b2013 crim2 case doctrines

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines

Camille Arianne Jill Loraine Richard Welga JC Sophie 1

Title 1: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

Title Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

TREASON

Laurel v. Misa 1947 Filipino citizen who gave aid and comfort to the Japanese contends that since sovereignty is suspended, his allegiance as well is suspended

No. Citizen owes his government permanent and absolute allegiance.

Treason is a war crime. It is punished by state as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation.

Law of treason is an emergency measure – dormant until emergency arises

What is suspended is the exercise of rights not sovereignty

People v. Perez 1949 Perez with other Filipinos apprehended women to satisfy desires of Colonel Mini.

No. Commandeering of women, against their will, to satisfy the sexual desires of the enemy is not treason because it doesn’t directly or materially improve war efforts of the enemy.

General Rule: - Extent of aid/comfort given to the enemies must

be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals

People v. Prieto 1948 Accused caused torture of several Filipinos.

- Seen dragging the American aviator - Seen walking with the Americans

No. Two witness rule was not satisfied. No. There’s no complex crime of treason and murder/PI

Murder and physical injuries are inherent in the crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy.

People v. Manayao 1947

Accused was member of Makapili. Invoked CA 63 – loss of citizenship:

1. Oath of allegiance 2. Becoming an officer 3. Declared as deserter of armed forces

No. legislature did not intend that can renounce duties simply by taking oath of allegiance during war time.

- No evidence presented

Are citizens barred from renouncing citizenship during war time? – YES

CA 63: oath of allegiance: sworn to help in war is different from swearing to support consti and laws.

People v. Adriano 1947

Accused was a Makapili. Witnesses presented only testified to him joining the Makapili army. Other acts were not established by 2 witnesses.

No. 2-witness rule is severely restrictive. - Corroboration in direct

testimony to the same overt act

Being a member is an overt act

2-witness rule: favorable to the accused

PIRACY

People v. Lol-lo and Saraw

1922

Dutch and Moros Boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by 6 vintas with moros. Took all the cargo, raped women and attacked some men.

Piracy is a crime against mankind. (hostes humani generis) Only political law is changed. Municipal laws remain in force

Is the 2-witness rule still applicable today?

Created at a time when the only way to recall events is through human memory and human memory is unreliable.

different events: purpose of the rule is defeated

now, not the only way to prove treason – VIDEOS!

People v. Rodriguez 1985

Tawi-tawi, MV Noria, pump boat Accused stole equipments and personal properties of the crew members and passengers.

Crime was positively testified by 3 witnesses. PD 532: Mandatory death penalty for persons who committed piracy with rape, murder or homicide

Offender Purpose

Piracy External Intent to gain

Mutiny Crew/passenger Defiance

Robbery Crew/Passenger Intent to gain

People v. Siyoh 1985 Pilas island Accused was apprehended because he was seen the pants which he took from the victim

Yes. PD 532: special complex crime regardless of number of victims

Qualified: if successfully boarded/seized Piracy: enough that vessel was fired upon even if the

offenders has not yet boarded



Title 2: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE


ARBITRARY DETENTION

Umil v. Ramos 1990 NPA, PISTON Arrested in a hospital, Constantino’s house, etc.

Arrests were valid. Subversion is a continuing offense.

Theory of hot pursuit: supposed to apprehend the accused but disappeared and was later on arrested at home while asleep - Why would one who evades justice would go home

Principle that subversion is a continuing offense - Would a person spend every waking moment/100% of the

time doing subversive acts? - Logical: not yet done with one overt act - Ridiculous: committing 100% of the time

People v. Burgos 1986 Gun was buried. NPA pamphlets under a pile of cogon.

He was arbitrarily detained. Warrantless arrest: only if urgent

- If not urgent, why not just secure a warrant

Milo v. Salanga 1987 Barrio captain. Detained for 11 hours.

Barrio captain can be held liable for Arbitrary detention.

RA 3590: revised barrio charter - Power and duties of barrio captain similar to that of mayors

SEARCH WARRANTS

Stonehill v. Diokno 1967

42 search warrants, search premises of office/warehouse/residence, take possession of persona properties (book of accounts, financial records, etc.) as violation of Central Bank Laws, Custom Laws, Internal Revenue Code and RPC

Search warrants were invalid. Documents were inadmissible as evidence.

Level of specificity - Look for evidence or fish for evidence - No idea of a specific crime committed - No specific charge

Fruit of the poison tree - Prohibit illegal search and all fruits obtained from it

Why use exclusionary principle when we already have A.128? - Incentive/disincentive - Need for other means of deterrence - If more lenient to police officers= the government will

benefit from the search - Tendency: just do it, will be pardoned later on

Exclusionary rule - Deterrence - Imperative of judicial integrity - Should not profit from lawless behavior - Minimize risk of seriously undermining popular trust in

government



Burgos v. Chief of Staff 1984

Metropolitan Mail, We Forum Searched office and seize printing machines and equipments, motor vehicles, numerous papers and documents

Search warrants were invalid No sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause.

Did not discuss what subversive acts were committed - Police did not make FACTUAL STATEMENTS - Should have described what is there and let the judge make

the conclusion - Determination of WON the act is subversive is done by the

courts

What the police did: “it is subversive”

What they should’ve done: present evidence of subversion like written articles, etc.

Distinguish between factual and non-factual statements

OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

People v. Mandoriao 1955

INC, debate “Jesus Christ is not God, but only man” Religious rally in a public place (Baguio)

Religious rally is not a religious ceremony - Not a place of worship - Object of meeting was to

persuade new converts - There was already a commotion

before Mandoriao went up the stage

- Act was not notoriously offensive to feelings of the faithful

Look at his acts and determine WON it is a religious ceremony

People v. Baes

Church of Christ Funeral would pass the churchyard of a Roman Catholic Church. Priest prevented them but was threaten with physical violence. He was prevailed. Fiscal dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence.

Fiscal was ordered to comply with his duties. REMANDED.

- Question of WON it is offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful is a question of fact. Determined in a proceeding.

According to the feelings of the Catholic not of the other faithful ones.

General Rule: perspective of the one offended

Not a ruling on guilt but on sufficiency of allegation for trial to proceed

People v. Tengson 1971

Christ is the answer Funeral; performed religious rites in the house and in an unfinished barrio chapel

- Chanting of Alleluia, singing religious hymns

Acquitted. Second element that the act is notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful was not present. Offense should not be depend upon the subjective conception or characterization of such religious act.

Laurel Standard: (dissent from Baes) - Perspective of the faithful IN GENERAL - Believers of Jesus Christ regardless of religious sect or

denomination

People v. Nanoy 1972 Assembly of God, drunk Accused entered the chapel, he was drunk and grab the song leader

Acquitted. No intention of interrupting the services as he allowed himself to be led out,

- Only UNJUST VEXATION



Title 3: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER


REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT

Enrile v. Salazar 1990

Enrile was arrested and charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder in line with the failed coup attempt.

Hernandez ruling is maintained.

Why not complex? CONECEPTUAL: they are elements of the crime of rebellion STATUTORY: there are penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion (old law)

- NOW: statutory cannot be invoked - But there’s no case yet to decide if absent the statutory

reason, can it be complexed.

Enrile v. Amin 1990 Enrile was charged with violation of PD 1829 for harboring and concealing Honasan in his house.

He cannot be separately charged.

Overlap of factual foundation. Exactly the same evidence as in the crime of rebellion that on the eve of the coup attempt they were on the house of Enrile. Same basis – Government has to make up its mind on which one it should charge

People v. Dasig 1993 A police officer manning the traffic was killed. The suspects were apparently members of the sparrow unit of NPA.

Simple Rebellion

General Rule: Prosecutor’s determination of what crime is usually binding. Court will not change this so long as the charge is correct or that the act constitutes the crime. Exception: If favorable to the accused. – justice should be served. Hernandez doctrine If person accused of murder, other acts would be separate charges. But in rebellion, additional charges are absorbed

- Avoid circumvention

People v. Lovedioro 1995 Accused shot a police. The witness identifies him as member of NPA.

Murder. Defense merely picked up and followed through upon the witness’ testimony.

