PAGE 5 – CASE DIGEST

ABSOLUTORY CAUSE

1. NAVARRO VS MENESES – no digest

2. PEOPLE VS BALDOGO

FACTS:

Baldogo and Bermas were inmates who were serving sentence in the Penal
Colony of Palawan. They were assigned as helpers of the Camacho family, who
resides within the Penal Colony. In the evening of Feb. 22, 1996, only siblings Jorge
(14 y.o) and Julie (12 y.o.) were left in their house together with the Baldogo and
Bermas. While Julie was studying in her room, she heard Bermas calling from
the kitchen ("Jul, tawag ka ng kuya mo"), but she ignored him. A few moments later,
Bermas called her again, but Julie again ignored him. However, when Julie heard
a loud sound, akin to a yell (“Ahh, ahh!”), she got out of the room and went to the
kitchen, where she found Jorge sprawled on the floor, lying face down and bloodied.
The vicinity was well lighted by a fluorescent lamp. Julie saw Baldogo and
Bermas standing over Jorge, each of them armed with a bolo. She ran back to the
sala but the two pursued her. Baldogo tied her hands at her back with a torn t-shirt
and placed a piece of cloth in her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help
from their neighbors. Baldogo dragged Julie outside the house and towards the
mountain. During their trek Baldogo and Bermas were able to retrieve their
clothingand belongings from a trunk which was located under a Tamarind tree. The
following day, Bermas separated from Baldogo and Julie, who continued their
ascent to the mountain. The two stayed in the mountains for a few days until Feb.
28, 1996, when Baldogo left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went
to the lowlands & there she asked for help from Nicodemus. Nicodemus brought
Julie to Balsaham where they met some personnel of the penal colony and
police officers, and Nicodemus turned Julie over for custody to them.Two
informations were filed accused-appellant Baldogo and Bermas, one for crime of
murder and the second for kidnapping. Even before the arraignment, Bermas
died. Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. He contends that
while he was preparing for sleep he was approached Bermas, who was armed with a
bloodied bolo.Bermas warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed.
Baldogo maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He
averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain
before Bermas left him, he tried to protecther from Bermas. Baldogo asserted that
he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to
surrender but Baldogo was afraid that Julio Sr., the father, might kill him.The RTC
found Baldogo guilty of the two crimes charged, appreciating the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation among many others.

ISSUE: W/N the RTC erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of

evident premeditation despite the failure of the prosecution to prove it?

HELD/RATIO: YES.

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder with the qualifying

aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, based on the following findings
and ratiocination:"The slaying of Jorge Camacho took place about 8:30 o'clock in the
evening of February 22, 1996. It was carried out after the accused have been
through tidying- up the kitchen, the dining room and the kitchen wares the family of the
Camachos used in their early dinner before 7:00 o'clock that evening. But even
before dinner, the accused have already made
preparations for their flight, shown by the fact that they already had their
clothes, other personal belongings and food provisions stacked in their
respective travelling bags then placed in a spot where they can just pick them up as
they take to flight."

Although the SC agrees that Baldogo is guilty of murder, it does not agree with
the ruling of RTC that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation.
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the
confluence of the following requisites:

(a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and
(c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution
of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation must be

proved with certainty as the crime itself. A finding of evident premeditation cannot
be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided
to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it. In this case, the
prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The barefaced fact that Baldogo
and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a
kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that
they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is
 possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the
colony. There is no evidence establishing when Baldogo and Bermas hid the
bag under
the tree. The prosecution even failed to adduce any evidence of overt acts on
the part of Baldogo, nor did it present evidence as to when and how he and
Bermas
planned and prepared to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie and to prove that the two
felons since then clung to their determination to commit the said crimes.
Although Baldogo and Bermas were armed with bolos, there is no evidence that
they took advantage of their n
umerical superiority and weapons to kill Jorge.

SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE

1. PEOPLE VS LIZADA

Doctrine: The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal

liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by
him before his desistance.

FACTS: In August 1998, the petitioner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
by means of force, violence and intimidation Analia Orillosa, his stepdaughter, by embracing,
kissing, and touching her private parts. He then proceeded with carnal knowedge to remove
her skirt and panty and placed himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her
vagina. This allegation was repeated four times in a different occasions.

However, medical examination revealed that Analia’s hymen was intact, and the other parts of
her vagina was not injured due to an insertion of average-sized adult Filipino male organ in
full erection.

The testimony of Rossel, Analia’s sister, also proved that no insertion of penis happened
because the petitioner stopped after he saw her.

Hence, petitioner was charged for four counts of qualified rape under four separate
information. RTC accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him
and sentenced to Death Penalty in each and every case as provided for in the seventh
paragraph, no. 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

However, petitioner averred in his brief that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and that the testimony of Rossel was not taken into consideration in the
decision.

ISSUE: WON Lizada is guilty of acts of lasciviousness only.

RULING: NO. Accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape and not of acts of lasciviousness.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The essential
elements of an attempted felony are as follows:

1. The offender commencesthe commission of the felony directly by overt acts;

2. He does not performall the acts of execution which should producethe felony;
3. The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneousdesistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of executionwas due to causeor accident other than
his spontaneous desistance.

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

If the malefactor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his spontaneous
desistance, he is not guilty of an attempted felony.The law does not punish him for his attempt
to commit a felony.

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and taking into account Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code, the appellant can only be convicted of attempted rape. He commenced the commission
of rape by removing his clothes, undressing and kissing his victim and lying on top of
her. However, he failed to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of
rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, i.e., by the timely
arrival of the victims brother. Thus, his penis merely touched Mary Joys private
organ. Accordingly, as the crime committed by the appellant is attempted rape, the penalty to
be imposed on him should be an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision
correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum.

