sayo v chief of police

FACTS:
The case is a habeas corpus petition for the release of petitioners Sayo and Mostero.

Petitioners were arrested upon the complaint of a certain Malinao, accusing them of robbery.

Police officer Dumlao forthwith arrested petitioners upon this tip; thereafter, Dumlao presented a
complaint with the fiscal of Manila.

When the current petition had been heard by the SC, petitioners were still under arrest.
Petitioners now assail the validity of their arrest and current detention.

Petitioners argue that, even assuming their arrest was valid, there is now a delay in their
delivery to the proper judicial authority, since no charge has been filed with the courts.

Respondents aver that Art. 125 of RPC, when it speaks of “judicial authorities,” cover city
fiscals.

ISSUE:
WoN petitioners’ arrest was valid
WoN Art. 125 RPC re delivery may refer to fiscals

RULING:
NO. Sans warrant of arrest, and not falling under the 3 valid warrantless arrest instances,
petitioners cannot be arrested solely upon a tip.
NO. The SC construed “judicial authorities” in light of Constitutional provisions regarding search
and seizure. They concluded that Art. 125 RPC refers to justices of peace or judges.

enrile v amin
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with the crime of Rebellion with Murder (complexed per Art. 48 RPC) in
the RTC of QC.

Petitioner was also charged in another court with a violation of PD 1829 for harboring the rebel
Lt. Col. Gringo Honasan.

Thereafter, petitioner motioned to dismiss both cases. Both courts denied the motions. Petitoner
moved for a motion for reconsideration and to quash the complaints but were again dismissed.

Petitioner filed for certiorari with the SC. He alleges that the main charge of rebellion: a) cannot
be complexed with murder; and b) the PD 1829 violation is absorbed by rebellion, the former
being in furtherance of the latter.

ISSUE:
WoN rebellion may be complexed with murder
WoN PD 1829 may be charged on top of rebellion

RULING:
NO. The SC reiterated its doctrine in People v Hernandez where it held that rebellion cannot be
complexed with common crimes when the latter is in furtherance of the former.
NO. Likewise, they held that a violation of the PD is absorbed in Rebellion.

pp v adlawan
FACTS:
The case is about the automatic review of the death sentence imposed on the accused.

Accused was convicted of the complex crime of Treason with murder, robbery, and rape.

This was due to his adherence and giving aid to the enemies during the Japanese occupation in
the country.

The Japanese forces were scouring the country for guerrilla forces and the accused helped the
enemy by pointing to guerrilla members and joining in on their torture, killing, and rape of some
women.

The aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and cruelty were duly
proved. Petitioner on the other hand alleges the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and plea of guilty.

ISSUE:
WoN the aforementioned complexing of crimes was proper
WoN the aggravating and mitigating circumstances were properly appreciated

RULING:
NO. The murder, robbery, and rape were all treasonous acts which inure to the main crime of
Treason.
NO. Treachery and abuse of superior strength are inherent in the crime of Treason, but cruelty
may be appreciated for inflicting torture upon the guerrilla members.
Anent the mitigating circumstances, voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated since he was
actually apprehended.

Soria v desierto
FACTS:
Petitioners were arrested for illegal possession of firearms on or about 830pm of 13 may 2001.

Because of the election holiday, they could only be charged in court about 22 hours after.

Petitioners filed a complaint with the ombudsman alleging that respondents violated Art. 125 of
RPC, since their alleged offense requires that they be delivered to judicial authorities in 18
hours.

Ombudsman dismissed their complaint due to probable cause. In its resolution, it was
mentioned that the Sunday and election day that intervened should not be counted.

Petitioners now file for certiorari with the SC, alleging grave abuse of authority against the
ombudsman.

ISSUE:
WoN the time periods in Art. 125 include the counting of Sundays and election days.

RULING:
NO. The SC has consistently ruled in the past that 12-18-36 periods in Art. 125 exclude
Sundays, special holidays, and election days. Thus, dismissal of ombudsman was proper for
there was no violation of said article.

people v tulin
FACTS:
Several accused herein are charged with Piracy under PD 532.

In 1991, a cargo vessel named M/T Tabangao was boarded by 7 armed pirates. Said vessel
contained various kinds of gasoline products.

It was boarded by the pirates in Philippine waters and its cargoes were offloaded in the shores
of Singapore.

Hiong, one of the accused, contends that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over him since the
crime was committed outside of PH territory. Further, he argues that a violation of PD 532
requires that the crime be committed within PH territory.

ISSUE:
WoN PH courts have jurisdiction over accused Hiong.