Catch 22: damn if you do, damn if you don’t Confess as member = confess the crime If not = will not be appreciated

SEDITION

People v. Cabrera 1922

Outrage of policemen, Constabulary v. police There a rift between a constabulary and a police officer. A rumor spread that the member of constabulary was allowed to resume work. 77 soldiers escaped barracks and had a shooting spree.

Sedition, murder and physical injuries. Sedition is raising of commotion in state. Persons inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of an official agent.

Sedition does not absorb other offenses. Sedition is a violation of public peace while murder is a crime against persons. No distinction as to persons to which it applies.

INCITING TO SEDITION

US v.Tolentino 1906

Kahapon, ngayon at bukas A play was presented in Teatro Libertad wherein false, seditious and scurrilous language were used.

Guilty. Manner and form of expression as well as current environment are important considerations.

Time, place, manner doctrine. No need to prove that people actually committed sedition.

What to prove: If implied/indirect: leave the audience to interpret



Espuelas v. People 1951

Pictured himself to be hanging lifeless Accused took a picture of himself to be hanging lifeless with suicide note containing:

- Displeased/ashamed of government

- Infested with hitlers and mussolinis

- Unable to put under juez de cuchillo all the Roxas people

Guilty. It was scurrilous. He suggested assassination of Roxas.

Variance in appreciation underscores difficulty. Clear and Present danger.

- Punishes the tendency

VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Martinez v. Morfe 1972

Immunity from arrests Both the accused were members of ConCon. One was charged with falsification while the other was accused of illegal campaigning. (both were criminal charges.)

Not immune. Lawmakers are exempt only from civil arrests and not from arrests involving crimes. RPC – 1932; Constitution - 1935

Odd since civil liability doesn’t include arrests. Art 145 of RPC is superceded by Art 16 Sec 2 of the Constitution. 1935 constitution: no exemption for criminal arrests

- But there is no civil arrest in the Philippines - And no one gets imprisoned in civil cases

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

People v. Narvasa 1988

Armed goons Because of reports of missing carabaos, pigs and goats, patrolling policemen suggested that armed goons should be tracked. When they went to investigate, they were met with a volley of gunfire.

Homicide with special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearms. RA 8294 is applied retroactively because it is favorable to the accused.

RA 8294 considers the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide.

DIRECT ASSAULT

People v. Beltran 1985

Puzon compound Mayor and chief of police went to the compound of congressman. Upon reaching the compound, there was simultaneous discharge of firearms. Mayor was injured and his son was killed.

Direct Assault Mayor is person in authority and the other was a policeman and both were in their official duties to maintain peace and order in community.

People v. Dollantes

Barangay captain Barangay captain was stabbed to death while delivering speech during a town dance.

Direct Assault It is the captain’s duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay.

Construe it as wide as possible. In the Philippines, there are a lot of ceremonial functions.

DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL

Alberto v. De la Cruz

Assistant provincial warden Orbita was supposed to bring the prisoner to Governor’s house to help in the construction of a fence. He left the prisoner unguarded and so the latter managed to escape.

Not guilty Neither the governor nor the warden can be guilty under A.156

A. 156 – committed by outsider not in charge with custody A. 223 – public officer who connived or consented A. 224 – Negligence



EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Tanega v. Masakayan 1967

Never arrested Convicted of slander but was never arrested. Invoked prescription of the offense.

Prescription does not start to run because of evasion of sentence.

She was never arrested – never commenced sentence; how can she possibly evade it?

Custody: placed at disposal of authorities

Start counting: in prison already, under custody

People v. Abilong 1948

Destierro Accused was sentenced to destierro for attempted robbery but he went beyond the limits made against him.

Guilty. SC relied on the Spanish text. Destierro – deprived of liberty to enter the prohibited zone

It is unfair that there are other meanings.

English should now be the prevailing text.

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON

Torres v. Gonzales 1987

Conditional pardon Accused was granted pardon on the condition that he will not commit any crime under RPC. He was charged with 20 counts of estafa.

Conviction of crime by a final judgment is not necessary. If the President chooses RAC, no judicial pronouncement (for the crimes after the pardon) is needed to recommit the convict.

Grant of Pardon can be: 1) an executive act Sec. 64 of the Revised Administrative Code or 2) a judicial act Art 159, RPC

QUASI-RECIDIVISM

People v. Dioso 1964

New Bilibid Prison Both the accused were already serving their sentence. They were members of Batang Mindanao gang – rival of Happy Go Lucky gang. They feigned sickness so they could kill the victim who was then confined in the prison hospital.

Max penalty – regardless of mitigating circumstances.

Quasi recidivism: committing crime charged with while serving sentence for a prior offense



Title 4: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST


COUNTERFEITING

People v. Kong Leon 1950 Counterfeited US gold coins Accused had in his possession counterfeited coins. Coins were already out of circulation.

Guilty. Counterfeiting includes foreign coins withdrawn from circulation.

What is punished is not merely the harm to the public that may be caused if it enters the circulation but also potential danger that counterfeiter produces should he apply his trade.

Defrauding people in buying the coin

FORGERY

Del Rosario v. People 1961 Genuine treasury notes Genuine notes were presented however one digit of the serial number had been erased.

Guilty. 2

nd mode – even if genuine

People v. Galano 1958

Victory Accused bought balut eggs but uses false pre-war bills. Bills such kinds had been withdrawn but are redeemable at face value.

Guilty. Still punishable despite having been withdrawn from circulation.

Problem: where will counterfeited notes made from scratch and not just altered be punishable? - none

FALSIFICATION

People v. Romualdez 1932

Bar exam Accused were correctors of the bar exams. The niece (of Justice Romualdez, examiner of PolLaw) raised the grade of one examinee but did not sign her name when she made the correction.

Guilty of A.300/301 par 2,3,6 2 – cause it to appear that person participated in the act 3 – attribute to persons statements other than those made by them 6 – alteration/intercalation

if she signed her name – no falsification

Beradio v. CA 1982

Time records Lawyer was assigned as election registrar of COMELEC. Her job was mostly field work. She was accused of falsifying her time records – timed in when she was really out attending sessions.

Not guilty. - No strict obligation to keep and

submit time records - Criminal intention is necessary

Luague v. CA 1982 Salary warrants, poor widow Wife signed and got the check for her husband.

Not guilty - No criminal intent

No intent = no deceiving

The person who is ought to receive it (one that should’ve been deceived) is the one who asked her to sign.

Cabigas v. People

Securities custodian Accused has devised his own routine procedure in preparing treasury bills. There were discrepancies that appeared.

Par. 4 - Making untruthful statement in narration of facts

There should be legal obligation to disclose

People v. Sandaydiego

1978 Vouchers Accused were charged of misappropriating government funds allocated for projects – bridge, roads, etc.

If falsification was resorted to hide malversation, both are separate crime and not complexed.

Sandaydiego merely relied on the signatures of the others

Signatures were real – there should be no falsification



Siquian v. People 1989 20 year old clerk Mayor employed a girl for clerk position when no such position exist on the budget.

Guilty - Took advantage of position

Should have developed the “conclusion of law” statement

Remove it from a question of fact and elevate it to a question of law. - Part of discretionary funds

People v. Villalon 1990 Attorney in fact Attorney was only authorized on half portion of the land.

Action has prescribed. Accused wrote something else which

made it appear as if he was given authority

USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS

People v. Dava 1991

License Accused was involved in a vehicular accident. His license was confiscated. He procured a fake license but was caught driving. He presented his fake license when caught.

Guilty. He knew that he could not legally have a license.

USURPATION

People v. Cortez

BIR Agent Accused presented an id (of another person) along with other BIR paper to inspect books and receipts (and later on ask money) from victim.

Guilty. Usurpation can be complexed with other crimes. Falsification of public document was employed to perpetuate usurpation.

Gigantoni v. People

CIS Agent Accused represented himself as CIS agent of Phil Constabulary investigating a kidnapping to the PAL legal officer. He was an employee of BMMI and was actually investigating the officials of the corp.

Not guilty. He is really a CIS agent but was merely suspended. He was not notified of his termination from office.

USING FICTITIOUS NAME

Legamia v. IAC 1984

Live-in arrangement Woman claims to be the wife and claims death benefits of dead ‘husband’. Husband is married to someone else but they represented themselves as married couple for 19 years and has a child.

