crim 2 case digest(salva)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
1/37
People vs. Lolo
G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922
FACTS:
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left of Dutch possession. In one
of the boats was one individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat
eleven en, woen, and children, li!ewise subjects of "olland.#he second
boat arrived between the Islands of $uan% and $u!id in the Dutch &ast
Indies. #here the boat was surrounded b' si( vintas anned b' twent')four
*oros all ared. #he *oros +rst as!ed for food, but once on the Dutch boat,
too! for theselves all of the car%o, attac!ed soe of the en, and brutall'
violated two of the woen b' ethods too horrible to described. ll of the
persons on the Dutch boat, with the e(ception of the two 'oun% woen,
were a%ain placed on it and holes were ade in it, with the idea that it would
suber%e, althou%h as a atter of fact, these people, after eleven da's ofhardship and privation, were succored. #a!in% the two woen with the, and
repeatedl' violatin% the, the *oros +nall' arrived at *aruro, a Dutch
possession. #wo of the *oro arauders were -ol)lo, who also raped one of
the woen, and araw. t *aruro, the two woen were able to escape.
fter -ol)lo and araw later returned to their hoe in outh /bian,
#awi)#awi, ulu, hilippine Islands, the' were arrested and were char%ed in
the I with the crie of pirac'. #he counsel of record interposed a deurrer
on the %rounds that the oense char%ed was not within the jurisdiction of the
I, nor of an' court of the hilippine Islands, and that the facts did not
constitute a public oense, under the laws in force in the hilippine Islands.
#he deurrer was overruled b' the trial jud%e, a trial was had, and a
jud%ent was rendered +ndin% the two defendants %uilt' and sentencin%
each of the to life iprisonent 4cadena perpetua5, to return to%ether with
6inawalan% and *aulanis, defendants in another case, to the oended
parties, the thirt')nine sac!s of copras which had been robbed, or to
indenif' the in the aount of 972 rupees, and to pa' a one)half part of
the costs.
ISSUE:8O the eleents of pirac' e(ists:
HELD:
#he decided that in the present case, the facts were proven and
not disputed and all of the eleents of the crie of pirac' were present.
irac' is robber' or forcible depredation on the hi%h seas, without lawful
1
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
2/37
authorit' and done anio furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal
hostilit'. irac' is a crie not a%ainst an' particular state but a%ainst all
an!ind which can be punished in the copetent tribunal of an' countr'
where the oender a' be found or into which he a' be carried. #he
jurisdiction of pirac', unli!e all other cries, has no territorial liits. s it is
a%ainst all so a' it be punished b' all. #herefore it does not atter that the
crie was coitted within the jurisdictional 3)ile liit of a forei%n state,
;for those liits, thou%h neutral to war, are not neutral to cries.;
People vs Tulin
G.R. No. 111709 Auus! "0, 2001
FACTS:
In the evenin% of *arch 2, 1991, ;*evised enal ode, before its aendent,
provided that pirac' ust be coitted on the hi%h seas b'an' person not a
eber of its copleent nor a passen%er thereof. /pon its aendent b'
>epublic ct o. =CA9, the covera%e of the pertinent provision was widened
2
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
3/37
to include oenses coitted ;in hilippine waters.; On the other hand,
under residential Decree o. A32 4issued in 19=75, the covera%e of the law
on pirac' ebraces an' person includin% ;a passen%er or eber of the
copleent of said vessel in hilippine waters.; "ence, passen%er or not, a
eber of the copleent or not, an' person is covered b' the law.
>epublic ct o. =CA9 neither superseded nor aended the provisions on
pirac' under residential Decree o. A32. #here is no contradiction between
the two laws. #here is li!ewise no abi%uit' and hence, there is no need to
construe or interpret the law. ll the presidential decree did was to widen the
covera%e of the law, in !eepin% with the intent to protect the citienr' as well
as nei%hborin% states fro cries a%ainst the law of nations. s e(pressed in
one of the ;whereas; clauses of residential Decree o. A32, pirac' is
;aon% the hi%hest fors of lawlessness condened b' the penal statutes
of all countries.; or this reason, pirac' under the rticle 122, as aended,
and pirac' under residential Decree o. A32 e(ist haroniousl' as separatelaws.
s re%ards the contention that the trial court did not ac@uire jurisdiction over
the person of accused)appellant "ion% since the crie was coitted
outside hilippine waters, suEce it to state that un@uestionabl', the attac!
on and seiure of ;*
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
4/37
+shin% in the seawaters of #abo%on, ebu, and seied their +shin% boat, to
their daa%e and prejudice.
ISSUE:
8O the activities of the accused constitutes irac'.
HELD:
B&. ection 2, par. 4d5, of D o. A32, de+nes pirac' as ;an' attac!
upon or seiure of an' vessel, or the ta!in% awa' of the whole or part thereof
or its car%o, e@uipent, or the personal belon%in%s of the copleent or
passen%ers, irrespective of the value thereof, b' eans of violence a%ainst
or intiidation of persons or force upon thin%s, coitted b' an' person,
includin% a passen%er or eber of the copleent of said vessel, in
hilippine waters, shall be considered as pirac'. #he oenders shall be
considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.;ccused)appellant ar%ues that in order that pirac' a' be coitted
it is essential that there be an attac! on or seiure of a vessel. "e clais that
he and his copanion did not attac! or seie the +shin% boat of the ilapil
brothers b' usin% force or intiidation but erel' boarded the boat, and it
was onl' when the' were alread' on board that the' used force to copel
the ilapils to ta!e the to soe other place.
/rsal seied throu%h force and intiidation the pupboat of the
ilapils while the latter were +shin% in hilippine waters.
As!ora vs People
G.R. No. 15&1"0 Auus! 20, 200&
FACTS:
On epteber 1, 199=, a tea was sent to the island of Dara,
8estern aar to conduct intelli%ence %atherin% and forest protection
operations in line with the %overnents capai%n a%ainst ille%al lo%%in%.
/pon investi%ation of the %roup, *a'or stor%a was found to be the
owner of two boats. heated altercation ensued and *a'or stor%a calledfor reinforceents. #en ared en arrived in the scene. #he oended
parties were then brou%ht to *a'or stor%as house where the' had dinner
and drin!s and left at 230a. O1 apo@uian were allowed to %o down
fro the house, but not to leave the baran%a'. On the other hand, O3
inco and the rest just sat in the house until 200 a.. when the tea was
+nall' allowed to leave.
7
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
5/37
ISSUE:
8O stor%a is %uilt' of arbitrar' detention.
HELD:
B&. *a'or stor%a is %uilt' of arbitrar' detention. rbitrar' Detention
is coitted b' an' public oEcer or eplo'ee who, without le%al %rounds,
detains a person. #he eleents of the crie are
1. #hat the oender is a public oEcer or eplo'ee.
2. #hat he detains a person.
3. #hat the detention is without le%al %rounds.
In the case at bar, the restraint resultin% fro fear is evident. Inspite of
their pleas, the witnesses and the coplainants were not allowed b'
petitioner to %o hoe. #his refusal was @uic!l' followed b' the call for and
arrival of alost a doen Kreinforceents,L all ared with ilitar')issueriHes, who proceeded to encircle the tea, weapons pointed at the
coplainants and the witnesses. Fiven such circustances, we %ive
credence to O1 apo@uians stateent that it was not KsafeL to refuse
*a'or stor%as orders. It was not just the presence of the ared en, but
also the evident eect these %unen had on the actions of the tea which
proves that fear was indeed instilled in the inds of the tea ebers, to
the e(tent that the' felt copelled to sta' in $r%'. -ucob)-ucob. #he intent
to prevent the departure of the coplainants and witnesses a%ainst their will
is thus clear.
#ayao vs 'el %un(o
A.). No. )T*9"81" $ep!e%ber 15, 199"
FACTS:
bus driven b' the coplainant alost collided head)on with an
owner)t'pe jeepne' owned b' Jud%e del *undo. oplainant was pic!ed up
b' policeen and iediatel' brou%ht before the sala of the respondent
jud%e where he was confronted b' the latter. 8ithout %ivin% coplainant an'opportunit' to e(plain, respondent jud%e insisted that coplainant be
punished for the incident. 8hereupon, coplainant was copelled b'
respondent jud%e to choose fro three 435 alternative punishents none of
which is pleasant, to wit 4a5 to face a char%e of ultiple attepted
hoicideM 4b5 revocation of his drivers licenseM or 4c5 to be put in jail for
three 435 da's. Of the three choices, coplainant chose the third, i.e.,
A
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
6/37
con+neent for three 435 da's, as a conse@uence of which he was forced to
si%n a Kwaiver of detentionL b' respondent jud%e. #hereafter, coplainant
was iediatel' escorted b' policeen to the unicipal jail. #hou%h not
actuall' incarcerated coplainant reained in the preises of the unicipal
jail for three 435 da's.
ISSUE:
8O respondent jud%e is %uilt' of the char%e of warrantless arrest and
arbitrar' detention.
