Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

8/17/2019 Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

1/173

TECSON, Mary Joie S. Case Digest

PIRACY

PEOPLE V. LOL-LO SARAW

Fats!

A boat in which there were eleven men, women and children arrived between the islands of

Buang and Bukid in the Ducth East Indies and was subsequently surrounded by six vintas

manned by twenty four moros all armed. hey first asked for food but once on the boat,

took themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated two of the

women. All of the !ersons on the boat !laced on it holes were made on it with the idea that

it would submerge, but after eleven days of hardshi! they were succoured. wo of the

moro marauders were "ol#lo and $araw who later returned their home in $ulu, %hili!!ines

where they were arrested and charged with the crime of !iracy.

Iss"e!

Did the court of first instance in the %hili!!ines have &urisdiction over "ol#lo and $araw'

#e$%!

(es, !iracy is a crime not against any !articular state but against all mankind. It may be

!unished in the com!etent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into

which he may be carried. )or does it matter that the crime was committed within the &urisdictional three#mile limit of a foreign state. "ol#lo who ra!ed one of the women was

sentenced to death. here being the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of su!erior

strength and ignominy.

PEOPLE V. T&LIN

Fats!

A cargo vessel owned by the %)*+ shi!!ing and trans!ort cor!oration, loaded with barrelsor kerosene, regular gasoline and diesel oil was absorbed by fully armed !irates. he

!irates including the accused -oger %. ulin, irgilio "oyola and Andres Infante detained

the crew and com!letely took over the vessel. he vessel was directed to !roceed to

$inga!ore where the cargoes where unloaded, transferred and sold under the direct

su!ervision of accused +heong $an /iong. hereafter, the Bessel returned to the

%hili!!ines. All the accused were charged with qualified !iracy or violation of %D 012. he

accused +heong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and !unishing him as an

accom!lice when the acts allegedly committed by him were executed outside the

%hili!!ine waters and territory.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the %hili!!ines is without &urisdiction to try a crime committed outside the

%hili!!ine waters and territory.

#e$%!

Pro'essor! Fisa$ Ne$so( Sa$)a CRIMINALLAW *


2/173


As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire &urisdiction over the !erson of

accused, a!!ellant /iong since the crime was committed outside the %hili!!ine waters

suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on 45 abangco and its cargo were

committed in %/ waters, although the ca!tive vessel was later brought to $inga!ore where

its cargo was off#loaded and such transfer was done under accused#a!!ellant /iong6s directsu!ervision.

Although %D 012 requires that the attack and sei7ure of the vessel and its cargo be

committed in %/ waters. he dis!osition by the !irates of the vessel and its cargo is still

deemed !art of the act of !iracy. /ence, the same need not to be committed in %hili!!ine

waters.

PEOPLE V. CATANTAN

Fats!

he %ila!il brothers Eugene and 8uan were fishing in the sea around 1 kilometers away

from the shores of abogan, +ebu. $uddenly, another boat caught with them. hey were

later identified as the accused Emilio +atantan and 8ose 9rsal alias :Bimbo;. hey

boarded the !um! boat of the %ila!ils and !ointed his gun at Eugene. hey hogtied Eugene

and covered him u! and ordered 8uan to ferry them to Daan agobon using their !um!

boat. /owever, as they went farther out into the o!en sea the engine sto!!ed running. hey

saw another boat o!erated by 8uanito and ordered the %ila!il brothers to a!!roach the boat.+atantan boarded 8uanito6s !um! boat and ordered him to take them to munga7. %ila!il

brothers took the change and esca!ed. he regional trial court found +atantan and Bimbo

guilty of violating %D 012.

Iss"e!

3hether or not Emilio +atantan violated %D 012 and not grave coercion.

#e$%!

here were !iracy and not grave coercion where as !art of the act of sei7ing their boat. he

occu!ants of the vessel were forced to go elsewhere other than their !lace of destination.

his case falls squarely within the conce!t of !iracy. 3hile it may be true that Eugene and

8uan were com!elled to go elsewhere other than their !lace of destination, such

com!ulsion was !art of the act of sei7ing their boat.

AR+ITRARY DETENTION

ASTORA V. PEOPLE

Fats!

he offended !arties together with $%*1 Andres +inco 8r and $%*< -ufo +a!oquian were

sent to the Island of Daram 3estern $amar to conduct intelligence o!erations on !ossible



3/173


illegal logging activities. here they met !etitioner Astorga, the 4ayor of Daram, who

turned out to be the owner of the boats found at around =>1? to 0>??!m being constructed

at Brgy. "ocob#"ocob. A heated altercation ensued between !etitioner and the DE)- team.

%etitioner called for reinforcement and moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men, some

wearing fatigues arrived at the scene. he DE)- team was then bought to !etitioner6shouse in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. he team left at 2>??am.

Iss"e!

3hether the !etitioner is guilty of Arbitrary Detention.

#e$%!

%etitioner Astorga is acquitted of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on the ground of

reasonable doubt. he determinate factor in Arbitrary detention, in the absence of actual

!hysical restraint, is fear. he court find no !roof that !etitioner instilled fear in the minds

of the !rivate offended !arties. @urthermore, he admitted that it was raining at that time.

/ence, it is !ossible that the !etitioner !revented the team from leaving the island because

it was unsafe for them to travel by boat.

CAYAO V. DEL M&NDO

Fats!

An administrative com!laint was filed by @ernando +ayao with the office of the +ourt

Administrator for charging 8udge 8ustiano Del 4undo with abuse of authority, +ayao, a

bus driver overtook another bus and as a consequence, +ayao almost collided head on with

an oncoming owner#ty!e &ee!ney owned by 8udge Del 4undo. +ayao was brought by the

!olicemean in the $ala of 8udge Del mundo and was com!elled by 8udge Del 4undo to

choose from 1 alternative !unishment> a to face charge of multi!le homicide b revocation

of is driver6s license c to be !ut in &ail for 1 days. +ayao chose confinement for 1 days and

was forced to sign a :waiver if detention; by 8udge Del 4undo.

Iss"e!

3hether or not 8udge Del 4undo is guilty of the charge of warrantless arrest and arbitrary

detention.

#e$%!

8udge Del 4undo used and abused his !osition of authority in intimidating the com!laint

as well as the members of the !olice force into submitting to his excesses. he com!laint

was not accorded any of the basic rights to which an accused is entitled. +ayao was

de!rived from the !resum!tion of innocence, the right to be heard by himself and counsel,the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as well as the

right to an im!artial and !ublic trial.

MILO V. SALONA

Fats!



4/173


Accused +a!tain uvera $r. was charged with Arbitrary Detention together with other

!rivate !ersons for maltreating !etitioner alde7 and for deliberately de!riving the same of

his constitutional liberty without any legal ground. Accused res!ondent then filed a motion

to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute the elements

of said crime and that the !roofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to su!!ortthe filing of the information. %etitioner Assistant @iscal 4ilo filed an o!!osition, averring

that the accused res!ondent was not a !ublic officer who can be charged with arbitrary

detention.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the accused res!ondent, being a barrio ca!tain, can be liable for the crime

of arbitrary detention

#e$%!

(es, the !ublic officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with authority to detain

or order the detention of !ersons accused of a crime. *ne need not to be a !olice officer to

be chargeable with arbitrary detention. It is acce!ted that other !ublic officer like &udges

and mayors who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. A !erusal of

the !owers and functions vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a

barrio ca!tain exce!t that in the case of the latter, his territorial &urisdiction is smaller.

PEOPLE V. ARCIA

Fats!

+arlos arcia, %atricio Botero and "uisa 4ira!les were accused of illegal recruitment. It

was alleged that they re!resented themselves as incor!orators and officers of -icorn

%hili!!ine International $hi!!ing "ines, Inc. and that -icorn is a recruitment agency for

seamen. It was later discovered that -icorn was never registered with the securities and

exchange commission and that it was never authori7ed to recruit by the %*EA. Both were

convicted but Botero a!!ealed.

Iss"e!

3hether or not Botero is a mere em!loyee of -icorn.

#e$%!

)o, it was !roven by evidence that he was introduced to the a!!licants as the vice

!resident of -icorn. 3hen he was receiving a!!licants, he was receiving them behind a

desk which has a name!late re!resenting his name and his !osition as a vice !resident of

-icorn %hili!!ine International $hi!!ing "ines, Inc.

RE+ELLION OR INS&RRECTION

PEOPLE V. VELASCO



5/173


Fats!