RULING:
YES. While the offloading was done in Singapore, the crime began in PH territory. Hiong, being
in conspiracy with those who boarded the ship in PH, is deemed to still be part of the crime
actually committed in PH territory.

Quintero v NBI
FACTS:
Petitioner was a delegate in the 1971 Constitutional Convention. During a session, he delivered
a speech alleging that certain delegates were being bribed.

Eventually, he was forced to disclose the name of the briber and he named Imelda Marcos.

Subsequently, his house was raided by the NBI on the strength of a search warrant procured by
the same.

Respondents seized bundles of money in petitioner’s home and filed a complaint for direct
bribery against petitioner.

Petitioner now assails the validity of the search warrant for having no probable cause.

ISSUE:
WoN search warrant was valid.

RULING:
NO. The 1935 Constitution provides that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable
cause to be personally determined by the judge, examining the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce. The SC explained that such probable cause cannot be based on hearsay
alone and must be upon personal knowledge.

umil v ramos
FACTS:
A certain Dural was brought to a hospital in Roosevelt Ave., QC. Soon thereafter, military
members were dispatched to arrest Dural for being a member of the NPA.

Other persons subject of this consolidated petition were also arrested. Like Dural, their arrest
was warrantless.

Petitioners now argue that their warrantless arrest was invalid. They posit that since the
accused were not arrested within the 3 valid modes of warrantless arrests, they could not have
been lawfully detained.

ISSUE:
WoN the warrantless arrest of Dural and others were valid

RULING:
YES. In our jurisdiction, there are 3 instances wherein a warrantless arrest can be made: 1) in
flagrante delicto; 2) in hot pursuit; and 3) as against escapees.
The SC ruled that subversion and rebellion are continuing offenses; the accused were arrested
in flagrante delicto. That mere membership in these outlawed groups is in itself the offense.
Hence, no actual act of rebellion or subversion is necessary during the arrest.

Pp v evangelista
FACTS:
Defendants were charged and convicted in the lower court of the crime of Sedition.

In 1931, defendants and a mass of people were ready to hold a rally when they were prevented
by the constabulary.

It was shown that defendants permit to hold the rally was actually revoked, and so they could
not proceed with their demonstration.

The constabulary officer allowed the accused to announce to his crowd that the rally cannot
continue. However, what he did instead was shout seditious words to incite the people to fight.

The officer immediately arrested the accused. The crowd violently advanced against the
detaining officers to wrest the accused away. The constabulary had to disperse them using a
water pump.

In this petition, the accused argues that he is not guilty of sedition. He posits that as per US v
Apurado, a mere disorder is not sedition.

ISSUE:
WoN sedition was actually committed.

RULING:
YES. The contention of the accused by relying on the Apurado case is misplaced. In Apurado,
the people were assembled at a chamber of the city council, petitioning for redress of their
grievances. In the case at bar, there was actual uprising and tumult; the constabulary had to use
force in the dispersal.

Villanueva v Ortiz
FACTS:

In 1953, elections were being held in the barrio of Butuan. Herein accused, acting in conspiracy,
attacked the appointed poll clerk and poll watcher while the two latter were in the performance
of their duty.

The assault upon these two officers caused a disturbance in the election precinct.

The city fiscal filed an information for a complex crime of direct assault with disturbance of
public order.

The CFI remanded the case to the Municipal Court because apparently, the proper reading of
the charge is only that of direct assault.

City fiscal now petitions that the remanding of the lower court be corrected by the SC.

ISSUE:
WoN the charge of the complex crime of direct assault with disturbance of public order was
proper.

RULING:
YES. The unlawful assaults done by the accused against persons in authority were the same
acts that produced the disturbance. Hence, the charge of the said complex crime was proper,
and was within the jurisdiction of the CFI to hear.

Garcia v CA
FACTS:
Petitioner had an agreement w a certain Alberto for the sale of the latter’s house and lot for the
sum of P1.2m.

Petitioner gave P10k of earnest money to the vendor; subsequently another P155k as
downpayment; and P5k as additional partial payment. Receipts for these transactions were
prepared by petitioner.

Soon after, relations between petitioner and vendor became sore. Petitioner filed a case of
estafa against the vendor. To create evidence, she altercated the amounts in the receipts she
prepared, making it appear that the sums she gave were more than what was actually given.

To counter, vendor filed a case of falsification of private documents against petitioner. This
falsification case went up to the CA where the appellate court ruled against petitioner.

Petitioner argues that she altercated the same but in the presence of the vendor.