Not guilty. Not uncommon in Phil Society

Assumed role without sinister purpose

PERJURY

Diaz v. People 1990

Civil service commission, reappointment as school admin assistant Accused misrepresented himself to have graduated from Cosmopolitan and Harvardian college when in fact he was not.

Guilty.

Why not falsification? - Because of precedent: People v. Cruz

MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS

Ouano v. CA

Auction Ouano and Echavez agreed that only the latter would bid and if accepted they will divide the property. They also induce the other party to withdraw.

Guilty. Agreement that one will refrain from taking part in auction and inducing another bidder to not bid is considered machination in public auctions.



Title 6: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

GAMBLING


PD 1602

LOI 816

IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS

People v. Kottinger

Pictures of natives Accused owns Camera Supply co. Postcards were confiscated for being obscene and indecent. – portraying inhabitants in their native dress

Not obscene/indecent.

Test: Whether it will deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influence and into whose hands a publication or article charged as obscene may fall Whether it shocks the ordinary/common sense of men of indecency

Standard of general morality allows context

People v. Aparici

Hula-hula dance Woman performs a dance wearing skimpy clothes in a theater with male audience.

Guilty. - Reaction of the public

during performance is the gauge

There’s a degree of unreliability – different reaction from different people

People v. Padan 1957 Fighting fish, toro Performance of actual sexual intercourse

Guilty An actual exhibition of sexual act has no redeeming feature and nothing in it but clear unmitigated obscenity

VAGRANCY

Perez v. Navarro-Domingo

vagrancy

Art. 202 is unconstitutional which penalizes the act of loitering impinges on the individual’s right to locomotion and freedom of expression.

Bill of attainder - Punish status not punish acts

PD 1563

RA 9208



Title 7: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS


BRIBERYAND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Manipon v. Sandiganbayan

Something for the new year Dominguez was then mayor and was tasked to execute the decision of labor arbiter. Manipon garnished the account of Dominguez but did not inform the arbiter about it. M told D that he could remedy the withdrawal so they could have something for the new year.

Direct Bribery. Promise of public officer to perform act or to refrain from doing it may be expressed or implied.

Novation: Original – pursuant to the judgment of labor arbiter Novated – C/D agreed to pay/receive less amount

Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan

Tax clearance, Rizal café Dacumas, revenue examiner, offered to settle tax liability of Revilla by pulling out its assessment papers from office of BIR and procuring tax clearance.

Direct Bribery. Implausibility of public official’s promise does not mean that they are not made.

GRAFT AND CORRUPTION

Almeda v. Perez

Assistant Director of NBI Almeda was accused of having unexplained wealth as his acquisitions were manifestly out of proportion to his income. Issue is WON petition may be amended without consent of Almeda.

RA 1379. Yes. It is CIVIL in nature.

- Proceeding ends in forfeiture not a penalty

- Different proceeding from that of CRIMPRO

BASIS: rule on criminal procedures CIVIL: petition > answer CRIMINAL: Preliminary Investigation > reading > plea >

trial > judgment

RA 1379 did not specify what process will be followed

Cabal v. Kapunan

Chief of Staff of AFP Cabal was accused of having unexplained wealth. He was asked to take the witness stand for the other party. He refused. Fiscal charged with contempt.

Civil in procedure. Criminal in substance and effect.

Why differentiate?

The prohibition against self-incrimination also applies to civil proceedings. The constitution does not qualify.

Right against self incrimination: 1. Refuse to answer question 2. Be called as a witness

Both apply to criminal. Only No. 1 is applicable to civil.

Quantum of proof required: Civil – preponderance Criminal – beyond reasonable doubt

Rule on evidence: not just procedural but also substantive

Republic v. CA

Civil engineer, Bureau of public highways Accused of having unexplained wealth; complaint included wife and father. Respondent presented evidence that the properties came from donations and loans from GSIS, DBP, parent in law, and Cong. Durano.

Not Guilty. SALN – not the only evidence that can be appreciated.



Morfe v. Mutuc

Constitutionality of RA 3019 1. Exceed permissible police power 2. Due process 3. Right to privacy (search&seizure)

Statutory provisions requiring public officials to periodically submit sworn SAL are part of police power of state and are not an invasion of private liberty protected by DPC.

Is it an encroachment to privacy?

Yes, but it is part.

No other practicable way to prohibit/ensure that public officials won’t steal.

Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan

Assistant principal of a HS Jaravata proposed to 6 teachers that he would follow up their salary differentials provided that they would reimburse his expenses. However, what he took from the teachers exceed the expenses he incurred.

Not guilty. Intervention in salary differential is NOT one of the obligations or responsibilities of his position.

Trieste v. Sandiganbayan

Vouchers, mayor Trieste was charged with 12 violation of RA 3019 in relation to the 12 vouchers he signed as mayor.

Not guilty. There must be DIRECT PARTICIPATION or intervention on the part of the public official and in the use of such power becomes influential in the acts made by him

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan

Road widening, right of way agent Mejorada contacted the owners of the land which will be affected by the road widening project. He made them sign a blank paper. The value received by the owners is lower than that written on the “agreement”.

Guilty.

Elements of RA 3019 Sec.3(e) 1. Public officer charged with duty of granting

licenses/permits 2. He caused undue injury to any party or gave

unwarranted benefit 3. Injury/unwarranted benefit was done with manifest

partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

PLUNDER

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

Perjury is a crime mala in se. Criminal intent must be proved. There’s no need to prove each and every act of plunder. All that needs to be proven is a pattern of acts that constitute plunder. Combination – at least 2 acts from different categories Series – at least 2 acts from the same category

MALVERSATION

Labatagos v. Sandiganbayan

Cashier, leave of absence(maternity leave) Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of Mindanao State Univ. There were discrepancies in the remittances. The money was used for tuition privileges, uniforms, basketball balls.

Malversation of public funds - Not only in misapp or

converting public funds to one’s personal use but also knowingly allowing others to make use/misapp them

Public funds can only be disbursed with proper authorization

Generally, it is the head of the department.

Usually, a different person other than the custodian.



Estepa v. Sandiganbayan

Brownout, paymasters Paymaster lost 50,000 because of his negligence.

Malversation through negligence - There is prima facie evidence

where accountable officer fails to account for public funds entrusted to him upon demand of a duly authorized officer

A.217 can be committed intentionally or through negligence

Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan

Postmaster Ilogon granted cash advancements to employees which result to a shortage in his account.

Guilty. - No need for direct evidence

of personal misapp as long as there is shortage in his account and he cannot satisfactorily explain it

In malversation, what is punished is the breach of trust, not so much the damage caused

Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan

Earth moving business Azarcon was tasked to keep the properties of a delinquent taxpayer. He failed to do so as the delinquent taxpayer was able to get the property from him.

He is not a public officer. - P.O. does not only perform

public duties but he should have authority in performing such functions granted by law, election or competent authority

Power to make a person a depository cannot be stretched to include power to appoint him as public officer

INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS

Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan

Assisting a female prisoner Rodillas was tasked to escort a female prisoner. Latter was able to escape.

Guilty



Title 8: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS


PARRICIDE

People v. Jumawan

Husband was killed by relatives of wife. Wife wanted to be separated from husband

Murder.

Relationship should be alleged in the information for the accused to be convicted for parricide.

People v. Tomotorgo

Wife wanted to sell conjugal home. One day, when husband returned home, his wife was gone. He followed his wife and caught up with her. Wife throws the baby on the grass, husband got mad and hit wife with a stick

The fact that one only intended to maltreat his wife does not exempt him from the liability of killing her.

DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLCITED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

People v. Abarca

Wife had an affair with another man while husband was reviewing for bar exams. One day, husband caught wife with her other man. He left the house and went to a PC soldier to get a gun. He looked for the wife’s paramour and killed him.

Article applies. RPC doesn’t require the killing be instantly after witnessing the infidelity but only requires that the killing be the direct result of husband’s outrage in witnessing infidelity.

MURDER AND HOMICIDE

People v. Buensuceso

Fan knife, police department Victim was invited to the police dept because he refuses to surrender his fan knife. A heated argument ensued which led to the killing of the victim.

Murder. Killing is qualified by treachery. Deceased was already retreating backwards when he was shot and was subjected to successive shots after. – FIRED WHEN ALREADY SHOT

Medical report did not identify which wound killed the victim. The person who shot the fatal wound was unknown.

Victim died as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other. – ALL ARE LIABLE.

