CRIMINAL LAW 2 Everyday Digest Edited 2 PDF

CRIMINAL LAW II
DAILY CASE DIGEST

Second Semester School Year 2017 -2018
Jennica Gyrl Delfin

CRIMINAL LAW II DAILY CASE DIGEST
TITLE ONE – CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL their literal and technical signification would
SECURITY AND LAW OF NATIONS utterly defeat the unmistakable general object of
the amnesty. Upon such a construction treason,
November 24, 2017 - Article 114 - TREASON the highest of all political crimes, a crime which
BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A. may be punished by death under section 1 of Act
No. 292, would be included in the amnesty, while
US v. ABAD insurrection, which is a crime of precisely the
G.R. No. L-976. October 22, 1902 same nature and differs from it solely in being
LADD, J.: inferior in degree and punishable by fine and
imprisonment only, would be excluded. A
ISSUE: construction leading to such manifest
Whether or not the charge of “treason and inconsistencies could be accepted only when the
sedition” was proper. language admitted of no other. We think the
construction suggested as the true one though
FACTS: somewhat less restricted that the precise legal
The offense with which the defendant was signification of the terms "treason" and "sedition"
charged and of which he has been convicted is might warrant, may be adopted without doing
that defined in section 14 of Act No. 292 of the violence to the language of the proclamation, and
United States Philippine Commission, which is there is no room for doubt in our minds that by
as follows: "Any person who shall have taken any adopting that construction we carry out the real
oath before any military officer under the Civil intention of the President.
Government of the Philippine Islands, whether The Court ruled that the offense of violation of
such official so administering the oath was oaths of allegiance, being one of the political
specially authorized by law so to do or not, in offenses defined in Act No. 292, is included in the
which oath the affiant is substance engaged to general words "treason and sedition," as used in
recognize or accept the supreme authority of the the proclamation. The defendant is entitled to
United States of America in these Islands or to the benefits of the proclamation.
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto or to
obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees LAUREL v. MISA
promulgated by its duly constituted authorities G.R. No. L-409. January 30, 1947
and who shall, after the passage of this act,
violate the terms and provisions of such oath or ISSUE:
any of such terms or provisions, shall be Whether or not respondent should be prosecuted
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand for the crime of Treason penalized under Art. 114
dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding ten of the RPC.
years, or both."
FACTS:
In the present case the act by which the Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas
defendant is found by the court below to have corpus which was based on a theory that a
violated the oath was that of denying to an officer Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving
of the United States Army the existence of certain the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese
rifles, which had been concealed by his orders at occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
the time of his surrender in April, 1901, and of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of
the existence and whereabouts of which he was the Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the
cognizant at the time of the denial. If this act was sovereignty of the legitimate government in the
a violation of the oath, which upon the evidence Philippines and, consequently, the correlative
in the case may be doubtful, it was probably also allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then
an act of treason, as being an act of adhering to suspended.
the enemies of the United States, giving them aid
and comfort, and if the element of breach of HELD:
promise is to be regarded as merely an incidental YES. The idea of suspended sovereignty or
circumstance forming no part of the essence of suspended allegiance is incompatible with our
the crime of violation of oaths of allegiance, the Constitution. There is similarity in
offense in this particular case might, perhaps, be characteristics between allegiance to the
held to be covered by the amnesty as being, in sovereign and a wife's loyalty to her husband.
substance, treason though prosecuted under Because some external and insurmountable
another name. force precludes the husband from exercising his
marital powers, functions, and duties and the
HELD: wife is thereby deprived of the benefits of his
YES. Treason, in its more general sense, is the protection, may the wife invoke the theory of
"violation by a subject of his allegiance to his suspended loyalty and may she freely share her
sovereign or liege lord, or to the supreme bed with the assailant of their home? After giving
authority of the state." Sedition, in its more aid and comfort to the assailant and allowing
general sense, is "the raising of commotion or him to enjoy her charms during the former's stay
disturbances in the state." Technical terms of the in the invaded home, may the wife allege as
law when used in a statute are ordinarily to be defense for her adultery the principle of
given their technical signification. But in suspended conjugal fidelity?
construing an executive act of the character of Considering that the crime of treason against the
this proclamation, as in construing a remedial government of the Philippines defined and
statute, a court is justified in applying a more penalized in article 114 of the Penal Code,
liberal rule of construction in order to effectuate, though originally intended to be a crime against
if possible, the beneficient purpose intended. said government as then organized by authority
Certainly a limitation of the words in question to of the sovereign people of the United States,
1 | 1ST YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW
Atty. Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay
exercised through their authorized officers Mini and Takibayas might make a
representative, the Congress and the President of selection which girls would suit best their fancy;
the United States, was made, upon the that the real purpose behind those forcible
establishment of the Commonwealth invitations was to lure them to the residence of
Government in 1935, a crime against the said Japanese Officer Mini for immoral purposes.
Government of the Philippines established by
authority of the people of the Philippines, in HELD:
whom the sovereignty resides according to NO, the charge was not proper. The SC ruled that
section 1, Article II, of the Constitution of the the deeds committed by the accused do not
Philippines, by virtue of the provision of section constitute treason. If furnishing women for
2, Article XVI thereof, which provides that "All immoral purposes to the enemies was treason
laws of the Philippine Islands . . . shall remain because women's company kept up their morale,
operative, unless inconsistent with this so fraternizing with them, entertaining them at
Constitution. parties, selling them food and drinks, and
kindred acts, would be treason. For any act of
PEOPLE v. PEREZ hospitality without doubt produces the same
G.R. No. L-856. April 18, 1949 general result, yet by common agreement those
TUASON, J.: and similar manifestation of sympathy and
attachment are not the kind of disloyalty that are
ISSUE: punished as treason.
Whether or not the charge of Treason was proper.
In a broad sense, the law of treason does not
FACTS: prescribe all kinds of social, business and
Susano Perez alias Kid Perez alias Kid Perez was political intercourse between the belligerent
convicted of treason and sentenced to death by occupants of the invaded country and its
electrocution. Seven counts were alleged in the inhabitants. In the nature of things, the
information but the prosecution offered evidence occupation of a country by the enemy is bound
only on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, all of which, to create relations of all sorts between the
according to the court, were substantiated. invaders and the natives. What aid and comfort
constitute treason must depend upon their
Count No. 1 alleges that the accused, together nature degree and purpose. To draw a line
with the other Filipinos forced numerous girls between treasonable and untreasonable
and women against their will for the purpose of assistance is not always easy.
satisfying the immoral purpose and sexual desire
of Colonel Mini. As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of
the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be
Count No. 2 of the information substantially to render assistance to them as enemies and not
alleges: That accused in company with some merely as individuals and in addition, be directly
Japanese and Filipinos forcefully took some in furtherance of the enemies' hostile designs. To
women to attend a banquet and a dance make a simple distinction: To lend or give money
organized in honor of Colonel Mini by the Puppet to an enemy as a friend or out of charity to the
Governor and thereafter be used as sex slaves by beneficiary so that he may buy personal
the Colonel. necessities is to assist him as individual and is
Count No. 4 substantially alleges that on July not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to
16, 1942, that two girls were taken from their lend or give him money to enable him to buy
homes by the accused and his companion named arms or ammunition to use in waging war
Vicente Bullecer, and delivered to the Japanese against the giver's country enhance his strength
Officer, Dr. Takibayas to satisfy his carnal and by same count injures the interest of the
appetite, but these two, the accused Susano government of the giver. That is treason.
Perez and his companion Vicente Bullecer, raped Applying these principles to the case at bar,
the girls before delivering them to the Japanese appellant's first assignment of error is correct.
Officer. His "commandeering" of women to satisfy the
lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the
Count No. 5 alleges: That on or about June 4, entertainment held in their honor was not
1942, the said accused deceived two women on treason even though the women and the
the pretext that they were to be taken as entertainment helped to make life more pleasant
witnesses before a Japanese Colonel in the for the enemies and boost their spirit; he was not
investigation of a case against a certain Chinese, guilty any more than the women themselves
but upon arriving at the Colonel’s office, through would have been if they voluntarily and willingly
force and intimidation, the two women were had surrendered their bodies or organized the
raped by the accused and some Japanese entertainment. Sexual and social relations with
Officials. the Japanese did not directly and materially tend
to improve their war efforts or to weaken the
Count No. 6, alleges: That the accused, together power of the United State. The acts herein
with his Filipino companion two nurses of the charged were not, by fair implication, calculated
provincial hospital, for not having attended a to strengthen the Japanese Empire or its army
dance and reception organized by the Puppet or to cripple the defense and resistance of the
Governor in honor of Colonel Mini and other other side. Whatever favorable effect the
Japanese high ranking officers; that upon being defendant's collaboration with the Japanese
brought the Puppet Governor, they were severely might have in their prosecution of the war was
reprimanded by the latter; that on July 8, 1942, trivial, imperceptible, and unintentional. Intent
against said nurses were forced to attend of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of
another banquet and dance in order that the Jap treason, which, in the absence of admission, may
be gathered from the nature and circumstances case is that of conspiracy, and the fact that the
of each particular case. accused accepted the appointment is taken into
consideration merely as evidence of his criminal
November 25, 2017 – Article 115 – relations with the conspirators.
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
TREASON It is quite conceivable that a group of
UNAS, Nor-Aiza R. conspirators might appoint a person in no wise
connected with them to some high office in the
US VS. BAUTISTA, ET AL. conspiracy, in the hope that such person would
6 PHIL. 581 NOVEMBER 3, 1906 afterwards accept the commission and thus
CARSON, J.: unite himself with them, and it is even possible
that such an appointment might be forwarded in
ISSUE: the mail or otherwise, and thus come into the
Whether or not there was conspiracy and possession of the person thus nominated, and
proposal to commit treason. that such appointment might be found in his
possession, and, notwithstanding all this, the
FACTS: person in whose possession the appointment
During the latter part of 1903, a junta was was found might be entirely innocent of all
organized and a conspiracy entered into by a intention to join the conspiracy, never having
number of Filipinos, resident in Hongkong, for authorized the conspirators to use his name in
the purpose of overthrowing the Government of this manner nor to send such a commission to
the United States in the Philippine Islands by him. Indeed, cases are not unknown in the
force of arms and establishing in its stead a annals of criminal prosecutions wherein it has
government to be known as the Republica been proven that such appointments have been
Universal Democratica Filipina. Prim Ruiz was concealed in the baggage or among the papers of
recognized as the titular head of this conspiracy the accused persons, so that when later
and one Artemio Ricarte as chief of the military discovered by the officers of the law they might
forces to the organized in the Philippines in the be used as evidence against the accused. But
furtherance of the plans of the conspirators. The where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have
appellant Francisco Bautistam was an intimate existed as in this case, and it is proven that the
friend of the said Ricarte; that Ricarte wrote and accused voluntarily accepted an appointment as
notified Bautista of his coming to Manila and an officer in that conspiracy, we think that this
that, to aid him in his journey, Bautista fact may properly be taken into consideration as
forwarded to him secretly 200 pesos; that after evidence of his relations with the conspirators.
the arrival of Ricarte, Bautista was present,
taking part in the meetings whereat the plans of JOSE JINGGOY E. ESTRADA VS.
the conspirators were discussed and perfected, SANDIGANBAYAN
and that at one of these meetings Bautista, in G.R. NO. 148965 FEBRUARY 26, 2002
answer to a question of Ricarte, assured him that PUNO, J.:
the necessary preparations had been made and
that he "held the people in readiness." The ISSUE:
appellant Tomas Puzon united with the Whether or not the charge against petitioner for
conspirators through the agency of one Jose R. alleged offenses, and with alleged conspirators,
Muñoz, who was proven to have been a prime is proper.
leader of the movement, in the intimate
confidence of Ricarte, and by him authorized to FACTS:
distribute bonds and nominate and appoint In November 2000, as an offshoot of the
certain officials, including a brigadier-general of impeachment proceedings against Joseph
the signal corps of the proposed revolutionary Ejercito Estrada, then President of the Republic
forces; that at the time when the conspiracy was of the Philippines, five criminal complaints
being brought to a head in the city of Manila, against the former President and members of his
Puzon held several conferences with the said family, his associates, friends and conspirators
Muñoz whereat plans were made for the coming were filed with the respondent Office of the
insurrection; that at one of these conferences Ombudsman. The respondent Ombudsman
Muñoz offered Puzon a commission as brigadier- issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause
general of the signal corps and undertook to do warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of
his part in organizing the troops; and that at a several criminal Informations against the former
later conference he assured the said Muñoz that President and the other respondents therein.
he had things in readiness, meaning thereby that One of the Informations was for the crime of
he had duly organized in accordance with the plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among
terms of his commission. the respondents was herein petitioner Jose
Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro
HELD: Manila.
Yes. It is contended that the acceptance or
possession of an appointment as an officer of the HELD:
military forces of the conspiracy should not be Yes, but only to those acts which were allegedly
considered as evidence against him. But the case done in conspiracy with the former President
at bar is to be distinguished from these and like Joseph Estrada.
cases by the fact that the record clearly disclose
that the accused actually and voluntarily The Amended Information, in its first two
accepted the appointment in question and in paragraphs, charges petitioner and his other co-
doing so assumed all the obligations implied by accused with the crime of plunder. The first
such acceptance, and that the charge in this paragraph names all the accused, while the
second paragraph describes in general how In the crime of plunder, different parties may be
plunder was committed and lays down most of united by a common purpose. In the case at bar,
the elements of the crime itself. Sub-paragraphs the different accused and their different criminal
(a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts that acts have a commonality to help the former
constitute the crime and name in particular the President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
co-conspirators of former President Estrada in gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the
each predicate act. The predicate acts alleged in Amended Information alleged the different
the said four sub-paragraphs correspond to the participation of each accused in the conspiracy.
items enumerated in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. The gravamen of the conspiracy charge,
7080. Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the predicate therefore, is not that each accused agreed to
act of receiving, on several instances, money receive protection money from illegal gambling,
from illegal gambling, in consideration of that each misappropriated a portion of the
toleration or protection of illegal gambling, and tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered
expressly names petitioner as one of those who the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle
conspired with former President Estrada in Corporation and receive commissions from such
committing the offense. This predicate act sale, nor that each unjustly enriched himself
corresponds with the offense described in item 2 from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it
of the enumeration in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. is that each of them, by their individual acts,
7080. Sub-paragraph (b) alleged the predicate agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
act of diverting, receiving or misappropriating a amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-
portion of the tobacco excise tax share allocated gotten wealth of and/or for former President
for the province of Ilocos Sur, which act is the Estrada.
offense described in item 1 in the enumeration in
Section 1 (d) of the law. This sub-paragraph does
not mention petitioner but instead names other November 26, 2017 – Article 116 – MISPRISION
conspirators of the former President. Sub- OF TREASON
paragraph (c) alleged two predicate acts - that of FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
ordering the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) and the Social Security System US VS CABALLEROS ET AL
(SSS) to purchase shares of stock of Belle 4 Phil 350 (1905)
Corporation, and collecting or receiving
commissions from such purchase from the Belle ISSUE:
Corporation which became part of the deposit in Whether or not there was Misprision of Treason.
the Jose Velarde account at the Equitable-PCI
Bank. These two predicate acts fall under items FACTS:
2 and 3 in the enumeration of R.A. No. 7080, and Two accused were sentenced to the penalty of
was allegedly committed by the former President seven years of presidio mayor as accessories to
in connivance with John Does and Jane Does. the crime of assassination or murder of four
Finally, sub-paragraph (d) alleged the predicate American school- teachers. Without having
act that the former President unjustly enriched taken part in the said crime as principals or as
himself from commissions, gifts, kickbacks, in accomplices but they took part in the burial of
connivance with John Does and Jane Does, and the corpses of the victims to conceal the crime.
deposited the same under his account name Jose
Velarde at the Equitable-PCI Bank. This act HELD:
corresponds to the offense under item 6 in the No, the Supreme Court did not justify the
enumeration of Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. evidence.
From the foregoing allegations of the Amended As regards to accused Baculi, although he
Information, it is clear that all the accused confessed to have assisted in the burial of the
named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), thru their corpses, it appears that he only did it because he
individual acts, conspired with former President was compelled by the murderers who called him,
Estrada to enable the latter to amass, striking him with the butts of their guns and
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the forced him to bury the corpses. It was
aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17. As the corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime
Amended Information is worded, however, it is who was present when it was committed. The
not certain whether the accused in sub- witness also stated that Baculi was not a
paragraphs (a) to (d) conspired with each other member of the group who murdered the
to enable the former President to amass the Americans.
subject ill-gotten wealth. In light of this lack of
clarity, petitioner cannot be penalized for the As regards to the other accused Apolonio
conspiracy entered into by the other accused Caballeros, there was no proof that he took any
with the former President as related in the part in the execution of the crime and did not
second paragraph of the Amended Information in take any part in the burial of the aforesaid
relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). We hold corpses as to the testimonies of the witness and
that petitioner can be held accountable only for the other accused.
the predicate acts he allegedly committed as
related in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended The fact that the two accused did not report to
Information which were allegedly done in the authorities about the perpetration of the
conspiracy with the former President whose crime, which seemed to be one of the motives for
design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting the conviction and which the lower court took
to more than P4 billion. into consideration in the judgment, is not
punishable by the Penal Code and therefore

cannot render the two accused criminally liable The Spanish Penal Code dealing with piracy is
under the law. still in force in the Philippines.
November 27, 2017– Article 117 – ESPIONAGE PEOPLE VS. CATANTAN

[NO CASE FOUND] G.R. No. 11807, September 5, 1997
November 27, 2017– Article 118 – INCITING TO ISSUE:

WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS Whether accused-appellant committed grave
[NO CASE FOUND] coercion or piracy under PD. No. 532.
November 27, 2017 – Article 119 – VIOLATION FACTS:

OF NEUTRALITY The Pilapil brothers, Eugene and Juan Jr., were
[NO CASE FOUND] fishing in the sea, 3 kilometers away from the
shores of Tabogon, Cebu. In the course of their
November 27, 2017 – Article 120 – fishing, accused Catantan and Ursal boarded the
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE pumpboat of the Pilapil's at gun point.
COUNTRY
[NO CASE FOUND] The pumpboat of the Pilapil brothers broke
down, as a result, they boarded another
November 27, 2017 – Article 121 – FLIGHT TO pumpboat operated by Juanito. Catantan
ENEMY’S COUNTRY ordered the latter to take them to Mungaz, Cebu.
[NO CASE FOUND] However, Juanito's pumpboat ran out of gas and
the accused were apprehended by the police
soon after the Pilapils reported the incident to the
November 27, 2017 – Article 122 – PIRACY local authorities.
SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
HELD:
PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO & SARAW Yes. The RTC convicted the accused of the crime
G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922 of piracy under PD 532, which was affirmed by
the Supreme Court. Hence, were sentenced to
ISSUE: suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
WON Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the
crime of piracy alleged in this case. However, accused-appellant argues that in order
that piracy may be committed it is essential that
FACTS: there be an attack on or seizure of a vessel. He
Two boats left Matuta, the boat 1 is of a dutch claims that he and his companion did not attack
possession and had one dutch subject, while or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by
boat 2 had 11 men, women and children, using force or intimidation but merely boarded
likewise from Holland. the boat, and it was only when they were already
on board that they used force to compel the
Boat 2 arrived in Buang and Bukid in the Dutch Pilapils to take them to some other place.
East Indies, then suddenly they were Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no
surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 moros intention of permanently taking possession or
who first asked for food. They eventually entered depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter
the boat and took all the cargo, attacked some of of fact, when they saw another pumpboat they
the men, and brutally violated two women. ordered the brothers right away to approach that
boat so they could leave the Pilapils behind in
They also took the 2 women and left the ship to their boat. Accordingly, appellant claims, he
sink-- on board those who were left as they simply committed grave coercion and not piracy.
placed holes in it. Two moro marauders in Tawi
Tawi were identified as Lol-lo and Saraw, and The Court does not agree on the contention of the
arrested for piracy. appellant that the acts committed only
constitute grave coercion defined in Article 286
The accused-appellants questioned the of the RPC, and not piracy under PD No. 532.
jurisdiction of the Philippine courts to the case,
but the court ruled that piracy is a crime against Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as
all mankind, so every court also has jurisdiction well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of
to try these cases. the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely
within the purview of piracy. While it may be true
HELD: that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go
Yes. All the elements of the crime of piracy were elsewhere other than their place of destination,
present. Piracy is robbery in forcible depredation such compulsion was obviously part of the act of
on the high seas, without lawful authority and seizing their boat.
done animo furandi (intention to steal), and in
the spirit and intention of universal hostility. PP v. TULIN
Philippine courts has jurisdiction to this case G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
because pirates are in law hostes humani generis
(enemy of mankind), a crime against all ISSUE:
mankind. Therefore, it can be punished in any WON the Philippine courts is without jurisdiction
competent tribunal of any country where the to try the crime of piracy committed outside
offender may be found. Philippine waters and territory.
FACTS:
5 | 1 YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW
ST

A cargo vessel owned by PNOC named MT As regards the contention that the trial court did
Tabangao was sailing near the coast of Mindoro not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
loaded with barrels of Kerosene, gasoline and accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was
diesel oil. Suddenly, the cargo vessel was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to
boarded by seven (7) fully armed pirates named state that unquestionably, the attack on and
Tulin et. al., and took control over the vessel and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T
painted the logo and ship with black, and then Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were
painted with the name Galilee. committed in Philippine waters, although the
captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to
In Singapore, where the ship crew was forced to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded,
sail from Mindoro, a vessel called Navi Pride, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was
anchored beside MT Tabangao. One of the done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct
accused Hiong, supervised the Navi's crew and supervision. Although Presidential Decree No.
received the cargo on board MT Tabangao. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the
vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine
The said vessel went back to the Philippines and waters, the disposition by the pirates of the
the pirates released the original crew members in vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act
batch after the transfer of goods were completed. of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed
The pirates then ordered the batch not to tell in Philippine waters.
authorities what happened.
November 28, 2017 – Art. 123 – QUALIFIED
A series of arrests were effected against the PIRACY; AND PD 532
accused-appellants, charging them with CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
qualified piracy or violation of PD. No. 532 (Piracy
in Philippine Waters), after the Chief Engineer of PEOPLE V. SIYOH, KIRAM, INDANAN AND
the crew reported the incident to the coast guard. JAMAHALI
G.R. NO. L-57292, February 18, 1986
However, one of the accused-appellant Hiong,
argues that the trial court erred in convicting ISSUE:
him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly Whether the guilty of Siyoh et al were proven
committed by him were executed outside the beyond reasonable doubt granting that the body
Philippine waters and territory, therefore of Anastacio de Guzman was never found.
stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to
hold him for trial. FACTS:
Antonio de Guzman together with his friends,
HELD: Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen and Anastacio
Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try de Guzman, who were also travelling merchants
this case. like him, were on their way to Pilas Island,
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its Province of Basilan. The group were onboard a
amendment, provided that piracy must be pumpboat operated by Kiram with Siyoh as his
committed on the high seas by any person not a help.
member of its complement nor a passenger
thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act While on their way, 2 men armed with armantes
No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision onboard a pumpboat fired at them thereupon
was widened to include offenses committed "in Kiram turned off the engine and threw a rope
Philippine waters." On the other hand, under towards the other pumboat. While the group’s
Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the boat was towed towards Mataja Island, the
coverage of the law on piracy embraces any armed men took their money and goods as well
person including "a passenger or member of the as their clothes. After which, Kiram uttered “It
complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." was good to kill all of you” then Siyoh hacked de
Hence, passenger or not, a member of the Castro and Hiolen with his “barong.” Antonio de
complement or not, any person is covered by the Guzman was able to jump out of the boat but
law. Kiram’s group fired at him hitting him at the
back. Antonio de Guzman was able to survive the
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor attack and reported it to the Philippine Army.
amended the provisions on piracy under Antonio de Guzman was able to identify the men
Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no who boarded their boat as the men that his group
contradiction between the two laws. There is saw talking with Kiram and Siyoh in Baluk-
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no Baluk Island the previous night.
need to construe or interpret the law. All the The trial court found the defendants to be guilty
presidential decree did was to widen the coverage qualified piracy with triple murder and
of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect frustrated murder. It then imposed to Siyoh et al
the citizenry as well as neighboring states from the death penalty.
crimes against the law of nations. As expressed
in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential HELD:
Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest The Court upheld the decision of the trial court.
forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal
statutes of all countries." For this reason, piracy Art.123. of the RPC states that: Qualified piracy.
under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy — The penalty of reclusion temporal to death
under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist shall be imposed upon those who commit any of
harmoniously as separate laws. the crimes referred to in the preceding article,
under any of the following circumstances:

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by committed as a result or on the occasion of

boarding or firing upon the same; piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the
victims without means of saving themselves, or
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon
victims without means of saving themselves; or or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed.
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. Clearly, the penalty imposable upon persons
found guilty of the crime of piracy where rape,
In the case at bar, it was proven that Siyoh et al murder or homicide is committed is mandatory
killed their victims, with the exception of death penalty. Thus, the lower court committed
Antonio, after they stole the personal belongings no error in not considering the plea of the three
of their victims. The number of persons killed on (3) defendants as a mitigating circumstance.
the occasion of piracy is not material. P.D. No.
532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder In relation to the above, Art. 63 of the RPC was
or homicide is committed as a result or on the cited, to wit: ART. 63. Rules for the application of
occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime indivisible penalties.—In all cases in which the
punishable by death regardless of the number of law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
victims. Thus, the recovery or non-recovery of shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
the body of Anastacio is immaterial in the mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
present case. may have attended the commission of the deed.
PEOPLE V. ANG CHO KIO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME G.R. NOS. L-6687 AND L-6688
RODRIGUEZ alias JIMMY alias WILFRED DE JULY 29, 1954
LARA y MEDRANO and RICO LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-60100, L-60768 and L-61069 ISSUE:
March 20, 1985 Whether the trial court erred in not finding the
accused guilty of the complex crime of grave
ISSUE: coercion with murder with the imposable penalty
Whether or not the trial court erred in not of death.
appreciating their plea of guilty as a mitigating
circumstance. FACTS:
Ang Cho Kio was onboard PAL flight heading to
FACTS: Aparri from Laoag. Somewhere over the airspace
Jaime Rodriguez alias Jimmy alias Wilfred de of Mt. Province, he shot and killed the purser of
Lara y Medrano; Rico Lopez; Davao Reyes alias the flight, Eduardo Diago.
Dario Dece Raymundo y Elausa; and Peter Ponce
y Bulaybulay alias Peter Power were crew He then ordered the pilot, Pedro Perlas, to
members of M/V Noria 767. change route towards Amoy. The pilot refused,
prompting Kio to shoot the pilot which caused
While within the territorial waters of the his instantaneous death.
Municipality of Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi, Province
of Tawi-Tawi, armed with bladed weapons and For the first charge, he was sentenced to prision
high caliber firearms, the group robbed the said mayor in the minimum and reclusion temporal
vessel. In the course of the robbing, several as maximum. For the second charge, the court
persons were killed and injured. Leopoldo Lao, found him guilty of murder and grave coercion
Municipal Health Officer of the said municipality and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
went aboard the vessel M/V Noria when it arrived
at Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi and saw at the wharf HELD:
ten dead bodies. The trial court was correct.
Upon their arraignment the accused pleaded The accused committed two separate crimes,
guilty of the crime of piracy. murder and grave coercion. The defendant could
have deprived Pedro Perlas of his life without
The trial court imposed the penalty of death having to force him to change the direction of the
upon the accused. airplane; Coercion to commit murder was not
indispensable. Nor was it indispensable to
HELD: assassinate to commit coercion, quite the
The trial court was correct. contrary; for having murdered the pilot, the
defendant did not get his wish to reach Amoy: he
Sec. 3 of PD 532 otherwise known as the Anti- committed two acts that consisted of the crimes
Piracy Law provides that Sec. 3 Penalties.—Any of coercion and murder.
person who commits piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall, Complex crime is defined as a single act
upon conviction by competent court be punished constituting two or more crimes or when one of
by: them is necessary to commit the other. The
a) Piracy.—The penalty of reclusion temporal in penalty corresponding to the most serious crime
its medium and maximum periods shall be shall be imposed, applying it to its maximum
imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are extent.
committed as a result or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed. If rape, murder or no homocide is

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE G.R. NO. 162808, April 22, 2008
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE JUSTICE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
November 29, 2017 – Article 124 – ARBITRARY ISSUE:

DETENTION Whether or not the private respondents can be
ARANCES, Javy Ann G. charged of arbitrary detention.
FACTS:
RAMON MILO VS CFI JUDGE ANGELITO On May 14, 2001, private respondents, PO1
SALANGA Romil Avenido, PO1 Valentino Rufano, PO1
G.R. NO. L-37007, July 20, 1987 Eddie Degran, PO1 Federico Balolot and
JUSTICE GANCAYCO Regional Mobile Group, PNP members of
Bunawan Brook, Bunawan, Agusan del Sur,
ISSUE: confiscated from petitioner one colt pistol super
Whether or not Juan Tuvera, Sr., a barrio .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short
captain, can be charged of arbitrary detention. magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions.
Consequently, information filed against the
FACTS: petitioner for Illegal Possession of Firearms and
On April 21, 1973 at around 10:00 o’clock in the Ammunitions in Relation to Commission on
evening, in barrio Baguinay, Manaoag, Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258.
Pangasinan, Philippines, the accused with the
aid of some other private persons, conspiring, Petitioner filed against private respondents an
maltreated Armando Valdez by hitting with butts administrative case and criminal case for
of their guns and fists. Immediately thereafter, Arbitrary Detention. Petitioner states that private
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lodge and respondents aimed their long firearms at him,
lock said Armando Valdez inside the municipal arbitrarily searched his vehicle and put him in
jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about eleven (11) detention. Prosecutor II Eliseo Diaz, Jr. filed a
hours. "Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss," which
On April 4, 1973, Tuvera filed a motion to quash was granted by Officer-in-Charge Prosecutor II
the information on the ground that the facts Victoriano Pag-ong, on the ground that "the
charged against him do not constitute an offense action of the policemen who conducted the
of arbitrary detention and that the proofs warrantless search in spite of the absence of any
adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to circumstances justifying the same intruded into
support the filing of the information. Respondent the privacy of the accused and the security of his
judge quashed the motion on the ground that property."
Tuvera Sr. was not a public officer who can be
charged with arbitrary detention. Petitioner HELD:
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ramon S. Milo filed The criminal complaint for arbitrary detention
an opposition thereto. was properly dismissed by public respondents.
To sustain a criminal charge for arbitrary
HELD: detention, it must be shown that (a) the offender
Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public is a public officer or employee, (b) the offender
officer who, without legal grounds, detains a detained the complainant, and (c) the detention
person.1 The elements of this crime are the is without legal grounds. The second element
following: was not alleged by petitioner in his Affidavit-
Complaint. As pointed out by private respondent
1. That the offender is a public officer or Conde in his Comment and Memorandum,
employee. petitioner himself identified in his Affidavit-
Complaint that it was Police Chief Rocacorba
2. That he detains a person. who caused his detention. Nowhere in said
affidavit did petitioner allege that private
3. That the detention is without legal grounds. respondents effected his detention, or were in
any other way involved in it. There was,
Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed therefore, no factual or legal basis to sustain the
into law, barrio lieutenants (who were later criminal charge for arbitrary detention against
named barrio captains and now barangay private respondents.
captains) were recognized as persons in
authority. In various cases, this Court deemed
them as persons in authority, and convicted November 30, 2017 – Art. 125 – DELAY IN THE
them of Arbitrary Detention. DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.
Thus, it was erroneously reasoned that captain DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl
did not detained Valdez, being merely a captain,
no authority, and that barrio captain was not a LINO V. FUGOSA, ET. AL
public official, not considered persons in G.R. NO. L-1159
authority, only upon PD 299. From the foregoing, JANUARY 30, 1947
there is no doubt that a barrio captain, like
private respondent Tuvera, Sr., can be held liable ISSUE:
for Arbitrary Detention. Whether or not Montaniel and Deoduco were
detained illegally.
FELICIANO GALVANTE VS HON. ORLANDO FACTS:

C. CASIMIRO
A petition for habeas corpus was filed against respondents for alleged illegal possession of
Valeriano Fugoso, Lamberto Javaler and John firearms and ammunition. One police identified
Doe in their capacity as Mayor, police and officer Bista to have a standing warrant of arrest for
in charge of the municipal jail of the City of violation of BP Blg. 6. From the time of Soria’s
Manila, respectively for unlawfully detaining detention up to the time of his release, 22 hours
twelve (12) persons. Ten of the petitioners were had already elapsed and Bista was detained for
released. However, the other two remained and 26 days. The crimes for which Soria was arrested
were confined for three days and four days without warrant are punishable by correctional
respectively without warrants and charges penalties or their equivalent, thus, criminal
formally filed in court. The papers of their cases complaints or information should be filed with
were not transmitted to the City Fiscal’s office the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of
until late in the afternoon of November 11, 1946. his arrest. The crimes for which Bista was
Montaniel and Deoduco remained in custody arrested are punishable by afflictive or capital
because they were charged with unjust vexation penalties, or their equivalent, thus, he could only
and disobedience to an agent of a person in be detained for 36 hours without criminal
authority. The informations were filed the same complaints or information having been filed with
day. However, no warrants of arrests or orders of the proper judicial authorities.
commitment were issued by the municipal court.
Petitioners filed with the Office of the
HELD: Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-
Yes. The detention of Deoduco and Montaniel affidavit for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised
was illegal upon the exploration of six hours Penal Code against herein private respondents.
without them having been delivered to the The office dismissed the complaint for lack of
corresponding judicial authorities. Their cases merit. Petitioners then filed their motion for
were referred to the City Fiscal four and three reconsideration which was denied for lack of
days, respectively, after they were arrested. The merit in the second assailed Resolution.
illegally of their detention was not cured by the
filing of information against them, since no HELD:
warrants of arrest or orders of commitment were No. Respondents did not abuse their discretion
issued by the municipal court. The two in dismissing the case. Their disposition of
petitioners are charged with light offenses. The petitioners' complaint for violation of Article 125
general rule is that when the offense charged is of the Revised Penal Code cannot be said to have
light the accused should not be arrested, except been conjured out of thin air as it was properly
in particular instances when the court expressly backed up by law and jurisprudence. Grave
orders. In the instant case, the municipal court abuse of discretion is such capricious and
has not yet acted on the informations. While an whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the
arrest may be made without warrant there are public officer concerned which is equivalent to
reasonable grounds the prisoner cannot be an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
retained beyond the period provided by law, discretion must be so patent and gross as to
unless a warrant is procured from a competent amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
court. The City Fiscal had no authority to issue virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
warrants of arrest and was powerless to validate
such illegal detention by merely filing Regarding the complaint of Soria, based on
informations or by any order of his own, either applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election
express or implied. It is not necessary to day or a special holiday, should not be included
determine whether the City Fiscal is a judicial in the computation of the period prescribed by
authority within the purview of article 125 of the law for the filing of complaint/information in
Revised Penal Code since the petitioners’ case courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a
was referred to him long after the expiration of 'no-office day. Hence, there could be no arbitrary
the six hours provided by law. These prisoners detention or violation of Article 125 of the
should have been out of prison long before the Revised Penal Code.
informations were filed with the municipal court,
and they should not be retained therein merely In the same vein, the complaint of Bista against
because of the filing of such informations since the respondents for Violation of Article 125, will
that the offenses charged are light. Under such not prosper because the running of the thirty-six
circumstances, only an order of commitment (36)-hour period prescribed by law for the filing
could legalize the prisoner’s continued of the complaint against him from the time of his
confinement, and no such order has ever been arrest was tolled by one day (election day).
issued. Moreover, he has a standing warrant of arrest for
Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 and he could only be
SORIA V DESIERTO released if he has no other pending criminal case
G.R. NOS. 153524-25, JANUARY 31, 2005 requiring his continuous detention.
ISSUE: December 1, 2017- Article 127- EXPULSION

Whether or not the officers of the Office of the FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
Ombudsman gravely abused their discretion in
dismissing the complaint for violation of Article VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. V. LUKBAN, ET AL.
125 of the Revised Penal Code. G.R. NO. L-14639, MARCH 25, 1919
FACTS: ISSUE:
Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were Whether or not Mayor Lukban was authorized to
arrested on May 13, 2001, a Sunday and the day send those women in transferring their residence
before May 14 elections, without a warrant by from Manila to Davao
They also stated that accused should not be

FACTS: guilty of violating Art. 128 for lack of proving the
The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, essential requisite that the accused were Public
for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, Officials and that such admission is not enough
ordered the segregated district for women of ill to prove that they were public officers. It is
repute, which had been permitted for a number required that clear and convincing evidence
of years in the city of Manila, closed. Between other than the the testimony of the witnesses
October 16 and October 25, 1918, the women that accused were in fact public officers. and
were kept confined to their houses in the district when in doubt on whether the accused were
by the police. Presumably, during this period, the public officers, then it should be ruled in favor of
city authorities quietly perfected arrangements the accused
with the Bureau of Labor for sending the women
to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers. At any rate, Petitioners appealed to the CA to contest the
about midnight of October 25, the police, acting decision on Slight Physical Injuries
pursuant to orders from the chief of police, Anton
Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of Manila, CA: Upon appeal the RTC decision, the CA set
Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, aside the ruling of the RTC on Slight Physical
hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, Injuries but ruled that accused were guilty of
and placed them aboard the steamers that Violating of Domicile considering that the
awaited their arrival. The women were given no accused admitted to be the Barangay Captain
opportunity to collect their belongings, and and part of the Citizen Armed Forces
apparently were under the impression that they
were being taken to a police station for an HELD:
investigation. They had no knowledge that they YES, The Court adopts the findings of fact and
were destined for a life in Mindanao. They had conclusions of law of the CA. In their testimony
not been asked if they wished to depart from that before the open court as well as in the pleadings
region and had neither directly nor indirectly they filed, neither Geroche denied that he was a
given their consent to the deportation. barangay captain nor Garde and Marfil refuted
that they were CAFGU members. In holding such
HELD: positions, they are considered as public
NO. Only the court by a final judgment can order officers/employees.
a person to change his residence. This is
illustrated in ejectment proceedings, December 3, 2017 - Art. 129 - SEARCH
expropriation proceedings and in the penalty of WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND
destierro. Hence, the Mayor and the Chief of ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
Police of Manila cannot force the prostitutes OBTAINED
residing in that City to go and live in Davao SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
against their will, there being no law that
authorizes them to do so. These women, despite AURELIO S. ALVERO vs. ARSENIO P. DIZON,
their being in a sense, lepers of society, are ET AL
nevertheless not chattels, but Philippine citizens, G.R. No. L-342 May 4, 1946
protected by the same constitutional guarantees
as are other citizens. ISSUE:
Is a search and seizure without warrant but an
December 2, 2017 - Art. 128 - VIOLATION OF incident of a lawful arrest legal?
DOMICILE
LAZO, Joseph Artfel T. FACTS:
While the battle for Manila was raging, soldiers
EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE of the United States Army, accompanied by men
and GENEROSO MARFIL alias "TAPOL" vs. of Filipino Guerrilla Forces arrested Aurelio
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Alvero for treason and seized and took certain
G.R. No. 179080 November 26, 2014 papers from his house. He filed a petition, in
which he protested against the procedure of the
ISSUE: government in the seizure of said documents,
WON the accused are guilty of violating art. 128? and asked for the documents to be returned to
The crime of violation against domicile him but was denied.
FACTS: Alvero asked for the reconsideration of said order

On May 14, 1989 in the Evening. Acccused but was gain denied. Herein petitioner now
Gerochie, then Barangay Captain and 2 CAFGU claims that the respondent judges, in denying
members, hence persons in authority who the petition for the return of said documents,
feloniously and without judicial order entered acted without jurisdiction and committed a grave
the house of victim Mallo by breaking the door abuse in the exercise of their discretion, alleging
against the will of the occupants and injuring that even the seizure of documents by means of
one of them a search warrant legally issued which
constitutes a violation of his rights under the
During Trial, the Accused were named as Constitution.
barangay captain and Civilian Volunteer, which
the accused later admitted and confirmed HELD:
The court ruled YES and cited the ruling in
RTC: Found the accused guilty of slight Physical Agnello vs United States: "The most important
Injuries under Art. 265 exception to the necessity for a search warrant is
the right of search and seizure as an incident to
a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest may be made Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10)
either while a crime is being committed or after of the Civil Code.
its commission. The right to search includes in
both instances that of searching the person of Ombudsman properly dismissed the complaint
him who is arrested, in order to find and seize for illegal search, although the reason for
things connected with the crime as its fruits or dismissing (valid warrantless arrest) the same is
as the means by which it was committed." rather off the mark. The same should have been
dismissed by the reason that it is not cognizable
The purpose of the constitutional provisions by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a
against unlawful searches and seizures is to criminal offense.
prevent violations of private security in person
and property, and unlawful invasions of the December 4, 2017 - Article 130 - SEARCHING
sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESS
under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
remedy against such usurpations when
attempted. But it does not prohibit the Federal PAPA VS MAGO
Government from taking advantage of unlawful G.R. NO. L-27360, FEBRUARY 28, 1968
searches made by a private person or under
authority of state law. ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizure of the goods were
valid.
FELICIANO GALVANTE vs. HON. ORLANDO
C. CASIMIRO FACTS:
G.R. No. 162808 April 22, 2008 Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence
unit of the Manila Police Department, acting
ISSUE: upon a reliable information that a certain
Can the respondents be criminally liable under shipment of personal effects, allegedly
article 129 of the revised penal code? misdeclared and undervalued, would be released
the following day from the customs zone of the
FACTS: port of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and
Respondents pointed their firearms to petitioner; upon orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of
went near the owner type jeep owned by Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of
petitioner and conducted a search. Respondents the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance
saw a .38 pistol under the floormat of the jeep at gate No. 1 of the customs zone. When the
and asked petitioner of the MR of the firearm. trucks left gate No. 1 the counter-intelligence
Due to fear that respondents' long arms were still unit went after the trucks and intercepted them
pointed to them, petitioner searched his wallet at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila. The load
and gave the asked document. Immediately, the of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of
policemen (respondents) left them without saying goods, and the two trucks, were seized on
anything bringing with them the firearm. instructions of the Chief of Police.
The RTC found that "the action of the policemen
who conducted the warrantless search in spite of Remedios Mago was the owner of the goods
the absence of any circumstances justifying the seized. She hired the trucks owned by Valentin
same intruded into the privacy of the accused Lanopa to transport, the goods from said place to
and the security of his property. her residence. She claims that the goods were
seized without search warrant issued by a
Unaware of the RTC decision, Ombudsman competent court. Further, the Chief of Police
dismissed the criminal complaint for illegal Ricardo Papa denied the request of counsel for
search. It found that the allegations of the Remedios Mago that the bales be not opened and
complainant failed to establish the factual basis the goods contained therein be not examined and
of the complaint, it appearing that the incident that then Customs Commissioner Jacinto
stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest. Gavino had illegally assigned appraisers to
examine the goods because the goods were no
HELD: longer under the control and supervision of the
NO. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a Commissioner of Customs.
criminal act for it is not penalized under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special HELD:
law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms Yes. It is the settled rule that the Bureau of
of searches: Art. 129. Search warrants Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over
maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement
those legally obtained, and Art. 130. Searching of the customs laws, from the moment the goods
domicile without witnesses. are actually in its possession or control, even if
no warrant of seizure or detention had previously
Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of been issued by the Collector of Customs in
the foregoing felonies; rather, he accused private connection with seizure and forfeiture
respondents of conducting a search on his proceedings. The Chief of the Manila Police
vehicle without being armed with a valid Department, Ricardo G. Papa, having been
warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not deputized in writing by the Commissioner of
covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. Customs, could, for the purposes of the
enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect
The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his
search conducted on his vehicle is civil, under duty to make seizure, among others, of any
cargo, articles or other movable property when
the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for delegates made this announcement: "The
any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. envelopes are ready. They will be distributed in a
He could lawfully open and examine any box, couple of days." Hours after Delegate Quintero's
trunk, envelope or other container wherever statement was made public, then President
found when he had reasonable cause to suspect Ferdinand E. Marcos went on the air as well as
the presence therein of dutiable articles on TV to denounce Mr. Quintero, and he averred
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; that he "shall not rest until I have unmasked this
and likewise to stop, search and examine any pretender, his master-minds and accomplices."
vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of In the evening of the same day that Mr. Marcos
holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. It issued the afore-quoted statement, the agents of
cannot be doubted, therefore, that petitioner the respondent National Bureau of Investigation
Ricardo could lawfully effect the search and (NBI, for short) raided the house of Delegate
seizure of the goods in question. The Tariff and Quintero, on the basis of Search Warrant No. 7
Customs Code authorizes him to demand issued also on 31 May 1972 by respondent Judge
assistance of any police officer to effect said Elias Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of
search and seizure, and the latter has the legal Manila. NBI agents seized bundles of money
duty to render said assistance. amounting to P379, 000.00. On 1 June 1972, the
NBI filed with the City Fiscal of Pasay a criminal
Petitioner his companion policemen had complaint for direct bribery against Delegate
authority to effect the seizure without any search Quintero.
warrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff
and Customs Code does not require said warrant HELD:
in the instant case. The Code authorizes persons No. Disregarding for a moment the absence of
having police authority under Section 2203 of "probable cause," the search itself that was
the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass conducted by the NBI agents who raided the
through or search any land, inclosure, house of petitioner, pursuant to the questioned
warehouse, store or building, not being a search warrant, was highly irregular. The two (2)
dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and occupants of the house who witnessed the
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, search conducted, Generoso Quintero and Pfc.
package, or envelope or any person on board, or Alvaro Valentin, were closeted in a room where a
to stop and search and examine any vehicle, search was being made by a member of the
beast or person suspected of holding or raiding party, while the other NBI agents were
conveying any dutiable or prohibited article left to themselves in the other parts of the house,
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, where no members of the household were in a
without mentioning the need of a search warrant position to watch them, and thus they conducted
in said cases. 16 But in the search of a dwelling a search on their own. Such a procedure,
house, the Code provides that said "dwelling wherein members of a raiding party can roam
house may be entered and searched only upon around the raided premises unaccompanied by
warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. any witness, as the only witnesses available as
. . ." Hence, the seizure of the goods were valid. prescribed by law are made to witness a search
conducted by the other members of the raiding
party in another part of the house, is held to be
EDUARDO QUINTERO VS. NATIONAL violative of both the spirit and the letter of the
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION law, which provides that "no search of a house,
G.R. NO. L-35149 JUNE 23, 1988 room, or any other premises shall be made
except in the presence of at least one competent
ISSUE: witness, resident of the neighborhood." Another
Whether or not the evidence being seized were irregularity committed by the agents of
admissible. respondent NBI was their failure to comply with
the requirement of Sec. 10, Rule 126 of the Rules
FACTS: of Court which provides that "The officer seizing
Petitioner Eduardo Quintero disclosed that property under the warrant must give a detailed
certain persons had distributed money to some receipt for the same to the person on whom or in
delegates of the Con-Con to influence the whose possession it was found, or in the absence
delegates in the discharge of their functions. As of any person, must, in the presence of at least
an offshoot of this disclosure, Delegate Quintero one-witness, leave a receipt in the place in which
delivered to the Con-Con the aggregate amount he found the seized property." The receipt issued
of the "payola" he himself had received the by the seizing party in the case at bar, showed
amount of P11, 150.00 in cash. Quintero, that it was signed by a witness, Sgt. Ignacio
however, did not reveal the names of the persons Veracruz. This person was a policeman from the
who gave him the money; and he begged at that Manila Metropolitan Police (MMP), who
time not to be made to name names. However, accompanied the agents of respondent NBI
pressure mounted on Delegate Quintero to reveal during the conduct of the search, The
the identities of the people behind the "payola" requirement under the aforequoted Rule that a
scheme. Hence, Quintero released from his witness should attest to the making of the
hospital bed in San Juan de Dios Hospital a receipt, was not complied with. This requirement
sworn statement addressed to the Committee on of the Rules was rendered nugatory, when the
Privileges of the Con-Con, mentioning the names one who attested to the receipt from the raiding
of the persons who gave him the "payola." Also, party was himself a member of the raiding party.
In his privilege speech, he said that "in that same The circumstances prevailing before the
evening of January 6,1972, after the dinner was issuance of the questioned search warrant, and
over, when we were still inside the Malacañang the actual manner in which the search was
grounds on our way to our cars, one of the conducted in the house of the petitioner, all but
imperfectly, and yet, strongly suggest that the also imposes upon the person making the search
entire procedure, from beginning to end, was an the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the
orchestrated movement designed for just one property seized. He is likewise required to deliver
purpose — to destroy petitioner Quintero's the property seized to the judge who issued the
public image with "incriminating evidence," and, warrant, together with a true and accurate
as a corollary to this, that the evidence allegedly inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Again,
seized from his residence was "planted" by the these duties are mandatory and are required to
very raiding party that was commanded to "seize" preclude substitution of the items seized by
such incriminating evidence. interested parties. Hence, the guilt of the
accused was has not been established she is
acquitted from the crimes charged.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. YOLANDA
G.R. NO. 89373. MARCH 9, 1993.
December 5, 2017 - Article 131 -
ISSUE: PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND
Whether or not the evidence was properly DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
obtained by the police. ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M.
FACTS:
A police raiding team armed with a search FERNANDO IGNACIO and SIMEON DE LA
warrant went to the brgy. captain for them to be CRUZ, VS THE HONORABLE NORBERTO ELA
accompanied in serving the said warrant at the [G.R. No. L-6858. May 31, 1956.]
residence of the accused, Yolanda Gesmundo.
The police was allowed to enter the house upon ISSUE:
the strength of the warrant shown to the Whether or not respondent mayor violated Article
accused. The accused begged the police not to 131 by not granting the petition to hold the
search and to leave the house. However, the public meeting in the part of the public plaza as
police still searched the house and was led to the was requested.
kitchen. She pointed a metal basin on top of a
table as the hiding place of died marijuana FACTS:
flowering tops contained in a plastic bag marked A permit to hold a public meeting at the public
ISETANN. The police also recovered from a native plaza of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, together with the
“uway” cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops kiosk, was sought on behalf of the Watch Tower
wrapped in 3 pieces of komiks paper. According Bible and Tract Society (commonly known as
to the accused, when the police arrived at her Jehovah’s Witnesses). The respondent mayor
house, she saw Sgt. Yte and PFC Jose Luciano. gave them permission to use the northwestern
She invited Sgt. Yte to enter her house while part of the plaza, instead of the section of the
Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near plaza near the kiosk. It appears that the public
the house. While inside the house Yte showed the plaza, particularly the kiosk, is located at a short
accused something he claimed as a search distance from the Roman Catholic Church. The
warrant, when someone coming from the kitchen proximity of said church to the kiosk has caused
uttered “eto na” They proceeded to the kitchen some concern on the part of the authorities
and saw Luciano holding a plastic bag with four regarding peace and order. This is especially so
other companions. They confronted the accused considering that the tenets of petitioners’
and insisted that the bags belonged to her. congregation are derogatory to those of the
Accused denied the accusation and told them Roman Catholic Church.
that she doesn’t know anything about it. She was
made to sign a prepared document. She was HELD:
brought to the police station and was detained. The right to freedom of speech and to peacefully
assemble, though guaranteed by our
HELD: Constitution, is not absolute, for it may be
No. The claim that the marijuana was planted regulated in order that it may not be “injurious
was strengthened as the police violated sec 7, to the equal enjoyment of others having equal
rule 126 rules of the court provides no search of rights, nor injurious to the right of the
a house, room or any other premise shall be community or society,” and this power may be
made except in the presence of the lawful exercised under the “police power” of the state,
occupant thereof or any member of his family or which is the power to prescribe regulations to
in the absence of the latter, in the presence of promote the good order or safety and general
two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion welfare of the people. Thus, the action taken by
residing in the same locality. This requirement is the respondent who refused to allow the use of
mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution the kiosk, part of the public plaza, by the
of the search warrant. Violation of said rule is in members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract
fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Society, whose tenets and principles are
Penal Code. derogatory to those professed by the Catholics, is
The document (PAGPAPATUNAY) was not unconstitutional as an abridgement of the
inadmissible to the court as the accused was not freedom of speech, assembly, and worship,
informed of her right not to sign the document considering that in view of the proximity of the
neither was she informed that she has the right kiosk to the Catholic church, such meeting, if
to the assistance of a counsel and the fact that it allowed, might result in the happening of
may be used as evidence against her. It was not untoward incidents and disturbance of peace
proved that the marijuana belonged to her. Not and order.
only does the law require the presence of
witnesses when the search is conducted, but it
NELSON NAVARRO VS. MAYOR ANTONIO respondent refused to issue such permit because
VILLEGAS he found “that there is a reasonable ground to
G.R. NO. L-31687 FEBRUARY 26, 1970 believe, basing upon previous utterances and
upon the fact that passions, specially on the part
ISSUE: of the losing groups, remains bitter and high,
Whether or not the respondents act on denying that similar speeches will be delivered tending to
the request of the petitioner violates the undermine the faith and confidence of the people
petitioners’ Right to peaceable assembly and in their government, and in the duly peace and a
right to the equal protection of the law in disruption of public order.” Respondent based
violation of Article 131 of the Revised Penal Code. his refusal to the Revised Ordinances of 1927
prohibiting as an offense against public peace,
FACTS: and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any
On February 24, 1970, the petitioner, acting in public place, meeting, or procession, tending to
behalf of the Movement of a Democratic disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with
Philippines, wrote a letter to the respondent, the other persons in a body or crowd for any
Mayor of the city of Manila, applying to hold a unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any
rally at Plaza Miranda February 26, 1970, from congregation engaged in any lawful assembly."
4-11pm.On the same day, the respondent wrote Included herein is Sec. 1119, Freeuse of Public
a reply, denying his request on the grounds Place.
that,the have temporarily adopted the policy of
not issuing any permit for the use of Plaza HELD:
Miranda for rallies or demonstration during Yes. Supreme Court states that the freedom of
weekdays due to the events that happened from speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition
the past week. On the same letter, the the government for redress of grievances, are
respondent gave the petitioner an option to use fundamental personal rights of the people
the Sunken Garden near Intamuros for its rally, recognized and guaranteed by the constitution.
and for it to be held earlier for it to end before However, these rights are not absolute. They can
dark. The petitioner filed suit contesting the be regulated under the state’s police power – that
Mayor’s action on the ground that it violates the they should not be injurious to the equal
petitioner’s right to peaceable assemble and enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor to
petition the government for redress of grievances the rights of the community or society. The Court
(ART. 3, sec 1(8)) and of the petitioner’s right to holds that there can be 2 interpretations of Sec.
the equal protection of the law (art. 3, sec. 1). 1119: 1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested
with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to
HELD: grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly
The right of peaceable assemble is subject to or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets
regulation under the police power of the state. and other public places of the City of Manila ;and
The right to freedom of speech and peaceful 2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable
assembly, though granted by the Constitution, is discretion to determine or specify the streets or
not absolute for it may be regulated in order that public places to be used with the view to prevent
it may not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient
others having an equal right of community and use of the streets and public places by others,
society, This power may be exercised under the and to provide adequate and proper policing to
police power of the state, which is the power of minimize the risk of disorder. The court favored
the state, which is the power to prescribe the second construction since the first
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, construction is tantamount to authorizing the
education, and good order, safety and general Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under
welfare of the people. While the privilege of the our democratic system of government no such
citizen to use streets and parks for unlimited power may be validly granted to any
communication may be regulated in the interest officer of the government, except perhaps in
of all, said privilege is not absolute. It must be cases of national emergency. It is to be noted that
exercised insubordination to the general comfort the permit to be issued is for the use of public
and convenience and in consonance with peace places and not for the assembly itself. The Court
and good order, but it must not guise of holds that the assembly is lawful and thus
regulation be abridged or denied. cannot be struck down. Any public officer or
employee is in violation if Article 131 if the RPC
PRIMICIAS VS. FUGOSO if he or she shall prohibit or hinder any person
L-18000. JAN 27, 1948 from addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for the
ISSUE: correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
Whether or not the Mayor Violated Article 131 of Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify
the RPC in refusing to issue permit hence suppression of free speech and assembly. It is
violating freedom of assembly. the function of speech to free men from the
bondage of irrational fears. To justify
FACTS: suppression of free speech there must be
This case is an action of mandamus instituted by reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will
petitioner Cipriano Primicias, manager of the result if free speech is practiced. There must be
Coalesced Minority Parties, against respondent reasonable ground to believe that the danger
Manila City Mayor, Valeriano Fugoso, to compel apprehended is imminent. There must be
the latter to issue a permit for the holding of a reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be
public meeting at the Plaza Miranda on Nov 16, prevented is a serious one. The fact that speech
1947. The petitioner requested for a permit to is likely to result in some violence or in
hold a “peaceful public meeting”. However, the destruction of property is not enough to justify
its suppression. There must be the probability of

serious injury to the state. PETITION IS However, it must be remembered that the right,
GRANTED. while sacrosanct, is not absolute. It may be
regulated that it shall not be injurious to the
BAYAN, ET AL., VS. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET equal enjoyment of others having equal rights,
AL., nor injurious to the rights of the community or
G.R. NO. 169838, APRIL 25, 2006 society. The power to regulate the exercise of
such and other constitutional rights is termed
ISSUE: the sovereign “police power,” which is the power
Whether or not policemen violated Article 131 in to prescribe regulations, to promote the health,
relation to BP 880 by dispersing BAYAN, morals, peace, education, good order or safety,
KARAPATAN, KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG and general welfare of the people.
PILIPINAS in their rally.
B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public
FACTS: assemblies but a restriction that simply
The petitioners, Bayan, et al., alleged that they regulates the time, place and manner of the
are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and assemblies. B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that
that their right as organizations and individuals it refers to all kinds of public assemblies that
were violated when the rally they participated in would use public places. The reference to “lawful
on October 6, 2005 was violently dispersed by cause” does not make it content-based because
policemen implementing Batas Pambansa No. assemblies really have to be for lawful causes,
880. otherwise they would not be “peaceable” and
entitled to protection. Neither the words
Petitioners contended that Batas Pambansa No. “opinion,” “protesting,” and “influencing” in of
880 is clearly a violation of the Constitution, grievances come from the wording of the
Article 131 of the RPC: Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided.
Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of Finally, maximum tolerance is for the protection
peaceful meetings, and the International and benefit of all rallyist and is independent of
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other the content of the expression in the rally.
human rights treaties of which the Philippines is
a signatory. They argue that B.P. No. 880 Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on
requires a permit before one can stage a public the ground of clear and present danger to public
assembly regardless of the presence or absence order, public safety, public convenience, public
of a clear and present danger. It also curtails the morals or public health. This is a recognized
choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the exception to the exercise of the rights even under
freedom of expression clause as the time and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
place of a public assembly form part of the The International Covenant on Civil and Political
message which the expression is sought. Rights.
Furthermore, it is not content-neutral as it does
not apply to mass actions in support of the December 6, 2017 - Article 132 -
government. The words “lawful cause,” “opinion,” INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
“protesting or influencing” suggest the exposition VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.
of some cause not espoused by the government.
Also, the phrase “maximum tolerance” shows US VS. BUENAVENTURA BALCORTA
that the law applies to assemblies against the G.R. NO. 8722, September 10, 1913
government because they are being tolerated. As
a content-based legislation, it cannot pass the ISSUE:
strict scrutiny test. This petition and two other Whether or not the accused is liable for
petitions were ordered to be consolidated on "interruption of religious worship".
February 14, 2006. During the course of oral
arguments, the petitioners, in the interest of a FACTS:
speedy resolution of the petitions, withdrew the The accused entered a private house, uninvited,
portions of their petitions raising factual issues, where services of the Methodist Episcopal
particularly those raising the issue of whether Church were being conducted between ten and
B.P. No. 880 and/or CPR is void as applied to the twenty persons, and threatened the group with a
rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, club, interrupting or the disturbing the divine
2005. service. The Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija sentenced the defendant/appellant, to
HELD: three years six months and twenty-one days of
Section 4 of Article III of the Philippine prision correccional, and a fine of 625 pesetas,
Constitution provides that no law shall be passed together with other accessory penalties provided
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, by law.
or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the HELD:
government for redress of grievances. The right YES. The Spanish Constitution provided for a
to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of state religion but also guaranteed the privilege of
grievances, together with freedom of speech, of freely practicing, both in private and public.
expression, and of the press, is a right that However, only those followers of the state religion
enjoys dominance in the sphere of constitutional are allowed to practice in public. It is under this
protection. For this rights represent the very constitution the Penal Code of Philippines of
basis of a functional democratic polity, without 1884 was promulgated, it provided
which all the other rights would be meaningless consequences against the violation or crime
and unprotected. against the state religion specifically disturbing,
by means of violence, threats, etc., their fence in front of the chapel. The chairman of the
ceremonies when conducted in cemeteries or committee in charge of the pabasa tried to
other places were such ceremonies may be persuade them to refrain from carrying out their
lawfully authorized. (Art. 225.) plans, because it was already late at night and it
was during the holy week. An altercation ensued
The change of sovereignty and the enactment of thus, a complaint was filed against the
the fourteenth paragraph of section 5 of the defendants.
Philippine Bill caused the complete separation of
church and state, and the abolition of all special HELD:
privileges and all restrictions theretofore NO. it is noted that Article 133 of the revised
conferred or imposed upon any particular penal code punishes acts “notoriously offensive
religious sect, looking equally to all religious to the feelings of the faithful”. The construction
sects. The articles of the Penal Code referring of the fence, even though irritating and vexatious
equally to all religious sects are of two, article is not an act designated as “notoriously offensive
223 and 571. to the feelings of the faithful.” It is urged that the
act of building a fence was innocent and was
This article recognizes the freedom of religion simply to protect the property rights of the
and worship of all mankind however violations owners. Therefore, appellants are acquitted of a
against this incur subsequent penalties. But like violation of Article 133 but was found guilty of
any other constitutions no penalty was attached art 287 of the same code.
in this article. It says that "the penalty . . . shall
be imposed upon any person who . . . shall force
some other person to perform an act of worship .
. ."
The offense falls within the provisions of article

223 and 571 of the Penal Code. However records
failed to establish the intent of the accused in
committing the act, it was not proven that
religious hatred prompted the accused to act as
he did. He simply threatened to assault them
with a club if they will not stop the religious
service. The offense appears to be simply that of
disturbing the religious service, punishable
under article 571.
It is further alleged that the people thus

dispersed by the defendant were not holding
religious services, as they were simply reading
some verses out of the Bible. We have been
unable to find any provision of law which
requires religious services to be conducted in
approved orthodox style in order to merit its
protection against interference and
disturbances. As stated in Hull vs. State (120
Ind., 153): It makes no difference that the
method of worship of those assembled was
singular or uncommon. The protection of the
statute is extended to all, irrespective of creed,
opinion, or mode of worship.
Persons who meet for the purpose of religious

worship, by any method which is not indecent
and unlawful, have a right to do so without being
molested or disturbed.
December 7, 2017 – Article 133 – OFFENDING

THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
PEOPLE VS. PROCORPIO REYES, ET AL.

GR No. L-40577, Aug 23 1934
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants violated Article
133 of the Revised Penal Code.
FACTS:
In the Barrio of Macalang, Tarlac there is a
chapel where it is customary to hold a Pabasa.
While the pabasa was going between 11 and 12
o clock midnight, the defendants Procorpio Reyes
and company started to construct a barbed wired
TITLE THREE – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC Also, since coup d’etat cases are punishable by
ORDER reclusion perpetua, the rule that no person
charged by crimes and offenses punishable by
December 8, 2017 – Article134 – REBELLION such shall be admitted to bail when evidence of
OR INSURRECTION guilt is strong was applicable in this case. It is
ALILIAN, Enna B. uncontroverted that petitioner’s application for
bail and for release was denied. The
POMEROY V DIRECTOR OF PRISONS determination that petitioner’s guilt was strong
G.R. Nos. L-14284-14285, February 24, 1960 justified his detention as a valid curtailment of
ISSUE: his right to provisional liberty.
Whether or not the CFI erred in ordering the
release of the petitioners. Moreover, leaves from imprisonment are allowed
to all prisoners, at the discretion of the
FACTS: authorities or upon court orders. Petitioner failed
William Pomeroy and Celia Mariano were to establish that the discretion was gravely
convicted with the complex crime of rebellion abused.
with murder, arson and robbery committed in
pursuance of the rebellion. They entered prison December 9, 2017 – Article 135 – PENALTY
and began serving their sentence. Thereafter, FOR REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP
said convicts filed a petition invoking subsequent D’ETAT
cases wherein the Court declared that the acts of BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
violence committed in pursuance of rebellion give
rise only to simple rebellion. CFI Court ordered G.R. Nos. L-6025-26 July 18, 1956
the release of the petitioners. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
HELD: CONCEPCION, J.
Yes. The rule adopted by the Court is that
judicial doctrines have only prospective LEGAL ISSUE:
operation and do not apply to cases previously W/N Rebellion should be complexed with other
decided. The sentence meted out was the one crimes committed on such occasion.
provided by law for rebellion which herein
applicants were indicted, at the time of their FACTS:
conviction. It was only 4 years after petioners’ That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some
conviction that the Court declared that the acts time before the said date and continuously
of violence committed in pursuance of rebellion thereafter until the present time, in the City of
did not give rise to a complex crime in People v Manila, Philippines, and the place which they
Hernandez, May 30 1964. had chosen as the nerve center of all their
rebellious activities in the different parts of the
CFI erred in ordering the release of the Philippines, HERNANDEZ, conspiring,
petitioners. confederating, and cooperating with each other,
as well as with the thirty-one (31) Defendants
December 8, 2017 – Article134-A – COUP charged in criminal cases and also with others
D’ETAT whose whereabouts and identities are still
ALILIAN, Enna B. unknown.
TRILLANES IV V PIMENTEL, SR. The HERNANDEZ and their co-conspirators,

G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008 being then officers and/or members of, or
otherwise associated with the Congress of Labor
ISSUE: Organizations (CLO) formerly known as the
Whether or not the court erred in denying Committee on Labor Organization (CLO), an
petitioner’s motion to be allowed to leave from active agency, organ, and instrumentality of the
imprisonment. Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), with
central offices in Manila and chapters and
FACTS: affiliated or associated labor unions and other
Petitioner was arrested and charged with coup ‘mass organizations’ in different places in the
d’etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Philippines, and as such agency, organ, and
Penal Code based on his acts of storming into the instrumentality, fully cooperates in, and
Oakwood Premier Apartments and publicly synchronizes its activities with the rebellious
demanding the resignation of the President and activities of the ‘Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan,
key national officials. Subsequently, petitioner (H.M.B.) and other organs, agencies, and
won a seat in the Senate causing him to file an instrumentalities of the Communist Party of the
"Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be allowed Philippines (P.K.P.) to thereby assure, facilitate,
to Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests" and effect the complete and permanent success
invoking that since he was not convicted yet, he of the armed rebellion against the Republic of the
must still be presumed to be innocent. Further, Philippines.
he pleaded for the same liberal treatment
accorded other detention prisoners who have ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ or
also been charged with non-bailable offenses. ‘Hukbalahaps’ made armed raids, sorties and
ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary
HELD: and army detachments as well as innocent
No. The court held that the presumption of civilians, and as a necessary means to commit
innocence does not carry with it the full the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith
enjoyment of civil and political rights. and in furtherance thereof, have then and there
committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,

plunder, arson, and planned destruction of
private and public property to create and spread THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR,
the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose. ET AL.
G.R. No. L-8936 October 23, 1956
The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is REYES, J. B. L., J.
charged with, and has been convicted of, LEGAL ISSUE:
rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and W/N accused Geronimo should only be guilty of
robberies, for which the capital punishment, it is simple rebellion only.
claimed, may be imposed, although the lower
court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. FACTS:
However, the defense contends, among other On or about January 31, 1953, at barrio of Santa
things, that rebellion cannot be complexed with Rita, Del Gallego, Camarines Sur a group of
murder, arson, or robbery. HMBS with Federico Geronimo alias Commander
Oscar ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol
HELD: headed by Cpl. Bayrante, resulting in seriously
NO. It is true that treason and rebellion are wounding of Pfc. Paneracio Torrado and Eusebio
distinct and different from each other. This does Gruta a civilian.
not detract, however, from the rule that the
ingredients of a crime form part and parcel Also, on or about February 1954 at barrio
thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same Cotmo, San Fernando, Camarines Sur, a group
and cannot be punished either separately of four HMBS led by accused Commander Oscar
therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully
the Revised Penal Code. Besides there is more and feloniously killed one Policarpio Tipay a
reason to apply said rule in the crime of rebellion barrio lieutenant.
than in that of treason, for the law punishing
rebellion (Article 135, Revised Penal Code) On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered
specifically mentions the act of engaging in war judgment finding the accused guilty of the
and committing serious violence among its complex crime of rebellion with murders,
essential elements — thus clearly indicating that robberies, and kidnappings; and giving him the
everything done in the prosecution of said war, benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
as a means necessary therefor, is embraced voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer
therein — unlike the provision on treason (Article the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of
114, Revised Penal Code) which is less explicit P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various
thereon. persons killed, as listed in the information, in the
sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the
It is urged that, if the crime of assault upon a proportionate costs of the proceedings.
person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority may be committed with physical From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo
injuries (U. S. vs. Montiel, 9 Phil., 162), homicide appealed, raising the sole question of whether
(People vs. Lojo, 52 Phil., 390) and murder (U. S. the crime committed by him is the complex crime
vs. Ginosolongo, 23 Phil., 171; U. S. vs. Baluyot, of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
40 Phil., 385), and rape may be perpetrated with kidnappings, or simple rebellion.
physical injuries (U. S. vs. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690),
then rebellion may, similarly, be complexed with HELD:
murder, arson, or robbery. The conclusion does YES. As in treason, where both intent and overt
not follow, for engaging in war, serious violence, act are necessary, the crime of rebellion is
physical injuries and destruction of life and integrated by the coexistence of both the armed
property are inherent in rebellion, but not in uprising for the purposes expressed in article
assault upon persons in authority or agents of 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts
persons in authority or in rape. The word of violence described in the first paragraph of
“rebellion” evokes, not merely a challenge to the article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are
constituted authorities, but, also, civil war, on a essential components of one crime, and that
bigger or lesser scale, with all the evils that go without either of them the crime of rebellion
with it, whereas, neither rape nor assault upon legally does not exist, is shown by the absence of
persons in authority connotes necessarily, or any penalty attached to article 134. It follows,
even generally, either physical injuries, or therefore that any or all of the acts described in
murder. article 135, when committed as a means to or in
furtherance of the subversive ends described in
Political crimes are those directly aimed against article 134, become absorbed in the crime of
the political order, as well as such common rebellion, and cannot be regarded or penalized as
crimes as may be committed to achieve a political distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are
purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot
motive. If a crime usually regarded as common be considered as giving rise to a separate crime
like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of that, under article 48 of the Code, would
removing from the allegiance “to the Government constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.
the territory of the Philippines Islands or any part
thereof,” then said offense becomes stripped of The majority of the Court found no cogent reason
its “common” complexion, inasmuch as, being for limiting “commission of serious violence” in
part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the article 135 to hostilities against the
former acquires the political character of the Government’s armed forces exclusively; for in
latter. that case, the former expression would be
redundant and mere duplication of “engaging in FACTS:

combat” with loyal troops, also described in the On or about the 1st day of December 1989, at
same article. If the infliction of “serious violence” Dasmariñas Village, Makati, Metro Manila and
was separately expressed in the law, it is because within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the violence referred to is that inflicted upon JUAN PONCE ENRILE, having reasonable
civilians. Again, to restrict “serious violence” to ground to believe or suspect that Ex-Col.
acts short of homicide, is to unwarrantedly Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan has committed a
assume that the broad term “violencia grave” is crime, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously,
used in the limited sense of “lesiones graves”, willfully and knowingly obstruct, impede,
which in our Penal Code has a specialized frustrate or delay the apprehension of said Ex.
signification. In truth, if physical injuries Lt. Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan by harboring
constitute grave violence, so would killing or concealing him in his house.
necessarily be, if not more. Additionally, it may
be observed that rebellion is by nature a crime of On March 21, 1990, ENRILE filed a Motion for
masses or multitudes, involving crowd action Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss the
that cannot be confined a priori within Information on the grounds that:
predetermined bounds.
(a) The facts charged do not constitute an
And we have already pointed out in the offense; and
Hernandez resolution that to admit the
complexing of the crime of rebellion with the (b) The pending charge of rebellion complexed
felonies committed in furtherance thereof, would with murder and frustrated murder against
lead to these undesirable results: (1) to make the Senator Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col.
punishment for rebellion heavier than that of Honasan, on the basis of their alleged meeting on
treason, since it has been repeatedly held that December 1, 1989 preclude the prosecution of
the latter admits no complexing with the overt the Senator for harboring or concealing the
acts committed in furtherance of the treasonous Colonel on the same occasion under PD 1829.
intent, and, in addition, requires two witnesses
to every overt act which is not true in the case of The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that
rebellion; (2) to nullify the policy expressed in the petitioner entertained and accommodated
article 135 (R.P.C.) of imposing lesser penalty Col. Honasan by giving him food and comfort on
upon the rebel followers as compared to their December 1, 1989 in his house. Knowing that
leaders, because under the complexing theory Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen.
every rebel, leader or follower, must suffer the Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have
heavier penalty in its maximum degree; (3) to Honasan arrested or apprehended. And because
violate the fundamental rule of criminal law that of such failure the petitioner prevented Col.
all doubts should be resolved in favor of the Honasan's arrest and conviction in violation of
accused: “in dubiis reus est absolvendus”, Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829.
“nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege.” Judge Amin sustained the charge of violation of
Of course, not every act of violence is to be PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case
deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely filed against the petitioner on the theory that the
because it happens to be committed former involves a special law while the latter is
simultaneously with or in the course of the based on the Revised Penal Code or a general
rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were done law.
for private purposes or profit, without any
political motivation, the crime would be HELD:
separately punishable and would not be NO. The doctrine of absorption is applicable in
absorbed by the rebellion. But ever then, the the case at bar. If a person cannot be charged
individual misdeed could not be taken with the with the complex crime of rebellion for the
rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the greater penalty to be applied, neither can he be
constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated charged separately for two (2) different offenses
to each other; the individual crime would not be where one is a constitutive or component
a means necessary for committing the rebellion element or committed in furtherance of rebellion.
as it would not be done in preparation or in
furtherance of the latter. This appears with The petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion
utmost clarity in the case where an individual in conspiracy with the fugitive Col. Gringo
rebel should commit rape; certainly the latter Honasan. Necessarily, being in conspiracy with
felony could not be said to have been done in Honasan, petitioners alleged act of harboring or
furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its concealing was for no other purpose but in
commission in any way. The ravisher would then furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus
be liable for two separate crimes, rebellion and constitute a component thereof. it was motivated
rape, and the two could not be merged into a by the single intent or resolution to commit the
juridical whole. crime of rebellion.
As held in People v. Hernandez, supra:

JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. HON. OMAR U. In short, political crimes are those directly aimed
AMIN against the political order, as well as such
G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990 common crimes as may be committed to achieve
GUTIERREZ, JR., J. a political purpose. The decisive factor is the
ISSUE: intent or motive.
W/N the crime of Rebellion can be complexed
with the special penal law The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is
described as a vast movement of men and a
complex net of intrigues and plots. (People v. Paulino Legaspi testifies that various persons,
Almasan [CA] O.G. 1932). Jurisprudence tells us some forty more or less in number, were
that acts committed in furtherance of the conspiring to overthrow the constituted
rebellion though crimes in themselves are Government, and states that he knows that the
deemed absorbed in the one single crime of defendants were engaged in this conspiracy
rebellion. (People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 because he heard them say so in their
[1956]; People v. Santos, 104 Phil. 551 [1958]; conversations. Called upon to repeat the words
People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 [1960]; People which he heard them say, he stated the following:
v. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 [1969]). In this case, the act "What a life this is, so full of misery, constantly
of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is increasing. When will our wretchedness end?
clearly a mere component or ingredient of When will the authorities remedy it? What shall
rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the we do?" He does not state that he heard anything
rebellion. It cannot therefore be made the basis beyond this, and it appears that he relies solely
of a separate charge. The case of People v. Prieto upon these words, used by the defendants, as a
2 (80 Phil., 138 [1948]) is instructive: basis for his assertion that they were conspiring.
In the nature of things, the giving of aid and As to other matters this witness testifies solely
comfort can only be accomplished by some kind from hearsay.
of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or
physical activity as opposed to a mental The second witness, Laurenao Martinez, the
operation. (Cramer v. U.S., ante) This deed or owner of the said house where the meeting was
physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a held, averred that it is improbable that the
criminal offense under another penal statute or defendants should select his house, for the
provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as purpose of meeting together to conspire, to read
an element of treason it becomes identified with and comment upon correspondence relating to
the latter crime and cannot be the subject of a the conspiracy, and to consider the matter of
separate punishment, or used in combination contributions and arms collected for the
with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 purposes thereof, as this witness testifies, doing
of the Revised Penal Code provides. Just as one all this in his presence, without the slightest
cannot be punished for possessing opium in a caution or care, when it appears from the
prosecution for smoking the Identical drug, and testimony of the witness himself that not only
a robber cannot be held guilty of coercion or was he not a party to the conspiracy but that he
trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for had not even been requested to join it. From this
robbery, because possession of opium and force it follows necessarily that the conspirators could
and trespass are inherent in smoking and in not know whether they could count upon his
robbery respectively, so may not a defendant be consent and adhesion or not, and it is incredible
made liable for murder as a separate crime or in that the defendants should discuss so grave and
conjunction with another offense whereas in this delicate a matter with such an absolute
case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of disregard of the most rudimentary precautions
treason. — precautions which the most ordinary
prudence would counsel in such cases — as
December 11, 2017 – Article 136 – would appear to be the case from the testimony
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT of the witness Martinez. Martinez further said
COUP D'ETAT, REBELLION OR that it is also improbable that Martinez, who had
INSURRECTION no interest in the conspiracy, he being, according
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. to his own testimony, an entire outsider, would
have permitted such criminal meetings to be held
THE UNITED STATES v. SIMEON FIGUERAS in his house, thus exposing himself to
ET AL disagreeable consequences.
G.R. No. 1282. September 10, 1903.
MAPA, J. A letter which Martinez states that he abstracted
from the pocket of the defendant Bermudes, was
ISSUE: attached to the record as evidence for the
Whether or not the defendants are guilty of the prosecution.
crime of conspiracy
HELD:
FACTS: No. The insufficiency of the evidence for the
The judgment of the Court of First Instance from prosecution it is unnecessary to consider the
which the defendants appealed finds them guilty weight to be attributed to the testimony of the
of the crime of conspiracy under section 1 of Act witnesses for the defense, which, however, tends
No. 292. to demonstrate the innocence of the defendants.
The letter submitted might perhaps have some
There were three witnesses: Paulino Legaspi, value as evidence if it were shown:
Laureano Martinez, and Petronilo Portugal.
(1)That the words and phrases used in the letter
Petronilo Portugal’s testimony was disregarded. have a conventional meaning; and if so, then the
He testifies that he was invited by Paulino ordinary meaning of the words and phrases
Legaspi to rebel against the Government, and employed;
that he was given to understand by Legaspi that
there were many persons who intended to (2)The authenticity of this letter.
conspire, but the witness did not know whether
the accused were implicated in this conspiracy. Nothing in this connection has been proven, nor
was any attempt made to introduce such
evidence at the trial and in the absence of such
important data the value of this letter as evidence the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.),
must depend exclusively upon the testimony of which is now actively engaged in an armed
Laureano Martinez, whose credibility, as we have rebellion against the Government of the
already stated, appears exceedingly doubtful. Philippines thru act theretofore committed and
The terms of the letter itself are such that, given planned to be further committed in Manila and
their natural and ordinary meaning, they do not other places in the Philippines, and of which
even remotely show the existence of any party the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng
conspiracy. Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as
the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and did
The court finds that it is at least strange that then and there willfully, unlawfully and
Martinez, although he succeeded in getting feloniously help, support, promote, maintain,
possession of the letter on the night of Monday, cause, direct and/or command the "Hukbong
March 9, did not deliver it to the governor of the Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the
province until the night of Wednesday, the 11th, "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and take
if, as he testifies, his sole purpose in stealing it arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or
was to discover and denounce the conspiracy. otherwise participate in such armed public
There is nothing in the case, supposing that such uprising, for the purpose of removing the
was his purpose, to satisfactorily explain such a territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to
delay, and it is even more strange that it should the government and laws thereof as in fact that
not have occurred to the witness to read the to attain the said purpose by then and there
letter. He had it in his possession for a making armed raids, sorties and ambushes,
considerable length of time, and it would have attacks against police, constabulary and army
been natural for him to be interested in reading detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as
it, either for the purpose of assuring himself that a necessary means to commit the crime of
it was the same letter he proposed to purloin and rebellion, in connection therewith and in
not some other, or else for the purpose of furtherance thereof, have then and there
determining, by acquainting himself with its committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,
contents, of which he had no knowledge, whether plunder, arson, and planned destruction of
or not it was sufficient to support the very grave private and public property to create and spread
charge which he proposed to lodge with the chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate
Government authorities of the province. the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.
Above all, the fact that the other witness for the The said accused conspiring among themselves
prosecution, Paulino Legaspi, who, according to and with several others as aforesaid, willfully,
the testimony of Martinez, is the one who unlawfully and feloniously organized,
delivered this letter to the defendant Bermudes, established, led and/or maintained the Congress
not only fails to say a single word about it but of Labor Organizations (CLO), formerly known as
testifies in such a way that it may reasonably be the Committee on Labor Organizations (CLO),
inferred from his testimony as a whole that he with central offices in Manila and chapters and
was wholly ignorant of the existence of the letter, affiliated or associated labor unions and other
his statements thus being an implicit denial of "mass organizations" in different places in the
the assertions of Martinez in this regard. Philippines, as an active agency, organ, and
instrumentality of the Communist Party of the
The court finds that the guilt of the defendants Philippines (P.K.P.) and as such agency, organ,
not having been established by the evidence, and instrumentality, to fully cooperate in, and
they are entitled to an acquittal. synchronize its activities — as the CLO thus
organized, established, led and/or maintained
by the herein accused and their co-conspirators,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. has in fact fully cooperated in and synchronized
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. its activities with the activities of the "Hukbong
G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964 Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) and other
----------------------------- organs, agencies, and instrumentalities of the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), to
BAYANI ESPIRITU, ET AL thereby assure, facilitate, and effect the complete
G.R. No. L-6026 May 30, 1964 and permanent success of the above-mentioned
armed rebellion against the Government of the
ISSUE: Philippines.
Does his or anyone's membership in the
Communist Party per se render Hernandez or HELD:
any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit No. The advocacy of Communism or
rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of Communistic theory and principle is not to be
the Revised Penal Code? considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless
transformed or converted into an advocacy of
FACTS: action.
On or about March 15, 1945, and for some time
before the said date and continuously thereafter, ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
the said accused, conspiring, confederating and rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and
cooperating with each other, as well as with the proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection
thirty-one (31) defendants charged in Criminal shall be punished, respectively, by prision
Cases Nos. 19071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and correccional in its maximum period and a fine
14344, the said accused and their other co- which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos, and by
conspirators, being then high ranking officers prision correccional in its medium period and a
and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a

theory or principle is insufficient unless the ISSUE:
communist advocates action, immediate and WON it is necessary that the offender should be
positive, the actual agreement to start an a private citizen in the crime of sedition.
uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to
use force and violence in an uprising of the FACTS:
working class to overthrow constituted authority Policemen of city Manila arrested a woman who
and seize the reins of Government itself. Unless was a member of the household of a
action is actually advocated or intended or Constabulary soldier stationed at Santa Lucia
contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, Barracks. The next day, Artemio Mojica, police
merely holding belief in the supremacy of the officer posted in the street of Calle Real had an
proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate encounter with various Constabulary soldiers
the seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a which resulted in the shooting of private
theorist the Communist is not yet actually Macasinag, constabulary who was mortally
considered as engaging in the criminal field wounded and eventually died. The next day in, a
subject to punishment. Only when the rumor spread among the soldiers in Santa Lucia
Communist advocates action and actual Barracks that policeman Mojica was allowed to
uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty continue on duty
of conspiracy to commit rebellion.
These incidents was considered by some of the
Mere membership in the Communist Party or in Constabulary soldiers as an outrage committed
the CLO renders the member liable, either of by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise to
rebellion or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, friction between members of Manila police
because mere membership and nothing more department and member of the Philippine
merely implies advocacy of abstract theory or Constabulary. Constabulary soldier endangered
principle without any action being induced a deep feeling of resentment which was soon
thereby; and that such advocacy becomes converted into a desire for revenge against the
criminal only if it is coupled with action or police force of the city of Manila. At about 7
advocacy of action, namely, actual rebellion or o'clock in the evening of the same day, corporal
conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts Ingles approached private Nicolas Torio who was
conducive thereto or evincing the same. On the then the man in charge of quarters, and asked
other hand, membership in the HMB him to let the soldiers out through the window.
(Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual Private Torio was easily was persuaded. Some 70
uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks armed soldier went out. They divided into two
pretend, the liberation of the peasants and groups. One platoon of Constabulary Soldier
laboring class from thraldom. By membership in fired in the direction of the intersection of Calles
the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the Real where an American policeman Driskill was
use of force, and by such membership he agrees stationed with his friend Jacumin. A street car
or conspires that force be used to secure the happened to stop. Without considering that the
ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, passengers in the car were innocent passersby,
even if there is nothing more, renders the the Constabulary squad fired a volley into the
member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion car, killing one passenger wounding three
punishable by law. civilian. Some minutes later, Captain William E.
Wichman, assistant chief of police, riding in a
The leader of the CLO therefore, namely motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala, arrived
Hernandez, cannot be considered as a leader in and a volley of shorts by Constabulary soldiers
actual rebellion or of the actual uprising subject were fired resulted in the instantaneous death of
of the accusation. Hernandez, as President of the Wichman and Saplala. About the same time, a
CLO therefore, by his presidency and leadership police patrol came, the Constabulary soldiers
of the CLO cannot be considered as having fired at them which resulted in the death of
actually risen up in arms in rebellion against the patrolmen Trogue and Sison. Another platoon
Government of the Philippines, or taken part in arranged themselves in a firing line on the east
the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as side of Calle General Luna and fired upon the
charged against him in the present case; he was motorcycle occupied by Sergeant Armada and
merely a propagandist and indoctrinator of driven by policeman Policarpio who were just
Communism, he was not a Communist passing. As a result the two policemen was
conspiring to commit the actual rebellion by the mortally wounded. The same platoon fired
mere fact of his presidency of the CLO. several volleys indiscriminately into the Luneta
police station, and the office of the secret service.
December 12, 2017 – Article 137 – The next day Colonel Lucien R. Sweet of the
DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR Constabulary officers, and the fiscals of the city
EMPLOYEES of Manila, commenced an investigation. Sergeant
[NO CASE FOUND] Graciano L. Cabrera admitted to have
participated in the shooting. The defendants
December 12, 2017 – Article 138 – INCITING were charged with the crime of sedition and
TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION found guilty by the court. Hence this petition.
[NO CASE FOUND] Counsel contend that it is necessary that the
offender should be a private citizen and the
December 12, 2017 – Article 139 – SEDITION offended party a public functionary, and that
DUQUE, Francis Lester what really happened in this instance was a fight
between two armed bodies of the Philippine
PEOPLE vs. GRACIANO L. CABRERA, ET AL. Government.
G.R. No. 17748 - March 4, 1922
HELD: Commander Torio and about 20 armed men.

