US vs.

Divino, 12 Phil 175 responsibility, although his ignorance may be considered as a

mitigating circumstance.
Facts: Feliciano Divino should be, and he is hereby, sentenced for simple
This cause was brought against Feliciano Divino for the crime of imprudence
lesiones graves, and appealed by him to this court from a judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Moro Province

A girl named Alfonsa, about 13 years of age when the incident

happened, was a servant for Feliciano Divino and his family. Her feet
were the focus in this case because it is said that Feliciano Divino
burned her feet, in a very unorthodox and harmful way in a sense,
by setting her feet on fire after applying petroleum to it and tying her
down to the floor. He argued in the court that when Alfonsa came to
their home, her body was full of scars and ulcers, and that the ulcer
in her body was cured, through his efforts.

Issue: Whether Feliciano Divino can be acquitted because he argued

that he acted in good faith and did not mean any harm to the girl,
except to help her get cured.

Held: The expert testimony offered by the prosecution should be

carefully noted — the burns are supposed to have been caused two
years previously — on account of a large ulcer that she had on the
left foot, in a place that showed an old scar; according to the court's
remark on folio 109, said left foot was the most deformed."
Medical arguments were brought in the light of the decision and that
a doctor clearly identified that the scars on Alfonsa’s feet were
indeed because of burns and that the wounds became worse on
account of Feliciano’s efforts to cure them. Certainly it was found
certain that the acts of the guilty person do not seem to have been
intended to cause an evil, but rather as a remedy. However, article
568 or the Penal Code clearly states that a person that undertakes
medical assistance to another person is liable for any injuries
resulting from such treatment, and the fact that he acted in good
faith and according to the best of his ability does not relieve him from
PEOPLE V. NANQUIL-- 43 Phil 232
Ratio:
Facts: Nanquil had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which
Juan Rosas’ cart and carabao disappeared, he requested the resulted, the crime committed by him cannot be that of homicide
assistance of the Constabulary to recover them and find the suspect. through reckless imprudence, because he did have the intention to
A sergeant and two soldiers were commissioned to investigate. do some evil unlawfully (maltreating the deceased), and this
During the investigation, they called Severino Ramiscal, and one of intention, although it was not that of killing, is inconsistent with
them, surnamed Masiglat, examined Ramiscal. He did not obtain any reckless imprudence.
clear information from Ramiscal so he turned him over to the other
soldier, Antancio Nanquil for further examination. Sergeant who
commanded that patrol was feeling ill so he remained in ahouse in a
neighborhood. As Atanasio Nanquil examined Ramiscal on a road,
Masiglat was 20 brazas from them. All of a sudden, Masiglat heard a
blow and saw Ramsical fall to the ground. Nanquil struck him with
his gun which consequently killed Ramiscal. Atansio Nanquil was
prosecuted for the crime of homicide and sentence by the trial court
to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal.
The defendant appealed.
CA- affirmed

Issue:
W/N Nanquil should be charged with homicide through reckless
imprudence.