There is poor ballistic evidence. It is easy to determine who fired. We already have the technology for it.

People v. Pugay

Human torch, retardate Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda. Samson set Miranda on fire.

Pugay: Homicide thru reckless imprudence Samson: Homicide

H thru RI: you should not pour gasoline on a person because of the likelihood that he will be injured - But is pouring of gasoline a lawful act/

Q.C . of fire: cannot be appreciated if not intentionally used

“great waste” – even if only 1 person, arguable

UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION

People v. Salufrania

Boxing stomach of pregnant woman

Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion

- Merely intended to kill victim but not to cause abortion

Inquiry should be: what purpose - Kill mother? - Kill child?



HAZING

RA 8049

RAPE

People v. Orita

Boarding house Only small part of his penis was inserted.

Consummated rape - No crime of frustrated rape. - Perfect penetration is not

necessary to consummate rape.

People v. Mangalino

Takbuhan, 6 yrs old Accused raped the girl and gave her 2 pesos.

Statutory rape: Proof of intimidation or force is immaterial.

People v. Balbuena

Tomboy Guilty

An exception to the general framework of rape cases – not the typical complainant – worked for her that she is a tomboy

“not exactly ugly”

Proof: looks like a man, dresses like a man, drinks with men

Typical rape: Barrio lass doctrine

People v. Castro

First cousin, 6 yrs old, ‘nasabit sa hiyero’ Defense: chased by dog, envy of the lola to the scholastic records

Guilty

People v. Atento

Mentally retardate, ‘masarap’ 16 years old, mental age of 9 to 12

Guilty Determining factor: lack of reason

If 30, mental age of 16, consensual: not rape

People v. Campuhan

“ayoko, ayoko” Accused was helper of the uncle of the victim. While the mother was preparing Milo, she heard her daughter cry, “ayoko, ayoko”. She rushed to the bedroom and found the accused on top of the child.

Attempted Rape - Should be touching with intent of penetration - Mother is not in the position to see - No evidence

Child denies penetration: kept her legs crossed

People v. Gallo

Qualified rape Accused was the father of the victim.

Not qualified. - Relationship, to be appreciated as Q.C., should be alleged in the information

Cannot be appreciated even if proven during the trial

People v. Berana

Buntot page Berana raped his sister in law.

Not qualified. - Prosecution failed to adduce proof of the relationship - Should’ve presented evidence to establish the marriage of accused with the sister of victim

More stringent proof is necessary like marriage contract, etc.



Title 9: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY


KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION

People v. Tomio 1991 Japanese Buddhist priest held and kept by the accused in their company until money they advanced were paid to them.

Circumstances taken together - foreigner, no money, passport being held, constant fear of being re-arrested - enough to create fear which restrained him from doing the things he wanted to do | Any payment that releases one from captivity is a ransom

Deprivation of liberty need not be physical

People v. Mercado 1984 Accused held at knife point sister of his common law wife, for the purpose of producing the latter.

Not grave coercion since the intent of accused was to deprive liberty, with specific purpose of producing his common law wife

Means employed may be basis for determining whether there is deprivation of liberty or coercion.

People v. Del Socorro 1990

Accused took from Mandaluyong and brought to Antipolo a child to be adopted, for consideration of P700. Contends afterwards that child was brought there only for safekeeping.

There is kidnapping. There were a number of other things accused could have done instead of bringing the child to Antipolo if the child's welfare was the primary concern.

Known within the area that the person to whom the child was brought wanted to adopt.

People v. Lim 1990 Aida and Avelyn taken in by Mameng Lim in her store. When found by her father 2 weeks later, no tearful reunion.

NO kidnapping. There was no detention, Aida was free to come and go as she pleased. No motive for detention. That accused was only a good samaritan shown

"Tearful reunion doctrine"

People v. Padica 1993 Victim killed prior to the making of any demand for ransom. TC found him guilty of kidnapping for ransom with murder.

NO kidnapping, only murder. The detention of the victim was incidental, the intent being only to kill him. That ransom was demanded does not make the crime one of kidnapping, particularly as it was a mere afterthought.

To: kidnapper, don't pick up the ransom yourself.

People v. Ramos 1998

Victim taken from EDSA to Blueridge to Glori's to Bulacan. Ransom was paid. Victim eventually shot by accused for her last attempt at escape.

Prior to RA 7659, complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder may be charged only if kidnapping was used as a means to commit the murder. If murder only took place on the occasion of kidnapping, they would be charged seprarately. RA 7659 removed the distinction. Complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder could be charged in either situation.

Regardless of purpose, automatically complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder

KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR

People v. Ty 1996

Parents left child with clinic. The clinic faciliated several adoptions. Child sought to be retrieved in the custody of another. Owner of clinic found guilty under A. 270.

For conviction under A. 270, it is required that there is deliberate refusal to deliver a minor to his guardians. The child here has not been sufficiently identified as the one which has been left by the claimants at the clinic. Without being identified, it cannot be said that claimants had a right to the custody of the child.

There should be a refusal to surrender the RIGHT child.



ABANDONMENT OF ONE'S VICTIM

Lamera v. CA 1991

Accused charged and convicted of both reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and abandonment of one's victim. Protection against double jeopardy being invoked. Meaning of "accidentally" in A. 275 par. 2.

No double jeopardy. "Accidentally" does not refer to accident referred to in Art. 12. It should just be distinguished from acts intended, and the accident may result from negligence.

If abandonment of victim used to qualify the reckless imprudence charge, there would have been double jeopardy. |Abandonment of one's victim requires dolo, it being under Crimes against Security

GRAVE THREATS

People v. Timbol 1949

Accused made advances against complainant who is married. Upon being rejected, he made threats against the husband of the complainant. Acts of lasciviousness and threats were filed. Pardon was given by the husband after filing of the second charge.

Acts of lasciviousness conviction affirmed. The threat complained of is but an element of the crime committed. Also, the threat being complained of was committed not against the complainant, but against her husband.

Threats can be means for intimidation; intimidation means to commit crime.

Reyes v. People 1969

Picket turned chase. Protesters brought placards (Agustin mamamatay ka rin) and called to the complainant (Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita; Agustin, PIM). Accused was convicted of grave threats and grave oral defamation.

Threats deliberately made to the complainant, sufficient to create well-grounded fear in his mind that such threat would be carried out. | No grave oral defamation. PIM merely used to make the threats more emphatic.

Determined PIM should not be taken literally | CONTEXT MATTERS in determining whether an act falls under grave threats

GRAVE COERCION

Timoner v. People 1983

Accused is a mayor who sealed off stalls along a highway upon recommendation of Municipal Health Office. Said stalls had been judicially declared as public nuisances as well as nuisances per se. He was convicted for grave coercion.

NO grave coercion. As mayor, he had lawful authority to seal off said stalls, abatement being allowed even without judicial proceedings.

You can actually be compelled to do something against your will, provied there is lawful authority as basis thereof.

Lee v. CA 1991

Accused was convicted for coercing a complainant, a pregnant woman, into signing withdrawal slip by shouting with piercing looks and threatening to file charges against her.

NO coercion. Her lengthy stay at the bank propelled by her desire to clear her name, and not due to threats made. | There is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue as this is often made on the belief on the right to do so | The threat

Test of intimidation: credible fear that engendered in the mind of the person intimidated | Personal circumstances and background of the person being intimidated matter.

UNJUST VEXATION

People v. Reyes 1934

Accused constructed barbed wire fence around chapel while the pabasa was eing read. They were convicted of A. 133 offending the religious feelings

NO offending the religious feelings. Though it is within the right of the property owners to construct a fence, the circumstances under which it was constructed show their intention to vex and annoy. Guilty of unjust vexation

Timing indicated intent to annoy | The pabasa readers could be held guilty of unjust vexation only if the intent to unjustly vex was sufficiently proven

People v. Anonuevo 1937 Accused made advances to complainant while inside a chapel. Convicted of abuse against chastity.

Since crime of abuse of chastity requiring the presence of lewd designs, and any person could not possibly have lewd designs while inside a chapel - only unjust vexation.

No longer abuse against chastity, now acts of lasciviousness



Title 10: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

ROBBERY


Napolis v. CA 1972

Robbery committed by breaking through the wall of the store adjacent to the house and subsequently inflicting violence against the homeowners. TC and CA applied A. 294, as intimidation characterized the robbery, even though it had a lighter penalty had A. 299 been applied.

Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is a much graver crime, with A. 294 being the applicable provision. Due to the circumstances of the case, however, a much lighter penalty of PC max to PM min as compared to the RT imposed by A. 299 if robbery is committed by breaking into an inhabited house without inflicting violence. Court resolved then to make a complex crime (A. 294 and A. 299) when the elements of both crimes are present, with the resulting penalty of RT max.

People v. Biruar 1984

Two households robbed in succession, the first with money and firearm taken, the second with a greater amount of money. Accused were convicted of robbery in band, arson and robbery with homicide and physical injuries. It is contended that there should only be one charge of robbery.

Two charges for robbery are proper. Different acts were performed for distinct purposes which resulted in juridically independent crimes, even if they be part of a general plan.

Decision was anchored on the distinct sets of crime. Regardless of the entire plan, there are still two distinct criminal intents, both of which should be appreciated.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

People v. Mangulabnan 1956

While robbery was being committed, accused shot into the ceiling. Unknown to him, a person was hiding there. The gunshot into the ceiling caused the latter's death.

Crime of robbery with homicide was committed. If a homicide results by reason of, or on the occasion of, robbery, complex crime has been committed, absent any intervening causes.

The homicide need not be intentional.

People v. Calixtro 1983

During a robbery in a bank, one of the robbers get shot and killed. Through the ante-mortem statement of the decedent, it was established that it was his co-robbers which shot him.

Crime of robbery with homicide was committed. Since it was one of those committing the robbery were responsible for the death, the complex crime was committed even though decedent was among the robbers | Had it been the security guard who had caused the death, there would be no complex crime.

Lots of hypothetical questions to illustrate the scope of homicide committed as a result of, or on the occasion of, robbery.

People v. Pecato 1987

Several men arrived at the house of Larong when the family was about to sleep. They demanded money from Felix Larong but he answered he had none. When asked by the accused whether Felix recognized them, he answered yes because they were relatives. Thus, Pecato shot Larong. The robbers took money from Felix’s daughter and left.

The crime committed is robbery with homicide since Felix Larong resulted by reason or on occasion of the robbery.

If after the commission of homicide, robbery or theft was committed as an afterthought, then the charge would not be a special complex crime.



People v. Tapales 1979

Ang and boyfriend Kalaykay took a cab and upon reaching the bridge, two armed men entered the car on both sides. They took some cash, watch and pen. Kalykay then shouted “hold-up hold-up”. Thus , he was stabbed and shot by the robbers. Diana Ang was driven somewhere and was raped by both men.

Guilty of robbery with homicide. Rape is an aggravating circumstance. Although not in the list of aggravating circumstances, rape can be considered under ignominy since rape is not necessary in the commission of robbery.

In the commission of robbery with homicide and rape, rape is just an aggravating circumstance

People v.Quinones 1990

Three men riding a Mitsubishi car were intercepted by 7 men along the highway. They were taken to a nearby area where they were robbed and slain. The robbers got P300,000 in cash, etc.

Gulity of robbery with homicide. There is no crime or robbery with multiple homicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty

The charge should be robbery with homicide regardless of the number of persons killed, i.e., no robbery with multiple homicide.

There is no complex crime of robbery with murder. Why? Art. 294 par. 1 provides that there is robbery with homicide regardless of the specification of killing so long as it is on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.

ROBBERY WITH RAPE

People v. Patola 1986 2 customers entered the store and took cash, appliances and jewelry. Before they left, they raped the salesladies of the store.

Guilty of robbery with rape under Art. 294(2)

-Sir: OLD RULE

People v. Dinola 1990 Man raped the victim. He then saw the victim’s watch and took it

Guilty of 2 indepoendent crimes:robbery and rape. The principal intent was to rape the victim. Stealing was just an afterthought

-Sir: OLD RULE

People v. Moreno 1993

3 men broke into a house and took personal effects and appliances. 2 of the accused including Reynaldo Maniquez raped the maids. The three jumped bail. Only Maniquez was reapprehended

Maniquez is guilty of robbery with rape. Sir: -OLD RULE

People v. Balacanao 2003

15 men robbed the Calata home and 4 of them raped Mrs. Calata.

All conspirators for robbery are liable for the Robbery with rape even if some of them did not actually rape any of the victims

NEW RULE: In robbery with rape, the rule is the same as the rule in robbery with homicide. Instead of convicting only the sexual offenders of Robbery with Rape, their co-conspirators will also be made liable to the same offense, even if they did not actually rape any of the victims.

ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES

People v. Salvilla 1990

4 armed men entered the lumberyard and demanded money from the owner. Then the police and military authorities surrounded the premises and launched an offensive. As a result the daughters of the owner were injured as well as two of the robbers. One daughter had her leg amputated.

Guilty of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention. There was unlawful taking. Taking is considered completed when the property was placed within the dominion and control of the accused. Not being able to dispose the money is not a defense. Robbery is consummated when the robber acquires possession of property even for a short period of time.



ROBBERY IN BAND

People v. Apduhan

1968

6 men armed with unlicensed firearms and weapons robbed the Miano home, took cash and inflicted physical injuries on the occupants of the house.

Gulity of special complex crime of robbery with homicide

What is the problem with the interpretation that Art 296 (unlicensed firearm) applies only to cases under Art 295 (i.e. pars. 3,4,5 of Art 294)? The effect of Art. 295 is to impose the maximum penalty. The effect of Art. 296 is to impose the maximum penalty. Thus, Art. 296 does not add anything.

ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS

People v. Jaranilla 1974

Three men stole fighting cocks from the coop of owner Baylon. To get away, they hailed a pickup but was chased by 2 patrolmen. Accused Jaranilla then shot one patrolmen who died as a result

The chicken coop is not one of the buildings considered under Art. 302. Thus, the crime committed is theft. Jaranilla is guilty of theft, homicide and direct assault, The other two accused are guilty of theft only.

Why not apply Art 294. Par 1 considering that there was taking of fighting cocks plus killing of policemen? The taking had already been consummated and has nothing to do with the killing. The killing of the police officer is a completely distinct act. In robbery with force upon things under Art. 302, the building must be habitable although currently uninhabited

CARNAPPING

People v. de la Cruz 1990

Three men involved in the business of buying cars advertised the same in the newspapers. The victim responded to the add. During the transaction, the victim was killed and his vehicle was taken away by the three men who tried to resell the automobile

All three are guilty of carnappingwith homicide since the victim was killed in the commission of the carnapping.

Illustration of what carnapping is: taking with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, by using force upon things.

Izon v. People 1981

Two men stabbed the victim to take and steal the latter’s tricycle. Petitioners: No violation since the tricycle does not fall within the purview of the RA. It is not licensed to operate in a public highway.

Guilty of violating RA 6539 and not robbery with violence against persons. Public highways are not limited to national roads or those connecting towns to the exclusion of streets within a town

A motorized tricycle is a motor vehicle within the ambit of Sec. 2 of RA 6539

HIGHWAY ROBBERY

People v. Puno 1993

Puno, the driver of Mrs. Socorro’s husband, drove for Socorro one day. Along the way, Puno’s nephew entered the car and the two men took money and checks from Socorro.

Crime committed is simple robbery, not kidnapping, not highway robbery. Motive is just to gain money. Detention is incidental to the taking of money (so it’s not kidnapping). Not highway robbery under PD 532 since highway robbery is perpetrated against any random person on Philippine highways, i.e., indiscriminately.

Not just because robbery was done in a highway means that it falls within the ambit of highway robbery.



People v. Pulusan

Pulusan et al held a robbery inside a jeep, killed four passengers, and raped a female passenger.

Not highway robbery since there was no proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. Crime committed is robbery with homicide. Rape is an aggravating circumstance.

Conviction for highway robbery requires that the accused organized themselves for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. This is why it is very difficult to convict anybody in P.D. 532. You can just charge them separately for separate crimes

CATTLE RUSTLING

Taer v. CA

2 men (Namocatcat and Cago) arrived at Taer’s house with 2 male carabaos which Namocatcat wanted Tear to tend. The real owners of the carabaos discovered that the latter were missing. They then found the 2 carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near Taer’s house.