HELD:
B&. #he actuations of respondent jud%e herein coplained of,
constitute abuse of authorit'. 8hile it is true that coplainant was not put
behind bare as respondent had intended, however, coplainant was not
allowed to leave the preises of the jail house. #he idea of con+neent isnot s'non'ous onl' with incarceration inside a jail cell. It is enou%h to
@ualif' as con+neent that a an be restrained, either orall' or ph'sicall',
of his personal libert'. /nder the circustances, respondent jud%e was in
fact %uilt' of arbitrar' detention when he, as a public oEcer, ordered the
arrest and detention of coplainant without le%al %rounds. In overta!in%
another vehicle, coplainant)driver was not coittin% or had not actuall'
coitted a crie in the presence of respondent jud%e. uch bein% the
case, the warrantless arrest and subse@uent detention of coplainant were
ille%al.
It would be well to ephasie at this point that the %ravit' of the isconduct
of respondent is not alone centered on his order for the detention of
coplainant. >ather, it is in%rained in the fact that coplainant was so
detained without aordin% hi his constitutional ri%hts.
)ilo vs $alana
G.R. No. L"7007 *uly 20, 1987
FACTS:n inforation for rbitrar' Detention was +led a%ainst herein private
respondent 4accused $arrio aptain #uvera, r.5 and soe other private
persons for altreatin% petitioner ?alde b' hittin% hi with butts of their
%uns and +st blows. Iediatel' thereafter, without le%al %rounds and with
deliberate intent to deprive the latter of his constitutional libert', accused
respondent and two ebers of the police force of *an%sat conspired and
C
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
7/37
helped one another in lod%in% and loc!in% petitioner inside the unicipal jail
of *anaoa%, an%asinan for about eleven 4115 hours.
ccused)respondent then +led a otion to @uash the inforation on
the %round that the facts char%ed do not constitute the eleents of said
crie and that the proofs adduced at the investi%ation are not suEcient to
support the +lin% of the inforation. etitioner sst. rovincial iscal *ilo
+led an opposition thereto. onse@uentl', averrin% that accused)respondent
was not a public oEcer who can be char%ed with rbitrar' Detention,
respondent Jud%e alan%a %ranted the otion to @uash in an order. "ence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
8O accused)respondent, bein% a $arrio aptain, can be liable for the
crie of rbitrar' Detention.
HELD:
B&. #he public oEcers liable for rbitrar' Detention ust be vested
with authorit' to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crie.
One need not be a police oEcer to be char%eable with rbitrar' Detention. It
is accepted that other public oEcers li!e jud%es and a'ors, who act with
abuse of their functions, a' be %uilt' of this crie. perusal of the powers
and function vested in a'ors would show that the' are siilar to those of a
barrio captain e(cept that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction
is saller. "avin% the sae dut' of aintainin% peace and order, both ust
be and are %iven the authorit' to detain or order detention. oteworth' is
the fact that even private respondent #uvera hiself aditted that with the
aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of
petitioner ?alde.
People vs. Gar+ia
G.R. No. 12252 Auus! "0, 1999
FACTS:#hat on or about the 2Nth da' of oveber, 1997, in the it' of
$a%uio, hilippines, Jesus Farcia had in his possession, custod' and control
+ve 4A5 !ilos of copressed arijuana dried leaves, without the authorit' of
law to do so.
oveber 2N, 1997, he and O3 JO& FI$ boarded a
passen%er jeepne' fro their oEce in ap Dan%wa, -a #rinidad, $en%uet,
=
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
8/37
en route to $a%uio it'. "e too! the seat behind the jeepne' driver while
O3 an%aniban sat opposite hi. #he' were in civilian attire. 8hen the
jeepne' reached 6. 7 or A, accused J&/ F>I boarded the jeepne'
carr'in% a plastic ba%. "e occupied the front seat, beside the driver and
placed the plastic ba% on his lap. fter a couple of inutes, the policeen
selled arijuana which seeed to eanate fro accusedGs ba%. #o con+r
their suspicion, the' decided to follow accused when he %ets o the jeepne'.
#he accused ali%hted at the $a%uio cit' hall and the police oEcers
trailed hi. "e was found to be in possession of +ve 4A5 bric!s of what
appeared to be dried arijuana leaves. #he policeoEcers then arrested the
accused and seied his ba%.
ISSUE:
8O the anner of arrest proper.
HELD:
B&. #he prosecution was able to prove appellantGs %uilt be'ond
reasonable doubt. #here is nothin% irre%ular in the anner appellant was
apprehended b' the police authorities.
On the contrar', we +nd that, without coproisin% their sworn dut' to
enforce the law, the police oEcers e(ercised reasonable prudence and
caution in desistin% to apprehend appellant inside the jeepne' when the'
initiall' suspected he was in possession of arijuana. #he' sou%ht to verif'
further their suspicion and decided to trail appellant when the latter ali%hted
fro the jeepne'. It was onl' after the' saw that one of the pac!a%es with
the torn wrapper contained what loo!ed li!e arijuana fruitin% tops did the'
accost appellant and a!e the arrest.
t that precise tie, the' had obtained personal !nowled%e of
circustances indicatin% that appellant had illicit dru%s in his possession.
#he' had reasonable %round upon which to base a lawful arrest without a
warrant.
Abay vs 'epu!y -%bu(s%anG.R. No. 1"&50" *uly 2, 1999
FACTS:
On epteber =, 199=, petitioner, to%ether with a certain herwin
Ju%albot, was arrested and detained at the -iloan olice tation, *etro ebu
for an alle%ed violation of >.. =C10. #he followin% da', or on epteber N,
N
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
9/37
199=, a oplaint for violation of >.. =C10 was +led a%ainst petitioner and
Ju%albot.
ounsel for petitioner wrote the hief of olice of -iloan deandin% the
iediate release of petitioner considerin% that the latter had Kfailed to
deliver the detained Jasper %ba' to the proper judicial authorit' within
thirt')si( 43C5 hours fro epteber =, 199=.L rivate respondents did not
act on this letter and continued to detain petitioner.
etitioner +led a coplaint for dela' in the deliver' of detained
persons a%ainst herein private respondents O7 eesio atividad, Jr.,
O2 &leaar *. aloon and other unidenti+ed police oEcers stationed at
the -iloan olice ubstation, before the OEce of the Deput' Obudsan for
the ?isa'as.
ISSUE:
8O the +lin% of the coplaint with the *unicipal #rial ourtconstitutes to a Kproper judicial authorit'L as conteplated b' rt. 12A of
the >evised enal ode.
HELD:
B&. rt. 12A of the > is intended to prevent an' abuse resultin%
fro con+nin% a person without inforin% hi of his oense and without
perittin% hi to %o on bail . *ore speci+call', it punishes public oEcials or
eplo'ees who shall detain an' person for soe le%al %round and shall fail
to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the periods
prescribed b' law. #he continued detention of the accused becoes ille%al
upon the e(piration of the periods provided for b' rt. 12A without such
detainee havin% been delivered to the correspondin% judicial authorities.
#he words Kjudicial authorit'L as conteplated b' rt. 12A ean Kthe
courts of justices or jud%es of said courts vested with judicial power to order
the teporar' detention or con+neent of a person char%ed with havin%
coitted a public oense, that is, the upree ourt and other such
inferior courts as a' be established b' law.
#he power to order the release or con+neent of an accused is
deterinative of the issue. In contrast with a cit' +scal, it is undisputed thata unicipal court jud%e, even in the perforance of his function to conduct
preliinar' investi%ations, retains the power to issue an order of release or
coitent. urtherore, upon the +lin% of the coplaint with the
*unicipal #rial ourt, the intent behind rt. 12A is satis+ed considerin% that
b' such act, the detained person is infored of the crie iputed a%ainst
hi and, upon his application with the court, he a' be released on bail.
9
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
10/37
etitioner hiself ac!nowled%ed this power of the *# to order his release
when he applied for and was %ranted his release upon postin% bail. #hus, the
ver' purpose underl'in% rticle 12A has been dul' served with the +lin% of
the coplaint with the *#. 8e a%ree with the position of the Obudsan
that such +lin% of the coplaint with the *# interrupted the period
prescribed in said rticle.
La(la( vs velas+o
G.R. Nos. 17207072 *une 1, 2007
FACTS:
#hese are consolidated petitions for the writs of prohibition and
certiorari to enjoin petitionersG prosecution for >ebellion and to set aside the
rulin%s of the Departent of Justice 4DOJ5 and the >e%ional #rial ourt of*a!ati it' 4># *a!ati5 on the investi%ation and prosecution of petitionersG
cases.
ollowin% the issuance b' resident Floria *acapa%al)rro'o of
residential roclaation o. 101= on 27 ebruar' 200C declarin% a ;tate of
ational &er%enc',; police oEcers arrested rispin $eltran on 2A ebruar'
200C, while he was en route to *arilao, $ulacan, and detained hi in ap
rae, ueon it'. n in@uest was held and $eltran was later char%ed with
rebellion before the >#. $eltran oved for a judicial deterination of
probable cause. #he trial court aEred the e(istence of probable cause.
ISSUE:
8O there is probable cause to char%e $eltran with rebellion.
HELD:
O. >ebellion under rticle 137 of the >evised enal ode is coitted
P $' risin% publicl' and ta!in% ars a%ainst the Fovernent for the purpose
of reovin% fro the alle%iance to said Fovernent or its laws, the territor'
of the >epublic of the hilippines or an' part thereof, or an' bod' of land,
naval, or other ared forces or deprivin% the hief &(ecutive or the-e%islature, wholl' or partiall', of an' of their powers or prero%atives.