@ollowing the issuance by %resident loria 4aca!agal#Arroyo of %residential

%roclamation )o.


6/173


!urchased !artly from contributions by +ongressional members, like Beltran, who

re!resent !arty#list grou!s affiliated with the +%%.

he allegations in these affidavits are far from the !roof needed to indict Beltran for taking

!art in an armed !ublic u!rising against the government. 3hat these documents !rove, at best, is that Beltran was in Bucal, %adre arcia, Batangas on 2? @ebruary 2??C and that


7/173


PEOPLE V. OLIVA

Fats!

"oren7o *liva, father of the com!lainant 4, was charged with ra!e and was convicted of

the said crime. Accused filed an a!!eal questioning the testimony of his daughter 4 and

further alleged that it was not him who had ra!ed his daughter but his brother#in#law,

Ben&amin, who has committed the act.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the testimonies and credibility of the com!laint witness is in doubt and

questionable.

#e$%!

+ourts usually give credence to the testimony off a girl who is a victim of sexual assault

!articularly if it constitutes incestuous ra!es, because normally no !erson would be willing

to undergo the humiliation of !ublic trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal, were it

not to condemn in&ustice. he grave man of ra!e is carnal knowledge of a woman under

any circumstances !rovided by law. In addition, mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear

and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given any greater evidentiary

value than the !ositive testimony of a ra!e victim.

PEOPLE V. LOVEDIORO

Fats!

Elias "ovedioro with three other com!anions fatally shot $%*1 8esus "ucilo while the

latter was walking along Burgos $t. Albay !ublic market. he victim died on the same day

from massive blood loss. *n )ovember C,


8/173


Fats!

About 4arch


9/173


%olice officers conducted a buy#bust o!eration against a!!ellant after receiving

information from residents of $itio alaxy, angke, alisay, +ebu and a re!ort from a

confidential asset of the illegal drug activities of a!!ellant. At about =>1? !.m., !oseur#

buyer, together with the confidential asset, a!!roached a!!ellant who was standing outside

his house. %*< %alconit gave a!!ellant two marked %0?.?? bills, while the latter handed tohim two !lastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. hereu!on, %*< %alconit

made the !re#arranged signal by touching his head with his right hand. /is back#u!s then

rushed to the scene and simultaneously therewith %*< %alconit arrested the a!!ellant. /e

then !ut the markings E+ on the two !lastic sachets and brought the same to the

%hili!!ine )ational %olice G%)% +rime "aboratory for forensic examination.

he chemistry re!ort from the %)% +rime "aboratory later revealed that the white

crystalline substance with a total weight of ?.


10/173


J>?? in the evening of )ovember


11/173


#e$%!

(es. he language used by the a!!ellant clearly im!orted an overthrow of the overnment

by violence, and it should be inter!reted in the !lain and obvious sense in which it was

evidently intended to be understood. It was the !ur!ose of the s!eaker, beyond a doubt, toincite his hearers to the overthrow of organi7ed government by unlawful means. he words

used by the a!!ellant manifestly tended to induce the !eo!le to resist and use violence

against the agents of the +onstabulary and to instigate the !oor to cabal and meet together

for unlawful !ur!oses. hey also suggested and incited rebellious cons!iracies, thereby

tending to stir u! the !eo!le against the lawful authorities and to disturb the !eace of the

community and the order of the overnment. It is not necessary, in order to be seditious,

that the words used should in fact result in a rising of the !eo!le against the constituted

authorities.

DIRECT ASSA&LTS

ELI V. PEOPLE

Fats!

%etitioner "ydia elig im!ugns the decision !romulgated by the court of a!!eals that set

aside the decision of -+. "ydia was convicted of committing the com!lex crime of directassault with unintentional abortion but the court of a!!eals found her guilty of the crime

slight !hysical in&uries. *n 8uly


12/173


-uben -odil sustained in&uries and was brought to the hos!ital for being ganged u! by the

accused Edgardo -ivera and his brother Esmeraldo -ivera. Because of fist blows and cou!

in&ury, -uben sustained slight in&uries. he trial court found the accused guilty of the crime

of frustrated murder. An a!!eal was made by the accused, but the court of a!!eals affirmed

the trial court6s decision with modification, changing the crime to attem!ted murder.

Iss"e!

G


13/173


PEOPLE V. D&RAL

Fats!

*n 8anuary 1


14/173


%etitioner denies liability for the crime of illegal !ossession and use of false treasury bank

notes and other instruments of credit as defined in Art,


15/173


In this case, the $u!reme +ourt, citing %eo!le v. Digoro, reversed and set aside the findings

of the lower courts and acquitted !etitioner of the crime of Illegal !ossession and use of

false bank notes defined and !enali7ed under Article


16/173


Fats!

*n 8uly 2J,


17/173


#e$%!

(es. he elements of falsification of documents under !aragra!h


18/173


the !re!aration of a documentH or G2 he has the official custody of the document which he

falsifies.2 "ikewise, in falsification of !ublic or official documents, it is not necessary that

there be !resent the idea of gain or the intent to in&ure a third !erson because in the

falsification of a !ublic document, what is !unished is the violation of the !ublic faith and

the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly !roclaimed.2L

All the elements of falsification of !ublic documents by making untruthful statements have

been established by the !rosecution.

ONAL&DO V. PEOPLE

Fats!

In


19/173


-osemarie to be the owner of the house sub&ect of such sale and signing as -osemarie

illaflor instead of her real name, -osemarie elogo, in order to sell the same to the

+anlas s!ouses. It is established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that -osemarie

committed the crime of falsification of !ublic document.

ARCIA V. CA

Fats!

he accused, being in !ossession of a recei!t for % 0,??? dated 8anuary 2


20/173


equi!ment. *n 4arch


21/173


distributor of the !urchased fire extinguishers and that no subdealer was a!!ointed to sell

the same.

After a careful evaluation of the res!ective evidences submitted by the !arties on this issue,

the +ourt finds for the %eo!le and brushes aside as incredible the claims of the defense,

!articularly of the accused *ani. It a!!ears that the theory of the accused that bidding and

canvass may be dis!ensed with in view of the exclusiveness of %owerline in the

manufacture and distribution of the !urchased fire extinguishers, finds no leg to stand on,

at the least, or a mere afterthought, at the most. he !enultimate !aragra!h of the said

certification of %owerline !ro!rietor, @rancisco -. +unanan, states,

/A, I am executing this +ertification !ursuant to Article , section ==2 of the

overnment Auditing -ules P -egulations GAA4 olume I under +*A +ircular )o. J


22/173


disturbed on a!!eal. /owever, this rule admits of exce!tions and does not a!!ly where

facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the

case have been overlooked, misa!!rehended or misa!!lied. After due consideration of the

records of this case, evidence !resented and relevant law and &uris!rudence, we hold that

this case falls under the exce!tion.he identity of the cor!us delicti in this case was not !roven beyond reasonable doubt. here was likewise a break in the chain of custody which

!roves fatal to the !rosecution6s case. hus, since the !rosecution has failed to establish the

element of cor!us delicti with the !rescribed degree of !roof required for successful

!rosecution of both !ossession and sale of !rohibited drugs, we resolve to A+9I

-oldan 4orales.

PEOPLE V. PERALTA

Fats!

Elmer %eralta was arrested after the District Drug Enforcement rou! GDDE staged a by#bust

o!eration with one !olice officer G$%*< Alberto $angalang acting as !oseur#buyer. An informant

introduced the !olice officer to %eralta and the former informed %eralta that the !olice officer was a

dance instructor in need of shabu for himself and his fellow dance instructors so they could endure

the long nights. he !olice officer gave %eralta a marked %0??.?? bill for a sachet of shabu. At a

signal, $angalang told his informant to go out and buy cigarettes. *n seeing the informant come

out of the house, the !olice back#u! team rushed in. hey arrested accused %eralta, took the marked

money from him, and brought him to the !olice station. 4eanwhile, the sachet of shabu was

marked A$#


23/173


over the need to establish their integrity. $ince the sei7ing officer usually has to turn over the sei7ed

drugs to the desk officer or some su!erior officer, who would then send a courier to the !olice

crime laboratory with a request that the same be examined to identify the contents, it is im!erative

for the officer who !laced his marking on the !lastic container to seal the same, !referably with

adhesive ta!e that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the !lastic container. If thedrugs were not in a !lastic container, the !olice officer should !ut it in one and seal the same. In

this way the drugs would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was sei7ed from

the accused. @urther, after the laboratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the !owder

in the container, he should seal it again with a new seal since the !olice officer6s seal had been

broken. In this way, if the accused wants to contest the test made, the +ourt would be assured that

what is retested is the same !owder sei7ed from the accused. he !rosecutor could then ask

questions of the officer who !laced his marking on the !lastic container to !rove that the sus!ected

drugs had not been tam!ered with or substituted when they left that officer6s hands. If the sealing

of the sei7ed article had not been made, the !rosecution would have to !resent the desk officer or

su!erior officer to whom the sei7ing officer turned over such article. hat desk officer or su!erior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that the drugs were not tam!ered with or substituted.

