erred in finding the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses.
Accused-appellant states that Accused Juan Salvatierra threatened him to cooperate by poking a knife at
his back, thus he was forced to cooperate with the commission of the crime.

Issue:
Whether or not the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear is applicable to Accused-appellant.

Law:
Article 12 par. 6 of the Revised Penal Code
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Requisites: (People v. Petenia, No. L-51256, Aug 12, 1986)
Existence of an uncontrollable fear
The fear must be real and imminent
The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and found accused-appellant
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and imposing on him the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with the corresponding civil liability.

Ratio Decidendi:
For the defense of the accused-appellant to be valid, it should actually be anchored on a real, imminent
or reasonable fear for ones own life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or imagined.
It is based on the complete absence of freedom on the part of the accused and has its roots in the Latin
maxim Actus me invite factus non est meus actus, which translates to An act done by me against my
will is not my act.

The compulsion employed upon the accused must have been of such character as to leave no opportunity
for him to spring an escape or to himself foist any act of defense for self-preservation.
Thus, duress has been held unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run away if he
wanted to or to resist any possible aggression because he was also armed.
People v. Amazan
G.R. No. 136251, January 16, 2001
Facts:
On the evening April 27, 1997. Artemio Arma was killed by the three (3) accused Jerito Amazan,
Jaime Amazan and Danilo Villegas using bolos to hack his head. His wife Amparo and son Antonio,
were heavily injured when Jaime and Danilo, respectively, hacked his face with a bolo. Alberto, the
other son escaped.

In the information charged the aggravating circumstances of conspiracy, treachery, evident

premeditation superiority in strength and taking advantage of nighttime was alleged.
Jerito voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities after he brought Jaime to the Hospital and Jaime
voluntarily surrendered after 4 days.
During the course of the trial, the defense gave a different version of the events. Jerito claimed that
Artemio, Albertoand Antonio were armed with bolos and pieces of wood attacked Jaime while
defecating in their land. In the turn of events and while defending his brother, Artemio was killed and
both Amparo and Antonio were injured when they also tried to attack them. Alberto was able to escape.
Jerito Thelped his wounded brother and asked for Danilo's help who claimed he was sleeping when
everything transpired. Their allegation was supported by a medical certificate issued by a certain Dr.
Alino.

The lower court ruled against the assailants giving more weight and credence to the prosecution's
testimony.

The decision was appealed questioning the court's decision to; (1) give more credence to the testimony
of the prosecutions witnesses over the defense's testimony; (2) error in finding the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery; (3) error in finding conspiracy between the assailants .

Issue:
Whether or not the appellants' assertions are correct.

Held:
Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor
the veracity or weight of their testimonies. In the case of Alberto, it can be explained by his age,
inexperience, and nervousness due to an unfamiliar atmosphere in court proceeding. Thus an ample
space for inaccuracy can be accorded.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against 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. In this case,
Artemio had no warning of the impending attack. Although the assailant maintains that the attack is
frontal, the report of certain Dr. Tamayo proved otherwise. As there are wounds inflicted at the back
side of the skull.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to show
that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants
performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design
to bring about the death of the victim. In this case, all of accused-appellants came together at the place
where Artemio was tethering his carabao; the three were present at the time of the attack on Artemio;
they were all armed; none of them made any effort to stop the attack on the deceased; and all three of
them fled together after attaining their purpose.

In all three cases, the lower court correctly ruled that there was no aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.
With respect to the allegation of abuse of superior strength, it is deemed absorbed in treachery for
murder and it qualifies the crime committed against Amaparo from frustrated homicide to frustrated
murder. It was held that when a man attacks an unarmed and defenseless woman, it constitutes taking
advantage of superior strength, a qualifying circumstance for murder.
On the other hand, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated since there is no
evidence to show that nighttime was deliberately sought by the assailants to facilitate the commission of
the crime or prevent its discovery or evade capture or facilitate their escape.

Modified and final decision is as follows:

1) In Criminal Case No. 8494, accused Jerito Amazan and Jaime Amazan are found guilty of murder
and, taking into account the absence of any aggravating circumstance and the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the killing of
Artemio Arma;

(2) In Criminal Case No. 8496, accused-appellant Jaime Amazan is found guilty of attempted murder
and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is two (2) years and four (4)
months of prision correccional minimum and the maximum of which is eight (8) years of prision mayor
minimum.