#he eleents of the oense are
1. #hat there be a 4a5 public uprisin% and 4b5 ta!in% ars a%ainst the
FovernentM and
2. #hat the purpose of the uprisin% or oveent is either P
10
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
11/37
4a5 to reove fro the alle%iance to said Fovernent or its laws
415 the territor' of the hilippines or an' part thereofM or
425 an' bod' of land, naval, or other ared forcesM or
4a5 to deprive the hief &(ecutive or on%ress, wholl' or partiall', of an' of
their powers and prero%atives.
#hus, b' its nature, rebellion is a crie of the asses or ultitudes
involvin% crowd action done in furtherance of a political end. #he evidence
before the panel of prosecutors who conducted the in@uest of $eltran for
>ebellion consisted of the aEdavits and other docuents.
#he alle%ations in these aEdavits are far fro the proof needed to
indict $eltran for ta!in% part in an ared public uprisin% a%ainst the
%overnent. 8hat these docuents prove, at best, is that $eltran was in
$ucal, adre Farcia, $atan%as on 20 ebruar' 200C and that 17 'ears earlier,
he was present durin% the 1992 lenu. one of the aEdavits statedthat $eltran coitted speci+c acts of prootin%, aintainin%, or headin% a
rebellion as found in the DOJ >esolution of 2= ebruar' 200C. one of the
aEdavits alle%ed that $eltran is a leader of a rebellion. $eltranGs alle%ed
presence durin% the 1992 lenu does not autoaticall' a!e hi a
leader of a rebellion.
In his oent to $eltranGs petition, the olicitor Feneral points to
uentesG aEdavit, dated 2A ebruar' 200C, as basis for the +ndin% of
probable cause a%ainst $eltran as uentes provided details in his stateent
re%ardin% eetin%s with $eltran and the other petitioners attended in 200A
and 200C in which plans to overthrow violentl' the rro'o %overnent were
alle%edl' discussed, aon% others. "owever, what the alle%ations in
uentesG aEdavit a!e out is a case for onspirac' to oit >ebellion,
punishable under rticle 13C of the >evised enal ode, not >ebellion under
rticle 137. ttendance in eetin%s to discuss, aon% others, plans to brin%
down a %overnent is a ere preparator' step to coit the acts
constitutin% >ebellion under rticle 137. &ven the prosecution ac!nowled%ed
this, since the felon' char%ed in the Inforation a%ainst $eltran in the
criinal case is onspirac' to oit >ebellion and not >ebellion. #he
Inforation erel' alle%ed that $eltran, an Juan, and others conspired tofor a ;tactical alliance; to coit >ebellion. #hus, the ># *a!ati erred
when it nevertheless found probable cause to tr' $eltran for >ebellion based
on the evidence before it.
11
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
12/37
People vs. $ilonan
G.R. No. 1"7182 April 2&, 200"
FACTS:
On Januar' 1N, 1999, the >e%ional #rial ourt of ueon it' convicted
the appellants of the crie of 6idnappin% for >anso with erious Ille%al
Detention and sentencin% the to suer the penalt' of death. /pon
arrai%nent, all the appellants pleaded not %uilt' to the char%e.
#he appellants ar%ued that the fact that the' are rebel surrenderees
precludes conviction for the coon crie of !idnappin%. #he' contend that
coon cries are absorbed in rebellion. #herefore, the trial court erred
when it convicted the of !idnappin% for ranso.
ISSUE:
8O there is erit on the contention of the appellants that the cri
coitted was rebellion.
HELD:
O. #he ar%uent that the crie was politicall' otivated and that
conse@uentl', the char%e should have been rebellion and not !idnappin%,
"olds no erit. s held in OEce of the rovincial rosecutor of Qaboan%a
Del orte vs. , the political otivation for the crie ust be shown in
order to justif' +ndin% the crie coitted to be rebellion. *erel' because it
is alle%ed that appellants were ebers of the *oro Islaic -iberation ront
or of the *oro ational -iberation ront does not necessaril' ean that the
crie of !idnappin% was coitted in furtherance of a rebellion. "ere, the
evidence adduced is insuEcient for a +ndin% that the crie coitted was
politicall' otivated. either have the appellants suEcientl' proven their
alle%ation that the present case was +led a%ainst the because the' are
rebel surrenderees.
People vs -liva
G.R. No. 1082 *anuary 18, 2001
FACTS:
On or about *a' 2C, 19NC, in the ornin% thereof, at baran%a'
*apeRa, *unicipalit' of
12
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
13/37
*asbate, rovince of *asbate, hilippines, within the jurisdiction of this
court, the Oliva was confederatin% to%ether and helpin% one another with the
used of force, violence and intiidation, did then and there willfull',
unlawfull' and feloniousl' !idnap, detain and !eep one Jacinto *a%bojos
alias ;Da%o'; a%ainst the latterGs will.
On the basis of the evidence presented b' the prosecution, the court
found Oliva and alcedo %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of urder, not
!idnappin% with urder. "owever, Joel inco was ac@uitted. "ence, insistin%
on their innocence, Oliva and alcedo instantl' appealed.
In his brief, Oliva raises that the honorable lower court coitted a
reversible error in the conviction. "e clais that since he is a eber of the
ounist part' of the hilippines, the conviction should that be of
rebellion, in which !idnap and urder is absorbed.
ISSUE:8O Oliva should be char%ed of rebellion.
HELD:
O. Oliva asserts that he should have been char%ed with rebellion
instead of !idnappin% with urder considerin% that he is eber of the
ounist part' of the hilippines and oander of the ew eopleGs
r'. "e clais that the !illin% was coitted in furtherance of rebellion,
hence, it should be absorbed in rebellion.
OlivaGs contention that he should have been char%ed with and tried for
rebellion lac!s factual and le%al basis, hence, bereft of erit. #rue, one can
be convicted onl' of rebellion where the urders, robberies and !idnappin%
were coitted as a eans to or furtherance of rebellion. orollar',
oenses, which were not coitted in furtherance of rebellion, but for
personal reasons or other otives, are to be punished separatel' even if
coitted siultaneousl' with the rebellious acts.
In the instant case, there was no evidence at all to show that the !illin%
of Jacinto *a%bojos Jr. was in connection with or in furtherance of their
rebellious act. $esides Jr. was
not indubitabl' proved that Oliva was indeed a eber of the ew eopleGsr'.
People vs Love(ioro
G.R. No. 1122"5 Nove%ber 29, 1995
13
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
14/37
FACTS:
O)dut' policean O3 Jesus -ucilo was wal!in% alon% $ur%os t.,
awa' fro the Dara%a, lba' ublic *ar!et when a an suddenl' wal!ed
beside hi, pulled a .7A caliber %un fro his waist, aied the %un at the
policeanGs ri%ht ear and +red. #he an who shot -ucilo had three other
copanions with hi, one of who shot the fallen policean four ties as
he la' on the %round. fter ta!in% the latterGs %un, the an and his
copanions boarded a tric'cle and Hed.
#he incident was witnessed fro a distance of about nine eters b'
estor renta, a 2A 'ear old welder fro ilar, orso%on, who claied that
he !new both the victi and the an who +red the fatal shot. renta
identi+ed the an who +red at the deceased as &lias -ovedioro ' astro, his
nephew 4appellantGs father was his +rst cousin5 and alle%ed that he !new the
victi fro the fact that the latter was a resident of $a%uba'an.-ucilo died on the sae da' of assive blood loss fro ultiple
%unshot wounds on the face, the chest, and other parts of the bod'. On
autops', the unicipal health oEcer established the cause of death as
h'povoleic shoc!.
ISSUE:
8O accused)appellant coitted >ebellion under rt. 137 and 13A
or *urder under rticle 27N of the >:
HELD:
B&. #he court +nds the accused &-I -O?&DIO>O %uilt' be'ond
reasonable doubt as principal, actin% in conspirac' with his co)accused who
are still at lar%e, of the crie of urder, de+ned and penalied under rticle
27N of the >evised enal ode, and hereb' sentences hi to suer the
penalt' of >eclusion erpetua with all the accessories provided b' lawM to
pa' the heirs of the deceased O3 Jesus -ucilo throu%h the widow, *rs.
>eeline -ucilo, the aount of ift' #housand 4A0,000.005 esos
representin% the civil indenit' for deathM to pa' the said widow the su of
#hirt' #housand 430,000.005 esos representin% reasonable oraldaa%esM and to pa' the said widow the su of &i%hteen #housand ive
"undred &i%ht')&i%ht 41N,ANN.005 esos, representin% actual daa%es,
without subsidiar' iprisonent however, in case of insolvenc' on the part
of the said accused.
In his appeal, appellant cites the testion' of the prosecutionGs
principal witness, estor renta, as supportin% his clai that he should
17
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
15/37
have been char%ed with the crie of rebellion, not urder. In his $rief, he
asseverates that renta, a police inforer, identi+ed hi as a eber of
the ew eopleGs r'.