And if someone else brought the unsealed sachet of drugs to the !olice crime laboratory, he, too,

should give similar testimony, and so on u! to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory until

the drugs reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it.

PEOPLE V. &TIERRE

Fats!

At around 0>?? !.m. on 8une


24/173


A!!ellant was charged with illegal sale of ?.?0 gram of shabu and

illegal !ossession of !ara!hernalia fit or intended for smoking . . . or introducing any

dangerous drug into the body by two se!arate Informations

Iss"e!

3hether or not accused violated +om!rehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

#e$%!

he assailed decision of the +ourt of A!!eals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A!!ellant,

)icolas utierre7 y "icuanan, is AC4&ITTED of the crime charged for failure of the

!rosecution to !rove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At this &uncture, the +ourt notes

another la!se of the members of the buy#bust team their failure to com!ly with the

!rocedural requirements of $ection 2


25/173


he arresting officers thereafter forwarded the sei7ed substance to the %)% +rime

"aboratory for examination. Each of the nine sacks contained 201 !lastic bags which

contained around one kilo of the white crystalline substance. 9!on examination, the

substance was found !ositive for metham!hetamine hydrochloride or shabu.0

Both o and ue claim ignorance about the !resence of shabu at the back of the van.

Iss"e!

3hether a!!ellants are guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act

#e$%!

he $u!reme +ourt found a!!ellant o guilty of trans!orting !rohibited drugs, but

acquitted a!!ellant ue.

It has been established that o was driving the van that carried the contraband at the time

of its discovery. /e was therefore caught in the act of trans!orting a regulated drug without

authority which is !unishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. $ection


26/173


his is a !etition for review on certiorari, which assails the $e!tember 21, 2??2, decision

and the 8anuary 1, 2??1, -esolution of the $andiganbayan finding !etitioner )a7ario

4arifosque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of direct bribery, defined and

!enali7ed under the 2nd !aragra!h of Article 2


27/173


4ani!ons hel! was sought by Domingue7 in the withdrawal of the garnished account.

4ani!on told Domingue7 that the money could not be withdrawn.

/owever, when the two met again, 4ani!on told Domingue7 that he can remedy the

withdrawal so they will have something for the )ew (ear. Domingue7 inter!reted this tomean that 4ani!on would withdraw the garnished amount for a consideration. Domingue7

agreed and they arranged to meet at the bank later in the afternoon. After 4ani!on left,

Domingue7 confided the offer to )I$A $ub#$tation +ommander "uisito $anche7. hey

then hatched u! a !lan to entra! 4ani!on by !aying him with marked money the next day.

+ol. $anche7 and a +ol. Aguana were able to !ut u! %??.?? in fifty#!eso bills which were

then authenticated, Reroxed and dusted with fluorescent !owder.

Iss"e!

3hether or not accused committed direct bribery'

#e$%!

(es. 4ani!on maintains that Domingue7 had framed him u! because of a grudge. /e said

that in


28/173


Dwelling on one last !oint, 4ani!on has !ointed out that the %

he undersigned anodbayan $!ecial %rosecutor accuses "A9-* . $*-IA)*, for

iolation of $ection 1, !aragra!h Gb of -e!ublic Act 1?


29/173


is a !ublic officerH in consideration of %=,???.?? which was allegedly solicited, %2,???.??

of which was allegedly received, the !etitioner undertook or !romised to dismiss a criminal

com!laint !ending !reliminary investigation before him, which may or may not constitute

a crimeH that the act of dismissing the criminal com!laint !ending before !etitioner was

related to the exercise of the function of his office. herefore, it is with !ristine clarity thatthe offense !roved, if at all is Direct Bribery. G%etition, !. 0.

9!on the other hand, the res!ondents claim>

A reading of the above#quoted !rovision would show that the term transaction as used

thereof is not limited in its sco!e or meaning to a commercial or business transaction but

includes all kinds of transaction, whether commercial, civil or administrative in nature,

!ending with the government. his must be so, otherwise, the Act would have so stated in

the Definition of erms, $ection 2 thereof. But it did not, !erforce leaving no other

inter!retation than that the ex!ressed !ur!ose and ob&ect is to embrace all kinds of

transaction between the government and other !arty wherein the !ublic officer would

intervene under the law. G+omment, !. L.

It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the !etitioner was not a contract. )either

was it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which

!recedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in

credit transactions and this element Gconsideration is absent in the investigation conducted

by the !etitioner.

In the light of the foregoing, 3e agree with the !etitioner that it was error for the

$andiganbayan to have convicted him of violating $ec. 1 Gb of -.A. )o. 1?


30/173


either a !ermanent or at the least a renewed a!!ointment. 3hen

shea!!roached the regional director about it, she was advised to see the !etitioner but the

latterrefused to attend to her a!!ointment unless given some money. *n @ebruary 2,


31/173


court to conclude that the crime of indirect briberyhas been committed. o hold otherwise

will encourage unscru!ulous individuals to frame u!

!ublic officers by sim!ly !utting within their !hysical custody some gift,

money or other!ro!erty. If the !etitioner knew and was !re!ared to acce!t the money

from 4rs. 4utia at thecanteen, the !etitioner would not have invited her officemates 4rs.

$evilla and 4rs. Dimaanoto &oin them. According to 4rs. $evilla she did not see the

alleged !assing of the moneyunder the table. 3hat she was sure was that when they were

about to leave the canteen, twomen a!!roached !etitioner, one of whom took !ictures and

the !etitioner shouted at 4rs.4utia, :3hat are you trying to do to me'; he reaction of

!etitioner is far from one with a guiltyconscience. 3ithout the standard of certainty, it may

not be said that the guilt of the accusedin a criminal !roceeding has been !roved beyond

reasonable doubt.

CORR&PTION OF P&+LIC OFFICIAL

C#&A )s. N&ESTRO

Fats!

-ina . +hua being the com!lainant, filed an administrative charge against the res!ondent

for allegedly delaying the enforcement of the writ of execution in her favor after

demanding and getting from her the sum of


32/173


3hile we cannot fault the sheriff for his hesitance to immediately carry out the writ of

execution because the defendant still had time to file su!ersedeas bond to stay execution,

we find duly !roved by !re!onderance of evidence that the res!ondent De!uty $heriff

Edgardo D. )uestro received the amount of %


33/173


AR "IABI"I( I)*"ED establishes that the criminal intent originated from the

minds of !etitioners to illicit bribes.

+&STILOO V. SANDIAN+AYAN

Fats!

he *ffice of the $!ecial %rosecutor charged !etitioner Anuncio Bustillo, then incumbent

mayor of Bunawan, Agusan del $ur, and his daughter -owena Bustillo in the

$andiganbayan with @alsification of *fficial Documents under Article


34/173


interest therein considering the fact that said cock!it arena is actually owned and o!erated by him

and accused eresita eves.

Iss"e

3hether a !ublic official charged with violation of $ection 1Gh of -e!ublic Act )o. 1?


35/173


crime of 4alversation of %ublic @unds through @alsification of %ublic Documents. Toleta

a!!ealed questioning the decision of sandiganbayan regarding the !resence of cons!iracy.

Iss"e!

3hether or not sandiganbayan erred in their decision regarding the !resence of cons!iracy.

#e$%!

(es, he $andiganbayan faulted !etitioner for immediately encashing the check, insisting

that she should have de!osited the check first. $uch insistence is unacce!table.

here is cons!iracy when two or more !ersons come to an agreement concerning the

commission of a felony and decide to commit it. +ons!iracy is not !resumed. "ike the

!hysical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of cons!iracy must be !roven

beyond reasonable doubt. 3hile cons!iracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission

of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must be strong enough to show the

community of criminal design. @or cons!iracy to exist, it is essential that there must be a

conscious design to commit an offense. +ons!iracy is the !roduct of intentionality on the

!art of the cohorts.