Taer was convicted of the crime of cattle rustling but only as an accomplice since conspiracy was not proven

- Failure to present required documents when demanded by authorities is prima facie evidence of cattle rustling (according to magic notes)

Ordonio v. CA

1991

The owner discovered that his 11 month old cow was missing. When he asked Ordonio, the latter denied seeing the cow. Pajunar then heard the cow mooing but Ordonio claimed that it was the cow he was tending and that it was his brother’s cow.

Ordonio was convicted of cattle rustling because of his actuations when the lost calf was found in his possession. He refused to give the calf claiming it belonged to his brother. Intent to gain may be inferred from the deliberate failure by the accused to deliver the lost property to the proper person knowing that the property does not belong to him

-no discussion except for tearful reunion doctrine.

THEFT

People v. Gulinao 1989

Driver-bodyguard Gulinao shot his boss Dr. Chua. As he was about to leave the discohouse, he turned back and took Dr. Chua’s fold ring embedded with diamonds.

The crime committed is not robbery but theft. The taking of Dr. Chua’s ring was but an afterthought. The force employed on killing Dr. Chua has no bearing on the taking of the ring.

The killing and theft are taken as separate crimes. The use of violence was not for the purpose of taking since the taking was just an afterthought

Santos v. People 1990

Ms. Penalosa entrusted her Ford Escort to Santos. Santos then persuaded her to have the car repainted by him within two months. After 2 mos., Santos refused to give the vehicle until Penalosa she paid for repairs. Penalosa returned to deliver the payment but Santos was not there. After coming back many times, she learned that Santos already abandoned his shop. Penalosa filed a complaint for estafa.

Crime committed is qualified theft and not estafa. The offense contains all the elements of theft: 1)taking of personal property, 2) said property belongs to another, 3) taking is done with intent to gain, 4) taking done w/o owner’s consent, 5) taking is accomplished w/o the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

The crime committed is qualified theft because the object of the crime is a car. Why not estafa? In estafa, the thing is entrusted to the person, i.e. there is juridical possession as opposed to de facto possession. Juridical possession usually arises as a result of contract. An example is trust. In estafa, the taking of the object is due to fraud. In Santos, the accused already accomplished the taking prior to the fraud. Falsification was instead made for the purpose of concealing the taking.



ILLEGAL FISHING

Hizon v. CA There’s a presumption of Illegal Fishing when the ff. are found in the fishing boat: (RA 8550) 1. Explosives, poisonous substances or equipment for electric fishing

Fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, poisonous substance

QUALIFIED THEFT

Empelis v. IAC The stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on the ground within the premises of the plantation is qualified theft. If the coconuts were not in the plantation, it is just simple theft.

ILLEGAL LOGGING

Mustang Lumber v. CA

Lumber is a processed log or timber. Possession of raw or processed timber is penalized under Sec. 38 P.D. 705 Revised Forestry Code.

ESTAFA

Manahan v. CA 1996 Dump truck and Payloader; Manahan leased a dump truck from IFC but failed to return it. Was there estafa?

Art. 315 (b) No. Criminal intent was not proven. Note, however, that although a contract of lease is not fiduciary in nature, Art. 315 is broad enough to cover civil obligations.

Sir's Question: Give an example of a circumstance w/c would establish criminal intent contemplated in estafa? A: Claiming you are the owner of the thing, for it indicates an unwillingness to comply with the obligation to return the thing.

Saddul, Jr. v. CA 1990

Land Rover(LR); Saddul, an employee of AMPI, was tasked to deal with Lyndsay of LR,Phil. He eventually left the company, taking w/ him the account of LR. He was sued for estafa by AMPI, allegedly because he did not give them the handling fee due them by LR while he was AMPI's employee.

Art. 315 (b) The appropriation or conversion of monery or property received, to the prejudice of the owner of it, is the essence of estafa through misappropriation; in this case, LR was the one who told Saddul not to give the handling fee yet because the amount due was not yet certain.

Sir: AMPI can demand, but not from Saddul. AMPI was a stranger to the trust relationship between Saddul and Leyland. There is no estafa yet. .

Allied Banking Corp. v. Ordonez

1990

Dolomites; Does the penal provision of PD115 apply when goods covered by a Trust Receipt do not form part of the finished products which are ulitmately sold but are used up in the operations of the entrustee-manufacturer?

Sec. 13 of PD115 (Trust Receipts Law), and Art. 315, 1(b) Yes. With trust receipts, the entrustee binds himself to repay the entruster by selling and returning the proceeds or disposing of the goods by other means (or by returning the goods themselves). A violation of this undertaking constitutes estafa.

Trust receipts in practice are securities. The transfer of ownership is a legal fiction.|Sir: What's the relationship between PD 115 (mala prohibita) and Art. 315 (mala in se)? If you violate 115, are you violating that or committing estafa? Karen's answer: Argue for a violation of 115, because being mala prohibita, it's easier to prove.

Lee v. Rodil 1989 The Court is asked to reconsider the issue of W/N the violation of a trust receipt agreement constitutes the crime of estafa.

Sec. 13 of PD115 It does. Acts involving the violation of trust receipts occuring after promulgation of PD115 would make the accused liable for estafa under Art. 315, 1(b) of the RPC. |

The PD is not unconstitutional for imposing imprisonment for non-payment of debts, because the criminal liability springs from the violation of the trust receipt.



Celino v. CA 1988

Apo Dapo, the Dwarf; Complainant Kapoe says the accused made him believe that a dwarf told them there was hidden treasure under his lot, and in exchange for his share, he was induced to give them money.

Art. 315, 2(a) By falsely pretendign to possess power, the accused were able to swindle Kapoe.

Abejuela v. People 1991

Balo, employee of Banco Filipino (BF), borrowed his friend's BF passbook, and made a bogus deposit and many withdrawals using it. Abejuela was charged as Balo's accomplice.

Art. 315, 2(a), in relation to Art. 172 No criminal liability as accomplice because of lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of criminal intent.| There's civil liability though, because only preponderance of evidence is needed.

Koh Tieck Heng v. People

1990 Koh was charged and convicted with estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and attempted estafa.

Art. 315, par. 2. Also, Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171 (6) There is a presumption that when one has a forged document and uses it, that person is the forger.

Manahan v. CA 1996 Dump truck and Payloader; Manahan leased a dump truck from IFC but failed to return it. Was there estafa?

Art. 315 (b) No. Criminal intent was not proven. Note, however, that although a contract of lease is not fiduciary in nature, Art. 315 is broad enough to cover civil obligations.

Sir's Question: Give an example of a circumstance w/c would establish criminal intent contemplated in estafa? A: Claiming you are the owner of the thing, for it indicates an unwillingness to comply with the obligation to return the thing.

BOUNCING CHECKS

Nierras v. Dacuycuy

An accused can be held separately liable for estafa under Art 315 and BP 22. (Review the substantial differences in the digest.)

People v. Grospe

Essential element of crime under BP 22 is the knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of the funds backing such check. Determining factor in ascertaining court jurisdiction is the place of issuance of check.

Que v. People

BP 22 is a crime malum prohibitum and does not make a distinction on the intent of the issuance of the bouncing check.

People v. Nitafan

BP 22 covers all checks including memorandum checks.

Lim Lao v. CA

BP 22 although malum prohibitum does not dispense the need to prove the existence of all the elements of the offense.

Idos v. CA

A notice of dishonor of the checks must be sent by the petitioner or the drawee bank to give the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution and give him a chance to pay amount due or make an arrangement for its payment.



OTHER DECEITS

Villaflor v. CA

Employing false representations and false pretenses in obtaining loan from someone makes one liable for estafa under Art 318.

Veloso v.

Sandiganbayan

District auditor defrauding the government through acts of “splitting” general vouchers and checks to avoid action, review or approval by higher

authorities, is guilty of estafa through falsification of public documents.

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

Caballes v. DAR

Essential element in the crime of malicious mischief is “damage deliberately caused to the property of another.” If damage is done to one’s own

property, no liability.



Title 11: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY


ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

People vs. Famularcano 1947

Truck driver; Camp John Hay Famularcano forcibly hugged Dionisia with the intention of kissing her and touching her private parts and even managed to touch her breast. Dionisia’s dress got torn up to the waist. Famularcano says that he did that as a revenge for what Dionisia’s father did to his wife.