"owever, the appellantGs clai re%ardin% the political color attendin%
the coission of the crie bein% a atter of defense, its viabilit' depends
on his sole and unsupported testion'. inall', treacher' was ade@uatel'
proved in the court below. #he attac! delivered b' appellant was sudden,
and without warnin% of an' !ind. 71 #he !illin% havin% been @uali+ed b'
treacher', the crie coitted is urder under rt. 27N of the >evised
enal ode. In the absence of an' iti%atin% and a%%ravatin% circustances,
the trial court was correct in iposin% the penalt' of reclusion perpetua
to%ether with all the accessories provided b' law. #he trial courtGs decision
dated epteber 17, 1993, sentencin% the accused of *urder is hereb'
I>*&D.
People vs ernan(e/
G.R. No. L025 )ay "0, 19&
FACTS:
#his is the appeal prosecuted b' the defendants fro the jud%ent
rendered b' the ourt of irst Instance of *anila, "on. %ustin . *ontesa,
presidin%, in its riinal ase o. 1AN71, eople vs. ado ?. "ernande, et
al., and riinal ase o. 1A7=9, eople vs. $a'ani &spiritu, et al. In riinal
ase o. 1AN71 4F.>. o. -)C02C5 the char%e is for >ebellion with *ultiple
*urder, rsons and >obberies. #he appellants are ado ?. "ernande, Juan
J. ru, Fenaro de la ru, ado >acanda', erin >odillas and Julian
-uano%M @uilino $unsol, driano ason and ndres $aisa, Jr. were aon%
those sentenced in the jud%ent appealed fro, but the' have withdrawn
their appeal. In riinal ase o. 1A7=9 4F.>. o. -)C02C5 the char%e is for
rebellion with urders, arsons and !idnappin%s. #he accused are $a'ani
&spiritu #eopista ?alerio and ndres $alsa, Jr.M the' all appealed but ndres
$alsa, Jr. withdrew his appeal.
joint trial of both cases was held, after which the court rendered the
decision subject of the present appeals.
ISSUE:
8O the defendants)appelants are liable for the crie of conspirac'
and proposal to coit rebellion or insurrection under rt. 13C of the >:
1A
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
16/37
HELD:
B&. #he court found defendants)appellants "ernande, eber of the
ounist art' of the hilippines, resident of the on%ress of -abor
Or%aniations 4-O5, had close connections with the ecretariat of the
ounist art' and held continuous counications with its leaders and
its ebers, and others, %uilt' as principal of the crie char%ed a%ainst hi
and sentenced hi to suer the penalt' of reclusion perpetua with the
accessories provided b' law, and to pa' the proportionate aount of the
costs.
In the testionies shown in court, it further appears that #aruc and
other leaders used to send notes to appellant "ernande, who in turn
issued press releases for which he found space in the local papers. "is acts
in this respect belon% to the cate%or' of propa%anda, to which he appears tohave liited his actions as a ounist.
"owever, in their appeal, defendants)appellants ado ?. "ernande,
Juan J. ru, ado >acanda' and Fenaro de la ru are absolved fro the
char%es contained in the inforation, with their proportionate share of the
costs de o+cio. $ut other defendants)appellants, nael', Julian -uano% and
erin >odillas, $a'ani &spiritu and #eopista ?alerio were found %uilt' of the
crie of conspirac' to coit rebellion, as de+ned and punished in rticle
13C of the >evised enal ode, and each and ever'one of the is hereb'
sentenced to suer iprisonent for +ve 'ears, four onths and twent')one
da's of prision correccional, and to pa' a +ne of A,000.00, with subsidiar'
iprisonent in case of insolvenc' and to pa' their proportional share of the
costs.
People vs 'asi
G.R. No. 1002"1 April 28, 199"
FACTS:
ppellants >odri%o Dasi%, &dwin uRe and C others were char%edto%ether of shootin% >edepto *anatad, a police oEcer, as he died while
perforin% duties. /pon arrai%nent, appellant and &dwin uRes entered a
plea of ;not %uilt'.; "owever, after the prosecution had presented its +rst
witness, accused uRes chan%ed his plea of ;not %uilt'; to ;%uilt'.; "ence,
the lower court held in abe'ance the proul%ation of a jud%ent a%ainst
said accused until the prosecution had +nished presentin% its evidence.
1C
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
17/37
8hile trial was still on%oin%, uRe died on *arch 10, 19N9, thereb'
e(tin%uishin% his criinal liabilit'.
t about 700 oGcloc! in the afternoon, fc. ataora noticed ei%ht 4N5
persons, one of who he identi+ed as &dwin uRe, actin% suspiciousl'. "e
noticed one of the %ivin% instructions to two of the en to approach fc.
*anatad. On u%ust 1C, 19N=, two teas of police oEcers were tas!ed to
conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of ebers of the sparrow
unit located in eace ?alle', ebu it'. /pon reachin% the place, the %roup
saw >odri%o Dasi% and &dwin uRes tr'in% to escape. #he tea of apt.
ntonio Forre captured uRes and con+scated a .7A caliber revolver with 3
a%aines and aunitions, while the %roup of %t. >onald rnejo pursued
Dasi%, who threw a %renade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper
ar and subse@uentl' apprehended while a .3N caliber revolver with 1= live
aunitions were con+scated fro hi. #hereafter, Dasi% was brou%ht to
the hospital for treatent, while uRes was turned over to the *etrodiscofor investi%ation. Dasi% confessed that he and the %roup of &dwin uRes
!illed fc. *anatad. "e li!ewise aditted that he and uRes were ebers
of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were ;rand; and ;*abi,;
respectivel'.
#he e(tra)judicial confession of appellant was si%ned b' hi on ever'
pa%e thereof with the +rst pa%e containin% a certi+cation li!ewise si%ned b'
hi. "owever, Dasi% contends that the procedure b' which his e(tra)judicial
confession was ta!en was le%all' defective, and contrar' to his onstitutional
ri%hts. "e further contends that assuin% he conspired in the !illin% of fc.
*anatad, he should be convicted at ost of siple rebellion and not urder
with direct assault. ppellant also clais that the custodial interro%ation was
done while he was still ver' sic! and conse@uentl', he could not have full'
appreciated the wisdo of adittin% such a serious oense.
$$34
8O the accused)appellant is liable for e(tra)judicial !illin% of the
deceased and participated in the act of rebellion:
HELD:B&. ccused >o%elio Dasi% is found %uilt' of participatin% in an act of
rebellion be'ond reasonable doubt and is hereb' sentenced to suer the
penalt' of iprisonent of ei%ht 4N5 'ears of prision a'or, and to pa' the
heirs of fc. >edepto *anatad, A0,000.00 as civil indenit'.
s to the proper iposable penalt', the Indeterinate entence -aw is
not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion 4ec. 2, >.. 72035, contrar'
1=
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
18/37
to the insinuation of the olicitor Feneral. rticle 13A of the >evised enal
ode iposes the penalt' of prision a'or and a +ne not e(ceedin%
20,000.00 to an' person who prootes, aintains, or heads a rebellion.
"owever, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant
Dasi% headed the crie coitted. s a atter of fact he was not
speci+call' pinpointed b' fc. ataora as the person %ivin% instructions to
the %roup which attac!ed fc. *anatad.
ppellant erel' participated in coittin% the act, or just e(ecuted
the coand of an un!nown leader. "ence, he should be ade to suer the
penalt' of iprisonent of ei%ht 4N5 'ears of prision a'or. or the resultin%
death, appellant is li!ewise ordered to pa' the heirs of fc. *anatad I#B
#"O/D &O 4A0,000.005 as civil indenit'.
People vs #abreraG.R. No. 177&8 )ar+ &, 1922
FACTS:
#he hilippine onstabular' has %rud%es a%ainst the police of *anila
and the' want to inHict reven%e for the followin% reasons 415 On Deceber
13, 1920, a *anila police arrested a woan who is a eber of the
household of a constabular' soldier and was alle%edl' abused b' the said
policean. 425 rivate *acasina% of the onstabular' was shot b' a *anila
police and was ortall' wounded. da' after the incident, a ruor spread
aon% the onstabular' that the olice who shot *acasina% was bac! to his
ori%inal duties while *acasina% was declared dead. #here were also ruors
that the said shootin% was ordered. On the ni%ht of Deceber 1A soe
ebers of the onstabular' escaped their barrac!s throu%h a window 4the
saw out the window bars5. #he' had riHes and aunitions and were
or%anied in %roups under the coand of their ser%eants and corporals.
#he' attac!ed soe *anila policeen in these speci+c instances 415 On
alle >eal, Intrauros, a %roup of the onstabular' shot and !illed an
erican olicean and his friend. 425 #he onstabular' indiscriinatel'
shot at a passer) b', causin% a death and woundin% ost of the passen%ers.435 8hile ridin% a otorc'cle driven b' policean aplala, aptain 8illia &.
8ichan 4asst. chief of police in *anila5 was shot and !illed to%ether with
aplala
ISSUES:
415 8O there was connivance
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
19/37
425 8O the accused are properl' convicted of a violation of the
#reason and edition -aw.