(3) In Criminal Case No. 8497, accused-appellant Danilo Villegas is found guilty of attempted homicide
and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is four (4) months of arresto
mayor medium and the maximum of which is four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
medium.

(4) Accused-appellants Jerito Amazan, Jaime Amazan and Danilo Villegas are ordered to pay the heirs
of the victim Artemio Arma the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral ddamage
ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL, Petitioner,
ALFREDO S. LIM Petitioner-Intervenor,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH EJERCITO
ESTRADA, Respondents
G.R. No. 206666 January 21, 2015
Facts:
On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Joseph Estrada for the crime of
plunder and there being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, he was sentenced to suffer the
lesser penalty which was Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the
period of sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification.

On October 25, 2007, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo extended executive clemency, by way
of pardon, to former President Estrada explicitly stating that "he is hereby restored to his civil and
political rights". This was accepted by former President Estrada on October 26, 2007 by affixing his
signature beside his handwritten notation thereon.

On November 30, 2009, former President Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
President but was opposed by three petitions seeking for his disqualification. However, all three
petitions were effectively dismissed on the uniform grounds that (i) the Constitutional proscription on
reelection applies to a sitting president; and (ii) the pardon granted to former President Estrada by
former President Arroyo restored the formers right to vote and be voted for a public office. The
subsequent motions for reconsideration thereto were denied by the COMELEC En banc.

After the conduct of the May 10, 2010 synchronized elections, however, former President Estrada only
managed to garner the second highest number of votes.

On October 2, 2012, former President Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a
Certificate of Candidacy, this time vying for a local elective post, that of the Mayor of the City of
Manila.

On January 24, 2013, petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for Disqualification against former President
Estrada before the COMELEC because of his conviction for plunder by the Sandiganbayan sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with perpetual absolute disqualification.and that the
pardon granted to the him failed to expressly remit his perpetual disqualification

In a Resolution dated April 1, 2013, the COMELEC, Second Division, dismissed the petition for
disqualification holding that President Estradas right to seek public office has been effectively restored
by the pardon vested upon him by former President Gloria M. Arroyo.

Estrada won the mayoralty race in May 13, 2013 elections. Petitioner-intervenor Alfredo Lim garnered
the second highest votes intervene and seek to disqualify Estrada for the same ground as the contention
of Risos-Vidal and praying that he be proclaimed as Mayor of Manila.
ISSUE:
Whether or not former President Estrada was qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a
result of the pardon granted to him by former President Arroyo.

Former President Estrada was qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a result of the pardon
granted to him by former President Arroyo. He was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his
civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point
of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former President Estrada is complete,
unambiguous, and unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal
Code. The only reasonable, objective, and constitutional interpretation of the language of the pardon is
that the same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.

A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows that both the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are included in the pardon. The
sentence which states that he is hereby restored to his civil and political rights, expressly remitted the
accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the pardon that the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted
together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Petition is dismissed

G.R. No. 202124 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IRENEO

JUGUETA

Facts:
On or about the 6th day of June 2002, at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay Caridad Ilaya,
Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Criminal Case No. 7698-G, appellant was charged with
Double Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused
(Jugueta), armed with a caliber.22 fire arm, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with
said firearm Mary Grace Divina, a minor, 13 years old who suffered gunshot wound. That the crime
committed in the dwelling of the offended party who had not given provocation for the attack and the
accused took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.

While in Criminal Case No. 7702-G, appellant, together with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel,
was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, armed with short firearms of undetermined calibers, with intent to kill, qualified by
treachery, with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and shoot with the said firearms the house occupied by the
family of Norberto Divina, thereby commencing the commission of the crime of Murder, directly by
overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of some
cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused, that is, the occupants Norberto
Divina, his wife Maricel Divina and children Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina, both elementary
pupils and who are minors, were not hit.

Aggrieved by the trial court's judgments, appellant appealed to the CA. On January 30, 2012, the CA
rendered a Decision affirming appellant's conviction for the crimes charged

The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7698-G, and as proven during trial, show
that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of Murder and not Double Murder, as the killing of the
victims was not the result of a single act but of several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In the same
vein, appellant is also guilty of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple Attempted
Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G. It bears stressing that the information in this case failed to comply
with the requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that an information must
charge only one offense

Issue:
Whether or not appellant in Criminal Case No. 7698 was charged with Murder, defined and penalized
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code?
Whether or not appellant, together with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel, was charged with
Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G?