Motive is of no consequence in the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The essence of the lewdness is in the very act itself.

QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

People v. Fontanilla

Deceit as an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction does not to be proved in qualified seduction as deceit is replaced by abuse of confidence

Babanto v. Zosa

Virginity as an essential element on the crime of qualified seduction must be alleged in the complaint.

Perez v. CA

Consented Abduction: 1. Consent 2. Lewd design

Qualified Seduction: 1. Abuse of authority, confidence or relationship 2. Sexual Intercourse

ABDUCTION

People vs. Sunpongco 1988

Rape in Tagaytay; elopement Sunpongco et. al. abducted Angeles from the jeepney from the jeepney she’s riding, forced into a car, and brought in Tagaytay. In Tagaytay, Sunpongco succeeded having carnal knowledge with her by using force. Defense was that he and Angeles is supposed to elope but Angeles didn’t arrive

Forcible abduction with rape is accomplished when offenders abduct a woman with a lewd design and succeed in having carnal knowledge of her, both against her will and with the use of force and intimidation

Forcible abduction and rape are separate crimes. Rape could be complexed with forcible abduction.

People vs. Jose 1971

Maggie dela Riva case Maggie’s car collided with another, then the driver of the other car dragged her in his car. Inside the car, Jose and Aquino dragged kissed and touched her. She was blindfolded, brought in a hotel, made to dance naked, then raped by four men. She was later set free.

Forcible abduction was established. She was dragged against her will. Also, lewd designs are manifested by actions inside car and the act of raping her. Rape was also established. Absence of spermatozoa doesn’t disprove rape; penetration and not emission is the important consideration

Four death penalties were imposed here.

People vs. Alburo 1990

Jeepney driver raped girl jeepney passenger Alburo insisted that Evelyn and her friends board his jeepney to which the girls complied. When Evelyn was about to alight, she was threatened that her skirt will be raised. They sped off. She was again threatened with a knife. Alburo succeeded having carnal knowledge with her while she was unconscious because her head was bumped in the steering wheel. The jeepney on the way back was flagged.

Taking a person against her will and forcing the person to engage in sexual intercourse constitutes the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.



People vs. Godines 1991

Escaping mom was caught and then raped Victim Esther Ancajas was awakened by the commotion in the other room. She tried to escape with her child but was got caught. She was dragged, brought into a vacant lot and raped for 2 times.

The crime of forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main purpose of the accused is to rape the victim

This case is an outlier vis-à-vis the first 3 cases.

Distinction: Distance involved. Here, the abduction and the rape happened in a very close proximity. Former 3 cases involved long drives.

PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE OFFENSES

Pilapil vs. Ibay- Somera 1989

Filipina and German divorce A Filipina and a German were married in Germany and cohabited for some years in Manila. German spouse obtained divorce in Germany. Later, he filed 2 complaints of adultery against wife before the CFI of Manila because while the 2 were still married, Imelda had affairs with 2 men. Pilapil’s motion to quash was denied. Hence, this special civil action.

Under Art. 344 of the RPC, adultery can’t be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. This is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the prosecution proceedings. Without which, court can’t exercise jurisdiction to try the case.

There must be a legal capacity to sue as a ground for motion to dismiss in civil cases. After a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute adultery proceedings against the offender.

Title 12: CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS


SIMULATION OF BIRTHS

People v. Sangalang

For one to be held liable for simulation birth is the registration of said child by the pretending parent in the registry of deeds as his or her child

when it is not the case.

BIGAMY

People vs. Aragon 1957

Man with 3 marriages Proceso Rosima was married to Maria Gorrea. Then, he married Maria Faicol (as Proceso Aragon). Gorrea died. He then married a Jesusa Maglasang. Aragon was convicted of bigamy. Aragon appeals.

The 2nd

marriage (Faicol and Aragon) is void ab ibnitio because it was celebrated during the subsistence of a previous marriage. 3

rd marriage is valid. Aragon is not

guilty of bigamy.

Prior the Family Code, a judicial decree declaring a marriage as void ab ibnitio is not required.



Title 13: CRIMES AGAINST HONOR


LIBEL

Malit vs. People 1982

“I doubt how you become a doctor”; cross-examination Atty. Malit was cross-examining Dr. Macaspac and asked a question on whether she knew the person who “made” the exhibit. Macaspac replied that she didn’t understand the word “made”. Petitioner said it means “prepared” but Macaspac still didn’t answer. Petitioner said: “I doubt how you become a doctor”. A complaint for slander was filed against petitioner and later, for unjust vexation.

Statements made in judicial proceedings are privileged but only if pertinent or relevant to the case involved.

Mercado vs. CFI 1982

Telegram A telegram sent by Rafael Mercado (petitioner) to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways is the subject of a libel case. Said telegram requests an investigation of the activities of Virginia Mercado for there is a reason to believe that she is enriching herself via corrupt practices. After sending the said telegram, petitioner also filed other charges against Virginia but they are either dismissed for lack of evidence or Virginia is proven to be innocent.

There is no bar to libel prosecutions in lieu of the free speech and free press guarantees of the Constitution. Qualified privilege of free speech may be lost by proof of malice. Statement found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual.

Agbayani vs. Sayo 1979

Affidavit in Manila/ Cauayan; libel charge in Nueva Vizcaya An information for libel charging Agbayani, Bautista, et. al. was filed by Mahinan in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. Mahinan is the manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of GSIS at Cauayan, Isabela. Libel charges were based on 1) the affidavits of Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan, Isabela, 2) Bautista’s undated letter and 3) Agbayani’s unusual incident report which was notarized in Manila. The 4 accused filed a motion to quash claiming that the offense charged comes within the jurisdiction of CFI Isabela.

The venue of actions for libel are: In the RTC of the province/ city

1.) Where the libelous article was printed/ 1st

published 2.) Where any of the offended parties actually resided at the time of

the commission of the offense But where the offended party is a public officer, the action shall be filed

1.) Where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense

Where the libelous article was printed and first published

Newsweek vs. IAC 1986

Sugarcane planters; “An Island of Fear” A Newsweek article entitled “An Island of Fear” portrayed the province of Negros Occidental as a place dominated by big landowners/ sugarcane planters, who “not only exploited the impoverished and underpaid sugarcane workers but also brutalized and killed them with impunity”

In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. Defamatory remarks directed at a class or group of persons in general language only are not actionable by individuals composing the class or group unless the statements are so sweeping as to apply to every individual in that class or group



Lacsa vs. IAC 1988

De facto president Pedro Lacsa volunteered his services to the Philippine Columbian’s Association’s Board of Directors to act as an auditor. He had access to records of its members and discovered that the association’s President Ponciano Marquez is just an associate member and not a proprietary member. Hence, disqualified to be the president. He sent a letter to Marquez addressing him as de facto president and asked him to yield the presidency. Lacsa even published the letter in the newsletter of the association. Lacsa contends that the term “de facto president” isn’t libelous per se.

The test for libelous meaning is the import conveyed by the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader.

Soriano vs. IAC 1988

Election returns Commission on Audit personnel were caught opening election returns. Cesar Villegas portrayed in a press release in Leyte that Tantuico is the person responsible for such incident. The full text of the press release was published in the newspaper “The Guardian”, whose editor-publisher is Marcelo Soriano. Tantuico charged Soriano and 6 others for libel. Case was docketed at RTC of Leyte. Soriano contends that libel case should have been filed at QC, where Tantuico holds office and where publishing house of “The Guardian” is located.

The liability of a Manila or Quezon City editor must be deemed as commencing with the publication of the allegedly libelous material in his newspaper and not with the typing of mimeographing of press release by interested persons in different municipalities or cities, copies of which are sent to metropolitan newspapers for national publication. As Tantuico held office in QC and the offending newspaper is published in QC, the case should be filed in a QC Court.

Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Noel

1988

21 relatives of the late Amir Mindalano filed a libel case against the writer who published that Amir was the only leader in Lanao del Sur who did not come from any royal house and had lived with an American family which resulted in their family's ridicule and disrespute.

No libel. Titles of royalty of nobility not generally recognized or acknowledged socially in te national community. From the viewpoint of the average person in our present day community, the statement complained of is not defamatory.

Santos v. CA 1991 Santos published a verbatim copy of a complaint filed with the SEC against the complainants.