No. Act No 292 - Sedition Law makes no Afterwards they saw Umali and his companions
distinction between the persons to which it leave.
applies when the wording of said law states that
"it makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise HELD:
publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by No. The crime committed was not rebellion but
force or outside of legal methods any one of vie rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid
objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and
or revenge upon the person or property of any taking up arms was not exactly against the
official or agent of the Insular Government or of Government as defined in Article 134 of the RPC
Provincial or Municipal Government." but rather, the object was to attain by means of
force, intimidation, etc. to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon the person or property of a public
PEOPLE vs. NARCISO UMALI, ET AL official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of
G.R. No. L-5803 - November 29, 1954 Tiaong punishable uder Article 139 of the RPC.
ISSUE: December 13, 2017 – Article 140 – PENALTY

WON the trial court is correct in finding Narciso FOR SEDITION
Umali guilty of complex crime of rebellion. [NO CASE FOUND]
FACTS: December 13, 2017 – Article 140 –

Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
time friends belonged to the same political DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna
faction and even campaigning for each other.
Umali was then a congressman while Punzalan
was a Mayor. Narciso Umali regarded himself as THE UNITED STATES vs. MAXIMINO PLANAS
the political head and leader in Tiaong, became G.R. No. 6867 December 23, 1911
jealous because of his (Punzalan's) fast growing
popularity among the people of Tiaong who ISSUE:
looked to him instead of Umali for political Whether or not the defendant is liable for the
guidance, leadership, and favors. crime of conspiracy to commit sedition.
On 1951 election, Punzalan ran for reelection. To FACTS:

oppose him, and to clip his political wings and On the 1st day of September, 1910, an uprising
definitely blast his ambition for continued power in the Philippine Islands, and having for its
and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked Epifanio object the overthrow of the Government of the
Pasumbal, his trusted leader. Amado Mendoza, Philippine Islands, and provincial and municipal
star witness for the prosecution, testified that on governments of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya
the eve of the election, at the house of and other provinces in the Philippine Islands,
Pasumbal's father, then being used as his took place in and about the township of Solano
electoral headquarters, he heard Umali instruct in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya.
Pasumbal to contact the Huks through
Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be Defendant, Maximino Planas, was the president
killed, Pasumbal complying with the order of his of the town of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On the
Chief (Umali) went to the mountains and held a 3rd day of September, 1910, the said Maximino
conference with Commander Abeng. It would Planas called together the policemen of the said
seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that town of Bambang and said them, "The
Punzalan was going to win in the elections the insurrectos have entered Solano and seized
next day, and that his death was the surest way money from the treasury, burned the papers,
to eliminate him from the electoral fight. In the and made prisoners of the padres. Now you must
evening of the same day, Mendoza heard bring your arms to my house so that I can deliver
Pasumbal report to Umali about his conference them to the issurrectos when they reach here
with Commander Abeng, saying that the latter and you must all be ready to join the insurrectos
was agreeable to the proposition and had even when they bring because I am captain of
outlined the manner of attack. insurrectos, and when they come we will kill the
Day following the election, Punzalan win over Americans Bennett and Scott and the Romanista
Pasumbal. He was told by Umali to come with padre, and burn the convent. Do not tell
him, and Pasumbal and the three boarded a jeep anything of this to the Americans or the
toward the Tiaong Elementary School and once insurrectos will kill you when they come," or
there he (Mendoza) was left at the school words to that effect.
premises with instructions by Umali to wait for
Commander Abeng and the Huks and point to On the 4th day of September, 1910, between 9
them the house of Punzalan. After waiting for and 10 o'clock, the councilmen of Bambang
sometime, Abeng and his troops numbering assembled at the presedencia of said town in
about fifty, armed with garands and carbines, obedience to the call or bandillo which had been
arrived and after explaining his identity and his published the previous evening in said town by
mission to Abeng, Mendoza had led them the defendant. At this meeting there were present
Punzalan's house and then walked toward his the councilmen: Proceso Sierra, Martin Apno,
home, leaving the Huks who proceeded to lie flat Marcelino Alvarez, Angel Malonoy, Santiago
in a canal. Before reaching his house, he already Corales, and Francisco Pugayan, and President
heard shots, so, he evacuated his family. His wife Planas, the accused. And that the accused then
Catalina incidentally saw Congressman Umali told the assembled councilmen that the
holding a revolver, in the company of Huk insurrectos had entered Solano, seized the
municipal funds, burned the papers, and made salvos of the police at the presidencia and this
prisoners of the Romanista padres. "Prepare your would be the signal to join forces with the
people with arms, bolos, spears, and arrows, and insurrectos.
when the insurrectos arrive in this town be ready
to join them, then we will kill the Americans From the foregoing, the Court held that the
Bennett and Scott and the Romanista padre," or findings of fact made by the lower court are in
words to that effect. accordance with such evidence, and show that
Also, in the house of the councilman Martin the defendant was guilty of the crime charged
Apno, of the town of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, beyond peradventure of doubt, and that the
the accused had a conversation with the sentence imposed by the lower court is in
aforementioned Councilman Martin Apno in accordance with the law.
which the accused said "Do you know what has
happened in Solano? The insurrectos have December 14, 2017 - Article 142 – INCITING TO
entered there and taken the money and burned SEDITION
the papers," and that said councilman Apno PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D.
must prepare bolos, lances, and other arms and
when the insurrectos entered be prepared to join PEOPLE vs. ISAAC PEREZ
them and that after they would kill Mr. Bennett G.R. No. L-21049 December 22, 1923
and Mr. Scott and the Roman padre of the town MALCOLM, J.:
of Bambang, Nueva Viscaya.
ISSUE:
HELD: Whether or not Perez has uttered seditious words
Yes. which tend to incite others.
Many witnesses were presented both by the FACTS:

government and the defendant. The facts in the Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar,
present case bear a very close relation to the Sorsogon, and one Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen
facts in the cases of U. S. vs. Mandac (No. 6763), of that municipality, happened to meet in
and U.S. vs. Isidro Olaño (No. 6882). the presidencia of Pilar, they became engaged in
a discussion regarding the administration of
The Court found that the facts were conclusively Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez
and overwhelmingly proven by the testimony of shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos, like
the prosecution which consisted of the evidence myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's
of four policemen of the town of Bambang, head for having recommended a bad thing for the
Pantaleon Pugayan, Pedro Sierra, Santiago Filipinos, for he has killed our independence."
Angela, and Emeterio Marquez; three
councilmen of said town whose names were HELD:
Proceso Sierra, Martin Apno, and Angel Malanoy, Yes. In the words of law, Perez has uttered
and the municipal treasurer of Bambang, seditious words. He has made a statement and
Ventura Bernal, and his clerk Martiniano done an act which tended to instigate others to
Mirralles. The policemen testified that they cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. He
assembled, four in number, at about 4 o'clock in has made a statement and done an act which
the afternoon in the presidencia of Bambang by suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. He
order of the defendant on the 3d of September, has made a statement and done an act which
1910, and that the defendant then told them to tended to stir up the people against the lawful
deliver their arms to his house as he, the authorities. He has made a statement and done
defendant, was a captain of the insurrectos and an act which tended to disturb the peace of the
that he (the defendant) would deliver said arms community and the safety or order of the
to the insurrectos when they entered the town of Government. Since, the Governor-General is an
Bambang. The defendant also told the four executive official appointed by the President of
policemen that the insurrectos had already the United States and holds in his office at the
entered Solano, seized the municipal funds and pleasure of the President, a seditious attack on
burned the papers, and that when they (the the Governor-General is an attack on the rights
insurrectos) reached Bambang to be ready to join of the Filipino people and on American
them and that they would then kill the two sovereignty.
Americans, Bennett and Scott, and the
Romanpadre and burn the convent. On the next
day, the 4th of September, when six councilmen PEOPLE VS. NABONG
assembled in thepresidencia of Bambang in G. R. No. 36426, November 03, 1932
obedience to his order the defendant repeated STREET, J.
substantially the same conversation as he had
with the policemen. He told the councilmen to ISSUE:
prepare their people with arms of all kinds, bolos, Whether or not Nabong’s speech tended to
lances, and arrows, and be ready to join the instigate others to cabal and meet together for
insurrectos when they reached Bambang, after unlawful purposes.
which they (the insurrectos) would kill the
Americans Scott and Bennett, and the FACTS:
Romanista padre, and burn the convent. He also Antonio D. Ora, the head of the communists in
told the councilmen that the insurrectos had the Philippine Islands, died and a necrological
already entered Solano, seized the municipal service in his memory was held. Nabong, an
funds and burned the papers, and that when attorney, delivered a speech in such
they (the insurrectos) entered Bambang, they, service criticizing the members of the
the councilmen and their people, would hear the
Constabulary, using words substantially to the

following effect: HELD:
Yes. A published writing which calls our
"They committed a real abuse in seizing the flag. government one of crooks and dishonest persons
The members of the Constabulary are bad ("dirty") infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e.
because they shoot even innocent women, as it dictators, and which reveals a tendency to
happened in Tayug. In view of this, we ought to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible
be united to suppress that abuse. Overthrow the with the disposition to remain loyal to the
present government and establish our own government, is a scurrilous libel against the
government, the government of the poor. Use Government. The violent and provocative
your whip so that there may be marks on their statements made by Espuelas against the state
sides." was neither constructive nor with reason. It,
instead, went beyond the ambit of criticism
HELD: legally permitted since it had the dangerous
Yes. The language used by Nabong clearly tendency of appealing to the common mind and
imported an overthrow of the Government by suggesting or inciting rebellious conspiracies
violence, and it should be interpreted in the plain and riots against the duly constituted
and obvious sense in which it was evidently government.
intended to be understood. The word "overthrow"
could not have been intended as referring to an
ordinary change by the exercise of the elective December 15, 2017 – Article 143 – ACTS
franchise. It was the purpose of Nabong, beyond TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF
a doubt, to incite his hearers to the overthrow of THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES
organized government by unlawful means. The ALAMEDA, Manuel
words used by Nabong manifestly tended to
induce the people to resist and use violence PEOPLE VS ALIPIT
against the agents of the Constabulary and to 55 Phil 170- August 22, 1922
instigate the poor to cabal and meet together for
unlawful purposes. They also suggested and ISSUE:
incited rebellious conspiracies, thereby tending Whether or not the chief of police and municipal
to stir up the people against the lawful president are liable under Article 143 for
authorities and to disturb the peace of the preventing the meeting of the municipal council.
community. It is not necessary, in order to be
seditious, that the words used should in fact FACTS:
result in a rising of the people against the The municipal council held an extraordinary
constituted authorities. The law is not aimed meeting which was presided over by vice-
merely at actual disturbance, and its purpose is president Basa because the hour fixed had come
also to punish utterances which may endanger without the president being present. While the
public order. meeting was being held, the accused Victorio
Alemus, then the chief of police of that
municipality, entered the room, saying that he
ESPUELAS VS PEOPLE had an order from the president to arrest vice-
G.R. NO. L-2990, DECEMBER 17, 1951 president Basa. Basa answered that he had not
BENGZON, J: committed any crime. Dominador Delfino, one of
the councilors present, succeeded in persuading
ISSUE: the chief of police to wait until the meeting was
Whether or not Espuelas was liable of scurrilous over. A few minutes thereafter president Alipit
libel under Art. 142 of the RPC against the arrived at the municipal building and after
Government of the Philippines. taking one of the revolvers in the police office,
fired a shot in the air, entered immediately the
FACTS: room where the meeting was being held and said
In the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas in a loud voice to the chief of police who was
had his picture taken, making it to appear as if there: "Arrest him, arrest him," pointing out the
he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of vice-president. The chief of police obeyed the
rope suspended form the limb of the tree, when order, holding the vice-president by the arm and
in truth and in fact, he was merely standing on taking him to the jail, president Alipit following
a barrel. After securing copies of his photograph, them with the revolver in his hand. Shortly
Espuelas sent copies of the same to Free Press, afterwards, councilor Delfino asked president
the Evening News, the Bisayas, Lamdang of Alipit if they could continue the meeting to the
general circulation and other local periodicals in end, to which Alipit answered: "Whoever dare
the Province of Bohol but also throughout the continue holding the meeting will be arrested."
Philippines and abroad, for their publication the councilors then dispersed, leaving the
with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to premises.
appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide,
stating his dismay in the administration of HELD:
President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Any stranger, even if he be the municipal
Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his dear president himself or the chief of the municipal
wife to write to President Truman and Churchill police, must respect the meeting of the municipal
of US and tell them that in the Philippines the council which for the time being, at least, raises
government is infested with many Hitlers and the presumption that no defect exists to render
Mussolinis and for this reason he is ashamed it illegal. That meeting of the municipal council
that he cannot hold high brows to the world with was entitled too this respect on the part of the
such dirty government.
defendants and the aforesaid presumption was by a defeated delegate-aspirant for alleged
effective as to them. violation of Section 51 of the Revised Penal Code
in that they gave and distributed free of charge
December 16, 2017 – Article 144 – food, drinks and cigarettes at two public
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS meetings, one held in Sablan and the other in
RIVERA, Marynit P. Tuba, both towns being in Province of Benguet.
LOPEZ V. DE LOS REYES Before a warrant of arrest in said criminal cases

G.R. No L-3436, November 5, 1930 could be issued, petitioner in a motion of August
ISSUE: 14, 1971 invoked the privilege of immunity from
Whether or not the act of Candido Lopez could arrest and search, pursuant to Section 15 of
be made the basis for contempt proceedings and Republic Act No. 6132, otherwise known as the
for criminal prosecution 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, in relation
to Sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution and
FACTS: Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code.
On October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez attacked
and assaulted, without any justification, the HELD:
Honorable Jose D. Dimayuga, who was then and NO. Their reliance on the constitutional
is now a member of the House of Representatives provision which for them should be
of the Philippine Islands while said supplemented by what was provided for in the
Representative was going to the hall of the House Revised Penal Code is futile. There is no
of Representative to attend to the sessions. As a justification then for granting their respective
result of the attack and assault, Representative pleas.
Dimayuga was unable to attend the sessions on
that day and those of the two days next following As is made clear in Section 15 of Article VI, the
by reason of the threats which Mr. Candido immunity from arrest does not cover any
Lopez made against the said Representative. prosecution for treason, felony and breach of the
peace.
HELD:
Yes. The implied power to punish for contempt of Certainly then from the explicit language of the
the National Assembly is coercive in nature. The Constitution, even without its controlling
power to punish crime is punitive in character. interpretation as shown by the debates of the
Thus, the same act could be made the basis for Constitutional Convention to be hereinafter
contempt proceedings and for criminal discussed, petitioners cannot justify their claim
prosecution. to immunity. Nor does Article 145 of the Revised
Penal Code come to their rescue. Such a
December 17, 2017 – Article 145 – VIOLATION provision that took effect in 1932 could not
OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY survive after the Constitution became operative
TADO, Diann Kathelline A. on November 15, 1935.
The repugnancy between such an expansion of

MANUEL MARTINEZ Y FESTIN vs. THE the congressional immunity and the plain
HONORABLE JESUS P. MORFE OF THE command of the Constitution is too great to be
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, overcome, even on the assumption that the
and THE CITY WARDEN OF MANILA penalty to which a public officer will be subjected
G.R. No. L-34022, March 24, 1972 in the event that he did arrest one entitled
ISSUE: thereto for an offense punishable by less than
Whether Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code reclusion temporal suffices to widen its scope.
applies in this case
There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the
FACTS: necessity to have members of Congress, and
Petitioner Martinez y Festin alleged that on June likewise delegates to the Constitutional
10, 1971, an information against him for Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to
falsification a public document was filed. Its enable them to discharge their vital
basis was his stating under oath in his certificate responsibilities, bowing to no other force except
of candidacy for delegate to that Constitutional the dictates of their conscience. Necessarily the
Convention that he was born on June 20, 1945, utmost latitude in free speech should be
when in truth and in fact he knew that he was accorded them. When it comes to freedom from
born on June 20, 1946. arrest, however, it would amount to the creation
of a privileged class, without justification in
He was arrested by the City Sheriff in the reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a
afternoon of September 6, 1971. At the time of criminal offense, they would be considered
the filing of the petition he was confined at the immune during their attendance in Congress
City Jail in the custody of respondent City and in going to and returning from the same.
Warden of Manila. He was on his way to attend
the plenary session of the Constitutional
Convention. Such arrest was against his will and DECEMBER 18, 2017 – Article 146 – ILLEGAL
over his protest. ASSEMBLIES
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
As for petitioner Fernando Bautista, Sr., 10 it
was alleged that he is a duly elected and MALABANAN VS. RAMENTO
proclaimed delegate to the 1971 Constitutional G.R. NO. L-62270 MAY 21, 1984
Convention. Two criminal complaints was filed ISSUE:
Whether Article 146 of the Revised Penal Code

applies in this case The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus
returnable to the Court on Friday, November 12,
FACTS: 1976 at 3:00 p.m. and required the respondent
Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student to make a return of the writ not later than
Council of the Gregorio Araneta University Wednesday, November 10, 1976.
Foundation. They were granted a permit to hold
a meeting to protest the merger of two units of Admitting that the petitioner has been arrested
the university. On the scheduled date, the and detained, the respondent justifies such
students continued their meeting beyond the arrest and detention as having been legally
scheduled time and held it in a different place ordered by the President of the Philippines in the
from that indicated in the permit. They expressed exercise of his powers under martial law claiming
in a vehement language their opposition to the that Serafin G. Cruz was arrested by virtue of
merger and as a result, classes and office work Arrest, Search, and Seizure Order No. 4122,
was disturbed. Petitioners were placed under dated August 28, 1976, issued by the Secretary
preventive suspension. On appeal, they were of National Defense, for violation of Art. 147 of
found guilty of holding an illegal assembly and the Revised Penal Code (Illegal Associations),
oral defamation. Serafin G. Cruz being the "Over-all Commander
and Contractor General of the Bataan Defenders
HELD: Command," an unregistered veterans outfit, at
NO. Petitioners only invoke their rights to the time of his arrest. It is further claimed that
peaceable assembly and free speech which they his continued detention is the free will and
are entitled to do so. Their exercise to discuss volition of the petitioner who expressed fears that
matters affecting their welfare or involving public he might be harmed or injured by some members
interest is not subjected to previous restraint or of the "Bataan Defenders Command" if he were
subsequent punishment unless there be a free from custody while the mastermind and legal
showing of clear and present danger to a counsel of the association, one Atty. Cecilio
substantive evil that the State has a right to Baylon Buenafe, has not yet been arrested.
prevent. The peaceable character of an assembly On November 17, 1976, counsel, who filed the
could be lost, however, by an advocacy or petition in behalf of Serafin G. Cruz, filed a
disorder. If assembly is to be held in school comment on the return saying, among others,
premises, permit must be sought from its school that after November 12, 1976, he talked with
authorities who are devoid to deny such request. Serafin G. Cruz and the latter avowed his
In granting such permit, there may be conditions preference to stay within the confines of Camp
as to the time and place of an assembly to avoid Olivas, notwithstanding the subsequent arrest of
disruption of classes or stoppage of work of non- the said Atty. Cecilio Baylon Buenafe, thus
academic personnel. However, in violation of rendering the issues raised in the petition
terms, penalty incurred should not be unnecessary and/or irrelevant. Then, at the
disproportionate to the offense. hearing of the case, Serafin G. Cruz manifested
to the Court that he prefers to stay under
December 19, 2017 – Article 147 – ILLEGAL protective custody. Under the circumstances,
ASSOCIATION there is no other recourse but to dismiss the
NASH, Regina Mercado case.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR But, be that as it may, under General Order No.
HABEAS CORPUS OF SERAFIN G. CRUZ. 2-A, as amended, the President of the
SERAFIN G. CRUZ vs. GEN. ROMEO GATAN Philippines, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081,
of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) Camp dated September 21, 1972, ordered the Secretary
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga of National Defense "to arrest or cause the arrest
G.R. No. L-44910 November 29, 1976 and take into custody and to hold them until
otherwise ordered released by me or by my duly
ISSUE: designated representative: 1. Such persons as
Whether or not the detention of Serafin Cruz was may have committed crimes and offenses in
legal under Art. 147 RPC. furtherance or on the occasion of or incident to
or in connection with the crimes of insurrection
FACTS: or rebellion as defined in Articles 134 to 138 of
Serafin G. Cruz was arrested by PC agents on the Revised Penal Code, and other crimes against
August 30, 1976, at the Baguio Checkpoint along public order as defined in Articles 146, 147, 148,
Kennon Road, Baguio City, and brought to Camp 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, and 156 of the same
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, under the Code; ...
command of respondent Gen. Romeo Gatan, for
custodial interrogation. On October 22, 1976, a HELD:
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas Yes it was legal when they arrested and detained
corpus was filed in his behalf wherein it was Cruz by virtue of an Arrest, Search, and Seizure
claimed that the said Serafin Cruz is held Order issued by the Secretary of National
incommunicado; that he is restrained of his Defense for violation of Article 147 of the Revised
liberty without due process of law and is in the Penal Code pursuant General Order No. 2-A, as
custody of the respondent not by virtue of a amended. The declaration of martial law and the
judgment or court order; that he is not a member consequent suspension of the privilege of the
of any subversive organization covered by writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons
Proclamation No. 1081 and falls within the class reasonably believed or charged to be engaged in
of persons to whom the privilege of the writ of the disorder.
habeas corpus has not been suspended.
lawful duties as a police officer when the assault

December 20, 2017 – Article 148 – DIRECT upon him was perpetrated by the petitioner.
ASSAULT
DAHIROC, Janice L. Aggravating circumstances
RIVERA v. PEOPLE 1. The assault is committed with a weapon

G.R. No. 138553, JUN 30, 2005
2. When the offender is a public officer or
ISSUE: employee
Whether or Not Rivera is guilty of the crime of
direct assault? 3. When the offender lays hand upon a person
in authority
FACTS:
Police Inspector Edward M. Leygo and SPO1
Joseph Basquial were conducting patrols on GELIG V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
board in Shilan, Benguet. They came upon a G.R. NO. 173150/ JUL 28, 2010
truck which was unloading sacks of chicken
dung at the stall of Enrique Totoy Rivera along ISSUE:
the highway since Municipal Ordinance No. I-91 Whether or Not Lydia C. Gelig is liable for the
prohibits the unloading of chicken dung along crime of Direct Assault.
the highway, Inspector Leygo asked the driver to
stop unloading the manure and return the truck FACTS:
from where it came. The driver complied. After a Lydia C. Gelig and Gemma B. Micarsos were
while, Enrique Rivera asked the driver to drive public school teachers at the Nailo Elementary
back to Shilan, Benguet and unload the sacks of School. Lydia’s son, Roseller, was a student of
chicken dung and not follow the police’s orders. Gemma. Lydia confronted Gemma during class
The driver followed Rivera’s order and drove back after learning that Gemma called Roseller "sissy".
to Shilan Benguet while Rivera was following Gemma tried to calm Lydia down but failed to do
closely behind in his own car. Inspector Leygo so. As Gemma tried to go the Principal office,
gave chase to the truck. Leygo was able to Lydia pushed Gemma causing her to fall and hit
intercept the truck and force it to stop. Leygo a wall divider. Gemma experienced abdominal
inquired why they insisted on defying the ban on pain and after 42 days she suffered incomplete
the loading and unloading of manure. Rivera abortion. Lydia was convicted in the RTC for the
then alighted from his vehicle and uttered crime of direct assault with unintentional
insulting words such as: “babalian kita ng buto”, abortion. Lydia was then acquitted before the CA
“Ilalampaso kita”, and “Pulis lang kayo”. Leygo for the crime of direct assault but was held liable
then approached Rivera and said that he was for slight physical injuries. Unsatisfied with the
going to arrest him for violating the Municipal ruling, Lydia brought he case before the SC.
Ordinance. Rivera then assumed fighting stance
and punched Leygo in his lower lip. They HELD:
grappled for a while and with the help of fellow Yes. This case falls under the second mode of
police officers, Rivera was finally arrested. Direct Assault which has the following elements:
1. that the offender (a) makes an attack, (b)
HELD: employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation,
YES. Direct assault may be committed by two or (d) makes a serious resistance. 2. That the
ways: first, by any person or persons who, person assaulted is a person in authority or his
without a public uprising, shall employ force or agent. 3. That at the time of the assault the
intimidation for the attainment of any of the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged i
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of the actual performance of official duties, or (b)
rebellion and sedition; second, by any person or that he is assaulted by reason of the past
persons who, without a public uprising, shall performance of official duties. 4. That the
attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
resist any person in authority or any of his person in authority or his agent in the exercise
agents, while engaged in the performance of of his duties. 5. That there is no public uprising.
official duties, or on occasion of such Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to
performance. the class of persons in authority expressly
mentioned in Article 152 of the RPC. Since the
It is evident that this case falls under the second assault happened while Gemma was overseeing
mode. It is evident that the assault happened the class, she is in the actual performance of her
when Leygo was engaged in the actual official duties. That being the case, all of the
performance of his official duties. He was requisites of the crime of Direct Assault are
wearing the designated police uniform and was present. As such, Lydia is guilty of Direct
on board a police car conducting a routinary Assault. However, Lydia is not guilty of indirect
patrol when he first came upon the truck abortion since the prosecution failed to prove
unloading chicken manure. Since the loading that the act of pushing is the proximate cause of
and unloading of chicken manure is prohibited the abortion. The interval of time 42 days, is too
by an ordinance, Leygo has every right to order lengthy to prove that the discharge of the fetus
the accused to stop. When accused defied such from the womb of Gemma was a direct outcome
a lawful order, it is only natural that Leygo would of the assault.
stop them from doing so. Under the
circumstances, it simply defies reason to argue December 21, 2017 – Article 149 – INDIRECT
that Leygo was not in the performance of his ASSAULT
[NO CASE FOUND]
sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively.

December 21, 2017 – Article150 – Of the first sum, P1,000,000 was paid to Ernest
DISOBEDIENCE TO THE NATIONAL H. Burt, a nonresident American, thru his
ASSEMBLY attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, the
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. Associated Estates, Inc., represented by Jean L.
Arnault.
UY KHEYTIN ET. AL., VS ANTONIO
VILLAREAL A Special Committee, be, as it hereby is, created,
GR NO. 16009, SEP 21, 1920 composed of five members to be appointed by the
ISSUE: President of the Senate to investigate the
Whether the Books, Papers, and other properties Buenavista and Tambobong Estate deals. It shall
seized may be returned. be the duty of the said Committee to determine
whether the said purchase was honest, valid,
FACTS: and proper and whether the price involved in the
Ramon Gayanilo, a constabulary, applied for a deal was fair and just, the parties responsible
search warrant, stating in his application; “That therefor, and any other facts the Committee may
in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin, under the deem proper in the premises. Said Committee
writing desk in his store, there is kept a certain shall have the power to conduct public hearings;
amount of opium.” Upon that application, a issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum to
search warrant was issued. compel the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documents before it; and may
On April 30th, respondent and accompanied by require any official or employee of any bureau,
some of his subordinates, searched the house of office, branch, subdivision, agency, or
petitioner Uy and found 60 small cans of opium. instrumentality of the Government to assist or
They wanted to search the bodega but Uy denied otherwise cooperate with the Special Committee
that it was his. Wanting to be sure, Torralba in the performance of its functions and duties.
placed a guard in the premises to ensure nothing Said Committee shall submit its report of
was removed from the premises. Later, they findings and recommendations within two weeks
found out thru one Segovia that Uy was renting from the adoption of this Resolution.
the bodega. There, Torralba resumed the search
and found and seized other articles such as Jean L. Arnault, a lawyer who delivered a partial
opium pipes, containers, books and papers. of the purchase price to a representative of the
vendor. During the Senate investigation, Arnault
Uy then filed a criminal complaint for violation of refused to reveal the identity of said
the Opium law and filed a petition in the Court representative, at the same time invoking his
of First Instance, for the return of the private constitutional right against self-incrimination.
papers, books and other property which the The Senate adopted a resolution committing
Constabulary seized illegally and in violation of Arnault to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms
the constitutional rights of the defendants. and imprisoned “until he shall have purged the
contempt by revealing to the Senate the name of
HELD: the person to whom he gave the P440,000, as
Yes. Although in the issuance of the search well as answer other pertinent questions in
warrant, the Judge did not comply with the connection therewith.” Arnault petitioned for a
requirements of Sec. 98 of General Orders No. writ of Habeas Corpus
58, the petitioners are not entitled to the return
of the opium and its paraphernalia which was HELD:
found under said warrant. When Arnault refused to divulge the identity of
the person to whom he gave an amount of
However, the seizure of the petitioner’s books, P440.000, whose identity the Senate
letters, telegrams, and other articles which have investigating committee believed him to know,
no inherent relation with opium and the the Senate pronounced him guilty of contempt
possession of which is not forbidden by law, was and ordered his imprisonment until he would be
illegal and in violation of the petitioner’s willing to identify such person.
constitutional rights.
It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose
Hence, Art. 150 may not apply when the papers penalty in carrying out their duty to conduct
or documents may be used in evidence against inquiry in aid of legislation. But it must be herein
the owner, because it would be equivalent to established that a witness who refuses to answer
compelling him to be a witness against himself. a query by the Committee may be detained
during the term of the members imposing said
penalty, but the detention should not be too long
JEAN ARNAULT VS. LEON NAZARENO as to violate the witness’ right to due process of
G.R. NO. L-3820, JULY 18, 1950 law.
ISSUE: December 22, 2017 – Article 151 -

Whether the senate can impose penalty against DISOBEDIENCE TO THE PERSON IN
those who refuse to answer its questions in a AUTHORITY
congressional hearing in aid of legislation. IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
FACTS: PEOPLE VS CHAN FOOK

The Philippine Government, through the Rural G.R. NO. 16968, OCTOBER 6, 1921
Progress Administration, bought two estates
known as Buenavista and Tambobong for the ISSUE:
ST

Whether accused is guilty for the crime of A checkpoint was established along Roxas
resistance and disobedience to the public Boulevard in Malate on June 11, 2006. P/Insp.
authority. Aguilar et. al., where manning the checkpoint
when they saw a red Ford Ranger with plate
FACTS: number XAE 988 driven by petitioner Sydeco.
Accused is a Chinese subject and a passenger of They then proceeded to flagged the swerving pick
a US military transport South Bend which up and asked the petitioner to alight from the
arrived in Manila on April 6, 1920. The vehicle. Petitioner, who the police claimed was
immigration authorities has allowed the smelling liquor, denied of being drunk, shouted
appellant to land, he left the boat on the same and talked rudely to the Policemen. Petitioner
day. Appellant then went back to the pier No. 1 blurted out “Putang Ina Mo, bakit mo ako
to get his baggage the following day, Customs hinuhuli.” Respondents, proceed to subdue the
agent Cruz searched the baggage of the accused petitioner and was arrested and brought to
and found postcards of indecent characters. He Manila Hospital to be examined for liquor.
later then tried to search the body of the accused, Petitioner on the other hand, claimed to be a
which the accused objected. A disputed took victim of physical injuries, robbery and arbitrary
place, after showing the accused his police detention against P/Insp. Aguilar.
badge, the accused still resisted and struck the
agent on the stomach. The agent then struck the The MTC and the RTC, rendered judgment
accused on the neck and Agent Jacinto finding petitioner guilty of violation of RA 4136
intervened and explained that the inspector was and violation of Article 151 of the Revised Penal
a custom agent searching for contraband, and Code of resisting arrest.
appellant resisted no further and allowed him to
be searched. HELD:
No. Swerving is not necessarily indicative of
Chan Fook was then prosecuted for the crime of imprudent behavior as defined in Sec. 48 of RA
resistance and disobedience to the public 4136 – No person shall operate a motor vehicle
authority, and sentenced by the Court of First on any highway recklessly or without reasonable
Instance of Manila to two months and one day of caution or so as to endanger the property or the
arresto mayor and to pay a fine of 1,301 pesetas safety or rights of any person or so as to cause
and the costs of the action, with subsidiary excessive or unreasonable damage to the
imprisonment in case of insolvency. highway.
HELD: Nothing in the records indicate that the area was

No, that the right to be secured against a "no swerving or overtaking zone." Moreover, the
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be swerving incident, if this be the case, occurred at
violated. It is urged that the object of searching around 3:00 a.m. when the streets are usually
the person of the accused was to find whether he clear of moving vehicles and human traffic, and
had with him any contraband. It was too late to the danger to life, limb and property to third
look for any contraband. He had already been persons is minimal. The men manning the
searched when he left the boat. The accused had checkpoint in the subject area and during the
reached his destination, spending the night in period material appeared not to have performed
the house where he had taken lodging. It is not, their duties as required by law, or at least fell
therefore, reasonable to believe that when he short of the norm expected of peace officers. They
returned to pier No. 1 the next day, he had about spotted the petitioner’s purported swerving
his body any contraband. Thus the search made vehicle. They then signaled him to stop which he
by the agent Cruz appears to be unreasonable. obeyed. But they did not demand the
presentation of the driver’s license or issue any
A person in authority, his agent or a public ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation
officer who exceeds his power cannot be said to as required under the particular premises by
be in the exercise of the functions of his office. Sec. 29 of RA 4136, which specifically provides:
The law that defines and establishes his powers
does not protect him for anything that has not SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver’s License. –
been provided for. Law enforcement and peace officers of other
agencies duly deputized by the Director shall, in
"The scope of the respective powers of public apprehending a driver for any violation of this Act
officers and their agents is fixed. If they go or any regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of
beyond it and they violate any recognized rights local traffic rules and regulations x x x confiscate
of the citizens, then the latter may resist the the license of the driver concerned and issue a
invasion, specially when it is clear and manifest. receipt prescribed and issued by the Bureau
The resistance must be coextensive with the therefor which shall authorize the driver to
excess, and should not be greater than what is operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding
necessary to repel the aggression. seventy-two hours from the time and date of
issue of said receipt.
EDMUNDO SIONZON V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 202692, NOVEMBER 12, 2014 There can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and
ISSUE: his apprehending team are persons in authority
Whether petitioner violated Article 151 of the or agents of a person in authority manning a
Revised Penal Code when he resisted the officer legal checkpoint. But surely petitioner’s act of
placing him under arrest. exercising one’s right against unreasonable
searches to be conducted in the middle of the
FACTS: night cannot, in context, be equated to
disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in
contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. As has went to Mabolo Cebu City to serve the search
often been said, albeit expressed differently and warrant.
under dissimilar circumstances, the vitality of
democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees, The residence were the petitioner resided was a
but in the courage of the people to assert and use two-storey
them whenever they are ignored or worse house. The police officers went upstairs where
infringed. Moreover, there is, to stress, nothing they met the wife of the accused and told her that
in RA 4136 that authorized the checkpoint- they will implement the search. But as soon as
manning policemen to order petitioner and his they can search the area, the accused fled the
companions to get out of the vehicle for a vehicle scene to a Nipa House.
and body search. And it bears to emphasize that
there was no reasonable suspicion of the SP03 Masnayon then requested the aid of the
occurrence of a crime that would allow what Barangay Tanods to conduct a search. This time,
jurisprudence refers to as a "stop and frisk" they conducted the search at the residence of the
action. petitioner and the nipa hut, where they found
several articles of four (4) packs of crystalline
December 23, 2017 – Article 152 – PERSONS substance which was later tested positive for
IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF PERSONS IN methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
AUTHORITY
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. And information was filed against the petitioner
and the RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond
PEOPLE VS FELIX BENITEZ reasonable charge of violating section 16, Article
G.R. NO. 48396, SEPTEMBER 11, 1942 3 of R.A. 6425 which the CA affirmed, hence the
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a division superintendent of HELD:
schools is a person in authority. No. The requisites for the issuance of a search
warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2)
FACTS: such probable cause must be determined
Felix Benitez, a special agent in the office of the personally by the judge; (3) the judge must
Provincial Governor punched D’Artagnan examine, in writing and under oath or
Williams, a Division Superintendent of School in affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses
Negros Occidental for his supposed acts or he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the
remarks that caused an outrage or offense to the witnesses testify on the facts personally known
Provincial Governor in connection with the to them; and (5) the warrant specifically
appointment of teachers. describes the place to be searched and the things
to be seized.
On an indictment for assault upon a person in
authority, defendant was found guilty and In the present case, Search Warrant No. 570-9-
sentenced to from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years, 1197-24] specifically designates or describes the
2 months and 1 day of prision correccional and residence of the petitioner as the place to be
to pay a fine of P500 with subsidiary searched. Incidentally, the items were seized by
imprisonment in case of insolvency. a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away
from the residence of the petitioner. The
HELD: confiscated items, having been found in a place
Under the law (section 917 of the Revised other than the one described in the search
Administrative Code), a division superintendent warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid
of schools is given the power of general warrantless search, the presentation of which as
superintendence over schools and school an evidence is a violation of petitioner's
interests in his division, with the right to appoint constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
municipal school teachers and to fix their searches and seizure.
salaries, and further, since education is a state
function and public policy demands an adequate Having been established that the assistance of
protection of those engaged in the performance the barangay tanods was sought by the police
of this commission, we believe and so hold that authorities who effected the searched warrant,
a division superintendent of schools should be the same barangay tanods therefore acted as
regarded as a person in authority. agents of persons in authority. Article 152 of the
Revised Penal Code defines persons in authority
RUBEN DEL CASTILLO VS PEOPLE and agents of persons in authority as:
G.R. NO. 185128, JANUARY 30, 2012
x x x any person directly vested with jurisdiction,
ISSUE: whether as an individual or as a member of some
Whether the search warrant issued to conduct court or governmental corporation, board or
search and the seizure of illegal drugs found by commission, shall be deemed a person in
the barangay tanod in the nipa hut are authority. A barangay captain and a barangay
admissible as evidence. chairman shall also be deemed a person in
authority. The police officers, as well as the
FACTS: barangay tanods were acting as agents of a
Operatives of the Cebu City Police conducted a person in authority during the conduct of the
surveillance at the house of the petitioner. After search. Thus, the search conducted was
which, they secured a search warrant from the unreasonable and the confiscated items are
RTC and on September 13, 1997, the same police inadmissible in evidence.
Wherefore, Petitioner is Acquitted.
Whether or not accused Doriquez was placed in

December 24, 2017 – Article 153 – TUMULTS double jeopardy by charging the offense of
AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC discharge of firearm.
ORDER
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. FACTS:
Accused Doriquez was charged with the offense
PEOPLE VS BACOLOD of grave oral defamation before the Court of First
G.R. No. L-2578, July 31, 1951 Instance of Iloilo. Six days later, Doriquez was
indicted before the same court for discharge of
ISSUE: firearm. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty
Whether the lower court erred in granting the to the two indictments.
motion to quash on the ground of double
jeopardy. Subsequently, he moved to dismiss both
information. One of his contentions is that the
FACTS: institution of criminal action for discharge of
Ladislao Bacolod, then a member of the PC Patrol firearm places him in double jeopardy for he had
in the municipality of Santa Fe, Cebu, fired his already been in jeopardy once in the municipal
sub-machine gun thereby hitting Consorcia court of Batad, Iloilo which dismissed, without
Pasinio at the back of the right side of her body. his consent, the information charging him with
That the same caused a serious disturbance in a the offense of alarm and scandal based on the
public place by firing his sub-machine gun which same facts. The court denied the motion to
wounded Pasinio, thereby causing panic among dismiss. The motion for reconsideration was also
the people present in the town fiesta. denied. Hence, this appeal.
Accused Bacolod was charged with two HELD:

informations; one charging him of the crime of No. For double jeopardy to attach in his favor,
serious physical injuries thru reckless the accused must prove, among other things,
imprudence and the other is serious disturbance that there is "identity of offenses." It is altogether
in a public place by firing a sub-machine gun. evident, however, that the offense of discharge of
firearm is not the crime of alarm and scandal,
His counsel de oficio moved to quash this second nor is it an attempt or a frustration of the latter
information, invoking double jeopardy by reason felony. Neither may it be asserted that every
of the first information which the lower court crime of discharge of firearm produces the
granted prompting the People to appeal. offense of alarm and scandal. Nor could the
reverse situation be true, for the less grave felony
HELD: of discharge of firearm does not include or
Yes. It will be observed that both informations subsume the offense of alarm and scandal which
have one common element: defendant’s having is a light felony.
fired a sub-machine gun, however the two
informations do not describe the same offense. Although the indictment for alarm and scandal
One is a crime against persons; but the other is filed under Article 155 of the Revised Penal Code
an offense against public peace and order. and the information for discharge of firearm
instituted under article 258 of the same Code are
The first is punished under article 263 of the closely related in fact (as the two apparently
Revised Penal Code and the latter under article arose from the same factual setting, the firing of
153 referring to individuals disturbing public a revolver by the accused being a common
gatherings or peaceful meetings. element), they are definitely diverse in law.
Firstly, the two indictments do not describe the
The proof establishing the first would not same felony - alarm and scandal is an offense
establish the second, it being necessary to show, against public order while discharge of firearm is
besides the willful discharge of firearm, that a crime against persons. Secondly, the
there was a dance in the tennis court in indispensable element of the former crime is the
connection with the town fiesta, and that the discharge of a firearm calculated to cause alarm
people in attendance became panicky and or danger to the public, while the grava men of
terrified. the latter is the discharge of a firearm against or
Therefore, the appealed resolution is reversed at a certain person, without intent to kill.
and the record is remanded for further
proceedings. The plea of double jeopardy cannot therefore be
accorded merit, as the two indictments are
December 25, 2017 – Article 154 – UNLAWFUL perfectly distinct in point of law howsoever
USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND closely they may appear to be connected in fact.
UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES It is a cardinal rule that the protection against
[NO CASE FOUND] double jeopardy may be invoked only for the
same offense or identical offense.
December 25, 2017 – Article 155 – ALARMS The instant appeal is premature, and the present
AND SCANDALS appeal is dismissed. This case is hereby ordered
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P. remanded to the court of origin for immediate
trial on the merits.
PEOPLE V. DORIQUEZ
GR No. L-24444-45, July 29, 1968 December 26, 2017 – Article 156 – DELIVERY
OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL
ISSUE: DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
January 11, 1965, directed that execution of the

ALBERTO AND INTIA VS HON. DELA CRUZ sentence be set for January 27, 1965. On
AND ORBITA petitioner's motion, execution was deferred to
G.R. No. L-31839, June 30, 1980 February 12, 1965, at 8:30 a.m. At the appointed
day and hour, petitioner failed to show up. This
ISSUE: prompted the respondent judge, on February 15,
Whether or not Governor Cledera and Esmeralda 1965, to issue a warrant for her arrest, and on
can be held liable under Article 156 of the March 23, 1965 an alias warrant of arrest.
Revised Penal Code Petitioner was never arrested. Petitioner moved
to quash the warrants of arrest of February 15,
FACTS: 1965 and March 23, 1965. (Ground: Penalty has
Respondent Judge Dela Cruz directed petitioners prescribed. On December 19, 1966, the
Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal respondent judge ruled that "the penalty
of Camarines Sur to amend the information filed imposed upon the accused has to be served",
in Criminal Case No. 9414 of the CFI of rejected the plea of prescription of penalty and,
Camarines Sur entitled, People of the Philippines instead, directed the issuance of another alias
versus Eligio Orbita, so as to include as warrant of arrest. Hence, the present petition.
defendants Governor Armando Cledera and
Assistant Provincial Warden Jose Esmeralda of HELD:
Camarines Sur. In said case, Orbita, a provincial NO. Arresto menor and a fine of P100.00
guard, was prosecuted for infidelity in the constitute a light penalty. By Article 92 of the
custody of a prisoner for the escape of detention Revised Penal Code, light penalties "imposed by
prisoner, Pablo Denaque. In the course of the final sentence" prescribe in one year. The period
trial, the defense alleged that Esmeralda received of prescription of penalties — so the succeeding
a written note from Governor Cledera asking him Article 93 provides — "shall commence to run
to send in five prisoners which party included from the date when the culprit should evade the
Denaque, who was then under the custody of service of his sentence". Elements of evasion of
Orbita, to his house in Taculod, Canaman, service of sentence are: the offender is a convict
Camarines Sur to work in the construction by final judgment; he "is serving his sentence
which made Denaque's escape possible, and which consists in deprivation of liberty"; he
thus, Esmeralda and Gov. Cledera should be evades service of sentence by escaping during
equally guilty of the offense with Orbita. the term of his sentence.
Article 157: provides for a higher penalty if such
HELD: "evasion or escape shall have taken by means of
No. The offense of delivering prisoners from jails unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows,
as defined in Article 156 is usually committed by gates, walls, roofs, or floors or by using
an outsider who: (1) removes from jail any person picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or
therein confined or (2) helps him escape. To intimidation, or through connivance with other
remove means to take away a person from the convicts or employees of the penal institution, ...
place of his confinement, with or without the "
active compensation of the person released. To evasion of sentence is but another expression of
help in the escape of a person confined in any jail the term "jail breaking"
or penal institution means to furnish that person
with the material means such as a file, ladder, Petitioner was never placed in confinement and
rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his escape. If the prescription of penalty does not run in her
the offender is a public officer who has custody favor.
or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for infidelity
in the custody of prisoners defined and penalized
under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code. DEL CASTILLO VS. TORRECAMPO
Since Gov. Cledera as governor, is the jailer of GR NO 13903, December 18, 2002
the province and Jose Esmeralda is the assistant
provincial warden, they cannot be prosecuted for ISSUE:
the escape of Pablo Denaque under Article 156 of Whether the penalty imposed upon Del Castillo
the Revised Penal Code. had prescribed
December 27, 2017 – Article 157 – EVASION OF FACTS:

SERVICE OF SENTENCE Del Castillo was charged for violation of Section
ALAMEDA, Manuel F. 178(nn) of the 1978 Election Code. The trial
court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
TANEGA V MASAKAYAN and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate
GR No. L-27191, February 28, 1967 sentence of imprisonment of 1 year as minimum
ISSUE: to 3 years as maximum. The Court of Appeals
WON Prescription of sentence has commenced affirmed the decision. During the execution of
judgment on October 14, 1987, petitioner was
FACTS: not present. The presiding Judge issued an order
Petitioner was convicted of slander by the City of arrest and the confiscation of his bond.
Court of Quezon City. She was found guilty once Petitioner was never apprehended. 10 years
again by the Court of First Instance where she later, petitioner filed a motion to quash the
was sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor, to warrant of arrest on the ground that the penalty
indemnify the offended party, Pilar B. Julio, in imposed upon him had already prescribed. The
the sum of P100.00, with the corresponding motion was denied by the trial court.
subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs.
The Court of First Instance of Quezon City, on HELD:
ST

No. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides WON the penalties for jail breaking under Article
when the prescription of penalties shall 127 is applicable to sentence executed by
commence to run. Under said provision, it shall deportation.
commence to run from the date the felon evades
the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article FACTS:
157 of the same Code, evasion of service of Loo Hoe was found guilty of a violation of the
sentence can be committed only by those who Opium Law and was sentenced to be deported.
have been convicted by final judgment by The sentence was executed. However, he
escaping during the term of his sentence. As returned to the Philippine Islands, in violation of
correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the terms of said sentence.
"escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of A complaint was filed by the deputy prosecuting
Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful attorney and Loo hoe was brought to trial, and
departure of prisoner from the limits of his upon arraignment plead guilty and was
custody. Clearly, one who has not been sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of four
committed to prison cannot be said to have months, and at the termination of said sentence
escaped therefrom. In the instant case, petitioner of imprisonment, to be again deported and to pay
was never brought to prison. In fact, even before the costs.
the execution of the judgment for his conviction,
he was already in hiding. Now petitioner begs for HELD:
the compassion of the Court because he has No.
ceased to live a life of peace and tranquility after If the defendant who has been sentenced to
he failed to appear in court for the execution of imprisonment breaks jail, the executive
his sentence. But it was petitioner who chose to departments of the Government may do two
become a fugitive. The Court accords things:
compassion only to those who are deserving.
Petitioner’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable a. It may, in proper cases, proceed against him
doubt but he refused to answer for the wrong he under article 127 and other provisions of the
committed. He is therefore not to be rewarded Penal Code; and
therefor.
b. it may simply arrest him and return him to
PEOPLE VS ABILONG jail.
G.R. NO. L-1960, NOVEMBER 26, 1948
Whether the executive department of the
ISSUE: Government will pursue one or the other of these
Whether the lower court erred in imposing a statutory remedies lies within the discretion of
penalty on the accused under article 157 of the that department of the Government.
Revised Penal Code, which does not cover The violation of the judgment of deportation by
evasion of service of "destierro." the appellant is not punishable as contempt
under section 232. The judgment of deportation
FACTS: was final. The sentence had been duly executed.
That on or about the 17th day of September, The court had lost all jurisdiction over the
1947,in the City of Manila, Philippines, defendant in that case. The judgment was
Florentino Abilong, the accused, being then a executed by the executive department of the
convict sentenced and ordered to serve destierro Government; and if the defendant has escaped
during which he should not enter any place the penalty imposed by the court, the executive
within the radius of 100 kilometers from the City department of the Government has its remedy by
of Manila for attempted robbery, evaded the enforcing the terms of the sentence again.
service of said sentence by going beyond the
limits made against him and commit vagrancy. The SC is also of the opinion that none of the
provisions of article 127 of the Penal Code is
HELD: applicable to the present case. The penalties for
It is clear that the word "imprisonment" used in jail breaking under said article (127) cannot be
the English text is a wrong or erroneous applied to the acts of the defendant.
translation of the phrase "sufriendo privacion de
libertad" used in the Spanish text. It is equally
clear that although the Solicitor General BASILONIA v. VILLARUZ
impliedly admits destierro as not constituting GR Nos. 191370-71, Aug 10, 2015
imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty,
though partial, in the sense that as in the ISSUE:
present case, the appellant by his sentence of WON the penalty of imprisonment already
destierro was deprived of the liberty to enter the prescribed and the civil liability arising from the
City of Manila. Under the case of People vs. crime already extinguished.
Samonte, as quoted in the brief of the Solicitor
General that "it is clear that a person under FACTS:
sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of On June 19, 1987, a decision was promulgated
his liberty and escapes from the restrictions of against Basilonia et al in a criminal case for
the penalty when he enters the prohibited area." murder of Atty. Isagani Roblete.
US VS. LOO HOE Almost two decades passed from the entry of
G.R. NO. 12473, SEPTEMBER 18, 1917 judgment, on May 11, 2009, Roblete, claiming to
be the son of the deceased victim, Atty. Roblete,
ISSUE: filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment
alleging, among others, that despite his request
to the City Prosecutor to file a motion for Thus, one who has not been committed to prison
execution, the judgment has not been enforced cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
because said prosecutor has not acted upon his "Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of
request. Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful
departure of prisoner from the limits of his
The trial court granted the motion for execution custody. It applies only to those who are
and ordered the bondsmen to surrender convicted by final judgment and are serving
Basilonia et al. Due to petitioners' failure to sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty,
appear in court after the expiration of the period and that the period for prescription of penalties
granted to their bondsmen, the bail for their begins only when the convict evades service of
provisional liberty was ordered forfeited and the sentence by escaping during the term of his
sheriff issued the writ of execution. sentence.
Basilonia et al contended that trial court has no
more jurisdiction to order the execution of This is not applicable in the case at bar. For the
judgment since the penalty has already longest time, they were never brought to prison
prescribed. or placed in confinement despite being sentenced
to imprisonment by final judgment. Prescription
HELD: of penalty of imprisonment does not run in their
Evasion of service of sentence is an essential favor. Thus, the trial court did not commit grave
element of prescription of penalties. The culprit abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over
should escape during the term of imprisonment the motion for execution and in eventually
in order for prescription of penalty imposed by granting the same.
final sentence to commence to run. The period of
prescription of penalties as provided in Article 93
states - "shall commence to run from the date PARULAN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
when the culprit should evade the service of his G.R. NO. L-28519, FEBRUARY 17, 1968
sentence."
ISSUE:
Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code explains WON the CFI of Manila with jurisdiction to try
the concept of evasion of service of sentence: and decide the case and to impose the sentence
upon Parulan for evasion of service of sentence.
ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and FACTS:
maximum periods shall be imposed upon any Parulan was serving life imprisonment
convict who shall evade service of his sentence (commuted to 20 years by the President) in
by escaping during the term of his imprisonment Muntinlupa. In Oct 1964, he was transferred to
by reason of final judgment. However, if such Fort Bonifacio. He escaped in the same month,
evasion or escape shall have taken place by but was recaptured in Manila.
means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors,
windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by He was prosecuted for the crime of evasion of
using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, service of sentence, penalized under Art. 157 of
violence or intimidation, or through connivance the RPC. The CFI in Manila found him guilty and
with other convicts or employees of the penal sentenced him accordingly.
institution, the penalty shall be prision He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
correccional in its maximum period. directed to the Director of Bureau of Prisons,
praying that the latter be ordered “to release
Elements of evasion of service of sentence are: immediately and without delay the body of the
petitioner from unlawful and illegal
1. the offender is a convict by final judgment; confinement.” Parulan contended that his
confinement illegal because the sentence of
2. he "is serving his sentence which consists in conviction imposed upon him for the crime of
deprivation of liberty; and evasion of service of sentence was rendered by a
court without jurisdiction over his person and of
3. he evades service of sentence by escaping the offense with which he was charged.
during the term of his sentence.
HELD:
By the express terms of the statute, a convict Yes. Transitory or continuing offenses are crimes
evades "service of his sentence" by "escaping where some acts material and essential to the
during the term of his imprisonment by reason crime occur in one province and some in
of final judgment." That escape should take place another. The court of either province where any
while serving sentence, is emphasized by the of the essential ingredients of the crime took
provisions of the second sentence of Article 157 place has jurisdiction to try the case. There are,
which provides for a higher penalty if such however, crimes which although all the elements
"evasion or escape shall have taken place by thereof for its consummation may have occurred
means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, in a single place, yet by reason of the very nature
windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by of the offense committed, the violation of the law
using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, is deemed to be continuing.
violence or intimidation, or through connivance
with other convicts or employees of the penal When the prisoner in his attempt to evade the
institution.." Indeed, evasion of sentence is but service of the sentence imposed upon him by the
another expression of the term "jail breaking." courts and thus defeat the purpose of the law,
moves from one place to another; for, in this
case, the act of the escaped prisoner is a
continuous or series of acts, set on foot by a Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty
single impulse and operated by an and the court forthwith ordered his
unintermittent force, however long it may be. It recommitment for the unexpired portion of his
may not be validly said that after the convict former sentence. The accused appealed from this
shall have escaped from the place of his judgment and prays that he be acquitted or that
confinement the crime is fully consummated, for, the penalty be reduced.
as long as he continues to evade the service of
his sentence, he is deemed to continue The record shows that the conditional pardon
committing the crime, and may be arrested whose conditions were violated by the accused
without warrant, at any place where he may be referred to a penalty of six years and one day of
found. The right of arrest without a warrant is prision, of which two years, five months and
founded on the principle that at the time of the twenty-two days had been served by the accused.
arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of The penalty remitted by the pardon was,
committing a crime — evading the service of his therefore, three years, seven months and eight
sentence. days.
December 28, 2017 – Article 158 – EVASION OF HELD:

SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code provides
OF DISORDER, CONFLAGRATIONS, that the penalty of prision correccional in its
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES. minimum period shall be imposed upon the
ALILIAN, Enna B. convict who, having been granted conditional
pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any
LOSADA v ACENAS of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the
GR No. L-810, March 31, 1947 Penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon
ISSUE: be higher than six years, the convict shall then
WON the said inmates were entitled to the suffer the unexpired portion of his original
deduction of their sentence provided in Art 98 in sentence."
accordance with Art 158 RPC
The second part of the article just quoted is
FACTS: inapplicable to the case at bar because the
The Justice of Peace ordered the release of the unexpired portion of the penalty remitted by
four (4) inmates who remained in the penal reason of the condition pardon granted the
colony and did not try to escape during the war. accused does not exceed six years. The first part
thereof, which imposes the penalty or prision
HELD: correccional in its minimum period upon the
No. The special allowance for loyalty authorized convict who, having been granted conditional
by articles 98 and 158 of the Revised Penal Code pardon, shall violated any of its conditions, is,
refers to those convicts who, having evaded the therefore, applicable. The duration of this
service of their sentences by leaving the penal penalty is from six months and one day to two
institution, give themselves up within two days. years and four months. Inasmuch as the
As these petitioners were not in that class, mitigating circumstance of having pleaded guilty
because they had not escaped, they had no claim should be considered in favor of the accused, and
to that allowance. there being no aggravating circumstance, the
penalty should be imposed in its minimum
December 30, 2017 – Article 159 – OTHER period which ranges from six months and one
CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF day to one year, one month and ten days of
SENTENCE prision correccional. The benefits afforded by the
Arances, Javy Ann G. Indeterminate Sentence Law are not applicable
to the accused, by express provision thereof.
PEOPLE VS SANARES
G.R. NO. L-43499, January 11, 1936 TORRES VS GONZALES
Justice Recto G.R. NO. 76872, July 23, 1987
ISSUE: Justice Feliciano
Whether or not the accused should be acquitted ISSUE:
or that the penalty be reduced. Whether or not conviction of a crime by final
judgment of a court is necessary before the
FACTS: petitioner can be validly rearrested and
Isidoro Sanares y Caerne was charged in the recommitted for violation of the terms of his
Court of First Instance of Manila. The accused conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the
was granted by His Excellency, the Governor- balance of his original sentence.
General, a conditional pardon remitting the
unexecuted portion of the sentence of FACTS:
imprisonment of six years and one imposed upon In 1978, Torres was convicted of estafa and in
him for the crime of theft. Upon accepting the 1979, he was pardoned by the president with the
condition of such pardon, to wit: that he shall not condition that he shall not violate any penal laws
again violate any of the penal laws of the again and that should this condition be violated,
Philippine Islands, the said accused willfully, he will be proceeded against in the manner
unlawfully and feloniously violated the condition prescribed by law. Petitioner accepted the
of such pardon by then and there committing the conditional pardon and was consequently
crime of estafa for which he was finally sentenced released from confinement. In 1982, Torres was
to suffer three months and eleven days of charged with multiple crimes of estafa. In 1986,
imprisonment. Gonzales petitioned for the cancellation of
Torres’ pardon. Hence, the president cancelled
the pardon. Torres appealed the issue before the At the time of the commission of this offense, the
Supreme Court averring that the Executive said Antonio Yabut was a recidivist, he having
Department erred in convicting him for violating previously been convicted twice of the crime of
the conditions of his pardon because the estafa homicide and once of serious physical injuries,
charges against him were not yet final and by virtue of final sentences rendered by
executory as they were still on appeal. competent tribunals. Upon arraignment, YABUT
pleaded not guilty. We reject the testimony of
HELD: Yabut that it was Prisoner Villafuerte, the squad
In proceeding against a convict who has been leader of their brigade, not YABUT, who gave the
conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to fatal blow to the deceased Aseo. The testimonies
have breached the conditions of his pardon, the of Santiago Estrada, resident physician of the
Executive Department has two options: (1) Bureau of Prisons and Dr. Pablo Anzures of the
Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, Medico Legal Department of the University of the
a purely executive act, not subject to judicial Philippines, clearly establish that the death of
scrutiny, or (2) Article 159 of the Revised Penal Aseo was caused by subdural and cerebral
Code, a judicial act consisting of trial for and hemorrhages following the fracture of the skull
conviction of violation of a conditional pardon. resulting from the blow on the head of Aseo. They
further confirm the testimony of the four
Where the President opts to proceed under eyewitnesses that the deceased was struck from
Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, behind. YABUT places much stress upon the
no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a word "another" appearing in the English
subsequent crime is necessary, much less translation of the headnote of article 160 and
conviction therefor by final judgment of a court, would have us accept his deduction from the
in order that a convict may be recommended for headnote that article 160 is applicable only when
the violation of his conditional pardon. the new crime which is committed by a person
already serving sentence is different from the
Under article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, crime for which he is serving sentence. Inasmuch
parolee or convict who is regarded as having as the appellant was serving sentence for the
violated the provisions thereof must be charged, crime of homicide, the appellant contends the
prosecuted and convicted by final judgment court below erred in applying article 160 in the
before he can be made to suffer the penalty present case which was a prosecution for murder
prescribed. (involving homicide).
In the case at bar, President has chosen to HELD:

proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 Yes, Article 160 still applies. The language is
(i) of the Revised Administrative Code. That plain and unambiguous. There is not the
choice is an exercise of the President’s executive slightest intimation in the text of article 160 that
prerogative and is not subject to judicial said article applies only in cases where the new
scrutiny. offense is different in character from the former
offense for which the defendant is serving the
December 31, 2017 – Article 160 – penalty.
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING It is familiar law that when the text itself of a
SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR statute or a treaty is clear and unambiguous,
ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE there is neither necessity nor propriety in
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L. resorting to the preamble or headings or
epigraphs of a section of interpretation of the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS text, especially where such epigraphs or
vs. ANTONIO headings of sections are mere catchwords or
YABUT reference aids indicating the general nature of
G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933 the text that follows.
BUTTE, J.
A mere glance at the titles to the articles of the
LEGAL ISSUE: Revised Penal code will reveal that they were not
Whether or not Quasi-Recidivism of Article 160 intended by the Legislature to be used as
is not anything more than catchwords conveniently
applicable for YABUT. suggesting in a general way the subject matter of
each article. Being nothing more than a
FACTS: convenient index to the contents of the articles of
On or about the 1st day of August, 1932, in the the Code, they cannot, in any event have the
City of Manila, the accused Antonio Yabut, then effect of modifying or limiting the unambiguous
a prisoner serving sentence in the Bilibid Prison, words of the text. Secondary aids may be
in said city, did then and there, with intent to consulted to remove, not to create doubt.
kill, wilfully and treacherously, assault and use
personal violence upon one Sabas Aseo, another
prisoner also serving sentence in Bilibid, by then PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BETH
and there hitting the said Sabas Aseo suddenly TEMPORADA.
and unexpectedly from behind with a wooden G.R. No. 173473 December 17, 2008
club, without any just cause, thereby fracturing YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
the skull of said Sabas Aseo and inflicting upon
him various other physical injuries on different LEGAL ISSUE:
parts of the body which caused the death of the Whether or not Article 160 should not be
latter about twenty-four (24) hours thereafter. considered as an “attending circumstances” in

relation to the application of Indeterminate shall be within the range of the penalty next
Sentence Law. lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; x x x
FACTS: The plain terms of the ISL show that the
From September 2001 to January 2002, legislature did not intend to limit "attending
Rosemarie "Baby" Robles, Bernadette Miranda, circumstances" as referring to Articles 13 and 14
Nenita Catacotan and Jojo Resco and Beth of the RPC. If the legislature intended that the
Temporada, all employees of the Alternative "attending circumstances" under the ISL be
Travel and Tours Corporation (ATTC), recruited limited to Articles 13 and 14, then it could have
and promised overseas employment, for a fee, to simply so stated. The wording of the law clearly
complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as technician permits other modifying circumstances outside
in Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, of Articles 13 and 14 of the RPC to be treated as
Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as factory "attending circumstances" for purposes of the
workers in Hongkong. The accused and application of the ISL, such as quasi-recidivism
appellant were then holding office at Dela Rosa under Article 16051 of the RPC. Under this
Street, Makati City but eventually transferred provision, "any person who shall commit a felony
business to Discovery Plaza, Ermita, Manila. after having been convicted by final judgment,
After complainants had submitted all the before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
requirements consisting of their respective serving the same, shall be punished by the
application forms, passports, NBI clearances and maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law
medical certificates, the accused and appellant, for the new felony." This circumstance has been
on different dates, collected and received from interpreted by the Court as a special aggravating
them placement fees in various amounts, viz: a) circumstance where the penalty actually
from Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. – 57,600.00; b) from imposed is taken from the prescribed penalty in
Dennis Dimaano – P66,520.00; c) from Evelyn its maximum period without regard to any
Estacio – P88,520.00; d) from Soledad Atle – generic mitigating circumstances. Since quasi-
P69,520.00 and e) from Luz Minkay – recidivism is considered as merely a special
P69,520.00. As none of them was able to leave aggravating circumstance, the penalty next lower
nor recover the amounts they had paid, in degree is computed based on the prescribed
complainant lodged separate criminal penalty without first considering said special
complaints against accused and appellant before aggravating circumstance as exemplified in
the City Prosecutor of Manila. On November 29, People v. Manalo and People v. Balictar. The
2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Restituto question whether the incremental penalty rule is
Mangalindan, Jr. filed six (6) Informations covered within the letter and spirit of "attending
against the accused and appellant, one for Illegal circumstances" under the ISL was answered in
Recruitment in Large Scale under Article 38 (a) the affirmative by the Court in Gabres when it
of the Labor Code as amended, and the rest for ruled therein that the incremental penalty rule is
five (5) counts of estafa under Article 315 analogous to a modifying circumstance.
paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. There
is an argument that the incremental penalty rule Article 315 of the RPC pertinently provides –
should not be considered as analogous to a
modifying circumstance stems from the ARTICLE 315. Swindling (Estafa). – Any person
erroneous interpretation that the "attending who shall defraud another by any of the means
circumstances" mentioned in Section 1 of the ISL mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
are limited to those modifying circumstances
falling within the scope of Articles 13 and 14 of 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its
the RPC. maximum period to prisión mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is
HELD: over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000
YES. While we affirm the conviction for the five pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter
(5) counts of estafa, we find, however, that the sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
CA erroneously computed the indeterminate shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding
penalties therefor. The CA deviated from the one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but
doctrine laid down in People v. Gabres; hence its the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
decision should be reversed with respect to the exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
indeterminate penalties it imposed. The reversal connection with the accessory penalties which
of the appellate court’s Decision on this point may be imposed and for the purpose of the other
does not, however, wholly reinstate the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
indeterminate penalties imposed by the trial termed prisión mayor or reclusión temporal, as
court because the maximum terms, as the case may be. x x x Under Gabres, prisión
determined by the latter, were erroneously correccional maximum to prisión mayor
computed and must necessarily be rectified. minimum is the prescribed penalty55 for estafa
when the amount defrauded exceeds
Section 1 of the ISL is again quoted below – P22,000.00. An amount defrauded in excess of
P22,000.00 is effectively considered as a special
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison aggravating circumstance in the sense that the
sentence for an offense punished by the Revised penalty actually imposed shall be taken from the
Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall prescribed penalty in its maximum period
sentence the accused to an indeterminate without regard to any generic mitigating
sentence the maximum term of which shall be circumstances. Consequently, the penalty next
that which, in view of the attending lower in degree is still based on the prescribed
circumstances, could be properly imposed under penalty without in the meantime considering the
the rules of said Code, and the minimum which effect of the amount defrauded in excess of
P22,000.00. What is unique, however, with the

afore-quoted provision is that when the amount
defrauded is P32,000.00 or more, the prescribed
penalty is not only imposed in its maximum
period but there is imposed an incremental
penalty of 1 year imprisonment for every
P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided
that the total penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed 20 years. This incremental
penalty rule is a special rule applicable to estafa
and theft. In the case of estafa, the incremental
penalty is added to the maximum period of the
prescribed penalty (or to anywhere from 6 years,
8 months and 21 days to 8 years) at the
discretion of the court, in order to arrive at the
penalty actually imposed (i.e., the maximum
term, within the context of the ISL). This unique
characteristic of the incremental penalty rule
does not pose any obstacle to interpreting it as
analogous to a modifying circumstance, and,
hence, falling within the letter and spirit of
"attending circumstances" for purposes of the
application of the ISL. Under the wording of the
ISL, "attending circumstances" may be
reasonably interpreted as referring to such
circumstances that are applied in conjunction
with certain rules in the Code in order to
determine the penalty to be actually imposed
based on the prescribed penalty of the Code for
the offense. The incremental penalty rule
substantially meets this standard. The
circumstance is the amount defrauded in excess
of P22,0000.00 and the incremental penalty rule
is utilized to fix the penalty actually imposed. At
its core, the incremental penalty rule is merely a
mathematical formula for computing the penalty
to be actually imposed using the prescribed
penalty as starting point. Thus, it serves the
same function of determining the penalty
actually imposed as the modifying
circumstances under Articles 13, 14, and 160 of
the RPC, although the manner by which the
former accomplishes this function differs with
the latter. For this reason, the incremental
penalty rule may be considered as merely
analogous to modifying circumstances.
Besides, in case of doubt as to whether the
incremental penalty rule falls within the scope of
"attending circumstances" under the ISL, the
doubt should be resolved in favor of inclusion
because this interpretation is more favorable to
the accused following the time-honored principle
that penal statutes are construed strictly against
the State and liberally in favor of the accused.56
Thus, even if the Dissenting Opinion’s
interpretation is gratuitously conceded as
plausible, as between Gabres and the dissent’s
interpretation, Gabres should be sustained since
it is the interpretation more favorable to the
accused.