Held:
No. The court finds a mitigating circumstance of the accused not
having had the intention to cause the death of the deceased. For this
reason the penalty of reclusion temporal must be imposed in its
minimum degree. The judgment appealed from is modified, and the
appellant sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal, to the accessory penalties provided by article 59 of the
Penal Code, to indemnify the heirs of Severino Ramiscal in the
amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000), and to pay the costs of both
instances.
People vs. Taneo March 31, 1933 (58 Phil 255)
Facts:
On January 16, 1932, in the house of PotencianoTaneo’s parents in
Dolores, Ormoc, Leyte, because of severe stomachache, Potenciano
slept early. While sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room with a
bolo in hand and upon meeting his wife who tried stop him, he
wounded her int eh abdomen. Several others were also attacked,
this includes his father, and his guests, Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao.
It was claimed that he was dreaming when the crime happened. The
trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
Issue:
WON the defendant is criminally liable.
Ruling:
No. The defendant acted while in a dream and his acts with which he
was charged were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal
liability. The expert witness claimed that the defendant was under
the influence of hallucination and not in his right mind. The
defendant is not criminally liable however, he was ordered to be
confined in an insane asylum.
US. Vs. Catangay 28 Phil 490 Nov.25, 1914
Facts:
Three men were hunting deer at night. One of them carried a lantern
fastened to his forehead. His other companions followed him. Then
they saw a deer. The accused, whose gun was already cocked aimed
at the deer but he stumbled against an embankment which lay
between him and the deceased. His gun was accidentally discharged,
hitting and killing the deceased. The RTC ruled convicting the
accused with homicide through reckless negligence, because he did
not take necessary precaution.
Issue:
Whether or not there was negligence resulting with homicide.
Ruling:
No. The Court held that Catangay was not criminally liable because
he had no criminal intent and was not negligent. He was going for
along with his eyes fixed on the deer, the embankment attributed
to what was an unforeseen and unfortunate accident for which
defendant cannot be held liable. Accused was acquitted.
QUINTO VS. ANDRES
Facts:
At around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995, eleven-year-old Edison
Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson
Quinto, who was also about eleven years old, were at Barangay San
Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac. They saw respondents Dante
Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage
culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them
inside the drainage culvert.Wilson assented. When Garcia saw that it
was dark inside, he opted to remain seated in a... grassy area about
two meters from the entrance of the drainage system.
Respondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along with respondent
Andres and Wilson, entered the drainage system which was covered
by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter wide, with water
about a foot deep.After a while, respondent
Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and
left without saying a word. Respondent Andres also came out, went
back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was
already dead. Respondent Andres laid the... boy's lifeless body down
in the grassy area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled
from the scene. For his part, respondent Andres went to the house of
petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and informed her that...
her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the drainage culvert while
respondent Andres followed her.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Asphyxia by drowning; traumatic head injuries,
contributory.
Issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF RESPONDENTS' CRIMINAL
LIABILITY, LIKEWISE, CARRIES WITH IT THE EXTINCTION OF THEIR CIVIL
LIABILITY.
WHETHER OR NOT PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO HOLD
RESPONDENTS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF WILSON QUINTO.
Ruling:
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and
logical consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury.
If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as
to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence of their
felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to
prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual...
result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his
delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the
victim.
In the present case, the respondents were charged with homicide by
dolo.
In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court and the CA,
the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the
facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the
petitioner has a cause of action against the... respondents for
damages.
He presented two possibilities: (a)... that the deceased could have
been hit by a blunt object or instrument applied with full force; or (b)
the deceased could have slipped, fell hard and his head hit a hard
object:
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Dr. Aguda that the
deceased might have slipped, causing the latter to fall hard and hit his
head on the pavement,... However, the absence of any ill-motive to kill
the deceased is relevant and admissible in evidence to prove that no
violence was perpetrated on... the person of the deceased. In this
case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part
of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter was
invited to join them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that
respondent
Andres used to go to their house and play with her son before the
latter's death.
Principles:
The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in
order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar
offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him or,
in general, to maintain social order.
The... sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution, reparation or
indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury
he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused
Natural" refers to an occurrence in the ordinary... course of human life
or events... logical" means that there is a rational connection between
the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage
Proximate cause is that cause which... in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
There must be a relation of "cause and effect," the cause being the
felonious act of the offender, the effect being the resultant injuries
and/or death of the victim.
Sulpicio Intod vs. CA G.R. 103119 October 21,
1992
Facts:
Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to
Salvador Mandaya's house and asked him to go with them to the house of
Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a meeting with Aniceto
Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed
because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should
accompany them. Otherwise, he would also be killed.
All of them armed arrived at Palangpangan's house and fired at
Palangpangan's bedroom but there was no one in the room. The Trial Court
convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the testimony of the witness.
Issue:
Whether or not Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an impossible
crime under Art. 4 par. 2.
Ruling: Yes. The court held that the accused is guilty of impossible crime.
Art. 4 par. 2 provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account
of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the
night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently
impossible. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime.
Valenzuela v. People, GR No. 160188 owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Article 6 of the violence against or intimidating of persons or force upon things. The
Revised Penal Code; Stages of theft court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial
Facts: that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property
stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and
While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts.
of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be
a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them attempted or consummated.
where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then
returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged with more
cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started
loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave
the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the
merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were
subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted
both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.
Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to
freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s
decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme
Court.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held:

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when

all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present – (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said
property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent
to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE
GERONIMO and ROMEO GERONIMO, Ponente:
Esguerra, J.
Facts:
Enrico- pleaded guilty – hacked fermin w/ bolo
Jose- hacked with bolo too
Romeo- just embraced fermin
The amended information for Murder filed against the three (3)
accused, Enrico Geronimo, Romeo Geronimo and Jose Geronimo,
included two other persons, namely, Isidro Geronimo and Eleodoro
Carlos, but these two accused have not been apprehended. Enrico
Geronimo pleaded guilty to the charge but Romeo Geronimo and Jose
Geronimo went to trial upon their plea of not guilty. The defendants'
group were drunk and one of them hit the deceased with a slingshot
and fell unconscious to the ground. While Fermin was held
unconscious by Romeo, Enrico Geronimo took Fermin’s bolo from
his waist and hacked the latter on the right ankle joint and Jose also
boloed his left ankle joint, almost severing it. Fermin Magbanua died
as a result of his wounds. The said accused in company with Isidro
Geronimo and Eleodoro Carlos, who are still at large, all armed with
boloes, sling-shot and stones were charged of conspiring,
confederating and helping each other, with superior strength and with
evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stone and stab Fermin
Magbanua.
Def: Both accused maintain that the element of conspiracy was never
proven and nowhere in the evidence of the prosecution is it shown that
there was an agreement relating to the commission of the offense; that
the aggression was instantaneous and all of a sudden, which
circumstance precludes the idea of a preconceived design to attack the
deceased; It has been laid down as a rule that when the defendants by
their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and
another performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the
attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently
independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating
closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence
of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said
defendants were engaged in a conspiracy. When conspiracy has been
proven, all conspirators are liable as co-principals for the wrongful act
and its consequences
Issues:
1. whether the trial court erred in holding that Jose and Romeo
Geronimo conspired with Enrico Geronimo in killing the deceased. 2.
whether both appellants were convicted upon testimonies which they
brand as unbelievable and unworthy of credence. 3. whether the trial
court erred in convicting appellant Romeo Geronimo inspite of his
alleged non-participation in the agression against the deceased. 4.
whether the crime committed is murder or homicide 5. whether both
appellants should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and, as to
appellant Romeo Geronimo alone, with the alternative mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction.
Decisions:
1. We do not agree with the Solicitor General that there was
conspiracy among the accused. 2. The ruling of the court must be
sustained. 3. Although the Solicitor General does not argue on the
third assigned error, the contention of the defense cannot be sustained.
4. The appellants’ contention is without merit. 5. The mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed should have been appreciated by the trial court, but only
for appellant Jose Geronimo who alone inflicted injury without intent
to cause the death of the victim.
Rationale:
1. It should be noted that all the accused and the victim were drinking
together in a tuba store on the day of the incident. No other evidence
was presented by the prosecution to show conspiracy which according
to the settled rule, must be proved as clearly and as convincingly as
the commission of the crime itself. It must be real and not
presumptive. In the absence of clear proof that the killing was in fact
envisaged by them, and there being no satisfactory showing that the
killing was done in furtherance of the conspiracy, they cannot be held
responsible therefor. Although the defendants are relatives and had
acted with some degree of simultaneity in attacking their victim,
nevertheless, this fact alone does not prove conspiracy. 2. There was
no sufficient reason having been adduced why the trial court’s
findings and conclusion on the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution should be discarded. Besides, the prosecution witnesses
have no reason to impute so grave a wrong to the accused, if really
they did not commit it. 3. Actual participation in a fight or combat is
not the only gauge to one’s criminal responsibility. Appellant
Romeo’s holding or embracing of the victim, Fermin Magbanua,
when appellant Jose Geronimo hit the latter with a stone on the head;
the hacking of the deceased on the right posterior ankle joint by
Romeo’s uncle, Enrico Geronimo, and the hacking also of Fermin’s
left posterior ankle joint by Jose Geronimo while Romeo was holding
or embracing the victim, indicate that Romeo was very much involved
in the fight. Whatever responsibility was incurred by Romeo
Geronimo must be predicated on his act of holding the victim.
Romeo’s cooperation not being essential to the commission of the
crime but merely to facilitate the same, he thereby cooperated in the
commission thereof and hence his liability is that of an accomplice. 4.
The killing was characterized by treachery since the deceased was
already helpless, in fact unconscious, when he was boloed by Enrico
and Jose Geronimo, and that Romeo’s act of holding the victim
contributed to the latter’s helpless condition. Treachery attended the
killing where the nature and location of the wounds indicate that the
victim was attacked from behind. For murder results from the
presence of qualificative circumstances based upon the manner in
which the crime was committed and not upon the state of mind of the
accused. 5. As appellant Jose Geronimo lacked the intent to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed, this mitigating circumstance may
be appreciated in his favor. While the evidence shows that appellant
Romeo is unschooled, this circumstance alone is not sufficient.
Illiteracy alone will not constitute such circumstance. It must be
accompanied by lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the
full significance of one’s act.
PEOPLE v CANTUBA
Facts: Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna together with co-accused
alias Berting, alias Pugo, Romeo Totong Labuyo and Mayor Espinosa
were charged with the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC.
In the municipality of Masbate,Philippines, the accused,
confederating with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with evident premeditation and with night-time as a
means to better facilitate the commission of the crime, attack, assault
and use personal violence upon one ATTY. ADOLFO CELERA, by
then and there shooting him at several parts of his body, thereby
inflicting upon the latter, mortal wounds which are the direct and
immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Atty. Celera- the counsel for the complainant in a rape case against
mayor Espinosa
HELD:
accused was correctly convicted as a co-conspirator. His knowledge
of the plot to assassinate the victim, the fact that he had been
ordered to scout for a man who could do the job and his knowledge
of the place, date and time of the assault are sufficient to show unity
of purpose. At the very least, therefore, he had to know the plot
and decided to join the execution.From the legal viewpoint,
conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.
The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime
is immaterial in conspiracy