No libel. A fair and true report of a judicial proceeding without comment or remarks is not punishable. The rationale to giving such a publication privelege is that the pleadings have become part of publicr ecord and are open to public scrutiny. They are also presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in nature, apporapriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before the courts for proper administrations of justice.

Sazon v. CA 1996

Sazon and Abdon both residents of PML homes and both ran for presidency in the homeowner's subdivision. Sazon won. Leaflets were distributed sayin "supalpal si Sazon" and "Sazon, saan na ang pondo ng simbahan?" was written on the walls near the entrance of the subdivision. Sazon retaliated by publishing article in newsletter containing descriptions of Abdon and his wife suchh as "mandurugas, mag-ingat sa panlilinlang, matagal na taying linoko, may kasamang pagyayabang" etc.

Sazon was guilty of libel. The test to determine if the words used are defamatory in character: Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputatio than false charges directly made. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person/persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, reputaion, or to hold the person/persons up to public ridicule. ALSO, there rule on privelege regarding a complaint on the part of a public official only applies when complaint is addressed soley to some official having jurisidiction to inquire into the charges, or power to redress grievance IN CONNECTION with acts of the public officer related to the discharge of their official duties.



Vazquez v. CA 1999

Vazquez, one of the 37 families who complained about anomalies with the NHA regarding their complaint against the Barangay Chairman and the General Manager of NHA, said in an interview that was published that the Barangay Chairman was engaged in landgrabbing, illegal gambling and stealing of chickens.

No libel. Court established Actual Malice rule: liability for libel only attaches when public official concerned proves that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless diregard of whether it was false or not.

SLANDER

People v. Prieto 1989

Prieto said to a person he was passing by that he was missing last night when his mother-in-law was looking for him because he "dated Esterlita Vicente in the land of Boromeo" and "why would we get married, we would enjoy the pleasure of dating, anyway the parents dont know about it". On another occasion he said to a friend of Esterlita, "the girl is already badly damaged, he will just make use of her, Tell her I want to talk to her in the kitchen to have pleasure with her."

Guilty of serious oral defamation. The requiremtnt that the imputation must be public is fully satisfied when the defamatory statements were uttered or "delivered in a manner that makes it possible fot the public to know it, even if actually only one person happens to learn of it.

People v. Mendoza 1975

Two women who were both teachers and neigbors. Victoria had told her maid not to fetch water from Crisitna's, nor to eat their because they could not repay them. In retaliation while the two were outside their houses, Cristina told Victoria "You are a teacher with leukorhea", "your vagina is odorous", "When you were single many men made use of your vagina because you could not bear a child." Victoria replied "is yours perfumed?"

Cristina was guilty of slander. Person slandered may be justified to hit back with another slander only if his reply is made in good faith, without malice and it is not necessarily defamatory of his assailant.

Victorio v. CA 1978

Judge reprimanded two accused and their lawyer and opposing counsel, Atty. Ruiz moved that they be cited in contempt. While the two accused were outside the judge's sala, they were overheard by the security guard conversing with each other and saying to the effect that "mayayabang yang putang inang abogado Ruiz na yan, babarilin ko an putang inang abogadong yan, estapador at suwapang"

Guilty of grave oral defamation. They imputed the crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer, one time justice of peace and IBP president and a professor of law. As the scurilous imputation strikes deep into the character of the the victim, no special circumstances need be shown for the defamatory words uttered to be considered grave oral defamtion.

People v. Prieto 1989

Prieto said to a person he was passing by that he was missing last night when his mother-in-law was looking for him because he "dated Esterlita Vicente in the land of Boromeo" and "why would we get married, we would enjoy the pleasure of dating, anyway the parents dont know about it". On another occasion he said to a friend of Esterlita, "the girl is already badly damaged, he will just make use of her, Tell her I want to talk to her in the kitchen to have pleasure with her."

Guilty of serious oral defamation. The requiremtnt that the imputation must be public is fully satisfied when the defamatory statements were uttered or "delivered in a manner that makes it possible fot the public to know it, even if actually only one person happens to learn of it.

People v. Mendoza 1975

Two women who were both teachers and neigbors. Victoria had told her maid not to fetch water from Crisitna's, nor to eat their because they could not repay them. In retaliation while the two were outside their houses, Cristina told Victoria "You are a teacher with leukorhea", "your vagina is odorous", "When you were single many men made use of your vagina because you could not bear a child." Victoria replied "is yours perfumed?"

Cristina was guilty of slander. Person slandered may be justified to hit back with another slander only if his reply is made in good faith, without malice and it is not necessarily defamatory of his assailant.



People v. Orcullo 1982

Instead of the offended party, a Counsel in the Office of City Fiscal was the one who filed an information regarding oral defamation, where the uttered words imputed to the offended party were either a public crime (prostitution) or a private crime (adultery).

Since she is presumed to be single, the remarks uttered imputed prostitution (a public crime). A slander case can be prosecuted de oficio (where the complaint is not filed by the offended party) when the uttered words of the offender imputes to another a public crime.

SLANDER BY DEED

People v. Motita 1966 Bunch of men were laughing while one of them was holding a mirror under the legs of a female passerby to see her private parts.

It could’ve been unjust vexation only, but since there was an attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt, the offense is slander by deed. If there were lewd designs, intimidation/deprivation of reason/etc., it could’ve been acts of lasciviousness.

INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT PERSON

People v. Alagao 1966

Defendants claim that since the incrimination of an innocent person (by planting evidence) was made after the unlawful arrest, and not through such arrest, there is no “complex crime of incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest” (as was charged against them).

There was a close connection between the act of unlawful arrest and the act of investigating the victim (during which they planted the evidence). Thus, there is such complex crime in this case since the unlawful arrest was resorted to as a necessary means to incriminate the victim.

WIRETAPPING

Ganaan v. IAC 1986 Petitioner was asked to listen to a telephone conversation through a telephone extension.

As long as such device (telephone extension) was not installed deliberately for the purpose of listening to a private conversation (as in this case), it does not fall under the prohibition against “devices of arrangement” under the purview of RA 4200.

Ramirez v. CA 1995 Petitioner recorded a telephone conversation using a tape recorder.

The law punishes not only 3rd

parties to the conversation who wiretap, but also those involved in the conversation who wiretap. Further, the nature/content of the conversation is immaterial, and RA 4200 does not distinguish between “private communication” and “private conversation” (the tapping of both are punishable); else it would absurdly narrow the meaning of “communication” enunciated in the law.



Title 14: QUASI-OFFENSES


CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

People v. Cano 1966

Bus driver who was driving carelessly was charged, among others, with “multiple physical injuries through reckless imprudence”.

The negligence/imprudence itself, and not its effects like physical injuries, is the principal or vital factor in said offenses. JBL Reyes in a previous case: more accurate is “reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries”.

Ibabao v. People 1984

Petitioner was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence, and it was not alleged in the information that he failed to give support to the person injured.

Failure to lend assistance to the victim results in the next higher penalty when committed by negligence/imprudence. But since such failure to lend assistance it is a qualifying circumstance, and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information for the higher penalty to apply.

Buerano v. CA 1982

After being found guilty of physical injuries through reckless imprudence, petitioner was again found guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence (arising from the same accident).

The law punishes the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. Once convicted/acquitted of an act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act (for another consequence arising therefrom). Else, it will be double jeopardy.

Gan v. CA 1988 To avoid a head-on collision with a jeep, a car driver swerved but hit an old man about to cross the road (dead on arrival).

Not guilty of homicide through simple or reckless imprudence. Since the danger confronting the driver was imminent and didn’t afford him time to think rationally, he is not held guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt a better method, upon hindsight (aka the emergency/corollary rule).

Carillo v. People 1994 Two doctors were held guilty of simple negligence resulting in homicide, for the death of a 13-year old girl patient.

The chain of events during and after the surgical procedure was within the full control and knowledge of the doctors, and could determine decisively what needed to be done. It was incumbent upon them to overturn the prima facie evidence of negligence presented by the prosecution, by reciting measures they took to counter the serious condition of the patient after surgery. They failed to do so.

b2013 crim2 case doctrines

Documents

b2013 crim2 reviewer

void ab ibnitio

dated esterlita vicente

tearful reunion doctrine

prima facie evidence

reckless imprudence resulting

multiple physical injuries

grave oral defamation