TITLE FOUR – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC not in any capacity connected with the Office of
INTEREST the President. From these premises it is rational
to conclude that the documents in question,
January 1, 2018 – Article 161 – which purport to have been signed by then
COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE President Marcos, are bogus documents. The
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, trial court and Court of Appeals correctly found
FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF petitioner to be the author of the forgery. The
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE presumption is that the possessor and user of a
BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A. falsified document is the forger thereof.
GAMIDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS Petitioner also argues that he should have been
G.R. Nos. 111962-72 December 8, 1995 charged under only one information because
MENDOZA, J.: there was only one intent "to discharge the
imagined functions of a non-existent office." The
ISSUE: argument has no merit. The documents in this
Whether or not the charge of violation of Art. 161 case were forged on different dates. One act was
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was proper. not done to commit another. There is therefore
no basis for considering the various acts as
FACTS: constituting only one crime of forgery.
On March 25, 1985, then Executive Assistant
Juan C. Tuvera issued Memorandum Circular January 2, 2018 – Article 162 – USING
No. 1281. Following the issuance of this FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT
memorandum, the Presidential Security SEAL OR STAMP
Command and the Office of the President, [NO CASE FOUND]
through the Malacañang Complaints and
Investigation Office (CIO), investigated petitioner. January 2, 2018 – Article 163 – MAKING AND
On September 27, 1985, upon the invitation of IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS
Atty. Quirino Sagario, CIO Hearing Officer, DAHIROC, Janice L.
petitioner appeared and presented the 11
documents, claiming that President Ferdinand THE UNITED STATES VS. AGUSTIN BASCO
E. Marcos had signed them in his (petitioner's) G.R. NO. L-2747 APRIL 11, 1906
presence. The lone witness for the prosecution,
Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Presidential Staff ISSUE:
Director of the Malacañang Records Office Whether or not the case constitutes the crime of
(MRO), testified that there were no copies of the counterfeiting money.
documents on file in his office and that the
signatures thereon did not appear to be those of FACTS:
the former President. For his part, petitioner said It was proved at the trial of this case that the
that he was the Executive Director of the defendant attempted to pay for a package of
Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring cigarettes which he bought at a certain store with
Services, or PRAMS, having been appointed by what appeared to be silver coin, but which, as a
then President Marcos and that his appointment matter of fact, was a Philippine copper cent. He
and the related documents, subject of the insisted that the owner of the store should accept
prosecution, had been signed by the former the same as a peseta, that is to say, a twenty cent
President in petitioner's presence. piece. The latter refused to accept it upon
noticing what the real value and denomination of
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila found the coin was. The defendant again insisted that
him guilty and charged him with 11 counts of the money be accepted and the owner of the store
violation of Art. 161 of the RPC by forging the refused to do so. As a result of such refusal a
signature of the President of the Philippines on quarrel ensued between them. A policeman then
11 different documents and making it appear interfered, and upon being informed of what had
that the documents were genuine official happened, placed the defendant under arrest
documents of the Republic of the Philippines. He and took him to the police station, where several
was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate Mexican and Japanese coins were found in his
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of possession together with a roll of Philippine
prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) copper cents, the latter being silver plated, and
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as identical with the coin which he had attempted
maximum, in each of these eleven (11) criminal to pass at the store as a twenty-cent piece. Upon
cases, or a total of eighty (80) years up to one an examination of these plated coins it was found
hundred fifty-four (154) years. On appeal, the that they were genuine Philippine copper cents,
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the which apparently and been whitened with
RTC. Hence, this petition. quicksilver to give them the color and brightness
of silver. The defendant having been asked as to
HELD: where he had obtained the said coins, first
YES, the petition has no merit. answered that he had received them as change,
but later admitted that he had silvered them
Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Director of the himself.
Malacañang Records Office, testified that his
office did not have a record of the documents. For HELD:
his part Executive Secretary Juan C. Tuvera No. The Attorney-General, in his brief filed in this
declared the Presidential Regional Assistant court, contends that these facts do not constitute
Monitoring Services as nonexistent and its the crime of counterfeiting money, but that of
alleged Executive Director, herein petitioner, as estafa, and for this reason asks that the
defendant be acquitted of the crime charged in

the complaint without prejudice to the filing of FACTS:
another complaint against him for estafa. A Chinese merchant was paid by purchaser of
goods in the former’s store a false 50-centavo
There can be no counterfeiting of money when, coin. He placed it in his drawer. During a search
as in this case, no spurious or clipped coin was by some constabulary officers, the false coin was
used. The coins in question were genuine copper found in the drawer.
cents and bore their original designs and
inscriptions. The defendant did not make or HELD:
attempt to make any alteration in the designs No. Article 165 requires three things as regards
and inscriptions of the said coins. All that he did possession of false coins, namely: (1) possession
was to give them the appearance of silver pieces ; (2) intent to utter; and (2) knowledge that the
for the purpose of passing them as twenty-cent coin is false. The fact that the Chairman received
coins. He did not, however, attempt to imitate the it in payment of his goods and placed it in his
peculiar design of such coins. The acts drawer shows that he did not know that such
committed by the defendant for the purpose of coin was false.
defrauding third persons by deceiving them us to
the real value of the coins in question constitute January 5, 2018 – Article 166 – FORGING
the crime of estafa and not of counterfeiting TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR OTHER
money. There were not legal grounds upon which DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
a charge for this latter offense could be based. IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR
The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
and the defendant acquitted of the charge of DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
counterfeiting money contained in the
complaint, and the Attorney-General is directed US VS GARDNER
to present another complaint against him for the G.R. No. 1468, March 14, 1904
crime of estafa. It is ordered that the Mexican
and Japanese coins found in the possession of ISSUE:
the defendant be returned to him. The costs of Whether or not the defendant can be held liable
both instances are declared de oficio. After the for falsification of notes or documents equivalent
expiration of ten days from the date of final to current money payable to bearer
judgment, let the case be remanded to the Court
of First Instance from whence it came for proper FACTS:
procedure. Gardner ordered Jameson to buy a bottle of
mucilage and blue pencil. That night, while
January 3, 2018 – Article 164 – MUTILATION passing by a tailor shop, Gardner handed
OF COINS - IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE Jameson a bill asking him to change it for silver
OF MUTILATED COINS and promised to give him half its value. Jameson
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J. cashed the bill and received 25 pesos. Gardner
also had another bill on which he had pasted a
PEOPLE V TIN CHING TING number "10". Gardner tried to pass Confederate
GR L-4620 JANUARY 30,1952 $10 in a Filipino drug store. The Chinaman Ah
Fun had given 25 pesos in exchange for an
ISSUE: American bill upon which the number 10 had
Whether or not the coins in this case are been pasted. He did not observe the defect in the
mutilated. bill at first, but observed it afterwards and
immediately went to the people station to file a
HELD: complaint. Some other night, Gardner through
Mutilation is to diminish by ingenuous means the witness Klip also attempted to pass a one-
the metal in the coin. One who mutilates a coin dollar bill raised to a ten in a house of
does not do so for the sake of mutilating, but to prostitution. It was shortly after returned to him
take advantage of the metal abstracted; he saying that it was bad.
appropriates a part of the metal of the coin.
Hence, the coin diminishes in intrinsic value. HELD:
One who utters said mutilated coin receives its Yes. The falsification of bank notes and of
legal value, much more than its intrinsic value. documents of credit payable to bearer and issued
It is indispensable that the mutilated coin be of by the State, to which class the two certificates
legal tender. in question belong, is an act severely punished
by the law as tending to bring such documents
(Note: The copy of the full text of the case cannot into discredit and because such offenses produce
be found; only the ruling) a lack of confidence on the part of the holders of
said documents to the prejudice of the interest of
January 4, 2018 – Article 165 – SELLING OF society and of the State, and for this reason the
FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT law punishes this crime more severely than it
CONNIVANCE does the counterfeiting of money, in
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G. consideration of the fact that it is easier to
counterfeit such certificates, notes, and
PEOPLE V GO PO documents of credit payable to bearer than to
GR. NO. 42697, VL.J. 393, AUGUST 1985 make counterfeit coin, and that the profit which
is derived therefrom by the forger of such
ISSUE: documents is greater and the incentive for the
Whether or not the Chinaman may be convicted commission of such a crime more powerful.
of illegal possession of false coin?
DEL ROSARIO VS PEOPLE Marqueta, that a buy-bust operation was

G.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961 conducted by the combined agents of the Central
Bank of the Philippines and the US Secret
ISSUE: Service, and that the petitioner was therein
Whether or not said act constitutes a violation of caught in flagrante delicto in the possession of
Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code and in the act of offering to sell counterfeit US
dollar notes. The testimony of Pedro Labita which
FACTS: was corroborated by Johnny Marqueta and the
Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and presentation during the trial of the ten
Benedicto del Pilar were accused of counterfeit US $100 dollar notes, which were
counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes. They confiscated from the petitioner when he was
have shown to Apolinario del Rosario Philippine arrested, proved beyond reasonable doubt the
one-peso and two-peso bills and induced him to guilt of the petitioner for the crime of illegal
believe that the same were counterfeit paper possession and use of fake US dollar notes under
money manufactured by them, although in fact Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The
they were genuine treasury notes of the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
Philippine Government one of the digits of each
of which had been altered and changed. They January 7, 2018 – Article 167 –
obtained P1,700.00 from said complainant for COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
the purpose of financing the manufacture of UTTERING INSTRUMENT NOT PAYABLE TO
more counterfeit treasury notes of the BEARER
Philippines. [NO CASE FOUND]
HELD: January 7, 2018 – Article 168 – ILLEGAL

Yes. It is not disputed that a portion of the last POSSESION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY
digit 9 of Serial No. F-79692619, had been OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
erased and changed so as to read 0 and that OF CREDIT
similar erasures and changes had been made in DUQUE, Francis Lester M
the penultimate digit 9 in Serial No. F-79692691,
in the last digit in Serial No. D-716326, and in THE UNITED STATES vs. JUAN DE LEON, ET
the last digit 9 of Serial No. D-716329. The AL.
possession of genuine treasury notes of the G.R. No. 1934, April 29, 1905
Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or
signs contained" in which had been erased and ISSUE:
or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as they WON it is necessary to convict the accused that
were used by petitioner herein and his co- the latter know the bill was a counterfeit at the
defendants in the manner adverted to above, is time it was uttered.
punishable under Article 168, in relation to
Article 166 (1), of the Revised Penal Code. FACTS:
Juan de Leon and Albino de Leon, the accused
in this case, were found guilty in the CFI of the
TECSON VS CA crime of uttering a counterfeit bank note under
G.R. No. 113218, November 22, 2001 Art 292 of the Penal Code.
It appears that the accused were brothers, and
ISSUE: that Juan de Leon having paid a debt with a
Whether or not Tecson can be held liable for the counterfeit 50-peso note of the Spanish-Filipino
illegal possession and use of counterfeit US Bank, and the creditor having expressed some
dollar notes doubt as to the genuineness of the note, the said
Albino de Leon assured him that the said note
FACTS: was good, and promised that if it should prove to
On April 26, 1990 a test-buy operation was be counterfeit he himself would make good the
ordered by Atty. Pio Chan, Jr., Chief of the loss. It was further shown that the note was in
Investigation Staff of the Central Bank, which fact counterfeit and that the said Albino de Leon
resulted in the purchase from Tecson of one US refused to make good the amount as he had
dollar note for Two Hundred Pesos that was promised.
found to be counterfeit. Consequently, a team to
conduct a buy-bust operation was formed. HELD:
During such occasion, Tecson was introduced to Yes. Under Article 292 of the Penal Code, to
Pedro Labita and Johnny Marqueta as persons sustain a conviction of the crime of uttering a
interested in buying US dollar notes. Apparently counterfeit bank note it must affirmatively
convinced, the man drew ten pieces of US $100 appear that the accused knew that the note was
dollar notes from his wallet. Upon such, the two counterfeit at the time it was uttered.
introduced themselves as Central Bank Here, It was not proven that Albino was aware
operatives and apprehended Tecson. The trial that the note in question was counterfeit when
court found Tecson guilty beyond reasonable he aided his brother in uttering it, and guilty
doubt of the offense as defined in Art. 168 and knowledge of this fact being an essential element
penalized in Art. 166 paragraph 1 of the Revised of the crime, Albino should not have been
Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convicted either as principal or accomplice.
decision. Hence this petition.
PEOPLE VS. NICASIO BARRAQUIA
HELD: C.A. NO. 50, APRIL 13, 1946
Yes. The prosecution established, through the
testimonies of Pedro Labita and Johnny ISSUE:
ST

WON the evidence is sufficient to find accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent
convicted for the crime charged. to possess, have in his possession, custody and
control, 100-peso bill, 20-peso bill, 10-peso bill,
FACTS: 5-peso bill, 2-peso bill and 1-Peso bill
The witness for the prosecution Maximo Pascasio denominations in resemblance or similitude to a
testified that: Nicasio went to his office to change genuine treasury or bank notes issued by the
a bank note of ten-peso denomination; he did not Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
change it because he saw that it was not A decision was rendered finding accused guilty
genuine; he ordered that a policeman be called; by the trial court. The accused appealed his
when he told accused that the bank note was a case., on the ground that the information does
counterfeit, the accused kept silent; accused had not charge an offense.
occasion to go away before the arrival of the
policeman, but he preferred to remain and HELD:
waited for the policeman; accused admitted to No. Possession of false treasury or bank notes
the policeman that he is the owner of the bank alone without anything more, is not a criminal
note, and the policeman brought him for offense. For it to constitute an offense under
investigation to the municipal building without Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code the
offering any resistance. possession must be with intent to use said false
treasury or bank notes. The subject law is clear:
Other witness Vicente C. Reventar, cashier of the Under ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of
provincial treasury of Laguna, testified that: he false treasury or bank notes and other
can distinguish a counterfeit from a genuine one; instruments of credit.— …any person who shall
in his opinion, ten peso bill is a counterfeit knowingly use or have in his possession, with
because the printing is somewhat blurred and intent to use any of the false or falsified
the paper is very oily. instruments referred to in this section, shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
At the investigation, accused explained that the prescribed in said articles.
bank note was passed to him in a game of cara y
cruz. Upon his own testimony accused appears It follows that an information, as in this case,
to be an illiterate laborer, who does not know alleging possession of false treasury and bank
how to read or write. He testified that he notes without alleging intent to use the same but
happened to know that the bill a counterfeit only only "intent to possess" them, charges no
when the postmaster of Calamba informed him offense. Wherefore, the case is remanded for new
so, but for himself he cannot distinguish a prosecution under an appropriate and valid
counterfeit note from a genuine one. information.
HELD: January 8, 2018 – Article 169 – HOW

No. The only evidence presented by the FORGERY IS COMMITTED
prosecution to the effect that the bank note in FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
question was a counterfeit is the testimony of
Reventar who stated that the printing of the bill THE UNITED STATES VS ALONSO P.
is somewhat blurred and the paper is very oily. GARDNER
The SC do not believe that these two G.R. NO. 1468, MARCH 14, 1904
circumstances may be considered as enough
basis for declaring the bill in question as ISSUE:
falsified. The fact that the printing is somewhat Whether or not forgery was committed.
blurred may be attributed to the overuse of an
old printed matter, or that the bank bill is oily is FACTS:
not an evidence of a counterfeit bill, because any Accused was charged with falsification of silver
bank note may become oily by impregnation with certificates by pasting little pieces of paper, on
an oily liquid. According to the decision of the each one of which the figure “10” appears, over
lower court, the subject bill bears No. the figure “1’, which showed the true value of the
D462691D. No evidence has been presented that certificate and by obliterating with a pencil the
this number does not check with the genuine one number “1” whenever it appeared on the corners
issued with the same number. Furthermore, or sides of the certificates for the purpose appear
even if the subject ten peso bill was counterfeited that each one of them was worth $10 instead of
bank note, it was not prove that appellant had $1, and by this means the sum of 25 Mexican
knowledge of the fact before the postmaster of pesos was fraudulently obtained in exchange for
Calamba called a policeman. one of the said bills or certificates.
HELD:
PEOPLE VS. CAMOLO DIGORO ALIAS Yes. Article 289 of the Penal Code provides that
PANONDIONGAN. those who falsify bank notes or other
G.R. NO. L-22032, MARCH 4, 1966 instruments or documents payable to bearer, or
coupons thereof, the issue of which has been
ISSUE: authorized by law, or those who introduce such
WON the RTC is correct in finding accused guilty in the Philippine Islands, shall be punished.
under Article 168 of the RPC.
The silver certificates in the record are
FACTS: documents payable to bearer or documents of
On 1961, Camolo Digoro was charged with credit duly issued by virtue of the Federal laws
Article 168 of the RPC. The information was read in force in the United States, and are included as
as follows: That said accused, did then and there instruments payable to bearer.
1947, in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

Office for the purpose of exchanging the same for
THE UNITED STATES vs MARIANO SOLITO the corresponding cash that said number had
GR. NO. L-12546 August 25, 1917 won, fraudulently pretending in said Office that
the said 1/8 unit of a Philippine Charity
ISSUE: Sweepstakes ticket is genuine and that he is
Whether or not accused is guilty of forging, entitled to the corresponding amount of P359.55
uttering and passing an altered obligation of the so won by said ticket in the Philippine Charity
Government of the Philippine Islands. Sweepstakes draw on said date, June 29, 1947,
but the said accused failed to perform all the acts
FACTS: of execution which would have produced the
Accused was the correspondence clerk and crime of estafa thru falsification of a security as
acting chief clerk in the office of the division a consequence by reason of some causes other
superintendent of schools in the municipality of than his spontaneous desistance.
Dumaguete. With that he was intrusted and
authorized to open letters of an official character HELD:
addressed to the office. It was the custom of the Yes. The alteration, or even destruction, of a
director of Education to forward to division losing sweepstakes ticket could cause no harm
superintendents of schools checks for the to anyone and would not constitute a crime were
reimbursement for travel expenses and for the it not for the attempt to cash the ticket so altered
payment of the salary of employees. On April 19, as a prize-winning number. The penalty imposed
1915 a Treasury Warrant was issued to Alvah D. by article 166 for the forging or falsification of
Riley for the sum of P657.53 from the Auditor of "treasury or bank notes or certificates or other
the Philippine Islands for payment. Accused then obligations arid securities" is reclusion temporal
presented the said warrant to the municipal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed
treasurer for payment, bearing the indorsement P10,000, if the document which has been
of Alvah D. Riley and received the amount stated falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation
therein. Alvah D. Riley contended that he never or security of the United States or of the
had in his possession the said warrant, nor had Philippine Islands. In this case the ticket in
ever seen the same, that he did not indorse the question was owned by the government of the
same by writing his name at the back, that his Philippine Islands.
signature which appears at the back of the said
warrant was not his. January 9, 2018 – Article 170 –
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE
HELD: DOCUMENTS
Yes. The said warrant was a check issued by the [NO CASE FOUND]
Government of the Philippine Islands and, an
obligation of the Government of the Philippine January 9, 2018 – Article 171 –
Islands. It was originally made payable to Alvah FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY
D. Riley, or to his order. When it was indorsed as A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
above indicated, it became a check or warrant ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER
payable to “bearer”. The indorsement made a IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
material alteration in said warrant. The
indorsement changed said check from one
payable to Alvah D. Riley, or to one to whom he PEOPLE V. PO GIOK TO
ordered it paid, to one payable to bearer. The G.R. NO L-7236, April 30, 1955
indorsement of the accused had the effect of
erasing the phrase “or order” upon the face of the ISSUE:
warrant. Whether Defendant violated Article 171 by
forging a public document.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RAFAEL FACTS:

BALMORES Defendant forge a public document namely the
85 Phil. 493 FEBRUARY 16, 1950 residence certificate No. A-1618529 and
misrepresenting to the said representative of the
ISSUE: City Treasurer that his name is Antonio Perez
Whether or not accused committed forgery under along with his birth place and citizenship when
Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code. in fact he is a Chinese national.
FACTS: The CFI of Cebu charged defendant with the

Accused was charged for attempted estafa crime of falsification of a public document.
through falsification of security by tearing off at Accused then filed a motion to quash on the
the bottom in a cross-wise direction a portion of grounds that the information did not allege that
a genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity the document allegedly falsified and that he had
Sweepstakes ticket thereby removing the true the wrongful intent to injure a third person. The
and real unidentified number of same and lower court then dismissed the case on the
substituting and writing in ink at the bottom on grounds that the information filed did not alleged
the left side of said ticket the figure or number the intent and disclosure of the facts in the
074000 thus making the said ticket bear the said documents allegedly falsified.
number 074000, which is a prize-winning
number in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Defendant also contended that he cannot be
draw last June 29, 1947, and presenting the said charged with violation of Article 171 since the
ticket so falsified on said date, September 22,
falsified document was committed by a public January 10, 2018 – Article 172 –
employee who wrote the untrue facts. FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
HELD: LAZO, Joseph Artfel T. II
Yes, although it is true that it was the employee
who wrote the untrue facts, it was the defendant
who induced him to do so by supplying the facts THE UNITED STATES, v. DAMIAN OVERA
making him the principal of the crime by (alias KIM CUAN),
inducement. 11 Phil 596
The court also held that the obligation on the ISSUE:

part of the accused to disclose the truth as to the WON a counterfeiting a ticket is considered a
facts that should appear in a residence certificate falsification of a private document.
to be issued to him, is inherent in the very nature
and purpose of said document. Hence, FACTS:
defendants falsification of the information need Damian Orera (alias Kim Cuan) was convicted by
not be alleged in the information for him to be the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila,
convicted of the crime. Since under of the crime of having falsified a Chinese theater
Commonwealth Act No. 465, for the purpose of ticket which entitled the bearer thereof to
establishing his true and correct identity, he admission to a performance held in the theater
thereby committed falsification as principal by by counterfeiting and simulating the signature
induction in making false statement in the and rubric of Eng Ning on the said ticket,
narration of fact.
The accused was sentenced to be imprisoned at
Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the the Insular Prison of Bilibid for the period of six
case back to the lower court for further months and one day, to pay a fine of 625 pesetas,
proceedings. Philippine currency, and the costs of the suit,
from which judgment the accused appealed.
SPS. REVELO AND CORAZON VILLAMAR V. HELD:

PEOPLE YES
G.R. NO. 178652, 12/8/10
That the court below did not err in qualifying
ISSUE: such ticket as a document in order to prosecute
Whether accused falsified a public document. and punish the crime of falsification, the subject-
matter of the complaint, because if, according to
FACTS: the authority cited by the appellant, a document
On April 20, 1967, Elena Mananton sold a parcel is "a deed, instrument or other duly authorized
of land to her 9 children. On June 6, 1983, some paper by which something is proved, evidenced
of her children sold Land to Simplicio. However, or set forth," and a private document is,
Modesta and Felipe did not participate in the according to another authority cited by the same
sale. Simplicio then sold the parcel of land to his appellant, "every deed or instrument executed by
daughter Corazon who is married to Petitioner a private person, without the intervention of a
Revelo. public notary or of other person legally
They registered the deed of sale in the Office of authorized, by which document some disposition
the Provincial Assessor of Lingayen which was or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth," it
signed and notarized which was dated Nov. 23, follows that the ticket in question, being an
1989. In the deed it was made to appear that all authorized document evidencing an agreement
of Elena’s children signed it. The signatures of for the rent of a place in a theater to enable the
Modesta and Felipe were forged. possessor to witness a theatrical performance, is
a private document.
On Sept. 7, 2000, an information was filed
charging petitioner with falsification of public PEOPLE VS MANANSALA
documents. Petitioner maintained that they 105 Phil 1253
could not be guilty since it was not them who
prepared the document. It was left in the ISSUE:
assessors office which they were told to come WON the person being in possession of the tvr
back and once they came back it was already is presumed to be the author of the falsification
signed. They contended that they did not act with
intent to falsify and that they acted in good faith. FACTS:
Felix Manansala, Accused was apprehended by
HELD: del Rosario of Manila Police Department (MPD)
Yes. Petitioners were the authors and for driving outside of his authorized route. Upon
mastermind since falsification is presumed from presenting the Traffic Violations Report (TVR) del
the fact that they actually benefited from it. In Rosario noticed that the TVR was altered.It was
Maliwat v. CA, the Supreme Court held that in later found that the alterations consisted of
the absence of satisfactory explanation, the one erasing the number “III” and the word “three”
found in possession of and who used a forged after the word Pending cases and replacing the
document and made use of it, taking advantage figures with “I” and “one”this changed the
and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is original meaning of the TVR which previously
that he is the material author of the falsification. stated 3 pending cases to only 1 pending case.

At the investigation, the accused admitted certificate of title is obvious and it has been
having made the alterations in question, in order proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the
to hide his previous pending traffic violation appellant was the person who obtained the
cases and thereby avoid immediate arrest should certificate from Sanchez. It is true that there is
he be caught committing a fourth traffic violation no direct evidence that she delivered it to the two
women who signed the deed, but in view of the
HELD: fact that she offered no explanation as to what
YES. she did with the certificate and even denied that
she received it, there is no escape from the
The falsified Traffic Violations Report(TVR) in inference that she placed the certificate in the
question was issued to the accused and the hands of her confederates. If she had not been a
records show that it was in his possession and co-conspirator, she would have revealed the
had been used as a temporary drivers permit name of the party to whom the certificate was
from its issuance to the time he was caught by delivered. Her position is analogous to that of a
del Rosario upon commission of his 4th violation. person who immediately after a larceny has been
It is an established rule that when a person has committed is found in possession of the stolen
in his possession a falsified document and goods and offers no explanation
makes use of the same, the presumption is that
such person is the forger. The accused also had SIQUIAN VS PEOPLE
sufficient motive to commit the falsification as 171 SCRA 223
MPD policy is to arrest a person upon the 4th
traffic violation. Hence, he had the strongest ISSUE:
temptation to make in his TVR appear that he WON Siquian was guilty of falsification of public
had only committed 1 infraction. documents
PEOPLE VS DOMINGO FACTS:

49 PHIL 28 Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel
Siquian, the municipal mayor of Isabela, to apply
ISSUE: for a job in the office of the mayor. Siquian later
WON the acts of the accused constitute a appointed her as a clerk in the office of the
falsification of public documents municipal secretary and even said that her
salary would be included in the budget.
FACTS:
Benita Domingo and company were accused of Accompanying her appointment is the
the crime of estafa through falsification of public certification, among others, of the availability of
documents after they had defrauded a Moises funds through a form issued by Siquian and
Bunzon for an amount of P5,000. addressed to the CSC, pursuant to the
The property (fishpond) in question is under the requirements of the latter.
administration of Josefa de Leon. Accused It should be noted that the Municipal council of
Benita Domingo approached the administrator Isabela, failed to enact the annual budget for the
(representing herself as a Realty broker) after municipality for the Fiscal Year 1975-76. As
learning that de Leon was looking for a buyer of such, the annual budget for the previous Fiscal
the property. Domingo later stated that she had Year 1974-75, was deemed re-enacted.
found a buyer and asked if she could have No such position (that assigned to Carreon)
temporary possession of the Title deed and other existed then. Carreon worked for five months
related documents to the property.The and was supposed to receive her salary of P120.
documents were later handed to Domingo on the She approached the municipal treasurer to ask
promise that it would be returned later in the for the money but the latter said that there was
afternoon. However, that promise was broken. no money yet. She then sued Siquian for
falsification of a public document.
Shortly, Sanchez learned his property was being
mortgaged by accused Modesto and company HELD:
(comrades of Domingo) but upon confrontation YES.
he was merely told that he did not have
possession of the documents Modesto and He was found guilty under par 4 of art
Company later approached a certain Moises 171,“making untruthful statements in a
Bunzon and pretended to be Josefa de Leon and narration of facts”; the elements of which are:
representing the owner of the property.
(a) That the offender makes in a document
They sold the subject property for P5000 to untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
Bunzon with the option of buying back the
property. (b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the
truth of the facts narrated by him; and
This transaction criminally defrauded and
injured Moises Buzon (c) That the facts narrated by the offender are
absolutely false.
HELD:
YES In this case, all the elements for falsification were
met especially when Siquian stated that funds
The crime charged in the information and were available for the position to which Jesusa
conclusively established by the evidence. The Carreon was appointed when he knew that, in
crime could hot have been committed if its reality, the position itself did not even exist and
perpetrators had not been in possession of the no funds had been appropriated. It is further
bolstered by the fact that when the budget was telegraphic message shall incur the penalty of
deemed re-enacted, there is no such position as prision correctional in its medium and maximum
Clerk to the Municipal Secretary, the position to degrees.”
which Carreon was appointed. And there is also
no appropriation made in the Annual Budget for January 13, 2018 – Article 174 – FALSE
the Fiscal Year 1974-75 for such position, thus MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
rendering Siquian's statement in his certification CERTIFICATES OF MERITS OR SERVICE,
utterly false. Siquian also had the legal obligation ETC.
to disclose the truth of such facts. OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
He also took advantage of his official position in
falsifying the document. Abuse of public office is UNITED STATES VS. JUAN ANGEL
considered present when the offender falsifies a MICHELENA
document in connection with the duties of his (4 Phil 492)
office which consist of either making or preparing
or otherwise intervening in the preparation of a ISSUE:
document. In this case, Siquian was charged Whether or not the crime of falsification of
with the duty of issuing the certification certification of merit was committed.
necessary for the appointment of Carreon.
Lastly, the existence of a wrongful intent to FACTS:
injure a third person is not necessary when the In an application to the Civil Service Board for
falsified document is a public document. examination, a document printed in accordance
with the form prescribed by said Board, and in
that part thereof which contains
January 11, 2018 – Article 173 – recommendations of the applicant. The
FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, certificate No. 3 appears to be subscribed by
TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES, Frank N. West, the latter having neither
AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES subscribed it nor written the contents thereof,
MERCADO-NASH, Regina the same not being correct in some respects, as
regards the age of the party certifying and the
US V. ROMERO length of time which he knew the candidate
17 Phil. 76 recommended. The candidate, now the
defendant, failed to present himself for
ISSUE: examination, notwithstanding having in his
Whether or not Romero was guilty of falsifying possession the ticket of admission.
telegraph message.
HELD:
FACTS: YES. The crime was fully proven. The act done by
On April 24, 1908, the accused Joaquin Romero the defendant is simply the falsification of a
who was a postmaster and telegraph operator certificate of merit. The court sentenced Juan
send two telegrams for transmission. He reduced Angel Michelena to two months and one day of
the words of the telegraph messages by twelve arresto mayor, crediting him with one-half of the
and eight words, respectively. He was not time of his detention already suffered, and the
authorized to do so by the senders. Romero costs in both instances.
pocketed the differences in the prices charged in
the sums of P0.72 and P.48, respectively. THE UNITED STATES vs. RUFINO DELOSO
(11 Phil 180)
On August 24, 1908, the provincial fiscal filed a
complaint with the Court of First Instance in ISSUE:
Tarlac, charging Romero with the crime of Whether or not the crime of falsification of
falsification of telegrams. This crime is certification of merit was committed.
punishable under Article 300 of the Penal Code
(now Art. 173 of the Revised Penal Code). He was FACTS:
a government employee and engaged in the Rufino Deloso, in order to take part in the
service of sending or receiving wireless, cable, municipal elections that were to be held about
telegraph or telephone messages. the first (1st) of December, 1904. in the town of
Jimenez, called at that municipal building and
The defendant Joaquin Romero admitted that he stated under oath to the municipal secretary,
changed the wording of the telegrams which he that he was a resident of the said town, and that
received by omitting several words in each of at the date of the next municipal election, he
them; and the record of the cause shows no proof would have resided therein for a period of six
of his allegation that he made an error in months; and that he was in every way entitled to
recounting the amount received for each vote. Subsequently, At the municipal elections
telegram, owing to the number of words they held at the town of Oroquieta, in the same
contained, and that he was obliged to diminish province, on the fifth (5th) of December 1905, the
the number of words of each of them. said Deloso was elected by a majority vote to the
office of municipal president. The election was
HELD: protested by several residents of the town on the
Yes, Romero had violated the crime of ground that the successful candidate had no
falsification of telegrams. The crime is provided legal residence therein. In his defense, Deloso
for and punished by Article 303 in connection stated under oath on the 4th of January, 1906,
with Article 300 of the Penal Code, which article before Vicente Fortich, notary public of
303 reads: “A public official in charge of the Oroquieta, that he had been, and was at the time
telegraph services who shall originate or falsify a a resident of the said town, and that he had
resided therein from the month of April, 1902, raised their defenses, Sapigao denied the
until the above-mentioned date; that he was a accusations against him, maintaining that the
candidate for the municipal presidency of blotter entries were true, as he personally
Oroquieta at the elections of December, 1903, witnessed their details whereas Acosta averred
that, although he paid frequent visits to the that she was merely performing her duties as
pueblo of Jimenez, he always returned to Barangay Secretary when she certified as true
Oroquieta, the place where he resided; that he copies the photocopies of the aforesaid blotter
never vote for municipal officers in the pueblo of entries requested by the police authorities. The
Jimenez. A complaint was filed by the provincial OPP dismissed the complaint for lack of probable
fiscal charging Rufino Deloso with the crime of cause. It found that the questioned blotter
falsification of official documents. entries were all made in good faith and merely for
recording purposes; done in the performance of
HELD: respondents' official duties; and based on
YES. The document offered in evidence issued by personal knowledge of what actually transpired.
the municipal secretary of Jimenez is not, strictly Cariaga filed a petition for review before the
speaking, a public document, but it belongs to Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP)
the class of documents that the falsification of but affirmed the OPP's ruling. The ORSP pointed
which is covered under the falsification of a out that Acosta's mere authentication of the
certificate of merit. The said document or photocopies of the blotter entries cannot be
certificate was used with the knowledge that its equated to issuing a false certification so as to
contents were false, in that Deloso was not a indict her of such crime.
resident of Jimenez. The falsity of the statement
made by him to the municipal secretary of said HELD:
pueblo, was proven by another notarial NO. The court affirmed the ORSP ruling that the
document executed by the said Deloso who also mere act of authenticating photocopies of the
stated under oath, that he was a resident of blotter entries cannot be equated to committing
Oroquieta both before and after the year 1904; it the crime of False Certification under the law.
is therefore unquestionable that the accused was Hence, the ORSP correctly found no probable
liable. cause to indict respondents of the said crimes.
DANILO CALIVO CARIAGA vs. EMMANUEL D. January 14, 2018 – Article 175 – USING FALSE
SAPIGAO and GINALYN C. ACOSTA CERTIFICATES
G.R. No. 223844, June 28, 2017 PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
ISSUE: NEGROS MERCHANTS ENTERPRISES INC.

Whether or not the crime of falsification of VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
certification of merit was committed. GR NO. 150918 (AUGUST 17, 2007)
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not the complaint should be
A Complaint Affidavit filed by Cariaga before the dismissed because of using a false and
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) accusing unauthorized certificate
respondents Emmanuel D. Sapigao (Sapigao)
and Ginalyn C. Acosta of the crimes of FACTS:
Falsification of Public Documents, False Petitioner NMEI, through its President and
Certification, and Slander by Deed, defined and General Manager, Jacinto Tan Jr., applied for an
penalized under Articles 171, 174, and 359 of the P8 million Credit Accommodation with
Revised Penal Code (RPC). In the said complaint, respondent CBC. The loan was secured by a real
Cariaga alleged that respondents, in their estate mortgage over its properties.
respective capacities as Barangay Chairman and Subsequently, NMEI, through Tan, applied for
Secretary of Brgy. Carosucan Sur, Asingan, an additional Case-to-Case Loan. Both loans
Pangasinan, made two (2) spurious entries in the were respectively paid in 1996.
barangay blotter: (1) stating that an unnamed
resident reported that someone was firing a gun Petitioner NMEI re-availed the P8M credit line
inside Cariaga's compound, and that when and failed to settle the obligation. The latter,
Sapigao went thereat, he was able to confirm that through its counsel Atty. Diaz, sent two letters to
the gunfire came from inside the compound and respondent requesting a detailed statement of
was directed towards the adjacent ricefields and account and to hold in abeyance any legal action.
(2) stating that a concerned but unnamed The latter replied that said statement could not
resident reported to Sapigao that Cariaga and his be released without proper board resolution or
companions attended the funeral march of authorization. The petitioner’s properties were
former Kagawad Rodrigo Calivo, Sr. (Calivo, Sr.) extrajudicially foreclosed and sold in public
with firearms visibly tucked in their waists. auction, with respondent as the highest bidder.
Accordingly, the police authorities used the
blotter entries to obtain a warrant for the search Petitioner filed a Complaint for Annulment of
and seizure operation made inside Cariaga's Foreclosure Sale with Damages and Preliminary
residence and cattle farm which resulted in the Injunction. Respondent CBC moved to dismiss
confiscation of a firearm and several the same on the ground that petitioner failed to
ammunitions, the criminal case for illegal show by clear and convincing evidence that it is
possession of firearms consequently filed against entitled to the relief sought in the complaint. The
him but was dismissed by the Regional Trial RTC of Bacolod denied respondents Motion to
Court claiming that the statements in the blotter Dismiss. Petitioner later filed an Amended
entries were completely false and were made to Complaint impleading Tan and his spouse,
dishonor and discredit him. Sagipao and Acosta Corazon Tan, as well as respondents Bacolod
Branch Manager Ainalea Cortez. Respondent FACTS:

again sought to dismiss the amended complaint A criminal complaint was lodged against Felipe
for failure to state cause of action and for failure Magpale in the justice of the peace court of San
to comply with the rules on non-forum shopping. Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija, charging him with
In the CA, it held that the Amended Complaint a violation of Article 176. That, on or about the
should have been dismissed because the 25th day of March, 1938, in the municipality of
accompanying certification against forum San Jose, Nueva Ecija, Philippine Islands, and
shopping which was signed by petitioner's within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-
corporate secretary, Amelito Lizares, was named accused did then and there willfully,
defective, for lack of authorization from the board feloniously, knowingly and without lawful
of directors. purpose, have in his possession, custody and
control one brand of the municipal government
HELD: of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, to wit: ,with the intent
Yes. In the instant case, Lizares was not of using it for falsifying the official brand of the
authorized to file the complaint for and in behalf said municipality of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, in
of petitioner corporation. Thus, the complaint is public documents, to wit: Certificate of
not deemed filed by the proper party in interest Ownership of Large Cattle. All contrary to law.
and should be dismissed. There was no
allegation that petitioner NMEI, through a board HELD:
resolution, authorized Lizares to execute the NO. Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code
verification and certification of non-forum provides as follows:
shopping. Moreover, no such board resolution
was appended to the complaint or amended ART. 176. Manufacturing and possession of
complaint. instruments or implements for falsification. —
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
In Tamondong v. CA, it was held that if a and maximum periods and a fine not to exceed
complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is who shall make or introduce into the Philippine
not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint Islands any stamps, dies, marks, or other
does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the instruments or implemented intended to be used
court should dismiss the complaint on the in the commission of the offenses of
ground that it has no jurisdiction over the counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the
complaint and the plaintiff. preceding sections of this chapter.
January 15, 2018 – Article 176 – Appellant himself admits that the ordered the
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF questioned iron brand to be made, wherefore, he
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR is criminally liable for the making thereof. (Article
FALSIFICATION 176, Revised Penal Code.) It also appears that
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P. the said brand is an exact imitation of that
owned and used by the municipality of San Jose,
US VS. ANGELES Nueva Ecija, to brand its own large cattle and to
6 PHIL. 435 (SEPTEMBER 11, 1906) counterbrand large cattle belonging to its
inhabitants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Angeles is liable under Article January 16, 2018 – Article 177 – USURPATION
176 of the Revised Penal Code OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D.
FACTS:
The evidence is sufficient to show that the PEOPLE VS. HILVANO
defendant Modesto Angeles, manufactured a seal G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956
in imitation of the seal of the municipality of BENGZON, J.:
Lipa, in the Province of Batangas, for the purpose
of using it in the making of false certificates of ISSUE:
the transfer by him of live stock. Whether or not Hilvano, a public officer, be held
liable for the crime of usurpation of authority or
HELD: official functions under Article 177 of the Revised
YES. A person who manufactured a seal in Penal Code.
imitation of the seal of Lipa, Batangas, for
making false certificates for the transfer of FACTS:
livestock, is guilty of making instrument for Francisco Hilvano, the councilor of the
falsification of certificates. The falsification of one municipality of Villareal, Samar, acted in place of
of these documents is punished, as we have just the Mayor of said municipality as he was
held in the case of the United States v. Florentino designated by the latter when the latter departed
Sayson 1 (4 Off. Gaz., 572). for Manila on official business. Vice-Mayor Juan
Latorre then served written notices to the
Municipal Councilors, including Hilvano, that he
PEOPLE VS. MAGPALE was assuming the duties of the absent Mayor.
G.R. NO. L-46656 (JUNE 26, 1940) When Hilvano refused invoking that he was
designated by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor sent a
ISSUE: telegram to the Executive Secretary informing
Whether or not the court erred in applying article such controversy. The latter replied by letter,
176 of RPC that under sec. 2195 of the Revised
Administrative Code it was the Vice-Mayor who
should discharge the duties of the Mayor during On the strength of the agreement, Lidres, armed
the latter’s temporary absence. Vice-Mayor also with a prepared letter of resignation for the
sought the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal who signature of Diotay, appeared at the school and
also had the same view with the Executive asked Diotay to sign it but the former refused.
Secretary. Shown these official pronouncements, Despite the refusal of Diotay, Lidres took over her
Hilvano still refused to surrender the position class.
and held it for about a month; appointed some
policemen, solemnized marriages, and received Accordingly, Lidres was charged with the crime
the salary for mayor. of usurpation of official function with deliberate
intent and without pretense of official position
Hilvano was charged with usurpation of under Republic Act No. 10
authority and official functions under Article 177
of the R.P.C. On his appeal, Hilvano contended HELD:
that he committed no usurpation of authority No. Republic Act 10 was intended as an
because he was a public officer and that such emergency measure, to cope with the abnormal
crime may only be committed by private situation created by the subversive activities of
individuals. seditious organizations at the time of its passage
in September, 1946. Hence, the elimination of
HELD: the element of pretense of official position
Yes, Hilvano, a public officer, was liable for the required under Article 177 of the Revised Penal
crime of usurpation of authority and official Code, and the elevation of the penalty
functions. from prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods to not less 2 years nor more
There was actually no reason to restrict the than 10 years. And since it was neither alleged
operation of Article 177 to private individuals. in the information nor proved during the trial
For one thing it applies to “any person”; and that Lidres was a member of said seditious
where the law does not distinguish, the court organizations engaged in subversive activities,
should not distinguish. Furthermore, contrary he could not be held liable or found guilty under
to Hilvano’s assumption that Articles 238-241 of Republic Act. No. 10.
the Revised Penal Code penalize all kinds of
usurpation of official functions by public officers, Granting, arguendo, that Republic Act No. 10
said articles merely punish interference by was an amendment to Article 177 of the Revised
officers of one of the three departments of Penal Code and not merely an implementation
government (legislative, executive and judicial) thereof or an emergency measure as stated, the
with the functions of officials of another subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 379
department. Said articles do not cover effective June 14, 1949, would constitute an
usurpation of one officer or employee of a given amendment thereof by restoring the element
department of the powers of another officer in the of pretense of official position in the offense of
same department. usurpation of official functions, originally
required by Article 177 prior to its amendment
There was no excuse for Hilvano. In the by the latter Act. Under Republic Act No. 379
beginning he might have pleaded good faith, then, the law in force at the time of the
invoking the designation by the Mayor; but after commission of the alleged offense by
he had been shown the letter of the Executive Lidres, pretense of official position was an
Secretary and the opinion of the provincial fiscal, essential element of the crime of usurpation of
he had no right thereafter stubbornly to stick to official functions. But the information
the position. specifically charges that Lidres committed the
offense "without pretense of official position".
Under circumstances, the facts alleged in the
PEOPLE VS. LIDRES information failed to constitute an offense.
G.R. No. L-12495, July 26, 1960 Neither can defendant be convicted of
BARRERA, J.: usurpation of authority, as distinguished from
usurpation of official functions, under the first
ISSUE: paragraph of Article 177, as amended by said
Whether or not Lidres was guilty of Usurpation Republic Act No. 379, namely, that of
of Official Functions under Republic Act No. 10. representing to be an officer, agent, or
representative of any department or agency of
FACTS: the Philippine Government or of any foreign
Joseta Diotay and Dionisio Lidres filed an government, inasmuch as the information does
application as a substitute teacher of the second not charged the same.
grade class of Biasong Elementary School when
Echavez, the original teacher of said class, filed
and granted a maternity leave. RUZOL vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013
Diotay was appointed as a substitute teacher VELASCO, JR., J.:
and began teaching. However, before the said
appointment, Diotay was requested by the ISSUE:
supervising teacher to sign an agreement to take Whether Ruzol was guilty of Usurpation of
over Echavez' position on a "50-50" basis, that is, Official Functions.
the period from January to March, 1954 would
be equally divided between her and Lidres. FACTS:
Leovegildo R. Ruzol, the Municipal Mayor of
General Nakar, Quezon, was accused of
usurpation of official functions for issuing 221 and, by that deception, to obtain a passport. He
Permits to Transport salvaged forest products came to the Philippine Islands as a Chinese
under the alleged “pretense of official position person traveling for curiosity and pleasure. He so
and without being lawfully entitled to do so”, represented himself to the American consul at
since such authority, as ruled by the Canton and, by that representation, obtained a
Sandiganbayan, belonged solely to the section six certificate. In his application for that
Department of Environment and Natural certificate he stated that he was a Chinese
Resources. person, and that his name was To Lee Piu .He
came to the Philippine Islands upon those
HELD: representations; and, by virtue of the certificate
No. The DENR is not the sole government agency obtained thereby, was permitted to enter the
vested with the authority to issue permits country. Desiring to return to China, or travel in
relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest other parts of the world and, at the same time,
products, considering that, pursuant to the be permitted to return to the Philippine Islands
general welfare clause, LGUs may also exercise at will, he sought to obtain a passport as a citizen
such authority. Also, as can be gleaned from the of the Philippine Islands under the sovereignty of
records, the permits to transport were meant to the United States. In order to accomplish his
complement and not to replace the Wood purpose it was necessary for him to show to the
Recovery Permit issued by the DENR. In effect, authorities of the Philippine Islands issuing
Ruzol required the issuance of the subject passport that he was in fact a citizen of the
permits under his authority as municipal mayor Philippine Islands and as such entitled to a
and independently of the official functions passport. He thereupon took unto himself a
granted to the DENR. The records were likewise Filipino name, one not his own, and made his
bereft of any showing that Ruzol made application for a passport attaching to his
representations or false pretenses that said application the name Toribio Jalijali.
permits could be used in lieu of, or at the least
as an excuse not to obtain, the Wood Recovery ONG HOCK LIAN alias JULIAN ONG v.
Permit from the DENR. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-21197, May 19, 1966
January 17, 2018 – Article 178 – USING
FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE ISSUE:
NAME Whether or not Ong Hock Lian is guilty of
RIVERA, Marynit P. violating the Anti-Alias Law
US v. TO LEE PIU FACTS:

G.R. No. 11522, September 26, 1916 Ong Hock Lian alias Julian Ong, a citizen of the
Republic of China filed a petition for
ISSUE: naturalization pursuant to the Naturalization
Whether or not the accused should be convicted Law. The Solicitor General appealed from the
of the crime of using a false name decision of the Court of First Instance of which it
granted the petition for naturalization. Moreover,
FACTS: appellant contends that the lower court erred in
The appellant To Lee Piu was charged with using in not holding that appellee uses an alias without
a false name. He came to the Philippine Islands court authority and in violation of the Anti-Alias
in 1911 and presented a section six certificate Law.
wherein his name appears to be To Lee Piu.
Thereafter, he attached to an application for a HELD:
passport the name Toribio Jalijali. Said Yes. Under the law, except as a pseudonym for
application was accompanied by the affidavits of literary purposes, no person shall use any name
two witnesses and by a baptismal certificate different from the one with which he was
showing that a person by that name was born in christened or by which he has been known since
the Philippine Islands in 1878. On the trial there childhood, or such substitute name as may have
was no denial of the fact that appellant signed been authorized by a competent court (Section 1,
the name Toribio Jalijali to the application for a Commonwealth Act 142). Aside from the name
passport. According to the defendant, he was "Ong Hock Lian," appellee is using the alias
born in the Philippine Islands as Toribio Jalijali. "Julian Ong." There is no evidence that appellee
He went to China at an early age. Feeling has been baptized with the latter name or that
doubtful as to his ability to prove his right to he has been known by it since childhood, or that
reenter, he applied to the American consul at the court has authorized the use thereof.
Canton for a section six certificate. On such Appellee has therefore committed a violation of
application, he stated that his name was Toribio the Anti-Alias Law.
Jalijali. Upon being told by the clerk of the
consulate that it was not necessary to put his January 18, 2017 – Article 179 – ILLEGAL
surname in such application, he wrote therein USE OF UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA
the Christian name Toribio alone. The charge is
prosecuted on the theory that To Lee Piu is the [NO CASE FOUND]
appellant's correct name and that the name
Toribio Jalijali is false. January 18, 2018 – Article 180 – FALSE
TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
HELD: SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
Yes. It is established beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant used the name of another
person for the purpose of deceiving Government
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIONISIO ISSUE:

MANEJA Whether or not Soliman is guilty of violating
G.R. NO. L-47684, JUNE 10, 1941 Article 181 of the Revised Penal Code.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Soliman, testifying in his own behalf in the
From what date should the period of prescription course of another criminal case in which he, with
be computed for the crime of false testimony several others, was charged with estafa, swore
under article 180 of the Revised Penal Code? falsely to certain material allegations of fact. He
testified falsely that a sworn statement offered in
FACTS: evidence in support of the charge of estafa, which
This case was an appeal by Dionisio Maneja who was in effect an extrajudicial confession of his
was accused of giving a false testimony in a guilt, had not been executed voluntarily, and
criminal case no. 1872 on December 16, 1933 as that its execution had not been procured by the
the lower court held, or from the time the police by the use of force, intimidation and
decision of the Court of Appeals in the aforesaid prolonged torture.
case became final in December 1938.
HELD:
HELD: It must not be forgotten that the right of an
The period of prescription shall commence to run accused person to testify in his own behalf is
from the day on which final judgment is served secured to him, not that he may be enabled to
in the principal case. Considering that the introduce false testimony into the record, but to
penalties provided therefor in article 180 of the enable him to spread upon the record the truth
Revised Penal Code are, in every case, made to as to any matter within his knowledge which will
depend upon the conviction or acquittal of the tend to establish his innocence.
defendant in the principal case, the act of
testifying falsely does not therefore constitute an January 21, 2018 – Article 182 – GIVING
actionable offense until the principal case is FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
finally decided. And before an act becomes a TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
punishable offense, it cannot possibly be
discovered as such by the offended party, the THE UNITED STATES vs. ISIDORO ARAGON
authorities or their agents. G.R. No. L-2709 December 28, 1905
January 19, 2018 – Article 181 – FALSE ISSUE:

TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED Whether the accused is guilty of giving false
SANTOALLA, Stephanie M. testimony in a civil case
PEOPLE V. REYES FACTS:

(C.A., 48 O.G. 1837) This was an action for the crime of giving false
testimony. Isidoro Aragon is accused of the crime
ISSUE: of false testimony in a civil case.
Whether or not the false testimony in favor of
defendant need not directly influence the On February 23 1904, E.H Warner filed a
decision of acquittal. complaint for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer against the tenants of his estate. The
FACTS: accused was summoned as witness to appear
The accused was the star witness in a before the justice of the peace court of manila,
prosecution for robbery against Jemenia. Before and after having been duly sworn, testified that
the trial, the accused executed an affidavit in he does not remember or have no recollection of
which he manifested that he was not interested forcible entry or detainer suits on the Pasay or
in the prosecution of the case and that he wanted Pineda Estate prior to the four last years.
to give the accused “a chance to earn his living
wisely and in the honest way.” The fiscal refused It was alleged that all his statements are
to ask for the dismissal of the case. When the absolutely false, and are essential to the case at
case was called for trial, the accused who was issue as they were made. He well knew that at
asked to identify Jemenia, testified that he could that time there were brought in the justice of the
not remember anymore the face of Jemenia. After peace court at Pineda when he was filing that
further questions failed to elicit other data, the office many actions for forcible entry and
case against Jemenia was dismissed by the detainer, instituted by Agustin J. Montilla
court, resulting in his acquittal. against tenants of the estate.He received an
order from the CFI asking for a list of forcible
HELD: entry and detainer actions and the accused
The contention of the defense that the acquittal himself signed three lists which was forwarded to
of Jemenia was due to the failure if the fiscal to the CFI, among other orders of the CFI to the
call other witnesses who could have properly accused.
identified Jemenia, is irrelevant. It is not
necessary that the testimony given by the HELD:
witness should directly influence the decision of During the examination of the defendant as a
acquittal, it being sufficient that it was given with witness in the cause in which it is alleged he gave
the intent to favor the accused. false testimony he was asked certain questions
with reference to the existence of certain facts.
U.S. V. SOLIMAN His answers invariably were that he did not
36 PHIL. 5 remember, or that he had no recollection
concerning those facts. His answers invariably
were that he did not remember, or that he had inasmuch as the claim based on the statement
no recollection concerning those facts. The of accounts of ARK, Inc. are, in truth and in fact,
prosecuting attorney proved the existence of the valid, legal and unpaid accounts of NFMA, Inc.
facts with reference to which the defendant was with ARK Travel Inc., herein represented by
questioned, but failed to prove that the private complainant MA. PAZ ALBERTO, to the
statements of the defendant with reference to damage and prejudice of the latter.
those facts were false. The mere fact that the
defendant had had to do in the year 1896 with HELD:
certain facts and relations was not sufficient to To constitute the crime of False Testimony in a
prove that he stated a falsehood when he stated Civil Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal
in December, 1904, that he had "no recollection Code, the following requisites must concur:
with reference to such facts or relations." The
evidence adduced during the trial fails, in our 1. The testimony must be given in a civil case;
judgment, to show that the defendant testified 2. The testimony must relate to the issues
falsely or gave false testimony as was charged in presented in the case;
the complaint. 3. The testimony is false;
4. The false testimony must be given by the
In order that a defendant may be convicted defendant knowing the same to be false; and
under article 321 of the Penal Code for giving 5. Such testimony must be malicious and given
false testimony, the following facts must be with and intent to affect the issues presented in
shown: the case.
First. The testimony must be given in a civil There is no doubt that the first two requisites are
cause. extant in this case. The records show that Ark
Second. The testimony must relate to the issues Travel filed a complaint for collection of sum of
presented in said cause. money, torts and damages against New Filipino
Third. The testimony must be false. Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI) and Angelina T.
Fourth. The false testimony must be given by the Rivera with the Regional Trial Court of Makati
defendant knowing the same to be false. (Branch 137). In said civil case, private
Fifth. Such testimony must be malicious and respondents were presented by NFMAI as
given with an intent to affect the issues witnesses. They executed their respective sworn
presented in said cause. statements and testified before the trial court
that NFMAI has no outstanding obligation with
The evidence adduced during the trial of this Ark Travel as the same had been paid in full.
case is not sufficient to show that the defendant
committed the crime charged in the complaint. The existence of the last three requisites is quite
The judgment of the inferior court is therefore dubious. The falsity of the subject testimonies of
reversed and the said cause is hereby ordered to private respondents is yet to be established. It is
be dismissed. noted that at the time of the filing of the criminal
complaints, the civil case filed by Ark Travel is
ARK TRAVEL EXPRESS, INC. vs. The still pending decision. Ark Travel has yet to prove
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court the validity of its monetary claims and damages
of Makati, Branch 150, HON. ZEUS against NFMAI. It is only after trial that the RTC
ABROGAR, VIOLETA BAGUIO and LORELEI can assess the veracity or falsity of the testimony
IRA and correspondingly render a decision. Thus, the
[G.R. No. 137010. August 29, 2003] civil case is so intimately connected with the
subject crime that it is determinative of the guilt
ISSUE: or innocence of the respondents in the criminal
Whether Article 182 is violated cases. In other words, whether or not the
testimonies of private respondents in the civil
FACTS: cases are false is a prejudicial question.
Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Travel for brevity)
filed with the City Prosecutor of Makati a January 22, 2018 – Article 183 – FALSE
criminal complaint for False Testimony in a Civil TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY
Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
against herein private respondents Violeta UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
Baguio and Lorelei Ira.
US V. JURADO
It was alleged that on or about the 19th day of (31 Phil 491)
February, 1996, the accused gave false
testimony upon a material fact in Civil Case No. ISSUE:
95-1542, relative to a complaint for Collection of Whether or not Jurado committed the crime of
sum of money, torts and damages filed by Ark perjury.
Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Inc. for short) against
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMA, Inc. FACTS:
for short). During the trial of said civil case, the On July 9, 1913, the acting provincial fiscal of
accused testified under oath that the claims of Cebu, Dionisio Jacosalem, proceeded to
ARK, Inc. supported by a statements of accounts investigate the matter of the robbery of some tins
(Exhibit E to GG) sent to and received by of opium, committed in the house of Francisco
defendant-corporation NFMA, Inc. is baseless Jurado by Alejandro Albao, a municipal
and/or been paid, which testimony as accused policeman, through threats and intimidation and
very well knew and ought to know, by reason of by availing himself of his office. This opium
accused's position as cashier, was false belonged to Vicente Lizarraga who had taken it
to the said house to sell it to some residents of Whether or not perjury was committed under
the town. Lizarraga, the owner of the drug, stated article 184?
that Francisco Jurado was present, among
others, at the time of the robbery; but when FACTS:
Jurado was called to testify as an eyewitness to Hilario P. Soriano, petitioner, is the President of
the crime he denied that he was at home on the the Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM). On
night of the robbery, as he was then in a the other hand, Zenaida A. Cabais, respondent,
cinematograph with his family. He further is the comptroller designated by the Bangko
testified that he did not know either Vicente Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to oversee the bank’s
Lizarraga or Alejandro Albao. Such was his operations.
testimony given under oath before the provincial
fiscal Jacosalem, but in the proceedings brought Eventually, the RBSM was closed and placed
against Ciriaco Singson for robbery, commenced under receivership by the BSP. Thereupon,
on September 24,1913, Jurado, testifying as a petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a
witness for the defense, stated under oath that petition for review. In the course of the
he had known Vicente Lizarraga since the month proceedings, respondent executed two affidavits
of June, 1913, and that he was already stating that:
acquainted with Alejandro Albao on the date of
the crime. 13. About a week before RBSM declared a "bank
holiday" on January 4, 2000, RBSM on
In order that a witness, in testifying under oath December 27, 1999 and December 29, 1999,
before a public official authorized to administer paid Forcecollect Professional Solution, Inc. and
same commit the crime of perjury and incur the Surecollect Professional Solution, Inc., entities
penalty prescribed by section 3 of Act No. 1697, owned/controlled by Mr. Soriano and other
it is necessary and indispensable that he testify RBSM officers (Annexes "14" and "15") P5.300
to and.declare under oath with regard to some million and P5.750 million (Annexes "16" and
material matter which he does not believe to be "17"), respectively, without any supporting
true, or that such false testimony tend to documents, as payment of 25% collection fee;2 x
establish something which conflicts with the x x (Affidavit dated February 17, 2000)
truth of an essential or important fact which has
been proven by the evidence; because, if the false 8. RBSM paid Manager Check Nos. 0000040071
testimony of the witness is not important, and 0000040079 in cash on December 27 and
essential, or material to the principal matter 29, 1999, respectively, as evidenced by the
under investigation, it can not properly be held attached Debit Advances of even dates (Annexes
that the crime of perjury has been committed. "1-B" and "2-B" respectively).3 x x x (Affidavit
dated March 22, 2000)
RULING:
No. The principal object of the investigation was On April 6, 2000, petitioner filed with the Office
to find out whether Alejandro Albao had actually of the City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for
been in Jurado's house where Lizarraga was that perjury defined and penalized by Articles 183
night with several tins of opium for sale, and and 184 of the Revised Penal Code against
whether on that occasion Albao, availing himself respondent. Petitioner alleged that respondent
of his office of municipal policeman, by committed perjury by narrating false statements
intimidation with a revolver, succeeded in in her affidavits.
compelling Lizarraga to deliver to him the tins of
opium which Lizarraga was carrying and which HELD:
Albao seized, took away with him and The petition lacks merit.
appropriated to himself, and which have not yet The fact of issuance and payment by RBSM of
been recovered. said checks to Forcecollect and Surecollect is
furthermore bolstered by the Certifications
Jurado, the owner of the house where the issued by RBSM Accountant, Narciso Adriano (p.
robbery was committed, testified that he learned 39), RBSM Branch Accountant for Plaridel,
from Isabelo Alburo that Lizarraga had in fact Carmina Capule (p. 40), and PDIC’s Assisting
been in the house with tins of opium for sale, but Deputy Receiver, Mauricia Manzanares (p. 41).
that witness did not see them because he was
that night in the cinematograph with his family. It can be gleaned from the foregoing that the
This testimony is not contradicted by any averments of respondent in her subject Affidavits
evidence in the record. For lack of sufficient proof are true. Nevertheless, granting for the sake of
of the falsity of that statement by the owner of argument that the statements of respondent in
the house, the defendant Jurado, for it was not her Affidavits are false, still, there exists no
proven that it was false and, as he certainly was reasonable ground to indict her under Articles
in his own house on the said night of the robbery, 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code. It bears
it cannot be held that, in testifying as he did, he stressing that one element of perjury is a willful
perjured himself. and deliberate assertion of falsehood. Such
element is absent in the instant case.
January 23, 2018 – Article 184 – OFFERING Respondent’s contention that said Manager’s
FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE Checks were issued and paid by RBSM to
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. Forcecollect and Surecollect, are duly supported
by RBSM records which she has perused and
SORIANO VS. CABAIS examined in her capacity as duly designated BSP
( GR NO. 157175, June 21, 2007) Comptroller for RBSM. Thus, respondent
believes in good faith that what she mentioned in
ISSUE: her Affidavits are true. It must be noted that good
faith is a defense in perjury (People of the which covered the amount of the mortgage with
Philippines v. Abaya, 74 Phil. 59). For the same its accumulated interest and with the judicial
reasons, respondent cannot likewise be expenses.
prosecuted under Article 184 of the Revised
Penal Code. RULING:
YES. Article 542 punishes "any person who shall
January 24, 2018 – Article 185 – solicit any gift or promise as a consideration for
MACHINATION IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS agreeing to refrain from taking part in any public
VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S. auction." The crime is consummated by the mere
act of soliciting a gift or promise for the purpose
VICENTE DIAZ VS. RUPERTO KAPUNAN of abstaining from taking part in the auction. Not
DECEMBER 8, 1923 permitting our minds to be confused by the
varied explanations of Diaz and Kapunan, the
ISSUE: document formulated by them and hereinbefore
Whether or not attorney Kapunan Violate Article quoted, demonstrates that Kapunan, on the
542 of the Penal Code(Now Article 185 of the promise of Diaz to pay P1,000, refrained from
Revised Penal Code). further participation in the sale of the property
of Mendezona, which is exactly the situation
FACTS: covered by article 542 of the Penal Code.
Vicente Diaz and Secundino de Mendezona
formed a partnership and entered into extensive Public policy discountenances combinations or
business transactions in the Province of Leyte. agreements on the part of bidders at execution
The capital of the partnership was P380,000. sales, the objects and effects of which are to stifle
Unfortunately, however, the business failed to competition. The courts will consider an
prosper, with the result that on liquidation, it agreement between a judgment creditor and one
was found to have suffered a loss of P67,000. claiming an interest in the thing about to be sold
When Diaz and Mendezona came to settle up under an execution, that neither shall bid
their affairs, they eventually formulated a against the other, as void, unless all parties
document of sale and mortgage in which concerned know of the arrangement and consent
Mendezona recognized a debt in favor of Diaz in thereto. Execution sales should be open to free
the sum of P80,000 and an additional sum of and full competition, in order to secure the
P10,000 owing to Diaz, laid upon the hacienda maximum benefit for the debtor. Article 542 of
"Mapuyo," and to be paid within the term of one the Penal Code is, therefore, a wise provision
year. When the year had expired Mendezona was even though rarely invoked, and should be used
not to be found and his family was unable to to discourage the stifling of bids at judicial sales.
meet the payment. There followed the usual
proceedings for foreclosure and sale, which, after PATERNO OUANO
considerable delay, resulted in the hacienda's VS.
being offered for sale at public auction. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANCISCO
At the time fixed for the sale, December 23, 1922, ECHAVEZ
there appeared Vicente Diaz, accompanied by his GR No. L-40203 August 21, 1990
lawyer Emilio Benitez, and Attorney Ruperto
Kapunan. Luis Velarde, the deputy sheriff of ISSUE:
Leyte, is authority for the statement that Whether Ouano committed machinations in
Kapunan told him that he, Kapunan, was ready public auction punishable under the Article 185
to bid on the property up to P16,000 in order to of the Revised Penal Code.
assist the Mendezona family which was in
financial straits. At any rate, the bidding was FACTS:
opened by Kapunan offering P12,000 for the The appellate proceedings at bar treat of a parcel
property and with Diaz and Kapunan raising the of land registered under RFC (DBP). Said
bids until finally Diaz offered P12,500. There the property was offered for bidding for the second
bids stopped on account of Diaz and Kapunan time because the first bidding was nullified due
entering into the agreement, of decisive to Ouano’s protest. It appears that prior to the
importance, which we next quote in full: second bidding, Ouano and Echavez orally
We, Vicente Diaz and Ruperto Kapunan, both agreed that only Echavez would make a bid, and
being the bidders at the auction held for the sale that if it was accepted, they would divide the
of the properties of Secundino Mendezona, do property in proportion to their adjoining
hereby agreed that Don Ruperto Kapunan properties. To ensure success of their enterprise,
should withdraw his bid and refrain from bidding they also agreed to induce the only other party
at the said auction as he does hereby withdraw known to be interested in the property-a group
his bid, and in consideration thereof, the said Mr. headed by a Mrs. Bonsucan to desist from
Diaz offers him a premium of one thousand presenting a bid. They broached the matter to
pesos (P1,000) which, out of consideration to Mrs. Bonsucan's group. The latter agreed to
said Don Vicente Diaz, Mr. Kapunan accepts and withdraw, as it did in fact withdraw from the
has, for this reason, refrained from bidding in sale; and Ouano's wife paid it P2,000 as
competition with said Mr. Diaz. reimbursement for its expenses.
Following the termination of the sheriff's sale, RULING:

Diaz on December 26, 1922, gave Kapunan P500 YES. These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial
of the P1,000 mentioned in the above quoted Court has stressed. Ouano and Echavez had
document. Diaz further followed the usual promised to share in the property in question as
procedure to take over the property of a consideration for Ouano's refraining from
Mendezona pursuant to his bid of P12,500, taking part in the public auction, and they had
attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in January 26, 2018 – Article 187–
causing another bidder to stay away from the IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
auction. in order to cause reduction of the price FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR
of the property auctioned In so doing, they MECHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER,
committed the felony of machinations in public OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR
auctions defined and penalized in Article 185 of ALLOYS
the Revised Penal Code DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
That both Ouano and Echavez did these acts is [NO CASE FOUND]
a matter of record, as is the fact that thereby only
one bid that of Echavez was entered for the 'land January 26, 2018 – Article 188 –
in consequence of which Echavez eventually INFRINGEMENT - RA 8293 (SUBSTITUTED
acquired it. The agreement therefore being FOR ART. 188 OF THE RPC)
criminal in character, the parties not only have CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
no action against each other but are both liable
to prosecution and the things and price of their GSELL v. YAP-JUE
agreement subject to disposal according to the G.R. No. 4720, Jan. 19, 1909
provisions of the criminal code. This, in
accordance with the so-called pari delicto ISSUE:
principle set out in the Civil Code. Whether or not Yap-Jue infringed on the patent
of Gsell.
January 25, 2018 – Article 186 – MONOPOLIES
AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF FACTS:
TRADE Gsell obtained a patent for manufacturing canes
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. and umbrellas with a curved handle by means of
a lamp or blowpipe fed with mineral oil or
THE UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO petroleum. Yap-Jue made similar products using
FULGUERAS the same process but instead of using “a lamp or
G.R. No. 2176 blowpipe fed with mineral oil or petroleum,” he
April 18, 1905 used a lamp fed with alcohol.
ISSUE: HELD:
Whether or not Fulgueras committed the acts as Yes, he did. The Court held that alcohol is an
mentioned under article 186 of the revised penal equivalent or substitute for mineral oil or
code on monopolies and combinations in petroleum, in connection with blast lamps or
restraint of trade blowpipes. It is a well-known fact at the time
when the patent was issued to Gsell. The use of
FACTS: a blast lamp or blowpipe fed with petroleum or
In the months of March to July, 1904, Fulgueras mineral oil, rather than one fed with alcohol, is
attributed to himself a supernatural power an unessential part of the patented process the
pretending to hold a commission from a powerful use of which was prohibited by the court in a
chief in Manila. He went about distributing prior proceeding.
papers and proclamations to the people of
Oroquieta, Province of Cagayan de Misamis, The Doctrine of “Mechanical Equivalents”
spreading subversive and fanatical ideas, and provides that the inventor of an ordinary
with orders from his alleged chief to lower the machine is protected against all mere formal
prices of needful commodities and to reform the alterations and against the substitution of mere
customs otherwise they would be under the mechanical equivalents. It protects the patentee
penalty of being visited with flood and calamities. from colorable invasions of his patent under the
guise of substitution of some part of his
By these machinations and deceits the defendant invention by some well-known mechanical
succeeded in deceiving ignorant people and equivalent.
causing them to provide themselves with
instruments of measure larger than they Human ingenuity would be taxed beyond its
formerly had and different from the regular size powers in preparing a grant of a patent so
and also succeeded in making them lower the comprehensive in its terms, "as to include within
prices of commodities of everyday life, all with the express terms of its detailed description every
violation of law. possible alternative of form, size, shape,
material, location, color, weight, etc., of every
HELD: wheel, rod, bolt, nut, screw, plate, and other
Yes. The court held in this case that this component parts of an invention."
spreading of false rumors or making use of any
other artifice to restrain free competition in the ASIA BREWERY, INC. V. CA AND SAN
market constitutes the acts as mentioned under MIGUEL CORP
Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code. GR NO. 104533 JULY 5, 1993
The court found all these charges well proven
and sentenced the defendant to the penalty of six FIRST ISSUE:
months’ arresto mayor and to pay a fine of 5,000 Does ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN label or "design"
pesetas, in accordance with the provisions of infringe upon SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN
article 544 of the Penal Code (now Article 186 of WITH RECTANGULAR MALT AND HOPS
the RPC). DESIGN?
HELD:
ST