PEOPLE V LAWAS
FACTS:
THE ACCUSED AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOME
GUARD COMMENCED FIRING AT A LARGE GROUP OF
MARANAOS AT A SIGNAL FROM THE OTHER ACCUSED
AND CONTINUED FIRING UNTIL CEASE-FIRE SIGNALED.
ABOUT FIFTY (50) MARANAOS DIED IN THE SLAUGHTER.
RULING:
SC HELD THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MULTIPLE
HOMICIDE UNDER THE REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE
POSITIVELY SHOWS THAT THE KILLING WAS THE RESULT
OF A SINGLE IMPULSE WHICH WAS INDUCED BY THE
ORDER OF THE LEADER TO FIRE, AND CONTINUED WITH
THE INTENTION TO COMPLY THEREWITH, AS THE FIRING
STOPPED AS SOON AS THE LEADER GAVE THE ORDER TO
THAT EFFECT.THERE WAS NO NTENT ON THE PART OF THE
ACCUSED EITHER TO FIRE AT EACH AND EVERYONE OF
THE VICTIMS AS SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY FROM
EACH OTHER.IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ACT OR
ACTS COMPLAINED RESULTED FROM A SINGLE CRIMINAL
IMPULSE, IT CONSTITUTES A SINGLE OFFENSE
PHILIPPINES v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA
and JERRY B. ORIAS
In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law, as
well as in the conscience of the offender x x x when various victims
expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct
crimes.
Facts: One evening, Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias, both
members of the CAFGU, entered the house of Segundina Cruz and
requested that supper be prepared for them as they were roving. While
Segundina and Rosemarie were preparing in the kitchen, Elarcosa and Orias
fired their guns at Jose and Jorge Cruz. Segundina ran towards his son while
Rosemarie hid in the shrubs. Rosemarie heard her mother crying loudly and
after a series of gunshots, silence ensued. The following morning,
Rosemarie returned to their house where she found the dead bodies of her
parents and her brother. The amount of P40,000 and a certificate of
registration of large cattle were also gone. Elarcosa and Orias were
thereafter charged with robbery with multiple homicide. RTC convicted the
accused of the offense as charged. The CA, however, changed the
conviction to multiple murder, ratiocinating that robbery was not proved and
that the killing was qualified by treachery.
Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of
multiple murder.
Ruling: Yes. Accused-appellant Orias should be convicted of three
(3) counts of murder and not of the complex crime of murder. In a
complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed,
they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the
conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed
for the commission of a complex crime. It is clear from the evidence
on record that the three (3) crimes of murder did not result from a
single act but from several individual and distinct acts. Deeply rooted
is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots,
such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
PEOPLE v BARBAS(60 PHIL 241)
The defendant, a public officer, altered the duplicates of the
cedulas by erasing the names originally writtenon themand
replacing thesame with new names for the purpose of selling
them to other people and misappropriating the money. The
falsification of public documents was,therefore, the means
which the defendant availed himself of in committing the crime
of malversation.
In these two cases the defendant was charged in the Court of First
Instance of Occidental Negros with the crime of malversation of
public funds through the falsification of public documents.
After hearing the evidence, the trial judge found the defendant guilty
of estafa through the falsification of public documents, and sentenced
him in each case to suffer an indeterminate sentence of not less than
six months and one day of prision correcccional and not more than
