ART.

185

OUANO V COURT OF APPEALS

188 SCRA 799 / G.R. No. L-40203 August 21, 1990

Facts: A treat of a parcel of land is registered under RFC (DBP). The said property was offered by
the RFC for bidding for the second time because the first bidding was nullified due to Ouano’s
protest. It appears that prior to the second bidding, Ouano and Echavez orally agreed that only
Echavez would make a bid, and that if it was accepted, they would divide the property in
proportion to their adjoining properties.

To ensure success in the bidding, they both agreed to induce the only other bidder to be
interested in the property-a group headed by a Mrs. Bonsucan to desist from presenting a bid.
They broached the matter to Mrs. Bonsucan's group and the latter agreed to withdraw, as they
did in fact withdraw from the sale. Ouano's wife paid it P2,000 as reimbursement for its
expenses. Causing another bidder to stay away from the auction in order to cause reduction of
the price of the property auctioned is an act constituting the crime of machination in public
auctions.

Issue: Whether Ouano committed machinations in public auction punishable under the RPC.

Held: The acts of Ouano and Echavez constitute a crime. Ouano and Echavez had promised to
share in the property in question as a consideration for Ouano's refraining from taking part in
the public auction or bidding, and they had attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in causing
another bidder to withdraw from the auction. The verbal agreement between Ouano and
Echavez is a perfected consensual contract.

In order to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned, they committed the
felony of machinations in public auctions defined and penalized in Article 185 of the Revised
Penal Code. The agreement therefore being criminal in character, the parties not only have no
action against each other but are both liable to charges. This is in accordance with the so-called
pari delicto principle set out in the Civil Code.
2. RA 8293

LE CHEMISE LACOSTE v. FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. L-63796-97 May 2, 1984

FACTS:

 In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a domestic firm issued a registration for trademark “Chemise
Lacoste & Crocodile Device” by Philippine Patent Office for use of t-shirts, sportswear,
and other garment products of the company.
 Le Chemise Lacoste was the actual owner of Lacoste TM used on clothing and sporting
apparels sold worldwide.

RULING:

 Records show that the goodwill reputation of Lacoste owned by Le Chemise dates back
to 1964 when Lacoste first marketed in the Philippines.
 To allow Hermandas to use such for only being the first registrant used in international
commerce not belonging to him would render nugatory the very essence of law on
trademarks.
 The purpose of the law is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the article to
which it is affixed, to secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into a market
a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill, and to prevent fraud
and imposition. It is based on the principle of business integrity and common justice.
RA 9165

ESTIPONA v. LOBRIGO
G.R. No. 226679

August 15, 2017

FACTS:

 Estipona was caught in the possession of 1- piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
of white crystalline substance; he was examined and found to be positive for Shabu.
 Estipona questioned the constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. 9165, which expressly
mandates the prohibition of plea bargaining.
 He argued that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the rule-making authority of the
Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution: that the power
to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to Supreme Court.

RULING:

 The SC declared Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 unconstitutional for being contrary
to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution.
 The prohibition of plea bargaining on drug cases is invalid because plea-bargaining is a
rule of procedure where it is the Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend, or
repeal procedural rules.

» Plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused and the
prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval."
ART. 201

People vs Kottinger
Facts:

Kottinger’s photography/Camera shop was raided by the authorities led by detective Juan
Tolentino. Inside the said shop, they found pictures of Filipinos in their native attires (non-
christian) which are being used as post-card.

State: that the pictures of Filipinos in their native attires (non-christian) which are being used as
post-card is obscene and falls under the section 12 of the Philippine libel law

Held:

The SC held that pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they
appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent within
the meaning of the Libel Law. Disagreeing therefore with the appellant on his technical
argument but agreeing with him on his main contention, it becomes our duty to order the
dismissal of the information. Kottinger is acquitted
People vs Aparici
Facts:

While performing in a theater, Aparici worn only nylon patches and nylon panties while dancing
a hula-hula danced to portray a scene of a women losing her husband on the hands of the
Japanese. The audiences cheered her not for the act but for her erotic appearance.

Accused: that the act was performed in a novel and artistic way for the audience who
appreciates art.

Held:

Aparici was found guilty of obscenity as the act she performed induced immoral desires instead
of the portrayal she hoped for.