Ruling:
In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, the Court finds accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of murder defined under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and hereby sentences him to suffer
two (2) terms of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under R.A. 9346. He
is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina the following amounts for
each of the two victims:

(a) 100,000.00 as civil indemnity

(b) 100,000.00 as moral damages
(c) 100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(d) 50,000.00 as temperate damages.
Accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid, to be imposed on the civil indemnity,
moral damages, exemplary damages and temperate damages.
In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, the Court finds accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of attempted murder defined and penalized under
Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as maximum, for each of the four (4) counts of attempted murder. He is ORDERED to
PAY moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and exemplary
damages of PS0,000.00 to each of the four victims, namely, Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth
Divina and Judy Ann Divina.
GR 216010
People vs Ulanday
FACTS:
On the night of March 11,2011, XYZ was raped with forced and intimidation by Jimmy Ulanday. She
was dragged toward the house of her neighbor and started doing the felonious acts towards her.

May 10, 2011, the appellant openly admitted that he had had sexual intercourse with XYZ, hence he was
mauled by the males present and soon after the appellant went into hiding.

May 16, 2011, medico-legal of XYZ issued by Dr. Maria Gwendolyn Luna (Dr. Luna). She found XYZ
to have had old, healed, deep lacerations in her hymen at 4, 6 and 7 o' clock positions.11 Dr. Luna
explained that the lacerations could have been caused by the insertion of an object into the vagina,
possibly a finger or an erect penis.

RTC sentence the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape and CA
affirmed the judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
The RTC, CA and SC have affirmed that the appellant is found guilty of the crime of rape. Both the trial
and appellate courts upheld the credibility of XYZ and accorded credence to her testimony. Whenever
the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death as provided under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

Bernardo vs People
Facts:
To secure the payment of a promissory note, petitioner Bernardo issued to Bumanglag five
postdated checks, which were all dishonoured upon presentment for payment. Despite demand for
payment and to honor the checks, petitioner failed to do so, hence Bumanglag filed cases for violation of
BP 22 against petitioner. However, during the pendency of the petitioners appeal, she died.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners civil liability was extinguished upon her death.

Ruling:
No. As a general rule, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes her criminal liability
and the corresponding civil liability based solely on the offense. The independent civil liabilities,
however survive death an action for recovery therefore maybe generally pursued but only by filing a
separate civil action and subject to Section I Rule III of the Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended.
This separate civil action maybe enforced against the estate of the accused.
 In BP 22 cases, the criminal action shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil actions.
Instead of instituting two separate cases, only a single suit is filed an tried. The institution of the civil
action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts
for collection based on dishonoured checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases.
As a necessary consequence of this special rule, the civil liabilities arising from the issuance of a
worthless check are deemed instituted in a case for violation of BP 22; the death of Bernardo did not
automatically extinguish the action. The independent civil liability based on contract, which was deemed
instituted in the criminal action for BP 22 may still be enforced against her estate.

People V. Mustapha, G.R. No. 206513

Facts:
- In the present controversy, petitioner Mustapha Dimakuta y Maruhom alias Boyet was indicted
for Violation of Section 5 Paragraph (b), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 or the Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discriminatory Act.

- That on or about the 24th day of September 2005, in the City of Las Pias, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit a lascivious conduct upon the person of one
AAA, who was then a sixteen (16) year old minor, by then and there embracing her, touching her breast
and private part against her will and without her consent and the act complained of is prejudicial to the
physical and psychological development of the complainant.

- the RTC promulgated its Decision3 which convicted petitioner of the crime charged and
sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. In addition, he was directed
to pay a fine of P20,000.00, civil indemnity of P25,000.00, and moral damages of P25,000.00.

- the CA rendered a Decision6 adopting the recommendation of the OSG. In modifying the RTC
Decision, petitioner was found guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and was
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Likewise, he was ordered to pay
P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to apply for probation.

Held:
- Thus, it is clear that petitioner could not have been entitled to apply for probation in the first
place. Regrettably, since neither the accused nor the OSG questioned the CA Decision, it has attained
finality and to correct the error at this stage is already barred by the right ofthe accused against double
jeopardy.