In the instant case, we find !etitioners !artici!ation in the crime not adequately !roven

with moral certainty. 9ndeniably, !etitioner, as a !rivate individual, had no hand in the

!re!aration, !rocessing or disbursement of the check issued in her name.

W#EREFORE, the !etition is RANTED. he assailed Decision is SET

ASIDE. %etitioner is AC4&ITTED on reasonable doubt

DAVALOS )s. PEOPLE

Fats!

*n 8anuary


36/173


4arinduque. In that ca!acity, hereceives money or !ro!erty belonging to the !rovincial

government for which he is bound toaccount.In malversation of !ublic funds, !ayment,

indemnification, or reimbursement of fundsmisa!!ro!riated, after the commission of the

crime, does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender which, at most, can merely

affect the accuseds civil liability and be considered amitigating circumstance beinganalogous to voluntary surrender.

C#AN )s. SANDIAN+AYAN

Fats!

he !etitioner %amela +han seeks a reversal of the $andiganbayan decision of August 2L,

2??< finding her guilty of 4alversation of %ublic @unds under Article 2


37/173


Fats!

*n 4arch L, 2??2, !etitioner filed his +om!laint before the *mbudsman alleging that on

8anuary 2C, 2??


38/173


the !ur!ose for which they were originallya!!ro!riated by law or ordinance. It is clear that

for technical malversation to exist, it isnecessary that !ublic funds or !ro!erties had been

diverted to any !ublic use other thanthat !rovided for by law or ordinance. o constitute

the crime, there must be a diversion of the funds from the !ur!ose for which they had been

originally a!!ro!riated by law orordinance. %atently, the third element is not !resent in thiscase.

A+D&LLA V. PEOPLE

Fats!

+onvicted by the $andiganbayan in its +rim. +ase )o. 212C< of the crime of illegal use of

!ublic funds defined and !enali7ed under Article 22? of the -evised %enal +ode, or more

commonly known as technical malversation, a!!ellant )orma A. Abdulla is now before

this +ourt on !etition for review under -ule =0. *n or about )ovember, )orma Abdulla and )enita %. Aguil, both

!ublic officers, being then the %resident and cashier, res!ectively, of the $ulu $tate

+ollege, and as such by reason of their !ositions and duties are accountable for !ublic

funds under their administration, while in the !erformance of their functions, cons!iring

and confederating with 4ahmud I. DAarkis, also a !ublic officer, being then the

Administrative *fficer of the said school, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and

feloniously, without lawful authority, a!!ly for the !ayment of wages of casuals, the

amount of %=?,???.??, which amount was a!!ro!riated for the !ayment of the salary

differentials of secondary school teachers of the said school, to the damage and !re&udice

of !ublic service .A!!ellant6s co#accused, )enitaAguil and 4ahmud Darkis, were both

acquitted. *nly a!!ellant was found guilty and sentenced by the $andiganbayan in its

decision. 9!on motion for reconsideration, the $andiganbayan amended a!!ellant6s

sentence by deleting the tem!orary s!ecial disqualification im!osed u!on her

Iss"e!

3hether there was unlawful intent on the a!!ellant6s !art.

3hether the essential elements of the crime of technical malversation is !resent.

#e$%!

here is no dis!ute that the money was s!ent for a !ublic !ur!ose S !ayment of the wages

of laborers working on various !ro&ects in the munici!ality. It is !ertinent to note the high

!riority which laborers6 wages en&oy as claims against the em!loyers6 funds and resources.

$ettled is the rule that conviction should rest on the strength of evidence of the !rosecution

and not on the weakness of the defense.

he +ourt notes that there is no !articular a!!ro!riation for salary differentials of

secondary school teachers of the $ulu $tate +ollege in -A CCLL. he third element of the

crime of technical malversation which requires that the !ublic fund used should have been

a!!ro!riated by law, is therefore absent. In fine, the third and fourth elements of the crime

defined in Article 22? of the -evised %enal +ode are lacking in this case. Acquittal is thus

in order.



39/173


PAR&NAO V. SANDIAN+AYAN

Fats!

he !etitioner, *scar %arungao, a !ublic officer, was charged of malversation of !ublic

funds for allegedly a!!ro!riating to his !ersonal use the amount of %


40/173


3hether the accused is guilty of the crime of !arricide.

#e$%!

he decision of the trial court was affirmed with modification and the accused was

sentenced to suffer the !enalty of reclusion !er!etua and to !ay the heirs of the victim

%0?,??? as civil indemnity and %20,??? as exem!lary damages. he elements of the crime

of !arricide are> G


41/173


he $u!reme +ourt ruled that by raising Article 2= of the -evised %enal +ode as his

defense, a!!ellant admitted that he killed the victim.

By invoking this defense, a!!ellant waives his right to the constitutional !resum!tion of

innocence and bears the burden of !roving the following> G


42/173


he accused is entitled to the defense of death under exce!tional circumstance under Art.

2= of -%+. here is no question that the accused sur!rised his wife and her !aramour in

the act of illicit co!ulation.

he foregoing elements of Art. 2= of -%+ are !resent in this case>

legally married sur!rises s!ouse in the act of sex with another !ersonH and

that he kills any or both of them in the act or immediately after.

Although an hour has !assed between the sexual act and the shooting of Koh, the shooting

must be understood to be the continuation of the !ursuit of the victim by the accused.

Articvle 2= only requires that the death caused be the !roximate result of the outrage

overwhelming the accused after chancing u!on his s!ouse in the basest act of infidelity.

But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind im!ulse and must

not have been influenced by external factors. he killing must be the direct by#!roduct of

the accuseds rage.

-egarding the !hysical in&uries sustained by the Am!arado s!ouses, the $u!reme +ourt

held that the accused is only liable for the crime of less serious !hysical in&uries thru

sim!le negligence or im!rudence under 2nd !aragra!h of Article 1C0, and not frustrated

murder. he accused did not have the intent to kill the s!ouses. Although as a rule, one

committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, the rule !resu!!oses that

the act done amounts to a felony. In this case, the accused was not committing murder

when he discharged rifle u!on the deceased. Inflicting death under exce!tionalcircumstances is not murder.

M&RDER

PEOPLE V. 4&E MIN #A

@acts>

*n 4ay


43/173


he !olice !eered through the window of the van and noticed several sacks !laced on the

floor at the back of the van. hey o!ened one of the sacks and noticed that it contained

several !lastic bags containing white crystalline substance.

he arresting officers thereafter forwarded the sei7ed substance to the %)% +rime"aboratory for examination. Each of the nine sacks contained 201 !lastic bags which

contained around one kilo of the white crystalline substance. 9!on examination, the

substance was found !ositive for metham!hetamine hydrochloride or shabu.0

Both o and ue claim ignorance about the !resence of shabu at the back of the van.

Iss"e!

3hether a!!ellants are guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act

#e$%!

he $u!reme +ourt found a!!ellant o guilty of trans!orting !rohibited drugs, but

acquitted a!!ellant ue.

It has been established that o was driving the van that carried the contraband at the time

of its discovery. /e was therefore caught in the act of trans!orting a regulated drug without

authority which is !unishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. $ection



44/173


-eclusion !er!etua was sentenced to the a!!ellant, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased

%edro "ego in the sum of %2, ???, and to !ay the costs, having been found by the lower

court guilty of murder committed on $e!tember


45/173


During the basketball game at the barangay basketball court, 8ose!h and "i7a Gwife were

watching as well as -ufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed wea!ons,

arrived and attem!ted to stab 8ose!hH but 8ose!h was able to run away. 3hen they were not

able to catch u! with him, -ufino boarded and drove the truck !arked near the basketball

court and continued chasing 8ose!h until the truck ran over the latter, which caused hisinstantaneous death.

A!!reciating the qualifying circumstance of use of motor vehicle, it convicted -ufino of

murder.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the use of a motor vehicle is a qualifying circumstance for the crime of

murder'

#e$%!

he evidence shows that -ufino deliberately used his truck in !ursuing 8ose!h. 9!on

catching u! with him, -ufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which 8ose!h died

instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means used by -ufino to !er!etrate the

killing of 8ose!h.

he case of %eo!le v. 4uVo7 cited by -ufino finds no a!!lication to the !resent case. In

the said case, the !olice !atrol &ee! was merely used by the accused therein in looking for

the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to the !lace where it was dum!ed. he

accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latter6s death. In the !resent case, the

truck itself was used to kill the victim by running over him.