HELD:
415 B&. onspiracies are %enerall' proved b' a nuber of inde+nite acts,
conditions, and circustances which var' accordin% to the purposes to be
accoplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued b' their acts the
sae object, one perforin% one part and another another part of the sae,
so as to coplete it, with a view to the attainent of the sae object, one
will be justi+ed in the conclusion that the' were en%a%ed in a conspirac' to
the eect that object. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were
ibued with the sae purpose, which was to aven%e theselves on the
police force of *anila. coon feelin% of resentent aniated all.
425 B&. edition, in its ore %eneral sense, is the raisin% of cootions
or disturbances in the tate. #he hilippine law on the subject a!es allpersons %uilt' of sedition who rise publicl' and tuultuousl' in order to
obtain b' force of outside of le%al ethods an' one of +ve objects, includin%
that of inHictin% an' act of hate or reven%e upon the person or propert' of
an' oEcial or a%ent of the Insular %overnent or of a provincial or unicipal
%overnent. #he counsel contested that it is necessar' that the oender
should be a private citien and the oended part' a public functioinar', and
what reall' happened was a +%ht between two ared bodies of the
hilippine Fovernent. #he court held that this contention is without
foundation.
#he #reason and edition -aw a!es no distinction between the persons to
which it applies. 8hat is iportant is that there is a public risin% to incite or
inHict an' act of hate or reven%e upon the person or propert' of an' oEcial
or a%ent of the Insular %overnent or of a provincial or unicipal
%overnent.
People vs %ali
G.R. No. L580" Nove%ber 29, 195&
FACTS:
19
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
20/37
#he cople( crie of which appellants arciso /ali, et. al were found
%uilt' was said to have been coitted durin% the raid sta%ed in the town of
#iaon%, ueon, between N00 and 900 in the evenin% of oveber 17,
19A1, b' ared en. #he raid too! place resultin% in the burnin% down and
coplete destruction of the house of *a'or *arcial unalan includin% its
content valued at 27,023M the house of ?alentin >obles valued at 10,000,
and the house of one *orte%a, the death of atrolan Doin%o isi%an and
civilians ?icente oriano and -eocadio /ntalan, and the woundin% of
atrolan edro -acorte and +ve civilians.
Durin% and after the burnin% of the houses, soe of the raiders
en%a%ed in lootin%, robbin% one house and two hinese storesM and that the
raiders were +nall' dispersed and driven fro the town b' the hilippine
r' soldiers stationed in the town led b' aptain late.
ISSUE:8O the accused)appellants are liable of the char%es a%ainst the of
cople( crie of rebellion with ultiple urder, frustrated urder, arson
and robber':
HELD:
B&. #he appellants were %uilt' of sedition, ultiple urder, arson,
frustrated urder and ph'sical injuries. or the crie of sedition each of the
appellants is sentenced to A 'ears of prision correctional and to pa' a +ne of
7,000M for each of the three urders, each of the appellants is sentenced to
life iprisonent and to indenif' the heirs of each victi in the su of
C,000M and for the arson, for which we ipose the a(iu penalt'
provided in rticle 321, para%raph 1, of the >evised enal ode, for the
reason that the raiders in settin% +re to the buildin%s, particularl' the house
of unalan the' !new that it was then occupied b' one or ore persons,
because the' even and actuall' saw an old lad', the other of unalan, at
the window, and in view of the a%%ravatin% circustances of ni%httie, each
of the appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pa' the
indenities entioned in the decision of the lower court. It shall be
understood, however, the pursuant to the provisions of rticle =0 of the>evised enal ode the duration of all penalties shall not e(ceed 70 'ears. In
view of the heav' penalties alread' iposed and their lon% duration, the
court +nds it unnecessar' to +( and ipose the prison sentences
correspondin% to frustrated urder and ph'sical injuriesM however, the sus
awarded the victis 4-acorte, Orte%a, nselo, >ivano, Farcia and -ector5, b'
20
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
21/37
the court below will stand. 8ith these odi+cations, the decision appealed
fro is hereb' aEred, with costs.
People vs Nabon
G.R. No. L"&2 Nove%ber ", 19"2
FACTS:
In the latter part of Januar', 1931, the head of the counists in the
hilippine Islands, died in the unicipalit' of anta >osa, ueva &cija, and a
necrolo%ical service in his eor' was appointed b' his followers to be held
at anta >osa on the evenin% of Januar' 30. #he fact that said eetin% was
to be held cae to the attention of *ajor ilvino Fallardo, in char%e of the
hilippine onstabular' in abanatuan, and he was infored that the red
Ha% would be displa'ed in this eetin% as an eble of the counists. "e
then et the appellant abon%, and !nowin% the relation between the latter
and eleo, the leader of the counists in that province, *ajor Fallardore@uested abon% to interfere and prevent the displa' of the red Ha% at the
eetin% referred to.
fter perusin% the opinion abon% said that he did not a%ree with the
conclusion of the +scalM and he, therefore, refused to accopan' the
onstabular' oEcers and the deput' provincial +scal to anta >osa, statin%
that, if he were to %o there, he would tell the counists that no law
prohibited the displa' of the red Ha% and that he would induce the to
displa' the sae. "e added that, if the counist were forbidden to use the
Ha%, a disturbance would probabl' result.
lthou%h abon%, as above stated, had refused to accopan' *ajor
Fallardo and his copanions on their trip to anta >osa, he waited a while at
abanatuan and afterwards left for anta >osa, arrivin% in tie to participate
in the eetin%. t this eetin% the red Ha% was displa'ed, contrar' to the
proise that eleo had ade to *ajor Fallardo. couple of thin%s happened
and eleo was arrested for sedition. #he arrest and reoval of eleo resulted
in disorder aon% the people present at the eetin%, and *ajor Fallardo
found it advisable to a!e a short speech e(plainin% wh' eleo had been
arrested.
I%nacio abon% who delivered a speech statin% that the constabular'coitted a real abuse in seiin% the Ha%, and that the' ou%ht to be united
to suppress abuse. Overthrow the present %overnent and establish our own
%overnent, the %overnent of the poor.
ISSUE:
8O abon% should be %uilt' of incitin% to sedition.
21
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
22/37
HELD:
B&. #he lan%ua%e used b' the appellant clearl' iported an
overthrow of the Fovernent b' violence, and it should be interpreted in the
plain and obvious sense in which it was evidentl' intended to be understood.
#he word ;overthrow; could not have been intended as referrin% to an
ordinar' chan%e b' the e(ercise of the elective franchise. #he use of the
whip, an instruent desi%ned to leave ar!s on the sides of adversaries, is
inconsistent with the ild interpretation which the appellant would have us
ipute to the lan%ua%e. It was the purpose of the spea!er, be'ond a doubt,
to incite his hearers to the overthrow of or%anied %overnent b' unlawful
eans. #he words used b' the appellant anifestl' tended to induce the
people to resist and use violence a%ainst the a%ents of the onstabular' and
to insti%ate the poor to cabal and eet to%ether for unlawful purposes. #he'
also su%%ested and incited rebellious conspiracies, thereb' tendin% to stir upthe people a%ainst the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the
counit' and the order of the Fovernent.
It is not necessar', in order to be seditious, that the words used should
in fact result in a risin% of the people a%ainst the constituted authorities. #he
law is not aied erel' at actual disturbance, and its purpose is also to
punish utterances which a' endan%er public order.
Geli vs People
G.R. No. 17"150 *uly 28, 2010
FACTS:
On Jul' 1=, 19N1, at around 1000 ocloc! in the ornin%, -'dia
confronted Fea after learnin% fro >oseller that Fea called hi a
;siss'; while in class. -'dia slapped Fea in the chee! and pushed her,
thereb' causin% her to fall and hit a wall divider. s a result of -'dias violent
assault, Fea suered a contusion in her ;a(illar' area;, as shown b' a
edical certi+cate issued b' a doctor in the $o%o Feneral "ospital. "owever,
Fea continued to e(perience abdoinal pains and started bleedin% twoda's after the incident.
On u%ust 2N, 19N1, she was aditted in the outhern Islands "ospital
and was dia%nosed, to her surprise, to have suered incoplete abortion.
ccordin%l', a edical certi+cate was issued.
22
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
23/37
he was then convicted for coittin% the cople( crie of direct
assault with unintentional abortion but the found her %uilt' onl' of the
crie of sli%ht ph'sical injuries.
#he vacated the trial courts jud%ent. It ruled that -'dia cannot be
held liable for direct assault since Fea descended fro bein% a person in
authorit' to a private individual when, instead of pacif'in% -'dia or inforin%
the principal of the atter, she en%a%ed in a +%ht with -'dia. -i!ewise,
-'dias purpose was not to def' the authorities but to confront Fea on
the alle%ed nae)callin% of her son. "owever, it declared that -'dia can be
held %uilt' of sli%ht ph'sical injuries but later on appealed for corrections.
ISSUE:
8O -'dia Feli% should be convicted on direct assault.
HELD:B&. #he case of -'dia falls under the second ode of direct assault. Its
eleents are
1. #hat the oender 4a5 a!es an attac!, 4b5 eplo's force, 4c5 a!es a
serious intiidation, or 4d5 a!es a serious resistance.
2. #hat the person assaulted is a person in authorit' or his a%ent.
3. #hat at the tie of the assault the person in authorit' or his a%ent 4a5 is
en%a%ed in the actual
perforance of oEcial duties, or SbT that he is assaulted b' reason of the
past perforance of oEcial duties.