ISSUE:
WoN falsification was committed by petitioner

RULING:
YES. Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171(6) of RPC provides the following as elements: 1) that there
be an altercation; 2) it be done on a genuine document; 3) such altercation changed the
document’s meaning; 4) the change is false; 5) that there be damage to another party. Elements
are presence, hence the crime.
Siquian v pp
FACTS:
Petitioner is the mayor of Isabela. Private respondent Carreon went to the former’s office to
apply for the job; she was later appointed by petitioner as clerk in the office of municipal
secretary.

Petitioner intimated with Carreon that her salary would be included in the yearly budget.
Carreon was subsequently given a certificate of appointment and indicated therein was the
certification of availability of funds for Carreon’s employment.

It was later found that the budget for their current year was not enacted by the local council. As
such, there couldn’t actually have been appropriation for Carreon’s appointment.

Regardless of petitioner’s knowledge of the facts, he still made the aforementioned certification
and allowed Carreon to later on collect salary on the strength of the document petitioner made.

Carreon later charged petitioner with falsification of public documents. Petitioner argues that he
had no criminal intent to prejudice Carreon.

ISSUE:
WoN petitioner is liable for the crime.

RULING:
YES. Elements are present for the crime of falsification under Art. 171(4) of RPC: 1) that the
offender makes untruthful narration of facts in a document; 2) that he had the legal obligation to
disclose the truth; 3) that the facts are absolutely false. His defense of lack of intent to prejudice
will not lie, since damage to 3rd persons is not an element of the crime.

Abdulla v Pp
FACTS:

Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of illegal use of public funds
(technical malversation).

Said crime allegedly arose when petitioner and others paid employees of Sulu State College in
form of terminal leave benefits.

Petitioner was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of technical malversation. In the same case, her
two co-accused were acquitted.

Petitioner insists that she is not guilty of the crime charged because there is no criminal intent
on her part, and the same cannot be presumed by the prosecution.

Upon motion therefor, the Sandiganbayan only deleted the accessory penalty of disqualification.

Petitioner now seeks certiorari with the SC.

ISSUE:
WoN criminal intent can be presumed in technical malversation.
WoN the conviction of technical malversation was proper.

RULING:
NO. The crime allegedly committed was not unlawful per se; the onus of proving intent was
therefore with the prosecution. The same was not proved.
NO. An element of the crime is that funds be used for some public purpose when it was already
appropriated for another public use. In the case at bar, there was no particular appropriation for
salary differentials. Hence, petitioner did not commit the crime.

Pp v Domasian
FACTS:
Enrico Agra, an 8 year old, was approached by accused Domasian. The latter pretended to
require the boy’s assistance.

The boy agreed and went along with the accused. The two boarded the tricycle and stopped at
a hospital. The boy would not go in and started to cry, so the accused forcibly took him on board
a minibus.

After the bus ride, the two boarded another the tricycle. The boy’s crying aroused the suspicion
of the driver and promptly reported the matter to the authorities.

After the boy’s recovery, his parents received a belated ransom note.

The trial for the case at bar ended with Domasio and a certain Dr. Tan convicted for the crime of
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

The accused argue that crime was not committed because the boy was never detained, only
taken along for several rides.

ISSUE: WoN there was kidnapping

RULING:
YES. It has been long held that in this crime, actual detention in an enclosure is not necessary.
Any deprivation of liberty will suffice; the same was present when the boy was dragged along
the various rides, against his consent, with his liberty restrained.

Ong Chiu Kwan v CA

Petitioner was a property owner near an establishment named “Crazy Feet.”

Petitoner alleged that the water, telephone and power lines of Crazy Feet were obstructing his
property. Thus, he ordered that the lines be cut.

Petitioner was charged with unjust vexation. He was convicted by the MTC. He appealed to the
RTC but the court reaffirmed the decision in toto without explaining why. He appealed the same
to the CA but was dismissed.

ISSUE:
WoN petitioner is guilty of unjust vexation.
RULING:
YES. His act of cutting the wires of Crazy Feet, without any proper authority, unjustly annoyed
the latter.
While his constitutional right was violated because the RTC decided on his case without
explaining, the SC decided the simple matter of his case herein.

pp v matic y bactad

Accused Matic was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Accused, together with others, robbed and killed a certain Villamin. This assault was witnessed
by the latter’s neighbor.

Conviction of the accused was primarily based on the testimony of the neighbor Escala. It was
alleged that the assailants stabbed first the victim before taking his valuables.

Accused Matic argues that he should not have been convicted of the crime Robbery with
Homicide. He posits that, if the witness is to be believed, the fact that the stabbing came before
the robbing was incredible. That if he is to be liable, it should only be for homicide and not
robbery.

ISSUE:
WoN accused is guilty only of homicide only.