- Based on the above disquisitions, the petitioner should be denied the benefit of the Probation
Law and that the Court should adopt the recommendations above-stated in situations where an accused
files an appeal for the sole purpose of correcting the penalty imposed to qualify him for probation or
where he files an appeal specifically claiming that he should be found guilty of a lesser offense
necessarily included with the crime originally filed with a prescribed penalty which is probationable.
CASE DIGEST CRIMINAL LAW

G.R. No. 206357 | November 12, 2014

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG),
petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN Conchita Carpio-Morales,
Former Members of the Board of Governors of the Development Bank of
the Philippines (DBP), All Officers of Resorts Hotels Corporation (RHC),
respondents

Meaning of behest loans

=under-collateralized and at behest of somebody who can make the loan possible
=loan granted at the behest of somebody influential and powerful
=cluster of loans made on the basis of marginal loans during Martial Law period

CASE:
-Petition for Certiorari-seeking the annulment and setting aside of the Orders dated July 19, 2011 and
March 8, 2012, rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-03-0008-A, entitled
"Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Rodolfo Cuenca (one of the officers of
RHC), and others."

FACTS:
On 1992, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating a Presidential Ad-
Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Ad Hoc Committee). A few months later, President
Ramos issued Memorandum Order No. 61 prescribing certain criteria to be used by the Ad Hoc
Committee as a guide in investigating and studying loans granted by government financing institutions.

One of the loan accounts referred to the Ad Hoc Committee for investigation was that of RHC.

DBP granted loans to RHC on the following years: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1977.

The Ad Hoc Committee found that DBP's total exposure as of 1986 amounted to PhP99.1 million.

The Ad Hoc Committee, on January 4, 1993, submitted a report to the President where it concluded that
the RHC account qualifies as behest in character anchored on the following grounds:
a) The loans are under collateralized;
b) The borrower corporation is undercapitalized, for its paid-up capital amounted only to PhP 10.3
million upon the approval of the loans which totaled to PhP 99,133,765.14 in 1986;
c) Stockholders and officers of the borrower corporation are identified as Marcos cronies; and
d) President Marcos owned 20% of the shares of stocks in RHC.
 PCGG filed an Affidavit-Complaint on January 6, 2003 with the Office of the Ombudsman, against
respondent directors and officers of RHC and the directors of DBP for violation of Sections 3 (e) and 3
(g) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On 2004, petitioner
filed a Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit.

In the questioned 2011 Order, the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner's Affidavit-Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing, among others, that the Ombudsman made a mistake in
dismissing its Affidavit-Complaint since its Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit enumerates the directors
of DBP who conspired with herein private respondents in granting the behest loans.

Acting on the motion, the Ombudsman, on 2012, issued the second assailed Order dismissing the
complaint on the ground of prescription, effectively denying the motion for reconsideration.
In as much as the record indicates that the instant complaint was filed with this office only on January 6
2003, or more than ten (10) years from the time the crimes were discovered on January 4 1993, the
offenses charged herein had already prescribed
Discovered: Jan. 4 1993 [*****]
Complaint Filed: Jan. 6 2003

Petitioner seeks recourse from the Supreme Court, arguing that contrary to the decision of the
Ombudsman, the offense has not yet prescribed. Petitioner insists that the prescriptive period should
only commence to run on January 6, 2003 when it filed the Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the
Ombudsman, and not on January 4, 1993 when the crimes were discovered - based on Section 2 of Act
No. 3326.
Discovered: Jan. 4 1993
Complaint Filed: Jan. 6 2003 [*****]
Moreover, Section 11 of RA 3019 sets the prescription of offenses under said law at fifteen (15) years,
not ten (10) years.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
Affidavit-Complaint dated January 6, 2003 on the ground of prescription

HELD:

Law Prescriptive
Period
RA 3019 [Anti-graft 10 years silent as to when the period of prescription shall begin to run
and Corrupt Practices remedied by Act No. 3326
Act] law in force at that time
favorable to the accused
Batas Pambansa Blg. 15 years effective only on March 16, 1982
195 cannot be applied for offenses committed prior March 16, 1982.
*Note: offenses committed on 1969, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1979
Act No. 3326-Section 2
[ An act to establish periods of
prescription for violations
penalized by special acts and
municipal ordinances and to
provide when prescription shall Reckoning
begin to run] Point Applicability
If the necessary
information based
prescription on which the crime
begins to run could be
from the discovered is
date of the readily available to would not apply since during the
commission the public, the Marcos regime, no person would have
of the general rule dared to question the legality of these
(1) General rule offense applies. transactions
prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the
guilty person, [and shall] begin to run
again if the proceedings are dismissed
for reasons not constituting jeopardy.