7. #hat the oender !nows that the one he is assaultin% is a person in
authorit' or his a%ent in the e(ercise of his duties.
7. #hat there is no public uprisin%.
On the da' of the coission of the assault, Fea was en%a%ed in
the perforance of her oEcial duties, that is, she was bus' with paperwor!
while supervisin% and loo!in% after the needs of pupils who are ta!in% their
recess in the classroo to which she was assi%ned. Fea then proceeded
towards the principals oEce but -'dia followed and resorted to the use offorce b' slappin% and pushin% her a%ainst a wall divider. #he violent act
resulted in Feas fall to the Hoor. Fea bein% a public school teacher,
belon%s to the class of persons in authorit' e(pressl' entioned in rticle
1A2 of the >evised enal ode, as aended.
#he fact reains that at the oent -'dia initiated her tirades,
Fea was bus' attendin% to her oEcial functions as a teacher. he tried to
23
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
24/37
pacif' -'dia b' oerin% her a seat so that the' could tal! properl', but -'dia
refused and instead unleashed a barra%e of verbal invectives.
Rivera vs People
G.R. No. 1"855" *une "0, 2005
FACTS:
?icti, >uben went to a nearb' store to bu' food. ccused >ivera was
in the sae vicinit'. 8hen he saw >uben, >ivera oc!ed >uben for bein%
jobless and dependent on his wife. #his caused an e(chan%e of heated words
between the two.
#he ne(t da' when >uben and his dau%hter were once a%ain bu'in%
food, >ivera and two other en attac!ed >uben. #he two en punched and
auled >uben while >ivera, on the other hand, %ot a hollowbloc! and hit>ubenss head with it three ties. >ivera and his copanions left onl' when
the policeen arrived.
>uben was brou%ht to the hospital and it was said that he suered onl'
sli%ht and super+cial wounds but were it not for the arrival of the policeen,
>uben would have died.
#he #rial ourt held that the three are %uilt' of frustrated urder while
the ourt of ppeals aEred the decision of the trial court, with
odi+cations.
ISSUE:
8O there was intention to !ill.
HELD:
B&. #here is intent to !ill in the case at bar.
#he pieces of evidence re@uired to prove intent to !ill are as follows
1. *eans used b' the alefactorsM
2. ature,location and nuber of wounds sustained b' the victiM
3. onduct of the alefactor before, durin% and after the coission of the
crieM7. ircustances under which the crie was coittedM and,
A. *otive of the accused.
ppl'in% the eleents to the case at bar, the eans or weapons used
b' >I?&> is a piece of hollow bloc!. s to nature, location and nuber of
wounds, >ivera inHicted injuries on the head of >uben three ties. onduct
before durin% and after the coission of the crie, >ivera was an%r' at
27
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
25/37
>uben because of the circustances that transpired between >uben and
hi.
People vs Abalos
G.R. No. 88189 *uly 9, 199
FACTS:
In the evenin% of *arch 20, 19N3, while accused #iburcio balos and
his father, olice *ajor ecilio balos, were havin% a heated ar%uent, a
woan shouted Kolice oEcer, help usU oebod's a!in% trouble here.L
#he victi,
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
26/37
intention to oend, injure or assault the oended part' as a person in
authorit' or an a%ent of a person in authorit'. "ere, -abine was a dul'
appointed eber of the then I in atbalo%an, aar and, thus, was an
a%ent of a person in authorit' pursuant to rticle 1A2 of the >. #here is
also no dispute that he was in the actual perforance of his duties when
assaulted b' appellant, that is, he was aintainin% peace and order durin%
the +esta in $aran%a' anlapwas. ppellant hiself testi+ed that he
personall' !new -abine to be a policean and, in fact, -abine was then
wearin% his unifor. #hese facts should have suEcientl' deterred appellant
fro attac!in% hi, and his de+ant conduct clearl' deonstrates that he
reall' had the criinal intent to assault and injure an a%ent of the law.
8hen the assault results in the !illin% of that a%ent or of a person in
authorit' for that atter, there arises the cople( crie of direct assault
with urder or hoicide. #he !illin% in the instant case constituted the
felon' of urder @uali+ed b' alevosia throu%h treacherous eansdeliberatel' adopted fc. -abine was struc! fro behind while he was bein%
confronted at the sae tie b' appellants father. #he evidence shows that
appellant deliberatel' went behind the victi who he then hit with a piece
of wood which he deliberatel' %ot for that purpose.
People vs 'ural
G.R. No. L8&921 *une 8, 199"
FACTS:
couple of witnesses testi+ed that at about 12 oGcloc! in the
afternoon of Januar' 31, 19NN both of the were at supposed do %o
soewhere but were not able to arrive there because while on their wa' or
fro a distance of twelve arslen%th the' heard successive %un+res so the'
run and hid theselves in a concrete fence near a storeV fro the place the'were hidin% or fro a distance of ten arslen%th the' saw three en each of
the ared with .7A pistol, +rin% upon at the two apco soldiers on board
a apco obile car which was then on a full stop althou%h its en%ine was
still runnin%V two of the %unen positioned theselves beside each of the
side of the obile car while the third %unan who the' identi+ed as
accused >olando Dural.
2C
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
27/37
$oth Itucal and Dural denied authorship of the crie char%ed and
interposed the defense of alibi. #he trial court rejected the defense of alibi on
the %round that e'ewitnesses >ener >aos and Dennis antos,whose
testionies ;were lo%ical, strai%htforward and probable; and whose
;credibilit' was not sha!en in an' anner b' the ri%orous e(aination to
which the' have been e(posed,; positivel' identi+ed the accused. #he
ppellants +led their notice of appeal on 1 epteber 19NN.
ISSUE:
4158O Durals alibi has erit.
425 8O he should be %uilt' of direct assault.
HELD:
415 O. In the instant case, Dural was positivel' identi+ed b' the
principal witnesses for the prosecution. It is e@uall' settled that for alibi toprosper, it ust not onl' be shown that the accused was at soe other place
at the tie of the incident but that it was ph'sicall' ipossible for hi to
have been at the scene of the crie at the tie of its coission. #his was
not proven b' Dural.
425 B&. #here is no doubt in Our inds that appellant Dural and the
two other %unen !new that the victis, #enato
*an%li%ot, were ebers of the hilippine onstabular' detailed with the
O* as the' were then in unifor and ridin% an oEcial O* car. #he
victis, who were a%ents of persons in authorit', were in the perforance of
oEcial dut' as peace oEcers and law enforcers. or havin% assaulted and
!illed the said victis, in conspirac' with the other two %unen, appellant
Dural also coitted direct assault under rticle 17N of the >evised enal
ode. #he cries he coitted, therefore, are two cople( cries of
urder with direct assault upon an a%ent of a person in authorit'. ursuant
then to rticle 7N of the >evised enal ode, the a(iu of the penalt' for
the ore serious crie which is urder, should be iposed.
Te+son vs #our! o6 AppealsG.R. No. 11"218 Nove%ber 22, 2001
FACTS:
On or about pril 2N, 1990, in the it' of *anila, hilippines, the said
accused did then and there willfull', unlawfull', feloniousl' and !nowin%l'
have in his possession and under his custod' and control, with intent to use
2=
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
28/37
and pass, as in fact he did use and pass ten 4105 pieces of 100/ dollar
notes of the ederal >eserve ote, or a su of W1,000.00 4/ Dollar5 to edro
. -abita, a con+dential assistant of the entral $an! of the hilippines,
which bills were in the reseblance and siilitude of the dollar bills issued
b' the /nited tates Fovernent, the said accused !nowin%, as he did, that
the said / dollar bills were for%ed and falsi+ed. nd' #ecson appealed then
defended hiself and said that the said bu')bust operation was created to
frae hi.
ISSUE:
8O the o erred in its jud%eent %iven #ecsons defense.
HELD:
O. 8e +nd no co%ent reason to overturn the decision of respondent
ourt of ppeals which aEred the jud%ent of the trial court +ndin% thepetitioner %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the crie char%ed in the case
at bar. #he prosecution established, throu%h the testionies of edro -abita
and Johnn' *ar@ueta, that a bu'bust operation was conducted b' the
cobined a%ents of the entral $an! of the hilippines and the / ecret
ervice, and that
the petitioner was therein cau%ht in Ha%rante delicto in the possession of and
in the act of oerin% to sell counterfeit / dollar notes.
Durin% the bu'bust operation, prosecution witnesses -abita and
*ar@ueta were introduced b' the civilian inforer to the petitioner as
interested bu'ers of fa!e / dollar notes. 8hen the petitioner was in the act
of drawin% the ten 4105 pieces of fa!e / W100 dollar notes fro his wallet,
he was iediatel' placed under arrest b' -abita and his tea.