NO. On the other hand, the dominant feature of

ABI's trademark is the name: BEER PALE HELD:
PILSEN, with the word "Beer" written in large NO. The amber color is a functional feature of the
amber letters, larger than any of the letters found beer bottle. As pointed out by ABI, all bottled
in the SMC label. beer produced in the Philippines is contained
and sold in amber-colored bottles because amber
The trial court perceptively observed that the is the most effective color in preventing
word "BEER" does not appear in SMC's transmission of light and provides the maximum
trademark, just as the words "SAN MIGUEL" do protection to beer.
not appear in ABI's trademark. Hence, there is
absolutely no similarity in the dominant features As was ruled in California Crushed Fruit
of both trademarks. Corporation vs. Taylor B. and Candy Co., 38 F2d
885, a merchant cannot be enjoined from using
Neither in sound, spelling or appearance can a type or color of bottle where the same has the
BEER PALE PILSEN be said to be confusingly useful purpose of protecting the contents from
similar to SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No one the deleterious effects of light rays. That the ABI
who purchases BEER PALE PILSEN can possibly bottle has a 320 ml. capacity is not due to a
be deceived that it is SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. desire to imitate SMC's bottle because that bottle
No evidence whatsoever was presented by SMC capacity is the standard prescribed under
proving otherwise Metrication Circular No. 778, dated 4 December
1979, of the Department of Trade, Metric System
Besides the dissimilarity in their names, the Board. With regard to the white label of both beer
following other dissimilarities in the trade dress bottles, ABI explained that it used the color white
or appearance of the competing products for its label because white presents the strongest
abound: contrast to the amber color of ABI's bottle; it is
also the most economical to use on labels, and
(1) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle has a the easiest to "bake" in the furnace.
slender tapered neck. The BEER PALE PILSEN
bottle has a fat, bulging neck. No one can have a monopoly of the color amber
for bottles, nor of white for labels, nor of the
(2) The words "pale pilsen" on SMC's label are rectangular shape which is the usual
printed in bold and laced letters along a diagonal configuration of labels. Needless to say, the
band, whereas the words "pale pilsen" on ABI's shape of the bottle and of the label is
bottle are half the size and printed in slender unimportant. What is all important is the name
block letters on a straight horizontal band. (See of the product written on the label of the bottle
Exhibit "8-a".). for that is how one beer may be distinguished
form the others.
(3) The names of the manufacturers are
prominently printed on their respective bottles. BIRKENSTOCK ORTHOPEADIE GMBH AND
SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN is "Bottled by the CO. KG V. PHILIPPINE SHOE EXPO
San Miguel Brewery, Philippines," whereas MARKETING CORP.
BEER PALE PILSEN is "Especially brewed and GR. NO. 194307 NOV. 20, 2013
bottled by Asia Brewery Incorporated,
Philippines." ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject marks should be
(4) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle cap is allowed registration in the name of Birkenstock.
stamped with a coat of arms and the words "San
Miguel Brewery Philippines" encircling the same. FACTS:
The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corp. (PSEMC)
with the name "BEER" in the center, surrounded was the registered owner of the trademark
by the words "Asia Brewery Incorporated “Birkenstock and Device” since October 21, 1993
Philippines." in the Philippines.
(5) On the back of ABI's bottle is printed in big, Birkenstock Orthopeadie GMBH and Co.
bold letters, under a row of flower buds and KG(Birkenstock), a German company, and has
leaves, its copyrighted slogan: been using “Birkenstock” since 1774 by its
"BEER NA BEER!" inventor, Johan Birkenstock. In 1994,
Birkenstock applied for trademark registration of
Whereas SMC's bottle carries no slogan. “Birkenstock” before the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO) in the Philippines. This was opposed
(6) The back of the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN by PSEMC. During the pendency of the
bottle carries the SMC logo, whereas the BEER registration proceedings, PSEMC failed to file the
PALE PILSEN bottle has no logo. required 10th Year Declaration of Actual Use
(7) Finally, there is a substantial price difference (10th Year DAU) for “Birkenstock and Device” on
between BEER PALE PILSEN (currently at P4.25 or before October 21, 2004. Failure to file the
per bottle) and SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN 10th Year DAU constitutes abandonment of the
(currently at P7.00 per bottle). One who pays trademark and will result in the automatic
only P4.25 for a bottle of beer cannot expect to cancellation of the certificate of registration.
receive San Miguel Pale Pilsen from the
storekeeper or bartender. The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) found that the
Second Issue: whether ABI is passing off its mark, “Birkenstock”, of Birkenstock was not
BEER PALE PILSEN as SMC's SAN MIGUEL popular in the Philippines and that PSEMC did
PALE PILSEN. not lose their right over the mark for non-filing of
the 10th Year DAU due to their continued use of G.R. NO. 169504 MARCH 3, 2010
the product. The decision of the BLA was
reversed by the Director General of the IPO (DG- ISSUE:
IPO) citing that PSEMC’s failure to file the DAU. Whether petitioners use of the trademark SAN
The CA reversed the decision of the DG-IPO and FRANCISCO COFFEE constitutes infringement
adopted the BLA’s ruling. of respondent’s trade name SAN FRANCISCO
COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. It FACTS:
affirmed the decision of DG-IPO that non-filing of Respondent San Francisco Coffee Roastery, Inc.
the DAU is an automatic cancellation of the is a local corporation engaged in wholesale and
registration and constitutes abandonment of the retail sale of coffee. It registered its business
mark. name SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY,
INC. with the Department of Trade and Industry
The SC also appreciated the evidence provided by in June 1995. On the other hand, petitioner
Birkenstock, though photocopies , that Coffee Partners, Inc. is a local corporation
“Birkenstock” is a popular mark in the world and engaged in the business of establishing and
thus entitled to protection under Philippine maintaining coffee shops in the country. It
Laws. It emphasized that registration of a registered its name on January 2001 under a
trademark, by itself, is not a mode of acquiring franchise agreement with Coffee Partners Ltd., a
ownership.1âwphi1 If the applicant is not the business entity established under British Virgin
owner of the trademark, he has no right to apply Islands to use CPL’s designed trademarks like
for its registration. Registration merely creates a SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE. In 1998, respondent
prima facie presumption of the validity of the formed a joint venture agreement with Boyd
registration, of the registrant’s ownership of the Coffee USA and later on embarked in setting up
trademark, and of the exclusive right to the use coffee shops in malls and commercial
thereof. Such presumptionis rebuttable and establishments around Metro Manila. In June
must give way to evidence to the contrary. It is 2001, respondent discovered that petitioner was
not the application or registration of a trademark about to open a coffee shop under the name SAN
that vests ownership, but it is the ownership of a FRANCISCO COFFEE in Libis, Quezon City.
trademark that confers the right to register the According to respondent, petitioners shop
same. A trademark is an industrial property over caused confusion in the minds of the public as it
which its owner is entitled to property rights bore a similar name and it also engaged in the
which cannot be appropriated by unscrupulous business of selling coffee. Respondent sent a
entities that, in one way or another, happen to letter to petitioner demanding that the latter stop
register such trademark ahead of its true and using the name SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE.
lawful owner. The presumption of ownership Respondent also filed a complaint with the
accorded to a registrant must then necessarily Bureau of Legal Affairs-Intellectual Property
yield to superior evidence of actual and real Office (BLA-IPO) for infringement and/or unfair
ownership of a trademark. competition with claims for damages.
The Court also finds that the registration of
PSEMC of the mark was in bad faith since it is HELD:
very remote that two persons did coin the same Yes. Petitioners SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE
or identical marks. To come up with a highly trademark is clear infringement of respondent’s
distinct and uncommon mark previously SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC.
appropriated by another, for use in the same line trade name. The descriptive words San Francisco
of business, and without any plausible Coffee are precisely the dominant features of
explanation, is incredible. The field from which a respondent’s trade name. Petitioner and
person may select a trademark is practically respondent are engaged in the same business of
unlimited. As in all other cases of colorable selling coffee. Whether wholesale or retail. The
imitations, the unanswered riddle is why, of the likelihood of confusion is higher in cases where
millions of terms and combinations of letters and the business of one corporation is the same or
designs available, [respondent] had to come up substantially the same as that of another
with a mark identical or so closely similar to the corporation. In this case, the consuming public
[petitioner’s] if there was no intent to take will likely be confused as to the source of the
advantage of the goodwill generated by the coffee being sold at petitioner’s coffee shops.
Birkenstock mark. Being on the same line of Respondent has acquired an exclusive right to
business, it is highly probable that the PSEMC use of the trade name SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE
knew of the existence of “BIRKENSTOCK” and its & ROASTERY, INC. since the registration of the
use by the Birkenstock, before PSEMC business name with the DTI in 1995. Thus,
appropriated the same mark and had it respondent’s use of its trade name from then on
registered in its name. must be free from any infringement by similarity.
Of course, this does not mean that respondent
January 27, 2018 – Article 189 – has exclusive use of the geographic word SAN
INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRANCISCO or generic word COFFEE.
FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, Geographic or generic words are not, per se,
FALSE DESCRIPTION, FRAUDULENT subject to exclusive appropriation. It is only the
REGISTRATION. combination of the words SAN FRANCISCO
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z. COFFEE, which is respondent’s trade name in its
coffee business, that is protected against
COFFEE PARTNERS, INC. V. SAN infringement on matters related to the coffee
FRANCISCO COFFEE ROASTERY, INC. business to avoid confusing or deceiving the
public.
were bought from the tailoring shops of Diaz, not

DIAZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND from the malls or boutiques selling original
LEVI STRAUSS INC. LEVI’S 501 jeans to the consuming public.
G.R. NO. 180677 FEBRUARY 18, 2013
The prosecution also alleged that the accused
ISSUE: copied the "two horse design" of the petitioner-
WON there was infringement of trademarks private complainant but the evidence will show
committed by Diaz in this case. that there was no such design in the seized
jeans. Instead, what is shown is "buffalo design."
FACTS: Again, a horse and a buffalo are two different
Levi Strauss and Company (Levi’s), a foreign animals which an ordinary customer can easily
corporation had been engaged in the apparel distinguish.
business. It is the owner of trademarks and
designs of Levi’s jeans like LEVI’S 501, the The prosecution further alleged that the red tab
arcuate design, the two-horse brand, the two- was copied by the accused. However, evidence
horse patch, the two-horse patch with pattern will show that the red tab used by the private
arcuate, and the composite tab arcuate. After complainant indicates the word "LEVI’S" while
receiving information that Diaz was selling that of the accused indicates the letters "LSJT"
counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring which means LS JEANS TAILORING. Again, even
shops in Almanza and Talon, Las Piñas City, an ordinary customer can distinguish the word
Levi’s Philippines hired a private investigation LEVI’S from the letters LSJT.
group to verify the information. Surveillance and
the purchase of jeans from the tailoring shops of DY V. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
Diaz established that the jeans bought from the G.R. NO. 186088 MARCH 22, 2017
tailoring shops of Diaz were counterfeit or
imitations of LEVI’S 501. Levi’s Philippines then ISSUE:
sought the assistance of the NBI for purposes of Whether the registration of the trademark of
applying for a search warrant against Diaz to be PHILITES will defraud and cause unfair
served at his tailoring shops. NBI agents competition and infringement of trademark to
searched the tailoring shops of Diaz and seized PHILIPS.
several fake LEVI’S 501 jeans from them. Levi’s
Philippines claimed that it did not authorize the FACTS:
making and selling of the seized jeans; that each On 12 April 2000, petitioner PHILITES filed a
of the jeans were mere imitations of genuine trademark application covering its fluorescent
LEVI’S 501 jeans by each of them bearing the bulb, incandescent light, starter and ballast.
registered trademarks, like the arcuate design, After publication, respondent Philips Electronics
the tab, and the leather patch; and that the filed a Verified Notice of Opposition alleging that
seized jeans could be mistaken for original the registration of such will cause to mislead the
LEVI’S 501 jeans due to the placement of the public as to the origin, nature, quality, and
arcuate, tab, and two-horse leather patch. characteristic of the goods on which it is affixed
In his defense, the accused interposed that he and it is tantamount to fraud as it seeks to
did not manufacture Levi’s jeans, and that he register and obtain legal protection for an
used the label "LS Jeans Tailoring" in the jeans identical or confusingly similar mark that clearly
that he made and sold; that the label "LS Jeans infringes upon the established rights of PHILIPS
Tailoring" was registered with the Intellectual over its registered and internationally well-
Property Office; that his shops received clothes known mark.
for sewing or repair; that his shops offered made-
to-order jeans, whose styles or designs were done HELD:
in accordance with instructions of the Yes. Applying the dominancy test in the instant
customers; that since the time his shops began case, it shows the uncanny resemblance or
operating in 1992, he had received no notice or confusing similarity between the trademark
warning regarding his operations; that the jeans applied for by respondent with that of petitioner's
he produced were easily recognizable because registered trademark. An examination of the
the label "LS Jeans Tailoring," and the names of trademarks shows that their dominant or
the customers were placed inside the pockets, prevalent feature is the five-letter "PHILI",
and each of the jeans had an "LSJT" red tab; that "PHILIPS" for petitioner, and "PHILITES" for
"LS" stood for "Latest Style;" and that the leather respondent. The marks are confusingly similar
patch on his jeans had two buffaloes, not two with each other such that an ordinary purchaser
horses. The RTC found him guilty of the said can conclude an association or relation between
crime. the marks. The consuming public does not have
the luxury of time to ruminate the phonetic
HELD: sounds of the trademarks, to find out which one
No. Diaz used the trademark "LS JEANS has a short or long vowel sound. At bottom, the
TAILORING" for the jeans he produced and sold letters "PHILI'' visually catch the attention of the
in his tailoring shops. His trademark was consuming public and the use of respondent's
visually and aurally different from the trademark trademark will likely deceive or cause confusion.
"LEVI STRAUSS & CO" appearing on the patch of Most importantly, both trademarks are used in
original jeans under the trademark LEVI’S 501. the sale of the same goods, which are light bulbs.
The word "LS" could not be confused as a
derivative from "LEVI STRAUSS" by virtue of the Applying the holistic test, entails a consideration
"LS" being connected to the word "TAILORING", of the entirety of the marks as applied to the
thereby openly suggesting that the jeans bearing products, including the labels and packaging, in
the trademark "LS JEANS TAILORING" came or determining confusing similarity. A comparison
between petitioner's registered trademark

"PHILIPS'' as used in the wrapper or packaging
of its light bulbs and that of respondent's applied
for trademark "PHILITES" as depicted in the
container or actual wrapper/packaging of the
latter's light bulbs will readily show that there is
a strong similitude and likeness between the two
trademarks that will likely cause deception or
confusion to the purchasing public. The fact that
the parties' wrapper or packaging reflects
negligible differences considering the use of a
slightly different font and hue of the yellow is of
no moment because taken in their entirety,
respondent's trademark "PHILITES" will likely
cause confusion or deception to the ordinary
purchaser with a modicum of intelligence.

TITLE FIVE – CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM watching TV. He was told that he was a pusher
AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS so he attempted to alight from the jeep but he
was handcuffed instead. When they finally
January 28, 2018 – RA 6425 – CRIMES reached the camp, he was ordered to sign some
RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER papers and, when he refused, he was boxed in
PROHIBITED DRUGS the stomach eight or nine times by Sgt. Pejoro.
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P. He was then compelled to affix his signature and
fingerprints on the documents presented to him.
He denied knowledge of the marked money or the
US VS AH SING 4 teabags of dried marijuana leaves, and insisted
36 PHIL 978 that the marked money came from the pocket of
Pejoro. Moreover, the reason why he vomited
ISSUE: blood was because of the blows he suffered at the
Whether or not accused Ah Sing is liable to illegal hands of Pejoro.
importation of Opium.
Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of
FACTS: Romana Pangan District Hospital, declared that
Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamship Shun she treated appellant for three days due to
Chang, a foreign vessel which arrived in the port abdominal pain, but her examination revealed
of Cebu from Saigon. He bought 8 cans of opium that the cause for this ailment was appellant’s
in Saigon, brought them on board and had them peptic ulcer. She did not see any sign of slight or
in his possession during the said trip. The 8 cans serious external injury, abrasion or contusion on
of opium were found in the ashes below the boiler his body.
of the steamer's engine by authorities who made
a search upon anchoring on the port of Cebu. Simon was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
The defendant confessed that he was the owner imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand
of the opium and that he had purchased it in pesos and to pay the costs.
Saigon. He dis not confess, however, as to his
purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that Simon then seek the reversal of the judgement
it was his intention to import the prohibited
drug. RULING:
No. To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited
RULING: drugs, the sale must be clearly and
Yes. As stated in the Opium Law, we expressly unmistakably established. To sell means to give,
hold that any person who unlawfully imports or whether for money or any other material
brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine consideration. It must, therefore, be established
Islands, when the prohibited drug is found under beyond doubt that appellant actually sold and
this person's control on a vessel which has come delivered two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves
direct from a foreign country and is within the to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in
jurisdiction limits of the Philippines, is guilty of exchange for two twenty-peso bills.
the crime of illegal importation of opium, unless After careful review, the Court held that there
contrary circumstances exist or the defense were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and
proves otherwise. there were 2 other tea bags of marijuana
confiscated. Thus, Simon should be charged of
note: selling for the 2 tea bags of marijuana only.
Possession of Opium on board a vessel is However, there is an overlapping error in the
punishable when Philippine port is its provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua
destination. by reason of its dual imposition, that is, as the
When a foreign steamer anchored in any of our maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is
ports after arriving direct from a foreign country, less than 750 grams, and also as the minimum
mere possession of Opium therein is punishable. of the penalty where the marijuana involved is
750 grams or more. The same error has been
PEOPLE VS. MARTIN SIMON committed with respect to the other prohibited
and regulated drugs provided in said Section 20.
ISSUE: To harmonize such conflicting provisions in
Whether or not the conviction of accused Simon order to give effect to the whole law, the court
for the violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where
Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the
was proper. quantities stated in the first paragraph shall
range from prision correccional to reclusion
FACTS: temporal, and not reclusion perpetua. This is
Accused Martin Simon was charged with a also concordant with the fundamental rule in
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act criminal law that all doubts should be construed
No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. in a manner favorable to the accused.
He sold tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as
Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer. The now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has
confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a total of 3.8 unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the
grams, when subjected to laboratory Revised Penal Code in their technical terms,
examination, were found positive for marijuana. hence with their technical signification and
effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the
Simon denied the accusation against him, maximum of said sentence, the court have
claiming that on the day of question, he was applied the provisions of the amended Section 20
picked up by the police at their house while of said law to arrive at prision correccional and
Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the petitioner and recovered from him one plastic
medium period. Such offense, although provided sachet containing shabu.
for in a special law, is now in effect punished by
and under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, After informing petitioner and Joseph of their
to determine the minimum, the court applied constitutional rights, PO3 Pang-ag and PO2
first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs Mangapit brought them to the Laoag City Police
that “in imposing a prison sentence for an Station and turned them over to the police officer
offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or on duty while the confiscated items were turned
its amendments, the court shall sentence the over to SPO3 Loreto Ancheta.
accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in The Philippine National Police (PNP) laboratory
view of the attending circumstances, could be conducted an examination on the specimen
properly imposed under the rules of said Code, recovered from appellant and his companion
and the minimum which shall be within the which tested positive for shabu.
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed On October 15, 2004, two separate informations
by the Code for the offense.” were filed against Joseph Canlas y Naguit and
Thus, in the case at bar, appellant should be Cacao indicting them for violation of Section 11,
begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence Article II of RA 9165 before the RTC of Laoag City.
within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty
next lower to prision correccional which is the Both RTC and CA convicted petitioner.
maximum range have fixed through the
application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised RULING:
Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law, the court No. As a general rule, factual findings and
may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of conclusions of the trial court and the CA are
arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of entitled to great weight and respect and will not
prision correccional. be disturbed on appeal. However, if there is any
indication that the trial court overlooked certain
JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO VS. PEOPLE OF facts or circumstances which would
THE PHILIPPINES substantially affect the disposition of the case,
[G.R. NO. 180870, 610 SCRA 636, JANUARY the Supreme Court will not hesitate to review the
22, 2010] same. In this case, the Court finds it imperative
to review the factual findings of the trial court
ISSUE: because of certain inconsistencies in the
Whether or not there was a proper chain of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on
custody in the instant case. material points.
FACTS: A. The testimonies of the prosecutions principal

On October 14, 2004, at around 7:45 in the witnesses are inconsistent as to who delivered
evening, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Celso Pang-ag of the prohibited drug to the evidence custodian.
the Intelligence and Operation Section of the
Laoag City Police Station received a telephone In this case, PO3 Celso Pang-ag (Pang-ag) and
call from an informant about a drug session PO2 Jonel Mangapit (Mangapit) both testified
being held inside Room 5 of the Starlight Hotel that it was the latter who brought the item
located at Barangay 5, Ablan Avenue, Laoag City. confiscated from petitioner to the evidence
custodian, SPO3 Loreto Ancheta (Ancheta).
Acting on the information, PO3 Pang-ag, together However, the foregoing assertions are totally at
with PO2 Jonel Mangapit, went immediately to odds with the testimony of Ancheta, the evidence
the Starlight Hotel to determine the veracity of custodian. The latter denied that it was Mangapit
the report. Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 who delivered the item allegedly recovered from
Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit approached the lady Cacao. Instead, he repeatedly and categorically
clerk manning the information counter of declared that it was SP03 Balolong (Balolong)
Starlight Hotel and inquired about the alleged from whom he received the plastic sachet of
drug session at Room 5 of the hotel. shabu.
Contrary to the findings of the appellate court,
The lady clerk informed PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 The Court is of the considered view that this
Mangapit that the roomboy of the hotel was contradiction is not so inconsequential or minor
about to deliver a softdrink to Room 5 and they but a discrepancy touching on substantial and
could follow him if they [so wish]. Thus, PO3 significant matter which could well affect the
Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit followed the roomboy credibility of the witnesses.
to Room 5. Upon arrival, the roomboy knocked
at the door and a woman, later identified as B. The prosecution failed to satisfactorily
Mylene, opened the door wide enough to enable establish that the item presented in court was
the police officers to look inside. the same item confiscated from Cacao.
PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit saw petitioner The patent inconsistency between the
seated on top of the bed sniffing shabu while testimonies of Mangapit and Pang-ag, on one
Joseph Canlas was on the floor assisting hand, and the testimony of Ancheta on the other
petitioner sniffing shabu. At this juncture, PO3 hand, necessarily leads us to doubt that the
Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit arrested petitioner plastic sachet of shabu identified in court is the
and Joseph and confiscated from them the drug same item that was allegedly seized and
paraphernalia, glass tooter, scissors, lighters confiscated from petitioner. If the version of
and plastic sachets. PO2 Mangapit frisked Mangapit is to be believed, then the most
lamentable aspect pertains to his failure to
identify the seized item with certainty. For sure custody in the handling of the seized drug. He
Mangapit, who is the most competent person to claims that there was no evidence to show when
make the proper identification being the officer the marking were done.
who confiscated the item from Cacao, never
actually identified the same. RULING:
No. The Supreme Court acquitted Pagaduan. The
The only other person who could have identified prosecution failed to show that the illegal drug
the subject drug is Pang-ag. However, the Court presented in the court is the same illegal drug
cannot lend credence to his supposed actually recovered from the Pagaduan. Strict
identification, the same not being also positive, compliance with the prescribed procedure is
certain and unequivocal. Besides, there is no required because of the illegal drug’s unique
showing that this witness actually saw the shabu characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
at the time it was allegedly seized from petitioner. identifiable, and easily open to tampering
In fact, Pang-ag is even incompetent to make the alteration or substitution either by accident or
identification since from all indications, he has otherwise.
never been in possession of it.
Resolution:
Moreover, considering the testimony of Ancheta, We recognize that the strict compliance with the
it was Balolong who forwarded the seized item. It requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may
must be noted that Balolong was never presented not always be possible under field conditions; the
to testify in this case. Thus, there is no evidence police operates under varied conditions, and
to prove that what was turned over to the cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the
evidence custodian by Balolong and later procedures in the handling of confiscated
presented in court was the same substance evidence. For this reason, the last sentence of the
recovered from petitioner. The failure to establish implementing rules provides that non-
the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s compliance with these requirements under
case. justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are
Note: properly preserved by the apprehending
Essential in a drug-related case is that the officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
identity of the dangerous drug be established such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
beyond reasonable doubt Since the dangerous Thus, noncompliance with the strict directive of
drug constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily
and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment fatal to the prosecutions case; police procedures
of conviction, it behooves upon the prosecution in the handling of confiscated evidence may still
to establish and prove with certainty that the have some lapses, as in the present case. These
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence lapses, however, must be recognized and
against the accused is the same item recovered explained in terms of their justifiable grounds,
from his possession. and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized must be shown to have been
The failure to establish the chain of custody is preserved
fatal to the prosecution’s case. There can be no
crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug In the present case, the prosecution did not
when nagging doubts persist on whether the bother to offer any explanation to justify the
item confiscated was the same specimen failure of the police to conduct the required
examined and established to be the prohibited physical inventory and photograph of the seized
drug. drugs. The apprehending team failed to show
Presumption of regularity in the performance of why an inventory and photograph of the seized
official duty cannot by itself override the evidence had not been made either in the place
constitutional right of the accused to be of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police
presumed innocent unless overcome by strong, station (as required by the Implementing Rules
clear and compelling evidence. in case of warrantless arrests). We emphasize
that for the saving clause to apply, it is important
PEOPLE VS PAGADUAN that the prosecution explain the reasons behind
(GR NO 179029, 12 AUGUST 2010) the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
value of the seized evidence had been preserved.
ISSUE: In other words, the justifiable ground for
Whether or not the integrity of the evidence was noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The
preserved. court cannot presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist.
FACTS:
Buy-bust operation was conducted by PO3 The second link in the chain of custody is its
Almarez, SPO1 Balido and Captain de Vera. turnover from the apprehending team to the
Ruper Pagaduan was arrested and plastic sachet police station. PO3 Almarez testified that the
of what appears to be shabu was marked, appellant was brought to the Diadi Police Station
request for laboratory examination was done the after his arrest. However, he failed to identify the
same day. The plastic sachet was turned over to person who had control and possession of the
PNP Crime Laboratory two days after. He was seized drug at the time of its transportation to
found guilty by the court and the same was the police station. In the absence of clear
affirmed by CA evidence, we cannot presume that PO3 Almarez,
as the poseur buyer, handled the seized sachet
Pagaduan contents among others that the to the exclusion of others – during its transfer
prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain of from the place of arrest and confiscation to the
police station. The prosecution likewise failed to

present evidence pertaining to the identity of the
duty desk officer who received the plastic sachet
containing shabu from the buy-bust team. This
is particularly significant since the seized
specimen was turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory only after two days. It was not,
therefore, clear who had temporary custody of
the seized items during this significant
intervening period of time. Although the records
show that the request for laboratory examination
of the seized plastic sachet was prepared by
Captain de Vera, the evidence does not show that
he was the official who received the marked
plastic sachet from the buy-bust team.
As for the subsequent links in the chain of

custody, the records show that the seized
specimen was forwarded by PO3 Almarez to the
PNP Crime Laboratory on December 29, 2003,
where it was received by PO2 Dulnuan, and later
examined by PSI Quintero. However, the person
from whom PO3 Almarez received the seized
illegal drug for transfer to the crime laboratory
was not identified. As earlier discussed, the
identity of the duty desk officer who received the
shabu, as well as the person who had temporary
custody of the seized items for two days, had not
been established.
The procedural lapses mentioned above show the
glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a
reasonable doubt whether the drugs confiscated
from the appellant were the same drugs that
were brought to the crime laboratory for
chemical analysis, and eventually offered in
court as evidence. In the absence of concrete
evidence on the illegal drugs bought and sold,
the body of the crime the corpus delicti has not
been adequately proven. In effect, the
prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of
the crime charged, creating reasonable doubt on
the appellants criminal liability.

a prize, or some advantage or inequality in

TITLE SIX – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC amount or value which is in the nature of prize.
MORALS
MARTIN VILLAMOR and VICTOR BONAOBRA
January 30, 2018 – Article 195 – ACTS VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
PUNISHABLE IN GAMBLING AND BETTING G.R. No. 200396 MARCH 22, 2017
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M
ISSUE:
U.S. v. JAIME FILART AND HILARIO Whether or not the petitioners’ conviction for
SINGSON violation of RA 9287 as collector or agent under
G.R. No. L-10263 March 13, 1915 Section 3(c) for Villamor, and as coordinator,
Moreland, J. controller, or supervisor under Section 3(d) for
Bonaobra, should be upheld.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants conducted lottery FACTS:
Villamor was charged as a collectior with
FACTS: violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287 for collecting
Filart and Singson took part in a lottery or raffle and soliciting bets for an illegal numbers game
of an automobile, which was the property of locally known as "lotteng” and possessing a list
Filart. The winner was determined in the of various numbers, a calculator, a cellphone,
following manner: The numbers composing the and cash.Another Information was filed in the
450, each written on a separate piece of paper, same court charging Bonaobra as an operator or
were placed together in a box and thoroughly manager with violation of the same law on the
mixed. A boy was selected who placed his hand same day and place. The prosecution testified
in the box and drew out a number. This he that PD Penaflor received a call from an
delivered to a person who unfolded the paper and informant regarding an ongoing illegal numbers
read the number in a loud voice while Filart, with game at Barangay Francia, Virac, Catanduanes,
a list of the 450 numbers referred to, struck from specifically at the residence of Bonaobra. They
the list the number corresponding to that drawn proceeded to the latter's residence and upon
from the box. This was repeated until all of the arrival, they saw petitioners in the act of
numbers were drawn from the box and stricken counting bets, described by the Bicol term
from the list. It was agreed that the last number “revisar,” which means collating and examining
drawn from the box should be the winning numbers placed in “papelitos,” which are slips of
number and that the owner of that number paper containing bet numbers, and counting
should win the automobile. money bets.When they entered the gate of fee
compound, they introduced themselves as police
Both defendants were charged for violating the officers and confiscated the items found on the
following provisions of the law: table consisting of cash amounting to P1,500.00
in different denominations, the “papelitos,” a
Section 7 of Act No. 1757 provides, as follows: calculator, a cellular phone, and a pen.
The playing at and the conducting of any game Petitioners were then brought to Camp Francisco
of monte, jueteng, or any form of lottery or policy Camacho where they were investigated for illegal
. . . is hereby prohibited, and any person taking gambling. Subsequently, a case was filed against
any part therein . . . shall be punished as the petitioners before the Office of the Provincial
provided in section 3 hereof. . . . . Prosecutor. The version of the defense asserted
This section also provides that: that the evidence were inadmissible because the
police officers had no search warrant when they
It shall be no defense to any criminal action barged into Barnoabra's compound and
under this section that the defendant acted as therefore the conviction should not be
the agent of another or that he had no interest in upheld.The RTC gave credence to the testimonies
the result. of the arresting officers and held that petitioners
were caught in flagrante delicto committing an
HELD: illegal numbers game locally known as “lotteng”
Yes. The facts of record place this case within the a variant of Last Two. CA affirmed the decision of
definition generally given of a lottery. A lottery is the RTC. Hence, this petition.
said to be “a species of gaming, which may be
defined as a scheme for the distribution of prizes RULING:
by chance among persons who have paid, or No. The Court finds that the right of the
agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the petitioners against unreasonable searches and
chance to obtain a prize.” It was held in the case seizures was violated by the arresting officers
of Equitable Loan Co. vs. Waring, 117 Ga., 599, when they barged into Bonaobra’s compound
that three elements enter into a lottery scheme: without a valid warrant of arrest or a search
(1) A consideration; (2) chance: (3) a prize, or warrant. While there are exceptions to the rule
some advantage or inequality in amount or value requiring a warrant for a valid search and
which is in the nature of prize. seizure, none applies in the case at bar.
Consequently, the evidence obtained by the
Doctrine: police officers is inadmissible against the
A lottery is defined as a scheme for the petitioners, the same having been obtained in
distribution of prizes by chance among persons violation of the said right.After a judicious review
who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable of the records of the case, the Court finds that
consideration for the chance to obtain a prize. Its there was no valid warrantless arrest on
elements are: (1) a consideration; (2) chance: (3) petitioners. It was not properly established that
petitioners had just committed, or were actually
committing, or attempting to commit a crime and said contests is a lottery, or gift enterprise
that said act or acts were done in the presence of depending in part upon lot or chance, within the
the arresting officers. In this case, the meaning of the Postal Law.The general rule is
prosecution failed to clearly establish the acts that guessing competitions or contests are
that constitute the offense of illegal gambling as lotteries within the statutes prohibiting lotteries.
a collector or an agent.The prosecution merely Indeed, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for
relied on the alleged illegal gambling the most ingenious and subtle mind to devise
paraphernalia found and confiscated inside the any scheme or plan short of a gratuitous
house of Bonaobra and not on the specific overt distribution of property, which will not be held to
acts that constitute the offense.All told, the be in violation of the Gambling Law, and
evidence purportedly seized from the Bonaobra repugnant to the Postal law. It is for the courts
compound is inadmissible in evidence since it to look beyond the fair exterior, to the substance,
was obtained in violation of Section 3(2), Article in order to unmask the real element and the
III of the 1987 Constitution, Since the alleged pernicious tendencies which the law is seeking
illegal gambling paraphernalia is the very corpus to prevent.The purpose of El Debate in devising
delicti of the crime charged, the Court acquits its advertising scheme was to augment its
petitioners. circulation and thus to increase the number of
newspaper readers in the Philippines — which is
"EL DEBATE," INC., VS commendable. But the advertisement carries
JOSE TOPACIO, Director of Posts along with it a lottery scheme — which is not
G.R. No. L-19982 December 29, 1922 commendable.Open the door of chance but a
little, for one scheme, however ingeniously and
ISSUE: meritoriously conceived, to pass through, and
Whether or not the guessing contest of El Debate soon the whole country will be flooded with
a "lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme lotteries.
depending in whole or in part upon lot or chance"
within the meaning of the law. January 31, 2018 – Article 196 –
IMPORTATION, SALE AND POSSESSION OF
FACTS: LOTTERY TICKETS OR ADVERTISEMENTS
El Debate, a newspaper of the City of Manila, ALAMEDA, Manuel F.
published a full page announcement regarding
two contests.The first contest is for the award of THE UNITED STATES vs. EMILIO SANTOS
prizes for the nearest approximate guesses as to REYES, ET AL.,
the total number of votes that will be cast for any G.R. No. L-7260 August 21, 1912
of the winning candidates for Carnival Queen
either in the provinces or in Manila. The second ISSUE:
contest is for the award for the nearest Whether or not the defendant violated Sec.3, Act
approximate guesses as to the total number of No. 1523.
votes that the Queen elect will receive for the FACTS:
Carnival queenship. Any subscriber to El Debate These defendants were charged with a violation
may participate in these two contests by paying of an Section 3, Act No. 1523, to prohibit the
in advance at least the amount of the importation, sale, giving away, use and
subscription of a quarter.But payment is to be possession of lottery tickets and lottery
strictly in advance and the estimate or guess advertising matter. The defendant, Emilio S.
must be explained.The Director of Posts, Reyes, was by occupation a printer; that during
following the advice of the Attorney-General, the months of March, April, May and June, 1911,
refused to admit the issues of El Debate, he printed a large number of lottery tickets,
containing the advertisement, to the mails, for alleged to be lottery tickets of the Royal Lottery
the reason that it fell within the provisions of the of Colombo; that a number of said lottery tickets
Administrative Code concerning non-mailable were found in his private residence and others in
matter. Not satisfied with the ruling of the his place of business; that the tickets which the
Director of Posts, the publishers of El Debate defendant Reyes had delivered to the defendant
have had recourse to these original proceedings Dominga Trinidad were later found in the
in mandamus to settle the controversy between possession of the said Dominga Trinidad and the
the newspaper and the Government. El Debate other codefendant, Teodoro Fidel. The attorney
argued that it was a guessing game and not for the appellant maintains in his brief that said
lottery thus Director of Posts must grant the Act No. 1523 did not provide a punishment for
issues containing such advertisements. the possession of lottery tickets of the Philippine
Islands or of lottery tickets made in the
RULING: Philippine Islands. He further argues that the
Yes. It is similar. "Neither of these contests is a tickets were printed by the defendant Reyes for
"legitimate business enterprise." In each one Miguel Soler and that he had nothing to do
thousands invest small sums in the hope and with said lottery tickets, except to print them
expectation that luck will enable them to win under his contract with Soler. Soler was not
large returns. A comparatively small percentage called as a witness during the trial of the cause.
of the participants will realize their expectations, The defendant Reyes admitted that he had
and thousands will get nothing. They are, in printed the tickets; that he was in possession of
effect, lotteries, under the guise of 'guessing the same; that a part of them were found hidden
contests'. The Meeting, therefore, the issues in in his house and that he had given to his
the case, we rule that the Director of Posts acted codefendant, Dominga Trinidad, a number of
advisedly in refusing the use of the mails for the said tickets for a certain sum of money.
issue of El Debate which contained the
announcement of its guessing contest, and that HELD:
ST

In view of the fact that the defendant, Emilio stands uncontradicted and the Government did
Santos Reyes, gave to his co-defendant, Dominga not attempt to impeach the credibility of these
Trinidad, certain of said lottery tickets, and in witnesses.
view of the fact that he had hidden away in his
private residence certain of said lottery tickets, February 1, 2018 – Article 197 – BETTING IN
we are of the opinion that his possession of the SPORTS CONTESTS
same has not been satisfactorily explained, and ALILIAN, Enna B.
that his possession of said lottery tickets is in
violation of said section 3. [NO CASES FOUND]
U.S. VS MARCELO JOSE February 1, 2018 – Article 198 – ILLEGAL

GR NO. 11566 AUG 10, 1916 BETTING ON HORSE RACES
ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
ISSUE:
Did the defendants violate Section 3 of Act No. [NO CASES FOUND]
1523?
February 2, 2018 – Article 199 – ILLEGAL
FACTS: COCKFIGHTING
The mercantile firm of Marcelo Jose & Co., BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
composed of Marcelo Jose and Tan Bo, was
located at No. 200 Calle Harris, Olongapo. Both THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
members of this firm were arrested on the night MARIANO AYOSO, TEODORICO
of May 16, 1915, and placed in confinement. VALENZUELA, ALFONSO DESOYO and
About 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the FELIPE DE LA CRUZ.
following day, May the 17th, the store was G.R. No. L-18762 April 27, 1967
searched by the authorities and a one-tenth part Ponente: MAKALINTAL, J.
of a Macao lottery ticket was found therein. At
the time this search was made neither of the ISSUE:
owners of the store was present. Tan Bo, the Whether or not the ordinance regarding
managing partner, testified that this lottery cockfighting is valid.
ticket was sent to him by a friend in Amoy and
that when he received it he put it in an envelope FACTS:
and placed it in the drawer and that his partner, On July 21, 1960, accused-appellants MARIANO
Marcelo Jose, had never seen it. The appellant, AYOSO, ET AL., were charged with the crime of
Marcelo Jose, testified that, although he is a ILLEGAL COCKFIGHTING before the Municipal
member of the mercantile firm of Marcelo Jose & Court of Bogo. That on or about 2:45 o'clock in
Co., he knew nothing of the existence of the the afternoon, more or less of July 21, 1960 at
lottery ticket until he saw it in the court of the the cockpit of Tan Sim, Poblacion Bogo, Cebu,
justice of the peace, and that he lived in Manila Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
and went to Olongapo only when the business Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
required his presence. Section 3 of Act No. 1523 then and there, willfully, feloniously, unlawfully
provides that it shall be unlawful for any person and knowingly with unlawful purpose, indulge
to sell, give away, use or have possession of, with themselves in illegal cockfighting commonly
intent to sell, give away or use, any lottery ticket. known as "Tari-Tari", wherein money P25 is used
as bet on a day, Thursday, which is not
HELD: permitted by law though the place is a licensed
If the defendant can establish that he did not cockpit. This act is a gross violation of Article 199
know of the existence of the lottery ticket within of the Revised Penal Code, Section 1.
his premises, the presumption is destroyed and
the defendant must be acquitted.It is a general The accused filed a motion to quash, claiming
rule that, when ay of the prohibited drugs, that the facts alleged in the complaint do not
enumerated in section 31 of the Opium Law, are constitute an offense because cockfighting is
found upon the premises occupied by a person authorized in Bogo on Thursdays under the
accused of using the same, there can be no provisions of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1960,
conviction under said section unless it enacted and approved by the Municipal Council
affirmatively appears that he knowingly had the of Bogo.
prohibited article on the premises, or that the
animus possidendi in fact existed together with HELD:
his alleged apparent possession or control of NO. The municipal ordinance is invalid.
such article. But direct proof of facts of this Thus, the issue boils down to whether Republic
nature, in a criminal proceeding, is rarely Act No. 938, as amended, gives local government,
forthcoming, except in cases of confession, and blanket authority to permit cockfighting at any
their existence may and usually must be inferred time and for as long as said governments may
from the varying circumstances in each wish it. Upon mature deliberation, we hold that
particular case. When a full, satisfactory, and the answer must be in the negative.
sufficient explanation of the presence of a
prohibited drug on the premises at the time of To begin with, repeals and even amendments be
the seizure is given, which is entirely consistent implication are not favored, whereas an
with the allegation of the defendant to the effect affirmative answer would entail a vital
that he did not have the same in his possession, amendment, amounting for all practical
there can be no conviction and the accused must purposes, to a repeal, of sections 2285 and 2286
be acquitted. of the Revised Administrative Code.
The testimony of both this appellant and Tan Bo
Secondly, grants of power to local governments US vs. SAMANIEGO

are to be constructed strictly, and doubts in the G.R. No. 5115. November 29, 1909.
interpretation thereof should be resolved in favor MORELAND, J. :
of the national government and against the
political subdivisions concerned. ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused committed Grave
Thirdly, it is a matter of common knowledge that Scandal.
cockfighting is one of the most wide-spread vices
of our population, and that the government has FACTS:
always shown a grave concern over the need of That on and for many weeks prior to the 27th day
effectively curbing its evil effects. The theory of of November, 1907, in the city of Manila,
petitioner herein presupposes that the Republic Philippine Islands, the said Juana Benedicto de
of the Philippines has completely reversed its Perez was a married woman, and that said
position and chosen instead, to place the matter Manuel Samaniego knew that she was married
entirely at the discretion of local governments. and united in the bonds of matrimony with and
We should not, and cannot adopt, such promise was the legitimate consort of Jose Perez
except upon a clear and unequivocal expression Siguenza; that during the period of time above
of the will of Congress, which insofar as said expressed the said Manuel Samaniego and
premise is concerned is not manifest from the Juana Benedicto de Perez, willfully, illegally, and
language used in Republic Act No. 938, as criminally and scandalously, without having any
amended. matrimonial tie between them, habitually
appeared together in public places and
Lastly, "cockpits" and "cockfighting" are frequented together places of recreation,
regulated separately be our laws. Thus, Section suspicious places, vacant houses, and houses of
2243 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code bad repute, in the daytime as well as in the
empowers municipal councils "to regulate nighttime; and lewdly and indecently went to bed
cockpits". Yet, the authority of said councils over together in the house of the husband of the said
cockfighting, is found in sections 2285 and 2286 Juana Benedicto de Perez during the late hours
of said Code, not in said section 2243 (i). of the night, dressed only in their night clothes,
Similarly, Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code and indecorously, indecently, and immodestly
punishes, not illegal "cockpits" but "illegal embraced each other and caressed each other in
cockfighting." What is more, participation in the presence of the family, children, and servants
cockfights "on a day other than those permitted of the said husband of Juana Benedicto de Perez;
by law" is dealt with in said article separately all with public scandal and with scandal to the
from participation in cockfights "at a place other community, and with shame and humiliation to
than a licensed cockpit". the husband and family of the said Juana
Benedicto de Perez.
So too, the authority of local governments, under
Republic Act No. 938, as amended, "to regulate RULING:
... the establishment, maintenance, and NO. The acts complained of lack many of the
operation of ... cockpits" does not necessarily elements essential to bring them within the
connote the power to regulate "cockfighting", purview of the article of the Penal Code invoked
except insofar as the same must take place in a by the prosecution. Every act that was in
duly licensed "cockpit". Again, the first and anywise public fails entirely of those qualities
second proviso in Section 1 of said Act, which offend modesty and good morals by
regulating the distance of cockpits and places of "grievous scandal or enormity." The occurrence
amusements therein mentioned from 'any public at the residence on the night of the 6th of
building, schools, hospitals and churches' and November did not have that publicity which is
the third proviso of the same section, prohibiting required by the article of the Penal Code referred
the admission of minors to some of those places to. (U.S. v. Catajay, 6 Phil. Rep., 398; supreme
of amusement, suggest that the authority court of Spain, April 13, 1885, December 14,
conferred in said provision may include the 1903, and January 27, 1908; Viada, vol. 3, p.
power to determine the location of cockpits, 130.)
conditions to be observed for the protection of
persons therein, the number of cockpits that The evidence introduced on the reopening adds
may be established in each municipality and or nothing to the case already made by the
by each operator, the minimum age of the prosecution. The case was reopened for a
individual who may be admitted therein, and particular purpose and the evidence to be
other matters of similar nature — as introduced, if any, was restricted to a particular
distinguished from the days on which condition, viz, the "publicity or nonpublicity of
cockfighting shall be held and the frequency the acts charged in the complaint." On the
thereof. reopening, evidence was presented by the
prosecution in relation to the alleged occurrence
In short, we are of the opinion that the city between the defendants in Plaza Palacio.
ordinances relied upon by petitioner herein Concerning this incident testimony had already
authorizing cockfighting on Thursdays, are been given on the trial by the witness Rafael
invalid. Perez. Testimony was also given on the reopening
by the same witness as to an occurrence between
February 3, 2018 – Article 200 – GRAVE the defendants one morning in the Botanical
SCANDAL Garden. In relation to this same event he had
BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A. already given his testimony on the trial. His
evidence as to these two events given on the
reopening of the case is wholly inconsistent with,
if not absolutely contradictory of, his testimony YES. There can be no doubt that the accused
in relation to the same events given on the trial. committed the offense defined and penalized in
Such testimony can have no weight. No. 2 of the article 571 of the Penal Code, which
corresponds with the above-mentioned number
The other testimony given on the reopening by 2 of article 586 of the Penal Code of Spain, and
this witness and the testimony of the witness provides that a penalty of from one of ten days’
Amadeo Pacheco can have no bearing or weight arrest and a fine of from 15 to 125 pesetas shall
in the decision of this case because such be imposed upon those who, by exhibiting prints
testimony relates to acts and relations between or engravings, or by means of other acts, shall
the defendants which are not "charged in the offend against good morals and custom without
complaint" and concerning which no evidence committing a crime.
whatever had been offered on the trial.
Since this is a lesser offense that the one charged
In the judgment of this court the evidence fails to in the complaint, and is included therein, we find
show the defendants guilty of the crime charged. him guilt of a violation of the provisions of the
said article and, reversing the sentence of the
US vs. CATAJAY trial court, we impose upon the accused, Jose
G.R. No. 2785. August 23, 1906. Catajay, the penalty of the ten days’
CARSON, J. : imprisonment (arresto), and the payment of a
fine of 125 pesetas, and the costs of the trial in
ISSUE: both instances. After the expiration of ten days
WON the accused committed Grave Scandal. from the date of final judgment let the cause be
remanded to the lower court for proper
FACTS: procedure. So ordered.
The trial court found be accused guilty of the
crime of public scandal in violation of the February 4, 2018 – Article 201 – IMMORAL
provisions of article 441 of Penal Code. PUBLIC DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND
SANDAL. — Article 441 of the Penal Code EXHIBITIONS, AND INDECENT SHOWS
construed. Held, That it is an essential element CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
of the crime defined and penalized therein that FERNANDO V. CA
the acts complained of resulted in a grave public G.R. NO. 159751 DEC. 6, 2006
scandal. It appears, however, that the acts
complained of were committed at night, in a ISSUE:
private house, and at a time when no one was Whether or not Fernando was guilty of selling
present except the accused, the mistress of the and distributing obscene materials.
house, and one servant, and we are of opinion
that these circumstances do not constitute that FACTS:
degree of publicity which is an essential element Gaudencio E. Fernando owned Gaudencio E.
of the crime defined and penalized in article 441 Fernando Music Fair and Rudy Estorninos was
of the Penal Code. The correct construction of its attendant. Philippine National Police Criminal
this article well stated by Viada in his Investigation and Detection Group in the
commentary on article 457 of the Penal Code of National Capital Region (PNP-CIDG NCR), acting
Spain, which exactly corresponds with the article on reports that the store sold and distributed
in question: pornographic materials, raided the store by
virtue of a search warrant. The raid yielded
"Constitute the crime provided all those acts twenty five (25) VHS tapes and ten (10) different
contrary to decency and good manners that, for magazines.
their publicity, have been subject to public
scandal for people who have accidentally Fernando contends that his Mayor’s permit was
witnessed. Although the article does not say it, it expired and thus not the lawful owner of the
is evident that it is a precise condition for this store.
crime to exist that offense to modesty and good
habits is public: if the offense did not have this HELD:
character, it is clear that it would not produce Yes, he is guilty of Art. 201.
the serious scandal nor the transcendence In order to be liable under Art. 201, it must be
required by the article, and therefore, no longer proven that (a) the materials, publication, picture
subject to the sanction of the same, but the most or literature are obscene; and (b) the offender
benign of No. 2 of Article 586, which punishes as sold, exhibited, published or gave away such
inmates a simple offense against public order, materials. Necessarily, that the confiscated
with the arrest penalty of one to ten days and a materials are obscene must be proved.
fine of 5 to 50 pesetas, to those who with any
kind of acts offended the moral and good custom The following guidelines as to what is obscene
without committing a crime. When the act, then, was adopted by the Court:
offensive to modesty is publicly committed,
should be assessed as a crime, since this same (1) whether to the average person, applying
publicity is what produces the serious scandal contemporary standards would find the work,
that is punished: in another case, the provision taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
cited Article 586 is the one that should apply." interest;
(Viada comments to the Penal Code of 1870,
fourth edition, volume 3, page 130.) *translated (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
via translate.google.com patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law;
RULING: and
and loitering around San Pedro and Legaspi

(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks Streets of Davao City, without any visible means
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific to support herself nor lawful and justifiable
value. purpose. Respondents filed separate Motions to
Quash on the ground that Art. 202 (2) is
The Supreme Court noted the reasoning of the unconstitutional for being vague and overboard.
trial court as to the obscene nature of one of the The municipal trial court denied the motions,
VHS tapes confiscated: “The tape exhibited directed respondents to file their respective
indecent and immoral scenes and acts. Her counter-affidavits, and declared that the law on
dancing movements excited the sexual instinct of vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the State’s
her male audience. The motive may be innocent, police power (or the power of promoting public
but the performance was revolting and shocking welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
to good minds.” liberty and property) and justified by the Latin
Furthermore, Art. 201 does not require that a maxim “salus populi est suprema lex” (which
person be caught in the act of selling, giving away calls for the subordination of individual benefit
or exhibiting obscene materials to be liable, for to the interest of the greater number).
as long as the said materials are offered for sale, Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and
displayed or exhibited to the public. prohibition with the RTC challenging the
constitutionality of the anti-vagrancy law and
PEOPLE V. KOTTINGER claiming that Art 202 (2) violated the equal
G.R. NO. L-20569 OCTOBER 29, 1923 protection clause. The RTC granted the petition
of the herein respondents and declared Art. 202
ISSUE: (2) unconstitutional.
Whether or not the photos of naked native
women in the post cards were obscene. HELD:
No. Article 202 (2) of the RPC does not violate the
FACTS: equal protection clause; neither does it
Kottinger was manager of Camera Supply Co discriminate against the poor and the
where several post cards were confiscated due to unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are
their alleged obscenity. The post cards showed punished not for their status, as for being poor
photos of naked native women from non- or unemployed, but for conducting themselves
Christian areas in the Philippines. under such circumstances as to endanger the
public peace or cause alarm and apprehension
HELD: in the community. Being poor or unemployed is
No, they do not. The tests used by the Court as not a license or a justification to act indecently
to whether a material is considered obscene were or to engage in immoral conduct.
the following: 1) whether the tendency of the
matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or
corrupt those whose minds are open to such U.S. VS HART, ET AL.,
immoral influences and into whose hands a G.R. NO. 8848 NOVEMBER 21, 1913
publication or other article charged as being
obscene may fall; and 2) Whether it shocks the ISSUE:
ordinary and common sense of men. Whether or not Hart, Miller and Natividad have
The Court ruled that the pictures merely depict committed the act of Vagrancy.
persons as they actually live, without attempted FACTS:
presentation of persons in unusual postures or Hart, Miller and Natividad were accused of
dress. That pictures portraying the inhabitants Gambling and Vagrancy where they all appealed.
of the country in native dress and as they appear
and can be seen in the regions in which they live, Hart had ran gambling games in his saloon ever
are not obscene or indecent. Dr. Beyer, a night one in Angeles and one in the Bario of
professor from University of the Philippines also Tacondo. He also operated a hotel Angeles in
testified that that none of the pictures which he did a business. He was also a proprietor
represented poses which he had not observed on He raised hogs which he sold to the Army
various occasions, and that the costumes worn garrison at Camp Stotsenberg. He was also
by the people in the pictures are the true authorized to sell several hundered hectarcs of
costumes regularly worn by them. land owned by one Carrillo in Tacondo. With the
power of an attorney, he furnished the same
February 5, 2018 – Article 202 – VAGRANCY property and paid for the 1st public school in
AND PROSTITUTES Tacondo.
DAHIROC, Janice L.
Miller had the reputation of being a gambler and
PEOPLE VS. SITON, ET AL., that he was fined for gambling and was seen in
GR 169364, 18 SEPT. 2009 houses of prostitution. Miller was discharged
from the Army last year. He had the position of
ISSUE: Sergeant and received a rating as "excellent" on
Does Article 202 (2), RPC on vagrancy violate the being discharged. He had a partnership with one
equal protection clause? Buckered and invested P1000. The business
netted him P300 per month.
FACTS:
Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Natividad was also a gambler. During his visits
Sagarano were charged with vagrancy pursuant to saloons, he sometimes acted as a banker. His
to Art. 202 (2) of the RPC in two separate occupancy is that of a tailor which was sufficient
Informations. Accused were found wandering enough to support his family.
HELD:
Defendants are AQUITTED
Act No. 519 states that:
"(1) Every person having no apparent means of
subsistence, who had the physical ability to
work, and who neglects to apply himself or
herself to some lawful calling; (2) every person
found loitering about saloons or dram shops or
gambling housed, or tramping or straying
through the country without visible means of
support; (3) every person known to be a
pickpocket, thief, burglar, ladrone, either by his
own confession or by his having been convicted
of either said offenses, and having no visible or
lawful means of support when found loitering
about any gambling house, cockpit, or in any
outlying barrio of a pueblo; (4) every idle or
dissolute person of associate of known thieves or
ladrones who wanders about the country at
unusual hours of the night; (5) every idle person
who lodges in any barn, shed, outhouse, vessel,
or place other than such as is kept for lodging
purposed, without the permission of the owner
or a person entitled to the possession thereof; (6)
every lewd or dissolute person who lives in and
about houses of ill fame; every common
prostitute and common drunkard, is a vagrant."
It is insisted by the Attorney General (AG) that

visible means of support, which are evident in
the occupations of the accused, would not be a
bar to the conviction under any one of the last
four (4) clauses of the said act. The AG contends
that "visible means of support" only applies to
those "staying through the country".
The courts decided that the mere missing of the
punctuation cannot hold bar the argument of the
AG, since the intention of the legislators was to
prevent "loitering". It was stated that loitering
was idling or wasting one's time. The time spent
in saloons drum shops, and gambling houses is
anything but that.
The three defendants were earning a living by

legitimate means in a degree of comfort higher
than the average. Their sole offense was
gambling, which the legislature has yet to make
a subject of penal law.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
For these reasons, the defendants are
ACQUITTED, with the costs de oficio.

TITLE SEVEN – CRIMES COMMITTED BY A accepted, even solicited, monetary reward, he

PUBLIC OFFICERS certainly guilty as charged. The receipt of bribe
money is just as pernicious when committed by
February 6, 2018 – Article 203 – WHO ARE temporary employees as when committed by
PUBLIC OFFICERS permanent officials.
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J
FELICIANO MANIEGO y CATU, petitioner, vs. AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO ZOLETA,

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
respondent. vs.THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. L-2971 April 20, 1951 [FOURTH DIVISION] and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
ISSUE: G.R. No. 185224 July 29, 2015
Whether or not Maniego is considered a public
officer. ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners, as public officers,
FACTS: were correctly charged with the crime of
Feliciano Maniego was employed as a laborer to malversation.
work as the person in charge of delivering
summons and subpoenas in the Municipal Court FACTS:
of Manila. Nevertheless, Maniego was permitted The case stemmed from an anonymous
to write motions for dismissal of prescribed complaint filed against the petitioner, Mary Ann
traffic cases against offenders without counsel, Gadian, and Sheryll Desiree Tangan before the
and to submit them to the court for action, Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
without passing through the regular clerk. (Ombudsman) for participating in the scheme of
questionable grants and donations to fictitious
Sometime in 1947, a certain Felix Rabia was entities using provincial funds. As a result of this
subpoenaed in connection with a traffic complaint, the Commission on Audit (COA)
violation. The said crime has prescribed without conducted a special audit in Sarangani Province.
Rabia being prosecuted but then Maniego Among the irregularities discovered by the
informed Rabia that he is penalized with a P15 Special Audit Team was a ₱20,000.00 financial
fine; that Maniego can fix this if Rabia can pay assistance given to Women in Progress (WIP), a
him P10. Maniego pocketed the P10.00 and for cooperative whose members were mostly
this he was later charged for violating Article 210 government personnel or relatives of the officials
of the Revised Penal Code which provides in part: of Sarangani Province.
Any public officer who shall agree to perform an The COA Special Audit Team submitted its report
act constituting a crime, in connection with the to the Ombudsman which, in turn, conducted a
performance of his official duties, in preliminary investigation. Thereafter, the
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special
present received by such officer, personally or Prosecutor, charged the petitioner, Vice-
through the mediation of another, shall suffer Governor Felipe Constantino, Violeta Bahilidad,
the penalty of prision correccional in its Maria Camanay, and Teodorico Diaz with
minimum and medium periods and fine of not malversation of public funds by falsification of
less than the value to the penalty corresponding public documents defined and penalized under
to the crime agreed upon if the same shall have Article 217 in relation to Article 171(2) and
been committed. Article48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
Maniego assails the charge. He avers, among before the Sandiganbayan in an Information
others, that he is not a public officer as he was which reads:
merely hired as an ordinary government
employee. That on January 24, 2002 or prior or subsequent
thereto in Sarangani, Philippines, and within the
HELD: jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
Yes. Maniego is considered a public officer under Felipe Katu Constantino, a high-ranking public
Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code which officer, being the Vice-Governor of the Province
includes all persons “who, by direct provision of of Sarangani, Maria D. Camanay, Provincial
law, popular election or appointment by Accountant, Teodorico F. Diaz, Provincial Board
competent authority, shall take part in the Member, Amelia Carmela C. Zoleta, Executive
performance of public functions in the Philippine Assistant III, all accountable public officials of
Government, or shall perform in said the Provincial Government of Sarangani, by
government or any of its branches, public duties reason of the duties of their office, conspiring and
as an employee, agent or subordinate official or confederating with Violita Bahilidad, private
any rank or class.” That definition is quite individual, the public officers, while committing
comprehensive, embracing as it does, every the offense in relation to office, taking advantage
public servant from the highest to the lowest. For of their respective positions, did then and there
the purposes of the Penal Code, it obliterates the wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, convert
standard distinction in the law of public officers and misappropriate the amount of TWENTY
between “officer” and “employee”. Further, even THOUSAND PESOS (₱20,000.00), Philippine
assuming that Article 203 can’t be applied, Currency, in public funds under their custody,
although Maniego was originally engaged as a and for which they are accountable, by falsifying
laborer, he was temporarily performing public or causing to be falsified the corresponding
functions when he was permitted to draft Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2002-01-822
motions. And as in the performance thereof he and its supporting documents, making it appear
that financial assistance had been sought by Finally, Vice-Governor Constantino and
Women In Progress, Malungon, Sarangani, Camanay appropriated, took, misappropriated or
represented by its President, Amelia Carmela C. consented, or through abandonment or
Zoleta, when in truth and in fact, the accused negligence, permitted another person to take the
knew fully well that no financial assistance had public funds when they signed Disbursement
been requested by the said group and her Voucher No. 101-2002-01-822. The term
association, nor did Amelia Carmela C. Zoleta voucher, when used in connection with
and her association receive the aforementioned disbursement of money, implies some
amount, thereby facilitating the release of the instrument that shows on what account or by
above-mentioned public funds in the amount of what authority a particular payment has been
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS made, or that services have been performed
(₱20,000.00)through encashment by the accused which entitle the party to whom it is issued to
at Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) Check No. payment. Corollarily, when an authorized person
36481 dated January 24, 2002 issued in the approves a disbursement voucher, he certifies to
name of the Violeta Bahilidad, which amount the correctness of the entries therein, among
they subsequently misappropriated to their others: that the expenses incurred were
personal use and benefit and despite demand, necessary and lawful, the supporting documents
the said accused failed to return the said amount are complete, and the availability of cash
to the damage and prejudice of the government therefor. He also attests that the person who
and the public interest of the aforesaid sum. performed the services or delivered the supplies,
materials, or equipment is entitled to payment.
HELD:
Malversation may be committed by appropriating February 7, 2018 – Article 204 – KNOWINGLY
public funds or property; by taking or RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT
misappropriating the same; by consenting, or DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G.
through abandonment or negligence, by
permitting any other person to take such public QUINTIN STA. MARIA vs. HON. ALBERTO
funds or property; or by being otherwise guilty of UBAY
the misappropriation or malversation of such A.M. No. 595-CFI December 11, 1978
funds or property.
The elements common to all acts of malversation
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as ISSUE:
amended, are the following: (a) that the offender Whether or not respondent judge may be held
be a public officer; (b) that he had custody or liable under Art 204 of the Revised Penal Code.
control of funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office; (c) that those funds or FACTS:
property were public funds or property for which Quintin R. Sta Maria, attorney-in-fact of
he was accountable; and (d) that he Valeriana Sta Maria, filed with the Supreme
appropriated, took, misappropriated or Court a letter-complaint against Judge Q. Ubay
consented, or through abandonment or for violating the provisions of Article 204 of the
negligence, permitted another person to take Revised Penal Code when he knowingly rendered
them. All these elements have been established an unjust judgment by promulgating a decision
by the prosecution. contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court
in previous related proceedings, violating section
First, it is undisputed that all the accused, 11 of Article X of the 1973 Constitution, falsifying
except Bahilidad, are all public officers. A public his decision in order to make it appear that he
officer is defined in the Revised Penal Code as rendered the same within the statutory three-
"any person who, by direct provision of the law, month period and putting ever obstacle to the
popular election, or appointment by competent approval of their Record on appeal in spite of lack
authority, shall take part in the performance of of opposition duly filed on time. The letter-
public functions in the Government of the complaints were indorsed by the Assistant to the
Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Judicial Consultant to the respondent Judge for
Government or in any of its branches public comment. In another letter complaint, Atty. Paz
duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate Palanca, branch clerk of Clerk of respondent
official, of any rank or class. Constantino was the judge in his sala, was also charged with infidelity
Vice-Governor of Sarangani Province, while the in the custody of judicial records and, with
petitioner, Camanay, and Diaz were occupying putting all obstacles to the approval of their
the positions of Executive Assistant (at the Office Record on Appeal. Sta. Maria states that the
of the Vice-Governor), Provincial Accountant, respondent Judge in awarding to the plaintiffs (in
and Provincial Board Member, respectively. Civil Case C-2052) in toto what they prayed for
in their complaint and amended complaint did so
Second, the funds misappropriated are public in in bad faith and with full knowledge that said
character, as they were funds belonging to the plaintiffs are not entitled thereto.
Province of Sarangani.
Third, Vice-Governor Constantino and Camanay HELD:
were accountable public officers. Under the No. the Court reiterates the ruled that in order
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, an that a judge may be held liable for knowingly
accountable public officer is a public officer who, rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown
by reason of his office, is accountable for public beyond doubt that the judgment is unjust in the
funds or property. The Local Government Code sense that it is contrary to law or is not
expanded this definition with regard to local supported by the evidence and the same was
government officials. made with conscious and deliberate intent to do
an injustice. The rule requires that the judgment
should be unjust for being contrary to law and was no showing that the decision was rendered
for not being supported by the evidence. In the maliciously and deliberately to do an injustice to
case at bar, to determine whether or not the the complainant and that the error was
decision of the respondent Judge in Civil Case C- committed in good faith pursuant to the principle
2052 constitutes an unjust judgment would of regularity in the performance of official
involve more than a mere cursory reading of the functions. It was well settled that a judicial
decision itself or its comparison with this Court's officer, when required to exercise his judgment
decisions invoked by the complainant. To delve or discretion is not criminally liable for any error
into the different factors bearing on the issues which he commits provided he acts in good faith.
raised in Civil Case C-2052 considered by the Even though the complainant had been
respondent Judge in arriving at his conclusions inconvenienced because of the decision of the
set forth in the decision in question for purposes respondent, such inconvenience did not amount
of ascertaining the factual, legal and to causing undue injury under Sec. 3 of RA 3019,
jurisprudential bases of the said decision, would not only because there is no showing of evident
be tantamount to pre-empting the Court of bad faith or inexcusable negligence but because
Appeals of its appellate jurisdiction over the case, the decision appealed to the SEC en banc was
considering that the same is pending before it. immediately corrected, hence said decision did
Indeed, this Court stated in Gahol vs. Hon. not become final and executory. Petitioner moved
Riodique that "only after the appellate court for the reconsideration which was likewise
holds in a final judgment that a trial judge's denied. Hence this petition where petitioner
alleged errors were committed deliberately and in contends that public respondent committed
bad faith may a charge of knowingly rendering grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
an unjust decision be levelled against a trial complaint, alleging that the decision was not
judge." For, through an appeal, an aggrieved made in good faith since the case did not involve
party can always point out, for rectification by a complex question of law but was a plain
the appellate court, the errors in the alleged violation of simple rules of procedure and that
unjust judgment affecting him. The rule also petitioner and her family suffered undue injury
requires that the judgment should be rendered as result of the decision, making respondent
by the judge with conscious and deliberate intent liable under Sec. 3 of RA 3019.
to do an injustice. In the case at bar, the
complainant failed to show any unmistakable HELD:
indication that bad faith motivated the alleged No. There is grave abuse of discretion where the
unjust actuations of the respondent judge in respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical,
Civil Case C-2052. Absent, thus, any positive arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of
evidence on record that the respondent Judge his judgment,13 as when the assailed order is
rendered the judgment in question with bereft of any factual and legal justifications. In
conscious and deliberate intent to do an this case, the Court found that the assailed
injustice, the compliant must fall. resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
dismissing the complaint against private
BAN HUA U. FLORES V OFFICE OF THE respondent was legally justified. This is so
OMBUDSMAN AND ATTY. ENRIQUE L. because before one can be held liable under
FLORES, JR. Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code and Section
GR NO. 136769, SEPT. 17, 2002 3 (e) of RA 3019, the person subject of the
complaint must be shown to have committed the
ISSUE: act in bad faith. It was held in Guerrero vs.
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman Villamor, 296 SCRA 88, 98 (1998), that a judge
committed grave abuse of discretion in will be held liable for rendering an unjust
dismissing the complaint against private judgment where he acts in bad faith, malice,
respondent for violation of Article 204 of the revenge or some other similar motive. In Ingco vs.
Revised Penal Code and Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Sandiganbayan, 272 SCRA 563, 574 (1997), the
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Court clearly indicated, as one of the elements of
Practices Act. the offense under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, that
the public officer complained of should have
FACTS: acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith
A complaint against the Ban Hua Flores for or gross inexcusable negligence. In this case, the
accounting and turnover of corporate funds of Office of the Ombudsman did not find private
UBS Marketing was instituted by Johnny K. H. respondent in bad faith, hence, the important
Uy with the Securities and Exchange element for the above offenses is wanting. Notice
Commission. Petitioner moved for the dismissal should also be made of the fact that under Article
of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction 204 of the Revised Penal Code, the offender must
which was denied. Likewise denied was the be a judge. In this case, the alleged offender is a
appeal filed with the SEC en banc. A judgment hearing officer of the SEC. Neither does the
was rendered in favor of the complainant. assailed resolution lack factual justification
Petitioner Flores and company then appealed to because petitioner failed to overcome the burden
the SEC en banc which reversed the decision of proof to show private respondent’s bad faith.
except the order of accounting. A criminal
complaint was then filed by the petitioner February 8, 2018 – Article 205 – JUDGMENT
alleging that Hearing Officer Enrique Flores RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
rendered an unjust judgment under Art. 204 of DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
the RPC and violating Sec. 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) which was EVANGELISTA VS BAES
dismissed by the Office of Ombudsman for 61 SCRA 475 DECEMBER 26, 1974
insufficiency of evidence ratiocinating that there
ISSUE: overseers who had earlier filed a case against him

Whether or not a judge may be held liable for and his wife for reinstatement, which said
abuse of discretion complainant eventually lost. Complainant
accused said tenants with having failed to
FACTS: account for agricultural items given to them in
Judge Baes is charged with knowingly, or by trust. After due trial wherein the only witness of
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, complainant was himself, respondent acquitted
rendering unjust orders. the accused. Complainant charges that said
decision of acquittal constitutes knowingly
In CAR Case No. 959 Judge De Guzman rendering an unjust and/or unfair decision.
authorized landholder Jose Tan Kapoe to eject
his tenant Silvestre Masa. On May 8, 1963 HELD:
Masa's counsel moved to reconsider; Judge The Court was satisfied that absent any evidence
Macalino, then the presiding judge, ordered the of ill-motive or improper consideration, the same
clerk of court to furnish a copy of the motion to cannot by itself prove the charge laid against
Tan Kapoe's counsel. As no opposition to the respondent. The decision discusses creditably
motion was interposed, Judge Macalino the evidence of the parties and the Court see no
reconsidered Judge De Guzman's decision, and indication therein of any untoward factor that
rendered on February 20, 1964 a decision could have induced respondent to be unfair to
denying the petition for ejectment of Masa and complainant. The latter may have a different view
adjudging a leasehold system of tenancy between of his case, but mere error of judgment,
Tan Kapoe and Masa. Three and a half years assuming its existence, and the Court hold that
later, Judge Macalino, on petition of Masa, here there was none, cannot serve as basis for a
rendered a supplemental decision fixing the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust
rental on the holding. On April 2, 1968 Tan judgment, there being no proof or even allegation
Kapoe moved for reconsideration of not only the of bad faith.
supplemental decision but also the decision of
February 20, 1964. Judge Baes granted Tan TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC.
Kapoe's motion for reconsideration, with the vs COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO
justification that Judge De Guzman's prior NATIVIDAD
decision had become final and executory G.R. No. 152568 February 16, 2004
allegedly because the motion for its
reconsideration that was granted by Judge ISSUE:
Macalino was fatally defective for lack of proof of Whether the CA committed a grave abuse of
service. discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction when it modified the decision of the
Judge Baes' justification for his orders of June NLRC and ordered the petitioner to pay
11, 1968 and October 8, 1969 was rejected in backwages to the private respondent.
Masa vs. Baes, et al., L-29784, May 21, 1969, 28
SCRA 263, where this Court held, inter alia, that FACTS:
the alleged non-service upon Tan Kapoe of a copy Private respondent Pedro Natividad was working
of Masa's motion to reconsider Judge De with petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College
Guzman's decision "is belied by the record" and (TCMC) as "Liason Officer" of the school. On June
that Tan Kapoe was in estoppel to deny his 10, 1996, the private respondent was arrested by
receipt of a copy of the motion for the Morong police authorities, without any
reconsideration. warrant therefore, for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. A criminal complaint was later filed
HELD: against him. A preliminary investigation was
While Judge Baes acted in abuse of discretion in conducted which found probable cause to hold
issuing the orders complained of, it does not him for trial. The court, on the said date, issued
necessarily follow that he acted in bad faith or a warrant for the private respondent’s arrest. The
that his abuse of discretion signifies ignorance of records were elevated to the Office of the
the law in his part. Abuse of discretion signifies Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. In the interim, the
ignorance of the law on his part. Abuse of petitioner sent a Memorandum to the private
discretion by a trial court does not necessarily respondent informing him that his employment
mean ulterior motive, arbitrary conduct or willful was already terminated.
disregard of a litigant's rights.
On July 5, 1996, the private respondent posted
YARANON VS JUDGE RUBIO a bail bond. He did not, however, file any
66 SCRA 67 August 7, 1975 complaint against the petitioner with the NLRC
on account of his dismissal.
ISSUE: On October 2, 1996, the State Prosecutor issued
Whether or not Judge Rubio can be held liable a Resolution dismissing the criminal complaint
for an error in judgment filed against the private respondent for lack of
merit.
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint against On November 21, 1996, the private respondent
respondent Judge Antonio Rubio of the was arrested anew by police authorities. The
Municipality of Inopacan Leyte for alleged (1) Morong Chief of Police filed a criminal complaint
incompetence and/or ignorance of the law and for violation of Section 27, Article III of Rep. Act
(2) delaying justice. Complainant, Atty. Yaranon No. 6425. On February 17, 1997, an Information
filed a charge of estafa with respondent's court therefore was filed with the RTC. On said date,
against the spouses Puzon, his tenants or the private respondent posted a bail bond and
was released from detention. probable cause for the detention of the private
On June 11, 1997, the private respondent filed a respondent and resolved to dismiss the case. The
complaint with the NLRC against the petitioner private respondent has not yet been convicted by
for illegal dismissal. final judgment. Indeed, he is presumed innocent
On November 10, 1998, Acting Executive Labor until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable
Arbiter Ramos, rendered a decision dismissing doubt.
the complaint for lack of legal basis.
In fine, the Court found and held that the
The private respondent appealed the decision to Decision of the CA is in accord with law.
the NLRC which affirmed the same. However, on
certiorari with the Court of Appeals, the appellate February 9, 2018 – Article 207 – MALICIOUS
court affirmed, with modification, the decision of DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
the NLRC, holding that although there was a JUSTICE
valid cause for the private respondent’s Duque, Francis Lester M
dismissal, the petitioner did not follow the
procedure for the termination of his employment. RENATO ALVARO RUPERTO vs. JUDGE
The CA ordered the petitioner to pay backwages TIRSO F. BANQUERIGO, respondent.
to the private respondent from June 13, 1996 up A.M. No. MTJ-98-1154. August 26, 1998
to the finality of the said decision.
The petitioner assails the decision of the CA in ISSUE:
this Court. Among his contentions was that: WON Judge Banquerigo can be held liable under
Art 207.
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its
discretion and authority when it knowingly FACTS:
rendered a decision which is bias, unfair & Complainant alleges that this administrative
unjust, a violation of Art. 205 of the Revised case stems from respondent Judge ruling in a
Penal Code in relation to Sec (2) (e) of RA 3019 case he filed against the spouses Anselmo and
(anti-graft law), hence the decision is void. Pacita Mojillo, for ejectment with damages, The
Mojillo spouses failed to file their answer to the
HELD: complaint within the reglementary period. Since
No. the case falls under the Revised Rule on
The public respondent acts without jurisdiction Summary Procedure, herein complainant filed a
if he does not have the legal power to determine motion with the trial court to summarily decide
the case. There is excess of jurisdiction when the the case in accordance with the aforesaid Rule.
public respondent, being clothed with the power Respondent judge, however, failed to act on the
to determine the case, oversteps his authority as motion and, worse, he further granted therein
determined by law. There is a grave abuse of defendant spouses an additional ten days within
discretion where the public respondent acts in a which to file their answer. The case was set for
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic hearing on December 14, 1995, and, thereafter,
manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be it was again reset to March 14, 1996.
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent Judge in his comment stressed that
In Santos v. NLRC, the Court explained that: he was only an acting judge of the MCTC which
The normal consequences of a finding that an had jurisdiction over the cases in question and
employee has been illegally dismissed are, firstly, that he was reporting to that court which had
that the employee becomes entitled to 226 pending cases, only twice a week. The
reinstatement to his former position without loss subject ejectment case was filed in August, 1995.
of seniority rights and secondly, the payment of Considering that there were several cases filed
backwages corresponding to the period from his with said MCTC, the case was set for hearing on
illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. The March 14, 1996 allegedly as agreed upon by the
statutory intent on this matter is clearly parties and their counsel. He claims that his
discernible. Reinstatement restores the employee failure to act on the motion of complainant to
who was unjustly dismissed to the position from decide the case in accordance with Section 6 of
which he was removed, that is, to his status quo the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was
ante dismissal, while the grant of backwages because, in the interest of justice and equity, he
allows the same employee to recover from the believed that said motion should be set for
employer that which he had lost by way of wages hearing.
as a result of his dismissal. The two forms of
relief are distinct and separate, one from the HELD:
other. No. The Court held that although Judge
The payment of backwages is generally granted Banquerigo failed to comply with what is
on the ground of equity. It is a form of relief that specifically required as a judicial duty. The
restores the income that was lost by reason of ejectment case filed by complainant against the
the unlawful dismissal; the grant thereof is defendant spouses therein clearly falls under the
intended to restore the earnings that would have Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. SEC. 6.
accrued to the dismissed employee during the (Effect of failure to answer) hereof provides--
period of dismissal until it is determined that the Should the defendant fail to answer the
termination of employment is for a just cause. complaint within the period, the court, motu
The award of backwages is not conditioned on proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render
the employee’s ability or inability to, in the judgment as may be warranted by the facts
interim, earn any income. While it may be true alleged in the complaint and limited to what is
that on June 11, 1996, the private respondent prayed for therein...
was detained , the State Prosecutor found no
The court however, believe that respondent judge Complainant Johan L.H. Wingarts was the
should be merely reprimanded, in view of the fact accused in MTC for malicious mischief.
that he was not only detailed to the court where Respondent judge is charged with malicious
the cases herein involved were pending, but also delay in the administration of justice because the
to other courts. Such multiple assignments, in case Malicious Mischief allegedly dragged for one
one way or another, affected his efficient year and four months.
handling of cases. In addition, there was no
showing of malice, corrupt motives or improper HELD:
considerations on the part of respondent judge No. A perusal of the records reveal that while
which would justify the imposition of a more there was a delay in hearing the case, such a
severe penalty, or that he has heretofore been delay does not appear to be malicious nor
found guilty of any administrative offense. deliberate. Firstly, while the case appears to have
been filed only on February 1, 1993, it was
RAFAEL SALCEDO vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE remanded back to respondent's sala sometime in
DAVID ALFECHE, JR., respondent. June 1993 and was set for hearing on July 9,
A.M. No. 267-MJ June 30, 1975 1993. Secondly, the postponements were all on
account of the absence or unavailability of the
ISSUE: fiscal and/or the defense counsel and not of the
WON Respondent Judge can be held liable as Judge's own making. While Judges should not
charged. allow the parties to control the proceedings in
their Court, in the case of respondent, he had no
FACTS: alternative but to grant the postponements if
An administrative complaint of malicious delay only to better serve the ends of justice. On
in the administration of justice filed by Rafael January 10, 1994, he had to reset the hearing as
Salcedo against Judge Alfeche, Jr. due to his the assigned fiscal was still in the USA. On April
absence from his official position on March 5, 21, 1994, respondent Judge issued an Order
1971, as a consequence of which a cash bond giving the prosecution fifteen days within which
posted by complainant, then accused in a to file its position paper and thereafter, the case
pending criminal case, could not be accepted, is deemed submitted for decision. Counting
with the result that he was detained overnight. fifteen (15) days from April 21, 1994, the case
Respondent in his answer claim that his absence was deemed submitted for decision last May 6,
on March 5, 1971 was due to his having taken a 1994. It was decided on June 8, 1994 or barely a
vacation leave and he did not have to report until month after it was deemed submitted for
March 6, 1971. decision. Obviously, therefore there was no delay
in deciding the case. If at all, the delay was in the
HELD: hearing of the case and for apparently excusable
No. The matter was referred to the then grounds.
Executive Judge Emigdio V. Nietes, who in his
report and recommendation stated the following: February 10, 2018 – Article 207 –
"Respondent judge had noted in his daily time PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE
record his absence from his station. In the AND TOLERANCE
absence of the municipal judge, it is a provision FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
in the rules of Court that the accused may put
up his bond before the municipal mayor who is PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS NICOLAS
authorized to order his release in case of such L. MINA
bond, reporting to the municipal judge on his G.R. NO. L-45312 JUNE 13, 1938
return to the office the release made. It is clear
though that immediately after he took ISSUE:
cognizance of the fact that the accused was Whether accused violated Article 208 of the
apprehended and ready to put up his bail, he Revised Penal Code.
immediately ordered his release on March 6
when he reported to the office the next day. In FACTS:
other words, after he had knowledge of the Accused was the chief of police in Asingan,
apprehension of the accused or his being municipality of Pangasinan. He was charged in
detained, on the first opportunity he immediately breached of his official duty by maliciously
released him. There was no motive why defaulted in the prosecution and punishment of
respondent Judge could be accused of having the violators of law prohibiting and penalizing
wantonly prejudiced the right of the the game of chance called “jueting” in that he
complainant, he recommended the dismissal of failed to file the corresponding criminal actions
the charges. against Juan Lazo as Jueting collector.
JOHAN L.H. WINGARTS and OFELIA A. HELD:

WINGARTS vs. JUDGE SERVILLANO M. Yes. Under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code,
MEJIA any public officers or officer of the law, who, in
A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012 March 20, 1995 dereliction of the duties of his office, shall
maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution
ISSUE: for the punishment of the violators of law, or
WON respondent judge can be held liable for shall tolerate the commission of offenses shall be
Article 207 of the RPC "Malicious Delay in the punished.
Administration of Justice In this case, the accused being the chief of police
was proven to have failed to prosecute the jueting
FACTS: collector who was caught possessing jueting
lists, was held liable.
against Garcia for violation of Article 208 of the

BEATRIZ RAMOS VDA DE BAGATUA, ET AL. Revised Penal Code.
VS PEDRO A. REVILLA AND LEONIAS S.
LOMBOS HELD:
G. R. NO. L- 12247 AUGUST 26, 1958 No, The court held in citing the case of US vs
Mendoza, 23 PHIL 194 that “ The crime
ISSUE: committed by the law violator must be proved
Whether the City Attorney and Assistant City first. If the guilt of the law violator is not proved,
Attorney are liable under Article 208 of the the person charged with dereliction of duty
Revised Penal Code. under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code is
not liable”.
FACTS:
Upon the death of her husband, Ramos donated In taking into the account of the aforementioned
a parcel of land to her children. When her jurisprudence and elements of the offense
children decided to subdivide the lot among charged, it is clear that the filing of the instant
themselves they engaged the services of a real suit is still premature considering the questioned
estate broker. However, Rodrigo Bagatua controversy against Palad is still pending. Even
accused Pangilinan real estate broker of estafa the element of malice and deliberate intent to
before the City Attorney of Quezon city for favor the violator of law cannot be entrenched
allegedly inducing them to sign papers without Palad’s guilt for the alleged defiance
supposedly necessary for the subdivision of the having been pronounced first.
lot that turned out to be a deed of sale.
February 12, 2018 – Article 209 – BETRAYAL OF
Upon receipt of said complaint, the Assistant TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR-
City Attorney, acting for the City Attorney, REVELATION OF SECRETS
conducted a preliminary investigation, during FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
that time both parties were duly represented by
counsel. After the presentation of testimonies MA. LUISA HADJULA V. ATTY. ROCELES F.
and documentary evidence the Assistant City MADIANDA
Attorney recommended for the dismissal of the A.C. NO. 6711 (JULY 3,2007)
complaint for lack of merit. Accordingly the
complaint was dismissed. Complainants filed a ISSUE:
petition for mandamus seeking to compel the WON there was a violation of Article 209 (2)
City Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney to Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
file an information against Pangilinan for estafa by his in this professional capacity.
contending that in dismissing the complaint,
respondents committed grave abuse of FACTS:
discretion. Hadjula and Atty. Madianda were used to be
friends as they were colleagues at Bureau of Fire
HELD: Protection where Atty. Madianda was the Chief
No. The court held that the fiscal as a Legal Officer and Hadjula was the Chief Nurse.
prosecuting officer, is under no compulsion to Sometime in 1998, Hadjula approached
file information based upon complaint, where he respondent for some legal advice. She alleged
is not convinced that the evidence gathered or that in their discourse, it was supposed to be
presented would warrant the filing of an action kept confidential as she disclosed personal
in court. Respondents are not liable. secrets and produced copies of a marriage
contract, birth certificate and a baptismal
HILARIO SORIANO VS OMBUDSMAN SIMEON certificate, only to be informed later that
V. MARCELINO ET. AL respondent will refer the case to her another
G.R. NO. 163178 JANUARY 30, 2009 lawyer friend. Hadjula alleged that was malicious
because after respondent heard her case and her
ISSUE: secrets to she refused to take the case.
Whether Garcia violated Article 208 of the Eventually, Hadjula filed for administrative and
Revised Penal Code. criminal complaint against Atty. Madianda for
violation of Article 209 of the RPC because those
FACTS: secrets and information were later on used
Petitioner filed with the Office of the City against her in a administrative case at the Office
Prosecutor of Manila an affidavit of complaint of the Ombudsman.
against Mely Palad a bank examiner of Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas for falsification of public HELD:
document and use of falsified document. Yes. However, the Supreme Court did not upheld
Assistant City Prosecutor recommended that the case as punishable under the Revised Penal
Palad be charged in court for falsification of Code even though Atty. Madianda was found
Public document. First Assistant City Prosecutor indeed to have breached his duties of preserving
recommended the approval of the resolution. the confidence of a client. The SC reiterated in
However, upon the motion of Palad to reconsider, this manner: The seriousness of the respondent’s
First Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the offense notwithstanding, the Court feels that
reopening of the case. Respondent approved the there is room for compassion, absent compelling
recommendation to re open the case. However, in evidence that the respondent acted with ill-will.
an Indorsement, Garcia forwarded the complete Without meaning to condone the error of
records of the case to the Chief State Prosecutor respondent’s ways, what at bottom is before the
of the Department of Justice. In September Court is two former friends becoming bitter
2002, petitioner filed an Affidavit- Compalint enemies and filing charges and counter-charges
against each other using whatever convenient unjust, or to refrain from doing something which
tools and data were readily available. it is his official duty to do; and
Unfortunately, the personal information
respondent gathered from her conversation with 4. the act which the offender agrees to perform
complainant became handy in her quest to even or which he executes is connected with the
the score. At the end of the day, it appears clear performance of his official duties.
to us that respondent was actuated by the urge
to retaliate without perhaps realizing that, in the To consider a crime as one involving moral
process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, turpitude, the act constituting the same must
she was violating the rule on confidentiality. have been "done contrary to justice, honesty,
Thus, Atty. Madianda was only REPRIMANDED modesty, or good morals. [It must involve] an act
by the SC in this case. of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to
February 12, 2018 – Article 210 – DIRECT society in general, contrary to the accepted and
BRIBERY customary rule of right and duty between man
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. Respondent's
PEOPLE V. JOSELITO C. BARROZO conduct in office fell short of the integrity and
A.C. NO. 10207 (JULY 21, 2015) good moral character required of all lawyers,
specially one occupying a public office.
ISSUE:
Whether the act of the accused constitute direct WHEREFORE, Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo is hereby
bribery. DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
FACTS:
Disbarment Case against former Assistant Public UNITED STATES V. RUFINO SANCHEZ
Pros., Joselito C. Barrozo. Jen Valeriano, was a G.R. NO. 9102 (NOVEMBER 5, 1913)
respondent in several cases of estafa and was
assigned to respondent. According to Valeriano, ISSUE:
Respondent would resolve her cases in her favor Whether the crime committed in this case is
in exchange for P20,000.00. Hence, Valeriano direct bribery.
went to the Office of the State Prosecutor to
report the matter. NBI then conducted an FACTS:
entrapment operation where respondent was A municipal policeman pretended to arrest a
caught red handed receiving the P20,000.00. person who had in his possession a substance
Sandiganbayan sentenced respondent to suffer which he had purchased as opium but proved to
the indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months be only molasses. The policeman knew the
and 1 day of prision correccional to 9 years, 4 character of this substance and, with this
months and 1 day prision mayor and a fine of knowledge, threatened to have the said person
P60,000.00 In October 2013 the Office of the Bar prosecuted for a violation of the Opium Law
Confidant received a letter from Wat & Co. of unless he paid him P500. P150 was finally
Hongkong that their office received a letter from agreed upon as the price which the policeman
respondent asking for long service payment. Wat would accept to turn him loose. Sometimes
& Co. found out about respondent’s conviction afterward Lua discovered that what he had
on the internet and asked the OBC if respondent purchased and had been deprived of by the two
is qualified to practice law. Prompted by this policemen was not opium at all, and the present
letter, OBC recommended the disbarment of case is a consequence of his complaint to the
respondent. authorities.
HELD: The appellant, Rufino Sanchez contends that the

Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of crime established by the above facts is not
Court, one of the grounds for the suspension or robbery, but bribery.
disbarment of a lawyer is his conviction of a In United States v. Gimenea (24 Phil. Rep., 464),
crime involving moral turpitude. And with the this court said: "Viada, vol. 2, p. 642, in
finality of respondent's conviction for direct discussing article 381, says that to constitute the
bribery, the next question that needs to be crime of bribery as provided in this article, four
answered is whether direct bribery is a crime things are necessary:
that involves moral turpitude.
(1) That the defendant be a public officer
The elements of Direct Bribery: according to the meaning of this term in article
401;
1. the offender is a public officer;
(2) that he has received either personally or
2. the offender accepts an offer or promise or through another gifts or presents or accepted
receives a gift or present by himself or through offers or promises;
another;
(3) that such reception of gifts or presents or
3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or acceptance of offers or promises has been for the
present be received by the public officer with a purpose of executing a crime; and
view to committing some crime, or in
consideration of the execution of an act which (4) that the act constituting the crime relates to
does not constitute a crime but the act must be the exercise of the office which the public officer
discharges.
must be a clear intention on the part of the

HELD: public officer to take the gift so offered and
No. The money was not delivered to the two consider the same as his own property from then
policemen for the purpose of executing a crime. on, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping
Had Lua been allowed to retain possession of the or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt
molasses no law would have been violated, nor unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance
would the two policemen have been guilty or a or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient
noncompliance with their official duties. Several to lead the court to conclude that the crime of
reasons are advanced as to why the acts of the indirect bribery has been committed. To hold
policemen did not constitute robbery all based otherwise will encourage unscrupulous
upon the misconception of the injured person as individuals to frame up public officers by simply
to the nature of the substance which he had putting within their physical custody some gift,
purchased as opium. It is quite true that had the money or other property.
latter been aware of the true state of affairs he Moral certainty, not absolute certainty, is needed
would not have permitted the appellant and his to support a judgment of conviction, Moral
companion to force him to pay them the P150. certainty is a certainty that convinces and
But the guilt of the appellant is not contingent satisfies the reason and conscience of those who
upon the conception or misconception of Lua as are to act upon a given matter. 14 Without this
to the true state of affairs. standard of certainty, it may not be said that the
guilt of the accused in a criminal proceeding has
In the case of United States v. Flores (19 Phil. been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Rep., 178), the court laid down the following
doctrine: "A policeman who, knowing that a GREGORY JAMES POZAR, petitioner,
person has committed no crime for which he vs.
could be lawfully arrested and tried, nevertheless THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
arrests such person, falsely accusing him of a respondent.
crime, and then by means of threats of
presentation and imprisonment, thus playing ISSUE:
upon his ignorance and fear, obtains money from WON the money given was a bribe to corrupt the
the said person, secures such money by force city probation officer
and intimidation and commits the crime of
robbery as defined by the Penal Code. FACTS:
Petitioner Pozar, is an American Citizen and
FEBUARY 13, 2018 – ARTICLE 211 – INDIRECT Permanent resident of the Philippines, Charged
BRIBERY with the crime of corruption of a public official.
LAZO, Joseph Artfel T. After he feloniously gave to the city probation
officer 100pesos upon his application for
LEONOR FORMILLEZA, probation.
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN RULING:
The court deduce that the procedure for
ISSUE: processing petitioner's application for probation
WON the accused is guilty of indirect bribery in the Probation Office at Angeles City was not
under article 211 precise, explicit and clear cut And since the
accused petitioner is a foreigner and quite
FACTS: unfamiliar with probation rules and procedures,
Petitioner Formilleza has been with government there is reason to conclude that petitioner was
service for around 20 years as the personnel befuddled, if not confused so that his act of
supervisor of the regional office of the National providing and advancing the expenses for
Irrigation Administration. (NIA) whatever documentation was needed further to
On the other hand, Mrs. Mutia was an employee complete and thus hasten his probation
of NIA for 7 years. Sometime in December 1983, application, was understandably innocent and
her appointment was terminated. Taking steps to not criminal.
either obtain permanency or at least a renewed The facts and circumstances on record amply
appointment she was told to approach the justify and support the claim of the defense as
petitioner who determined if an employee is to be against the conjectures, speculation and
appointed or promoted. However, petitioner supposition recited in the decision of the trial
refused to attend to her papers unless she was court and quoted with approval in the appealed
given some money. decision under review. The Government's own
Mrs. Mutia reported the problem with the evidence as indicated in the Post-Sentence
Philippine Constabulary, Who later took steps for Investigation Report that the giving of the one
an entrapment. hundred pesos ( P100.00) was done in good faith,
The entrapment was a success after Mrs. Mutia is vital for it belies petitioner's criminal intent.
handed the marked money under the table to There being no criminal intent to corrupt the
which petitioner accepted the money. Probation Officer, the accused petitioner is
Petitioner was found positive of ultra-violet entitled to acquittal of the crime charged. We
powder. Powder used in the marked money. hold and rule that the prosecution has not
proved the guilt of the accused beyond
HELD: reasonable doubt.
No, The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as
defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code ATTY. ENRICO M. CABRERA
is that the public officer concerned must have vs.
accepted the gift or material consideration. There JUDGE JAMES B. PAJARES
NASH, Regina M.
ISSUE:
WON respondent judge accepted the money on
account of his office. MORFE V MUTUC, 22 SCRA 424
January 31, 1968
FACTS: Fernando, J.
On Jan, 1985,Petitioner Enrico Cabrera Plaintiff-appellee: Jesus P. Morfe (Judge of CFI)
denounced Respondent Judge Pajares for having Defendants-appellants: Amelito R. Mutuc
allegedly asked money from him in connection (Executive Secretary) et al.
with his case.
Petitioner was advised by his counsel to ISSUE/S:
accommodate any request for money from the Whether the periodical submission of SAL for
respondent so that he would not be unduly hard public officers is:
on the complainant. And during the course of the 1. An oppressive exercise of police power;
case, The Respondent Judge, told petitioner 2. Violative of due process and an unlawful
needed money. To which, petitioner gave P1000 invasion of the right to privacy implicit in the ban
the next day. However, after two months the against unreasonable search and seizure
Respondent Judge told him once again that he construed together with the prohibition against
needed money. It was then when the petitioner self-incrimination;
decided to report to the authorities. 3. An insult to the personal integrity and official
Acting on the report, NBI staged an entrapment dignity of public officials.
and used marked money. The entrapment
succeeded when the judge took the marked FACTS:
money from the complainant. • The Law: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
of 1960 (RA No. 3019)
RULING:
There is reason to believe that the respondent • Every public officer within 30 days after its
judge accepted the money and that he knew it approval or after his assumption of office “and
was being given to him by reason of his office. within the month of January of every year
The evidence shows that after receiving the thereafter”, as well as upon termination of his
envelope with the money, the respondent judge position, shall prepare and file with the head of
did not really try to return it to Cabrera, as he the office to which he belongs, “a true detailed
claims he did, but that instead he placed it and sworn statement of assets and liabilities,
between the pages of his diary including a statement of the amounts and
Second, the plan to entrap the respondent sources of his income, the amounts of his
appears to have been cleared with the Executive personal and family expenses and the amount of
Judge, Hon. Juan B. Llaguno, before whom the income taxes paid for the next preceding
complainant swore to his statement and It is not calendar year”.
likely that Judge Llaguno would approve the
'frame-up' of a colleague • Plaintiff Morfe, a judge of a CFI, contends that
Investigating Justice Mendoza's above statement the periodical submission “within the month of
and analysis of the evidence and a review of the January of every other year thereafter” of their
records fully support the finding that sworn statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) is
"respondent Judge accepted the money and that violative of due process as an oppressive exercise
he knew it was being given to him by reason of of police power and as an unlawful invasion of
his office." The Court has time and again the constitutional right to privacy implicit on the
stressed that members of the judiciary should ban against unreasonable search and seizure
display not only the highest integrity but must at construed together with the prohibition against
all times conduct themselves in such manner as self-incrimination.
to be beyond reproach and suspicion.
But the Court is constrained to disapprove his • Executive Secretary and DOJ Sec:
recommendation as to the first charge of indirect • Acceptance of public position = voluntary
bribery which is fully supported by the evidence assumption of obligation
that respondent Judge "be suspended from office
for 2 years and 4 months, taking into • Merely seeks to adopt a reasonable measure of
consideration the penalty prescribed in art. 211 insuring the interest of general welfare in honest
of the Revised Penal Code." The penalty of 2 years and clean public service and is therefore a
and 4 months imprisonment provided for the legitimate exercise of police power.
criminal offense of indirect bribery may not be
equated with the penalty of separation from the • CFI of Pangasinan held that the requirement
judicial service which is the proper applicable exceeds the permissible limit of the police power
administrative penalty by virtue of respondent and is thus offensive to the due process clause
Judge's serious misconduct prejudicial to the
judiciary and the public interest. RULING:
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge is hereby Decision reversed.
dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits and pay and with prejudice RATIO:
to reinstatement in any branch of the 1. Presumption of validity
government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities. • Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL
was a reasonable requirement for employment so
FEBUARY 14, 2018 – ARTICLE 212 – a public officer can make of record his assets and
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS liabilities upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did
not present evidence to rebut the presumption of liabilities, including the statement of the
validity. amounts of personal and family expenses, and
the amount of income taxes paid for the next
• “If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind preceding calendar year, there is no
or the person, the standard for the validity of unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise
governmental acts is much more rigorous and would be a private sphere.”
exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects
the most rights of property, the permissible 1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure
scope of regulatory measure is wider.” (Ermita-
Malate Hotel v. Mayor of Manila) • The constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure does not give
1. Exercise of Police power and the defense freedom from testimonial compulsion.
provided by the Due Process Clause
1. Right against self-incrimination
• “inherent and plenary power in the state which
enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the • We are not aware of any constitutional
comfort, safety and welfare of society” (Justice provision designed to protect a man’s conduct
Malcolm) from judicial inquiry, or aid him in fleeing from
justice.
• The power of sovereignty, the power to govern
men and things within the limits of its domain 1. Insult to personal integrity and official dignity
(Justice Taney, going beyond curtailment of
rights) • Only congressional power or competence, not
the wisdom of the action taken, mey be the basis
• Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the for declaring a statute invalid.
extension of police power to regulatory action
affecting persons in public or private life can OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. Rainier Espina
invoke the protection of due process. GR No. 213500, Mar 15, 2017
• It has been held that due process may be relied ISSUE:

upon by public official to protect the security of Whether or not Espina should be held
tenure which in a limited sense is analogous to administratively liable for the charges imputed
property. Therefore he could also use due against him? Was he guilty of graft and
process to strike down what he considers as an corruption due to gross negligence in signing
infringement of his liberty. procurement documents without proper
inspection.
• Under the Constitution, the challenged
provision is allowable as long as due process is FACTS:
observed. On July 11 and 17, 2012, petitioner the Fact-
Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of the Office
• The standard for due process is of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and
REASONABLENESS. Test: Official action must Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) filed
not outrun the bounds of reason and result in before the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint
sheer oppression. and a supplemental complaint, respectively,
charging Espina and several other PNP officers
• “It would be to dwell in the realm of and private individuals for: (a) violation of
abstractions and to ignore the harsh and Republic Act No. (RA) 7080 Anti - Graft and
compelling realities of public service with its Corruption Practices Act, RA 3019, RA 9184 and
ever-present temptation to heed the call of greed its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR),
and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and and Malversation of Public Funds through
oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon Falsification of Public Documents under Article
public officials and employees to file such sworn 217 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal
statement of assets and liabilities every two years Code (RPC); and (b) Grave Misconduct and
after having done so upon assuming Serious Dishonesty; arising from alleged
office…There was therefore no unconstitutional anomalies that attended the Philippine National
exercise of police power.” Police's (PNP) procurement of 40 tires, and
repair, refurbishment, repowering, and
1. Right to privacy maintenance services of a total of 28 units of V-
150 Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs), and the
• Right to be let alone related transportation and delivery expenses of
18 units of LAYs between August and December
• “It cannot be said that the challenged statutory 2007.It averred that the PNP did not comply with
provision calls for disclosure of information the bidding procedure prescribed under RA 9184
which infringes on the right of a person to and its IRR, in that: (a) copies of the bid
privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational documents were not furnished to possible
relationship such a requirement possesses with bidders; (b) no pre-procurement and pre-bid
the objective of a valid statute goes very far in conferences were held; (c) the invitation to bid
precluding assent to an objection of such was not published in a newspaper of general
character. This is not to say that a public officer, circulation; (d) the procuring agency did not
by virtue of position he holds, is bereft of require the submission of eligibility requirements
constitutional protection; it is only to emphasize as well as the technical and financial documents
that in subjecting him to such a further from the bidders; and (e) no post qualification
compulsory revelation of his assets and was conducted. Further, it claimed that there
were "ghost deliveries," i.e., the tires were never receipts. First, was on February 3, 1971, counsel
delivered to the PNP and no repair and for plaintiff in a civil case gave respondent
refurbishment works were actually performed on P12.60 for sheriff’s fee for service of the
the LAVs. complaint and summons thereof upon the
In a Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012, defendants. Bolasco received said amount before
the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the summons to be served were delivered to him
Espina and several other PNP officers for for service, in spite of the standing instruction
violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Section 65 from the clerk of court and the provincial sheriff
(b) (4) of RA 9184, and for Malversation of Public not to accept any payment if no official receipts
Funds through Falsification under Article 217 in are available. Bolasco did not issue the official
relation to Article 171 of the RPC. The receipt even after he had received the booklet of
Ombudsman also found them guilty of Grave official receipts February 5 or 6, 1971. Lastly,
Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty and, respondent also received, again without issuing
accordingly, recommended their dismissal from the corresponding official receipt, P50.00 from
government services. plaintiff for service of a writ of execution issued
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper in connection in another civil case. Proof of
or unlawful conduct motivated by a receipt of said amount is respondent's private
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. receipt. Hence, a collecting officer should issue
It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate official receipts and not mere private receipts.
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior
and to constitute an administrative offense, the ARIEL C. VALLEJO vs HONORABLE COURT
misconduct should relate to or be connected with OF APPEALS
the performance of the official functions and G.R. No. 156413 April 14, 2004
duties of a public officer. It is a transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, ISSUE:
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross Whether or not Vallejo is liable
negligence by a public officer.
FACTS:
RULED: Ariel Vallejo is a lawyer in the Register of Deeds
Rainier A. Espina is GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT of the province of Isabela. Franklin M. Javier, a
OF DUTY. Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent,
government service with all the accessory filed a sworn application for search warrant
penalties. before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan which
briefly requests that a Search Warrant be issued
FEBUARY 15, 2018 – ARTICLE 213 – FRAUDS on the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Provincial
AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY AND Capitol, Alibaga, Iligan for the purpose of seizing
SIMILAR OFFENSES the following documents:
OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
01. Undetermined number of FAKE LAND
SOLEDAD V. GANADEN VS. GREGORIO N. TITLES, Official Receipts in the Cashier's Office,
BOLASCO Judicial Form No. 39 known as Our Primary
Adm. Matter No. P-124, May 16, 1975 Entry Book under no. 496 and other pertinent
documents related therewith;
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Bolasco is liable under Article 02. Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the
213 of the RPC. drawers of every table of employees of the
Registry of Deeds;
FACTS:
Gregorio N. Bolasco, who was Deputy Provincial 03. Undetermined number of Land Transfer
Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Zambales transactions without the corresponding payment
is charged by complainant, Soledad V. Ganaden, of Documentary Stamps and Capital Gains Tax.
a stenographer of the same court, with
dishonesty by demanding P13.00 as sheriff's fee That all of the said documents are being used or
in civil case, entitled "Carmen Flores vs. intended to be used in the commission of a felony
Leonardo Frondarina," but issuing therefor a that is FALSIFICATION OF LAND TITLES under
receipt for a lesser amount and by issuing a Article 171 RPC, Article 213 RPC and R.A. 3019
private receipt for P50.00 to plaintiff Paulino (Anti-Graft) and are hidden or being kept in the
Padua in a civil case for the service of a writ of said office.
execution but failed to make a return of said writ.
Bolasco was also charged with misconduct by HELD:
delaying the service of summons upon Paulita NO. The charged imputed upon Vallejo should be
Esteban and entrusting its service to her dismissed and the seized items be returned.
nephew, Atty. Eduardo Balaoing, Jr.. The questioned warrant in this case is a scatter-
shot warrant for having been issued for more
HELD: than one offense - Falsification of Land Titles
YES. Bolasco committed illegal exaction under Article 171 and Article 213 of the RPC, and
penalized by paragraph 2(b) of Article 213 of the violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known
RPC for failure to issue receipts for money as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. A
collected by him officially. warrant must be issued upon probable cause in
In this case, on two occasions, Bolasco received connection with one specific offense. In fact, a
certain amounts in connection with the careful perusal of the application for the warrant
performance of his duties as deputy sheriff shows that the applicant did not allege any
without issuing the corresponding official specific act performed by the petitioner
constituting a violation of any of the be established, the following elements must

aforementioned offenses. Thus, the questioned concur: (a) the offender makes in a document
warrant must be struck down for having been statements in a narration of facts; (b) the
issued in contravention of the 1987 Constitution, offender has a legal obligation to disclose the
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and existing truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated
jurisprudence consequently the charged against by the offender are absolutely false; and, (d) the
Vallejo must be dismissed. perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
FEBUARY 16, 2018 – ARTICLE 214 – OTHER person. The first and third elements of the
FRAUDS offense have not been established in this case.
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
UNITED STATES V. FLORENCIO TORRIDA
FRANCISCO AND LENLIE LECAROZ V. G.R. NO. 7450, 7451 AND 7452 (SEPTEMBER
SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE 18, 1912)
G.R. NO. 130872 (MARCH 25, 1999)
ISSUE
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty under Article 214 is
Whether or not accused Francisco and Lenlie applicable to accused Torrida.
Lecaroz are guilty of Estafa through falsification
of public documents, and thereby convicting FACTS
them also under Article 214 of the Revised Penal Torrida, as part of his councilman duties in the
Code town of Aparri, Cagayan Province, gave
directions to his subordinates that the death of
FACTS: all large animals must be reported by the owners
Francisco Lecaroz is the Municipal Mayor of to him as councilman. These orders were
Santa Cruz, Marinduque. Lenlie Lecaroz, the conveyed to the people as directed. Several
former’s son, was the outgoing chairman of individuals lost their carabaos. Upon the receipt
Kabataang Barangay (KB) of Santa Cruz and of this information, appellant Torrida informed
member of Sangguniang Bayan (SB) these owners that they must pay a fine of P5 for
representing the federation of KBs. Jowil Red each animal, these fees to be turned into the
won as Chairman of Barangay Santa Cruz in the municipality by him. The owners, believing that
1985 KB elections. Lenlie did not run as the municipality had provided for the payment of
candidate as he was no longer qualified, having such fines, turned over to the appellant five
passed the age limit. pesos for each animal that died. There was no
Jowil Red was appointed by President Marcos as provision whatever made by the municipality or
member of SB of Santa Cruz, representing the any other entity for the imposition of such fines.
federation of KBs. He received his appointment These facts clearly constitute the crime of Estafa
powers when President Aquino was already in as defined and penalized in paragraph 1, article
power. However, he was not allowed by Mayor 535, in relation with paragraphs 1, article 534,
Lecaroz to sit as sectoral representative in the Penal Code. Torrida was charged with three
SB. Subsequently, Mayor Lecaroz prepared and separates crimes of Estafa in three separate
approved on different dates the payment to actions, tried and found guilty in each case.
Lenlie Lecaroz of payrolls covering period of
January 1987 to January 1987. HELD
Red assumed position of KB presidency upon Yes. When the councilor, Torrida in this case,
expiration of term of Lenlie Lecaroz. It was takes advantage of his official position in
alleged that Lenlie continued to receive salary committing Estafa, the disqualification
even after his term has expired. The mentioned in Article 399 (now Article 214 of the
Sandiganbayan convicted the accused, on 13 Revised Penal Code) is a part of the penalty to be
Information for Estafa through Falsification of imposed.
Public Documents, and perpetual special The fact that the appellant was councilman at
disqualification from public office in accordance the time placed him in a position to commit these
with Article 214 of the Revised Penal Code. crimes. If he had not been councilman, he could
not have induced the injured parties to pay these
HELD alleged fines. It was on account of his being
No. The offenses of which petitioners were councilman that the parties believed that he had
convicted under Article 171, paragraph 4, of The the right to collect fines and it was for this reason
Revised Penal Code, are intentional felonies for that they made the payments. It is true that he
which liability attaches only when it is shown had no right to either impose or collect any fines
that the malefactors acted with criminal intent or whatsoever. It is also true that a municipal
malice. If what is proven is mere judgmental councilman is not an official designated by law
error on the part of the person committing the to collect public fines. But these facts do not
act, no malice or criminal intent can be rightfully destroy or disprove the important fact that the
imputed to him. There was no criminal intent accused did by taking advantage of his public
demonstrated to justify petitioner’s conviction. position, deceive and defraud the injured parties
Moreover, the decision of the Sandiganbayan of out of the money which they paid him.
the accused’s perpetual special disqualification UNITED STATES V. JUSTO DACUYCUY
from public office in accordance with Article 214 G.R. NO. L-3873 (OCTOBER 18, 1907)
of the Revised Penal Code, does not stand.
Petitioners have been convicted for falsification ISSUE
of public documents through an untruthful Whether or not accused Dacuycuy is liable under
narration of facts under Article 171, paragraph Article 214 of the Revised Penal Code.
4, of The Revised Penal Code. For the offense to
FACTS and passed Regulation No. 7 for the leasing of

On December 1906, the provincial fiscal of Ilocos fishponds in the said municipality.
Norte filed a complaint with the Court of First
Instance of said province accusing Justo When the auction for the different sections of
Dacuycuy of the crime of Estafa, stating that the said fishponds was held in the town hall of the
said accused, being a public official and taking municipality, it was recorded that Urdabe, who
advantage of his office of councilor for the presided over the auction, took part in the
municipality of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, received bidding for one particular section of the
the sum of P39 from the residents of his district, fishponds and that section was adjudicated to
for the purpose of investing the money in him as the highest bidder for the sum of two
cedulas, and failed to invest said sum in cedulas pesos a year.
or return the same to the owners thereof, and
misapplied it and converted it to his own use to HELD:
the prejudice of the several residents. Yes. Municipal President Urdabe became
The court sentenced Dacuycuy to the penalty of interested and took direct part in the leasing of
two months and one day of arresto mayor, to property of the Municipality of Magsingal,
suffer the accessory penalties, to indemnify the wherein he had to intervene by reason of his
individuals residing in the barrio of Oangagan, office as president of said Municipality, and he
town of Bacarra of said province. From this has therefore openly violated the provisions of
sentence the accused has appealed. Section 28 of the Municipal Code which states
In his testimony, the accused Dacuycuy that:
confessed to having received from several "No municipal officer shall be directly or
residents of the barrio, the said sum of P39 to indirectly interested in any contract work, or
purchase an equal number of cedulas, but cockpits, or any other permitted games and
denied that he had gone over to the said barrio amusements, or business of the municipality, or
in order to collect taxes, and further stated that in the purchase of any real estate or any other
he was there enjoying a vacation when the property belonging to the corporation.”
residents handed him the money for the
purchase of their respective cedulas, but that he MACARIOLA v. ASUNCION
was unable to get the cedulas because at the Adm. Case No. 133-J. May 31, 1982
municipal treasury one person was not MAKASIAR, J.:
permitted to take out a cedula for another.
ISSUE:
HELD Whether or not Judge Asuncion intervened in his
No. Since the councilor committed the crime of official capacity in the transactions of Traders
Estafa as a private individual, it is not proper to Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.
impose on him the penalty provided by Article
399 (now Article 214) of the Revised Penal Code FACTS:
for public officers, because he received the Judge Asuncion rendered a decision pertaining
money not on the exercise of his functions as a to a partition of the estate of Francisco Diaz. One
councilor. of the lots of the said estate was sold to the
When a public officer commits a common crime spouses Galapon. A year after, spouses Galapon
independent of his official functions and does sold such lot to Traders Manufacturing and
acts that are not connected with the duties of his Fishing Industries Inc. wherein, at the time of the
office, he should be punished with the penalty sale, Judge Asuncion was the stockholder’s
which the law imposes on the private individual president of the corporation.
who violates its provisions, without taking into
account the official character with which the Consequently, Bernardita Macariola, one of the
guilty party is invested. heirs of Diaz and who was against of the partition
of the estate, contended that Judge Asuncion
February 17, 2018 – Article 215 – PROHIBITED intervened in his official capacity in the business
TRANSACTIONS or transactions of Traders Manufacturing and
[NO CASE FOUND] Fishing Industries, Inc. when he rendered the
decision concerning the partition of the estate.
February 17, 2018 – Article 216 – POSSESSION
OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A PUBLIC HELD:
OFFICER No. There was no showing that Judge Asuncion
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D. participated or intervened in his official capacity
in the business or transactions of the Traders
THE UNITED STATES v. CLEMENTE UDARBE Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.
G.R. No. 9945. November 12, 1914 The business of the corporation in which Judge
ARAULLO, J. Asuncion participated has obviously no relation
or connection with his judicial office. The
ISSUE: business of said corporation is not that kind
Whether or not Municipal President Urdabe where Judge Asuncion intervenes or takes part
became interested in any business in which it in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First
was his official duty to intervene. Instance. As was held in one case involving the
application of Article 216 of the Revised Penal
FACTS: Code which is a prohibition on public officers
Urdabe was appointed as the Municipal against directly or indirectly becoming interested
President of the Municipality of Magsingal and in any contract or business in which it is his
while on duty as said president, the Municipal official duty to intervene," (I)t is not enough to be
Council on and under his presidency, approved a public official to be subject to this crime: it is
necessary that by reason of his office, he has to restitute the initial amount of P60,000.00.
intervene in said contracts or transactions; and, Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan failed
hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or to consider the testimonial and documentary
transactions which have no relation to his office exhibits presented to support her claim that she
cannot commit this crime." did not appropriate or misappropriate for her use
and benefit the subject fund nor did she allow
February 18, 2018 – Article 217 – her co-accused to use the said fund without the
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR proper acknowledgment such as receipts, vales
PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF or sign chits. Petitioner maintains that she has
MALVERSATION satisfactorily explained the shortage on the basis
RIVERA, Marynit P. of the documentary evidence submitted.
HELD:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LICERION Malversation may be committed by appropriating
P. SENDAYDIEGO, JUAN SAMSON AND public funds or property; by taking or
ANASTACIO QUIRIMIT misappropriating the same; by consenting, or
G.R. NO. L-33254 JANUARY 20, 1978 through abandonment or negligence, by
permitting any other person to take such public
ISSUE: funds or property; or by being otherwise guilty of
Whether or not Samson is guilty of malversation the misappropriation or malversation of such
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code funds or property. The essential elements
FACTS: common to all acts of malversation under Article
In 1969, Sendaydiego, the provincial treasurer of 217 of the Revised Penal Code are:
Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Samson, an (a) That the offender be a public officer;
employee of a lumber and hardware store in
Dagupan City, used 6 forged provincial vouchers (b) That he had the custody or control of funds
to evidence fictitious sales of construction or property by reason of the duties of his office;
materials in order to embezzle from the road and
bridge fund the total sum of P57,048.23. Samson (c) That those funds or property were public
hand-carried the vouchers and followed-up their funds or property for which he was accountable;
processing in the offices of the provincial and
government and received the cash payments.
(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated
HELD: or consented, or through abandonment or
Yes. Samson is a co-principal in the six crimes of negligence, permitted another person to take
malversation because he conspired with the them.
provincial treasurer in committing those
offenses. The trial court correctly ruled that a In the case at bar, after the government auditors
private person conspiring with an accountable discovered the shortage and informed petitioner
public officer in committing malversation is also of the same, petitioner failed to properly explain
guilty of malversation. or justify the shortage that was subject to her
accountability. Petitioner denied that she put the
CECILIA U. LEGRAMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN amount involved to personal use and presented
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES various sales invoice, chits, vale forms, and
G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012 disbursement voucher to prove her claim.
Petitioner even went further by testifying that the
ISSUE: total amount of P681,000.00 appearing in a
Whether or not petitioner Cecilia Legrama is disbursement voucher were cash advances given
guilty of the crime of malversation under Article to the mayor during the height of the Mt.
217 of the Revised Penal Code Pinatubo eruption. However, the date when the
eruption occurred was way before the period
FACTS: subject of the audit. Undoubtedly, all the
The Office of the Provincial Auditor of the elements of the crime are present in the case at
Commission on Audit (COA) for the Province of bar. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of the crime of
Zambales issued PAO Office No. 96-09 directing malversation under Article 217 of the RPC.
an Audit to conduct an examination of the cash
and account of petitioner Cecilia Legrama, the February 21, 2018 – Article 218 – FAILURE OF
Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of San ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER
Antonio, Zambales. After the audit, the COA ACCOUNTS
prepared a Special Cash Examination Report on ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M.
the Cash and Accounts of Ms. Cecilia U.
Legrama. The report contained the findings that FLORENCIO B. CAMPOMANES vs.
petitioners cash accountability was short of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
P289,022.75 and that there was an unaccounted DECEMBER 19,2006
Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) in the amount ISSUE:
of P863,878.00, thereby showing a total shortage Whether or not Campomanes is guilty of failure
in the amount of P1,152,900.75. Included in the to render accounts as defined in Article 218 of
shortage is the amount of P709,462.80, the Revised Penal Code.
representing the total amount of various sales
invoices, chits, vales, and disbursement FACTS:
vouchers, which were disallowed in the audit for During the period material to the Information of
lack of supporting documents. From the total this case, accused Cecilio G. Hechanova was the
amount of the shortage, petitioner was able to Chairman of the Philippine Sports Commission
(PSC) and Florencio B. Campomanes was the of the failure of the prosecution to prove all the
President of the Federation International Des elements of Article 218, in relation to Article 222,
Echecs (FIDE), a private international of the Revised Penal Code. Because of this
organization with offices at Lausanne, failure, The Supreme Court deem it unnecessary
Switzerland. On 6 March 1991,the Philippine to rule on the other issues raised by both parties.
Sports Commission submitted to FIDE a bid offer
to host the 30th Chess Olympiad of 1992 in ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG vs. PEOPLE OF
Manila.The PSC’s bid offer was accepted by THE PHILIPPINES
FIDE, and accordingly the Philippine government G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014, 729 SCRA
thru the PSC was granted the right to organize 191
and host the 30th World Chess Olympiad in
Manila from June 6-25, 1992. From October ISSUES:
1990 to June 1992 the PSC, also complying with (1) Whether or not the acquittal under RA
its obligations under the bid offer, remitted to 3019(Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is a
FIDE – received in FIDE’s behalf by its President, bar to his conviction under Art. 218 of Revised
Florencio Campomanes – the total amount of Penal Code.
P12,876,008.00 in connection with the 30th (2) Whether prior demand is a requisite for
World Chess Olympiad in Manila. The amount of conviction under Article 218 of the Revised Penal
P12,876,008.00 was acknowledged as having Code.
been received by FIDE as shown by a letter dated
December 22, 1995 of Willy Iclicki, FIDE FACTS:
Treasurer. The Commission on Audit (COA) In 1994, Mayor Lumauig of Alfonso Lista
conducted an audit of the PSC’s transactions obtained a cash advance of P101,736.00
from March 1990 up to June 1992. The COA intended for the payment of freight and
team noticed irregularities in the claims payable insurance coverage of 12 units of motorcycles to
to the FIDE. The irregularities consisted of the be donated to the municipality by the City of
lack of acknowledgment receipts and of Manila. However, instead of motorcycles, he was
accounting liquidation attached to the able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. It
disbursement vouchers. The COA defined an never came to his mind to settle or liquidate the
acknowledgment receipt as an official receipt amount advanced since the vehicles were already
evidencing that the FIDE received the funds from turned over to the municipality. He claimed that
the PSC. The COA invited the PSC officials to an he was neither informed or did he receive any
exit conference on 27 October 1993. During the demand from COA to liquidate his cash
conference, the COA submitted its team’s advances. It was in 2001 while he was claiming
findings to the PSC and requested for the PSC’s for separation pay when he came to know he still
comment on the matter. In the absence of the has an unliquidated cash advance. And so as not
PSC’s comment, the COA prepared SAO Report to prolong the issue, he paid the amount of
No. 93-27. The report stated that the FIDE, P101,736.00 to the municipal treasurer, for
through Campomanes, received P12,876,008 which reason, the incumbent Mayor
without acknowledgment and without Prudenciano executed an Affidavit of Desistance.
liquidation. Hechanova and Campomanes were The Sandiganbayan acquitted Lumauig for the
charged as of fail to render account on the violation of RA 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt
disbursement thereof, within the period provided Practices Act) but convicted him for the felony of
for by law and the rules and regulations of the Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under
Commission on Audit. The Sandiganbayan Art. 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
acquitted Hechanova on the basis of proof
beyond reasonable doubt while convicted HELD:
Campomanes of the crime of failure to render (1) NO, acquittal from violation of RA 3019 is not
accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to a bar against conviction for Article 218 of the
Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. RPC. It is undisputed that the two charges
stemmed from the same incident. However, the
RULING: Supreme Court has consistently held that the
NO. There are four elements of the crime under same act may give rise to two or more separate
Article 218. First, the offender is a public officer. and distinct charges. The elements of the felony
Second, he must be an accountable officer for punishable under Article 218 of the RPC are:
public funds or property. Third, the offender is
required by law or regulation to render accounts (1) that the offender is a public officer whether in
to the COA, or to a provincial auditor. Fourth, he the service or separated therefrom.
fails to render an account for a period of two
months after such accounts should be rendered. (2) that he must be an accountable officer for
Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. He is public funds or property.
the president of the FIDE, a private foreign
corporation with whom the PSC, through (3) that he is required by law or regulation to
Hechanova, negotiated to conduct the 1992 render accounts to the COA or to a provincial
Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The auditor; and
Sandiganbayan acknowledged that
Campomanes is not a public officer. So the (4) that he fails to do so for a period of two
Sandiganbayan applied Article 222 of the months after such account should be rendered.
Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 218. The
Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, failed to (2) NO, demand is not element of the offense and
specify any law or regulation requiring that it is sufficient that there is a law or
Campomanes to render accounts to the COA. regulation requiring the public officer to render
Therefore Campomanes was acquitted because an account.
YES. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty

Since Lumauig received the subject cash as charged due to the concurrence of the
advance sometime in 1994, he was, thus, following elements:
required to liquidate the same on or before
January 20, 1995. Further, to avoid liability 1. petitioner was a public officer;
under Article 218, he should have liquidated the
cash advance two months from the time it was 2. he was an officer accountable for public funds
due, or on before March 20, 1995. In the case at or property;
bar, Lumauig liquidated the subject cash
advance only on June 4, 2001. Hence, as 3. he was required by law or regulation to render
correctly found by the Sandiganbayan, he was accounts to the COA or provincial auditor and
liable for violation of Article 218 because it took
him over six years before settling his accounts. 4. he failed to render an account for the period of
Considering the two mitigating circumstances of two months after such accounts should have
voluntary surrender and return or full restitution been rendered.
of the funds, Lumauig is sentenced to a straight
penalty of four months and one day of arresto According to the Sandiganbayan, in spite of the
mayor. fact that Panganiban alone benefited from the
disallowed cash advances, petitioner, as
HERMES E. FRIAS, SR. municipal mayor, was responsible and
VS. accountable for it.Moreover, petitioner was liable
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES to return the proceeds to the Government in view
G.R. NO. 171437 OCTOBER 4, 2007 of his failure to account for the cash advances.
Therefore Hermes E. Frias Sr. is guilty beyond
ISSUE: reasonable doubt of violation of Article 218 of the
Whether or not Frias is guilty with violation of Revised Penal Code.
Art.218 of the Revised Penal Code despite the
fact that he did not benefited from the disallowed February 22, 2018 – Article 219 – FAILURE OF
cash advances. A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO
RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE
FACTS: COUNTRY
Frias, on behalf of the Municipality of Capas,
made cash advances amounting to P50,000 and [NO CASE FOUND]
P950,000 (or a total of P1,000,000). These cash
advances were allocated for the maintenance of February 22, 2018 – Article 220 – ILLEGAL USE
economic enterprises and the augmentation of OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
the general fund. SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
The Commission on Audit found these purposes PEOPLE VS MONTEMAYOR

too vague. Thus, they disallowed the cash 5 SCRA 929, AUGUST 30, 1962
advances due to petitioner's failure to indicate a
specific legal purpose. COA notified Frias, ISSUE:
municipal treasurer Panganiban and municipal WON there is a diversion of the funds from the
accountant Domingo of the disallowance of the purpose for which they had been originally
municipality's cash advances and directed them appropriated by law or ordinance.
to settle the P1,000,000. Neither Panganiban nor
Domingo returned the amount. Hence, Abesamis FACTS:
requested petitioner to settle the disallowed cash Zosimo Montemayor then, and until now,
advances. Petitioner, however, refused for the President of the Mindanao Agricultural College,
reason that he gave the proceeds of the cash a government institution established and
advances to Panganiban. COA, mindful of existing under the provisions of law, order the
petitioner's predicament, pointed out that the accused Ciriaco Ducusin to use the students'
cash advances were made under his authority. property deposits for the purchase of supplies
Moreover, the checks were payable to him (as and materials needed by the college, and the
payee) and he admitted receipt thereof. For this latter, then the property custodian of said college
reason, even if he gave the proceeds to and who had been keeping said fund under his
Panganiban, he was still required to return the administration, by virtue of said instruction and
P1,000,000. order, spend and apply the amount of P1,911.64
Notwithstanding COA's demand, petitioner did out of said fund for the purchase of 9991.8
not account for the cash advance. Thus, COA gallons of gasoline, 965.1 gallons of crude oil and
recommended the filing of this criminal 131.5 gallons of SAE 30 for the use of said
complaint against petitioner.In his defense, college, thereby applying said amount to a public
petitioner argued that he was not liable for the use other than that for which it was appropriated
cash advances because he did not derive any by Resolution No. 18 of the Board of Trustees of
benefit from them. Panganiban alone benefited said college namely, for the payment of the losses
from the cash advances as she used the and breakages of college instrument and
P1,000,000 to settle her existing deficiencies equipment incurred by students.
with the Commission on Audit (COA). Petitioner HELD:
pointed out that the COA, upon Abesamis' No crime committed if amounts received are
recommendation, also filed a criminal complaint applied to a public use.
against Panganiban. To constitute the crime of illegal use of public
funds, there must be a diversion of the funds
RULING: from the purpose for which they had been
originally appropriated by law or ordinance malversation is, therefore, not included in nor
(Revised Penal Code, Article 220). does it necessarily include the crime of
In the case at bar the students' payments had malversation of public funds charged in the
not been so appropriated, because the resolution information. Since the acts constituting the
of the college authorities that the amounts paid crime of technical malversation were not alleged
by the students should be later refunded in the information, and since technical
nowhere implied that the repayment was to be malversation does not include, or is not included
made precisely out of the moneys received, and in the crime of malversation of public funds, he
as the refund could be made out of any available cannot resultantly be convicted of technical
funds of the College, there was no appropriation malversation.
for a particular purpose that was violated by the The Court has unequivocably ruled that in the
accused. absence of law or ordinance appropriating the
CRBI fund for the concreting of the Barangay
PARUNGAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Jalung Road, the petitioner cannot be declared
197 SCRA 173, May 15, 1991 guilty of the crime of illegal use of public funds.—
the use thereof for another public purpose (there,
Considering that the evidence presented in the for the payment of wages of laborers working on
malversation case is the same evidence that will projects other than the Barangay Jalung Road)
be presented in the event that a technical will not make Parungao guilty of violation of
malversation charge is later filed, the Court deems Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.
it best to pass upon the issue of whether or not
petitioner is indeed guilty of illegal use of public ABDULLA vs. PEOPLE
funds. G.R. NO. 150129, April 6, 2005
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Is Parungao guilty of Illegal use of public funds? Is there a presumption of criminal intent in
illegal use of funds or property cases?
FACTS:
OSCAR PARUNGAO, Municipal Treasurer of FACTS:
Porac, was charged with malversation for Convicted by the Sandiganbayan of the crime of
appropriating and converting to his own personal illegal use of public funds, Abdulla is before the
use and benefit the amount of P185,250.00. Court on petition for review under Rule 45.
Parungao entered a plea of not guilty. During the Appellant’s co-accused, Aguil and Darkis, were
pretrial conference, he admitted that he received both acquitted. Only appellant was found guilty
from the Ministry of Public Works and Highways and sentenced by the Sandiganbayan. Upon
the amount of P185,250 known as the fund for motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan
construction, rehabilitation, betterment and amended Abdulla’s sentence by deleting the
improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of temporary special disqualification imposed upon
Barangay Jalung Road located in Porac, her. Still dissatisfied, appellant, now before this
Pampanga. In his defense, he accounted for the Court, persistently pleas innocence of the crime
P185,250 fund, and after hearing, the charged.
respondent Sandiganbayan rendered a decision
acquitting the petitioner of the crime of RULING:
malversation of public funds but convicting him No. The presumption of criminal intent will not
of the crime of illegal use of public funds. automatically apply to all charges of technical
But while the accused could be deemed to have malversation because disbursement of public
fully accounted for the amount in question, the funds for public use is per se not an unlawful
fact sticks out from the evidence that he allowed act. Here, appellant cannot be said to have
the use of part of the funds for a purpose other committed an unlawful act when she paid the
than what it was intended. The said amount of obligation of the Sulu State College to its
P185,250.00 was specifically allotted for the employees in the form of terminal leave benefits
concreting of the barangay Jalung road in Porac, such employees were entitled to under existing
Pampanga. Instead of applying it fully to that civil service laws. In the absence of any
particular project, he gave P59,154.41 of it to the presumption of unlawful intent, the burden of
municipal mayor of Porac to pay the labor proving by competent evidence that appellant’s
payrolls of the different barangays of the act of paying the terminal leave benefits of
municipality, resulting in the non-completion of employees of the Sulu State College was done
the project. He thereby violated the following with criminal intent rests upon the prosecution.
provision of Article 220 of the Revised Penal
Code. Appellant herein, who used the remainder of the
forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) released by
HELD: the DBM for salary differentials, for the payment
A comparison of the two articles reveals that of the terminal leave benefits of other school
their elements are entirely distinct and different teachers of the Sulu State College, cannot be
from the other. In malversation of public funds, held guilty of technical malversation in the
the offender misappropriates public funds for his absence, as here, of any provision in RA 6688
own personal use or allows any other person to specifically appropriating said amount for
take such public funds for the latter’s personal payment of salary differentials only. In fine, the
use. In technical malversation, the public officer third and fourth elements of the crime defined in
applies public funds under his administration Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code are lacking
not for his or another’s personal use, but to a in this case. Acquittal is thus in order.
public use other than that for which the fund
was appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical
YSIDORO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines when he

GR 192330, November 14, 2012 approved the distribution of the goods to those
providing free labor for the rebuilding of their
ISSUE: own homes. This is technical malversation. If
Whether or not he approved the diversion of the Ysidoro could not legally distribute the
subject goods to a public purpose different from construction materials appropriated for the
their originally intended purpose CSAP housing beneficiaries to the SFP
malnourished clients neither could he distribute
FACTS: the food intended for the latter to CSAP
This case is about a municipal mayor charged beneficiaries.
with illegal diversion of food intended for those
suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries February 24, 2018 – Article 221 – FAILURE TO
of reconsideration projects affecting the homes of MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
victims of calamities. PROPERTY
Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of
rice and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And [NO CASE FOUND]
since she had already distributed food to the
mother volunteers, what remained could be February 24, 2018 – Article 222 – OFFICERS
given to the CSAP beneficiaries. INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS
Garcia and Polinio went to petitioner Arnold UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
James M. Ysidoro, the Leyte Municipal Mayor, to
seek his approval. After explaining the situation ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
to him, Ysidoro approved the release and signed PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE C.
the withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two BATAUSA
boxes of sardines worth P3,396.00 to CSAP. G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997
She also pointed out that the Supplemental
Feeding Implementation Guidelines for Local ISSUE:
Government Units governed the distribution of Whether or not Azarcon is considered a public
SFP goods. Thus, Ysidoro committed technical officer by reason of his designation by the BIR as
malversation when he approved the distribution a depositary of distrained property.
of SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries.
The evidence shows that on November 8, 2000 FACTS:
the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte enacted Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated
Resolution 00-133 appropriating the annual an earth-moving business, hauling "dirt and
general fund for 2001. This appropriation was ore." His services were contracted by the Paper
based on the executive budget which allocated Industries Corporation of the Philippines
P100,000.00 for the SFP and P113,957.64 for the (PICOP). Occasionally, he engaged the services of
Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks
Services which covers the CSAP housing were left at the former's premises. From this set
projects. of circumstances arose the present controversy.
The Sandiganbayan held that Ysidoro applied It appears that on May 25, 1983, a Warrant of
public property to a pubic purpose other than Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the
that for which it has been appropriated by law or Main Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
ordinance. (BIR) addressed to the Regional Director (Jose
Batausa) or his authorized representative of
RULING : Revenue Region 10, Butuan City commanding
The crime of technical malversation as penalized the latter to distraint the goods, chattels or
under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code has effects and other personal property of Jaime
three elements: a) that the offender is an Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and,
accountable public officer; b) that he applies a delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of
public funds or property under his Garnishment was issued to accused Alfredo
administration to some public use; and c) that Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender,
the public use for which such funds or property transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his
were applied is different from the purpose for possession owned by taxpayer Ancla.
which they were originally appropriated by law or Along with his co-accused Jaime Ancla,
ordinance. Petitioner Azarcon was charged before the
The creation of the two items shows the Sandiganbayan with the crime of malversation of
Sanggunian’s intention to appropriate separate public funds or property under Article 217 in
funds for SFP and the CSAP in the annual relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
budget.
HELD:
Since the municipality bought the subject goods No. The Solicitor General contends that the BIR,
using SFP funds, then those goods should be in effecting constructive distraint over the truck
used for SFP’s needs, observing the rules allegedly owned by Jaime Ancla, and in requiring
prescribed for identifying the qualified the petitioner Alfredo Azarcon who was in
beneficiaries of its feeding programs. The target possession thereof to sign a pro forma receipt for
clientele of the SFP according to its manual are: it, effectively designated petitioner a depositary
1) the moderately and severely underweight pre- and, hence, citing U.S. vs. Rastrollo, a public
school children aged 36 months to 72 months; officer. This is based on the theory that
and 2) the families of six members whose total (t)he power to designate a private person who has
monthly income is P3,675.00 and below. actual possession of a distrained property as a
depository of distrained property is necessarily
implied in the BIRs power to place the property the elements of the crime as applied to
of a delinquent tax payer (sic) in distraint as Campomanes thus:
provided for under Sections 206, 207 and 208
(formerly Sections 303, 304 and 305) of the 1. That the offender is [a] private individual.
National Internal Revenue Code, (NIRC) x x x. 2. That he has charge of any insular (now
We disagree. The case of U.S. vs. Rastrollo is not national), provincial, or municipal funds,
applicable to the case before us simply because revenues, or property or [is an] administrator or
the facts therein are not identical, similar or depository of funds, property attached, seized, or
analogous to those obtaining here. While the deposited by public authority, even if such
cited case involved a judicial deposit of the property belongs to a private individual.
proceeds of the sale of attached property in the 3. That he is required by law or regulation to
hands of the debtor, the case at bench dealt with render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or
the BIRs administrative act of effecting to a provincial auditor.
constructive distraint over alleged property of 4. That he fails to do so for a period of two
taxpayer Ancla in relation to his back taxes, months after such accounts should be rendered.
property which was received by petitioner
Azarcon. In the cited case, it was clearly within Campomanes admitted that he received funds
the scope of that courts jurisdiction and judicial from the PSC, through Hechanova. The exhibits
power to constitute the judicial deposit and give show Campomanes’ signatures in the respective
the depositary a character equivalent to that of a disbursement vouchers issued by the PSC and
public official. However, in the instant case, FIDE’s letters to PSC acknowledging receipt of
while the BIR had authority to require petitioner the funds. Moreover, Campomanes has not
Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truck, rendered an accounting of the funds even after
the NIRC did not grant it power to appoint he received a letter dated 19 January 1994 from
Azarcon a public officer. COA Chairman Pascasio S. Banaria demanding
that Campomanes refund or submit a detailed
FLORENCIO B. CAMPOMANES v. PEOPLE OF accounting to the COA covering the liquidation of
THE PHILIPPINES the funds that the FIDE received.
G.R. No. 161950 December 19, 2006
The Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, failed to
ISSUE: specify any law or regulation requiring
Whether or not Campomanes is guilty of failure Campomanes to render accounts to the COA.
to render accounts as defined in Article 218 in
relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code. The COA has the authority to demand an
accounting from the FIDE if there is a law which
FACTS: requires the PSC to ask the FIDE to render an
Florencio B. Campomanes was the President of accounting, or if the PSC expressly required the
the Federation International Des Echecs (FIDE), FIDE to render an accounting as a condition for
a private international organization with offices funding the Chess Olympiad and Congress.
at Lausanne, Switzerland. The Philippine Sports Absent such law or contractual obligation, the
Commission submitted to FIDE a bid offer to COA does not have the authority to audit the
host the 30th Chess Olympiad of 1992 in Manila. accounts of non-governmental entities receiving
The PSC’s bid offer was accepted by FIDE. The subsidy or equity from the government, like the
PSC, also complying with its obligations under FIDE. In the same manner, non-governmental
the bid offer, remitted to FIDE – received in entities receiving subsidy or equity from the
FIDE’s behalf by its President, Florencio government, like the FIDE, are not obliged to
Campomanes – the total amount of render an accounting to the COA if no law or
P12,876,008.00 in connection with the 30th contract requires them to do so.
World Chess Olympiad in Manila.
The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an In the present case, the absence of the conditions
audit of the PSC’s transactions from March 1990 contained in Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the
up to June 1992. During the audit, the COA 1987 Constitution prevents the creation of an
team requested for the journal and checks and obligation on the FIDE’s part to render an
disbursements issued by the PSC pertaining to accounting to the PSC or the COA.
the P12 million appropriated to defray the Consequently, Campomanes, as representative
organization, administration, and hosting of the of the FIDE which has no legal obligation to
Chess Olympiad and Congress. The COA team render an accounting, cannot be liable under
noticed irregularities in the claims payable to the Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
FIDE. The irregularities consisted of the lack of
acknowledgment receipts and of accounting February 26, 2018 – Article 223 – CONNIVING
liquidation attached to the disbursement WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION
vouchers. VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.
HELD: US vs. LEON BANDINO

No. Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. G.R. No. L-9964 February 11, 1915
He is the president of the FIDE, a private foreign
corporation with whom the PSC, through ISSUE:
Hechanova, negotiated to conduct the 1992 Whether or not Accused Leon Bandino was guilty
Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The of 'connivance or consenting to evasion'?
Sandiganbayan acknowledged that
Campomanes is not a public officer and applied FACTS:
Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code in relation On December 4, 1912, the municipal president
to Article 218. The Sandiganbayan enumerated of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, filed a written
complaint in the justice of the peace court of the First Oriental Ventures, Inc., the owner of TCT
said pueblo, charging Leon Bandino with the No. T-285369, to the damage and prejudice of
crime of faithlessness in the custody of prisoners Manuel Ang, Sr., the mortgagee in TCT No.
committed with reckless negligence. Said Leon 256662.
Bandino, accused, a municipal policeman having
under his care and guard one Juan Lescano, who RULING:
was serving a sentence in the municipal jail of Yes. An accused may be held criminally liable of
the said pueblo, did, with great carelessness and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents under
unjustified negligence, grant him permission to Article 226 of the RPC, provided that the
go and buy some cigarettes near the place where following elements are present:
he was held in custody. The prisoner, taking 1. The offender must be a public officer
advantage of the confusion in the crowd there,
fled from the custody of the accused. 2. There must be a document abstracted,
destroyed or concealed
HELD:
Article 358 of the Penal Code prescribes that "any 3. Such documents are entrusted to the public
public officer guilty of connivance in the escape officer by reason of his office
of a prisoner in his custody shall be punished,"
etc. In the existence and commission of the crime 4. There was a damage to public interest or a
of faithlessness in the custody of prisoners, it is third person
essential that there should have been, on the Said elements are present in the case at bar.
part of the custodian, connivance in the escape
of the prisoner. If the public officer charged with The act of the said public officers of the Registry
guarding the fugitive did not connive with him, of deeds caused damage to Dr. Ang and eroded
then he did not violate the law and is not guilty public trust and confidence in the Register of
of the crime of faithlessness in the discharge of Deeds.
his duty to guard the prisoner.
It may perhaps be true that the accused had no Further, citing the case of Kataniag v. People,25
knowledge that the prisoner Lescano would the Sandiganbayan wrote that damage under
escape, and that he did not permit him to do so, Art. 226 of the RPC may also consist in mere
but it is unquestionable that he did permit him alarm to the public or in the alienation of its
to go out of the municipal jail, thus affording him confidence in any government agency. The
an opportunity to get away with ease. Therefore Sandiganbayan added that Atty. Gadia's act of
the prisoner's escape was effected through the concealing TCT No. T-256662 constituted a
tolerance of his custodian, and is deemed also to breach of trust in the official care of the said
have been by connivance with the latter. certificate of title.
According to the rules established by the courts,
there is real and actual evasion of service of a ATTY MANZANARIS V PEOPLE
sentence when the custodian, failing G.R. NO. L-64750 JANUARY 30, 1984
intentionally or maliciously to perform the duties
of his office, and conniving with the prisoners, ISSUE:
permits him to obtain a relaxation of his WoN Sandiganbayan was right in finding
imprisonment and to escape the punishment of accused guilty even though the latter did not act
being deprived of his liberty, thus making the in bad faith
penalty ineffectual, although the convict may not
have fled, and where the prisoner's leaving the FACTS:
jail and his evasion of service of the sentence Atty Manzanaris as the Clerk of Court was found
were effected with the consent and tolerance of by the Sandiganbayan to be guilty of Violation of
the custodian, or rather in agreement and Art 226 of RPC for giving the certificate of title to
connivance with him. one accused in the Court where he was working.
Even though the accused committed the crime of Atty Manzanaris argued that he did it with a
faithlessness with carelessness, in violation of lawful and commendable motive.
regulations or with culpable negligence, the case
should not be dismissed nor should the crime go RULING:
unpunished. No. To warrant a finding of guilt of the crime of
infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of
March 8, 2018 – Article 226 – REMOVAL, removal as a mode of committing the offense,
CONCEALMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF should be coupled with criminal intent or illicit
DOCUMENTS purpose. This calls to mind the oft-repeated
ALILIAN, Enna B. maxim "Actus non facit, nisi mens sit rea”.
ZAPANTA V PEOPLE February 28, 2018 – Article 231 – OPEN

G.R. NOS. 192698-99 APRIL 22, 2015 DISOBEDIENCE
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B.
ISSUE:
WoN accused was guilty of violating Art 226 RPC THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND
ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
FACTS: FOUNDING PARTNER, FRANCISCO I.
Accused, as employees of Registry of deeds, CHAVEZ, vs. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA
caused the disappearance and re-issuance of G.R. No. 183014 August 7, 2013
TCT NO. T-285369, and deleting the
encumbrance annotated in TCT No. T-256662, ISSUE:
thereby affording unwarranted benefits to one
Whether or not Atty. Fria is guilty of acts days from the filing of the complaint or
violating article 231 Open Disobedience of the information, the judge shall personally evaluate
RPC. the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately
FACTS: dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
Atty. Josejina C. Fria (Atty. Fria), Branch Clerk fails to establish probable cause. If he finds
of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of
203, was charged for the crime of Open arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has
Disobedience under Article 231 of the Revised already been arrested pursuant to a warrant
Penal Code (RPC). issued by the judge who conducted preliminary
The Law Firm was engaged as counsel by the investigation or when the complaint or
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 03-110 instituted information was filed pursuant to section 6 of
before Branch 203. On July 29, 2005, judgment this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff (July 29, probable cause, the judge may order the
2005 judgment), prompting the defendant in the prosecutor to present additional evidence within
same case to appeal. However, Branch 203 five (5) days from notice and the issue must be
disallowed the appeal and consequently ordered resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from
that a writ of execution be issued to enforce the the filing of the complaint of information.
foregoing judgment. Due to the denial of the It must, however, be observed that the judge’s
defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the July power to immediately dismiss a criminal case
29, 2005 judgment became final and executory. would only be warranted when the lack of
In its Complaint-Affidavit dated February 12, probable cause is clear.
2006, The Law Firm alleged that as early as April In this regard, so as not to transgress the public
4, 2006, it had been following up on the issuance prosecutor’s authority, it must be stressed that
of a writ of execution to implement the July 29, the judge’s dismissal of a case must be done only
2005 judgment. However, Atty. Fria vehemently in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record
refused to perform her ministerial duty of issuing plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is
said writ. when the records readily show uncontroverted,
In her Counter-Affidavit dated June 13, 2006, and thus, established facts which unmistakably
Atty. Fria posited that the draft writ of execution negate the existence of the elements of the crime
(draft writ) was not addressed to her but to charged. On the contrary, if the evidence on
Branch Sheriff Jaime Felicen (Felicen), who was record shows that, more likely than not, the
then on leave. Neither did she know who the crime charged has been committed and that
presiding judge would appoint as special sheriff respondent is probably guilty of the same, the
on Felicen’s behalf. Nevertheless, she maintained judge should not dismiss the case and thereon,
that she need not sign the draft writ since on order the parties to proceed to trial. In doubtful
April 18, 2006, the presiding judge issued an cases, however, the appropriate course of action
Order stating that he himself shall sign and issue would be to order the presentation of additional
the same. evidence.
On July 31, 2006, the prosecutor issued a Applying these principles to the case at bar
Memorandum recommending, inter alia, that would lead to the conclusion that the MTC did
Atty. Fria be indicted for the crime of Open not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing
Disobedience. The corresponding Information Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable
was thereafter filed before the Metropolitan Trial cause. The dismissal ought to be sustained since
Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 80 (MTC. the records clearly disclose the unmistakable
The MTC ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case absence of the integral elements of the crime of
No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. It found Open Disobedience. While the first element, i.e.,
that aside from the fact that Atty. Fria is a that the offender is a judicial or executive officer,
judicial officer, The Law Firm failed to prove the concurs in view of Atty. Fria’s position as Branch
existence of the other elements of the crime of Clerk of Court, the second and third elements of
Open Disobedience. In particular, the second the crime evidently remain wanting.
element of the crime, i.e., that there is a
judgment, decision, or order of a superior
authority made within the scope of its March 2, 2018 – Article 234 – REFUSAL TO
jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities, DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
unlikely existed since the Court already declared
as null and void the entire proceedings in Civil [NO CASE FOUND]
Case No. 03-110 due to lack of jurisdiction. In
this regard, the MTC opined that such March 4, 2018 – Article 238 – ABANDONMENT
nullification worked retroactively to warrant the OF OFFICE OR POSITION
dismissal of the case and/or acquittal of the ALAMEDA, Manuel
accused at any stage of the proceedings.
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES v CA
HELD: GR No. 118883 January 16, 1998
No. The criminal case is dismissed for lack of
probable cause. ISSUE
Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of 1. Whether Antonio’s resignation was complete.
Criminal Procedure, a trial court judge may 2. W/N respondent abandoned his membership
immediately dismiss a criminal case if the in the SB.
evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause, viz: FACTS:
Sec. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) Antonio, priate respondent, was elected
By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) barangay captain of Sapang Palay Catanduanes
on March 1989. He was later elected president of abandonment is the voluntary relinquishment by
the Association of Barangay Council(ABC) for the non-user. There are 2 essential elements of
Municiplity of San Andres Catanduanes. abandonment : (1) an intention to abandon and
Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1983, (2) an overt act by which intention is carried on.
he was appointed by the President as Member of In the case at bar, the first element was
the Sanguniang Bayan of the sid municipality. manifested on the following instances: (1) private
Meanwhile, DILG Sec. declared the election for respondent’s failure to perform his function as
the president of the Federation of the Association SB; (2) his failure to collect the corresponding
of Barangay Council(FABC) void for lack of renumeration for the position, (3)his failure to
quorum. As a result, the provincial council was object to the appointment of Aquino as his
reorganized. DILG Sec then designated private replacement to SB and (4) his prolonged failure
respondent as a temporary member of the to initiate any act to reassume his post in the SB
Sanguniang Panlalawigan of Catanduanes after SC had nullified his designation as member
effective on 15 June 1990. Because of his of Sanguniang Panlalawigan. The second
designation, private respondent tendered his element was demonstrated by the following: (1)
resignation as a member of the Sanguniang his letter of resignation, (2) his assumption of
Bayan dated 14 June 1990 to the Mayor of San office as member of the Sanguniang
Andres Catanduanes. Copies of his letters were Panlalawigan, (3) his faithful discharge of his
also forwarded to the provincial governor, DILG duties and functions of SP and (4) his recept of
and the municipal treasurer. Subsequently, renumeration for such post.
Aquino then the Vice President of ABC was
appointed by the provincial governor as member JOSON III VS SANTOS
of the Sanguniang Bayan in place of private G.R. NO. 91548 JULY 13, 1990
respondent. Aquino assumed office on 18 July
1980 after taking his oath. Subsequently, the ISSUE:
ruling of the DILG annulling the election of the Whether or not the office of Vice-Governor of
FABC president was reversed by the Supreme Nueva Ecija was rendered vacant by the
Court and declared the appointment of private voluntary resignation.
respondent void for lacking the essential
qualification of being the president of FABC. On FACTS:
31 March 1992, private respondent wrote to the The controversy originated from the indefinite
Sanguniang Bayan(SB) of San Andres regarding sick leave that the incumbent Governor of Nueva
his re-assumption of his original position. SB Ecija, Eduardo L. Joson, had to take on
refused. December 7, 1989, thus creating a temporary
vacancy in his Office. As Vice Governor, Nario
HELD took over as Acting Governor pursuant to the
The resignation was not complete for lack of Local Government Code l. 1 But as fate would
acceptance thereof of the proper authority have it, Nario himself fell ill shortly afterwards,
however, an office may still be deemed and so executed a "waiver" of his "right" to the
relinquished through voluntary abandonment office of Governor. Joson forthwith took his oath
which needs no acceptance. In Ortiz vs Comelec, as Acting Governor, on December 19, 1989. Four
resignation is defined as the “act of giving up of (4) days later, apparently feeling that his illness
an ifficer by which he declines his office had worsened, Nario sent a letter to the Secretary
andrenounces the further right to use it”. It can of local Governments tendering his resignation
be express or implied. To constitute a complete as Vice- Governor of Nueva Ecija
and operative resignation the folloving must be
present. (1) an intention to relinquish a part of RULING:
the term; (b) an act of relinquishment; and (c) an The decided weight of authority is that "apart
acceptance by the proper authority. In the case from legal provision, . . . mere presentation of
at bar, there was no evidence that the private resignation does not work a vacancy, and a
respondent’s resignation was accepted by the resignation is not complete until accepted by
proper authority. Although the Local proper authority;" Clearly, a public officer cannot
Government Code of 1983 was silent as to who abandon his office or position before his
specifically should accept the resignation it resignation is accepted, but the incumbent
provides that the position shall be deemed official would not be in a position to determine
vacated only upon acceptance of resignation and the acceptance of his resignation unless he has
should be acted upon by the Sangunian been duly notified therefor. This is not to say that
concerned. The resignation letter was tendered a public officer may not resign. Mechem says
to the mayor and copies were sent to the that he "'may certainly resign, but without
governor, DILG and the municipal treasurer but acceptance his resignation is nothing, and he
none of them expressly acted on it. Furthermore, remains in office.' He is, therefore, so far as the
under established jurisprudence, resignations, rights of third persons are concerned, not only
in the absence of statutory provisions as to still clothed with authority, but is subject to the
whom it should be submitted, should be burdens of the office, and he may be compelled
submitted to the appointing power. Therefore, to perform the duties, and is liable for their non-
the resignation should have been submitted to performance, as before. In our jurisprudence,"
the president or to the DILG as the president’s this Court has held, "acceptance is necessary for
alter ego. Tackling the second issue, resignation of a public officer to be operative and
abandonment has been defined as the voluntary effective, otherwise the officer is subject to the
relinquishment of an office by the holder, with penal provisions of Article 238 of the Revised
the intention of terminating his possession and Penal Code
contro thereof. It is a species of resignation.
While resignation is the formal relinquishment, REPUBLIC vs. WINSTON T. SINGUN
ST