9nder Article 2=L of the -evised %enal +ode, a !erson who kills another :by means of a

motor vehicle; is guilty of murder. hus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies the killing to

murder. he !enalty for murder is reclusion !er!etua to death.

In view of the absence of an aggravating circumstance and the !resence of one mitigating

circumstance, reclusion !er!etua, not death, should be the !enalty to be im!osed on

-ufino.

PEOPLE VS W#ISEN#&NT

Fats!

*n or about $e!tember 2=,


46/173


2. 3hether or not scoffing of the victims body is to be a!!reciated in court to qualify the

crime to murder.

#e$%!


47/173


(es, the shooting of +ol. 8ames -owe and his driver, 8oaquin inuya, was attended by

treachery. here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against !erson,

em!loying means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and

es!ecially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which

the offended !arty might make.M=N he evidence clearly shows that the mode of executionwas deliberately ado!ted by the !er!etrators to ensure the commission of the crime without

the least danger unto themselves arising from the !ossible resistance of their victims.

A!!ellant Itaas and his com!anions, who were all armed with !owerful firearms, waited

for the car of +ol. -owe which was being driven by 8oaquin inuya at the corner of imog

Avenue and omas 4orato $treet in ue7on +ity. 3ithout any warning, a!!ellant Itaas

and his com!anions suddenly fired at the said car u!on reaching the said !lace. /ence, the

crime committed for the killing of +ol. 8ames -owe during the said ambush is murder.

PEOPLE VS ANTONIO

Fats!

*n that fateful morning of )ovember 2,


48/173


here would be no treachery when the victim was !laced on guard, such as when a heated

argument !receded the attack, or when the victim was standing face to face with his

assailants and the initial assault could not have been unforeseen. Even if it could be said

that the attack was sudden, there would still be no treachery. In %eo!le v. +hua, we

reiterated our consistent view that> 3hile the killing itself a!!ears to have occurred onsudden im!ulse, it was !receded by acts of a!!ellant showing hostility and a heated tem!er

that indicated an imminent attack and should have !ut the deceased on guard.

hus, treachery could not be a!!reciated where the victim was forewarned and could have

antici!ated the aggression of the accused. $ince the sudden shooting of uadles was

!receded by a heated verbal altercation between uadles and a!!ellant Antonio, as

admitted by both !rosecution and defense, then it cannot be concluded that the shooting

was committed with treachery.

PEOPLE VS TEE#ANEE

Fats!

8ussi *lavi "eino was taking 4aureen /ultman to her home at +am!anilla $treet,

Dasmarinas illage, 4akati, :3ho are

you' G$how me your I.D.; 3hen "eino handed his I.D., the accused grabbed and

!ocketed the I.D., without bothering to look at it.

+ha!man saw the incident. /e ste!!ed down on the sidewalk and asked accused> :3hy are

you bothering us'; Accused !ushed +ha!man, dug into his shirt, !ulled out a gun and firedat him. +ha!man felt his u!!er body, staggered for a moment, and asked> :3hy did you

shoot me'; +ha!man crum!led on the sidewalk. "eino knelt beside +ha!man to assist him

but accused ordered him to get u! and leave +ha!man alone. Accused then turned his ire

on "eino. /e !ointed gun at him and asked> :Do you want a trouble'; "eino said :no; and

took a ste! backward.

he shooting initially shocked 4aureen. 3hen she came to her senses, she became

hysterical and started screaming for hel!. $he re!eatedly shouted> :*h, my od, he6s got a

gun. /e6s gonna kill us. 3ill somebody hel! us'; All the while, accused was !ointing his

gun to and from "eino to 4aureen, warning the latter to shut u!. Accused ordered "eino to

sit down on the sidewalk. "eino obeyed and made no attem!t to move away. Accused

stood 2#1 meters away from him. 4aureen continued to be hysterical. $he could not stay

still. $he strayed to the side of accused6s car. Accused tried but failed to grab her. 4aureen

circled around accused6s car, trying to !ut some distance between them. he short chase

lasted for a minute or two. Eventually, accused caught 4aureen and re!eatedly en&oined

her to shut u! and sit down beside "eino. 4aureen finally sat beside "eino on the

sidewalk.



49/173


@or a moment, the accused turned his back from the two. /e faced them again and shot

"eino. "eino was hit on the u!!er &aw, fell backwards on the sidewalk, but did not lose

consciousness. "eino heard another shot and saw 4aureen fall beside him. /e lifted his

head to see what was ha!!ening and saw accused return to his car and drive away. "eino

struggled to his knees and shouted for hel!. /e noticed at least 1 !eo!le who saw theincident.

As a result of the incident, 1 se!arate criminal cases were filed against accused +laudio

eehankee, 8r. Initially, he was charged with> 49-DE- for the killing of -*"A)D

+/A%4A), and two G2 @-9$-AED 49-DE- for the shooting and wounding of

89$$I "EI)* and 4A9-EE) /9"4A). 3hen /ultman subsequently died after J

days of confinement at the hos!ital and during the course of the trial, the Information for

@rustrated 4urder was amended to 49-DE-.

Iss"e!

3hether or not there is evident !remeditation and treachery in the commission of the

crime.

#e$%!

)o, it has been consistently ruled that mere suddenness of the attack on the victim would

not, by itself, constitute treachery. +oncededly, the shooting of +ha!man was carried out

swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. Even then, there is no evidence on

record to !rove that a!!ellant consciously and deliberately ado!ted his mode of attack toinsure the accom!lishment of his criminal design without risk to himself. It a!!ears to us

that a!!ellant acted on the s!ur of the moment. heir meeting was by chance. hey were

strangers to each other. he time between the initial encounter and the shooting was short

and unbroken. he shooting of +ha!man was thus the result of a rash and im!etuous

im!ulse on the !art of a!!ellant rather than a deliberate act of will.

As to the wounding of 8ussi "eino and the killing of 4aureen /ultman, we hold that

treachery clearly attended the commission of the crimes. he evidence shows that after

shooting +ha!man in cold blood, a!!ellant ordered "eino to sit on the !avement. 4aureen

became hysterical and wandered to the side of a!!ellants car. 3hen a!!ellant went after

her, 4aureen moved around his car and tried to !ut some distance between them. After a

minute or two, a!!ellant got to 4aureen and ordered her to sit beside "eino on the

!avement. 3hile seated, unarmed and begging for mercy, the two were gunned down by

a!!ellant. +learly, a!!ellant !ur!osely !laced his two victims in a com!letely defenseless

!osition before shooting them. here was an a!!reciable la!se of time between the killing

of +ha!man and the shooting of "eino and /ultman F a !eriod which a!!ellant used to

!re!are for a mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to

himself. reachery was thus correctly a!!reciated by the trial court against a!!ellant

insofar as the killing of /ultman and the wounding of "eino are concerned.



50/173


PEOPLE VS. MANERO

Fats!

*n the


51/173


#e$%!

he court did not a!!reciate the defense of alibi of the "ines brother, who according to

them, were in a farm some one kilometer away from the crime scene. he court held that

WIt is axiomatic that the accused inter!osing the defense of alibi must not only be at someother !lace but that it must also be !hysically im!ossible for him to be at the scene of the

crime at the time of its commission. here is no !hysical im!ossibility where the accused‖

can be at the crime scene in a matter of ?? in the evening to attend a !ublic dance at )egros

*ccidental. After two hours, Danilo asked Edwin to take a short break from dancing to

attend to their !ersonal necessities outside the dance hall. 3hile they were outside, they

decided to have a drink and bought beer.

)ot long after, Danilo, halfway on his first bottle, left to look for a !lace to relieve himself.

According to Edwin, he was only about three meters from Danilo who was relieving

himself when a short, dark bearded man walked !ast him, a!!roached Danilo and stabbed

him at the side. Danilo retaliated by striking his assailant with half# filled bottle of beer.

Almost simultaneously, a grou! of men numbering of seven G, ganged u! on Danilo and

hit him with assorted wea!ons. Edwin, who was !etrified, could only watch hel!lessly as

Danilo was being mauled and over!owered by his assailants. Danilo fell to the ground and

died before he could be given medical attention.



52/173


Edwin $elda confirmed the identity of the sus!ect who was then in the custody of the

!olice. hereat, he executed an affidavit and affirmed before the !olice authorities, that the

man under detention, Anecito 9nlagada, was the same man who stabbed his friend Danilo.

he accused assails his conviction.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the trial court erred in finding 9nlagada guilty of murder instead of

tumultuous affray under Art. 20< of the -evised %enal +ode'

#e$%!