HOMICIDE OR MURDER

1. ESCAMILLA VS PEOPLE – no digest

2. PENTECOSTES, JR. VS PEOPLE – no digest
3. PEOPLE VS ABELLA – no digest

COMPLEX CRIME

People vs Barde

Doctrines:
Complex Crime; penalty. ART. 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period. Appellant’s single act of detonating an explosive
device may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet
these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on
which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal
impulse which shows his lesser degree of perversity. Thus, applying the aforesaid provision of
law, the maximum penalty for the most serious crime, which is murder, is death. Pursuant,
however, to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the
appellate court properly reduced the penalty of death which it previously imposed upon the
appellant to reclusion perpetua.

Facts:

That on or about the 15th day of April, 1999 at more or less 12:30 oclock in the morning, at
Sitio Santo Nio, Barangay Liguan, Municipality of Rapu-Rapu, Province of Albay, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant and Jimmy],
conspiring and confederating and acting in concert to achieve a common purpose, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and committed with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery (alevosia), evident premeditation, and by means of
explosion, did then and there roll and explode a hand grenade (M26-A1 Fragmentation
grenade) inside the dance area which exploded and resulted to the instantaneous deaths of
15 persons.

This single act of exploding the hand grenade (M26-A1 Fragmentation grenade) by the
above-named [appellant and Jimmy] also caused and resulted in the injuries and wounding
on the different and various parts of the bodies of at least seventy six (76) persons.

Issue:

Whether the court is correct in convicting the appellant for complex crime of multiple murder
with double attempted murder. Yes.

RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

Mendoza vs People

Facts:

Romarico Mendoza (petitioner) is a company boss/employer convicted for violating a special

law known as the Social Security Condonation Law of 2009 for non-remittance of the Social
Security Service (SSS) contributions to his employees. The offense is criminal in nature.
Nevertheless, Mendoza admitted his fault, as he said, he acted in good faith. But still, the
Court has to render judgment and apply the proper penalty how harsh it may be dura lex sed
lex).

The Court sentenced Mendoza to an indeterminate prison term. Considering the

circumstances, the court the Court transmitted the case to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, and RECOMMENDS the grant of executive clemency to the petitioner.
Issue:

Without violating the separation of powers, can the Supreme Court recommend to the
President, the grant of executive clemency to a convict?
Ruling:

The Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions it deems appropriate but are
beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive. It is clearly stated in
the Revised Penal Code which provides; “Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which
it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the
reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of
legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the
execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.”

CONSPIRACY

*IMPLIED CONSPIRACY

People vs Dollendo – no digest

*COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

People vs Siongco – no digest

DISSOCIATION

People vs Ebet – no digest

MASTERMIND

People vs Vera – no digest

People vs Comiling – no digest

People vs Janjalani

Facts:
Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argue that the trial court did not conduct a
searching inquiry after they had changed their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty."

In their second assignment of error, accused-appellants assert that guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. They pointed out that the testimony of the conductor was merely
circumstantial, while that of Asali as to the conspiracy was insufficient.

Issues:

Accused-appellants raise the following assignment of errors:

The trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants' plea of guilt despite
insufficiency of searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the said plea.

The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of accused-appellants for the crimes
charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

As early as in People v. Apduhan, the Supreme Court has ruled that "all trial judges ... must
refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for while justice demands a
speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it... that when
an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an
inevitable conviction."[6] Thus, trial court judges are required to observe the following
procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. -- When the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of the consequences of his... plea and shall require the prosecution to
prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence
in his behalf.

The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment.

Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in
cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a "guilty" plea
to the accused, as it appears in this case.

the conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the
rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress;
mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the... significance, effects, and
consequences of their guilty plea.[10] This requirement is stringent and mandatory.

Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the context under which the re-arraignment was
conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against the accused. The
Court observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to another charge -
... multiple murder - based on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated murder
charge. The Court further notes that prior to the change of plea to one of guilt, accused
Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt - one through an extrajudicial...
confession (exclusive television interviews, as stipulated by both accused during pretrial), and
the other via judicial admission (pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing circumstances,
we deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry" in this... instance.
Remanding the case for re-arraignment is not warranted, as the accused's plea of guilt was
not the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment under consideration.

In People v. Oden, the Court declared that even if the requirement of conducting a searching
inquiry was not complied with, "[t]he manner by which the plea of guilt is made ... loses much
of great significance where the conviction can be based on independent evidence... proving
the commission by the person accused of the offense charged."[13] Thus, in People v.
Nadera, the Court stated:

Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the
accused, the conviction must be sustained

Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad are concerned, the evidence for the
prosecution, in addition to that which can be drawn from the stipulation of facts, primarily
consisted of the testimonies of the bus conductor, Elmer Andales, and of the... accused-
turned-state-witness, Asali. Andales positively identified accused Baharan and Trinidad as the
two men who had acted suspiciously while inside the bus... and who had scampered away
from the bus... moments before the bomb exploded. On the other hand, Asali testified that he
had given accused Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the bombing incident in Makati
City. The guilt of the accused Baharan and Trinidad was sufficiently established by these
corroborating testimonies,... coupled with their respective judicial admissions (pretrial
stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive television interviews, as they both
stipulated during pretrial) that they were indeed the perpetrators of the Valentine's Day
bombing.[15]

Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings of guilt made by the trial court as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.

PRESENCE

People vs Tomas – no digest

People vs Galgo – no digest