G.R. No. 149356 March 14, 2008

HELD:
ISSUE: To constitute a complete and operative
WON Singuin is considered as resigned in his resignation from public office, there must be: (a)
post. an intention to relinquish a part of the term; (b)
an act of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance
FACTS: by the proper authority.[29]
Singuin was the former Chief Trade and Industry In our jurisdiction, acceptance is necessary for
Development Specialist of DTI-RO2, Cagayan resignation of a public officer to be operative and
Province. In a letter dated 20 October 1999, he effective. Without acceptance, resignation is
wrote Regional Director Hipolito signifying his nothing and the officer remains in office.[30]
intention to apply for an 8 month leave of Resignation to be effective must be accepted by
absence starting 16 November 1999 until 31 competent authority, either in terms or by
July 2000 and to retire from the service on 1 something tantamount to an acceptance, such
August 2000. On 4 November 1999, respondent as the appointment of the successor.[31] A
filed his application for leave of absence and public officer cannot abandon his office before
early retirement. Director Hipolito denied the his resignation is accepted, otherwise the officer
request. is subject to the penal provisions of Article
Director Hipolito endorsed the application to 238[32] of the Revised Penal Code.[33] The final
Assistant Secretary Maglaya for comment. But or conclusive act of a resignations acceptance is
without waiting for Assistant Secretary the notice of acceptance.[34] The incumbent
Maglaya’s comment, he again filed an application official would not be in a position to determine
for leave of absence but for a shorter period (16 the acceptance of his resignation unless he had
November 1999 to 14 January 2000) and been duly notified therefor.
signified his intention to resign effective at the In this case, the Court of Appeals and the CSC
close of office hours on 14 January 2000. declared that there was nothing in the records to
According to Director Hipolito, he immediately show that respondent was duly informed of the
approved respondents application for leave of acceptance of his resignation. There was no
absence and resignation and he reiterated said indication that respondent received a copy of his
approval in a memorandum dated the same day. 12 November 1999 application for leave of
Director Hipolito also notified Regional Director absence and resignation as accepted by Director
Soria of the CSC of his acceptance of Hipolito. Neither was there any indication that
respondents resignation. respondent received Director Hipolitos 12
Undersecretary Ordoez detailed respondent to November 1999 Memorandum informing him of
the Office of the Undersecretary for Regional the acceptance of his resignation. Therefore, we
Operations effective 17 January 2000. affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that
On January 14, 2000, respondent informed respondents resignation was incomplete and
Director Hipolito that he was reconsidering his inoperative because respondent was not notified
earlier letter of resignation and that he decided of the acceptance of his resignation.
to wait until he could qualify for early retirement. Until the resignation is accepted, the tender or
But according to Atty. Soria, respondent was offer to resign is revocable.[36] And the
considered resigned effective 14 January 2000 resignation is not effective where it was
because (1) of respondents voluntary written withdrawn before it was accepted.[37]
notice informing Director Hipolito that he was In this case, since respondents resignation was
relinquishing his position and the effectivity date not finally and conclusively accepted as he was
of said resignation and (2) Director Hipolitos not duly notified of its acceptance, respondent
acceptance of respondents resignation in writing could validly withdraw his resignation. There
which indicated the date of effectivityof the was no need for Director Hipolito to accept the
resignation. His letter withdrawing his withdrawal of resignation since there was no
resignation did not automatically restore him to valid acceptance of the application of resignation
his position because Director Hipolito should in the first place. Undersecretary Ordoez also
first approve the withdrawal before it becomes validly issued the detail order as respondent had
effective. not effectively resigned from DTI-RO2.
Singuin informed Undersecretary Ordoez that
his application for resignation was made under March 4, 2018 – Article 240 – USURPATION OF
duress because it was imposed by Director EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
Hipolito as a condition for the approval of his ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
application for leave of absence. His original
intention was to resign on 1 August 2000 after PEOPLE VS HILVANO
completing 15 years of service in the government GR NO. L-8583, JUL 31, 1956
it was also ineffective because he was not notified PONENTE: JUSTICE BENGZON
of its acceptance for he did not receive a copy of
his approved resignation letter and Director ISSUE:
Hipolitos memorandum accepting his Whether or not defendant Francisco Hilvano, can
application for resignation. be charged of usurpation of executive functions.
Singuin demanded from Director Hipolito the
payment of his salaries and other benefits from FACTS:
1 December 1999 to 31 March 2000. On September 22, 1952, When Mayor Fidencio
Director Hipolito answered that he was Latorre of Villareal, Samar, departed for Manila
considered resigned as of 14 January 2000 on official business, designated the herein
because the detail order made no mention that defendant Francisco Hilvano, councilor, to
its issuance meant that the acceptance of the discharge the duties of his office. Later, Vice-
resignation was revoked. Mayor Juan Latorre found Hilvano acting in the
place of the Mayor; he served written notices to Yes. But in violation of Article 177 not Article 238
the corresponding municipal officers, including to 241.
Hilvano, that he (Juan Latorre) as Vice-Mayor Hilvano’s contention is untenable.
was assuming the duties of the absent mayor. Said articles (Article 238-241) merely punish
However, Hilvano refused to yield, arguing that interference by officers of one of the three
the Mayor had designated him. Whereupon the departments of government (legislative, executive
Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the Executive and judicial) with the functions of officials of
Secretary informing the latter of the controversy. another department Said articles (Articles 238-
Also, sought the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal, 241) do not cover usurpation of one officer or
who by letter (Exhibit D), replied that the Vice- employee of a given department of the powers of
Mayor had the right to the office. Wherefore another officer in the same department. For
Francisco Hilvano was prosecuted and after trial instance, the exercise by a bureau employee of
was convicted of usurpation of public authority the powers of his director.
under Republic Act No. 10. He appealed in due There is no excuse for Defendant-Appellant. In
time. the beginning he might have pleaded good faith,
invoking the designation by the Mayor; but after
HELD: he had been shown the letter of the Executive
Article 240 of the Revised Penal Code to read as Secretary and the opinion of the provincial fiscal,
follows: he had no right thereafter stubbornly to stick to
“Usurpation of executive functions. — Any judge the position. He was rightfully convicted.
who shall assume any power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter
in the lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer JOSE REYES y VACIO, vs.
the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
to prision correccional in its minimum period.” G.R. Nos. 177105-06 August 12, 2010
Thus, a councilor who assumes a power
pertaining to the mayor or obstructs him in the ISSUE:
lawful exercise of his power is not liable under Whether or not Reyes is guilty of usurping the
Article 240, because only a judge can commit judicial functions as provided by Art. 241.
usurpation of executive functions. The councilor
is liable under Article 177 of the Code, if he FACTS:
assumes the power of the mayor. On February 20, 1986, the IAC promulgated its
decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883, granting
March 5 2018 – Article 241 – USURPATION OF Belen’s appeal: declaring as null and void and
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS without any effect whatsoever the deed of sale
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L. executed by and between appellant Belen Lopez
vda. De Guia and defendant Carlos de Guia.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO On November 8, 1988, Belen, through her
G.R. No. L-8583 JULY 31, 1956 daughter and attorney-in-fact, Melba G.
Valenzuela (Melba), filed in the Department of
ISSUE: Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a
Whether or not Francisco Hilvano is guilty of complaint for ejectment and collection of rents
usurpation. against the tenants, entitled Belen Lopez Vda. De
Guia thru her Attorney-in-Fact, Melba G.
FACTS: Valenzuela vs. Paulino Sacdalan, Romeo Garcia,
On September 22, 1952, When Mayor Fidencio Numeriano Bautista, Leonardo Sacdalan and
Latorre of Villareal, Samar, departed for Manila Santiago Sacdalan and docketed as DARAB Case
on official business, designated the herein No. 034-BUL’88.
defendant Francisco Hilvano, councilor, to
discharge the duties of his office. Later, Vice- On March 16, 1993, the JOSE REYES, as
Mayor Juan Latorre found Hilvano acting in the Provincial Adjudicator, rendered a decision in
place of the Mayor; he served written notices to DARAB Case No. 034-BUL’88 entitled Belen
the corresponding municipal officers, including Lopez vda. De Guia thru her Attorney-in-Fact,
Hilvano, that he (Juan Latorre) as Vice-Mayor Melba G. Valenzuela v. Paulino Sacdalan, Romeo
was assuming the duties of the absent mayor. Garcia, Numeriano Bautista, Leonardo Sacdalan
However, Hilvano refused to yield, arguing that and Santiago Sacdalan,11 dismissing Belen’s
the Mayor had designated him. Whereupon the complaint for ejectment and collection of rents
Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the Executive and affirming the respective TCTs of the tenants.
Secretary informing the latter of the controversy.
Also, sought the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal, On May 13, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman
who by letter (Exhibit D), replied that the Vice- filed two informations in the Sandiganbayan, one
Mayor had the right to the office. Wherefore charging the petitioner with a violation of Section
Francisco Hilvano was prosecuted and after trial 3 (e) of RA 3019, and the other with usurpation
was convicted of usurpation of public authority of judicial functions under Article 241 of the
under Republic Act No. 10. He appealed in due Revised Penal Code.
time. Criminal Case No. 24656
Hilvano contented that Articles 238-241 of the That on or about 16 March 1993, or immediately
Revised Penal Code penalize all kinds of prior or subsequent thereto, in Malolos, Bulacan,
usurpation of official functions by public officers. Philippines, above-named accused Jose V.
Reyes, a public officer being then employed as
HELD: Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in
Malolos, Bulacan, while in the performance of his

official function as such and taking advantage FACTS:
thereof, with full knowledge of a Decision in AC- Andres Borromeo was appointed as judge of the
GR CV-02883 of the Court of Appeals, which 24th Judicial District (JD) on July 1, 1914. Said
declared Belen de Guia as the true owner of the appointment was accepted by Borromeo on the
lands litigated in said case, did then and there same date. On February 25, 1920, he was
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously disregard, transferred to the 21st JD without his consent.
obstruct and ignore the said final and executory Under the Administrative Code, Judges of First
decision of the Court of Appeals, by rendering a Instance are appointed by the Governor-General
decision in DARAB Case No. 034-Bul-88 thereby with the consent of the Philippine Senate to serve
favoring and emboldening the tenants- until they reach the age of 65 years.
respondents in said DARAB case to unlawfully
continue occupying the lands of Belen de Guia, HELD:
the complainant, to her damage and prejudice, No, it was not.
as well as to the public interest. Under the Administrative Code, ”a Judge of First
Arraigned on August 8, 2000, the petitioner, Instance can be removed from office by the
assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty Governor-General only if in the judgment of the
to each information. Supreme Court sufficient cause shall exist
After trial, on January 15, 2007, the involving serious misconduct or inefficiency in
Sandiganbayan rendered its assailed decision,22 office..”
finding the petitioner guilty of both charges; and Relatedly, Art. 243 of the Revised Penal Code
sentencing him to suffer: (a) in Criminal Case No. states that “Orders or request by executive
24655 (for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019), officers to any judicial authority. – Any executive
an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from officer who shall address any order or suggestion
six years and one month, as minimum, to 10 to any judicial authority with respect to any case
years as maximum, with perpetual or business coming within the exclusive
disqualification from holding public office; and jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer
(b) in Criminal Case No. 24656 (for usurpation of the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
judicial functions under Article 241 of the exceeding 500 pesos.”
Revised Penal Code), imprisonment of four It was noted that although the appointment of a
months of arresto mayor. judge lies with the Executive Department (by the
The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner’s Governor-General with the consent of the
motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2007. Senate), the power to remove, transfer or
On appeal, the petitioner insists that his discipline the judges lies with the Judiciary. The
rendition of the decision did not amount to the power of the Executive ceases upon the consent
felony of usurpation of judicial functions. of the judge to the position, to allow such action
by the Executive could be used to discipline the
HELD: judge or as an indirect means of removal thus
NO. Reyes did not commit any usurpation. would violate the separation of powers between a
Hence, not guilty. coordinate and equal branch of the government.
Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code states:
xxx The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium March 7, 2018 – Article 245 – ABUSES
period to prision correcional in its minimum AGAINST CHASTITY
period shall be imposed upon any officer of the DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J
executive branch of the government who shall
assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the G.R. NO. L-9768 FEBRUARY 20, 1915
execution of any order or decision rendered by THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF-
any judge within his jurisdiction. APPELLEE,
In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, VS.
who is not a judge, attempts to perform an act EULALIO MORELOS, DEFENDANT-
the authority for which the law has vested only APPELLANT
in a judge.44 However, the petitioner’s task as
Provincial Adjudicator when he rendered ISSUE:
judgment in DARAB Case No. 034 BUL’88 was to Whether or not proof of solicitation is necessary
adjudicate the claims of the opposing parties. As when the illicit relations were consummated.
such, he performed a quasi-judicial function,
closely akin to the function of a judge of a court FACTS:
of law. He could not be held liable under Article The appellant, as acting warden, was in charge
241 of the Revised Penal Code, therefore, of the prisoners in the Tondo police station.
considering that the acts constitutive of Among them was a woman named Tomasa
usurpation of judicial function were lacking Clemente. On the night of 18th of September
herein. 1913, he entered the cell of the woman and had
illicit relations with her.
March 6, 2018 – Article 243 – ORDERS OR The appellant argues that the proof fails to show
REQUEST BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO ANY that he solicited a woman in his custody. It was
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY proven, however, that his illicit relations were
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. consummated.
BORRROMEO V. MARIANO HELD:

G.R. NO. 16808 JANUARY 3, 1921 No. It would be a strange interpretation to place
ISSUE: upon said law, that a failure in the proof to show
WON the transfer of Judge Borromeo by the a "solicitation" was sufficient to relieve the
Governor-General was valid.
defendant from responsibility, when the act

solicited was consummated.
G.R. No. L-28144 August 26, 1927

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE MARIANO, defendants-appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of abuse against
chastity is included in those cases in which
criminal liability is extinguished by the marriage
of the accused with the offended party.
FACTS:
The accused was charged with the crime of abuse
against chastity, and after trial the Court of First
Instance of Manila convicted him of said crime,
sentencing him to three years, six months and
twenty-one days prision correccional with the
accessories of the law and the costs of the action.
The accused appealed to this court from said
judgment. On August 3, 1927, he filed a motion
praying for the dismissal of the case as he had
married the offended party, according to the
marriage certificate attached to said motion.
HELD:
Yes. The intention of our Legistature in enacting
said Act No. 1773 was that the married of the
accused or convict with the offended party
should extinguish the criminal liability in the
cases of seduction, abduction and rape and
those involving offenses included in said crimes,
such as frustrated or attempted seduction,
abduction or rape. This is clear and logical. If the
liability for a crime is extinguished in the graver
cases, it must be extinguished, and for a stronger
reason, in the lesser crimes.
Now then, if the crime of abuse against chastity
is not denominated rape, it is only for lack of the
intention to lie, both crimes being identical in
every other respect, though of different degrees
of gravity. For this reason, in regard to the kind
of crimes for which the Legislature wished to
provide extinction liability by reason of marriage,
abuse against chastity cannot but be held
included to the crime of rape without
misinterpreting the intention of the law, or
thwarting its lofty and wholesome purposes.
We therefore conclude that the crime of abuse
against chastity is included in the crime of rape
mentioned in section 2 of Act No. 1773 and,
consequently, to marriage of the accused with
the offended party in the present case has
extinguished his criminal liability.

TITLE EIGHT – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS side of the room. Next to her was Manuel, who
was trying to stab himself with the use of an
March 8, 2018 – Article 246 – PARRICIDE improvised weapon. Auria was immediately
DELFIN, JENNICA GYRL G. taken to the hospital but was pronounced dead
on arrival. On the other hand, Manuel, managed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PILUS to escape before the police could reach the crime
SUBANO scene. In his defense, Manuel claimed that he did
GR. NO L-48143, SEPTEMBER 30, 1942 stabbed his wife but it was not intentional. He
only did that out of anger because he saw his wife
ISSUE: conversing with a man inside their bedroom. The
Whether or not Pilus Subano is guilty of Regional Trial Court convicted Manuel of the
parricide. crime of Parricide and held that they were not
convinced that the stabbing incident was purely
FACTS: accidental. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
Pilus Subano had a quarrel with his wife, affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Bankalot, when the latter refused to work in their
kaingin. Their quarrel resumed the following day HELD:
when Bankalot refused to accompany Pilus to 1. No. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person
Macasin River to catch fish. Bankalot’s father, is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused;
Ebol and father of Pilus’ other wife, Biwang, (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
noticed that he went home alone that day and whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
that there were bloodstains on his bolo and on other ascendants or other descendants, or the
its scabbard. Pilus explained that the legitimate spouse of the accused. Among the
bloodstains were from the fish he had just cut. three requisites, the relationship between the
Ebol asked Pilus where his daughter was but the offender and the victim is the most crucial. This
latter disclaimed any knowledge of her. Four relationship is what actually distinguishes the
days later, Bankalot’s body was found in the crime of parricide from homicide. In parricide
middle of Macasin River. The incident was involving spouses, the best proof of the
reported to Lieutenant Olivares to whom the case relationship between the offender and victim is
was reported. During trial, Pilus denied killing their marriage certificate. Oral evidence may also
his wife. be considered in proving the relationship
between the two as long as such proof is not
HELD: contested. In this case, the spousal relationship
No. The facts duly established that Pilus is the between Auria and the accused-appellant is
author of the crime but what he committed was beyond dispute. As previously stated, the
homicide and not parricide. From the testimony defense already admitted that Auria was the
of Ebol, father of the deceased, it appears that legitimate wife of the accused-appellant during
the defendant has three wives and that the the pre-trial conference. Such admission was
deceased was the last in point of time. Although even reiterated by the accused-appellant in the
the practice of polygamy is approved by custom course of trial of the case. Nevertheless, the
among these non-Christians, polygamy, prosecution produced a copy of the couple's
however, is not sactioned by the Marriage Law marriage certificate which the defense admitted
which merely recognizes tribal marriage rituals. to be a genuine and faithful reproduction of the
The deceased, under our law, is not thus the original.
lawful wife of the defendant and this precludes
conviction for the crime of parricide. 2. Yes. Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that the imposable penalty for parricide
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MANUEL is reclusion perpetua to death. With the
MACAL Y BOLASCO enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346),
G.R. NO. 211062, JANUARY 13, 2016 the imposition of the penalty of death is
prohibited. Likewise significant is the provision
ISSUE/S: found in Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in stating that in the absence of mitigating and
finding the accused guilty of the crime of aggravating circumstances in the commission of
parricide. the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
2. Whether or not the proper penalty is reclusion Applying these to the case at bar and considering
perpetua. that there are no mitigating and aggravating
circumstances present, the penalty of reclusion
FACTS: perpetua was correctly imposed by the RTC and
Manuel and Auria Macal are married and begot CA.
2 children. Auria’s mother, Angeles, claimed that March 9, 2018 – Article 247 – DEATH OR
they were all living together in Tacloban. Angeles PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER
testified that she was walking home with her EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
children, including Auria after playing bingo at a DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
local peryahan. Along the way, with some of their
friends, their group met Manuel who joined them PEOPLE VS BITUANAN
in walking back in their house. When they G.R. No. 34510 August 31, 1931
arrived, the group proceeded to the living room
except for Auria and Manuel who went straight ISSUE:
to their bedroom. Shortly thereafter, Angeles Whether or not the accused is entitled to the
heard her daughter screaming for help. They privilege under Art 423 of of the Penal Code
immediately tried opening the locked door. When (source of Art . 247 of the RPC)
it was opened, they saw a bloodied Auria on one
FACTS: article, because the privilege there granted is

Moro Bituanan and Mora Sabay were married by conditioned on the requirement that the spouse
Datu Alon according to Moro customs and surprise the husband or the wife in the act of
usages. According to the same customs and committing sexual intercourse with another
usages, the Datu divorced the couple. Twenty person; the accused did not surprise his wife in
days afterwards, Bituanan caught Sabay and Ali the very act or carnal intercourse, but after the
Sabpa sleeping on the same bed. Thereupon, act, if any such there was, because from the fact
Bituanan attacked Ali Sabpa and Sabay, killing that she was rising up and the man was
the former and wounding the latter. buttoning his drawers, it does not necessarily
follow that a man and a woman had committed
In the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Judge the carnal act.
Natividad found Bituanan guilty of the crime of
murder. It is the sole contention of counsel for PEOPLE VS ABARCA
the accused, on appeal, that the decision of the G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987
lower court should be modified by applying
article 423 of the Penal Code to the admitted ISSUE:
facts. Said article provides that "Any husband Whether or not Abarca is entitled to the
who, having surprised his wife in the act of provisions of Article 247 of the Revised Penal
adultery, shall kill her or her paramour in the Code
act, or shall inflict any serious physical injuries
upon either, shall suffer the penalty of destierro." FACTS:
One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a
HELD: peephole, caught his wife having sexual
The marriage of Bituanan and Sabay, performed intercourse with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside
according to the rites of the Mohammedan the Abarca residence. The two also caught
religion, was valid. Granting, without necessarily Abarca looking at them and so Koh grabbed his
having to decide, that Bituanan and Sabay were, pistol and thereafter Abarca fled. One hour later,
accordingly, not legally divorced, it only need be Abarca, armed with an armalite, went to the
said that there is no evidence in the record gambling place where Koh usually stays and
showing that Bituanan surprised Sabay and Ali then and there shot Koh multiple times. Koh died
Sabpa in the act of adultery when he killed the instantaneously. However, two more persons
latter. The privilege given in article 423 of the were shot in the adjacent room. These two other
Penal Code extends solely to the case of a persons survived due to timely medical
husband who surprises his wife in the act of intervention.
actual adultery, that is, actual carnal knowledge
with her paramour. The article does not apply to Eventually after trial, Abarca was convicted of
a husband who catches his wife sleeping with the complex crime of murder with frustrated
another man on the same bed. double murder.
PEOPLE VS GONZALES HELD:

G.R. No. 46310 October 31, 1939 Yes. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
ISSUE: Any legally married person who, having
Whether or not Article 247 of the Revised Penal surprised his spouse in the act of committing
Code is applicable in this case sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill
any of them or both of them in the act or
FACTS: immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them
Marciano Gonzales , on returning to his house any serious physical injury, shall suffer the
from the woods, surprised his wife, Sixta penalty of destierro.
Quilason, and Isabelo Evangelio in the act, told Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1)
her that the man was the very one who used to that a legally married person surprises his
ask rice and food from them, and counseled her spouse in the act of committing sexual
not to repeat the same faithlessness. His wife, intercourse with another person; and (2) that he
promised him not to do the act again. The kills any of them or both of them in the act or
accused left the house and went to see his immediately thereafter. These elements are
carabaos. Upon returning to his house in the present in this case.
afternoon, and not finding his wife there, he
looked for her and found her with Isabelo near Even though one hour had already lapsed from
the toilet of his house in a place covered with the time Abarca caught his wife with Koh and the
underbush, who was standing and buttoning his time he killed Koh, the killing was still the direct
drawers, immediately took to his heels. The by-product of Abarca’s rage. Therefore, Abarca is
accused went after him, but unable to overtake not liable for the death of Koh.
him, he returned to where his wife was and, However, Abarca is still liable for the injuries he
completely obfuscated, attacked her with a knife caused to the two other persons he shot in the
without intending to kill her. Thereafter, he took adjacent room but his liability shall not be for
pity on her and took her dead body to his house. frustrated murder. In the first place, Abarca has
no intent to kill the other two persons injured.
The accused contends that he was entitled to the He was not also committing a crime when he was
privilege afforded by article 247 of the Revised firing his gun at Koh – it being under Art. 247.
Penal Code. Abarca was however negligent because he did
not exercise all precaution to make sure no one
HELD: else will be hurt. As such, he shall be liable for
The accused cannot avail himself of the aforesaid less serious physical injuries through simple
negligence for the injuries suffered by the two To the mind of the court, what actually happened
other persons who were in the adjacent room was that accused chanced upon Jesus at the
when the incident happened. place of his wife. He saw his wife and Jesus in
the act of having sexual intercourse. Blinded by
PEOPLE VS OYANIB jealousy and outrage, accused stabbed Jesus
G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 who fought off and kicked the accused. He
vented his anger on his wife when she reacted,
ISSUE: not in defense of him, but in support of Jesus.
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the Hence, he stabbed his wife as well several times.
privilege under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza
Code surrendered to the police when a call for him to
surrender was made.
FACTS:
Manolito and Tita were married and had two March 9, 2018 – Article 248 – MURDER
children. Due to marital differences, they DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
separated with Manolito keeping custody of their
children. Tita lived nearby, renting a room at the G.R. No. L-4116 February 25, 1982
second floor of Edgardo Lladas' house. Manolito PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EPIFANIO
exerted efforts towards reconciliation for the sake O. VALERIO, JR., and DOMINGO ELEPAÑO
of their children, but to no avail. Tita was very
reluctant to reconcile instead, she was open FACTS:
about her relationship with other men and would The case revolves around a plot of murder of an
flaunt it in front of Manolito. One instance, eight-year old boy for insurance. The persistence
Manolito chanced upon Tita and Jesus in a very in the criminal design was evident from the fact
intimate situation by a hanging bridge. He that when the insured eight-year-old waif
confronted them and reminded Tita that she was disappeared, another hapless substitute, whose
still his wife. They ignored him and threatened to name is unknown to this day, was taken... to
kill him. On September 4, 1995, Manolito went replace the first intended victim.
to the house where Tita was staying to inform the Sometime in August 1972, Amador Castro
latter of the meeting at the school about the brought home a boy whom he met in a Pantranco
failing grades of their child. Upon reaching the bus during a flood. "I will live with you to take
house, he heard "sounds of romance" (kissing) care of the cows" said the boy.
coming from the inside. He opened the door lock On November 8, 1972, accused VALERIO, one
using a hunting knife and caught Tita and Jesus Celestino de la Cruz and Amador Castro, while
having sexual intercourse, Jesus on top of Tita, at the latter's yard at Bo. Tamayo, San Carlos
with his pants on his knees. Jesus kicked City, conferred about obtaining life insurance on
Manolito in the cheek but the latter immediately the boy living with Castro, who would be
stabbed the former. Lladas, upon hearing a subsequently killed so that the policy proceeds
commotion on the second floor of his house, went could be "divided 50-50"
to check and found Manolito stabbing Jesus
while sitting on the latter's stomach. Tita was In accordance with the aforementioned plan, and
sprawled on the floor with her duster smeared upon instructions of VALERIO, Castro had the
with blood.She died on the way to the hospital. boy baptized as "Amador Castro, Jr." at the San
Jesus and Tita died of multiple stab wounds. Carlos City Roman Catholic Church with
Accused surrendered and admitted killing his Celestino de la Cruz as "ninong". VALERIO
wife and her paramour but invoked the waited outside the church during the ceremony.
exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of On January 16, 1973, the insured boy left the
RPC. The trial court convicted him of homicide Castro household after losing money, through
and parricide with 2 mitigating circumstances: gambling, given to him by Castro's wife to buy
passion/obfuscation and voluntary surrender. something. Castro then informed De la Cruz and
VALERIO about the departure of the boy but the
HELD: latter told him "easy ka lang, steady... ka lang,
Yes. He invoked Article 247 of the Revised Penal we will substitute a boy for him". VALERIO then
Code as an absolutory and an exempting cause. gave Amador Castro a boy, who began staying
"An absolutory cause is present 'where the act with the Castros beginning March 6, 1973.
committed is a crime but for reasons of public Thereafter, VALERIO, Castro and De la Cruz
policy and sentiment there is no penalty planned the killing of the new boy at Lido Beach,
imposed.” Cavite. VALERIO and de la Cruz told Castro that
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes if the plan were to be executed in Pangasinan,
the following essential elements for such a they would be "mabubuko".
defense: (1) that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing On March 13, 1973, Castro, his wife, their three
sexual intercourse with another person; (2) that children, the new boy, VALERIO, De la Cruz and
he kills any of them or both of them in the act or accused Domingo ELEPAÑO, as driver of the
immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not jeep, went to Lido Beach in Cavite. According to
promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his Castro's testimony on the witness stand, he,
wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not VALERIO, and De la Cruz together with the...
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. new boy went swimming. When they reached a
The Court found the accused to have acted depth of four feet, Celestino de la Cruz who was
within the circumstances contemplated in Article at the back of the boy hit the latter's head with a
247 of the Revised Penal Code. Admittedly, piece of iron. Castro was at the left side of the
accused-appellant surprised his wife and her boy while VALERIO was at the boy's right side.
lover in the act of sexual intercourse. De la Cruz then held the boy by the... neck and
submerged him in water. VALERIO and Castro with the Cardinal Life Insurance Corporation.
left De la Cruz and the boy in the water. Upon
instructions of De la Cruz, Castro reported the In deciding every criminal case, the civil
new boy's "loss" to the life saver in Lido Beach. responsibility incurred by the accused,
Later, the life saver found the new boy, who was consequent upon his criminal liability, must be
brought to the Bautista Hospital... at Cavite City. declared because every person criminally liable
The boy was pronounced lifeless and was not is also civilly liable.
examined anymore. The cadaver was thereafter
brought to Funeraria Popular, Manila, where it March 9, 2018 – Article 249 – HOMICIDE
was examined by NBI agents. Thereafter, Castro DUQUE, Francis Lester M
filed a death claim on the insurance of "Amador
Castro, Jr.", which was denied because the [G.R. No. CA-263. August 19, 1948.]
fingerprints of the boy insured were different People v. TIMOTEO PENESA, Defendant-
from the boy who was killed. Appellant.
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not the accused Valerio and Elepano Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived, as
are liable for murder. husband and wife, Their daughter and five
children of Rosario by her late husband lived
RULING: with them. Due to continuous wrangles between
Yes, both are liable. Timoteo and Rosario’s children by her late
From inception to execution, Valerio’s active husband, both agreed to part. Timoteo left the
participation was evident. He authored the idea house. The following day, Timoteo returned to
of securing insurance on the boy's life, killing the house and asked Rosario to live with him in
him and thereafter collecting the insurance another place. The request was refused. Santiago
proceeds. Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario, came to the house
and, upon seeing Timoteo, asked the latter why
VALERIO was with Castro and the boy when the he was there after they had agreed to live apart.
latter was taken swimming to deeper waters. Angered by this remark, Timoteo unsheated his
Those were the categorical testimonies of Castro bolo and assaulted Santiago. Crescencio Doro,
and ELEPAÑO. According to ELEPAÑO, the eldest son of Rosario, who tried to prevent
VALERIO also assisted in funeral arrangements. another blow upon Santiago and had made a
VALERIO was at the vigil of the boy until the remark similar to that of Santiago before the
latter was... buried. VALERIO contributed latter came to the house, was also assaulted by
P100.00 for burial expenses. Timoteo. At this juncture, Rosario went down
But in so far as ELEPAÑO is concerned, we find through the stairway, preceded by Santiago.
the evidence of the prosecution insufficient to Crescencio and Timoteo grappled for the
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The possession of the bolo and both fell to the floor.
only evidence linking him to the crime is found A brother of Rosario appeared upon the scene
in Castro's Statement given to the NBI on April and snatched the bolo and a dagger from the
25, 1973, Exhibit "1". Castro,... however, hands of Timoteo. As a result of the assault upon
repudiated under oath and in open Court his Santiago Cerrado, three wounds were inflicted
said Statement in so far as ELEPAÑO is upon him, one on the left forearm and another
concerned and stressed that ELEPAÑO had under the left axilla. They were not serious but
nothing to do with the killing. the one in the left palm was serious and, if the
hemorrhage was not stopped, it would have
Treachery, as alleged in the Information, must be resulted in Crescencio’s death. Trial court found
considered qualifying and must be appreciated Timoteo Penesa guilty of frustrated homicide.
against the accused. The killing of a child is
murder even if the manner of attack was not ISSUE:
shown.[63] The qualifying circumstances of WON Timoteo has intent to kill
treachery or "alevosia" exists in the commission
of the crime of murder when an adult person HELD:
illegally attacks a child of tender years and No. The SC ruled that when Timoteo went to the
causes his death. house of Rosario, it was not with the intention to
kill anybody, for he went there to entreat Rosario
Evident premeditation is satisfactorily Aguillon to live with him in another house. The
established if it is proved that the accused had bolo with which the appellant inflicted was one
deliberately planned to commit the crime and ordinarily used by farm laborers. The dagger was
had persistently and... continuously followed it carried for self-defense. The wounds inflicted
notwithstanding that he had ample and upon the offended parties by the appellant were
sufficient time to allow his conscience to caused indiscriminately and not deliberately.
overcome the determination of his will, if he had Appellant’s purpose in going to the house, and
desired it, after meditation and reflection. It con- not the kind of weapons he carried, nor the parts
templates cold and deep meditation and of the victims’ bodies on which the wounds were
tenacious persistence in the... accomplishment inflicted indiscriminately, is indicative and
of the criminal act.[65] In the case at bar, from determinative of his intent. The accused was
the time the insurance was taken in November, convicted only of slight physical injuries.
1972, and even after the boy insured got lost, the
culprits did not relent in the pursuit of their G.R. No. L-17666 June 30, 1966
scheme for money culminating in the... killing of ISIDORO MONDRAGON vs. PEOPLE
the substitute boy and the filing of a death claim
FACTS:
ST

While complainant Serapion Nacionales was wound the said Dela Cruz died. Romualdo
opening the dike of his ricefield, he heard a shout Asuncion testified that the deceased himself told
from afar telling him not to open the dike, him that the wound had been inflicted by Nicolas
Nacionales continued opening the dike, and the Gloria. In view of the evidence for the
same voice shouted again, "Don't you dare open prosecution, the judge decided that the facts
the dike." When he looked up, he saw Isidoro constituted the crime of assault (lesiones) or
Mondragon coming towards him. Nacionales physical injuries.
informed appellant that he was opening the dike
because he would plant the next morning. ISSUE:
Without much ado appellant punched the WON the judge is correct finding the accused
compalinant but the latter was able to dodge. guilty of lesiones since there be no clear showing
Petitioner then drew his bolo and struck of intent to kill.
complainant on different parts of his body.
Complainant backed out, unsheathed his own HELD:
bolo, and hacked appellant on the head and No. The crime must be classified as homicide and
forearm and between the middle and ring fingers not as assault (lesiones), notwithstanding the
in order to defend himself. Trial court found the opinion of the trial judge. All acts punished by
petitioner guilty of attempted homicide the law are presumed to be voluntarily in the
absence of proof to the contrary. With respect to
ISSUE: crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks
WON the facts established do not show that particularly to the material results following the
petitioner has the intent to kill unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible
for all the consequences thereof.
HELD:
Yes. SC finds that the intention of the petitioner G.R. No. L-2095 , January 28, 1950
to kill the offended party has not been THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
conclusively shown. It may be assumed that the FAUSTO CLAMANIA
petitioner drew his bolo and hit the offended
party with it only when the offended party had FACTS:
shown a defiant attitude, considering that the Apolinario Inciso and Modesto Delantar, two
complainant himself had a bolo, as in fact the witnesses for the prosecution, testified in
offended party had also drawn his bolo and hit substance that on the night of September 26,
the petitioner with it. 1942, in barrio Lawaan, Balangiga, Samar, they
Pertinent testimony is as follows (Petitioner was were forced by the accused at the point of a
asked): revolver to accompany him to the beach. At the
QUESTION: In other words you want to tell us beach they saw Juan Grafil and Apolinario
that you will do everything you could to stop Gahoy in a boat with their hands tied behind
Nacionales digging the canal, because you need their backs. With Apolinario Inciso at helm,
water? ANSWER - Yes, sir, because I need the Delantar and the accused rowed the boat with
water. the victims on board to Can-usod Island. There,
Grafil and Gahoy were taken ashore and beaten
The answer of the petitioner is not a categorical to death by Fausto Clamania with an oar. After
statement of an intention on his part to kill the Grafil and Gahoy were killed the accused ripped
offended party. The term "will do everything" has their abdomens to let out the bowels, attached
a broad meaning and it should be construed in a stones as weights to the bodies, tied the bodies
manner as to give the petitioner the benefit of the to the craft, and then hauled them to deep water
doubt as to what he really meant to do. where they were released.
1Petitioner was guilty only of less serious As above stated, the defendant admitted the
physical injuries. above testimony, except that which says he had
The intent to kill being an essential element of a firearm and coerced the prosecution witnesses
the offense of frustrated or attempted homicide, into following him.
said element must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence. That element must be ISSUES:
proved with the same degree of certainty as is 1. Whether or not the accused is liable for
required of the other elements of the crime. The murder.
inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in 2. Whether or not the aggravating circumstances
the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove of nighttime, uninhabited place and
such intent beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. ensañamiento found by the trial court were
Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488). erroneously appreciated.
G.R. No. 1509 February 16, 1904 RULING:

THE UNITED STATES vs. NICOLAS GLORIA, Yes, accused Clamania is liable for murder.
defendant-appellant. The Court agree with the Solicitor General that
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
Intent to kill is a conclusive presumption when uninhabited place and ensañamiento found by
death resulted. the trial court, have been erroneously
appreciated. Nocturnity is absorbed by treachery
FACTS: by which the killing is qualified; there is no proof
Nicolas Gloria had a quarrel with Tiburcio de la that Can-usod Island was uninhabited, and the
Cruz which was followed by a fight. In the course disemboweling of the deceased was not an
of the struggle, Gloria inflicted upon Cruz with a unnecessary mutilation or deliberate and
pocketknife he was carrying, a wound in the left wanton augmentation of the suffering of the
side of the trunk above the abdomen, from which offended parties. For when the disemboweling
was affected, the victims were already dead, and probative weight to Elisa’s testimony.
the operation was conceived solely for the
purpose of facilitating the sinking of the cadavers There is conspiracy when two or more persons
and preventing their discovery. agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal
G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003 liability must be proved separately from and with
PEOPLE vs, PILOLA the same quantum of proof as the crime itself.
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
FACTS: evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
On February 5, 1988 11:30 pm: Elisa Rolan was essential features of a successful conspiracy. It
inside their store waiting for her husband to may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
arrive. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul, Jr. were before, during and after the commission of the
drinking beer. Although already drunk, Edmar crime, showing that they had acted with a
Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba joined them. Edmar common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be
had a heated argument with Julian. Elisa implied if it is proved that two or more persons
pacified Edmar and advised them to go home as aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment
she was already going to close up. Edmar and of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
Odilon left then returned to block Joselito and that their combined acts, though apparently
Julian. Edmar took off his eyeglasses and independent of each other, were, in fact,
punched Julian in the face. Elisa shouted: “Tama connected and cooperative, indicating a
na. Tama na” but she was ignored as they closeness of personal association and a
continued until they reached the end of the concurrence of sentiment. There may be
street. Odilon positioned himself on top of a pile conspiracy even if an offender does not know the
of hollow blocks and watched as Edmar and identities of the other offenders, and even though
Julian swapped punches. As Joselito tried to he is not aware of all the details of the plan of
stop the fight, Odilon pulled out his knife with operation or was not in on the scheme from the
his right hand and stepped down from his perch. beginning. One need only to knowingly
He placed his left arm around Joselito’s neck, contribute his efforts in furtherance of it. One
and stabbed him. Ronnie and Rene Gayot Pilola, who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts
who were across the street, saw their gangmate as his own the criminal designs of his co-
Odilon stabbing the victim and decided to join conspirators. If conspiracy is established, all the
the fray. Ronnie took a knife from the kitchen of conspirators are liable as co-principals
Teresita and rushed together with Pilola to the regardless of the manner and extent of their
scene and stabbed Joselito. As Joeslito was participation since in contemplation of law, the
stabbed 11 times (6 fatal stab wounds), he fell in act of one would be the act of all. Each of the
the canal. Odilon and Pilola fled while Ronnie conspirators is the agent of all the others.
went after Julian who ran dear life. When Julian
noticed that Ronnie was no longer running after The mere presence of an accused at the situs of
him, he looked back and saw Ronnie pick up a the crime will not suffice. There must be
piece of hollow block and bashed Joselito’s head. intentional participation in the transaction with
Then, Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle and a view to the furtherance of the common design
struck Joselito once more before fleing from the and purpose. Even if two or more offenders do
scene. Joselito died on the spot. Elisa rushed to not conspire to commit homicide or murder, they
Joselito’s house and informed his wife and may be held criminally liable as principals by
brother of the incident. direct participation if they perform overt acts
Agripina Gloria, a female security guard, saw which mediately or immediately cause or
Ronnie repeatedly stabbed Joselito and fled accelerate the death of the victim. Art. 4.
towards the direction of the mental hospital. She Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be
did not see Odilon. incurred:
Elisa cross-examination had an inconsistency, o 1. By any person committing a felony (delito)

she stated that it was Edmar who struck the although the wrongful act done be different from
victim (before it was Ronnie) that which he intended.
RTC: Pilola GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to Art. 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the
reclusion perpetua persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by
ISSUE: previous or simultaneous acts.
Whether or not Pilola is guilty of murder.
o To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two
HELD: elements must concur:
YES. Rene Gayot Pilola GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is 1. the community of criminal design; that is,
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION knowing the criminal design of the principal by
The identity of the person who hit the victim with direct participation, he concurs with the latter in
a hollow block is of de minimis importance. his purpose;
Elisa’s testimony is corroborated by the autopsy
report of Dr. Bienvenido Muñoz. No showing of 2. the performance of previous or simultaneous
any improper motive on the part of a witness to acts that are not indispensable to the
testify falsely against the accused or to falsely commission of the crime
implicate the latter in the commission of the
crime. The trial court gave credence and full Accomplices come to know about the criminal
resolution of the principal by direct participation
after the principal has reached the decision to wounds but through the assistance of a military
commit the felony and only then does the surgeon in the hospital she was able to survived.
accomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. The wounds healed in about three weeks.
Accomplices do not decide whether the crime
should be committed; they merely assent to the HELD:
plan of the principal by direct participation and Yes. After taking into consideration the
cooperate in its accomplishment circumstances of the deed, and in the present
However, where one cooperates in the case the trivial nature of the wounds inflicted
commission of the crime by performing overt acts upon the injuref party, which were cured in less
which by themselves are acts of execution, he is than one month, Article 407 of the Penal Code
a principal by direct participation, and not (Article 250 RPC) authorizes courts to punish,
merely an accomplice. Odilon all by himself within their rational discretion, the crime of
initially decided to stab the victim. However, frustrated murder with a penalty lower by one
while Odilon was stabbing the victim, the degree, imposing in its medium grade the penalty
appellant and Ronnie agreed to join. All the overt of presidio correccional in its maximum degree to
acts of Odilon, Ronnie and the Pilola before, presidio mayor in its medium grade, which is the
during, and after the stabbing incident penalty next lower to that imposed by Article 65
indubitably show that they conspired to kill the of the Penal Code ( Article 50 RPC).
victim. Since the victim is not yet dead, the crime
is not yet consummated so Pilola is a principal March 10, 2018 – Article 251 – DEATH
by direct participation. CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
Alibi is a weak, if not the weakest of defenses in
a criminal prosecution, because it is easy to [NO CASE FOUND]
concoct but hard to disprove. To serve as basis
for acquittal, it must be established by clear and
convincing evidence. For it to prosper, the March 10, 2018 – Article 252 – PHYSICAL
accused must prove not only that he was absent INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTUOUS
from the scene of the crime at the time of its AFFRAY
commission, but also that it was physically IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
impossible for him to have been present then.
Pilola knew that he was charged for the stabbing [NO CASE FOUND]
but instead of surrendering to the police
authorities, he evaded arrest and this flight is March 10, 2018 – Article 253 – GIVING
evidence of his guilt. ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
LAZO, Joseph Artfel T.
There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing [NO CASE FOUND]
means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to March 15, 2018 – Article 254 – DISCHARGE OF
insure its execution, without risk to himself FIREARMS
arising from the defense which the offended NASH, Regina Mercado
party might make. The essence of treachery is
the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed GERONIMO DADO vs. PEOPLE (G.R. NO.
victim without the slightest provocation on his 131421)
part - attack on the unarmed victim was sudden. November 18, 2002
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength is absorbed by treachery. ISSUE:
Whether accused is guilty of homicide instead of
March 10, 2018 – Article 250 – PENALTY FOR illegal discharge of firearm only.
FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR
HOMICIDE. FACTS:
FLORENTINO, Kimberly A. The present case is a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
UNITED STATES VS CANDIDO POBLETE decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed
GR NO. L-4354. MARCH 25, 1908 the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Kudarat finding the Geronimo Dado and
ISSUE: Francisc o Eraso guilty of the crime of homicide.
Whether the court can imposed penalty lower The information charged both Dado and Eraso
than what was being prescribed by law? with murder allegedly committed by said the
accused armed with firearms, with intent to kill,
FACTS: with evident premeditation and treachery, and
On the morning of May 19, 1907, a 19 year old shot Silvestre Balinas thereby in flicting gunshot
woman together with her two companions were wounds upon the latter which caused his instant
walking in the direction of the church. death.The antecedent facts as narrated by
Unexpectedly they met the accused when they prosecution witnesses Alfredo Balinas and Rufo
are nearing the parish house who immediately Alga wereas follows:
seized the victim and attacked her chest, back, On the night of May 25, 1992, the Esperanza,
sides, arms and thighs.Although she fell to the Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed three
ground senseless the accused continued teams to intercept some cattle rustlers. The
attacking her. The victim's companions Team composed of the petitioner SPO4Geronimo
attempted to help but they were also attacked by Dado and CAFGU members Francisco Eraso,
the accused. The victim sustained sixteen AflredoBalinas and Rufo Alga waitedbehind a
large dike. Alfredo Balinas and Rufo Alga, who claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno
were both armed with M14 armalite rifles, were declared that the appellant gave birth in her own
positioned between the petitioner, who was house and three her child into the thicket to kill
armed with a caliber .45 pistol, andaccused it. The trial court gave credit to this opinion.
Francisco Eraso, who was carrying an M16
armalite rifle. At around 11:00 of that ISSUE:
sameevening, the team saw somebody Whether or not Bandian is guilty of infanticide
approaching at a distance of 50 meters. When he
was about 5 meters away from the team, Alfredo HELD:
Balinas noticed that Francisco Eraso was No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to
making some movements. Balinas told Eraso to be punishable, must be committed willfully or
wait, but before Balinas could beam his consciously, or at least it must be the result of a
flashlight, Eraso firedhis M16 armalite rifle at the voluntary, conscious and free act or omission.
approaching man. Immediately thereafter, The evidence does not show that the appellant,
petitioner fired a singleshot from his .45 caliber in causing her child’s death in one way or
pistol. The victim turned out to be Silvestre another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did
―Butsoy‖ Balinas, thenephew of Alfredo Balinas. so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had
Eraso embraced Alfredo Balinas to show his no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to
repentance for his deed. death, because her affair with a former lover,
which was not unknown to her second lover,
HELD: Kirol, took place three years before the incident;
In convicting the petitioner, both the trial court her married life with Kirol—she considers him
and the Court of Appeals found that conspirac her husband as he considers him his wife—
yattended the commission of the crime. The began a year ago; as he so testified at the trial,
Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner Dado and he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and
accused Eraso conspired in killing the deceased, that they’ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the
thus, it is no longer necessary to establish who child. The appellant, thus, had no cause to be
caused the fatal wound in as much as conspiracy ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol.
makes the act of one conspirator the act of all.
Although the agreement need not be directly Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth,
proven, circumstantial evidence of such or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was
agreement must nonetheless be convincingly unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which
shown. In the case at bar, petitioner and accused cause may be considered lawful or insuperable
Eraso’s seemingly concerted and almost to constitute the seventh exempting
simultaneous acts were more of a spontaneous circumstance, to take her child from the thicket
reaction rather than the result of a common plan where she had given it birth, so as not to leave it
to ki ll the victim. Evidently, the prosecution abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing
failed to prove that the metallic fragments found its life. If by going into the thicket to pee, she
in the fatal wound of the victim were particles of caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child
a .45 caliber bullet that emanated from the .45 in that same place and later abandoning it, not
caliber pistol fired by petitioner. Hence, the because of imprudence or any other reason than
Supreme Court set aside the decision of the that she was overcome by strong dizziness and
Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of extreme debility, she could not be blamed
petitioner for the crime of homicide and acquitted because it all happened by mere accident, with
the petitioner of the crime charged on the ground no fault or intention on her part. The law
of reasonable doubt. A new decision was entered exempts from liability any person who so acts
finding petitioner Geronimo Dado guilty of the and behaves under such circumstances (Art.
crime of illegal discharge of firearm and 12(4), RPC). Thus, having the fourth and seventh
sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate exempting circumstances in her favor, she is
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as acquitted of the crime that she had been accused
minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11) of.
months of prision correccional, as maximum
penalty. PEOPLE VS SEVERA JACA AND PROCESO
RASALAN
March 11, 2018 – Article 255 – INFANTICIDE G.R. NO. L-34866 AUGUST 18, 1931
OLACO, Jan- Lawrence P.
FACTS:
PEOPLE VS. JOSEFINA BANDIAN On November 1930, the above-named accused,
G.R. NO. 45186 SEPTEMBER 30, 1936 Severa Jaca and Proceso Rasalan, aiding and
abetting each other for the purpose of concealing
FACTS: the dishonor of said Severa Jaca, did willfully,
One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, unlawfully and feloniously put to death the child
Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket apparently to which she had given birth to, before it was 3 days
respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, old. Having heard the case, the Court of First
Bandian emerged from the thicket with her Instance (CFI) acquitted Severa Jaca, but
clothes stained with blood both in the front and convicted Proceso Rasalan of the crime charged
back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Proceso
being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, Rasalan appealed from this sentence.
he brought her to her house and placed her on
the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help ISSUE:
them Comcom saw he body of a newborn babe Whether or not the penalty imputed upon
near a path adjoining the thicket where the Rasalan was correct.
appellant had gone a few moments before. She
HELD: that the trial court with which he was charged

YES. There is no dispute about the fact that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Severa Jaca's new-born baby die a violent death;
this has been sufficiently proved. The evidence PEOPLE V. FILOMENO SALUFRANIA
for the prosecution points to Proceso Rasalan as G.R. NO. L-50884 (MARCH 30, 1988)
the offender, that two eyewitnesses, both of them
related to the appellant, the first by consaguinity ISSUE
and the second by affinity, testified that Rasalan Whether or not Salufrania should be liable with
wrapped up the baby in a cloth which the complex crime of Parricide with Intentional
asphyxiated it — resulting in its death. Tomas Abortion
Jaca, the appellant's father-in-law, testified that
when the latter handed to him the corpse of the FACTS
newly-born child in order that he might secretly The accused Salufrania was found guilty by the
throw it into the river, the accused revealed to trial court of the complex crime of Parricide with
him that he, Rasalan, had killed it in order to Intentional Abortion. Several witnesses were
conceal the dishonor of Severa Jaca. The presented by the prosecution and the defense
defendant questions the veracity of these three throughout the trial. Pedro Salufrania, son of the
witnesses, alleging that they had a grievance accused, was one of the witnesses of the
against him and his family. The grievance prosecution which stated that he saw his father
mentioned was not sufficient to make the box his pregnant mother on the stomach and,
witnesses tell a falsehood in accusing their own once fallen on the floor, his father strangled her
relative of so serious crime. to death; that he saw blood ooze from the eyes
and nose of his mother and that she died right
Moreover, as it has been established in the on the spot where she fell.
record that the crime charged was committed,
and that the defendant committed it; that, HELD
inasmuch as he is not an ascendant of the dead No. The accused Salufrania should not be held
child, he has incurred, according to the law the guilty of the complex crime of Parricide with
penalty for murder and is guilty of this crime. Intentional Abortion but of the complex crime of
Hence, the penalty imputed is correct as against Parricide with Unintentional Abortion. The
to Rasalan. elements of Unintentional Abortion are as
follows:
1. That there is a pregnant woman.
March 12, 2018 – Article 256 – INTENTIONAL
ABORTION 2. That violence is used upon such pregnant
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P. woman without intending an abortion.
UNITED STATES V. MARIANO BOSTON 3. That the violence is intentionally exerted.

G.R. NO. L-4795 (NOVEMBER 23, 1908) 4. That as a result of the violence the fetus
dies, either in the womb or after having been
ISSUE: expelled therefrom.
Whether or not accused Boston should be liable
of Intentional Abortion The Solicitor General's brief makes it appear that
appellant intended to cause an abortion because
FACTS: he boxed his pregnant wife on the stomach which
In this case, the child was born three months in caused her to fall and then strangled her. We find
advance of the full period of gestation. The that appellant's intent to cause an abortion has
accused Boston, believing that the child in the not been sufficiently established.
womb of the woman was a sort of a fish-demon
(which he called a balat), gave to her a portion Mere boxing on the stomach, taken together with
composed of herbs, for the purpose of relieving the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight,
her of this alleged fish-demon. Two hours after, is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause
she gave premature birth to a child. an abortion. In fact, appellant must have merely
intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to
After the birth of the child, Boston, with the cause an abortion.
permission and aid of the husband and the
brother of the infant child, destroyed it by fire in The evidence on record, therefore, establishes
order to prevent its doing, which the Boston beyond reasonable doubt that accused Filomeno
believed it was capable of doing. Salufrania committed and should be held liable
for the complex crime of parricide with
HELD: unintentional abortion.
Yes. The guilt of appellant is conclusively
established by the evidence of record, the March 12, 2018 – Article 257 –
testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
leaving no room for reasonable doubt. These PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
facts constitute, in our opinion, prima facie proof
of the intent of the accused in giving the herb U.S VS. JEFFREY
potion to the mother of the child, and also of the 15 PHIL 394 MARCH 5, 1910
further fact that the herb potion so administered
to her was the cause of its premature birth. The ISSUE:
defense wholly failed to rebut this testimony of W/N Jeffrey was liable under Art. 257 of the RPC
this prosecution and we are of opinion, therefore,
FACTS:
ST

On the evening of March 1, 1909, while HELD:

Teodorica Saguinsin was in a Chinese shop Yes. Appellant was convicted in the Court of First
situated in Guadalupe, municipality of San Instance of Occidental Negros of the complex
Pedro Macati, Rizal Province, a man named D. B. crime of homicide with abortion.
Jeffrey appeared therein, and, without any
apparent reason whatever, struck the woman The first assignment of error is the contention of
three times on the hip with a bottle that he was appellant that the death of the offended party
carrying, in consequence of which the woman fell was not the direct result of the assault upon her
to the ground with an abundant hemorrhage by the defendant. It is generally known that a fall
from the womb; she was immediately taken to is liable to cause premature delivery, and the
her home in a carretela, and being three months evidence shows a complete sequel of events from
pregnant she had a miscarriage on the following the assault to her death. The accused must be
day, according to the examination made by the held responsible for the natural consequences of
president of the municipal board of health. The his act.
woman was ill and unable to attend to her usual
duties for forty-five days. The other defense is that the accused did not
HELD: strike the deceased, but this fact is clearly
Yes. Even though it was not the criminal intent established by the prosecution. We find the
of the defendant to cause the abortion, the fact mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to
that, without any apparent reason whatever, he commit so grave a wrong as that inflicted and
maltreated Teodorica Saguinsin, presumably not provocation, as the offended party by force
knowing that she was pregnant, as author of the induced the appellant to use force on his part.
abuse which caused the miscarriage, he is liable
not only for such maltreatment but also for the The abortion in this case is unintentional
consequences thereof, to wit, for the abortion; abortion denounced by article 257 of the Revised
and it was also proven that on the said occasion Penal Code. On the whole case, the period of
the defendant was drunk, which circumstance confinement is fixed at twelve years and one day
explains how he came to strike the woman with to fourteen years, eight months and one day of
a bottle without any known motive. It does not reclusion temporal.
appear that he is a habitual drunkard. The
penalty of prision correccional as fixed by the
aforesaid article should be imposed upon him in GELIG VS. PEOPLE
the minimum degree, there being no aggravating G.R. NO. 173150, JULY 28, 2010
circumstance to counteract its effect.
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner can be convicted of
PEOPLE VS. GENOVES Unintentional Abortion.
G.R. NO. L-42819, APRIL 15, 1935
FACTS:
ISSUE: On July 17, 1981, at around 10:00 oclock in the
W/N there can be a complex crime of homicide morning, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning
with abortion from Roseller that Gemma called him a sissy
while in class. Lydia slapped Gemma in the
FACTS: cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to
In the morning of the 28th of May, 1934, fall and hit a wall divider. As a result of Lydias
appellant and deceased Soledad Rivera were violent assault, Gemma suffered a contusion in
laborers in adjoining cane fields. Soledad her maxillary area, as shown by a medical
claimed that the yoke of the plow which appellant certificate issued by a doctor in the Bogo General
was repairing belonged to her and tried to take it Hospital. However, Gemma continued to
by force. Appellant struck her with his fist, experience abdominal pains and started bleeding
causing her to fall to the ground. She got up and two days after the incident. On August 28, 1981,
returned to the fray, whereupon she received she was admitted in the Southern Islands
another blow with the fist on the left cheek which Hospital and was diagnosed, to her surprise, to
caused her again to fall to the ground. have suffered incomplete abortion. Accordingly,
Immediately after the incident deceased a medical certificate was issued.
proceeded to the municipal building, a distance
of about four kilometers, and complained to the HELD:
chief of police about the maltreatment. At the No. The prosecutions success in proving that
time Soledad was heavy with child, and as she Lydia committed the crime of direct assault does
complained to the chief of police of pain in the not necessarily mean that the same physical
abdomen, she was seen by the president of the force she employed on Gemma also resulted in
sanitary district. According to testimony the crime of unintentional abortion. There is no
deceased was in good health the day before. evidence on record to prove that the slapping and
pushing of Gemma by Lydia that occurred on
From the time of the incident there was July 17, 1981 was the proximate cause of the
hemorrhage and pain which were symptoms of abortion. While the medical certificate of
premature delivery. Deceased remained in this Gemmas attending physician, Dr. Susan Jaca
condition until June 10, 1934. On that date the (Dr. Jaca), was presented to the court to prove
condition culminated in the painful and difficult that she suffered an abortion, there is no data in
premature delivery of one of the twin babies that the document to prove that her medical
she way carrying, but the other baby could be condition was a direct consequence of the July
delivered. Both babies were dead. 17, 1981 incident. It was therefore vital for the
prosecution to present Dr. Jaca since she was
competent to establish a link, if any, between

Lydias assault and Gemmas abortion. Without When Porcullo turned and walked away from
her testimony, there is no way to ascertain the Valles, the latter without warning shot Porcullo.
exact effect of the assault on Gemmas abortion. He turned sideways to look at his wound but,
again, he was shot by the accused. The victim
It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted sustained two (2) gunshot wounds, one on the
and confined in a hospital for incomplete left buttock and the other was below the right
abortion on August 28, 1981, which was 42 days armpit.
after the July 17, 1981 incident. This interval of
time is too lengthy to prove that the discharge of HELD:
the fetus from the womb of Gemma was a direct NO. The act of berating and challenging Valles to
outcome of the assault. Her bleeding and a fistfight apparently incited the fury of the
abdominal pain two days after the said incident accused-appellant, and, at this instance,
were not substantiated by proof other than her Porcullo should naturally expect and anticipate
testimony. Thus, it is not unlikely that the the possible consequences of his rebellious acts
abortion may have been the result of other like the consequent retaliation by the accused-
factors. appellant against his life. He courted obvious
danger, and when it came, it can not be defined
March 12, 2018 – Article 258 – ABORTION as sudden, unexpected and unforeseen. It
PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN HERSELF OR BY entitled Valles to the mitigating circumstance of
HER PARENTS. obfuscation.
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D
March 14, 2018 – Article 262 – MUTILATION
[NO CASE FOUND] SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
March 13, 2018 – Article 259 – ABORTION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SAMUEL
PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE BORCE
AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998
RIVERA, Marynit P.
FACTS:
[NO CASE FOUND] Samuel Borce was convicted for Rape and
Frustrated Murder.
March 14, 2018 – Article 260 –
RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A For Rape:
DUEL
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M That on April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o'clock in
the morning, at the hill of the western part of
[NO CASE FOUND] Bariquir, Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of
Bangued, Province of Abra, Philippines with lewd
March 13, 2018 – Article 261 – CHALLENGING design and with the use of deadly weapon, raped
TO A DUEL REGINA BAGA against her will and consent and
SALVERON, Jan Ione R. this was repeated for the second time around, to
the great damage and prejudice.
PEOPLE VS RAMY VALLES
G.R. NO. 110564. JANUARY 28, 1997 For Frustrated Murder:
ISSUE: That on April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o'clock in

Is the crime of challenging to a duel committed? the morning, at the hill of the western part of
Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Bangued,
FACTS: Province of Abra, Philippines SAMUEL BORCE,
The victim, Elmer Porcullo, [4]who was a worker hack the face of one REGINA BAGA, inflicting
of Sta. Monica Canning Corporation went there multiple hack wounds on her face, by reason of
to collect his salary with two of his co-employees, the timely medical attendance rendered to said
Rizza Pelegrino and Paulita Palencia. Upon victim which prevented her death.
reaching the gate of Sta. Monica. Rizza and
Paulita were allowed by the security guards to ISSUE:
enter the compound of the company, but not WON the crime of Mutilation under Article 262 is
Porcullo who was prohibited by the accused committed?
Ramy Valles, a security guard of the company,
since the former was only wearing "sando" and HELD:
pants and had no identification card to present No. Crime of Rape was committed.
which was in violation of the company rules In fine, relevant to the case at bar, when the
requiring employees to enter the company's crime of rape is committed "with the use of a
premises in proper uniform. Porcullo then deadly weapon," the penalty prescribed is
approached Valles not only once but four times reclusion perpetua to death. The death penalty
insisting to get inside the compound of the is imposed when by reason or on the occasion of
company, it was at the third and fourth time that rape, the victim has suffered "permanent
Porcullo got mad and started insulting Valles. physical mutilation."
Porcullo berated Valles and challenged him to go Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
out of the compound and have a fist fight with amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659
him. Porcullo then pointed his finger at Valles reads:
and said “Putang ina mo, akala mo sino ka, hindi
mo ba alam na ex-army ako?” Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. —
ST

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with Villanueva is charged "while quarreling with his
the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more opponent, Isidoro Benter, with having suddenly
persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua snatched the bolo which the latter was carrying
to death. at his belt and with it inflicting upon him a
wound in the palm of the right hand that
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, incapacitated the aggrieved party from
the victim has become insane, the penalty shall performing work for more than thirty days and
be death. which rendered the said principal member
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the entirely useless."
crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances: But it turns out that Villanueva was not Benter's
opponent nor was there any quarrel between the
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, two. Neither did Villanueva inflict any wound
the victim has suffered permanent physical upon Benter. The latter injured himself by an
mutilation.The imposition of the death penalty accident arising out of his own act.
on accused-appellant by the trial court on each Benter testified that he agreed to take Villanueva
count of rape has been premised on the infliction to the town of Pola in his boat. At the landing,
of three scars on the victim's face. Villanueva took hold of the bolo which
complainant carried at his belt. The complainant
The phrase "permanent physical mutilation" has tried to retain it and that in doing so he caught
not been defined in the law. Neither Article 335 it by the blade and cut himself in the palm of the
of the Revised Penal Code, as so amended by right hand; that without a word being said the
Republic Act No. 7659, nor any of the chapters complainant left.
in Title Eleven, entitled "Crimes against
Chastity," provides any further clue on the Benter was able to testify that the wound delayed
meaning that should be given to the term. In Title in healing for more than forty days.
Eight on "Crimes against Persons,"14 the Code
simply states in Article 262 thereof that — The trial court opined that the act constitutes
Art. 262. Mutilation. — The penalty of from lesiones graves by reckless negligence under
reclusion temporal Article 568 of the Penal Code.
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another RULING:
by depriving him, either totally or partially, of NO.
some essential organ for reproduction. The law speaks of a person who by reckless
Any other intentional mutilation shall be imprudence commits an act which, if maliciously
punished by prision mayor in its medium and performed, would constitute a grave felony. (Art.
maximum periods. 568, Penal Code.) But the act of the accused in
No specific ascription having been given by the the case at bar does not constitute a felony,
law to the word, "mutilation" must perforce be grave, or menos grave, nor is it a misdemeanor.
understood in its generic sense and ordinary The only act which he performed was to take, or
usage. Webster15 defines mutilation as cutting attempt to take, from its sheath the bolo which
off or permanently destroying a limb or an Benter was carrying at his belt, and that was an
essential part thereof. Black16 defines the term, act which is not defined in any law as being a
in its criminal law concept, as one that would crime ov misdemeanor.
deprive a person of the use of any of those limbs
which may be useful to him in fight, the loss of The defendant did not wound Benter. It was the
which amounts to mayhem. latter who, by his own act in catching hold of the
edge of the blade of the bolo, wounded himself,
A thorough reading of the records of the case or as is said in the judgment appealed from, the
would fail to disclose that accused-appellant bolo, by its edge or by its own weight, in slipping
inflicted the wounds on the victim deliberately to from Benteu's hand into the scabbard because
maim her. It would, in fact, appear that the he did not grasp it firmly, wounded Benter; the
victim sustained the wounds only as a result of bolo did this, not the defendant.
a clear attempt by appellant to kill her and cover-
up his misdeeds. The injury thus borne by The crime of lesiones graves (physical injuries)
private complainant should not be taken as a which the trial court understands to be
circumstance which would raise the penalty to committed without malice or with reckless
death for the crime of rape but should instead imprudence is thus classified in article 416 of the
rightly be taken up and absorbed in the crime of Penal Code: "Any person who shall wound, beat,
frustrated murder. or assault another * * * shall suffer: 1. * * *. 2.
The penalty of prision etc., if in consequence of
March 14, 2018 – Article 263 – SERIOUS the physical injuries inflicted the injured person
PHYSICAL INJURIES shall have lost an eye or any principal member,
TADO, Diann Kathelline A. etc."
The defendant did not wound, beat, or assault
US VS ANDRES VILLANUEVA GR. NO. 10606, Benter; consequently he cannot be guilty of the
SEP 11, 1915. 31 PHIL. 412 crime of inflicting serious physical injuries, not
even by reckless imprudence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty S/SGT. CORNELIO PAMAN, PETITIONER, V.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
FACTS: RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 210129, JULY 05, 2017
driver of the overtaking vehicle finds that he

ISSUE: cannot make the passage in safety, the latter
Whether or not Paman is guilty must slacken his speed so as to avoid the danger
of a collision, even bringing his car to a stop if
FACTS: necessary.20 This rule is consistent with Section
On October 14, 2004, at about 1:20 p.m., Ursicio 4l(a) of the Land Transportation and Traffic
Arambala (Arambala) was on board a motorcycle Code.
traversing Roxas Street, Pagadian City towards
the direction of the Southern Mindanao Colleges Here, Paman was violating a traffic regulation,
Main Campus. When he was nearing the i.e., driving on the wrong side of the road, at the
intersection of Roxas and Broca Streets in time of the collision. He is thus presumed to be
Pagadian City, a multicab driven by S/Sgt. negligent at the time of the incident, which
Cornelio Paman (Paman), a military personnel, presumption he failed to overcome. For failing to
crossed his path and collided with his observe the duty of diligence and care imposed
motorcycle. Arambala was thrown from his on drivers of vehicles abandoning their lane,
motorcycle thus hitting his head on the road Paman, as correctly held by the CA, must be held
pavement. Emilda Salabit, who was then liable.
standing beside the road, saw Arambala being Nevertheless, there is a need to modify the
thrown away after the collision; she went to penalty imposed by the CA.
Arambala and hailed a tricycle and rushed him
to the hospital. Under Article 263(4) of the RPC, the penalty for
serious physical injuries, when the injuries
A Computed Tomography Scan report shows that inflicted caused incapacity for more than 30
Arambala suffered hematoma at the cerebral days, is arresto mayor in its maximum period to
portion of his brain. After his confinement at the prision correccional in its minimum period; the
Mercy Community Hospital on October 15, 2004, maximum period of the foregoing penalty -
Arambala was again admitted on October 24, prision correccional in its minimum period - is
2004 at the Zamboanga del Sur Provincial merely a correctional penalty and, thus, should
Hospital due to erratic blood pressure and be considered a less grave felony.
slurring speech caused by the hematoma. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 365 of the RPC,
Paman should be sentenced to suffer the penalty
On February 21, 2005, an Information for the of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious periods or from one (1) month and one (1) day to
physical injuries was filed. four (4) months. Since the maximum term of
imprisonment in this case, i.e., four (4) months,
The MTCC found Paman guilty. does not exceed one (1) year, the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law find no application
The RTC reversed MTCC decision. RTC pointed and Paman should be meted a straight penalty
out that Arambala was the cause of the collision taken from arresto mayor in its minimum and
since he already saw the multicab driven by medium periods. In view of the lack of any
Paman ahead of time; that he had the mitigating or aggravating circumstances in this
opportunity to take precaution to avoid the case, Paman should be made to suffer the
accident, but he failed to do so. straight penalty of imprisonment of two (2)
months and one (1) day of arresto mayor.
The CA reversed RTC decision.
March 14, 2018 – Article 264 –
RULING: ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
YES. OR BEVERAGES
A perusal of the records of this case clearly shows UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
that it was Paman who was at fault since he was
driving at the wrong side of the road when the US V. CHIONG SONGCO
collision happened. The CA observed that the G.R. NO. L-6503 FEBRUARY 27, 1911
evidence indubitably shows that before the
collision, Arambala's motorcycle was cruising ISSUE:
along its rightful lane when S/Sgt. Paman's Whether or not Songco is guilty of administering
multicab suddenly crossed his (Arambala) path injurious substance or beverage as contemplated
coming from his left side using the wrong lane to in Article 264 of the Revised Penal Code.
cross the said intersection. The accident would
not have happened had S/Sgt. Paman, the FACTS:
multicab driver, stayed on his lane and did not The defendant and appellant threw the contents
overtake the vehicle of the private complainant of a bottle of sulphuric acid into the face and on
Ararnbala. the body of the complaining witness, inflicting
wounds which resulted in the illness of the
Paman's act of driving on the wrong side of the injured man for more than thirty days. It was
road, in an attempt to overtake the motorcycle further proven that the attack was made
driven by Arambala, and suddenly crossing the treacherously, as that circumstance is defined in
path which is being traversed by the latter, is article 10 of the Penal Code, it having been made
sheer negligence. It is a settled rule that a driver at night, from behind the shelter of a sheet of
abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of zinc, and at a time when the victim was wholly
overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary unprepared to make any defense, he not having
situation has the duty to see to it that the road any reason to anticipate an assault so
is clear and he should not proceed if he cannot unexpected and unusual.
do so in safety. If, after attempting to pass, the
HELD: petitioner was the one who shot him. After he

No. The trial court found the defendant guilty of was interrogated, he was later brought to the
the crime of lesiones defined in subsection 4 of Don Alfonso Ponce Memorial Hospital at
article 416 read together with article 417 of the Gonzaga, Cagayan. The following day, he was
Penal Code, marked with the aggravating discharged from the hospital.
circumstance of the nocturnity, and sentenced
him to imprisonment for 1 year and 1 day. But On June 1, 1999, an Information was filed by the
the commission of the crime having been marked Provincial Prosecutor of Aparri, Cagayan,
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, charging the petitioner of frustrated murder.
the special penalty prescribed in the last Duly arraigned, petitioner pleaded Not Guilty to
paragraph of article 416 should have been the crime as charged. The RTC rendered a
inflicted, that is to say, the penalty of prision Decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of
correccional in its minimum and medium degree. Attempted Murder. The CA found him only guilty
The penalty should have been imposed in its of less serious physical injuries.
medium degree, the commission of the offense
not having been marked by aggravating or HELD:
extenuating circumstances, the aggravating This Court also concurs with the conclusion of
circumstance of nocturnity as found by the trial the CA that petitioner is guilty of the crime of less
court being taken into consideration in the serious physical injuries, not attempted murder.
finding of the existence of the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia. The principal and essential element of attempted
or frustrated murder is the intent on the part of
We should add that the crime as committed is the assailant to take the life of the person
not in any wise related to the offices defined and attacked. Such intent must be proved in a clear
penalized in article 417 of the code, as found by and evident manner to exclude every possible
the trial court, the provisions of which clearly doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.
relate to the use of poisons and the like in an In the present case, intent to kill the victim could
entirely different manner. not be inferred from the surrounding
The sentence imposed by the trial court is circumstances. Petitioner only shot the victim
therefore reversed, and instead thereof, we once and did not hit any vital part of the latter’s
sentence the defendant and appellant to two body. If he intended to kill him, petitioner could
years of prision correccional, together with the have shot the victim multiple times or even ran
accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to the him over with the car. Favorably to petitioner, the
payment of the cost of both instances. inference that intent to kill existed should not be
drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient
March 14, 2018 – Article 265 – LESS SERIOUS to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. When such intent is lacking but wounds are
inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not
CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR. VS. PEOPLE attempted murder but physical injuries only.
OF THE PHILIPPINES Since the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by the
G.R. NO. 167766 APRIL 7, 2010 doctor who attended Rudy stated that the wound
would only require ten (10) days of medical
ISSUE: attendance, and he was, in fact, discharged the
Whether or not the crime of “Less Serious following day, the crime committed is less
Physical Injuries” was committed in this case serious physical injuries only. The less serious
physical injury suffered by Rudy is defined under
FACTS: Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, which
On September 2, 1998, Rudy Baclig was drinking provides that "Any person who inflicts upon
with his brother-in-law. After consuming ½ another physical injuries not described as
bottle of gin, he left and went to the house of a serious physical injuries but which shall
certain Siababa to buy coffee and sugar. He was incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten
accompanied by his four- year-old son. On their (10) days or more, or shall require medical
way there, a gray automobile coming from the attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of
opposite direction passed by them. After a while, less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the
he noticed that the vehicle was moving backward penalty of arresto mayor.
towards them. When the car was about two arms’
length from where they were, it stopped and he March 15, 2018 – Article 266 – SLIGHT
heard the driver of the vehicle call him by his PHYSICAL INJURIES AND MALTREATMENT
nickname Parrod. Rudy came closer, but after VILLARIN, Paulo Jose
taking one step, the driver, which he identified
as the petitioner, opened the door and while still GEORGE BONGALON vs PEOPLE OF THE
in the car drew a gun and shot him once, hitting PHILIPPINES
him just below the left armpit. Rudy immediately G.R. No. 169533
ran at the back of the car, while petitioner sped March 20, 2013
away. After petitioner left, Rudy and his son
headed to the seashore. Rudy later went back to FACTS:
the place where he was shot and shouted for May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and
help. The people who assisted him initially Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined
brought him to the Municipal Hall of Gonzaga, the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro
Cagayan, where he was interrogated by a Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession
policeman who asked him to identify his passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the
assailant. He informed the policeman that latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor,
threw stones at Jayson and called him "sissy"; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RUSTICO
that the petitioner confronted Jayson and TILOS
Roldan and called them names like "strangers"
and "animals"; that the petitioner struck Jayson FACTS:
at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson Geralyn Narciso, the 12-year old daughter of the
on the face; that the petitioner then went to the victim, was on her way to a neighbors house to
brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela watch a betamax movie when she came upon
Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not accused-appellant inflicting fist blows on her
come out of the house to take on the petitioner; father. From a distance of about 15 meters, she
that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi saw accused-appellant holding the victim by the
City Police Station and reported the incident; nape with his right hand, and boxing him on the
that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at abdomen with his left hand. Geralyn called to her
the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching mother, Florida Narciso, for help and the latter
Hospital; that the doctors who examined Jayson arrived and pulled the victim away from accused-
issued two medical certificates attesting that appellant. While Florida was hugging the victim,
Jayson suffered contusions. accused-at-large Mateo Mahinay came from
behind them and struck the victim three times:
On his part, the petitioner denied having on the left eye, the right eye, and the nape. The
physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He victim fell to the ground. Florida sought the help
explained that he only talked with Jayson and of two bystanders, Mercy Siquijod and Paniong
Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, his Agustino, in bringing the victim home. Teotimo
minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Narciso died two days later.
Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about
Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied ISSUE:
shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty
to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to of conspiracy to murder.
restrain his sons from harming his daughters.
RULING:
To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary The Supreme Court held that accused-appellant
Ann Rose testified that her father did not hit or is guilty of slight physical injuries only. In People
slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why vs. Laurio, 200 SCRA 465 (1991), the Court held
Jayson had called her daughters "Kimi" and why that where conspiracy to murder is not proved,
he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann Rose and the gravity or duration of the physical injury
denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling resulting from the fistblows by the accused on
him a "sissy." She insisted that it was instead the victim was not established by the evidence,
Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the accused is presumed, and is held, liable for
the procession. She described the petitioner as a slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the
loving and protective father. Revised Penal Code
ISSUE: ARTICLE 266-A TO 266-D AS AMENDED BY

Whether or not the Petitioner is guilty of Child RA 8353
Abuse or Slight Physical Injuries.
Republic Act No. 8353 (ANTI-RAPE LAW) - AN ACT
RULING: EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner is RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME
guilty of Slight Physical Injuries under Article AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE
266 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED,
disagreed that the petitioner in striking the back OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL
of Jayson with his hands constituted child CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
abuse. he records did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on PEOPLE VS ORITA
Jayson had been intended to debase the GR no. 88724, April 3, 1990
"intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a
human being, or that he had thereby intended to FACTS:
humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records March 20, 1983 Early Morning: Cristina S.
showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have Abayan, 19-year old freshman student at the St.
been done at the spur of the moment and in Joseph's College, arrived at her boarding house
anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed after her classmates brought her home from a
by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of party. She knocked at the door of her boarding
his own minor daughters who had just suffered house when a frequent visitor of another boarder
harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With held her and poked a knife to her neck. Despite
the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific pleading for her release, he ordered her to go
intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic upstairs with him. Since the door which led to
worth and dignity of a child as a human being the 1st floor was locked from the inside, they
that was so essential in the crime of child abuse. used the back door to the second floor. With his
left arm wrapped around her neck and his right
Considering that Jayson’s physical injury hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, he dragged
required five to seven days of medical attention, her up the stairs. When they reached the second
the petitioner was liable for slight physical floor, he commanded herwith the knife poked at
injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal her neck, to look for a room. They entered
Code Abayan's room. He then pushed her hitting her
head on the wall. With one hand holding the
knife, he undressed himself. He then ordered her
to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
T-shirt, bra, pants and panty. He ordered her to conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there
lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He is no penetration of the female organ
made her hold his penis and insert it in her
vagina. Still poked with a knife, she did as told • The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the
but since she kept moving, only a portion of his accused may be convicted even on the sole basis
penis entered her. He then laid down on his back of the victim's testimony if credible. Dr. Zamora
and commanded her to mount him. Still only a did not rule out penetration of the genital organ
small part of his penis was inserted into her of the victim.
vagina. When he had both his hands flat on the
floor. She dashed out to the next room and PEOPLE VS BENJIE RESURRECCION
locked herself in. When he pursued her and GR no. 185389
climbed the partition, she ran to another room
then another then she jumped out through a FACTS:
window. Still naked, she darted to the municipal On 20 June 2001, BENJIE was charged before
building, 18 meters in front of the boarding the RTC with Rape under Article 266-A of the
house and knocked on the door. When there was Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
no answer, she ran around the building and No. 8353. He allegedly raped AAA, an 11 year-old
knocked on the back door. When the policemen girl.
who were inside the building opened the door,
they found her naked sitting on the stairs crying. Dr. Marlyn Valdez-Agbayani examined AAA and
Pat. Donceras, took off his jacket and wrapped it found that the victim had no laceration in her
around her. Pat. Donceras and two other external organ or her hymen. The former also
policemen rushed to the boarding house where testified that there were no spermatozoa in the
they heard and saw somebody running away but victim’s vagina. Despite these findings, Dr.
failed to apprehend him due to darkness. She Valdez-Agbayani clarified that if the hymen of a
was taken to Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital woman is elastic and so thin, as in AAA’s case,
where she was physically examined. Her vulva laceration may not be present. As to the absence
had no abrasions or discharges. of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina, Dr. Valdez-
Agbayani said that it was possible that the victim
• RTC: frustrated rape washed her genitalia, especially since she was
examined only after two days following the
ISSUE: alleged rape incident.
Whether or not there was frustrated rape.
BENJIE was convicted by the RTC, which was
HELD: subsequently affirmed by the CA. Upon appeal to
NO. RTC MODIFIED. Guilty beyond reasonable the SC, BENJIE points out that 1) the testimony
doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced to of AAA on how he allegedly raped her was highly
reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the improbable, and 2) the negative findings of
victim in the amount of P30,000 spermatozoa and laceration must acquit him.
• Correlating Art. 335 and Art. 6, there is no ISSUE:

debate that the attempted and consummated Whether or not BENJIE guilty of rape?
stages apply to the crime of rape.
HELD:
• Requisites of a frustrated felony are: Yes. This Court itself, in its desire to unveil the
truth as borne out by the records, has
(1) that the offender has performed all the acts of painstakingly pored over the transcripts of
execution which would produce the felony stenographic notes of this case, and like the RTC,
finds the victim’s testimony of the incident
(2) that the felony is not produced due to causes candid and straightforward, indicative of an
independent of the perpetrator's will untainted and realistic narration of what
transpired on that fateful day.
• attempted crime the purpose of the offender BENJIE tries to discredit the victim's testimony
must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency by questioning the odd position at which the rape
which intervenes and compels him to stop prior was done. While BENJIE’s position, i.e., covering
to the moment when he has performed all of the AAA’s mouth with his left hand and pinning her
acts which should produce the crime as a down with the right hand, may be considered
consequence, which acts it is his intention to difficult, such does not exclude the possibility
perform that rape can be consummated under said
o If he has performed all of the acts which should situation. Depraved individuals stop at nothing
result in the consummation of the crime and in order to accomplish their purpose. Perverts
voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it are not used to the easy way of satisfying their
can not be an attempt. wicked cravings. It should be noted that the
victim was a very young and fragile 11-year-old,
• in the crime of rape, from the moment the who was easy to be subdued by an abuser who
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he was used to manual labor and was already 18 or
actually attains his purpose and, from that 19 years old.
moment also all the essential elements of the In his last-ditch effort to be exculpated, BENJIE
offense have been accomplished. Any calls this Court’s attention to the medical
penetration of the female organ by the male findings that no sperm cells were present in the
organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of victim’s vagina just two days following the rape.
the female organ, without rupture of the hymen
He intimates that no rape occurred because of

the absence of the sperm cells. The Regional Trial Court convicted Gacusan of
This contention is not well-taken. The absence of simple rape.
spermatozoa in the victim’s genitalia does not The trial court also ruled that in rape committed
negate rape, the slightest penetration even by a father to his daughter, it is the father’s
without emission being sufficient to constitute moral ascendancy that replaces violation and
and consummate the offense. The mere touching intimidation. Thus, this principle “applies in the
of the labia of the woman’s pudendum or lips of case of a sexual abuse of a stepdaughter by her
the female organ by the male sexual organ stepfather and of a goddaughter by a godfather
consummates the act. in the sacrament of confirmation.” Furthermore,
the medico-legal findings were consistent with
PEOPLE VS. GACUSAN AAA’s testimony that she was raped. Hence,
G.R. NO. 207776, APRIL 26, 2017 there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the
essential requisites of carnal knowledge have
FACTS: been established.
An information for rape was filed before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 43 of Dagupan City The Court of Appeals ruled that “in incestuous
against Gacusan. rape or those committed by the common law
The information provided: spouse of the victim’s parent, evidence of force
and intimidation is not necessary to secure a
That at around 11 [0]’clock in the evening of conviction.” “[I]n rape committed by an
October 14, 2009 in Brgy. [Inmalog], San Fabian, ascendant, close kin, a step parent or a common
Pangasinan, Philippines and within the law spouse of a parent, moral ascendancy takes
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- the place of force and intimidation.”Furthermore,
named accused, did then and there, wilfully, AAA’s testimony and positive identification of
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal Gacusan as the person who raped her, as well as
knowledge [of AAA], a 15 year old minor, by the medical findings confirming the rape, prevail
having sexual intercourse with her, against her over the bare denials of Gacusan.
will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Gacusan filed an appeal alleging failure of the
CONTRARY to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal prosecution to prove that he employed force,
Code, as amended by [Republic Act No.] 8353. threat, or intimidation in raping AAA.
Upon arraignment, Gacusan pleaded not guilty ISSUE:

to the charge. Gacusan is the common-law Whether or not Gacusan is guilty of rape
partner of the mother of the victim. The mother
of the victim moved in with Gacusan, however, HELD:
the victim’s mother died within 8 months of their Yes. Sections 266-A and 266-B of the Revised
common-law relationship. Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provide that:
When BBB was still alive, AAA slept in a separate
room in Gacusan’s house. When BBB died, AAA Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed.
began sleeping beside Gacusan because of her – Rape is Committed-
fear of ghosts. 1) By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the
At around 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. of October following circumstances:
14, 2009, “AAA was trying to sleep beside
[Gacusan] when” she felt Gacusan’s hand Through force, threat, or intimidation;
touching her private parts inside her shorts. …
DDD, Gacusan’s 19-year old son, was sleeping
on a folding bed in the same room. AAA said that Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph
she did not attempt to remove Gacusan’s hand 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished
because she was already used to it.1 Gacusan by reclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied)
“brought out his penis and inserted it through
the leg opening of [AAA]’s shorts. During this AAA admitted that despite the pain she felt, she
time, AAA was on her back while [Gacusan] was neither protested nor shouted at the time of the
on his side, facing her and trying to lift her leg. rape incident
Gacusan was able to penetrate AAA’s vagina then The testimony of AAA reveals that the reason she
proceeded to do a ‘“push and pull’ movement”. did not shout during the alleged rape was that
When AAA felt Gacusan’s penis inside her, she she was afraid of losing a family. It is reasonable
got up to go to the bathroom to urinate. to assume that she was terrified of losing
Thereafter, “AAA went back to sleep beside someone who provided her support after losing
[Gacusan]. her biological mother. She testified that she
could not find comfort from her grandmother.
According to AAA, although she felt pain when
Gacusan raped her, “she did not shout [because] “[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type
she was . . . afraid of him . . . [S]he was afraid to of situation, and there is no standard form of
lose [a] family and she depended on [Gacusan human behavioral response when one is
for] support[.] She also claimed that she “was confronted with a strange, startling or frightful
already 15 years old [on the date of the alleged experience.” One person may react aggressively,
rape] and had been living with [Gacusan] for five while another may show cold indifference. Also,
years. AAA confessed that Gacusan was already it is improper to judge the actions of children who
molesting her two (2) years after BBB’s death. are victims of traumatic experiences “by the
norms of behavior expected under the

circumstances from mature people.” From AAA’s
view, it appeared that the danger of losing a
family was more excruciating than physical pain.
Furthermore, a victim should never be blemished

for her lack of resistance to any crime especially
as heinous as rape. Neither the failure to shout
nor the failure to resist the act equate to a
victim’s voluntary submission to the appellant’s
lust.
Recent cases reiterating that moral ascendancy

replaces violence or intimidation in rape
committed by a close-kin cited People v. Corpuz.
In Corpuz, the accused was the live-in partner of
the victim’s mother. The victim, AAA, was 13
years old when accused Corpuz started raping
her. The repeated rape incidents made AAA
pregnant.
In People v. Fraga, accused Fraga raped the

daughters of his common-law partner. Fraga
tried evading his conviction by shifting from his
defense of alibi to lack of force or intimidation.
While this Court affirmed Fraga’s conviction
since force and intimidation was sufficiently
proven, it also emphasized that:
[A]ccused-appellant started cohabiting with

complainants’ mother in 1987. As the common-
law husband of their mother, he gained such
moral ascendancy over complainants that any
more resistance than had been shown by
complainants cannot reasonably be expected.
(Emphasis provided)
In People v. Robles,accused Robles raped his

common-law wife’s daughter. This Court
affirmed his conviction and likened Robles’ moral
ascendancy over the victim to that of a biological
father; thus:
Moral ascendancy and influence by the accused,

stepfather of the 12 year-old complainant, and
threat of bodily harm rendered complainant
subservient to appellant’s lustful desires…
Actual force or intimidation need not even be
employed for rape to be committed where the
over powering influence of a father over his
daughter suffices. (Emphasis provided, citation
omitted)
Gacusan had moral ascendancy over AAA.