#le%en!e vs People
G.R. No. 19&"7 *une 15, 2011
FACTS:
On u%ust =, 200=, at around 330 p, an inforant in the person of
inate rancis dela ru approached JO1s Doin%o David, Jr. and *ichael
assilan. #he inforant narrated that he received a counterfeit A00.00 bill
fro appellant with orders to bu' a bottle of soft drin! fro the *anila it'
2N
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
29/37
Jail $a!er'. #he ba!er' eplo'ee, however, reco%nied the bill as a fa!e and
refused to accept the sae. onse@uentl', JO1s David and assilan, alon%
with the inforant, proceeded to appellantGs cell for a surprise inspection.
ursuant to their a%reeent, the inforant entered the cubicle +rst and
found appellant therein, l'in% in bed. #he inforant returned to appellant the
latterGs A00.00 bill. #he jail %uards then entered the cell and announced a
surprise inspection. JO1 assilan fris!ed appellant and recovered a blac!
wallet fro his bac! poc!et. Inside the wallet were twent'three pieces of
A00.00, all of which were suspected to be counterfeit. #he' con+scated the
sae. ppellant was conse@uentl' arrested and brou%ht out of his cell into
the oEce of the Intelli%ence and Investi%ation $ranch of the *anila it' jail
for interro%ation. ppellant sipl' raised the defense of fraeup.
On appeal before the , petitioner ar%ued that the ># erred in
+ndin% hi %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt for violatin% rticle 1CN of the
>. etitioner contended that one of the eleents of the crie which isintent to use the counterfeit bills was not established because the inforant
rancis dela ru did not ta!e the witness stand.
ISSUE:
8O there is a issin% eleent for leente to be convicted.
HELD:
B&. #he ourt +nds that the ># and the had overloo!ed certain
substantial facts of value to warrant a reversal of its factual assessents.
8hile petitionerGs denial is an intrinsicall' wea! defense which ust be
buttressed b' stron% evidence of nonculpabilit' to erit credence, said
defense ust be %iven credence in this case as the prosecution failed to
eet its burden of proof.
ossession of false treasur' or ban! notes alone, without an'thin%
ore, is not a criinal oense. or it to constitute an oense under rticle
1CN of the >, the possession ust be with intent to use said false treasur'
or ban! notes.
In this case, the prosecution failed to show that petitioner used the
counterfeit one' or that he intended to use the counterfeit bills. rancisdela ru, to who petitioner supposedl' %ave the fa!e A00.00 bill to bu'
soft drin!s, was not presented in court. ccordin% to the jail oEcers, the'
were onl' infored b' rancis dela ru that petitioner as!ed the latter to
bu' soft drin!s at the *anila it' jail ba!er' usin% a fa!e A00.00 bill. In
short, the jail oEcers did not have personal !nowled%e that petitioner as!ed
29
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
30/37
rancis dela ru use the A00.00 bill. #heir account, however, is hearsa'
and not based on the personal !nowled%e.
ernan(e/ vs. ernan(e/
G.R. No. 17115 February 1&, 2011
FACTS:
oetie in 199A, *>D entered throu%h its president,respondent
*ario ?illaor into various a%reeents with corespondents "IF and -and
$an! of the hilippines , in connection with the construction of the Isabel
"oes housin% project in $atan%as and of the *onuento laa coercial
and recreation cople( in aloocan it'.
On oveber 13, 199=, *>D entered into a *eorandu of
%reeent 4*O5 whereb' it was %iven the option to bu' pieces of landowned b' petitioners. On *arch 23, 199N, it entered with -$ and Deetrio X
the latter purportedl' actin% under authorit' of the sae special power of
attorne' as in the *O X into a Deed of ssi%nent and onve'ance 4D5.
In its Januar' 21, 1999 letter to Deetrio, however, *>D, throu%h
?illaor, stated that the ##s could no lon%er be delivered bac! to
petitioners as the covered properties had alread' been conve'ed and
assi%ned to the sset ool pursuant to the *arch 23, 199N D. In the
correspondence that ensued, petitioners disowned Deetrios si%nature in
the D and labeled it a ere for%er'. $oldl', the' asserted that the
fraudulent e(ecution of the D was ade possible throu%h the connivance
of all the respondents.
ISSUE:
8O the contention that Deetrios si%nature has been for%ed holds
erit.
HELD:
O. irl' settled is the jurisprudential rule that for%er' cannot be
presued fro a ere alle%ation but rather ust be proved b' clear,positive and convincin% evidence b' the part' alle%in% the sae. #he
burden to prove the alle%ation of for%er' in this case has not been
conclusivel' dischar%ed b' petitioners because +rst, nothin% in the records
supports the alle%ation e(cept onl' perhaps Deetrios e(plicit selfservin%
disavowal of his si%nature in
open court.
30
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
31/37
Ta%ani vs $alva(or
G.R. No. 171&97 April &, 2011
FACTS:
On Jul' 29, 19NC, a oplaint for @uietin% of title was +led b'
4respondents5 spouses >oan alvador and iloena $ravo a%ainst
4petitioners5#aani et al. over a 731 s@. . parcel of land located at olano,
ueva ?ica'a.
>espondents and the pouses #aani are co)owners of an undivided
parcel of land with an area of ==C s@. . under ## o. NAN2. /nder said
title, respondents own 37A s@. . of the propert' whereas the pouses#aani own the reainin% 731 s@. . 4disputed propert'5.
On u%ust 1=, 19A9, the pouses #aani alle%edl' sold the disputed
propert' to *ila%ros ru and ru thereafter sold the disputed propert' to
respondents.
t the >#, petitioners +led an nswer wherein the' ar%ued that the'
were the lawful owners and were in actual possession of the disputed
propert' havin% inherited the sae fro their parents. etitioners contend
that the si%nature of their parents were for%ed and thus assail the validit' of
the u%ust 1=, 19A9 Deed of bsolute sale between ru and their parents.
Durin% trial, at the instance of petitioners, the si%nature of Deetrio #aani
appearin% on the deed of sale and his standard si%natures were subitted
for e(aination and coparison to the uestioned Docuents Division of
the $I. $ienvenido . lbacea 4lbacea5, a docuent e(ainer of the $I,
+led a $I report +ndin% that Kthe @uestioned and standard si%natures
KD&*>IO #*IL are 8>I##& b' one and the sae person.L Dissatis+ed
with the $I report, petitioners as!ed for another e(aination of the
si%natures, this tie subittin% the sae to the rie -aborator'
ervice. *el' orra 4orra5, a docuent e(ainer of the , +led a
report +ndin% that Kthe @uestioned si%nature of D&*>IO #*I ar!edY appearin% on the Deed of bsolute ale dated u%ust 1=, 19A9 and the
standard si%natures of Deetrio #aani ar!ed Y)1Z to Y)11Z and Y)19Z
8&>& 8>I##& $B #8O DI&> &>O.L
#he ># rendered a Decision rulin% in petitioners favor onfronted
with conHictin% testionies fro handwritin% e(perts, the ># %ave ore
31
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
32/37
wei%ht to the report and testion' of orra because of her educational,
professional and wor! bac!%round.
Dissatis+ed with the decision of the >#, respondents +led a otice of
ppeal. #he issued a Decision rulin% in respondents favor. #he ruled
that the ># erred when it relied solel' on orras educational, professional
and wor! bac!%round when it decided to %ive ore credence to the
report. #he , after e(ainin% the @uestioned and standard si%natures of
#aani opined that Kthe siilarities of stro!es are ore proinent and
pronounced than the dissiilarities and the apparent dissiilarities are
overshadowed b' the stri!in% siilarities in the @uestioned and the standard
si%natures.L
ISSUE:
8O the is correct in overturnin% the factual +ndin%s of the >#.
HELD:
O. 8ell settled is the rule that in the e(ercise of Our power of review
the +ndin%s of facts of the are conclusive and bindin% on this ourt.
"owever, there are reco%nied e(ceptions, aon% which is when the factual
+ndin%s of the trial court and the appellate court are conHictin%. #he
disa%reeent between the ># and the in their respective factual
conclusions with re%ard to the alle%ed for%er' of the si%nature of #aani
authories this ourt to re)e(aine the testionies and evidence subitted
b' the parties. It is noteworth' to point out that two e(pert witnesses
testi+ed, each with a dierent opinion on the issue at hand.
$efore an'thin% else, this ourt observes that the present spectacle of
havin% two e(pert witnesses with conHictin% +ndin%s could have been
avoided had respondents tiel' objected to petitioners otion to have a
second re)e(aination of #aanis si%nature. fter all, respondents are
correct in their clai that the +rst e(aination was at the instance of
petitioners. >espondents should have, therefore, objected to the second re)
e(aination, as the ># would have li!el' sustained the otion. "owever, a
perusal of the records would show that counsel for respondents never
objected to petitioners otion for a re)e(aination of #aanis si%nature.#he anner b' which the ># disposed of the issue leaves uch to be
desired. 8hile credentials of an e(pert witness pla' a factor in the
evidentiar' and persuasive wei%ht of his testion', the sae cannot be the
sole factor in deterinin% its value. #he was thus correct when it declared
that the jud%e ust conduct his own independent e(aination of the
si%natures under scrutin'.
32
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
33/37
"owever, after painsta!in%l' reviewin% the testionies of the e(pert
witnesses and the docuentar' evidence at hand, this ourt is ore inclined
to believe that the si%nature of #aani appearin% on the u%ust 1=, 19A9
Deed of ale was for%ed as can be %leaned fro the testion' of orra, the
docuent e(ainer fro the rie -aborator'.