Basic is the rule that the defense of alibi should be re&ected when the identity of the

accused has been sufficiently and !ositively established by an eyewitness because alibi

cannot !revail over the !ositive identification.

A tumultuous affray takes !lace when a quarrel occurs between several !ersons who

engage in a confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a !erson is killed or

wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. he quarrel in the instant case is

between a distinct grou! of individuals, one of whom was sufficiently identified as the

!rinci!al author of the killing, as against a common, !articular victim. It is not, as the

defense suggests, a :tumultuous affray; within the meaning of Art. 20< of he -evised

%enal +ode, that is, a melee or free# for# all, where several !ersons not com!rising definite

or identifiable grou!s attack one another in a confused and disorgani7ed manner, resulting

in the death or in&ury of one or some of them.

erily, the attack was qualified by treachery. he deceased was relieving himself, fully

unaware of any danger to his !erson when suddenly the accused walked !ast witness

Edwin $elda, a!!roached the victim and stabbed him at the side. here was hardly any risk

at all to accused# a!!ellantH the attack was com!letely without warning, the victim was

caught by sur!rise, and given no chance to !ut u! any defense.

3herefore, the decision of conviction a!!ealed from is affirmed.

PEOPLE VS MARAMARA

Fats!

he evidence shows that a benefit dance s!onsored by the +al!i Elementary $chool %A of

which accused# a!!ellant is the !resident, was held in the yard of accused# a!!ellant6s

house in Brgy. +al!i, +laveria 4asbate in the evening of )ovember


53/173


heir father immediately went to the crime scene and rushed 4iguelito to the %io Duran

/os!ital where the latter died early in the morning of the next day. Before 4iguelito

ex!ired, -egarder Donato, the father, asked who shot him and 4iguelito re!lied that it was

accused# a!!ellant.

he auto!sy re!ort revealed that aside from gunshot, the body of 4iguelito bore lacerated

wounds. hat the wounds could have inflicted by more than two !ersons.

he trial court ruled against the accused# a!!ellant and was held guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of murder.

Iss"e!

3hether or not 4aramara should be held liable for tumultuous affray instead of murder'

#e$%!

here is no merit in the accused# a!!ellant6s !osition that he should be held liable only for

death caused in a tumultuous affray under Article 20< of the -evised %enal +ode. It was in

such situation that accused came at the scene and &oined the fray !ur!ortedly to !acify the

!rotagonists when 4iguelito attacked him causing four G= stab wounds in different !arts

of his body# two on the stomach, one on the left ni!!le, and one on the left arm. hen

accused# a!!ellant with his hand# gun shot 4iguelito.

Assuming that a rumble or a free# for# all fight occurred at the benefit dance, Article 20< of

the -evised %enal +ode cannot a!!ly because !rosecution witness -icardo and -egarder Donato !ositively identified accused# a!!ellant as 4iguelito6s killer.

3hile accused# a!!ellant himself suffered multi!le stab wounds which, at first blush, may

lend verity to his claim that a rumble ensued and that victim 4iguelito inflicted u!on him

these wounds, the evidence is adequate to consider them as a mitigating circumstance

because the defense6s version stands discredited in light of the more credible version of the

!rosecution as to the circumstances surrounding 4iguelito6s death.

3herefore, the +ourt modifies the &udgment a!!ealed from. he +ourt finds +resenciano

4aramara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.

SISON VS. PEOPLE

Fats!

Amidst tension and strong hostility between +ory loyalists and 4arcos loyalists broke into

violence. *n 8uly 2,


54/173


At about =>?? !m, a small grou! of loyalists converged at the +hinese arden. Annie

@errer was there and they informed her of the dis!ersal and @errer angrily ordered them

:gul!ihin ninyo ang mga +ory hecklersO; A few minutes later, she was arrested by the

!olice. $omebody then shouted :kailangan gumanti tayo ngayonO; a commotion ensued

and -enato Banculo, cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attacking the !ersons in yellow.he man in yellow t# shirt was $alcedo and his !ursuers a!!eared to be 4arcos loyalists.

hay caught $alcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. /e was hit on various !arts of

his body. $umilang tried to !acify the maulers so he could extricate $alcedo from them but

the maulers !ursued $alcedo. $umilang was able to tow $alcedo but Billosos emerged

from behind $umilang as another man boxed $alcedo on the head. De "os $antas, an

boxed $alcedo while %acadar. amayo boxed $alcedo on the left &aw, $ision re!eatedly

boxed him.

$alcedo managed to get away but accused an, %acadar !ursued him, mauling $umilang in

the !rocess. $alcedo !leadfed for his life. he mauling resumed at the -i7al monument and

continued along -oxas Boulevard until $alcedo colla!Msed and lost consciousness.

$umilang with a hel! of traffic enforcer brought $alcedo to 4edical +enter 4anila but was

refused admission. $o they took him to %/ where he died u!on arrival.

he trial court rendered decision finding -omeo $ison, )ilo %acadar, 8oel an, -ichard De

"os $antos and 8oselito amayo guilty as !rinci!als in the crime of murder qualified by

treachery. @errer was convicted as an accom!lice.

he +ourt of A!!eals modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting @errer butincreasing the !enalty of the rest of the accused exce!t for amayo. he court convicts

amayo of homicide.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the +ourt of A!!eals erred in finding that the crime committed is murder

and not death caused in a tumultuous affray'

#e$%!

@or Article 20< of the -evised %enal +ode to a!!lyH it must be established that> G


55/173


As the lower courts found, the victim6s assailant6s were numerous by as much as fifty in

number and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. hey took advantage

of their su!erior strength and excessive force and frustrated any attem!t by $alcedo toesca!e and free himself. $alcedo !leaded for mercy but they ignored his !leas until he

finally lost unconsciousness. he deliberate and !rolonged use of su!erior strength on a

defenseless victim qualifies the killing of murder.

3herefore, the decision a!!ealed from is affirmed and modified.

DISC#ARE OF FIREARMS

DADO V. PEOPLE

Fats!

*n 4ay 20,


56/173


he trial court convicted !etitioner and accused Eraso of the crime of homicide which was

affirmed by the +ourt of A!!eals.

Accused Eraso filed a %etition for -eview but was denied by +AH on the other hand

!etitioner, filed this !etition.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the trial court and the +ourt of A!!eals erred in finding the !etitioner guilty

of homicide.

#e$%!

he +ourt sustains the finding of the trial court that !etitioner fired his .=0 caliber !istol

towards the victim. /owever, it a!!ears that there is no evidence to !rove that !etitioner

had intent to kill the victim. he !rosecution witnesses did not see whether !etitioner aimed to kill the victim. Intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact

that the use of firearms is dangerous to life. Intent to kill must be established with the

same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the crime. he inference of

intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to !rove such

intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim, !etitioner should be held liable

for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under Article 20= of the -evised %enal +ode.

he elements of this crime are> G


57/173


her in&uries resulting in her instantaneous death and the death of the child who was still in

its maternal womb. hus @ilomeno was charged with the com!lex crime of !arricide with

intentional abortion committed. he lower court found @ilomeno guilty as charged and

was sentenced to suffer the !enalty of death. /ence, the automatic review of the case by

the $u!reme +ourt. @ilomeno alleges that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of thecom!lex crime of !arricide with intentional abortion, as there is no evidence to show that

he had the intention to cause an abortion.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the conviction of the accused for the com!lex crime of !arricide with

intentional abortion is !ro!er'

#e$%!

)o. @ilomeno $alufrania should not be held guilty of the com!lex crime of !arricide with

intentional abortion but of the com!lex crime of !arricide with unintentional abortion.

he elements of 9nintentional Abortion are as follows>


58/173


enoves was then charged and convicted by +@I *ccidental )egros of the com!lex crime

of homicide with abortion.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the conviction of the com!lex crime of homicide with abortion is !ro!er'

#e$%!

)o, the abortion in this case is unintentional abortion denounced by article 20 of the

-evised %enal +ode. It is generally known that a fall is liable to cause !remature delivery,

and the evidence shows a com!lete sequel of events from the assault to $oledad6s death.

enoves must be held res!onsible for the natural consequences of his act.

A&IRRE VS SECRETARY OF J&STICE

Fats>

*n 8une


59/173


Any other intentional mutilation shall be !unished by !rision mayor in its medium and

maximum !eriods.