TITLE NINE – CRIME AGAINST PERSONAL confinement is immaterial to the case. The
LIBERTY AND SECURITY kidnapping became consummated when the
victim as actually deprived of her freedom which
March 15, 2018 – Article 267 – SERIOUS makes it proper to prosecute the accused under
ILLEGAL DETENTION Article 267 of the RPC. The surrounding
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. circumstance make it clear that the main
purpose of Ablaza in detaining Huggins was to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RUBEN coerce her to withdraw her previous charges
ABLAZA against him.
G.R. NO. L-27352 OCTOBER 31, 1969
The Court also finds no reason not to believe the
ISSUE: judgment of the trial judge giving credence to
a. Whether or not Ablaza committed kidnapping Huggins’ declaration. The records of the case are
with serious illegal detention. convincing that the complainant’s testimony on
the facts of the kidnapping rang of truth. Not
b. Whether or not there was an error of only that her narration was coherent, plausible
considering motor vehicle as aggravating and unshattered by the defense counsel’s cross
circumstance attending the commission of the examination, but also no motive has been
crime. adduced by Huggins, who, since the first
incident in 1962, had got married and, therefore,
FACTS: would have wanted least public exposure of her
Accused Ruben Ablaza forcibly took her from her harrowing experiences, would come out and
aunt's place in Caloocan City and brought her to undergo another legal scrutiny of her
a house in a barrio in Hagonoy, Bulacan, where unfortunate encounters with the accused, other
she was criminally abused by her abductor. After than her desire to tell the truth.
her rescue by the Philippine Constabulary men,
a criminal case for forcible abduction with rape b. No. The said contention is untenable. Contrary
was filed against Ablaza. to the protestation of the accused, the fact of use
of motor vehicle which facilitated the taking away
While that case in Bulacan was still pending, of the complainant and her consequent detention
Annabelle Huggins, who was sweeping the front was established not only by her declaration in
of her aunt's house in Makati, Rizal, was again court but also by the accused’s own admission
grabbed by two men and forcibly taken to a that he took away Huggins from her Aunt’s
taxicab where a third man, who turned out to be residence in Makati by taxi cab.
Ablaza, was waiting. Then the vehicle sped away
before anybody could come to the aid of the Considering the extant evidence on record, the
struggling girl. Inside the cab, Annabelle was Court fully agree with the decision of the trial
seated at the rear between Ablaza and a court’s decision that the accused Reuben Ablaza
companion; her head was pressed down to the committed the crime of kidnapping with serious
floor of the taxi, with Ablaza covering her mouth illegal detention attended by aggravating
with his hand to prevent her from crying out for circumstance of the use of motor vehicle. The
help. She was first brought to the house of Court thus confirms the death penalty imposed
Ablaza's compadre in Caloocan, but then, by the lower court.
informed that the police were already in their
pursuit, she was moved to the house of another PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIMA
compadre, where she was kept for a week. Later, MONTANIR, RONALD NORVA AND EDUARDO
at the instance of Ablaza, Annabelle was taken to CHUA
Bulacan to ask for the complaint against him be G.R. NO. 187534 APRIL 4, 2011
dropped. This did not materialize, because when
they were inside the Malolos municipal building ISSUE:
Annabelle's uncle, in company of Constabulary Whether or not herein appellants are guilty for
men, came and took her. She also testified that violating Article 267 on Serious Illegal Detention.
for the duration of her detention the accused and
his compadres were always guarding her to FACTS:
prevent her escape. Josie Herrera, Robert Uy, Alicia a.k.a. Alice
Buenaflor, together with appellants Ronald
The CFI of Rizal, in its decision dated March 7, Norva and Eduardo Chua, concocted a plan to
1967, found the accused guilty of kidnapping kidnap Rafael Mendoza, and after several days of
with serious illegal detention, attended by the conducting surveillance on their intended victim,
aggravating circumstance of use of motor on January 5, 1998, they decided to kidnap
vehicle, and was sentenced to death. Hence, this Rafael in Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City. However,
automatic review of the decision of the CFI of the intended kidnapping failed, because Rafael
Rizal. did not show up at the said place. On February
5, 1998, a second attempt was made, but they
HELD: encountered an accident before they could even
a. Yes. Ablaza’s contention that he should be execute their original plan.
adjudged of abduction with rape rather than
kidnapping with serious illegal detention bears Around 5:30 a.m. of February 17, 1998, Alicia
no merit. He stood trial for kidnapping with called up Rosalina Reyes, a partner of Rafael, to
serious illegal detention, and the deprivation of tell her that she wanted to meet her and Rafael
the complainant’s liberty, which is the essential at Jollibee, BBB, Valenzuela City to settle the
element of the offense was duly proved and other former's loan of P350,000.00. She requested
crimes committed in the course of the victim’s
Rosalina to bring the land title which she was female visitors arrived. After the visitors left,
given as collateral for the said loan. Rosalina was returned to the room where she
was previously taken. Rosalina asked Jonard
Rosalina and Rafael arrived at Jollibee ahead of about Rafael's condition, to which he replied that
Alicia. Eventually, around 9:15 a.m. of the same Rafael would be brought to the hospital. A little
date, Alicia showed up outside the store aboard later, at around 1 p.m., Jonard went to check on
a car. She was with appellant Ronald Norva. Rafael and confirmed that he was still alive.
Alicia motioned Rosalina and Rafael to approach
the car, which the two did as requested. While Around 2:00 p.m., Rosalina heard the sound of
inside the vehicle, Alicia introduced appellant someone being pummelled. Feeling nervous, she
Ronald as her cousin. Later on, Alicia informed asked Jonard the whereabouts of Rafael and was
Rosalina and Rafael that she would pay them at told that he was brought to the hospital. But
her place. unknown to Rosalina, Rafael had just died and
his body was placed inside the trunk of a car.
When the car passed by the street where Alicia's
house was located, Rosalina asked the former Around 6:30 p.m., Rosalina was informed that
where they were going. Alicia answered that they she will be brought to another safe house. She
had to drop by the house of her financier who was taken to a car and placed at the back seat,
agreed to redeem her title and substitute as her together with Jonard and three other men, later
creditor. Trusting Alicia, Rosalina and Rafael did identified as Larry, Jack and Boy. The driver of
not protest. They finally reached a house in the car was appellant Ronald. Appellant Ronald
Ciudad Grande, Valenzuela City. instructed Jonard to cover Rosalina's head with
a jacket which Jonard did. As they were about to
Thereafter, appellant Ronald alighted from the leave, the man seated beside Ronald started to
vehicle and talked to a man inside a store, later talk. Rosalina recognized the voice of Robert. She
identified as Jonard Mangelin. The gate of the then lifted the jacket covering her head and was
house was then opened by appellant Dima. The able to confirm that the one talking was Robert.
car proceeded to the garage and Rosalina and Rosalina cried, Robert, Robert, why did you do
Rafael were asked to go inside the house. this, we did not do anything to you and Robert
Rosalina followed Alicia, while Rafael trailed responded, Pasensiyahan na lang tayo.
Rosalina as they entered through a kitchen door.
They passed by a man (Jessie Doe) who was By 10:00 p.m., they arrived at a certain house in
washing his hands in the sink. While Rosalina Pandi, Bulacan where there was no electricity.
was walking behind Alicia, she suddenly heard a Thus, they lit candles for illumination. Rosalina
dull moan coupled with the sound of stomping found the house familiar and concluded that it
feet. She looked back at the direction where the was Alicia's. Rosalina was brought to a room on
sounds came from and saw Rafael being forcibly the second floor and while inside the room, she
dragged inside a room. She decided to look for was told by one of the men guarding her that one
Rafael and on her way, she saw Jessie Doe place of the leaders wanted to talk to her. Per the
his hand on Rafael's mouth and poke a gun at leader's instruction, the guard put out the candle
him. Rafael struggled to get free. Rosalina light. The man then seated himself beside
pleaded with Jessie Doe to have pity on Rafael Rosalina and warned her against escaping as
because of his existing heart ailment. they were a large and armed group. Rosalina
recognized the voice as that of Robert's. Before
Appellant Ronald rushed towards her, poked a he left the room, Robert gave instructions to
gun at her mouth, tied her to a bed and warned Jonard and the other men inside. Meanwhile, the
her not to make any noise. He told her that all group started digging a pit at the back of the
they want is her money, upon which, Rosalina same house near the swimming pool.
said that if they really wanted money, they
should untie Rafael, who then appeared to be on Around 3:00 a.m. of the following day (February
the verge of having a heart attack. Rosalina was 18), the group buried Rafael's body in the pit.
untied and she immediately rushed to Rafael and Thereafter, Robert instructed appellant Ronald
began pumping his chest. She asked Jonard, to tell Jonard that the latter should kill Rosalina,
who had just entered the room, to help her pump which Jonard refused to do. Nonetheless, Robert
Rafael's chest while she applied CPR on the instructed Jonard and the others to guard
latter. Jonard did as told. While CPR was being Rosalina well, as he himself would deal with her
administered, appellant Dima started removing upon his return.
all of Rafael's personal belongings, which include
his ring, wallet, watch and other items inside his Rosalina heard the car leave around 5:00 a.m. of
pocket, and passed them on to appellant Ronald. the same day. Sensing that Jonard was
sympathetic to her, Rosalina begged him again
Afterwards, appellant Ronald instructed Jonard to help her escape for the sake of her children.
to take Rosalina to another room. While inside
the room where she was brought, Rosalina When electricity was restored around 8 p.m., one
begged Jonard to help her escape. Jonard was of the men guarding Rosalina turned off the light
moved by Rosalina's plea and agreed to help her. inside the room. The room was only illuminated
During their conversation, Jonard told Rosalina by a light coming from the hallway. Rosalina saw
that two women had tipped them off as the a person wearing a wig and sunglasses enter the
kidnap victims. When asked who they were, room. Rosalina recognized him as Robert. Trying
Jonard refused to reveal their identities. to mimic a woman by modulating his voice,
Robert told her that Rafael was in the hospital
Rosalina was transferred to the master's and that he could still sign a check. He asked
bedroom around 12:00 noon because certain Rosalina the whereabouts of the other land titles
and the identities of the other financiers whom his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
she knew. Rosalina replied in the negative. perpetua to death:
Robert angrily poked a gun at her and shouted,
That's impossible, and then left the room. He 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
gave instructions to his members and left. lasted more than three days.
At 9:00 p.m., Jonard went to Rosalina and told 2. If it shall have been committed simulating
her about Robert's order to kill her, which public authority.
caused the latter to panic and cry. She then
implored the help of Jonard for her escape. 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
Afterwards, Jonard went to his companions inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained;
Larry, Jack and Boy and told them that he would or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
help Rosalina escape. His companions
immediately cocked their guns and an argument 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a
ensued. Rosalina talked to them and begged minor, except when the accused is any of the
them all to spare her life. One of Jonard's parents, female or a public officer;
companions told Rosalina that if they would
allow her to escape, they too would get into In People v. Ramos, the court held that Where
trouble. Taking advantage of the situation, the person kidnapped is killed in the course of
Rosalina suggested that all of them should the detention, regardless of whether the killing
escape. They all agreed to escape in the early was purposely sought or was merely an
morning. afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or
Around 5:00 a.m., Rosalina, Jonard, Larry, Jack homicide can no longer be complexed under Art.
and Boy left the safe house. They walked through 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall
a rice field for about 30 minutes and then be punished as a special complex crime under
boarded a jeepney bound for Balagtas, Bulacan. the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA
From Balagtas, they took a bus going to Cubao No. 7659.
and arrived at 7:30 a.m. Rosalina pawned her
pieces of jewelry for P1,500.00 and gave the In a special complex crime, the prosecution must
P1,000.00 to Larry, Jack and Boy. The three told necessarily prove each of the component offenses
Jonard to stay with Rosalina so that she would with the same precision that would be necessary
have a witness and, in case Rosalina would if they were made the subject of separate
further need their help, left their address with complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659
Jonard. amended Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
by adding thereto this provision: "When the
When the three left, Rosalina immediately called victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
Rafael's brother Tito, and related what happened detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture
to her and his brother. When Tito asked Jonard or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
which hospital Rafael was brought to, Jonard shall be imposed; and that this provision gives
revealed to Rosalina that Rafael died at the safe rise to a special complex crime.
house in Ciudad Grande, Valenzuela City.
Rosalina called her lawyer, Atty. Teresita Agbi In the cases at bar, it specifically alleges that the
and asked her to meet them at Farmer's, Cubao. victim Marijoy was raped "on the occasion and in
When Atty. Agbi arrived, she accompanied them connection" with her detention and was killed
to the Department of Interior and Local "subsequent thereto and on the occasion thereof.
Government (DILG) where an investigation was "Considering that the prosecution was able to
conducted. prove each of the component offenses, appellants
The following day, at 4:00 a.m., two groups from should be convicted of the special complex crime
the DILG were formed to arrest Alicia, Josie, the of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
appellants, and Robert. Alicia and Josie were not homicide and rape. It appearing from the
at their homes, while appellants Ronald and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that
Dima were arrested at the residence of Robert. there is a "direct relation, and intimate
While at the DILG office, Rosalina positively connection" between the kidnapping, killing and
identified appellants Ronald and Dima as her raping of Marijoy, rape cannot be considered
kidnappers. Meanwhile, Jonard accompanied merely as an aggravating circumstance but as a
the police authorities to the safe house in Pandi, component offense forming part of the herein
Bulacan and showed them where the body of special complex crime.
Rafael was buried. The remains of Rafael was
later on exhumed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS FELIPE
MIRANDILLA JR.
HELD: G.R. NO. 186417 JULY 27, 2011
Yes. First of all, it must be emphasized that the
crime committed by the appellants, as ruled by ISSUE:
the trial court and affirmed by the CA, is the Whether or not Mirandilla is guilty of the special
special complex crime of Kidnapping with complex crime of kidnapping and illegal
Homicide. detention with rape.
Republic Act No. 7659, Article 267 of the Revised FACTS:

Penal Code, now provides: AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies
in a nearby store. While making her way back
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any through the crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his
private individual who shall kidnap or detain arm wrapped her shoulders, with a knifes point
another, or in any other manner deprive him of thrust at her right side. She will come to know
the mans name at the police station, after her crossed a river, got drenched, and continued
escape, to be Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. He told her running. She rested for awhile, hiding behind a
not to move or ask for help. Another man joined rock; she walked through the fields and stayed
and went beside her, while two others stayed at out of peoples sight for two nights. Finally, she
her back, one of whom had a gun. found a road and followed its path, leading her
They slipped through the unsuspecting crowd, to the house of Evelyn Guevarra who brought her
walked farther as the deafening music faded into to the police station. It was 11 January 2001.
soft sounds. After a four-hour walk through the AAA was in foul smell, starving and sleepless.
grassy fields, they reached the Mayon Evelyn Guevarra gave her a bath and the police
International Hotel, where they boarded a gave her food. When the police presented to her
waiting tricycle. Upon passing the Albay pictures of suspected criminals, she recognized
Cathedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA alone the mans face she was certain it was him. He was
with Mirandilla who after receiving a gun from a Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., the police told her.
companion, drove the tricycle farther away and
into the darkness. Minutes later, they reached HELD:
the Gallera de Legazpi in Rawis. Yes. Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex
crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with
Mirandilla dragged AAA out of the tricycle and rape.
pushed her inside a concrete house. At gunpoint Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had
he ordered her to remove her pants.[6] When she sexual intercourse with AAA, which happened
defied him, he slapped her and hit her arms with almost nightly during their cohabitation. He
a gun, forced his hands inside her pants, into her contended that they were live-in partners,
panty, and reaching her vagina, slipped his three entangled in a whirlwind romance, which
fingers and rotated them inside. The pain intimacy they expressed in countless passionate
weakened her. He forcibly pulled her pants down sex, which headed ironically to separation
and lifting her legs, pushed and pulled his penis mainly because of AAAs intentional abortion of
inside.[7] Sayang ka, she heard him whisper at their first child to be a betrayal in its gravest form
her,[8] as she succumbed to pain and which he found hard to forgive.
exhaustion.
In stark contrast to Mirandillas tale of a love
When AAA woke up the following morning, she affair, is AAAs claim of her horrific ordeal and her
found herself alone. She cried for help, shouting flight to freedom after 39 days in captivity during
until her throat dried. But no one heard her. No which Mirandilla raped her 27 times.
rescue came.
The accused bare invocation of sweetheart
At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived together theory cannot alone, stand. To be credible, it
with his gang. Pointing a gun at AAA, he ordered must be corroborated by documentary,
her to open her mouth; she sheepishly obeyed. testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these are
He forced his penis inside her mouth, pulling letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible
through her hair with his left hand and slapping testimonies of those who know the lovers.
her with his right. After satisfying his lust, he
dragged her into the tricycle and drove to The sweetheart theory as a defense, however,
Bogtong, Legazpi. At the roads side, Mirandilla necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first
pushed her against a reclining tree, gagged her element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the
mouth with cloth, punched her arm, thigh, and prosecution the burden to prove only force or
lap, and pulled up her over-sized shirt. Her intimidation, the coupling element of rape. Love,
underwear was gone. Then she felt Mirandillas is not a license for lust.
penis inside her vagina. A little while, a
companion warned Mirandilla to move out. And This admission makes the sweetheart theory
they drove away. more difficult to defend, for it is not only an
affirmative defense that needs convincing proof;
They reached a nipa hut and AAA was thrown after the prosecution has successfully
inside. Her mouth was again covered with cloth. established a prima facie case, the burden of
Mirandilla, with a gun aimed at her point blank, evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to
grabbed her shirt, forced her legs open, and adduce evidence that the intercourse was
again inserted his penis into her vagina. consensual.
The following evening, Mirandilla and his gang A prima facie case arises when the party having
brought AAA to Guinobatan, where she suffered the burden of proof has produced evidence
the same fate. They repeatedly detained her at sufficient to support a finding and adjudication
daytime, moved her back and forth from one for him of the issue in litigation.
place to another on the following nights, first to Burden of evidence is that logical necessity
Bonga, then back to Guinobatan, where she was which rests on a party at any particular time
locked up in a cell-type house and was raped during the trial to create a prima facie case in his
repeatedly on the grassy field right outside her favour or to overthrow one when created against
cell, then to Camalig, where they caged her in a him.
small house in the middle of a rice field. She was
allegedly raped 27 times. AAA was able to prove each element of rape
committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the
One afternoon, in Guinobatan, AAA succeeded in Revised Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had
opening the door of her cell. Seeing that carnal knowledge of her; (2) through force,
Mirandilla and his companions were busy threat, or intimidation. She was also able to
playing cards, she rushed outside and ran, prove each element of rape by sexual assault
under Article 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal times on the ground, where she was made to lie
Code: (1) Mirandilla inserted his penis into her down on a bed of leaves.
mouth; (2) through force, threat, or intimidation.
During the entire time that AAA was being
Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal abused by Sajiron, Maron stood guard and
detention is provided for under Article 267 of the watched them. They left the forest at around
Revised Penal Code: 10:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal and brought AAA to the house of Egap, where she
detention. Any private individual who shall was detained in a room. Sajiron instructed Egap
kidnap or detain another, or in any manner to guard AAA and to shoot her if she would
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty attempt to escape.
of reclusion perpetua to death;
On July 2, 1994, AAAs mother came to get AAA,
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have but Egap refused and threatened to kill her
lasted more than three days. xxx daughter if she would report the matter to the
authorities. Out of fear of losing her daughter,
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes she went home and did not report the incident to
had been committed in the special complex crime the police authorities.[6] Egap asked AAA if she
of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is wanted to marry Sajiron, but she refused. AAA
only one kidnapping with rape. This is because was then forced to sign an unknown document,
these composite acts are regarded as a single which she was not able to read.
indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659
punishes these acts with only one single penalty. Nine days after the abduction, or on July 11,
In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness 1994, upon instruction of Egap, AAA and Sajiron
of rape because no matter how many times the were married by Imam Musli Muhammad. The
victim was raped, like in the present case, there marriage was solemnized against AAA's will and
is only one crime committed the special complex without the presence of her parents. After the
crime of kidnapping with rape. marriage, AAA and Sajiron lived in the house of
Egap, together with the latter's wife, children and
EGAP MADSALI, SAJIRON LAJIM AND mother-in-law.
MARON LAJIM VS PEOPLE OF THE AAA stayed in one room with Sajiron. While
PHILIPPINES detained, AAA did not try to escape, because her
G.R. NO. 179570 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 house was very far from the place where she was
held captive, and her captors threatened to kill
ISSUE: her and her family if she would attempt to
Whether or not herein appellants committed acts escape. During her detention, Sajiron abused her
constituting serious illegal detention as twice every night. She was free to roam within
enshrined in Article 267 of the RPC the vicinity of the house but she was usually
accompanied by Egap's wife who served as her
FACTS: guard. She was also guarded and threatened by
On July 1, 1994, around 3:30 o'clock in the Egap's sons. She got pregnant after some time.
afternoon, fifteen-year-old AAA and her aunt
Inon Dama were fetching water in a cave in HELD:
Barangay (Brgy.) Malitub, Bataraza, Palawan. Yes. Herein appellants are guilty of violating
Suddenly, Sajiron arrived, running towards Article 267 pertaining to serious illegal detention.
them and carrying a badong (bolo). They tried to
run away, but Sajiron overtook them. He held the In the case at bar, the trial court found AAA's
hair of AAA and told her, Sara, you go with me. testimony credible. The trial court held that
If you will not go with me, I will kill you. Inon AAA's testimony was clear, categorical and
Dama came to AAA's rescue, but Sajiron tried to consistent. She remained steadfast in her
hack her. Luckily, she was able to shield herself assertions and unfaltering in her testimony given
with a plastic container. AAA was crying while in court on the unfortunate incident. The trial
she held her aunt's hand. Sajiron then drew his court found that AAA positively identified Sajiron
gun, which was tucked in his waist, pointed it at and Maron as her abductors and narrated how
Inon Dama and said, If you will not go, I will she was taken and thrice raped by Sajiron in the
shoot you. Inon Dama went home and reported forest.
the incident to AAA's mother.
When Inon Dama left the place, Maron, Sajiron's Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to
father, suddenly appeared with a gun and told death threats does not affect the credibility of the
AAA to come with them. When AAA refused, complainant, nor can it be taken against her. The
Sajiron and Maron tied her hands behind her charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the
back, covered her mouth with a piece of cloth, delay was unreasonable and unexplained. BBB
and brought her to the forest. There, AAA was explained that she did not immediately report the
untied and undressed, leaving only her bra on. abduction, rape and detention of her daughter to
While Sajiron was undressing AAA, she pleaded the authorities, because Egap threatened to kill
with him not to abuse her, but Sajiron told her AAA, who was then in his custody.
that if she would submit to his desire, her life
would be spared. Sajiron held her breast, Further, BBB testified that, on another occasion,
touched her private parts and inserted his sex Egap threatened to kill her if she dared to report
organ inside her vagina. AAA resisted, but to no the matter to the authorities. True enough, when
avail. She felt pain and she noticed blood on her Egap learned that she did what he forbade her to
private parts. She was sexually abused three do, he made good his threat and shot her at the

back.Thus, BBB's delay in reporting the incident In the present case, although AAA was not
for five months should not be taken against her. actually confined in an enclosed place, she was
clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty,
It is highly improbable that a young girl, such as because she was tied up and her mouth stuffed
AAA, would concoct a horrid story and impute to with a piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to
the accused a crime so grave and subject herself physically drag her to the forest away from her
and her family to the humiliation and invasive home.
ordeal of a public trial just to avenge the alleged
non-payment of the dowry, unless she be March 15, 2018 – Article 268 – SLIGHT
impelled by a genuine desire to expose the truth, ILLEGAL DETENTION
vindicate her honor and seek justice she so ALAMEDA Jr., Manuel F.
greatly deserves.
PEOPLE VS SALIENTE, ET AL.
Neither is the Court convinced of the sweetheart G.R. NO. L-2427 JUNE 28, 1949
theory, the defense of the accused, by alleging
that AAA and Sajiron were engaged for three FACTS:
years prior to their elopement and marriage. If at about 9 o'clock in the evening , the defendants
there were indeed romantic relationship between came to the house of Telesfora Alentejo where
AAA and Sajiron, as the latter claims, her normal Telesfora's niece, Juana Briones, was then
reaction would have been to cover up for the man staying. Telling Juana that they had come for by
she supposedly loved. On the contrary, AAA lost her by order of their "chief," they asked her to go
no time in reporting the incident to the National along with them and when she refused she was
Bureau of Investigation, right after she was threatened by defendant Montilla with a bolo and
rescued by the authorities. by defendant Saliente with a pistol and then
The accusatory portion of the information alleges taken against her will to the latter's house in the
that AAA was taken and carried away by Sajiron barrio of Tambis, about two kilometers away. It
and Maron against her will and brought to the would appear that the defendants were
forest; and, on the occasion thereof, Sajiron -- by accompanied by some soldiers, although these
means of force, threat, violence and intimidation were neither named nor identified. Once in
-- had carnal knowledge of AAA. Saliente's house, defendants let Juana know
that what they had told her in private so that he
The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal could persuade her into marrying him. Juana
detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal retorted that she did not want to marry anybody.
Code are: Juana was kept in Saliente's house for two
nights and one day. On the third day, Juana was
(1) the offender is a private individual; able to persuade the defendants to take her to
the house of her brother, Brigido Enclona, so
(2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other that they could talk the matter over with him.
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; There they were joined by Montilla's father who,
in behalf of his son, asked for Juana's hand in
(3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; marriage. As Juana turned a deaf ear to the
and proposal, the trio took their departure, leaving
her in the house of her brother.c In the evening
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the of that same day, however, the defendants came
following circumstances are present: back and, complaining that Juana had fooled
them, they forcibly took her downstairs. Montilla
(a)the kidnapping or detention lasts for more then led her away, while Saliente stayed behind
than 3 days; or to wait for Enclona, who, was then absent.
Meeting Enclona on the road, Juana warned him
(b)it is committed by simulating public authority; that Saliente was lying in wait for him with the
or intention of doing him harm. On hearing this,
Enclona ran away, while Montilla, on his part,
(c)any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon left Juana to herself and went back to rejoin
the person kidnapped or detained or threats to Saliente. The defendants Montilla admitted
kill him are made; or having taken Juana from the house of her aunt,
but put up the defense that this was done with
(d)the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, her consent, since they had long been
female, or a public officer. sweethearts and had, on the day in question,
exchanged notes regarding their elopement.
In the case at bar, Sajiron and Maron, who are
private individuals, forcibly took and dragged ISSUE:
AAA, a minor, to the forest and held her captive Whether or not the crime of slight illegal
against her will. The crime of serious illegal detention is tenable in the case at bar.
detention consists not only of placing a person in
an enclosure, but also of detaining him or HELD:
depriving him in any manner of his liberty. For Yes. The crime committed is that of slight illegal
there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the detention under the third paragraph of article
victim is restrained from going home. Its essence 268 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, Republic Act No. 18, approved on September 25,
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of 1946, it appearing that the defendants
the accused to effect such deprivation. voluntarily released Juana Briones within three
days from the commencement of her detention
without having attained the purpose intended
and before the institution of the criminal action Thus, the last paragraph of article 268 applies to
against them. The penalty prescribed is prision slight illegal detention only not to Article 267.
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and Articles 267 and 268 are independent of each
a fine not exceeding P700. As the crime was other.
committed with the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity and dwelling, not compensated by March 16, 2018 – Article 269 – UNLAWFUL
any mitigating circumstances, the said penalty ARREST
should be imposed in its maximum period. ALILIAN, Enna B.
LUIS ASISTIO v. LOURDES P. SAN Diego G.R. NO. 138859-60

GR No. L-21991 FEBRUARY 22, 2001
Mar 31, 1964 ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP VS. THE HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
That on or about the 26th day of December, FACTS:
1962, Luisito Asistio et, al., being private Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the cases
individuals with the exception of the accused against him - violation of RA 3019, and unlawful
VICTORINO ARANDA and LORENZO MENESES arrest of the RPC, grounded on the lack of
who are public officers, conspiring together, preliminary investigation. Ombudsman denied
confederating with and mutually helping and the motion.
aiding one another, with threats to kill the
person of CHUA PAO alias "SO NA", and for the ISSUE:
purpose of extorting ransom in the amount of WoN preliminary injunction was required in
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) from cases of unlawful arrests
the said CHUA PAO alias "SO NA" or from his wife
did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and HELD:
feloniously kidnap, detain and deprive the No. A preliminary investigation was not required
person of the said CHUA PAO alias "SO NA" of because unlawful arrest under Article 269 of the
his liberty, to his damage and Revised Penal Code was punishable by arresto
prejudice.Petitioners applied for bail on the mayor - imprisonment of one month and one day
ground that the record of the ex parte to six months. The Rules of Court requires only
investigation conducted by the fiscal showed, such investigation before an information for an
from the testimony of the offended party himself, offense punishable by at least four years, two
Chua Pao alias So Na, that the latter was (a) months and one day may be filed in court.
voluntarily released by his captors (b) within 24
hours from seizure and (c) without any ransom G.R. No. L-44335
being, in fact, paid. But the respondent judge July 30, 1936
denied the application for bail. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
vs. KAGUI MALASUGUI
ISSUE:
whether or not the last paragraph of Article 268 FACTS:
applies not only to slight illegal detention but The accused was charged with the crime of
also to kidnapping and serious illegal detention robbery and homicide after the victim, while still
penalized by Article 267. sprawled on the ground with blood all around,
dying, said the name of the accused as the one
HELD: who attacked him, thus prompting the officials
That kidnapping under Article 267 depended to immediately search the accused. With the
solely on the circumstances in which the accused was found the victim’s identification
kidnapping took place, irrespective of the end card and pocketbook containing P92 in bills. The
sought by the kidnapper; That the third accused was thereafter arrested.
paragraph of Article 268 already existed in the
original version, and plainly was not intended to ISSUE:
apply to crimes under Article 267; Article 268 WoN the arresting officer violated Art 269 RPC
then described two variants of dig illegal unlawful arrest
detention;
HELD:
(a) Slight detention where none of the No. The right to be secure from unreasonable
circumstances specified in Article 267 was search may, like every right, be waived and such
present (Article 268, par. 142), penalized by waiver may be made either expressly or
prision mayor; impliedly. The appellant was then charged with
the crime, imputed to him by Tan Why before the
(b) Slight detention where, in addition to the latter's death, of having assaulted the "deceased;
absence of any of the circumstances mentioned that he was then also known to be carrying much
in Article 267, there were, besides three other money; and that a few moments before he was
circumstances, the voluntary release of the brought to Lieutenant Jacaria, and shortly after
kidnappee within 3 days from seizure, plus the the assault on Tan Why, he was able to redeem
fact that the purpose intended (whatever it two pairs of bracelets from two persons to whom
should be, ransom, marriage, disclosure of he had pledge them several months before. These
secrets, etc.) was not attained, plus the third fact are circumstances which undoubtedly
that the release was effected before the warranted his arrest without a previous judicial
institution of criminal proceedings against the warrant. This is so because under the law,
culprit or culprits. Clearly, therefore, Articles members of Insular Police or Constabulary as
267 and 268 were originally mutually exclusive. well as those of the municipal police and of
chartered cities like Manila and Baguio, and even fails to return said minor to his parent or
of townships (secs. 848, 2463, 2564, 2165 and guardian. This may be found in Article 270,
2383 of the Revised Administrative Code) may which reads:
make arrests without judicial warrant, not only Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a
when a crime is committed or about to be minor. The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
committed in their presence but also when there imposed upon any person who, being entrusted
is reason to believe or sufficient ground to with the custody of a minor person, shall
suspect that one has been committed and that it deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents
was committed by the person arrested by them. or guardians.
An arrest made under said circumstances is not
unlawful but perfectly justified; and the agent of This crime has two essential elements:
authority who makes the arrest does not violate
the provisions of article 269 of the Revised Penal 1. The offender is entrusted with the custody of
Code which defines and punishes unlawful a minor person; and
arrest.
2. The offender deliberately fails to restore the
March 16, 2018 – Article 270 – KIDNAPPING said minor to his parents or guardians.
AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR
ARANCES, Javy Ann This Court, in elucidating on the elements of
Article 270, stated that while one of the essential
PEOPLE VS AIDA MARQUEZ elements of this crime is that the offender was
GR NO. 181440, APRIL 13, 2011 entrusted with the custody of the minor, what is
PONENTE: JUSTICE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO actually being punished is not the kidnapping
but the deliberate failure of that person to restore
ISSUE: the minor to his parents or guardians. As the
Whether or not defendant Aida Marquez should penalty for such an offense is so severe, the
be charged of Kidnapping and failure to return a Court further explained what deliberate as used
minor. in Article 270 means: “Indeed, the word
deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised
FACTS: Penal Code must imply something more than
According to the complainant, Carolina mere negligence - it must be premeditated,
Cunanan Merano (Merano), she met Marquez at headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and
the beauty parlor where she was working as a maliciously wrong.” (Emphasis ours.)
beautician, whom she easily trusted because
Marquez was close to her employers and was PEOPLE VS GENEROSO JO, ET AL.
nice to her and her co-employees. GR NO. L-69236, AUGUST 19, 1986
PONENTE: JUSTICE MELENCIO-HERRERA
On September 6, 1998, after a trip to a beach in
Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed Meranos ISSUE:
then three-month old daughter Justine Whether the court erred in charging Roca, one of
Bernadette C. Merano (Justine) to buy her some the defendants, with Kidnapping and failure to
clothes, milk and food. Merano said she agreed return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised
because it was not unusual for Marquez to bring Penal Code but convicted him of Kidnapping and
Justine some things whenever she came to the Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 (4)
parlor. When Marquez failed to return Justine in [supra] of the same Code.
the afternoon as promised, Merano went to her
employer’s house to ask them for Marquez’s FACTS:
address. However, Merano said that her Complainant Elisa Casal Jo was married to
employers just assured her that Justine will be accused Generoso Jo on July 27, 1969. They
returned to her soon. begot three children, namely, Eligen, Allan and
Riza, whose ages at the time of the subject
But a few months have passed and Merano incident were 9 years old, 7 years old and 6 years
discovered through Modesto Castillos that old, respectively.
Marquez sold Justine to him and his wife and
that they gave Marquez Sixty Thousand Pesos Sometime in December 1975, the couple
(P60,000.00) supposedly for Merano who was separated. On July 27, 1980, Elisa met Felipe
asking for money. Castillo even gave Merano a Lapitan, a witch-doctor. Lapitan told Elisa that
photocopy of the handwritten Kasunduan dated Generoso had hired him to kill her, that he had
May 17, 1998, wherein Merano purportedly gave already set in motion the evil spirit which would
Justine to the Castillo spouses. put an end to her life in a few days; and that the
effect of the evil spirit would be averted if she
HELD: would submit herself for treatment. Helpless and
A reading of the charge in the information shows not knowing what to do, Elisa believed the witch-
that the act imputed to Marquez was not the doctor and consented to submit for treatment.
illegal detention of a person, but involves her Lapitan conducted an 'oracion' or strange prayer
deliberate failure to restore a minor baby girl to on her and then let her drink a glass of water
her parent after being entrusted with said baby’s concoction. Accused Felipe Lapitan and Virgilio
custody. Contrary to Marquez’s assertions, Roca took her three children on a jeep to the
therefore, she was charged with violation of Tacloban Wharf. Lapitan made them board a
Article 270, and not Article 267, of the Revised motorboat with him while Virgilio Roca sent them
Penal Code. The Revised Penal Code considers it off. The boat left for Samar before noon.
a crime when a person who has been entrusted
with the custody of a minor later on deliberately
On August 9, 1980, Capt. Angelo Marcos, Station

Commander of the La Paz Police Station filed a HELD:
criminal complaint for kidnapping of minors Yes. The essential element of the crime of
against Felipe Lapitan, Virgilio Roca and kidnapping and failure to return a minor is that
Ceferino Lopez. the offender is entrusted with the custody of the
minor, but what is actually being punished is not
HELD: the kidnapping of the minor but rather the
The offense as charged, which is Kidnapping and deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to
Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
the Revised Penal Code, is necessarily included Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article
in the offense proved, which is Kidnapping and 270 of the Revised Penal Code must imply
Serious Illegal Detention of a minor under Article something more than mere negligence - it must
267 (4) of the same code, inasmuch as the be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
essential ingredients of the offense charged intentionally and maliciously wrong.
constitute or form a part of those constituting the
offense proved. Thus, deliberate failure to restore When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant
a minor under one's custody and kidnapping of before setting out on an errand for appellant to
a minor who is not in custody both constitute look for ice water, the first element was
deprivation of liberty. Consequently, ROCA can accomplished and when appellant refused to
be convicted of the offense proved included in return the baby to Roselle despite her
that which is charged. Besides, there is authority continuous pleas, the crime was effectively
to the effect that paragraph 1 of Article 270 might accomplished. In fine, we agree with the trial
have been superseded by Article 267, as courts finding that appellant is guilty of the
amended, which punishes as serious illegal crime of kidnapping and failure to return a
detention the kidnapping of a minor, regardless minor.
of the purpose of the detention.
March 17, 2018 – Article 272 – SLAVERY
PEOPLE VS BERNARDO BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A.
GR NO. 144316, MARCH 11, 2002
PONENTE: JUSTICE MELO US VS. CABANAG
G.R. NO. 3241 MARCH 16, 1907
ISSUE: TRACEY, J.:
Whether defendant Bernardo should be charged
of Article 270 - Kidnapping and failure to return ISSUE:
a minor. Whether or not Cabanag committed slavery.
FACTS: FACTS:
On May 13, 1999, 12-year old Maria Roselle An Igorot orphan girl called Gamaya, 13 years of
Tolibas y Aguada and her 15-day old sister, age was taken from the possession of her
Rosalyn Tolibas, were with their mother, Rosita grandmother by one Buyag, also an Igorot;
Tolibas y Aguada, at the Fabella Memorial whether this was done with or against the will of
Hospital for medical check up. While Rosita was the grandmother is not altogether clear in the
undergoing medical checkup inside the hospital, evidence. It was testified by a witness that Buyag
her two daughters waited at the lobby. Roselle came to the house and took her away, although
was seating on a bench with her 15-day old sister the grandmother objected, saying "Do not take
on her lap when the appellant sat beside her. off that little girl," but not speaking when she
Appellant befriended Roselle. After a while, the went away. The man brought her to his house,
appellant gave P3.00 to Roselle and asked her to about a half mile distant, where she was not
buy ice water. The appellant took the 15-day old confined, but on the contrary was allowed to go
baby from Roselle and assured her that she back alone to her grandmother, with whom she
(accused) would take care of her (Roselles) sister, would spend a little while, returning the same
while she was buying ice water. Roselle was not day. She testified that on last evening, the
able to find ice water for sale and on her way grandmother was angry and did not wish her to
back to the hospital, she saw the accused go, but did not prevent her. According to her
running away with her baby sister. She chased recollection she remained with Buyag, in the
the appellant and when she caught up with her, vicinity of her grandmother's residence, some
the appellant told her that she was running after two or three months. Buyag testified that more
her (Roselle’s) mother. Roselle did not believe the than two years before, in order to help the family
appellant and she held and pulled the appellants after the father's death and for the purpose of
skirt to prevent her from getting away with her keeping the child at home, he had bought her for
(Roselles) baby sister, but the appellant persisted three pigs, twenty-five hens, two measures of
in running with Roselle holding on to the rice, and a cloak worth two pigs, from her
appellants skirt. Roselle shouted for help, mother, with whom she remained until the third
thereby attracting the attention of Emerento year, when (her mother presumably having died)
Torres, a Barangay Kagawad. she was brought away by one Eusebio, at the
instance of himself and another Igorot named
Appellant contends that there was no deliberate YogYog, who had furnished part of the purchase
failure on her part to restore the minor Rosalyn price. Together they instructed Eusebio to sell
Tolibas to her parents or guardians, stating that her for a carabao and 50 pesos. Eusebio, in the
the charge filed against her was a mere Province of Nueva Vizcaya, and sold her to the
overreaction on the part of the prosecution accused, Tomas Cabanag, for 100 pesos.
witnesses to her act of going out of the hospital Cabanag had previously been instructed to buy
to look for the mother of the child. a girl by one Mariano Lopez to whom after a few
days Gamaya was delivered in return for the

price, which appears to have been 200 pesos. In ISSUE:
his hands she remained for about two months Whether or not slavery was committed by Reyes.
until she was taken away by an officer of
Constabulary. Afterwards this prosecution was FACTS:
instituted. Although Gamaya made objection to On or about January 22, 1905, Veronica Alojado
leaving the house of Cabanag she appears to received, as a loan, from Benito de los Reyes that
have gone without actual constraint and at no the sum P67 .60, for the purpose of paying a debt
time in any of these places was she physically she owed to Olimpia Zaballa. It was agreed
restrained of her liberty; she was not under lock between Alojado and Reyes that the debtor
or key or guard, went into the street to play, should remain as a servant in the house and in
returned at will, and was not punished or ill used the service of her creditor, without any
in any way, but was employed about the renumeration whatever, until she should find
household tasks; in short, she appears to have some one who would furnish her with the said
been treated by Mariano Lopez as a household sum where with to repeat the loan. The
servant and to have been well earned for while in defendant, Veronica Alojado, afterwards left the
the custody of the accused. house of the plaintiff, on March 12, 1906,
without having paid him her debt, nor did she do
It is proved in the case that it is an Igorot custom so at any subsequent date, notwithstanding his
to dispose of children to pay the debts of their demands. The plaintiff, therefore, on the 15th of
fathers, the transaction in the native language march, 1906, filed suit in the court of the justice
being termed a sale, and the defendant appears of the peace of Santa Rosa, La Laguna, against
to have engaged in the business of buying in Veronica Alojado to recover the said sum or, in a
Nueva Vizcaya children to sell in the lowlands of contrary case, to compel her to return to his
Isabela. service. The trial having been had, the justice of
the peace, on April 14, 1906, rendered judgment
RULING: whereby he sentenced the defendant to pay to
No. The judge below quotes the Bill of Rights of the plaintiff the sum claimed and declared that,
the Philippines contained in the act of Congress in case the debtor should be insolvent, she
of July 1, 1902, declaring that "neither slavery should be obliged to fulfill the agreement
nor involuntary servitude, except as a between her and the plaintiff. The costs of the
punishment for crime whereof the party shall trial were assessed against the defendant.
have been duly convicted, shall exist in said
Islands." This constitutional provision is self- The defendant appealed from the said judgment.
acting whenever the nature of a case permits and The defendant, in her written answer of August
any law or contract providing for servitude of a 15, 1906, to the aforesaid complaint, denied the
person against his will is forbidden and is void. allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
For two obvious reasons, however, it fails to the complaint and alleged that, although she had
reach the facts before us: left the plaintiff's service, it was because the
latter had paid her no sum whatever for the
First. The employment or custody of a minor with services she had rendered in his house. The
the consent or sufferance of the parents or defendant likewise denied the conditions
guardian, although against the child's own will, expressed in paragraph 4 of the complaint,
cannot be considered involuntary servitude. averring that the effects purchased, to the
Second. We are dealing not with a civil remedy amount of P11.97, were in the possession of the
but with a criminal charge, in relation to which plaintiff, who refused to deliver them to her. She
the Bill of Rights defines no crime and provides therefore asked that she be absolved from the
no punishment. Its effects cannot be carried into complaint and that the plaintiff be absolved from
the realm of criminal law without an act of the the complaint the wages due her for the services
legislature. she had rendered.
To sum up this case, there is no proof of slaver RULING:

or even of involuntary servitude, inasmuch as it YES. The duty to pay the said sum, as well as
has not been clearly shown that the child has that of P11.97 delivered to the defendant in small
been disposed of against the will of her amounts during the time that she was in the
grandmother or has been taken altogether out of plaintiff's house, is unquestionable, inasmuch as
her control. If the facts in this respect be it is a positive debt demandable of the defendant
interpreted otherwise, there is no law applicable by her creditor. (Arts. 1754, 1170, Civil Code.)
here, either of the United States or of the However, the reason alleged by the plaintiff as a
Archipelago, punishing slavery as a crime. The basis for the loan is untenable, to wit, that the
child was not physically confined or restrained defendant was obliged to render service in his
so as to sustain a conviction for illegal detention, house as a servant without remuneration
nor are the acts of the accused brought within whatever and to remain therein so long as she
any of the provisions of the law for the had not paid her debt, inasmuch as this
punishment of offenses against minors; condition is contrary to law and morality. (Art.
consequently the conviction in this case must be 1255, Civil Code.)
reversed, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Attorney-General, with Domestic services are always to be remunerated,
costs de oficio, and the prisoner is acquitted. and no agreement may subsist in law in which it
is stipulated that any domestic service shall be
REYES VS. ALOJADO absolutely gratuitous, unless it be admitted that
G.R. NO. L-5671 AUGUST 24, 1910 slavery may be established in this country
TORRES, J.:
through a covenant entered into between the arraigned for violation of Article 365. He entered
interested parties. a plea of not guilty.
When legal regulations prohibit even a usurious He filed a petition for review in the CA but which
contract and all abuses prejudicial to was denied. He raised before the SC that that he
subordinates and servant, in connection with cannot be penalized twice for an “accident” and
their salaries and wages, it will be understood at another for “recklessness.” He maintained that
once that the compact whereby service rendered since he is facing a criminal charge for reckless
by a domestic servant in the house of any imprudence, which offense carries heavier
inhabitant of this country is to be gratuitous, is penalties under Article 365 of the Revised Penal
in all respects reprehensible and censurable; and Code, he could no longer be charged under
consequently, the contention of the plaintiff, that Article 275, par. 2, for abandonment for failing
until the defendant shall have paid him her debt to render to the persons whom he has
she must serve him in his house gratuitously is accidentally injured.
absolutely inadmissible.
HELD:
March 17, 2018 – Article 273 – EXPLOITATION No, because said Articles penalize different and
OF CHILD LABOR distinct offenses. The protection against double
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. jeopardy is only for the same offense. A simple
act may be an offense against two different
[NO CASE FOUND] provisions of law and if one provision requires
proof of an additional fact which the other does
March 18, 2018 – Article 274 – SERVICES not, an acquittal or conviction under one does
RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION IN not bar prosecution under the other.
PAYMENT OF DEBT
DAHIROC, Janice L. Since the informations were for separate offenses
— the first against a person and the second
[NO CASE FOUND] against public peace and order — one cannot be
pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule on
March 18, 2018 – Article 275 – double jeopardy.
ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE'S OWN VICTIM The rule on double jeopardy, which petitioner
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J has, in effect, invoked, does not, therefore, apply
pursuant to existing jurisprudence. Hence, the
G.R. NO. 93475 JUNE 5, 1991 petition should be dismissed for lack of merit.
ANTONIO A. LAMERA, PETITIONER,
VS. March 18, 2018 – Article 276 – ABANDONING
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND A MINOR
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G.
RESPONDENTS.
PEOPLE VS. BANDIAN
ISSUE: G.R. NO. 45186, SEPTEMBER 30, 1936
Whether or not prosecution for negligence under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to FACTS:
prosecution for abandonment under Article 275 One morning, Josefina Bandian went to a thicket
of the same Code. to respond to the call of nature. After a while,
Bandian went out of the thicket with her clothes
FACTS: stained with blood. She showed signs of not
At around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of 14 being able to support herself. She was seen by
March 1985, along Urbano Street, Pasig, Metro her neighbor Valentin Aguilar who asked the
Manila, an owner-type jeep, then driven by help of Adriano Comcom to bring her to her
petitioner, allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle house. When Comcom rushed to aid Bandian, he
then driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in saw a newborn baby near a path adjoining the
damage to the tricycle and injuries to Ernesto thicket where Bandian was seen moments
Reyes and Paulino Gonzal. The petitioner before. When asked if the baby was hers, she
abandoned them and failed to help or render responded in the affirmative. Dr. Emilio
assistance to them, without justifiable reason. Nepomoceno testified that Bandian gave birth in
her house and thereafter threw the baby to kill
As a consequence thereof, two informations were it. The Solicitor-General maintains that Bandian
filed against petitioner: (a) an Information for may be guilty only of abandoning a minor under
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to Article 276 of the Revised Penal Code, the
property with multiple physical injuries under abandonment having resulted in the death of the
Article 365 and; b) an Information for violation of minor allegedly abandoned. The trial court gave
paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal credit to the opinion of Dr. Nepomoceno.
Code on Abandonment of one's victim.
ISSUE:
On June 1987 the MTC of Pasig rendered its Was the crime infanticide or abandonment of
decision in finding the petitioner guilty of the minor?
crime of Abandonment of one's victim as defined
and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 275 HELD:
of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner appealed No crime was committed since the fourth and
from said Decision to the RTC of Pasig. In the seventh exempting circumstance are present in
meantime, on 27 April 1989, petitioner was this case. Dr. Nepomuceno himself affirmed that
the wounds found in the body of the child were Art. 59 .Crimes. – Criminal liability shall attach
not caused by the hand of man but by bites to any parent who:
animals, the pigs that usually roamed through
the thicket where it was found. Infanticide and (4) Neglects the child by not giving him the
abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must education which the family’s station in life and
be committed willfully or consciously, or at least financial conditions permit.
it must be result of a voluntary, conscious and
free act or omission. Even in cases where said The crime has the following elements:
crimes are committed through mere imprudence, (1) the offender is a parent;
the person who commits them, under said (2) he or she neglects his or her own child;
circumstances, must be in the full enjoyment of (3) the neglect consists in not giving education to
his mental faculties, or must be conscious of his the child and
acts, in order that he may be held liable. In this (4 the offender’s station in life and financial
case, she had no cause to kill or abandon it, condition permit him to give an appropriate
because her affair with a former lover, which was education to the child.
not unknown to her second lover, Luis Kirol, took
place three years before the incident. Kirol There is a prima facie showing from the evidence
testified at the trial that he knew that Bandian that Roberto is in fact financially capable of
was pregnant, he believed from the beginning supporting Robby’s education. The notarized GIS
that the child carried by Bandian in her womb of the RNCD Development Corporation indicates
was his, and that he and she had been eagerly that petitioner owns P750,000 worth of paid-up
waiting for the birth of the child. Therefore, shares in the company.
Bandian had no cause to be ashamed of her
pregnancy to Kirol. The crime may be committed by any parent.
Liability for the crime does not depend on
March 18, 2018 – Article 277 – whether the other parent is also guilty of neglect.
ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON The law intends to punish the neglect of any
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; parent, which neglect corresponds to the failure
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS to give the child the education which the family’s
DIZON, Roxan Danica G. station in life and financial condition permit. The
irresponsible parent cannot exculpate himself
DE GUZMAN VS PEREZ from the consequences of his neglect by invoking
G.R. NO. 156013 the other parent’s faithful compliance with his or
JULY 25, 2006 her own parental duties.
FACTS: The "neglect of child" punished under Article

Petitioner Roberto De Guzman and private 59(4) of PD 603 is also a crime (known as
respondent Shirley Aberde became sweethearts "indifference of parents") penalized under the
while studying law in the University of Sto. second paragraph of Article 277 of the Revised
Tomas. Their studies were interrupted when Penal Code.
Shirley became pregnant. She gave birth to
Robby Aberde de Guzman. Shirley and Roberto March 19, 2018 – Article 278 – EXPLOITATION
never got married. In 1991, Roberto married OF MINORS/ REPUBLIC ACT 7610 (Special
another woman with whom he begot two Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
children. Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
Roberto sent money for Robby’s schooling only
twice — the first in 1992 and the second in 1993. G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017
In 1994, when Robby fell seriously ill, Roberto VIRGILIO LABANDRIA AWAS vs. PEOPLE OF
gave Shirley P7,000. Other than these instances, THE PHILIPPINES
Roberto never provided any other financial
support for his son. FACTS:
AAA, a Grade III pupil declared that [petitioner]
Shirley worked in Taiwan for two years. However, is the boyfriend of her sister. Sometime in
she reached the point where she had just about January 2010, [petitioner] was in their house in
spent all her savings to provide for her and Valenzuela City. [Petitioner] called her and
Robby’s needs. The child’s continued education brought her inside the room. [Petitioner] touched
thus became uncertain. her vagina. [Petitioner] made her lie down beside
him and again touched her vagina. Thereafter,
Despite his fabulous wealth, however, Roberto [petitioner] put on his shoes and warned her not
failed to provide support to Robby. On June 15, to tell her mother and father about the incident.
2000, Shirley filed a criminal complaint for
abandonment and neglect of child under Article AAA was wearing leggings and panty at the time
59(2) and (4) of PD 603 . of the incident. Petitioner never removed
anything from her when he touched her. At the
ISSUE: time of the incident, they were the only person
Whether or not Roberto alone may be charged for (sic) inside the room. Her father and other
abandonment and neglect of child under Article siblings were then asleep in another room while
59 (2) and (4) of PD 603 his brother was downstairs.
HELD: AAA's brother came to know about the incident

Yes. Article 59(4) of PD 603 provides that: when he saw her crying in a corner of their
house. Her brother told her mother about the
incident. Her mother called a police and one of his dancers. During that time, AAA was a
petitioner was later apprehended. Her mother sophomore college student at the University of
gave her statements at the police station. San Carlos and resided at a boarding house in
Cebu City. On January 17, 1998, Caballo went
On January 25, 2010, Ortiz, a medico-legal to Cebu City to attend the Sinulog Festival and
officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, received a there, visited AAA. After spending time together,
request for Physical/Genital Examination on the they eventually became sweethearts. Sometime
person of AAA. His examination states: "ano- during the third week of March 1998, AAA went
genital examination reveals essentially normal home to Surigao City and stayed with her uncle.
gross findings." He observed that AAA's hymen In the last week of March of the same year,
was annular, thin with central orifice and no Caballo persuaded AAA to have sexual
abnormality noted. There was no evidence of any intercourse with him. This was followed by
sexual abuse because of his findings that AAA's several more of the same in April 1998, in the
genital organ is normal. first and second weeks of May 1998, on August
31, 1998 and in November 1998, all of which
As mentioned, the RTC found the petitioner happened in Surigao City, except the one in
guilty of acts of lasciviousness as defined in August which occurred in Cebu. In June 1998,
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and AAA became pregnant and later gave birth on
penalized pursuant to Section 5(b), Article III of March 8, 1999.
Republic Act No. 7610.
During the trial, the prosecution asserted that
ISSUE: Caballo was only able to induce AAA to lose her
Whether or not the acts committed by the virginity due to promises of marriage and his
accused are considered as an lascivious acts assurance that he would not get her pregnant
which is penalized under section 5, Republic Act due to the use of the "withdrawal method."
7610. Moreover, it claimed that Caballo was shocked
upon hearing the news of AAA’s pregnancy and
RULING: consequently, advised her to have an abortion.
YES. She heeded Caballo’s advice; however, her efforts
The acts committed by the petitioner against AAA were unsuccessful. Further, the prosecution
constituted acts of lasciviousness. The elements averred that when AAA’s mother confronted
of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Caballo to find out what his plans were for AAA,
Revised Penal Code are, to wit: (1) the offender he assured her that he would marry her
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; daughter.
(2) the act is done under any of the following Opposed to the foregoing, Caballo claimed that
circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, during their first sexual intercourse, AAA was no
or (b) when the offended party is deprived of longer a virgin as he found it easy to penetrate
reason or otherwise unconscious or (c) when the her and that there was no bleeding. He also
offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) maintained that AAA had (3) three boyfriends
the offended party is another person of either prior to him. Further, he posited that he and AAA
sex. Such acts are punished as sexual abuse were sweethearts who lived-in together, for one
under Republic Act No. No. 7 610, whose (1) week in a certain Litang Hotel and another
elements under Section 5 of the law are namely: week in the residence of AAA’s uncle. Eventually,
(1) the accused commits the acts of sexual they broke up due to the intervention of AAA’s
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is parents. At a certain time, AAA’s mother even
performed with· a child exploited in prostitution told Caballo that he was not deserving of AAA
or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the because he was poor. Lastly, he alleged that he
child, whether male or female, is below 18 years repeatedly proposed marriage to AAA but was
of age. always rejected because she was still studying.
Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and In a Decision dated April 1, 2003, the RTC found
Regulations of Republic Act No. No. 7610 defines Caballo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
lascivious conduct as: violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610,
The intentional touching, either directly or in relation to Section 2 of the Rules on Child
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, Abuse Cases.
breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, On January 28, 2011, the CA dismissed the
anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the appeal and affirmed with modification the RTC’s
same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, ruling, finding Caballo guilty of violating Section
humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. Caballo filed a motion
the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, for reconsideration which was, however, denied
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the on September 26, 2011. Hence, the instant
genitals or pubic area of a person. petition.
ISSUE:
G.R. NO. 198732 , JUNE 10, 2013 Whether or not the accused is guilty under
CHRISTIAN CABALLO VS. PEOPLE OF THE Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.
PHILIPPINES
RULING:
FACTS: Yes.
AAA, then 17 years old, met Caballo, then 23 As it is presently worded, Section 5, Article III of
years old, in her uncle’s place in Surigao City. RA 7610 provides that when a child indulges in
Her uncle was a choreographer and Caballo was sexual intercourse or any lascivious conduct due
to the coercion or influence of any adult, the can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not
child is deemed to be a "child exploited in capable of fully understanding or knowing the
prostitution and other sexual abuse." In this nature or import of her actions. The State, as
manner, the law is able to act as an effective parens patriae, is under the obligation to
deterrent to quell all forms of abuse, neglect, minimize the risk of harm to those who, because
cruelty, exploitation and discrimination against of their minority, are as yet unable to take care
children, prejudicial as they are to their of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve
development. its protection.
In this relation, case law further clarifies that The harm which results from a child’s bad
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely
the coercion or influence of any adult exists more damaging to her than a bad business deal.
when there is some form of compulsion Thus, the law should protect her from the
equivalent to intimidation which subdues the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult
free exercise of the offended party’s free will. sexual behavior. For this reason, a child should
Corollary thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on not be deemed to have validly consented to adult
Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act
involves the element of influence which of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which
manifests in a variety of forms. It is defined as: seeks to afford her special protection against
The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, abuse, exploitation and discrimination.
enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or (Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner will
assist another person to engage in, sexual be justified, or even unwittingly tempted by the
intercourse or lascivious conduct or the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerable
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. prey.) In other words, a child is presumed by law
To note, the term "influence" means the to be incapable of giving rational consent to any
"improper use of power or trust in any way that lascivious act or sexual intercourse. Second,
deprives a person of free will and substitutes coupled with AAA’s minority is Caballo’s
another’s objective." Meanwhile, "coercion" is the seniority. Records indicate that Caballo was 23
"improper use of x x x power to compel another years old at the time of the commission of the
to submit to the wishes of one who wields it." offense and therefore, 6 years older than AAA,
In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that more or less. The age disparity between an adult
Caballo’s actuations may be classified as and a minor placed Caballo in a stronger position
"coercion" and "influence" within the purview of over AAA so as to enable him to force his will
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610: upon the latter. Third, Caballo's actions
First, the most crucial element is AAA’s minority. effectively constitute overt acts of coercion and
It is undisputed that AAA was only 17 years old influence.1âwphi1 Records reveal that Caballo
at the time of the commission of the crime and is repeatedly assured AAA of his love for her, and
hence, considered a child under the law. In this even, promised to marry her. In addition, he also
respect, AAA was not capable of fully guaranteed that she would not get pregnant
understanding or knowing the import of her since he would be using the "withdrawal method"
actions and in consequence, remained for safety. Irrefragably, these were meant to
vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of influence AAA to set aside her reservations and
adults, as in this case. eventually give into having sex with him, with
Based on this premise, jurisprudence settles that which he succeeded.
consent is immaterial in cases involving a Fourth, at least, with respect to the parties' first
violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; as sexual encounter, it is observed that the brash
such, the argument that AAA and Caballo were and unexpected manner in which Caballo
sweethearts remains irrelevant. The Malto ruling pursued AAA to her room and pressed on her to
is largely instructive on this point: have sex with him, effectively placed her in, to a
certain extent, a position of duress .. An
For purposes of sexual intercourse and important factor is that AAA refused Caballo's
lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under incipient advances and in fact, asked him to
RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is leave. However, AAA eventually yielded. Thus, it
unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or stands to reason that she was put in a situation
subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly deprived of the benefit of clear thought and
give consent to sexual intercourse with another choice. In any case, the Court observes that any
person. other choice would, nonetheless, remain
The language of the law is clear: it seeks to tarnished due to AAA's minority as above-
punish "those who commit the act of sexual discussed.
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other Hence, considering that Caballo's acts constitute
sexual abuse." "coercion" and "influence" within the context of
the law, and that AAA indulged in sexual
Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in intercourse and/or lascivious conduct with
cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III Caballo due to the same, she is deemed as a
of RA 7610. The mere act of having sexual "child exploited in prostitution and other sexual
intercourse or committing lascivious conduct abuse"; as such, the second element of the
with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subject offense exists.
subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the
offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is In fine, finding all elements to be present, the
proscribed. Court hereby sustains Caballo's conviction for
A child cannot give consent to a contract under violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
our civil laws. This is on the rationale that she
to the ground, thereby causing Michael Ryan

G.R. NO. 173988, OCTOBER 8, 2014 Gonzales to lose his consciousness and has
FELINA ROSALDES VS. PEOPLE OF THE suffered injuries on different parts of his body.
PHILIPPINES CONTRARY TO LAW.
On June 26, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment
FACTS: convicting the petitioner of child abuse.
On February 13, 1996, seven year old Michael
Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil at On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of the
Pughanan Elementary School located in the petitioner through its assailed decision
Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly promulgated on May 11, 2005, with a
entering his classroom when he accidentally modification of the penalty.
bumped the knee of his teacher, petitioner Felina
Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a bamboo ISSUE:
sofa. Roused from sleep, petitioner asked Whether or not the acts of the petitioner
Michael Ryan to apologize to her. When Michael constitute child abuse penalized under Section
did not obey but instead proceeded to his seat, 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610[,] and not under
petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on the Revised Penal Code.
his thigh. Then, she held him up by his armpits
and pushed him to the floor. As he fell, Michael RULING:
Ryan’s body hit a desk. As a result, he lost YES.
consciousness. Petitioner proceeded to pick Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7610 defines child
Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly abuse thusly:
slammed him down on the floor. Michael Ryan (b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment,
cried. whether habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following:
After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach
her class. During lunch break, Michael Ryan, (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect,
accompanied by two of his classmates, Louella cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
Loredo and Jonalyn Gonzales, went home crying maltreatment;
and told his mother about the incident. His
mother and his Aunt Evangeline Gonzales (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases,
reported the incident to their Barangay Captain, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
Gonzalo Larroza who advised them to have dignity of a child as a human being;
Michael Ryan examined by a doctor. Michael
Ryan’s aunt and Barangay Councilman Ernesto (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs
Ligante brought him to the Dr. Ricardo Y. for survival, such as food and shelter; or
Ladrido Hospital where he was examined by Dr.
Teresita Castigador. They, likewise, reported the (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment
incident to the Police Station. The medical to an injured child resulting in serious
certificate issued by Dr. Teresita Castigador impairment of his growth and development or in
reads, in part: his permanent incapacity or death.
1. Petechiae and tenderness of both external ears In the crime charged against the petitioner,
1x2 cm. and 1x1 cm.; therefore, the maltreatment may consist of an act
2. Lumbar pains and tenderness at area of L3- by deedsor by words that debases, degrades or
L4; demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
3. Contusions at left inner thigh 1x1 and 1x1 child as a human being. The act need not be
cm.; habitual. The CA concluded that the petitioner
4. Tenderness and painful on walking especially "went overboard in disciplining Michael Ryan, a
at the area of femoral head. helpless and weak 7-year old boy, when she
pinched hard Michael Ryan on the left thigh and
The petitioner was criminally charged with child when she held him in the armpits and threw him
abuse in the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City on the floor[; and as] the boy fell down, his body
(RTC), and the case was assigned to Branch 27 hit the desk causing him to lose consciousness
of that court. The information alleged as follows: [but instead] of feeling a sense of remorse, the
The Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo, upon approval accused-appellant further held the boy up by his
and Directive of the Deputy OMBUDSMAN for ears and pushed him down on the floor." On her
the Visayas accuses FELINA ROSALDES of the part, the trial judge said that the physical pain
crime of VIOLATION OF CHILD ABUSE LAW experienced by the victim had been aggravated
(Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610), committed as by an emotional trauma that caused him to stop
follows: going to school altogether out of fear of the
petitioner, compelling his parents to transfer him
That on or about the 13th day of February 1996, to another school where he had to adjust again.
in the Municipality of Lambunao, Province of Such established circumstances proved beyond
Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of reasonable doubt that the petitioner was guilty
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, of child abuse by deeds that degraded and
being a public school teacher in Grade 1 of demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of
Pughanan Elementary School, with a Salary Michael Ryan as a human being.
Grade below 26, under the DECS, did then and It was also shown that Michael Ryan’s physical
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maltreatment by the petitioner was neither her
maltreat her pupil Michael Ryan Gonzales, a first or only maltreatment of a child. Prosecution
seven year old child, by pinching him on different witness Louella Loredo revealed on cross
parts of his body, and thereafter slumping him examination that she had also experienced the
petitioner’s cruelty.The petitioner was also

convicted by the RTC in Iloilo City (Branch 39) in FACTS:
Criminal Case No. 348921 for maltreatment of On 3 July 2005, AAA was introduced to the
another child named Dariel Legayada. Such accused during the wake of a relative of AAA.
previous incidents manifested that the petitioner Thereafter, the accused convinced AAA to
had "a propensity for violence," as the trial judge accompany her at a wake at GI San Dionisio,
stated in her decision of June 26, 2003. Paranaque City. However, before they went to the
Thirdly, the petitioner submits that the wake, they went to look for the boyfriend of the
information charging her with child abuse was accused. They went to Bulungan Fish Port were
insufficient in form and substance, in that the they found the boyfriend of the accused. They
essential elements of the crime charged were not proceeded to the kubuhan, located at the back of
properly alleged therein; and that her the Bulungan Fish Port. Upon arrival, the
constitutional and statutory right to due process accused suddenly pulled AAA inside a room
of law was consequently violated. where a man known only as “Speed” was waiting.
AAA saw “Speed” give the accused some money,
The penalty for the child abusecommitted by the then the latter left. “Speed” wielded a knife and
petitioner is that prescribed in Section 10(a) of tied AAA’s hands to the papag and raped her.
Republic Act No. 7610, viz: AAA asked for appellant’s help when she saw the
latter peeping into the room while she was being
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty raped, but appellant did not do so. After the rape,
or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial “Speed” and appellant told AAA not to tell anyone
to the Child's Development. – what had happened or else they would get back
at her. AAA, accompanied by her sister and
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts mother filed a complaint for Rape. The RTC
of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be rendered a decision finding the accused guilty as
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the a co-principal by indispensable cooperation for
child's development including those covered by the crime of Rape.
Atiicle 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal ISSUE:
Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of Whether or not the accused should be held liable
prision mayor in its minimum period. as a co-principal for the crime of Rape
“The CA revised the penalty fixed by the R TC by HELD:

imposing the indeterminate penalty of four years, No, in order to be considered as a principal by
two months and one day of prision correccional, indispensable cooperation, one must participate
as minimum, to 10 years and one day of prision in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity
mayor, as the maximum, on the ground that the in criminal purpose and cooperation in the
offense was aggravated by the petitioner being a commission of the offense by performing another
public schoolteacher. It cited Section 3 l(e) of act without which it would not have been
Republic Act No. 7610, which commands that accomplished. The Supreme Court held that the
the penalty provided in the Act "shall be imposed accused did not participate in the criminal
in its maximum period if the offender is a public resolution of the crime of Rape but merely
officer or employee." Her being a public delivered AAA to “Speed”.
schoolteacher was alleged in the information and However, the accused is still liable for violation
established by evidence as well as admitted by of Section 5 (a), Article III of R.A. 7610 or a) Those
her. The revised penalty was erroneous, however, who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
because Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 child prostitution which include, but are not
punishes the crime committed by the petitioner limited to, the following: (1) Acting as a procurer
with prision mayor in its minimum period, whose of a child prostitute.
three periods are six years and one day to six
years and eight months, for the minimum period; MALTO V. PEOPLE
six years, eight months and one day to seven GR 16473 , SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
years and four months, for the medium period;
and seven years, four months and one day to FACTS:
eight years, for the maximum period. The Sometime during the month of November 1997
maximum of the indeterminate sentence should to 1998, Malto seduced his student, AAA, a
come from the maximum period, therefore, and minor, to indulge in sexual intercourse several
the Court fixes it at seven years, four months and times with him. Prior to the incident, petitioner
one day of prision mayor. The minimum of the and AAA had a “mutual understanding” and
indeterminate sentence should come from became sweethearts. Pressured and afraid of the
prision correccional in the maximum period, the petitioner’s threat to end their relationship, AAA
penalty next lower than prision mayor in its succumbed and both had sexual intercourse.
minimum period, whose range is from four years, Upon discovery of what AAA underwent, AAA’s
two months and one day to six years.1âwphi1 mother lodged a complaint in the Office of the
Accordingly, the minimum of the indeterminate City Prosecutor of Pasay City. Assistant City
sentence is four years, nine months and 11 days, Prosecutor charged the petitioner in an
and the maximum is seven years, four months Information a violation of Section 5(a), Article III,
and one day of prision mayor.” RA 7610. During the month of November 1997
up to 1998, in Pasay City, Michael John. Z.
G.R. NO. 193854 ; 24 SEPTEMBER 2012 Malto, a professor, did then and there willfully,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DINA unlawfully and feloniously take advantage and
DULAY exert influence, relationship and moral
ascendancy and induce and/or seduce his
student at Assumption College, complainant, not be deemed to have validly consented to adult
AAA, a minor of 17 years old, to indulge in sexual sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act
intercourse and lascivious conduct for several of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which
times with him as in fact said accused has carnal seeks to afford her special protection against
knowledge. abuse, exploitation and discrimination. In other
The trial court found the evidence for the words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable
prosecution sufficient to sustain petitioner’s of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or
conviction and rendered a decision finding sexual intercourse.
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Article III, Section 5(a), par. 3 of RA To provide special protection to children from all
7610, as amended and sentenced him to forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and
reclusion temporal. discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial
In a decision, the appellate court affirmed his to their development; provide sanctions for their
conviction even if it found that his acts were not commission and carry out a program for
covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of prevention and deterrence of and crisis
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; and thereby intervention in situations of child abuse,
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty prision exploitation, and discrimination. As well as to
mayor. intervene on behalf of the child when the
parents, guardian, teacher or person having care
ISSUE: or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the child against abuse, exploitation, and
petitioner’s conviction on the grounds that there discrimination or when such acts against the
was no rape committed since their sexual child are committed by the said parent,
intercourse was consensual by reason of their guardian, teacher or person having care and
“sweetheart” relationship custody of the same.
RULING: The best interest of children shall be the