#he value of the opinion of a handwritin% e(pert depends not upon his ere
stateents of whether a writin% is %enuine or false, but upon the assistance
he a' aord in pointin% out distin%uishin% ar!s, characteristics and
discrepancies in and between %enuine and false speciens of writin% which
would ordinaril' escape notice or detection fro an unpracticed observer.
8hile adittedl' this ourt was unable to full' coprehend all the
dierences noted b' orra %iven that her testion' was fairl' technical in
nature and description, it would, however, not be aiss to state that this
ourt has observed a %ood nuber of the dierences noted b' her.
-astl', while it was iproper for the ># to rel' solel' on orrascredentials, her superior credentials, copared to that of lbacea, %ive
added value to her testion'.
8"&>&O>&, preises considered, the petition is F>#&D.
Guilleran vs People
G.R. No. 185&9" February 2, 2011
FACTS:
oetie in 19N=, petitioner Fuiller%an, a -ieutenant olonel in the ,
directed *aster er%eant &dna eclon, hief ler! of the optrollers
OEce, to cause the preparation of the pa'rolls of their civilian intelli%ence
a%ents with supportin% tie record and boo!. #he a%ents naes were
copied and, based on their appointent papers, certi+ed as correct b'
Fuiller%an
and then approved b' $ri%adier Feneral Doin%o #. >io. &ach tie the
processin% unit returned the pa'rolls for lac! of si%natures of the pa'ees,Fuiller%an would direct #echnical er%eant eesio ". $utcon 4$utcon5, the
$ud%et and iscal onoissioned OEcer, to aE( his initial on the
;>ear!s
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
34/37
ISSUES:
8O petitioner is %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the crie of
falsi+cation of public
docuents.
HELD:
B&. #he eleents of falsi+cation of docuents under para%raph 1,
rticle 1=2 are 15 the oender is a private individual or a public oEcer or
eplo'ee who did not ta!e advanta%e of his oEcial positionV 25 the oender
coitted an' of the acts of falsi+cation enuerated in rticle 1=1V and 35
the falsi+cation was coitted in a public or oEcial or coercial
docuent.
ll of the fore%oin% eleents of rticle 1=2 are present in this case.
irst. Fuiller%an as a public oEcer when he coitted the oense char%ed.
"e was the coptroller to the e%ion C. 8hile theInforation said that he too! advanta%e of his position in coittin% the
crie, the andi%anba'an found that his wor! as coptroller did not include
the preparation of the appointents and pa'rolls of Is. or did he have
oEcial custod' of the pertinent docuents. "is oEcial function was liited
to !eepin% the records of the resources that the coand received fro
ap rae.
Galeos vs People
G.R. Nos. 17473037 Feb!a" #$ %011
FACTS:
On% was elected *a'or of the a%a in 19NN and served as such until
199N.
On June 1, 1997, On% e(tended peranent appointents to Faleos and
ederico #. >ivera for the positions of onstruction and *aintenance *an and
luber I, respectivel', in the OEce of the *unicipal &n%ineer.
rior to their peranent appointent, Faleos and >ivera were casual
eplo'ees of the unicipal %overnent. In their individual tateent of
ssets, -iabilities and et 8orth 4-5 for the 'ear 1993, Faleos answered;o; to the @uestion ;#o the best of 'our !nowled%e, are 'ou related within
the fourth de%ree of consan%uinit' or of aEnit' to an'one wor!in% in the
%overnent:; while >ivera indicated ;n
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
35/37
?isa'as a%ainst On% ,Faleos and >ivera for dishonest', nepotis, violation of
the ode of onduct and &thical tandards for ublic OEcials and &plo'ees
and ntiFraft and orrupt ractices ct, and for the crie of falsi+cation of
public docuents on the basis that said petitioners are related.
ISSUE:
8O the petitioners are %uilt' of falsi+cation of ublic Docuent.
HELD:
B&. alsi+cation of ublic Docuent b' a!in% untruthful stateents
concernin% relatives in the %overnent service. ll the eleents of
falsi+cation of public docuents b' a!in% untruthful stateents have been
established b' the
prosecution. etitioners ar%ue that the stateents ;the' are not related
within the fourth civil de%ree of consan%uinit' or aEnit'; and ;that ection=9 of the -ocal Fovernent ode has been coplied with in the issuance of
the appointents; are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as
both re@uire the application of the rules on relationship under the law of
succession. ourt disa%rees.
conclusion of law is a deterination b' a jud%e or rulin% authorit'
re%ardin% the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a +ndin%
of fact, which interprets the factual circustances to which the law is to be
applied. narration of facts is erel' an account or description of the
particulars of an event or occurrence.
Gon/alu(o vs People
G.R. No. 150910 February , 200
FACTS:
On Januar' 20, 1993, >osearie Felo%o and Fre%% anlas e(ecuted a
Deed of ale,
witnessed b' petitioner. In that deed, >osearie Felo%o si%ned as
>osearie F. ?illaHor and represented herself to be the lawful owner of the2store' house. $' virtue of the sae deed, vendee Fre%% anlas ac@uired all
of >osearies ri%hts and interest on the subject house.-ater, upon
coplaint of /l'ssess widow nita *anlan%it, an Inforation dated *a' 31,
1997 was +led with the >e%ional #rial ourt of $acolod it' char%in%
>osearie Felo%o, alias >osearie ?illaHor, the spouses Fre%% anlas and
3A
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
36/37
*elba anlas and petitioner with the crie of &stafa thru alsi+cation of
ublic Docuent.
tt'. >aon $. lapi, to the eect that she is the lawful owner of the
said house and aE(in% or causin% to be aE(ed thereon her nae and
si%nature, >osearie F. ?illaHor, purportedl' as wife of the deceased /l'sses
?illaHor, thus a!in% untruthful stateent in the narration of facts as
accused well !now that such was not the case for the deceased /l'sses
?illaHor has a le%al wife in the person of the herein oended part', b' reason
of which accused was able to eect the sale and eventual occupanc' of the
said house to the herein accused ps. Fre%% anlas and *elba anlas who
despite of their !nowled%e that such house was not owned b' >osearie
Felo%o bou%ht the sae fro her in the aount of N0,000.00 and, herein
accused $ienvenido Fonaludo despite of his !nowled%e that such house
was not owned b' >osearie Felo%o, participated in the coission of the
herein oense b' causin% his nae and si%nature to be aE(ed in the saidDeed of ale as witness to the fraudulent sale entered into b' the parties.
ISSUE:
8O the petitioner is %uilt' of &stafa #hru alsi+cation of ublic
Docuent.
HELD:
O. #he petitioner a' onl' be found %uilt' of the crie of alsi+cation
of ublic Docuent. $ased on the provisions of rt. 1=1, the sae penalt'
shall be iposed upon an' ecclesiastical inister who shall coit an' of
the oenses
enuerated in the para%raphs of this article, with respect to an' record or
docuent of such character that its falsi+cation a' aect the civil status of
persons.
s correctl' found b' the trial court, petitioner conspired with
>osearie to falsif', that is, b' a!in% untruthful stateent in the narration
of facts in the deed of sale, b' declarin% >osearie to be the owner of the
house subject of such sale and si%nin% as ;>osearie ?illaHor; instead of her
real nae, >osearie Felo%o, in order to sell the sae to the anlasspouses. It is established b' evidence be'ond reasonable doubt that
>osearie coitted the crie of falsi+cation of public docuent. -i!ewise,
proof be'ond reasonable doubt has been dul' adduced to establish
conspirac' between >osearie and petitioner who is the brotherinlaw of
*elba anlas, one of the bu'ers of the house in this case.
3C
-
7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)
37/37
Gar+ia vs #our! o6 Appeals
G.R. No. 12821" 'e+e%ber 1", 2005
FACTS:
oetie in earl' October 1990, a verbal a%reeent was entered into
between lberto uijada, Jr. 4lberto5 and vella for the sale of the forers
house and lot located at 7C . Foe t., *andalu'on%, *etro *anila for the
purchase price of 1.2 illion pesos.
On October 23, 1990, an ;earnest one'; in the aount of ten
thousand pesos 410,0005 was %iven to lberto b' vella. On October 31,
1990, the aount of one hundred and +ft')+ve thousand pesos 41AA,0005
was delivered b' vella representin% this tie the downpa'ent for the
house and lot. subse@uent pa'ent of +ve thousand pesos 4A,0005 was
ade on Januar' 21, 1991. 8ith respect to this last transaction, vellaprepared in her own handwritin% two identical receipts.
#he relationship between bu'er and seller turned sour. vella +led a
coplaint for estafa a%ainst lberto for his failure to e(ecute a deed of sale
and deliver the subject propert'. on% the evidence she subitted was the
cop' of the receipt she prepared on Januar' 21, 1991. "owever, the receipt
appeared to have been. "avin% noticed the alterations, lberto instituted a
criinal action a%ainst vella.
ISSUE:
8O vella should be %uilt' of falsi+cation of a public docuent.
HELD:
B&. Fiven the adissions of vella that she altered the receipt, and
without convincin% evidence that the alteration was with the consent of
private coplainant, the ourt holds that all four 475 eleents have been
proven be'ond reasonable doubt. s to the re@uireent of daa%e, this is
readil' apparent as it was ade to appear that lberto had received A0,000
when in fact he did not. "ence, vellas conviction.