A straightforward scrutiny of the above !rovision shows that the elements of mutilation

under the first !aragra!h of Art. 2C2 of the -evised %enal +ode to be


60/173


#e$%!

he $u!reme +ourt ruled in the affirmative. It ruled that the only in&ury attributable to "i is

the contusion on the victim6s right arm that resulted from "i striking Arugay with a

baseball bat. In view of the victim6s su!ervening death from in&uries which cannot beattributed to "i beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion caused by "i are not

mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of s!eculation. 3hen there is no evidence of

actual inca!acity of the offended !arty for labor or of the required medical attendance, the

offense is only slight !hysical in&uries.

3hat trans!ired during the dawn hours of was an artless, s!ontaneous street fight devoid of

any methodical !lan for consummation. It arose not because of any long#standing grudge

or an a!!reciable vindication of honor, but because the actors were too quick to offense

and im!ervious to reason. (et, however senseless this lethal imbroglio is, a &udicious

examination of the circumstances must be made to avoid lea!s into hy!erbole. +areful

scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the criminal cul!ability of "i in the death of Arugay

was not established beyond reasonable doubt. 9nfortunately, the !erson who is res!onsible

for the death a!!arently remains at large.

RAPE

PEOPLE V. OA

Fats!

August ?? !.m. of August J, ?? a.m. that she was able to finally kick the galvani7ed iron sheet

that enclosed the a!!ellant6s barracks.

A!!ellant did not deny that he had several intercourse with Irene but inter!osed

:sweetheart story;.

Iss"e!

3hether or not force and intimidation are attendant in this case'

#e$%!

)either was intimidation em!loyed against her. Even if she was !ulled down to the bed,

she was not threatened with bodily or !hysical harm by a knife, bolo or any ob&ect or

instrument that the a!!ellant could have em!loyed so as :to create a real a!!rehension of

dangerous consequences or serious bodily harm;. Irene6s overall de!ortment during her

ordeal defies com!rehension and the reasonable standard of human conduct when faced



61/173


with a similar situation. It is unnatural for an intended ra!e victim, as in the case at bar, not

to make even a feeble attem!t to free herself des!ite a myriad of o!!ortunities to do so.

his constrained us to entertain a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the a!!ellant.

PEOPLE VS ASAOAY

Fats!

on or about 8uly


62/173


-omeo . 8alos&os as the accused#a!!ellant, is a full#fledged member of +ongress who is

now confined at the national !enitentiary while his conviction for statutory ra!e on two

counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is !ending a!!eal. he accused#a!!ellant

filed this motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a +ongressman,

including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings des!ite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non#bailable offense.

Iss"e!

3hether or not being a +ongressman is a substantial differentiation which removes the

accused#a!!ellant as a !risoner from the same class as all !ersons validly confined under

law by reason of the :mandate of the sovereign will;.

#e$%!

)*. 3hile the +onstitution guarantees> :x x x nor shall any !erson be denied the equal

!rotection of laws.; this sim!ly means that all !ersons similarly situated shall be treated

alike both in rights en&oyed and res!onsibilities im!osed. he duties im!osed by the

:mandate of the !eo!le; are multifarious. he +ourt cannot validate badges of inequality.

he necessities im!osed by !ublic welfare may &ustify exercise of government authority to

regulate even if thereby certain grou!s may !lausibly assert that their interests are

disregarded. /ere, election to the !osition of +ongressman is not a reasonable

classification in criminal law enforcement. he functions and duties of the office are not

substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of !risoners interru!ted in their

freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. "awful arrest and confinement are germane

to the !ur!oses of the law and a!!ly to all those belonging to the same class. /ence, the

!erformance of legitimate and even essential duties by !ublic officers has never been an

excuse to free a !erson validly in !rison.

Election is the ex!ression of the sovereign !ower of the !eo!le. /owever, ins!ite of its

im!ortance, the !rivileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or

restricted by law.

he immunity from arrest or detention of $enators and members of the /ouse of

-e!resentatives arises from a !rovision of the +onstitution. he !rivilege has always been

granted in a restrictive sense. he !rovision granting an exem!tion as a s!ecial !rivilege

cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by

intendment, im!lication or equitable considerations.

he accused#a!!ellant has not given any reason why he should be exem!ted from the

o!eration of $ec.


63/173


PEOPLE VS CAMPAN

Fats!

*n A!ril 20, 4a. +ora7on %. %amintuan, mother of =#year old +rysthel

%amintuan, went to the ground floor of their house to !re!are 4ilo chocolate drinks for her

2 children. here she met %rimo +am!uhan, hel!er of +onrado %lata 8r., brother of

+ora7on, who was then busy filling small !lastic bags with water to be fro7en into ice in

the free7er located at the second floor. hen she heard +rysthel cry, Ayoko, ayokoO so

she went u!stairs and saw %rimo +am!uhan inside her childrens room kneeling before

+rysthel whose !a&amas or &ogging !ants and !anty were already removed, while his

short !ants were down to his knees and his hands holding his !enis with his right hand.

/orrified, she cursed % # t # ng ina mo, anak ko iyanO and boxed him several times. /e

evaded her blows and !ulled u! his !ants. /e !ushed +ora7on aside who she tried to block

his !ath. +ora7on then ran out and shouted for hel! thus !rom!ting icente, her brother, a

cousin and an uncle who were living within their com!ound, to chase the +am!uhan who

was a!!rehended. hey called the barangay officials who detained.

%hysical examination yielded negative results as +rysthel Xs hymen was intact.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the accused committed a consummated statutory ra!e

#e$%!

he records reviewed failed to show the !roof whether %rimo6s !enis was able to !enetrate

+hrystel6s vagina. @ailure to !rove such !enetration, even the slightest one, cannot be

considered consummated ra!e, however, only attem!ted ra!e, if not acts of lasciviousness.

Also, there were no !hysical signs of in&uries on the witness6 body to conclude a medical

!ers!ective that a !enetration has taken !lace. In ra!e cases, it is im!ortant that a valid

testimony and medical certificate com!lements each other, for relying alone on testimonial

evidence may create unwarranted or mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully

establish a !roof that the !enis, in reality, entered the labial threshold of the female organ

to accurately conclude that the ra!e was consummated.

3/E-E@*-E, the decision of the court on convicting +am!uhan guilty of statutory ra!e

is modified. /ence, convicted of attem!ted instead.

PEOPLE VS EC#AARAY

Fats!

he $u!reme +ourt rendered a decision in the instant case affirming the conviction of the

accused#a!!ellant for the crime of ra!ing his ten#year old daughter. he crime having been

committed sometime in A!ril,


64/173


*n August C, G


65/173


C when committed by any member of the Armed @orces of the %hili!!ines or the

%hili!!ine )ational %olice or any law enforcement agency.

when by reason or on the occasion of the ra!e, the victim has suffered !ermanent

!hysical mutilation. G$ec. G


66/173


who were ca!tured during the rescue o!eration were also !artici!ants in the forcible taking

and as!ortation is to lower the level of evidence required for conviction.

he third e!isode, however, is different. he criminal !artici!ation of the a!!ellants therein

was !roven beyond reasonable doubt. he *$ correctly recommended that they should be held liable therefor.

he unex!lained !resence of a!!ellants in the house where the victim was held ca!tive

leads to no other conclusion than that they !artici!ated in his illegal detention. )ot a single

a!!ellant could convincingly ex!lain his !resence at the crime scene.

PEOPLE V. RODRIO

Fats!

*liver +a!aras, then


67/173


kidna!!ed or detained or threats to kill him are madeH or Gd that the !erson kidna!!ed or

detained is a minor, female or !ublic officer. It is evident from the testimonies of the

witnesses that the essential elements of kidna!!ing were !resent. @irst, a!!ellants are

!rivate individuals. $econd, *liver was abducted by four armed men. hird, he was

detained in a house in %angasinan against his will. @ourth, the detention lasted for sevendays. @ifth, *liver +a!aras was a minor at the time of the kidna!!ing incident.