Applying the same principle, we have

consistently held in a number of cases,
some of which likewise involve behest
loans contracted during the Marcos
regime, that the prescriptive period for
Should martial law the crimes therein involved generally
prevent the filing commences from the discovery thereof,
thereof or should and not on the date of its actual
information about commission
prescription the violation be
begins to run suppressed, Violation of the grant of behest loans -
from the possibly through concealed from the public eye by the
date of the connivance, then simple expedient of suppressing their
discovery of the exception documentation, the second mode
(2) Exception the offense applies applies.

Discovered: Jan. 4 1993 [*****]

Complaint Filed: Jan. 6 2003

We, therefore, count the running of the prescriptive period from the date of discovery thereof on January
4, 1993, when the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee reported to the President its findings
 and conclusions anent RHC's loans. This being the case, the filing by the PCGG of its Affidavit-
Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on January 6, 2003, a little over ten (10) years from the
date of discovery of the crimes, is clearly belated. Undoubtedly, the ten-year period within which to
institute the action has already lapsed, making it proper for the Ombudsman to dismiss petitioner's
complaint on the ground of prescription.

Simply put, and as correctly held by the Ombudsman, prescription has already set in when petitioner
PCGG filed the Affidavit-Complaint on January 6, 2003.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Orders dated July 19, 2011 and March
8, 2012 rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-03-0008-A, entitled Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Rodolfo Cuenca, et al., are hereby AFFIRMED

RELATION TO THE REVISED PENAL CODE:

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence to run
from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when
such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
If there is nothing concealed (appears in a public when such proceedings terminate termination
document), the crime commences to run on the date that is final; an unappealed conviction or acquittal
of the commission unjustifiably stopped for any reason example:
Period of prescription for crimes that is continuing accused evades arrest, proceedings must be stopped
never runs Art 91 applies to a special law when said law does
Crime needs to be discovered by: not provide for the application but only provides for
a) offended party the period of prescription
b) authorities
c) their agents
If a person witnesses the crime but only tells the
authorities 25 years later, prescription commences
on the day the authorities were told.
What interrupts prescription?
a) preliminary examination or investigation w/c
is similar to judicial proceeding
b) filing the proper complaint w/ the fiscals
office and the prosecutor. Police not included.
c) Filing complaint with the court that has
proper jurisdiction
When the period commences to run again
a) When the proceeding is terminated without
the accused being convicted or acquitted
b) When the proceeding is unjustifiably stopped
for a reason not imputable to the offender
PO1 Crispin Ocampo vs People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015
FACTS:
On May 27, 2000, in the City of Manila, the accused, with the intention to kill, directly
assaulted and used personal violence upon one Mario De Luna y Hallare, by using his service
firearm, a .9 mm Barreta Pistol hitting the victim on the chest and other parts of the body thereby
inflicting him gunshot wounds which caused his death.

The victim and his friends were having a drinking session at his own house in Tondo,
Manila. After a while, they noticed another group, with PO1 Ocampo, the accused-appellant who
was also in that place. The victims friends joined the group. While the drinking session was
ongoing, Ocampo poked a gun to Jaime. The former was approached by her sister who asked
him to go home. Thereafter, the accused-appellant called on Mario de Luna and fired several
shots that made him fall down the ground and immediately rushed to the hospital and
pronounced dead on arrival.

The accused admitted to having shot the victim to death, but claimed to have done so in
self-defense. In support of this claim, the witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was
precipitated by the victims unprovoked knife attack upon accused-appellant. The latter was
allegedly left with no other recourse but to use his service firearm to neutralize the aggressor.

The appellant just arrived from his duty as a police officer and was changing his civilian
clothes when Marita came and asked for help in preventing the confrontation between the two
groups. Together with Marita, he proceeded to the group of bystanders. Noticing that the group
was becoming noisy, appellant approached Mario and asked if the latter knew him. The victim
said yes, appellant went to tell the group to end their drinking session. Mario and Jaime left the
group and disappeared. Minutes later, the two went back while standing beside the appellant,
Marita heard Mario shouted Walang pulis-pulis sa akin!. Mario pulled out a knife and stab at
appellant who evaded the first thrust. Mario tried to stab a second time but the latter dodged the
knife, drew his pistol and fired two successive shots. Appellant was leaning backwards and
fatally hit the latter lumped on the ground.

On 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant of homicide.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals has carefully reviewed the case records and finds
accused-appellants conviction proper. The court was convinced that accused-appellant is guilty
of homicide.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused used self-defense in the commission of the said crime.