ten years and one day of prision mayor, to indemnify Marciano
Salazar and Policarpo Palmares, respectively, in the sum of P2, and
to pay the costs.
Appellant's attorney now alleges that the trial court erred in
considering the acts committed by Jose Barbas as estafa by means of
the falsification of public documents, and in not acquitting him, with
the costs de oficio.
In our opinion there is no doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. The
evidence clearly shows that after selling the cedulas marked D and F
to Angel Baflor and Patricio Fernandez, respectively, the defendant
sold and delivered Exhibits A and C, the duplicates of these two
cedulas, to Policarpo Palmares and Marciano Salazar respectively,
and collected from each of them P2. The defendant did not account
for the money which he collected from Palmares and Salazar.
Cedula certificates are prepared in triplicate. The original is delivered
to the purchaser, and the duplicate and triplicate, which are carbon
copies of the original, are retained by J;he internal revenue officer.
Because the defendant accounted to the municipal treasurer of Sagay
for the cedulas received, the lower court found that the defendant was
not guilty of malversation but of estafa through the falsification of
public documents. It is clear, however, that the defendant, acting as a
special deputy of the provincial treasurer, collected from Policarpo
Palmares and Marciano Salazar P2 each in payment of their cedula
tax and delivered to them what he represented to be the corresponding
cedulas. This money was clearly received by the defendant in his
capacity of a public officer, and in our opinion constituted a valid
payment of the cedula tax of Palmares and Salazar, and the defendant
who misappropriated it is guilty of the malversation of public funds.
The evidence shows that the defendant altered the duplicates of the
cedulas in question as alleged in the informations. These duplicates
are public documents, and the alterations made by the defendant
constituted the falsification of public documents. The evidence shows
that the duplicates of the cedulas in question were falsified by the
defendant in order that he might sell them to Palmares and Salazar.
The falsification was therefore the means which the defendant availed
himself of in committing the crime of malversation. As the acts of the
defendant constitute a complex crime, the penalty applicable thereto
is that corresponding to the more serious offense, or the falsification
of a public document. The corresponding penalty therefore is the
maximum degree of prision mayor, or from ten years and one day to
twelve years of prision mayor, and a fine of not more than P5,000.
The medium degree of prision mayor in its maximum period is from
ten years, eight months, and one day to eleven years and four months.
In case No. 8857 (G. R. No, 41265) the defendant is sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate sentence of not less than one year of prision
correccional and not more than ten years, eight months, and one day
of prision mayor, to pay a fine of P5, and to indemnify the
Government of the Philippine Islands in the sum of P2, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The defendant is further sentenced to suffer the penalty of perpetual
special disqualification.

In case No. 8859 (G. R. No. 41266) the defendant is sentenced to

suffer an indeterminate sentence of not less than one year of prision
correccional and not more than ten years, eight months, and one day
of prision mayor, to pay a fine of P5 and to indemnify the Government
of the Philippine Islands in the sum of P2, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

As thus modified, the decisions appealed from are affirmed, with the
costs against the appellant.