MADSALI, ET AL. V. PEOPLE

Fats>

After a confrontation between the victim and her aunt Inon Dama while fetching water, the

a!!ellant G4aron and his father G$a&iron a!!eared suddenly in the victim6s house with a

gun and told the victim to come with them. 3hen she refused, $a&iron and 4aron tied her

hands behind her back, covered her mouth with a !iece of cloth, and brought her to the

forest. here, $a&iron had carnal knowledge with the victim against her will while 4aron

stood guard and watched them. hey left the forest and brought the victim to the house of

Ega!, where she was detained in a room. $a&iron instructed Ega! to guard the victim and to

shoot her if she would attem!t to esca!e. A day after, the victim6s mother came to get herH

unfortunately Ega! refused and threatened to kill her daughter if she would re!ort the

matter to the authorities. *ut of fear of losing her daughter, she went home and did not

re!ort the incident to the !olice authorities. Ega! asked the victim if she wanted to marry

$a&iron, but she refused. $he was then forced to sign an unknown document, which she

was not able to read. )ine days after she and $a&ioron were married by Imam 4usli

4uhammad. After the marriage, she and $a&iron lived in the house of Ega!. 3hile

detained, she did not try to esca!e because her house was very far from the !lace where she

was held ca!tive, and her ca!tors threatened to kill her and her family if she would attem!t

to esca!e. 4onths after the marriage, $a&iron and Ega! were arrested by the !olice.

Iss"e>

3hether or not the crime committed was kidna!!ing and serious illegal detention.

#e$%>

(es. @urther !erusal of the allegations in the information a!!ears that the crime charged

was actually the s!ecial com!lex crime of kidna!!ing and serious illegal detention and

ra!e, defined and !enali7ed under Article 2C of the -evised %enal +ode. he crime of

serious illegal detention consists not only of !lacing a !erson in an enclosure, but also of

detaining him or de!riving him in any manner of his liberty. @or there to be kidna!!ing, it

is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Its essence is the actual

de!rivation of the victim6s liberty, cou!led with indubitable !roof of the intent of the

accused to effect such de!rivation. In this case, although the victim was not actually

confined in an enclosed !lace, she was clearly restrained and de!rived of her liberty,

because she was tied u! and her mouth stuffed with a !iece of cloth, thus, making it very

easy to !hysically drag her to the forest away from her home.

PEOPLE V. SILONAN



68/173


Fats>

@or automatic review is the decision of the -+ of ue7on +ity, Branch


69/173


#e$%>

(es. he essence of kidna!!ing is the actual de!rivation of the victim6s liberty, cou!led

with indubitable !roof of the accused6s intent to effect the same. And if the !erson detained

is a child, the question that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to show thatin taking the child, there was de!rivation of the child6s liberty and that it was the intention

of the accused to de!rive the mother of the child6s custody. 9ndoubtedly, the elements of

kidna!!ing for ransom have been sufficiently established by the !rosecution considering

the following circumstances>


70/173


A!!ellant )arito alias )aring Dadles was charged in two se!arate informations, to wit>

hat on or about 2=th of 4ay


71/173


3hether or not trial court erred in convicting a!!ellant with kidna!!ing and serious illegal

detention.

#e$%>

(es. Based from the evidence !resented during the trial, the a!!ellant is guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of kidna!!ing the victims. /owever, since none of the circumstances

mentioned in Article 2C of the -evised %enal +ode Gkidna!!ing with serious illegal

detention was !roved and only the fact of kidna!!ing was established, we find that the

crime committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal ode.

PEOPLE V. ROL&NA

Fats!

Kidna!!ing with murder were charged to eight !erson, including accused -oluna.

3itnesses claimed that they saw victim Anatalio 4oronia sto!!ed by accused and several

others. he victim was alleged to have been threatened with firearms and hand bound

behind his back. he accused claimed that he was taking care of an ill relative at the time

of the kidna!!ing. he -+ found -oluna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the com!lex

crime of Kidna!!ing with murder. he accused raised that the body of the victim has not

surfaced and that the unex!lained disa!!earance cannot be blamed on him as there is all

!ossibility that the victim may still be alive.

Iss"e!

3hether or not the death of the victim is sufficiently !roved and the accused be held liable

for it.

#e$%!

he -ules of +ourt !rovides that the death shall be !resumed if a !erson who has been in

danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four

years. /owever, the $u!reme +ourt decided that there were insufficient circumstances to

hold the accused res!onsible for the death of the victim. he testimony of the witnesses

stating that the victim6s hands were bound by a com!anion of the accused is not enough to

!rove that the accused killed him. :he conviction of accused#a!!ellant for the serious

crime of kidna!!ing with murder cannot be allowed to rest on the vague and nebulous facts

established by the !rosecution. As discussed earlier, the evidence !resented by the

!rosecution surrounding the events of that fateful day are grossly insufficient to establish

the alleged liability of accused#a!!ellant for the death of 4oronia;. he $+ thus decidedthat :$ince none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 2C of the -evised %enal +ode

Gkidna!!ing with serious illegal detention was !roved and only the fact of kidna!!ing of

Anatalio 4oronia was established, we find that the crime committed is slight illegal

detention under Article 2CL of the -evised %enal +ode.



72/173


IDNAPPIN AND FAIL&RE TO RET&RN A MINOR

PEOPLE VS PASTRANA

Fats!

A domestic hel!er in +anada, Erma %oste&o, the mother of 8enny, Doroteo, Aresola and J#

year old 3illy ar!en, 8r. her son by a common#law relationshi!. $he was introduced to

accused#a!!ellant -ubi#-ose who offered to work on the !rocessing of 3illy6s travel

documents to +anada. -ubi#-ose asked for %


73/173


falsehood. In the instant case, there is no reason for us to disregard the trial court6s finding

that the testimonies of the !rosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit.

PEOPLE V. TY

Fats!

Accused #A!!ellants y owns, administers and manages $t.8ohns +linic in +aloocan. In


74/173


Iss"e!

3hether or not the court erred in convicting the accused#a!!ellant of kidna!!ing and

failure to return a minor under article 2? of the revised !enal code.

#e$%!

(es, it has been established by the clear, strong and !ositive evidence of the !rosecution

that the taking of the minor child Edward was without the knowledge and consent of his

!arents. $aid criminal act was !er!etrated while 4rs. %olicar!io had her back turned to the

child and accused#a!!ellant and while 4r. %olicar!io was tem!orarily away from the

grou!. An essential element that the offender must be entrusted with the custody of a minor

!erson is lacking in the case and the accused#a!!ellant Angelina 4endo7a is found

9I"( beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidna!!ing and $erious Illegal

Detention under Article 2C of the -evised %enal +ode.

RAVE COERCION

PEOPLE V. SANTOS

Fats!

*n


75/173


from one G?? a.m. of 8une 0, ?? a.m. of the

same day, in Barangay +abalantian, 4unici!ality of Bacolor, %rovince of %am!anga,

accused, 4A-I"() -A@AE"#I""A4A-, sus!ecting that 4aria "u7 +orte7 would not

return her daughter 8onalyn illamar whom she entrusted to said 4aria "u7 +orte7, did

then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously surre!titiously enter the house of 4aria

"u7 +orte7 and by means of force and intimidation and with threats to kill take said 4aria

"u7 +orte7, a woman of 2? years old as the latter entered her house whom said accused

detained and ke!t locked inside the house from >?? a.m. to J>?? a.m. of 8une 0, a knife and a chisel, one 4aria "u7 +orte7 who as a

result thereof, suffered various lacerated wounds on the head which ordinarily would cause

the death of the said 4aria "u7 +orte7, thus !erforming all the acts of execution which

should have !roduced the crime of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless did not !roduce it by reason of causes inde!endent of her will, that is, by the timely arrival of the

authorities who rescued 4aria "u7 +orte7 which !revented her death.

4arilyn illamar was charged with the crime of illegal detention and frustrated murder.

Insisting on her innocence, illamar has inter!osed the instant a!!eal.

he focal !oint of illamars thesis is that she cannot be guilty of serious illegal detention

since

Iss"e!

W2et2er or (ot t2e o"rt erre% i( 'i(%i(g a"se%-a;;e$$a(t Vi$$a3ar g"i$ty o' serio"s

i$$ega$ %ete(tio(.

#e$%!



76/173


Yes, 9nder the law, as !resently worded, it is essential that the kidna!!ing or detention was

committed for the !ur!ose of extorting ransom. MJN In the instant case, there is no showing

whatsoever that illamar wanted to extort money from +orte7 !rior to their confrontation.

he act merely constituted grave coercion, as !rovided in Article 2LC of the -evised %enal+ode. he crime of grave coercion has three elements> Ga that any !erson is !revented by

another from doing something not !rohibited by law, or com!elled to do something against

his or her will, be it right or wrongH Gb that the !revention or com!ulsion is effected by

violence, either by material force or such a dis!lay of it as would !roduce intimidation and,

consequently, control over the will of the offended !artyH and Gc that the !erson who

restrains the will and li

Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Law 2 Case Digest