RULING:
NO. In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is immaterial whether the killing
came before or after the robbery. So long as the killing was by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery, the special complex crime is present.

Tanzo v Drilon
FACTS:
Private respondents both surnamed Salazar were owners of a transporting business with local
and US coverage.

Petitioner was approached by private respondents and was allegedly induced by the latter to
invest in their company. Petitioner likewise stated that the accused told him that the latter will
“hold the money in trust.”

Years later, petitioner demanded for the return of his capital with interest. The accused did not
heed the demand. Hence, petitioner charged the accused with estafa.

ISSUE:
WoN estafa is present in the case.

RULING:
NO. Estafa with abuse of confidence is applicable where the offender is given property by the
offended party with the obligation to return the same. The nature of the contract entered into by
the parties were that of a loan. The loaned amount is not the same to be returned.

Marbella-Bobis v Bobis
FACTS:
Petitioner is the wife to a bigamous marriage with respondent. She alleged that there was a
subsisting marriage during her subsequent marriage with respondent.

Respondent argued to the lower court that his first marriage was void for lack of marriage
license. He also motioned that this proceeding against him be suspended on account of the
prejudicial question of the first marriage’s validity.

The lower court granted the motion. Petitioner objected thereto, but was not heeded by the
court. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
WoN the validity of the first marriage in a bigamy charge is a prejudicial question.

RULING:
NO. The elements of bigamy are: 1) the offender was legally married; 2) second marriage had
not been dissolved; 3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; 4) the same would have been valid
if it hadn’t been for the original subsisting marriage.
The Court explained that it the validity of the original marriage is immaterial as it hasn’t been
declared void by the court. The crime of bigamy was still consummated.

Clemente v Pp

Petitioner was a detention prisoner in the city jail of Manila. It was alleged that he gave a certain
Dela Cruz a P500 bill to buy softdrinks in a nearby store. Upon payment, the cashier noticed
that the bill was fake and refused.

Dela Cruz informed the jail guards of the matter. The officers thereafter conducted a surprise
investigation of the jail quarters and found 23 P500 bills, all of which were fake.

Petitioner was charged with illegal use and possession of false bank notes. During the trial, said
Dela Cruz was not presented as witness.

ISSUE:
WoN petitioner may be convicted of the crime charged.

RULING:
NO. Under Art. 168 of RPC, it is necessary that the person who possesses false notes actually
use or have the intent to use such false notes. Since Dela Cruz was not presented as witness,
there is no actual use or intent to use which could be proved.

People v Caingat
FACTS:
Accused was charged with the crime of rape committed against his own 14 yo daughter.

During the trial, daughter of the accused (Rowena) testified that her father, wearing only briefs,
approached her, undressed her, and “sexually abused” or “raped” her.

Accused was convicted by the lower court of qualified rape and was sentenced to death. Hence,
the present case is for the automatic review of the SC.
ISSUE:
WoN qualified rape was proved BRD.

RULING:
NO. In prosecutions for rape, the Court reminded that rape charges may be made with facility,
hard to prove the crime, but harder for the accused, though innocent, to disprove. Hence,
allegations of the victim must be scrutinized.
In the case at bar, the prosecution did not ask whether or not the penis actually reached at least
the labia majora. Prosecution rested his case with only the victim saying his father was “trying to
force his genitals onto hers.”
Mere allegations of rape, and nothing more, cannot result into a rape conviction.

Valeroso v Pp
FACTS:
Petitioner was hired by PNB as caretake of a certain parcel of lot.

In 1997, a certain Castillo, without permit and despite manifest prohibition, constructed a nipa
hut on the premises of the said lot.

Petitioner, together w 4 others, went in the lot and demolished the nipa hut. Thereafter, they
were charged with malicious mischief.

Petitioner admits destroying the hut but argues that he had good motives therefor. He posited
that his sole motive was to maintain the interests of his employer.

In effect, he is interposing the defense of a justifying circumstance; that he did the same in the
lawful exercise of a right or office.

The lower court found him guilty of the charge, but acquitted his co-accused. He appealed. RTC
and CA affirmed the ruling of the assailed decision.

ISSUE:
WoN petitioner is guilty of malicious mischief.

RULING:
YES. The elements are present: 1) that the offender deliberately caused damage to the property
of another; 2) the act does not fall under arson or any other crimes involving destruction; and 3)
it was committed for the sake of damaging property.
The defense of justifying circumstance will not lie. While indeed he had a lawful duty to preserve
the interests of his employer, he took the law into his own hands by summarily destroying the
nipa hut.