RULING:
The Court held that the accused-appellant using his plea of self-defense as a defense is
unacceptable because the gravity of wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not
just defend.
Therefore, theres no reversible error in the Decisions of the CA and the RTC as to the guilt of
accused-appellant. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE.

People vs. Salahuddin

GR No. 206291
January 18, 2016

FACTS:

Appellant Salahuddin was charged with the crime of murder after he shot to death the victim,
Atty. Sotto using a .45 caliber pistol. The murder was carried out by means of treachery, evident
premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.

While driving home, Sotto, together with his niece, sustained several gunshots from a person
riding a motorcycle. Sotto, who was driving the car, was rushed to the hospital, but he was
pronounced dead-on-arrival. Meanwhile, Sottos niece got seriously wounded. A separate
criminal charge of frustrated murder was filed against the appellant before the Family Court.

Sottos niece and the security guard at a nearby establishment positively identified Salahuddin as
the gunman. However, the statements of the prosecutions witnesses were vehemently denied by
Salahuddin saying that when the crime happened, he was at the Barangay Hall the whole day,
performing his duty as Barangay Tanod. After his duty, he went to the house of the Barangay
Captain because the latter did not go to the Barangay Hall. In the testimony of the Barangay
Captain, he said that he was at the Barangay Hall the whole day together with the accused. They
left together and went to the house of the Barangay Captain and had a long conversation and ate
there. Although this defense was substantiated by some of the barangay officials, the testimonies
of the defense witnesses were conflicting and inconsistent.

The Regional Trial Court found Salahuddin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and the
ordinary aggravating circumstances of use of unlicensed firearm and use of motor vehicle which
facilitated the commission of the crime and the escape of the accused and his companion from
the crime scene.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the crime was committed with treachery and evident premeditation
Whether or not the accused can use denial and alibi as defenses
RULING:

The Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals. Prosecution
witnesses were clear and consistent in the identification of appellant as the one who fatally shot
Atty. Sotto several times. It also held that the crime was committed with treachery but without
evident premeditation since only one of the three elements is present.

The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by the aggressor without the slightest provocation
on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby
ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. In this case, the trial court
correctly ruled that the fatal shooting of Atty. Sotto was attended by treachery because appellant
shot the said victim suddenly and without any warning with a deadly weapon.

The essence of evident premeditation, on the other hand, is that the execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The following elements
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit
the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3)
sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the circumstances of his act. The Court agrees with the CAs finding that no evidence was
adduced to prove the first and third elements of evident premeditation.

Furthermore, the Court said that defenses of denial and alibi, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They
are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because they are
inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted.

Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown
to have any ill-motive to testify against the appellants. Between the categorical statements of the
prosecution eyewitnesses and the bare denial of the appellant, the former must prevail. After all,
an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from
the mouth of a credible witness.

People vs. Hidalgo

G.R No. 203313 9/02/2015
Facts:

AAA was hired by the spouses Roberto and Vivian Hidalgo as a house keeper and nanny of their
child. In the evening of January 30, 2000 while sleeping, she was awakened when Roberto and
Bombasi tied both of her hands and a handkerchief was tied in her mouth. Thereafter, both men
turned around, touched her body and started to take her clothes off. Afterwards, Don Juan,
Robertos son, take turn to rape the victim. They threatened her to cut her tongue and kill her
family in case she would tell them what happened. After almost one month, AAA filed a case
and submits herself in a medical examination. Medico legal officers confirmed in their report
that there was laceration in the hymen of AAA when they examined her

RTC decided that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
found conspiracy among the accused. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Appellant Roberto filed his appeal and assigned as error on the part of the Court of Appeals
when it: (1) gave full faith and credence to the private complainants testimony; and (2) ruled
that conspiracy was established and found the accused-appellant liable for three counts of simple
rape.

Issue:

Whether or not there was conspiracy committed by the three accused in the crime of rape.

Ruling:

Yes there was conspiracy. The Court held that the prosecution was able to prove that the three
accused conspired with one another to commit the carnal knowledge of AAA through the use of
force and threat. Conspiracy exists when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose.

In this case, the acts of Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi clearly demonstrated unity of
action to have carnal knowledge of AAA. Both Roberto and Bombasi tied victims hand; both
men turned AAA around, touched her body and started to take her dress off; the three of them
took their turn and inserted their penis inside AAAs vagina. These acts demonstrated a
concerted effort to rape her. Since there was a conspiracy between the three accused, the act of
one of them was the act of all and the three of them are equally guilty of all the crimes of rape
committed against AAA.