Arriola v Sandiganbayan
Petitioners Arriola and Radan are Barangay Captain and Chief Tanod, respectively, of
Dulangan, Romblon.
After an illegal logging raid, PNP and DENR personnel turned over confiscated logs over to
petitioners for safekeeping. Arriola signed a receipt agreeing to be a custodian for the logs.
When the logs were to be retrieved, petitioners alleged that they had gone missing. They were
subsequently charged with malversation of public funds thru negligence.
Petitioners argue that one element of malversation is that the officer must be accountable for
the property; hence, them being only barangay officials, they were not accountable for the logs
by reason of their office.
ISSUE:
WoN petitioners are liable despite not being the officially accountable.
RULING:
YES. While relevant law provides that certain DENR officials are accountable for the logs, the
receipt they signed contained a provision that they agree to the safekeeping of the same. Due to
this agreement, they became accountable officers.

Pp v Barde
FACTS:
In 1999, the accused went to a certain dance area in Rapu-Rapu, Albay, and hurled a hand
grenade therein.
This caused the death of 15 persons and injury of 76 persons. A case for the complex crime of
multiple murder with multiple attempted murder was filed against the accused.
They were convicted by the lower court of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
WoN the crime convicted of was proper.
RULING:
NO. The proper charge is multiple murder with double attempted murder. The single act of
hurling a grenade

Pp v Saturnino Villanueva
FACTS:
Accused was alleged and duly proved to have raped his daughter, below 12 years, three times.
The lower court convicted him of qualified rape.
During the pre-trial, the medical certificate and birth certificate were marked as exhibits but were
not formally offered as evidence during the trial.
Accused now argues that since the evidence were not offered, the same could not be used in
convicting him.
ISSUE:
WoN accused may be convicted of qualified rape.
RULING:
NO. In qualified rape, the circumstances must be duly alleged and proved. Since the birth
certificate was not offered as evidence, the qualifying circumstance of relationship cannot be
appreciated against accused. He is guilty only of simple rape.

Maderazo v Pp
Offender party Verutiao was a lessee of a public stall in the Biliran public market. She had been
renting the spot for P200/mo.
Some time later, a municipal ordinance was enacted whereby private persons are allowed to
erect commercial structures in said public market and they shall be reimbursed 50% of the
construction costs.
Lessee spent some P24k, but was never reimbursed by the municipality. Eventually, lessee and
the municipality entered into a one-year lease contract. It contained a provision that any
violation of the terms of agreement will give rise to its immediate cancellation.
Lessee was later reimbursed a partial portion of the 50%. Since it was not yet fully reimbursed,
she refused to pay her monthly rent.
After going on xmas vacation, lessee returned to the stall to find the same closed and her items
seized.
She charged the mayor with grave coercion but the Sandiganbayan only convicted the accused
of unjust vexation.
Accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the offended party were not present, therefore
the unjust vexation was not committed.
ISSUE:
WoN accused is guilty of unjust vexation.
RULING:
YES. In this crime, the offended party need not be present when the vexatious overt acts were
done. It is enough that the offended party was vexed when they learned of such overt acts.

San Diego v pp
FACTS:
Petitioner was the accountant of the Obando Fisherman’s Multi-Purpose Cooperative.
She was in charge of handling the coop’s checks which were pre-signed by upper management,
ready for disbursement.
Petitioner prepared certifications that the coop had a balance of P9.6m with their bank. Upon
verification, the balance only amounted to P3.6m.
It was later discovered that she took the missing balance and deposited the same to her
account.
Petitioner was charged with and convicted of qualified theft. Upon appeal, she argued that the
crime committed was estafa with abuse of confidence.
ISSUE: WoN estafa was committed.
RULING:
NO. In Estafa w abuse of confidence, there is an obligation to deliver the same thing held in
trust by the offender. Such trust is borne out of a contract; hence, the offender acquires not only
material possession but juridical possession. In the case at bar, there was no such juridical
possession.

Lopez v People
FACTS:
Private respondent was mayor of Cadiz city. Petitioner is a resident therein, who was charged
with libel by the former.
There was a certain billboard which read: “CADIZ FOREVER” “_____ NEVER.” Petitioner wrote
“BADING AND SAGAY” in the blank portion.
It was alleged by respondent mayor that “Bading” was his nickname and the petitioner was
insinuating he was a “tuta” of Sagay city.
For some reason, the lower court deemed such writing as libelous and convicted petitioner.
ISSUE:
WoN petitioner is guilty of libel.
RULING:
NO. Libel is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or of a condition, status, or circumstance, which tends to cast discredit, dishonor, or
contempt etcetc. There must be a defamatory imputation, which is construed in its plain
meaning and how it is understood by those who read it. In the case at bar, there is no such
malicious imputation.