NEGATIVE. Petitioner is wrong. Petitioner paramount consideration in all actions
violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as concerning them, whether undertaken by public
amended. The first element of Section 5(b), or private social welfare institutions, courts of
Article III of RA 7610 pertains to the act or acts law, administrative authorities, and legislative
committed by the accused. The second element bodies, consistent with the principles of First
refers to the state or condition of the offended Call for Children as enunciated in the United
party. The third element corresponds to the Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
minority or age of the offended party. Since all Every effort shall be exerted to promote the
three elements of the crime were present, the welfare of children and enhance their
conviction of petitioner was proper. opportunities for a useful and happy life.
Consent of the child is immaterial in criminal
cases involving violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of RA March 19, 2018 – Article 279 – ADDITIONAL
7610. Petitioner claims that AAA welcomed his PENALTIES FOR OTHER OFFENSES
kisses and touches and consented to have sexual DUQUE, Francis Lester M.
intercourse with him. They engaged in these acts
out of mutual love and affection. The sweetheart G.R. NO. 179090 JUNE 5, 2009
theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape, LEONILO SANCHEZ ALIAS NILO VS. PEOPLE
felonies committed against or without the
consent of the victim. It operates on the theory FACTS:
that the sexual act was consensual. It requires Private complainant is VVV, a minor. FFF, VVV's
proof that the accused and the victim were lovers father, was leasing a portion of the fishpond
and that she consented to the sexual relations. owned by Escolastico. Appellant, one of the heirs
of escolastico went to FFF’s house to inquire
For purposes of sexual intercourse and about the whereabouts of the latter’s, MMM,
lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under FFF's wife told appellant that FFF was not
RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is around. Right then and there, appellant told
unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or them to leave the place and started destroying
subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly the house. MMM got angry and told appellant
give consent to sexual intercourse with another that he could not just drive them away since the
person. A child cannot give consent to a contract contract for the use of the fishpond was not yet
under our civil laws. This is on the rationale that terminated. VVV left to fetch a barangay tanod
she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not but failed to do so. On her way back to their
capable of fully understanding or knowing the house, she saw appellant with a gallon of
nature or import of her actions. The State, as gasoline, headed to their house. Appellant
parens patriae, is under the obligation to warned VVV then to better pack up her family’s
minimize the risk of harm to those who, because things because he would burn their house.
of their minority, are as yet unable to take care
of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve Upon reaching their house, VVV saw her brother,
its protection. BBB, get a piece of wood to defend themselves
and their house from appellant. However,
The harm which results from a child’s bad appellant approached BBB, grabbed the piece of
decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely wood and started beating him with it. At the
more damaging to her than a bad business deal. sight, VVV approached appellant and pushed
Thus, the law should protect her from the him. Irked by what she did, appellant turned to
harmful consequences of her attempts at adult her and struck her with the piece of wood three
sexual behavior. For this reason, a child should (3) times. As a result, the wood broke into several
pieces. MMM restrained BBB, telling him not to 280 of the Revised Penal Code, this offense is
fight back. After which, appellant left, bringing committed when a private person shall enter the
with him the gallon of gasoline. The RTC finds dwelling of another against the latter's will. The
the accused guilty of R.A. 7610. accused armed with an iron bar forced the wall
of the said store by breaking a board and
ISSUE: unfastening another for the purpose of entering
WON appellant can be charged with additional the store and the accused did not succeed due to
penalties for other offenses violated which is PD the presence of the policeman. Under the
603. circumstances of this case the prohibition of the
owner or inmate is presumed.
HELD:
Yes. Here, the applicable laws are Par 09, Article SALVADOR MARZALADO VS PEOPLE
59 of P.D. No. 603 (Inflicts cruel and unusual G.R. NO. 152997, NOVEMBER 10,2004
punishment upon the child or deliberately
subjects him to indignation and other excessive ISSUE:
chastisement that embarrass or humiliate him) Whether the accused violated article 280 of the
and Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 which Revised Penal Code?
provides: SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect,
Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other FACTS:
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Accused was charged with violation of article 280
Development. — (a) Any person who shall of the Revised Penal Code when he forcibly
commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or entered the leased unit of Cristina Albano.
exploitation or be responsible for other Accused claimed that when he was on his way
conditions prejudicial to the child's development home he saw water in a continuous stream
including those covered by Article 59 of flowing out of Albano's unit. He searched for
Presidential Decree No. 603... Albano but he did not find her so he asked for
the assistance of the Barangay Tanods and went
In the case of Araneta v. People, SC held that the inside the unit and found an open faucet, with
provision punishes not only those enumerated water flooding on the floor.
under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603,
but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, HELD:
(b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) No. The Court ruled that as certified by Barangay
being responsible for conditions prejudicial to Lupon secretary, the unit rented by Albano was
the child’s development. The prosecution need forcibly opened by the owner because of the
not prove that the acts of child abuse, child strong water pressure coming out of the faucet.
cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in Since Albano and her children already left,
the prejudice of the child because an act nobody was left to attend the unit. Clearly
prejudicial to the development of the child is accused acted for the justified purpose of
different from the former acts. Moreover, it is a avoiding further flooding and damage to his
rule in statutory construction that the word "or" mother's property. No criminal intent could be
in Section 10 of R.a 7610 is a disjunctive term clearly imputed to accused for the remedial
signifying dissociation and independence of one action he had taken. There was an exigency that
thing from other things enumerated. had to be addressed to avoid damage to the
leased unit.
March 19, 2018 – Article 280 – QUALIFIED
TRESPASS TO DWELLING March 20, 2018 – Article 281 – OTHER FORMS
FLORENTINO, Kimberly A. OF TRESPASS.
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
VS [NO CASES FOUND]
AURELIO LAMAHANG
G.R. NO. L-43530 March 20, 2018 – Article 282 – GRAVE
AUGUST 3, 1935 THREATS
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
ISSUE:
What was the crime committed by the accused? RONNIE CALUAG V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO.: 171511, MARCH 4, 2009
FACTS:
At early dawn of March 2, 1935,a policeman was ISSUE:
patrolling along the streets of the city of Iloilo Whether petitioner’s action constitutes to grave
caught the accused in the act of making an threats.
opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of
cheap goods. At the time the owner of the store FACTS:
was sleeping inside. The accused had only Complainants Nestor and his wife Julia Denido
succeeded in breaking one board and in inquired to Caluag and Sentillas why their guests
unfastening another from the wall when the were mauled during their earlier drinking spree.
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested Caluag butted in and said, “bakit kasama ka ba
him and placed him under custody. doon?” And boxed and mauled Nestor. The
victims quickly went back to their house. Julia,
HELD: on her way to the baranggay hall to report the
The court was of the opinion and held that under incident, was confronted by Caluag and poked
consideration the crime committed was and threatened her with a gun to her forehead
attempted trespass to dwelling. Under Article and said, “saan ka pupunta? Gusto mo ito?”
Despite the threats, she was able to report the Flaviano Delgado, testifies that the accused and
crime. Soon after, 2 informations was filed his wife, after the information had been filed,
against petitioner; 1) for grave threats, and 2) for called at the house of the witness to implore
light physical injuries. The MTC, RTC found the pardon, Estrada alleging that the threat was
petitioner guilty of the crime grave threats and uttered without premeditation, and that it was
slight physical injuries. Hence the appeal. done unintentionally. Hence, the accused
Estrada is only liable for other light threats and
HELD: consequently his penalty must be lowered.
Yes, the SC uniformly found petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of grave threats and RONNIE CALUAG VS PEOPLE
slight physical injury. Under article 282 of the G.R. NO. 171511, MARCH 4, 2009
Revised Penal Code – any person who shall
threaten another with the infliction upon the FACTS:
person, honor or property of the latter or of his Nestor learned that two of his guests from an
family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall earlier drinking spree were mauled. At that time,
suffer; Caluag and Sentillas were drinking at the store
owned by the son of Sentillas. When Nestor
(2) the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not inquired from several people what happened,
exceeding 500 pesos if the threat shall not have Caluag butted in and replied “Bakit kasama ka
been made under subject to a condition. ba roon?”and immediately boxed him without
warning. Nestor retaliated but he was
In this case, the act of pointing a gun to her overpowered by Caluag and Sentillas. Julia, wife
forehead clearly enounces a threat to kill. Thus, of Nestor, saw Caluag and Sentillas box her
action speaks louder than words considering it husband. Although she tried to pacify them, they
be taken in to context the earlier surrounding did not listen to her. To avoid his assailants,
circumstances. Nestor ran to his house. Julia followed him. In
the evening, same day, Nestor told his wife to
March 23, 2018 – Article 284 – BOND FOR report the boxing incident to the barangay
GOOD BEHAVIOR authorities. Thereafter, Julia and her son Rotsen
NASH, Regina Mercado were on their way to their barangay hall, she
encountered Caluag, who blocked her way at the
[NO CASE FOUND] alley near her house. Caluag confronted Julia
with a gun, poked it at her forehead, and said
March 23, 2018 – Article 285 – OTHER LIGHT “Saan ka pupunta, gusto mo ito?” Despite this
THREATS fearful encounter, she was still able to proceed to
OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P. the barangay hall where she reported the gun-
poking incident to the barangay authorities.
US V. ANDRES V. ESTRADA
GR NO. 4418, MAR 26, 1908 ISSUE:
Whether or not Caluag is liable for other light
FACTS: threats under Article 285 of the RPC.
Cecilia went inside a billiard room, seeing this,
Anastasio Delgado, who was also present inside HELD:
the billiard room said to his friend, who was by NO. The court stated that Under the Revised
his side " Are women allowed to come into billiard Penal Code, there are three kinds of threats:
rooms? Cecilia took offense on the remark made grave threats (Article 282), light threats (Article
and hot words passed between her and the said 283) and other light threats (Article 285). In grave
Delgado. Thereafter, Andres V. Estrada, the threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a
woman's husband, took part in the quarrel and crime which may or may not be accompanied by
notwithstanding the fact that Delgado had left a condition. In light threats, the wrong
the place, hiding himself in the next house, the threatened does not amount to a crime but is
accused also went out and returned shortly always accompanied by a condition. In other
thereafter provided with a revolver and light threats, the wrong threatened does not
commenced to look for Delgado who, fearing amount to a crime and there is no condition. In
injury, returned to his home. Moreover, his the instant case, Julia Denido left her house to
friends told him to stay hidden because the go to the barangay hall to report the mauling of
accused was looking for him in order to kill him. her husband which she witnessed earlier in the
The court sentenced Estrada for a higher penalty afternoon. On her way there, Caluag confronted
and he appealed for a lower one. her and pointed a gun to her forehead, while at
the same time saying “Saan ka pupunta, gusto
ISSUE: mo ito?” Considering what transpired earlier
Whether or not the accused Estrada liable for between petitioner and Julia’s husband,
other light threats and be awarded with a lower Caluag’s act of pointing a gun at Julia’s forehead
penalty. clearly announces a threat to kill or to inflict
serious physical injury on her person. Taken in
HELD: the context of the surrounding circumstances,
YES. The court stated that the act complained do the uttered words do not go against the threat to
not constitute a crime but simply a misdemeanor kill or to inflict serious injury evinced by
for uttering threats. A person who, in the heat of petitioners accompanying act. Article 285, par. 1
anger, threatened to kill another without (other light threats) is inapplicable since it
persisting in the idea involved in his threat is presupposes that the threat to commit a wrong
liable only under the paragraph 2 of Article 285 will not constitute a crime. That the threat to
of the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, commit a wrong will constitute or not constitute
a crime is the distinguishing factor between There is intimidation when one of the parties is
grave threats on one hand, and light and other compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded
light threats on the other. Given the surrounding fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his
circumstances, the offense committed falls person or property, or upon the person or
under Article 282, par. 2 (grave threats) since: (1) property of his spouse, descendants or
killing or shooting someone amounts to a crime, ascendants, to give his consent. Material
and (2) the threat to kill was not subject to a violence is not indispensable for there to be
condition. intimidation. Intense fear produced in the mind
of the victim which restricts or hinders the
exercise of the will is sufficient.
March 21, 2018 – Article 286 – GRAVE
COERCIONS In the crime of grave coercion, violence through
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P. material force or such a display of it as would
produce intimidation and, consequently, control
ALEJANDRO V. BERNAS over the will of the offended party is an essential
GR NO. 179243 (SEPTEMBER 7, 2011) ingredient.
ISSUE Moreover, it was not alleged that the security

Whether or not grave coercion can be committed guards committed anything to intimidate
through intimidation alone without violence petitioners, nor was it alleged that the guards
were not customarily stationed there and that
FACTS they produced fear on the part of petitioners. To
Petitioner Alejandro is a lessee-purchaser of a determine the degree of the intimidation, the age,
condominium unit in Pasig City, under the sex and condition of the person shall be borne in
Contract of Lease with Option to purchase with mind. Here, the petitioners who were allegedly
lessor-seller Oakridge Properties, Inc. (OPI). intimidated by the guards are all lawyers who
Alejandro sub-leased the unit to other petitioners presumably know their rights.
(Firdausi, Abbas and Francisco) to be used as a
law office. However, a defect in the air- In this case, the crime of unjust vexation is the
conditioning unit prompted petitioners to proper complaint filed instead of the grave
suspend payments until the problem is fixed by coercion against respondents.
the management. Instead of addressing the
defect, OPI instituted an action for ejectment UNITED STATES V. MENA
before the MTC. GR NO. 4812 (OCTOBER 30, 1908)
During the pendency of the case, respondent ISSUE

Atty. Bernas ordered the unit to be padlock. Whether or not defendant Mena is liable for grave
Subsequently, petitioners filed a complaint for coercion
grave coercion against respondents Atty. Bernas,
Atty SIa-Bernas, Amor and Aguilar. Petitioners FACTS
claimed that the padlocking of the unit was Three carabaos of defendant Mena trespassed
illegal, felonious and unlawful which prevented upon the rice paddies of complainant Flora,
them from entering the premises. Petitioners also doing considerable damage thereto. The latter
alleged that said padlocking and the cutting off took possession of the animals and refused to
of facilities had unduly prejudiced them and return them to Mena without compensation for
thus constituted grave coercion. Moreover, there the damage done. Mena was still unable to pay.
was sufficient intimidation by the mere presence Flora and his son set out to take the carabaos to
of the security guards. the justice of the peace, for the purpose of
depositing them in his care until the question of
HELD damages could be settled in his court. On the
No. The second element of grave coercion is road to the justice of the peace, they met
absent in this case. defendant Mena in company with some other
persons. By refusal to surrender them to the
For grave coercion to lie, the following elements defendant or his friends, defendant Mena drew
must be present: his bolo, rushed at Flora’s, cut the mecate by
1. That a person is prevented by another from which the son was leading the carabao, and with
doing something not prohibited by law, or threats of bodily injury, compelled him to turn
compelled to do something against his will, be the other loose; and then with further threats of
it right or wrong; bodily injury, compelled Flora himself to turn
loose the carabao which he was riding.
2. That the prevention or compulsion is effected
by violence, threats or intimidation; and HELD
Yes. The acts committed by the defendant clearly
3. That the person who restrains the will and fall within the foregoing definition of the crime of
liberty of another has no right to do so, or in grave coercion. With violence he compelled the
other words, that the restraint is not made under complaining witness to do that which he did not
authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful desire to do — that is to say, to turn over the
right. possession of the carabaos.
In this case, the mere presence of the security It is a maxim of the law that no man is authorized
guards is insufficient to cause intimidation to the to take the law into his own hands and enforce
petitioners. his rights with threats of violence, except in
certain well-defined cases, where one acts in the
necessary defense of one’s life, liberty, or ISSUE:

property, against unlawful aggression, and W/N Maderazo is guilty of unjust vexation under
manifestly the defendant can not successfully art. 287 of the RPC
maintain that his action was taken in defense of
life, liberty, or property. FACTS:
The defendant was guilty of the crime of grave Verutiao (offended party) had been the lessee of
coercion unless he was lawfully authorized to a stall in the Biliran public market and paid a
enforce his demand when the complaining monthly rental of P200.00. She was allowed to
witness refused compliance therewith. finish the construction of the market stall with
the permission of the Municipal Mayor and the
March 22, 2018 – Article 287 – LIGHT Municipal Treasurer.
COERCIONS
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P. She spent P24, 267.00 for the construction of the
market stall but was not reimbursed by the
ONG CHIU KWAN VS. PEOPLE Municipality of her expenses.
GR NO. 113006
November 23, 2000 Verutiao and the Municipality entered into a one-
year lease contract, renewable every year with a
ISSUE: monthly rental of P400.00. It is also provided
W/N the court was proper in finding petitioner that, any violation of the conditions therein
guilty for violating Art. 287 par. 2 or unjust agreed shall be sufficient cause for its
vexation of the RPC cancellation, notwithstanding the fact that the
contract has not yet expired.
FACTS:
Assistant City Prosecutor Andres M. Bayona of The Municipality partially paid her P10, 000.00
Bacolod filed with the Municipal Trial Court, of her total expenses in the construction of the
Bacolod City an information charging petitioner market stall. However, considering that she had
with unjust vexation for cutting the electric not been fully reimbursed of her expenses for the
wires, water pipes and telephone lines of "Crazy construction of the stall, she did not pay her
Feet," a business establishment owned and rent.
operated by Mildred Ong.
Verutiao closed her stall and proceeded to
That on April 24, 1990, at around 10:00 in the Mindanao where she spent the Christmas
morning, Ong Chiu Kwan ordered Wilfredo holidays and returned a month after. She and
Infante to "relocate" the telephone, electric and her husband received a letter-order from Mayor
water lines of "Crazy Feet," because said lines Melchor Maderazo, directing her to vacate the
posed as a disturbance. However, Ong Chiu stall within twenty-four (24) hours because of her
Kwan failed to present a permit from appropriate failure to pay the rentals for the stall and the
authorities allowing him to cut the electric wires, cancellation of the lease contract.
water pipe and telephone lines of the business
establishment. Mayor Maderazo padlocked the leased premises.
The locks were opened on the authority of the
After due trial, on September 1, 1992, the Mayor. The contents of the market stall were
Municipal Trial Court found Ong Chiu Kwan inventoried by Victor Maderazo and taken to the
guilty of unjust vexation, and sentenced him to police station for safekeeping
"imprisonment for twenty days." On appeal, both
the RTC and CA affirmed such decision by the HELD:
MTC. Hence, this petition. Yes. In unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo,
malice is an inherent element of the crime. Good
HELD: faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust
Yes. Unjust Vexation is any conduct which vexation because good faith negates malice. The
annoys, vexes, disturbs or irritates another, paramount question to be considered is whether
provided there was no force, threat, violence or the offender’s act caused annoyance, irritation,
intimidation. torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of
the person to whom it is directed. The main
In the present case, petitioner admitted having purpose of the law penalizing coercion and
ordered the cutting of the electric, water and unjust vexation is precisely to enforce the
telephone lines of complainant’s business principle that no person may take the law into
establishment because these lines crossed his his hands and that our government is one of law,
property line. He failed, however, to show not of men. It is unlawful for any person to take
evidence that he had the necessary permit or into his own hands the administration of justice.
authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed
the interruption of electric, water and telephone In the present case, the overt acts of petitioners
services during peak hours of the operation of Mayor Melchor Maderazo and Victor Maderazo,
business of the complainant. Thus, petitioner’s Jr., on January 27, 1997, annoyed, irritated and
act unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant. caused embarrassment to her. It was petitioner
Consequently, petitioner Ong Chiu Kwan is liable Melchor Maderazo who ordered petitioner Victor
for unjust vexation. Maderazo, Jr. to have the stall reopened, to
conduct an inventory of the contents thereof, and
MADERAZO VS. PEOPLE to effect the transportation of the goods to the
GR NO. 165065 police station. Petitioner Victor Maderazo, who
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 was a Sangguniang Bayan member, obeyed the
order of the Mayor.
Although Verutiao was not at her stall when it [NO CASE FOUND]
was unlocked, and the contents thereof taken
from the stall and brought to the police station, March 24, 2018 – Article 292 – REVELATION
the crime of unjust vexation was nevertheless OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
committed. For the crime to exist, it is not SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
necessary that the offended party be present
when the crime was committed by said AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Vs.
petitioners. It is enough that the private PENNSWELL, INC.
complainant was embarrassed, annoyed, G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007
irritated or disturbed when she learned of the
overt acts of the petitioners. Indeed, by their FACTS:
collective acts, petitioners evicted Verutiao from Pennswell sold and delivered to Air Philippines
her stall and prevented her from selling therein, Corporation industrial chemicals, solvents, and
hence, losing income from the business. special lubricants amounting to P450,000.00.
When Air Philippines refused to pay the
March 22, 2018 – Article 288 – OTHER obligation, Pensswell filed a collection case before
SIMILAR COERCIONS RTC Makati. In its Answer, Air Philippines
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D alleged that: it refused to pay because it was
defrauded in the amount of P600,000.00 by
[NO CASE FOUND] Pennswell for its previous sale of 4 items; said
items were misrepresented by Pennswell as
March 22, 2018 – Article 289 – FORMATION, belonging to a new line, but were in truth and in
MAINTENANCE, AND PROHIBITION OF fact, identical with products it had previously
COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR purchased from Pennswell; and, Pennswell
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS merely altered the names and labels of such
RIVERA, Marynit P. goods. During the trial, Air Philippines filed a
motion to compel Pennswell to give a detailed list
G.R. No. L-1340 of the chemical components and the ingredients
October 13, 1947 used for the products that were sold. Pennswell
HERMOGENES MORTERA and CANLUBANG opposed the motion for production, contending
WORKERS' UNION (CLO) that the requested information was a trade secret
vs. that it could not be forced to disclose.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE and BISIG NG ISSUE:
CANLUBANG (NLU) Whether the court of appeals ruled in accordance
with prevailing laws and jurisprudence when it
ISSUE: upheld the ruling of the trial court that the
Whether or not peaceful picketing is prohibited chemical components or ingredients of
respondents products are trade secrets or
FACTS: industrial secrets that are not subject to
The Bisig ng Canlubang Union (BCU) demanded compulsory disclosure.
from the Canlubang Sugar Estate (CSE) the
salary increase of its employees and other HELD:
benefits. CSE refused and so BCU staged a Yes
strike. A case was filed which the Court of A trade secret is defined as a plan or process,
Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered the striking tool, mechanism or compound known only to its
union to return to work and that any employee owner and those of his employees to whom it is
who shall fail to return to their post shall be necessary to confide it. The definition also
substituted by CSE with a new employee. The extends to a secret formula or process not
CIR also prohibited any form of picketing while patented, but known only to certain individuals
the case is pending. CSE was ordered to accept using it in compounding some article of trade
the returning employees and to maintain status having a commercial value.
quo. Both parties complied.
A trade secret may consist of any formula,
RULING: pattern, device, or compilation of information
NO. Peaceful picketing is part of freedom of that:
speech and, therefore, cannot be prohibited. (1) is used in one's business; and
Picketing in a peaceful and and orderly manner
is absolutely legal. It cannot be prohibited for it (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain
is part and parcel of the freedom of speech an advantage over competitors who do not
guaranteed by the Constitution. possess the information.
March 23, 2018 – Article 290 – DISCOVERING Generally, a trade secret is a process or device
SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE OF intended for continuous use in the operation of
CORRESPONDENCE the business, for example, a machine or formula,
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M. but can be a price list or catalogue or specialized
customer list.
[NO CASE FOUND]
It is indubitable that trade secrets constitute
March 23, 2018 – Article 291 – REVEALING proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or
SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation
SALVERON, Jan Ione R. has rights therein which may be treated as
property, and ordinarily an injunction will be privilege not to disclose ones trade secrets.
granted to prevent the disclosure of the trade Foremost, this Court has declared that trade
secret by one who obtained the information "in secrets and banking transactions are among the
confidence" or through a "confidential recognized restrictions to the right of the people
relationship." American jurisprudence has to information as embodied in the Constitution.
utilized the following factors to determine if an We said that the drafters of the Constitution also
information is a trade secret, to wit: unequivocally affirmed that, aside from national
security matters and intelligence information,
(1) the extent to which the information is known trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to the
outside of the employer's business; Intellectual Property Code and other related
laws) as well as banking transactions (pursuant
(2) the extent to which the information is known to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act), are also
by employees and others involved in the exempted from compulsory disclosure.
business;
Significantly, our cases on labor are replete with
(3) the extent of measures taken by the employer examples of a protectionist stance towards the
to guard the secrecy of the information; trade secrets of employers. For instance, this
Court upheld the validity of the policy of a
(4) the value of the information to the employer pharmaceutical company prohibiting its
and to competitors; employees from marrying employees of any
competitor company, on the rationalization that
(5) the amount of effort or money expended by the company has a right to guard its trade
the company in developing the information; and secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies and other confidential programs and
(6) the extent to which the information could be information from competitors. Notably, it was in
easily or readily obtained through an a labor-related case that this Court made a stark
independent source. ruling on the proper determination of trade
secrets.
The chemical composition, formulation, and
ingredients of respondents special lubricants are In the case at bar, petitioner cannot rely on
trade secrets within the contemplation of the law. Section 77 of Republic Act 7394, or the
Consumer Act of the Philippines, in order to
That trade secrets are of a privileged nature is compel respondent to reveal the chemical
beyond quibble. The protection that this components of its products. While it is true that
jurisdiction affords to trade secrets is evident in all consumer products domestically sold,
our laws. The Securities Regulation Code, whether manufactured locally or imported, shall
expressly provides that the court may issue an indicate their general make or active ingredients
order to protect trade secrets or other in their respective labels of packaging, the law
confidential research, development, or does not apply to respondent. Respondents
commercial information belonging to the debtor. specialized lubricants -- namely, Contact Grease,
Moreover, the Securities Regulation Code is Connector Grease, Thixohtropic Grease, Di-
explicit that the Securities and Exchange Electric Strength Protective Coating, Dry
Commission is not required or authorized to Lubricant and Anti-Seize Compound -- are not
require the revelation of trade secrets or consumer products. Consumer products, as it is
processes in any application, report or document defined in Article 4(q),[ refers to goods, services
filed with the Commission. This confidentiality is and credits, debts or obligations which are
made paramount as a limitation to the right of primarily for personal, family, household or
any member of the general public, upon request, agricultural purposes, which shall include, but
to have access to all information filed with the not be limited to, food, drugs, cosmetics, and
Commission. devices. This is not the nature of respondents
products. Its products are not intended for
Revised Penal Code endows a cloak of protection personal, family, household or agricultural
to trade secrets under the following articles: purposes. Rather, they are for industrial use,
specifically for the use of aircraft propellers and
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. engines.
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC
manager, employee or servant who, in such and the Court of Appeals is that the chemical
capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal formulation of respondents products is not
or master and shall reveal such secrets. known to the general public and is unique only
to it. Both courts uniformly ruled that these
art. 292. revelation of industrial secrets. the ingredients are not within the knowledge of the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum public.
and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in
charge, employee or workman of any
manufacturing or industrial establishment who,
to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal
the secrets of the industry of
the latter.
Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged

the private character of trade secrets. There is a

TITLE TEN – CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY contained an averment as to the ownership of the
property; and upon principle, in charging the
March 25, 2018 – Article 293 – WHO ARE crime of robbery committed upon the person, the
GUILTY OF ROBBERY allegation of the owner's name is essential.
TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
It is elementary that in crimes against property,
G.R. No. L-12453 July 15, 1918 ownership must be alleged as matter essential to
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, the proper description of the offense.
vs. To constitute larceny, robbery, embezzlement,
PEDRO LAHOYLAHOY and MARCOS obtaining money by false pretenses, malicious
MADANLOG, defendants-appellants. mischief, etc., the property obtained must be
that of another, and indictments for such
ISSUE: offenses must name the owner; and a variance in
Whether or not the accused committed Robbery this respect between the indictment and the
with Multiple Homicide proof will be fatal. It is also necessary in order to
identify the offense. Xxx
FACTS:
In 1912, the complaint the two children were Now a complaint charging the commission of the
staying with Juana, their grandmother, in a complex offense of robbery with homicide must
house some distance removed from that necessarily charge each of the component
occupied by Roman and Rosa and located farther offenses with the same precision that would be
back from the shore. The grandfather, Francisco, necessary if they were made the subject of
had gone to the beach. After the grandmother separate complaints.
and the children had gone to rest on a mat where
they slept together, the two accused appeared To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a
and demanded money of Juana. She gave them charge of robbing one person when the proof
P100 in money in response to this demand, and shows that he robbed an entirely different
the accused then required the three to leave the person, when the first was not present, is
house and go in the direction of the sea. A further violative of the rudimentary principles of
demand was made upon the old woman for pleading; and in addition, is subject to the
money, which demand she was unable to comply criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in
with. Lahoylahoy then struck her with a bolo just a position where he could not be protected from
below her breast, killing her instantly. The two a future prosecution by a plea of former
children, being greatly frightened, they ran away conviction or acquittal. If we should convict or
separately for some distance and remained acquit these defendants today of the robbery
hidden during the night in the bushes. which is alleged to have been committed upon
the property of Roman Estriba, it is perfectly
The next morning the children made their way to clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for
the house where the old couple had lived, which robbery committed upon the property of Juana;
was vacant. Going in that direction they stopped and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no
at the house of their sister, the wife of the avail.
defendant Madanlog. When they went a little
later to the house where their parents had lived, It is evident that, by reason of the lack of
the fact was revealed that Francisco, Roman, and conformity between the allegation and the proof
Rosa had also been killed. All the bodies were respecting the ownership of the property, it is
collected and buried early in the morning by the impossible to convict the two accused of the
two accused, assisted by Eugenio Tenedero, son- offense of robbery committed by them in this
in-law of Lahoylahoy. The two children Miguela case; and therefore they cannot be convicted of
and Bartolome say that they were threatened the complex offense of robbery with homicide,
with death if they should make complaint. penalized in subsection (1) of article 503 of the
Penal Code. No such difficulty exists, however,
At the trial the two children gave a very with respect to the quadruple homicide
consistent account of the robbery and of the committed upon the persons named in the
murder of their grandmother. complaint; and in conformity with the provisions
They were charged crime of robbery with multiple of article 87 of the Penal Code, the penalties
homicide corresponding to all these crimes must be
severely imposed. This court has already held in
HELD: No. United States vs. Balaba (37 Phil. Rep., 260),
An important question arises upon the matter of that where more than one offense (not complex
the complaint in connection with the proof as to offenses) are charged in the complaint, and the
the ownership of the property which was taken accused fails to demur or ask for a severance, the
by the accused. The part of the complaint here penalties corresponding to all of the offenses
material to be considered reads as follows: which are charged and proved may be imposed.
The doctrine announced in that case applies with
Xxx According to the proof the person robbed even greater propriety offenses in one complaint.
was Juana; while the complaint charges that the (See sec. 11, General Orders No. 58.)
property taken belong to Roman Estriba.
Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. The acts causing the violent death of the four
58 declares that a complaint or information shall deceased must be qualified as homicide, as the
show, among others things, the names of the record does not satisfactorily show how and in
persons against whom, or against whose what manner they were executed.
property, the offense was committed, if known.
The complaint in this case therefore properly
G.R. NO. 200922 JULY 18, 2012 Acampado herself merely testified that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag which
VS. was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did
CESAR CONCEPCION Y BULANIO, not say that Concepcion used violence,
APPELLANT, intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder
bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of
ISSUE: Acampado’s shoulder bag constitutes the crime
Whether the crime committed was Theft or of theft, not robbery. Concepcion’s crime of theft
Robbery was aggravated by his use of a motorcycle in
committing the crime.
FACTS:
The crime of robbery with homicide under Article March 24, 2018 – Article 294 – ROBBERY
294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION
Cesar Concepcion y Bulanio (Concepcion). OF PERSONS – PENALTIES
UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
At around 11:00 o’clock a.m. of May 25, 2004,
while private complainant Jennifer Acampado PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CESAR
was at the corner of Mother Ignacia Street, CONCEPCION Y BULANIO
Quezon City and at another street which she G.R. NO. 200922
could not remember and seemed to be deserted JULY 18, 2012
at that time, a male person riding at the back of
the driver of a motorcycle whom she later ISSUES:
identified in open court as accused Cesar Whether or not the snatching of the shoulder bag
Concepcion, snatched her brown Avon bag with in this case is robbery as contemplated in Article
black strap which at that time, was placed on her 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
left shoulder. The black motorcycle with white
covering at the back side and with plate number Whether or not Concepcion employ violence or
which is not visible to the eye, came from behind intimidation upon persons, or force upon things,
her. As the motorcycle sped away, the accused as contemplated under Article 294, when he
even raised and waved the bag that he snatched snatched Acampado’s shoulder bag.
from Jennifer who was unable to do anything but
just cry and look at the snatcher so much so that FACTS:
she recognized him in the process. At around 11:00 o’clock a.m. of May 25, 2004,
while Jennifer Acampado was at the corner of
Meanwhile, while prosecution witness Joemar de Mother Ignacia Street, Quezon City and at
Felipe was driving his R & E Taxi, in the same another street which she could not remember
vicinity, he witnessed the subject snatching and seemed to be deserted at that time, a male
incident. As the accused was waving the bag at person riding at the back of the driver of a
Jennifer, he blew his horn. Ogardo drove faster motorcycle whom she later identified in open
so that de Felipe gave a chase and kept on court as accused Cesar Concepcion, snatched
blowing his horn. Eventually, Ogardo lost control her brown Avon bag with black strap which at
of the motorcycle and it crashed in front of his that time, was placed on her left shoulder. The
taxi, sending its two occupants to the pavement. black motorcycle with white covering at the back
De Felipe immediately alighted from the taxi with side and with plate number which is not visible
the intention to arrest the snatchers. At that to the eye, came from behind her. As the
juncture, some policemen from the Kamuning motorcycle sped away, the Concepcion even
Police Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon raised and waved the bag that he snatched from
City, arrived. Jennifer who was unable to do anything but just
cry and look at the snatcher so much so that she
HELD: Theft recognized him in the process.
Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime
committed by "any person who, with intent to HELD:
gain, shall take any personal property belonging NO. The prosecution failed to establish that
to another, by means of violence against or Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force
intimidation of any person, or using force upon in snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag.
anything." Acampado herself merely testified that
Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag which
Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did
person who, with intent to gain but without not say that Concepcion used violence,
violence against or intimidation of persons nor intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder
force upon things, shall take the personal bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of
property of another without the latter’s consent. Acampado’s shoulder bag constitutes the crime
of theft, not robbery. Concepcion’s crime of theft
By definition in the RPC, robbery can be was aggravated by his use of a motorcycle in
committed in three ways, by using: (a) violence committing the crime. Under Article 14(20) of the
against any person; (b) intimidation of any RPC, the use of a motor vehicle as a means of
person; and/or (c) force upon anything. Robbery committing a crime is a generic aggravating
by use of force upon things is provided under circumstance. Thus, the maximum period of the
Articles 299 to 305 of the RPC. penalty for the crime of theft shall be imposed
upon Concepcion due to the presence of a
The prosecution failed to establish that generic aggravating circumstance and the
Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force absence of any mitigating circumstance.
in snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARMANDO The Court gives its approbation to the finding of
REGALA the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to
G.R. NO. 130508 clearly establish the identity of Armando Regala
APRIL 5, 2000 as the person who, with two companions,
committed the crime of robbery accompanied by
ISSUE: rape on the night of September 11, 1995. Nerissa
Whether or not Regala committed the crime of Tagala positively identified Armando Regala
robbery with rape as contemplated in Article 294 because at the time he was counting the money
of the Revised Penal Code. on her bed, the other companion of the accused
beamed the flashlight towards the money and
FACTS: there was a reflection on the face of Regala.
On September 11, 1995, at about 9:00 oclock in Although the three intruders were wearing
the evening at Barangay Bangon, Aroroy, masks when they entered the house, they
Masbate, then 16-year old victim Nerissa Tagala removed their masks later.
and her grandmother (Consuelo Arevalo) were
sleeping, when appellant Armando Regala and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
his two other companions entered the formers NORBERTO VILLAGRACIA, ELMER
house. Regala and his companions entered the PAGLINAWAN, ALFONSO PASTORAL,
house through the kitchen by removing the NELSON LEDESMA, NIXON LEDESMA, AND
pieces of wood under the stove. Regala went to WILFREDO GAMPA
the room of Nerissa and her grandmother and G.R. NO. 94311
poked an 8-inch gun on them, one after the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
other. Nerissa and her grandmother were hogtied
by Regala and his companions. Thereafter, ISSUE:
Nerissa was raped by Regala in bed while her Whether or not the accused committed robbery
grandmother was on the floor. After the rape, with rape as contemplated in Article 294 of the
Regala and his two companions counted the Revised Penal Code.
money which they took from the "aparador."
FACTS:
HELD: On the 23rd day of September 1987, at Barangay
YES. There was sufficient evidence to establish Pamampangin, Municipality of Lopez, Province of
the identity of accused-appellant as the Quezon, Philippines, the accused, armed with
perpetrator of the crime. short firearms of unknown caliber and a fan
knife and forming a band, with intent to gain and
Nerissa positively recounted the incident on the with force upon things, by means of force,
witness stand. She was sleeping with her intimidation and violence and taking advantage
grandmother in the latters house when Regala, of nighttime, conspiring and confederating
together with the unidentified companions together and mutually helping one another, did
entered the house. Regala pointed a gun, about then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
8 inches long, at her grandmother, and then at feloniously enter the house of spouses Thelma
her, and hogtied both of them. Regala took off her Villasanta and Cenon Villasanta, and once
panty and her shorts, and removed his own inside, take, steal and carry away therefrom the
"porontong" pants, and made sexual intercourse latter’s personal properties. On the occasion
("itot") with her while she was hogtied in bed. Her thereof said accused, conspiring and
grandmother was at the floor. She saw the confederating together and mutually helping one
aparador of her grandmother being opened. She another, by means of force, threats, violence and
could not shout because the gun was pointed at intimidation and with lewd design, did then and
her, and she was afraid. Two companions of there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take
Regala entered the room as she was being raped. turn in having carnal knowledge of said Thelma
Two rings and money was taken by Regala and Villasanta, against the latter's will.
his companions. After raping her in bed, Nerissa
saw Regala counting the money taken from the HELD:
aparador. Thereafter, she was brought to the YES. The law uses the phrase "when the robbery
kitchen, still hogtied, and raped again. On cross- shall have been accompanied by rape" which
examination, Nerissa stated that although there means that the offender must have the intent to
was no electricity, and the light in the house was take the personal property belonging to another
already off, she was able to see the face of Regala with intent to gain, and such intent must
because at the time Regala was counting the precede the rape.
money, one of his companions was holding the
flashlight "beamed to the money" and there was In this case, appellants employed violence
"some reflection" on the face of Regala. She against and intimidation of persons when they
remembered the face of Regala because of an divested the Villasanta spouses of cash and other
earring on his left ear which he was wearing valuables. Three of the appellants were armed
when presented at the police line-up. with short firearms and the other three carried
fan knives.
Consuelo Arevalo testified and corroborated the
testimony of her granddaughter. On cross- April 3, 2018 – Article 295 – ROBBERY WITH
examination, Consuelo Arevalo declared that she PHYSICAL INJURIES, COMMITTED IN AN
was able to see Regala because he used her UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND, OR
flashlight, and he took off the mask he was WITH THE USE OF FIREARM ON A STREET,
wearing; she recognized Regala because of his ROAD OR ALLEY
earring and his flat top hair cut. VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.

PEOPLE vs. APDUHAN JR. ET.AL. justify the imposition of the maximum period of
G.R. No. L-19491 the proper penalty it is a condition sine qua non
August 30, 1968 that the offense charged be robbery committed
by a band within the contemplation of art. 295.
ISSUE: To reiterate, since art. 295, does not apply to
Whether or not the penalties under Article 295 is subdivision 1 and 2 of art. 294, then the special
applicable in this case. aggravating factor in question, which is solely
applicable to robbery in band under art. 295,
FACTS: cannot be considered in fixing the penalty
On the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 imposable for robbery with homicide under art.
o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of 294(1), even if the said crime was committed by
Mabini, Bohol, the accused and five (5) other a band with the use of unlicensed firearms.
persons,all of them armed with different
unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly March 26, 2018 – Article 296 – DEFINITION OF
weapons by means of violence, the dwelling A BAND AND PENALTY INCURRED BY THE
house of the spouses Honorato Miano and MEMBERS THEREOF
Antonia Miano, which was also the dwelling VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
house of their children, the spouses Geronimo
Miano and Herminigilda de Miano. Once inside PEOPLE VS PANCHO PELAGIO ET AL.
the said dwelling house, the above-named G.R. No. L-16177 May 24 1967
accused with their five (5) other companions, did
attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and ISSUE:
another person by the name of Norberto Aton, Whether or not the accused are liable under
who happened to be also in the said dwelling Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code.
house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2)
persons physical injuries which caused their FACTS:
death; they took and carried away from said Pancho Pelagio came to visit the spouses Jose
dwelling house cash money amounting to Three Guico and Evelyn Villanueva asking to borrow
Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00). Act money for the hospital expenses for his wife who
committed was contrary to the provisions of Art. has just delivered a child. Upon hearing the
294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with the conversation between Pelagio and Guico
special aggravating circumstance that the crime Armando Manalang took advantage of the
was committed by a band with the use of situation informed Pelagio of a robbery he was
unlicensed firearms (Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code), planning with some other friends who were later
and other aggravating circumstances – revealed as Jose Guico, Oscar Caymo and
committed in the dwelling, at nighttime and with Arcadio Balmeo.
abuse of superior strength.
Pancho Pelagio, Oscar Caymo, Armando
RULING: Manalang and Arcadio Balmeo set out for the
The disposition of the question at hand execution of their plan. They all walked together
necessitates a discussion of the interrelation towards Aling Nena's residence although before
among articles 294, 295 and 296 of the Revised reaching the place, Caymo ordered Manalang to
Penal Code. As previously stated, art. 295 hail and hold a taxi which the latter did. Then,
provides that if any of the classes of robbery too, only Balmeo and Caymo actually entered the
described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294 victim's premises because, as was earlier agreed
is committed by a band, the offender shall be upon, Pancho Pelagio acted as the lookout for the
punished by the maximum period of the proper two and he simply posted himself by the gate of
penalty. Correspondingly, the immediately the said house.
following provisions of art. 296 define the term Caymo and Balmeo gained entrance to the house
"band", prescribe the collective liability of the through its back kitchen door which they found
members of the band, and state that "when any to be open. Once inside, Caymo drew his gun and
of the arms used in the commission of the offense sought out its occupants. Only an old woman,
be in unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be Mrs. Severina de Gloria, however, was in at the
imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the time. Caymo then pointed the gun at the old lady
maximum of the corresponding penalty provided and intimidated her into producing all the money
by law." Viewed from the contextual relation of and jewelry she could. All in all, the pair got
articles 295 and 296, the word "offense" about P437 in cash, three pieces of jewelry worth
mentioned in the above-quoted portion of the about P205.00 and a watch worth about
latter article logically means the crime of robbery P300.00. After they had taken the above items,
committed by a band, as the phrase "all the Caymo ordered Mrs. de Gloria to lie face
malefactors" indubitably refers to the members downward, covered her with a blanket, and
of the band and the phrase "the corresponding cautioned her against moving or otherwise
penalty provided by law" relates to the offenses sounding out an alarm. The two then went down
of robbery described in the last three the house and out into the street. At the gate,
subdivisions of art. 294 which are all however, they failed to find Pancho Pelagio.
encompassed within the ambit of art. 295. From G. Villanueva Street where the victim's
Evidently, therefore, art. 296 in its entirety is house was located, Caymo and Balmeo walked
designed to amplify and modify the provision on till they got to the corner of F. Fernando street
robbery in band which is nowhere to be found where they found Armando Manalang waiting for
but in art. 295 in relation to subdivisions 3, 4, them in a taxi. Caymo and Balmeo then rode on
and 5 of art. 294. Verily, in order that the it.
aforesaid special aggravating circumstance of
use of unlicensed firearm may be appreciated to As the taxi was about to leave, however, a jeep
ST

from the opposite direction blocked its way and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ALFONSO
as the two vehicles were thus stopped, a man HAMIANA ET AL.
alighted from the jeep and started to walk G.R. NO. L-3491-93 MAY 30 1951
towards the taxi. When the stranger was very MAY 30, 1951
near the taxi already, Manalang instructed
Caymo to shoot at the man as the latter was a ISSUE:
police officer. Whereupon, Caymo leveled several Whether or not the other members of the band
shots at the latter, about six in all; and the man, are also guilty of robbery with rape.
who was later identified as Patrolman Francisco
Trinidad of the Pasay Police Department, fell FACTS:
dead. About ten o’clock in the evening of April 9, 1947,
Rosita Colantro, residing at the crossing of
From the scene of the shooting, Manalang, Atipuluan, Bago, Negros Occidental, heard one
Caymo and Balmeo went direct to a house in of the appellants call for "uncle, uncle." Rosita
Buendia Street owned by Manalang's sister Colantro did not make any reply, whereupon the
where they changed clothes and hid the death appellants hammered at the walls of her house
weapon and the money and jewelry they had which caused Rosita Colantro to ask what they
robbed. Shortly thereafter, Caymo and Balmeo wanted. The appellants ordered her to light her
proceeded to a house in Blumentritt where they lamp and not to move. Rosita Colantro saw rifles
met Pancho Pelagio whom they called to account aimed at her, her house being low. The
for his absence at the gate during the robbery. appellants asked palay, and Rosita Colantro
The latter explained that he had to scamper away answered that she had a few seedlings. Rosita
before Caymo and Balmeo had gone down Colantro was then ordered to go down. With lamp
because he, Pelagio, saw someone slip out of the in one hand and her small child in the other,
house apparently to summon the police. Rosita Colantro met Alfonso Hamiana (her
neighbor) with a bolo, Emiliano de la Cruz and
RULING: NO. Ceferino de la Cruz, armed with rifles, and
When Arcadio Balmeo and Oscar Caymo hurried Silvino Jabin, armed with a bolo. Undaunted by
out of the victim's house after the robbery, the presence of appellants, she attempted to flee
Pancho Pelagio had evidently fled from his but was caught in the arm by Anastacio
lookout post because the pair, Balmeo and Blancada. The latter ordered Rosita Colantro, at
Caymo, failed to locate him at the gate where he the point of his gun, to put her child down. She
was supposed to have stationed himself. To be was taken by Anastacio Blancada to a place away
sure, the said decision itself renders the account from the house and, throwing her down,
that it was only Balmeo and Caymo who walked Anastacio Blancada, also at the point of his gun,
together from the said house to the corner of raped her. After Anastacio Blancada had raped
Villanueva and F. Fernando Streets where then Rosita Colantro, the latter proceeded to the
they saw Armando Manalang waiting for them in house of Federico Nava wherein she stayed
a taxi and that it was only when these three had during the night. Accompanied by Federico Nava,
taken to the said taxi, and the cab was about to Rosita Colantro returned to her house the next
leave, that the shooting of Pat. Trinidad morning where she found that the appellants
happened. When the homicide was committed, carried away her palay worth P35.
therefore, Pancho Pelagio could not have had the
least intervention or participation as might RULING: NO.
justify penalizing him likewise for the said killing. The evidence shows that appellant Anastacio
So far as the records disclose, the conspirators Blancada caught Rosita Colantro while the latter
were agreed only on the commission of robbery; was trying to get away and that the rape was
there is no evidence that homicide besides was committed in a place away from her house, in
determined by them when they plotted the crime. which the robbery was committed. There is no
All these warrant the exclusion of Pancho Pelagio positive proof in the record that the other
from any responsibility for the said killing. appellants were aware of, much less abated, the
(People vs. Basisten, et al., 47 Phil. 493) criminal act committed by appellant Anastacio
Considering that those who actually participated Blancada against the person of Rosita Colantro.
in the robbery were only three, Pancho Pelagio Therefore, only Anastacio Blancada is guilty of
included, and only one of them was armed, the robbery with rape while the other members of the
same evidently was not "in band." (Art. 296, band are only liable for simple robbery by a band.
Revise Penal Code) This being the case, then it
would indeed be irregular or questionable to hold March 25, 2018 – Article 297 – ATTEMPTED
Pancho Pelagio similarly responsible as Caymo AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY COMMITTED
and Balmeo for the killing of Pat. Trinidad. Under UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
the code, it is only when the robbery is in band VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B.
that all those present in the commission of the
robbery may be punished, for any of the assaults PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
which its members might commit. Thus, in VS
People v. Pascual, G.R. No. L-4801, June 30, JOSEPH BARRA
1953 (unreported), we held that where three G.R. NO. 198020 JULY 10, 2013
persons committed robbery and two of them
committed rape upstairs on its occasion, while ISSUE:
the third guarded the owner of the house Whether or not the accused is guilty of attempted
downstairs, only the two who committed the robbery with homicide
assault should be punished for robbery with rape
while the third was liable for robbery only. FACTS:

That on or about 11:00 P.M. of October 9, 2003, 4. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion
the accused, while armed with a firearm, after thereof, homicide is committed.
gaining entrance into the residence of his victim,
with intent to gain, by means of force and In the case before us, appellant’s intention was
intimidation, did then and there willfully, to extort money from the victim. By reason of the
unlawfully and feloniously take and steal money victim’s refusal to give up his personal property -
from Elmer Lagdaan y Azur; that on the occasion his money - to appellant, the victim was shot in
of the said robbery and for the purpose of the head, causing his death.
enabling him to take and steal the money, the
herein accused, with intent to kill, did then and We, however, agree with the Court of Appeals
there feloniously shoot said Elmer Lagdaan, that the element of taking was not complete,
thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound making the crime one of attempted robbery with
which caused his death, to the prejudice of his homicide as opposed to the crime appellant was
heirs. convicted in the RTC. Appellant is, therefore,
liable under Article 297 of the Revised Penal
Dr. Villanueva testified that the victim sustained Code, not under Article 294 as originally held by
a gunshot wound due to the circular and the RTC.
inverted edges of the point of entry. She Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code states:
concluded that since there was no point of exit,
the victim was shot at close range. Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances. —
Ricardo de la Peña testified that he knew When by reason or on occasion of an attempted
appellant for a long time. He stated that he was or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed,
on his way home to the neighboring barangay, the person guilty of such offenses shall be
when, at around 9:00 p.m. on October 9, 2003, punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
in the light of a bright moon, he saw appellant period to reclusion perpetua, unless the
enter the house of Lagdaan, which was lit with a homicide committed shall deserve a higher
lamp, and poked a gun to the victim’s right penalty under the provisions of this Code.
forehead and demanded money. De la Peña hid The elements to be convicted under Article 297
behind a tree ten meters away. When the victim were discussed in People v. Macabales, to wit:
stated that the money was not in his possession,
appellant shot him. He went home and reported The elements of Robbery with Homicide as
the incident the following morning. defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are:
Ely Asor testified that on the night of October 9, (1)There is an attempted or frustrated robbery.
2003, he was on his way to the victim’s house to (2)A homicide is committed.
collect his daily wage when he saw appellant in
the yard of the victim’s house. He inquired from In the present case, the crime of robbery
appellant if the victim was around. Appellant remained unconsummated because the victim
responded that the victim was not around. Asor refused to give his money to appellant and no
went home. It was while Asor was in his house personal property was shown to have been
that he heard a gunshot. It was the following taken. It was for this reason that the victim was
morning that he learned that the victim died. shot. Appellant can only be found guilty of
Asor then proceeded to report the incident. attempted robbery with homicide, thus
punishable under Article 297 of the Revised
In his defense, appellant denied the charges Penal Code. Since the RTC and the Court of
against him. Appellant claimed that he was in Appeals found appellant's crime to be aggravated
Batangas City, with his brother Benjamin, by disregard of dwelling, the Court of Appeals
visiting his sister when he was arrested and correctly imposed the maximum penalty of
brought to Camarines Sur and charged with the reclusion perpetua.
crime of "robbery with murder."
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond vs.
reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with FRANCISCO HAMTIG, ET AL.,
homicide. FRANCISCO HAMTIG, EUTIQUIO HAMTIG
and MARIANO alias ALEJANDRO OSORIO,
The Court of Appeals only found appellant guilty G.R. No. L-27431 August 22, 1969
of attempted robbery with homicide.
ISSUE:
HELD: Whether or not the accused committed Robbery
Yes. The accused is guilty of attempted robbery with frustrated homicide
with homicide
FACTS:
In People v. Quemeggen, this Court gave the Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero, a widow, lived with
requisites to be proven by the prosecution for her son, Mastito, in Barrio Manloy, Carigara,
appellant to be convicted of robbery with Leyte. Sometime after 8 o'clock in the evening of
homicide, to wit: June 14, 1966 they went to sleep: Hilaria and her
grandson Antonio Dandan — who decided to stay
1. The taking of personal property is committed with them that evening — occupying the only
with violence or intimidation against persons; room of the house, while Mastito lay down on a
2. The property taken belongs to another; table found in the "sala" where they had a vigil
3. The taking is animo lucrandi; and lamp.

At about three o'clock the following morning, pointed bolos with intent of gain and by means
they were suddenly awakened by noise coming of violence against and intimidation upon
from the kitchen. Mastito sat down on the table, persons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
took hold of his flashlight and focused its light and feloniously enter the house of one HILARIA
towards the door leading to the kitchen from VDA. DE HONDOLERO and MASTITO
which emerged four armed persons whom he HONDOLERO and once inside rob, steal, take
recognized as his brother-in-law, Francisco and carry away against their will and content the
Hamtig, Eutiquio Hamtig, Mariano Osorio and amount of P1,400.00 Philippine Currency to
Francisco Gaston. As the four intruders were their damage and prejudice in the said
advancing towards him, his mother came out of mentioned sum and that by reason and on the
the room where she had been sleeping and upon occasion of the said robbery the above-
seeing Francisco Hamtig she exclaimed: "It is you mentioned accused in conspiracy did then and
Kikoy." Thereupon Francisco, who was Hilaria's there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot
son-in-law, fired at her with a rifle hitting her in Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero and Mastito Hondolero
the abdominal region. Mastito immediately went with the weapons which the accused have
to the aid of his mother and pulled her inside the provided themselves for the purpose.
room where the four armed persons followed
them. As they continued firing they hit Hilaria Thus the accused performed all the acts of
again on the right and left arms. Mastito then execution which would have produced the crime
decided to counter attack, and arming himself of Homicide as a consequence thereof with
with a bolo he found in the room, he hacked the respect to said Mastito Hondolero but
hand of Francisco Gaston with it, forcing the nevertheless did not produce it by reason or
latter to go back to the sala. The other intruders, causes independent of the will of the accused,
however, continued firing and hit Mastito on the that is, the timely and able medical assistance
right forearm. During all this time, Antonio rendered to said Mastito Hondolero which
Dandan was in hiding among the buri bags of prevented his death.
rice in the room. On the other hand, in spite of
their wounds, Hilaria and Mastito succeeded in PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
escaping through the window, and went towards vs.
the house of Gonzalo Dandan — Antonio's father ADRIANO DAGUNDONG, FEDERICO BULAON,
and son-in-law of Hilaria — located around thirty MELCHOR LAO and RICARDO SERRANO,
meters away. ADRIANO DAGUNDONG, FEDERICO BULAON
and RICARDO SERRANO,
As Gonzalo Dandan was also awakened by G.R. No. L-10398 June 30, 1960
successive gunshots coming from the direction of
the house of his mother-in-law, he went down his ISSUE:
house with a flashlight. Nearby he met his Whether or not the accused were guilty of
mother-in-law and Mastito — both wounded — violating Article 297 on Attempted and frustrated
and helped them go upstairs. Thereafter, he went robbery committed under certain circumstances.
down again to look for his son. Near the house of
his mother-in-law he focused his flashlight FACTS:
towards it and was thereby able to recognize On October 7, 1950, Alice Lake, more popularly
Francisco and Eutiquio Hamtig, Mariano, alias known as movie actress Anita Linda, lived at No.
Alejandro Osorio and Francisco Gaston who were 13 Pasong Tamo, Makati, Rizal, together with her
then going down the house. son, her sister Mrs. Mamey Lake Hewell, and the
latter's children, Josephine, Patricia, Johnny
As stated heretofore, Antonio Dandan hid and Helen. At about 7 p.m. of said date, Alice,
himself behind several buri bags of rice found in who was then in her bedroom, requested her
the room where he and his grandmother had niece Josephine, then 12 years old, to get her a
slept. From that place he later saw the four glass of milk from the kitchen. As Josephine
intruders drag a trunk into the middle of the entered the kitchen, she suddenly came face to
room where they forced it open and from which face with a man holding a gun. This gunman was
Francisco Hamtig got a bag full of money while small in stature, fairly built and was wearing a
the rest stood by, and afterwards they went checkered shirt with long sleeves, dark colored
downstairs together. Antonio then jumped out of pants, gloves and army shoes. On his head had
the window and ran to his house. a balangot hat, and over his face a black mask
with two holes for the eyes. Instinctively,
Hilaria and her son were brought to the Rural Josephine screamed. The gunman told her to
Health Officer of Capoocan, Leyte, upon whose keep silent and to return to sala. With the gun
advice they were taken to the Leyte Provincial held against her back, the gunman followed her
Hospital in Tacloban City where the Senior into the sala, where they found Patricia. The
Resident Physician operated upon Hilaria. The gunman motioned Patricia to come nearer to
latter, however, died on June 24, 1966 as a Josephine.
result of Generalized Peritonitis due to her
wounds, and secondary infection, while Mastito At this time, Alice and her sister, Mrs. Hewell,
was able to return home the next day. startled by Josephine's scream, rushed out of the
their respective bedrooms. When they reached
HELD: the sala they came upon Josephine and Patricia,
Yes. The accused were guilty of the crime and the gunman who had his gun stuck at
charged. Josephine's back. As Mrs. Hewell knelt before
It was found by the court that the above-named the gunman and pleaded for her daughters,
accused, conspiring together and mutually saying: "Maawa po kayo, huwag po", Patricia and
helping one another and all armed with guns and Josephine ran to their aunt Alice. Without
compunction, the gunman levelled his gun The Court believes, however, that the lower court
straight at Mrs. Hewell's face. erred in finding appellant Dagundong guilty of
murder. It was established that it was he who
Meanwhile, Alice, together with her nieces, had had fired the fatal shots at Mrs. Hewell. But
fled into her bedroom. Shortly thereafter, several though that slaying was attended by treachery,
shots, not less than five, were heard coming from his crime was not murder. The term "homicide"
the sala. Alice and the children screamed. Alice in paragraph 1, Article 294, Revised Penal Code,
wanted to go out to help her sister, but the two is used in its generic sense and the offense
girls prevented her by locking the bedroom door. defined therein comprehends not only robbery
A moment later, they heard someone knock on with homicide in its limited sense, but also
and then kick the door to Alice's bedroom. Then robbery with murder. So, an offense is not taken
complete silence. After some minutes, Alice out of the purview of this article merely because
heard the noise of a jeep moving away and going the homicide "rises to the atrocity of murder"
towards Sta. Ana. Feeling certain that the (People vs. Manuel, et al., 44 Phil., 333). And the
malefactors had left for good, Alice shouted for same definition must be given to the term as it is
help. Her outcries were heard by the driver of a used in Article 297, Revised Penal Code, which
passing taxicab, who lost no time in bringing the penalizes frustrated robbery with homicide.
Makati police to the scene.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Upon entering the sala, the police came upon vs.
Mrs. Hewell's bullet—ridden body lying on the SILVERIO MORADOS, ET AL.,
floor. In the course of their investigation, the G.R. No. L-46973 November 19, 1940
policemen come across three .45 caliber empty
shells about a meter from where Mrs. Hewell lay, ISSUE:
and four other empty shells outside the Whether or not Benjamin Mendoza is guilty only
premises. They also discovered five slugs, three of attempted theft and not under Article 297 of
of which were extracted from the wall leading to the RPC
Alice's bedroom, and about two meters from Mrs.
Hewell's feet, and the remaining two from the FACTS:
wooden cabinet which stood between the doors On the night of March 15, 1939, while Ceferino
leading to the sala and the kitchen. On entering Ricasata, Rufino Aro and Lucio Enriquez were
Mrs. Hewell's bedroom, the police found that it sleeping in the latter's hut in the sitio of Pasong
had been ransacked. After the removal of Mrs. Tabla, barrio of Bagbag, municipality of Rosario,
Hewell's corpse, Alice went into her sister's Province of Cavite, a place where they had been
bedroom and found it in the same condition as treshing palay, several malefactors suddenly
the policemen had found it, but she did not assaulted them. Ricasata who was awakened by
notice anything missing therefrom. the blows being inflicted upon his companions,
tried to flee from the hut, but his dash for salvage
The prosecution established by means of the was frustrated when hardly had he gone out the
testimony of Joseph Ebrada, one of the original hut one of the ruffians shot him hitting him in
accused but who was discharged in order to be a the right thigh as a result of which he fell at a
prosecution witness, that: On October 5, 1950, certain distance from the hut. His companions
Melchor Lao went to see Ebrada in his place in were beaten to unconsciousness.
Cavite, in order to borrow the jeep which Ebrada
had in turn borrowed from a certain Terio The evidence shows that through an agreement
Manimbao of Malagasang, Imus, Cavite. The jeep made between them, Felipe Moral who had a
bore a PI plate number. At Lao's invitation, paltik (a homemade gun) and a flashlight,
Ebrada went with him. They were then joined by together with Silverio Morados, were to go to the
appellants Dagundong and Serrano in going to hut to watch the inmate, while Benjamin
the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinglupa, Rizal. Mendoza - who had also a paltik - and Florentino
There, Lao and appellants Serrano and de los Reyes were to take away the carabaos.
Dagundong visited Pablo Rabaton, an inmate.
After thirty minutes they left and proceeded to They all did their part of agreement: Morados and
Makati, Rizal. Along the way, appellant Moral effected their entrance into the hut,
Dagundong stated that they must raise money inflicting injuries upon Aro and killing Enriquez.
with which to bail out Rabaton, and if necessary While De los Reyes and Mendoza were untying
to commit robbery in order to do so. Ebrada, Lao the carabaos, the firmer heard the scream:
and appellant Serrano agreed to this proposal. "Naku agawin and buhay ko!" (Oh! save my life!),
which interrupted by a pistol shot. Fearing that
HELD: the might summon help, the malefactors escape
Yes. The accused are guilty of the crime charged. without taking the carabaos, although one of
The court ruled that appellants Bulaon and them had already been untitled. The motive for
Serrano are guilty of the crime of frustrated killing was robbery of the carabaos which were
robbery with homicide, under Article 297, tied near the hut, three of which belonged to the
Revised Penal Code, in relation with Article 296, deceased (Lucio Enriquez), and the fourth, to one
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Turi.
No. 12 inasmuch as it has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt that they actually took part in It is argued that Benjamin Mendoza did not enter
the commission thereof, appellant Serrano by the hut and did not take part in the assault, and
standing guard outside the victim's house while he should only have been found guilty of
appellant Dagundong inside the house and attempted theft of large cattle.
helped him ransack the victim's room.
HELD:
ST

No. This contention is without merit. and robbing the passengers, Limosnero started
In U.S. vs. Landasan et al. (35 Phil., 359, 369), the engine and sped away from the place despite
we observed that "neither the divisibility of this the shouts of the men on both sides of the road
crime (robbery with homicide) into two crimes, for him to stop. Those men immediately
nor the divisibility of the liability of the criminals commenced firing at the bus which was riddled
who took part is allowable." with bullets.
And in U.S. vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil., 1, and People One of the shots grazed the head of Limosnero.
vs. Bautista 49 Phil., 389, 396, we held that Another shot hit the passenger Maria Argame on
"whenever a homicide has been committed as a the back, the slug penetrating the abdominal
consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all wall and entering the abdominal cavity. Still
those who took part as principals in the another shot struck passenger Elena Loyola on
commission of the robbery will also be held guilty the shoulder, fracturing her right clavicle. When
as principals in the complex crime of robbery the bus was out of range of the guns of the eight
with homicide, although they did not actually men on the road and they had ceased firing,
take part in the homicide, unless it clearly passenger Inobio on rising from his prone
appeared that they endeavored to prevent the position in the bus, saw driver Limosnero's
homicide." It has not been shown that Mendoza wound on the head, which was bleeding
endeavored to prevent the homicide. profusely, the blood dimming his vision, and so
he took over the wheel. On reaching Zapote, an
The Solicitor-General recommends the inspector of the Laguna Transportation
imposition of the death penalty in view ;of the Company took over the wheel from Inobio and
fact that the killing of Lucio Enriquez was drove the bus straight to the Las Pinas Municipal
qualified by treachery and attended by the Building where the incident and shooting was
aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and reported to the police. Thereafter, the same bus,
dwelling. For lack of humanity, however, the with a police officer, drove straight to Manila and
judgment appealed from is affirmed in all to the Philippine General Hospital. Maria Argame
respects, with costs. was pronounced dead on arrival. The fracture of
the right clavicle of Elena Loyola necessitated an
Article 297 of the Revised Penal code provides operation, which was performed, and she was
that "When by reason or on occasion of an confined in the hospital for about twenty days,
attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is after which she was discharged, though she was
committed the person guilty is such offenses not completely recovered, to continue treatment
shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its at home. The expert testimony on her condition
maximum period of reclusion perpetua, unless is that if she had not been given prompt medical
the homicide committed shall deserve a higher attention, she would have died from her wound.
penalty under the provisions of this Code." Driver Limosnero was treated at the same
hospital for his head would and was released,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, but treatment was continued by the bus
vs. company for about a month.
EUGENIO OLAES,
G.R. No. L-11166 April 17, 1959 HELD:
Yes. The accused is guilty of the committing the
ISSUE: crime provided for in Article 297 of the RPC.
Whether or not the accused committed the crime
charged in Article 297 of the RPC After a careful study of the case, the court fully
agrees with the trial court that defendant
FACTS: Eugenio Olaes is guilty. However, it will be
Between 4:00 and 4:30 a. m. of November 9, remembered that the charge against him was for
1954, Bus No. 64 of the Laguna Transportation attempted robbery with homicide and frustrated
Company, driven by one Feliciano Limosnero, homicide. Under this charge, as the Solicitor
with one conductor, left the town plaza of Binan General well said, he may not convicted of
Laguna, bound for Manila. Among the consummated robbery with homicide as the trial
passengers were Mariano Inobio, a resident of court did. Moreover, we agree with the
Bo. Almanza, Las Pinas, Rizal, Maria Argame and prosecution that inasmuch as no overt acts
Elena Loyola. When the bus reached the curve in pointing to robbery or even an attempt thereof
Bo. Almanza, Las Pinas, a man later identified by have been established, the killing of one
passenger Inobio as Cosme Isip, holding a rifle or passenger and the wounding of two others
carbine, suddenly appeared on the right side of should be considered as plain murder, frustrated
the road and signalled the bus to stop. murder, and physical injuries respectively.
Limosnero, taking him for a prospective
passenger, applied his brakes and slowed down, The trial court found that the aggravating
but before the vehicle could come to a complete circumstances of nocturnity and in band, there
stop, seven other men, also carrying guns, such being more than three armed men in the group
as, garands or carbines, emerged from the left of malefactors, attended the commission of the
side of the road. Isip shouted, "Para, pasok!" The crimes. The aggravating circumstance of in band
appearance of these armed men on both sides of may be considered to qualify the act of killing of
the road must have affected the equanimity of Maria as murder, and the wounding of Elena as
Limosnero on the wheel, and he must have frustrated murder. The evidence for the defense
forgotten to press the clutch with his foot, was to the effect that appellant surrendered to
resulting in the engine stalling or stopping. the authorities when he found out that he was
Probably convinced that the eight men were not wanted by the constabulary. This was not
passengers but were bent on holding-up the bus refuted by the prosecution and so, it can be
regarded as a fact. This mitigating circumstance

will compensate the other aggravating HELD:
circumstance of nocturnity. The penalty for The killing of the peace officer is characterized as
murder which is reclusion temporal in its homicide because the act was made during the
maximum degree to death, should therefore be spur of the moment and the treacherous mode of
imposed in its medium period, namely reclusion attack was not consciously or deliberately
perpetua, so that in the result, we agree with the adopted by the offender. In addition, only
trial court as to the penalty imposed by it. persons who perpetrated the killing is
responsible for such action. Furthermore, mere
presence in the crime scene does not necessarily
March 25, 2018 – Article 298 – EXECUTION OF make a person co-principal thereof. Hence, only
DEEDS BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR the accused, Elias Jaranilla, who perpetrated the
INTIMIDATION killing is responsible and liable for robbery and
ALAMEDA Jr , Manuel F. homicide. The co-accused, Suyo and Brillantes,
are convicted of theft.Therefore, the decision of
G.R. NO. L-28547 the lower court is reversed and sentenced the
FEBRUARY 22, 1974 accused, Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes, as
PEOPLE V. JARANILLA co-principals in the crime of theft. The crime was
theft and not robbery.There was no evidence that
FACTS: violence or intimidation was employed in the
Heman Gorriceta had just come from Ford San taking of the roosters hence, Art. 298 of the RPC
Pedro in Iloilo City and was driving a Ford pickup (Robbery with violence against or intimidation)
truck belonging to his sister. could not be invoked. It also could not fall under
Art. 299 (which penalizes robbery in an inhabited
In front of the Elizalde Building on J.M. Basa house, public building or edifice devoted to
Street, he saw defendants Ricardo Suyo, Elias worship) as the chicken coop was outside
Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes. They asked Baylon’s house. Nor was it a dependency thereof
Gorriceta to bring them to Mandurriao, a district as contemplated under Art. 301.
in the city, as Jaranilla told Gorriceta that he had
to get something from his uncle’s place. March 27, 2018 – Article 299 – ROBBERY IN
Gorriceta initially demurred but the appellants AN INHABITED HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING
eventually prevailed. Upon reaching Mandurriao, OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
they parked the pickup truck at a distance 50 – ALILIAN, Enna B.
70 meters away from the provincial hospital and
Gorriceta was instructed to wait for the G.R. No. L-2725
defendants as they alighted. After twenty February 27, 1950
minutes, the three accused arrived carrying two THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
roosters each. They ran to the truck and vs.
instructed Gorriceta to drive immediately as they ESTEBAN SEBASTIAN Y PANGILINAN (alias
were being chased. Gorriceta then drove the ERNING) and MAURO PANGILINAN Y SALTA,
truck to Jaro, another city district. The four of MAURO PANGILINAN Y SALTA (appellant)
them were on the front seat of the truck.
Gorriceta, as the driver, was on the extreme left FACTS:
and to his right was Suyo. Next to Suyo was The appellant allegedly entered the house no.
Brillantes and on the extreme right was 179 Simon street, City of Manila, and by means
Jaranilla. In the middle of the road, they were of threat and intimidation took, stole, and carried
intercepted by Policemen Ramonito Jabatan and away cash money, and other personal things of
Benjamin Castro. Gorriceta stopped the truck the inhabitants. The appellant pleaded guilty
near the policemn after Jabatan fired a warning and was convicted by the lower court of robbery
shot. Jabatan went to the right side of the truck under article 299 of the RPC.
near Jaranilla and ordered all of them to step out
which they did not heed. Brillantes pulled his ISSUE:
revolver but did not fire it while Suyo did nothing. WoN the lower court correctly convicted the
Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman appellant for robbery under Art 299 RPC
Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta who
immediately started the truck and drove straight HELD:
home while Jaranilla kept on firing towards No. The fact that the information to which
Jabatan. Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes alighted appellant pleaded guilty does not allege that the
in front of Gorriceta’s house where the latter was robbery was committed under any of the
instructed not to tell anybody about the circumstances enumerated in said article, such
inicident. Gorriceta went to his room and after a as entering the house through an opening not
while, he heard policemen calling his name intended for entrance or egress, the breaking of
asking him to come down. He initially hid in the doors, etc., it is now settled that were robbery,
ceiling of his house and it wasn’t until 8am the though committed in an inhabited house, is
following day that he decided to come down and characterized by intimidation, this factor
was brought to police headquarters. "supplies the controlling qualification", so that
the law to apply is article 294 and not article 299
ISSUE:. of the Revised Penal Code. This is on the theory
Whether or not defendants Suyo and Brillantes that "robbery which is characterized by violence
are liable as co principal in the crime of or intimidation against the person is evidently
Homicide. graver than ordinary robbery committed by force
Was there violence and intimidation in the taking upon things, because where violence and
of roosters? intimidation against the person is present there
is a greater disturbance of the order of society simple robbery, but found against all the
and the security of the individual." defendants the generic aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity and a gang, and a
G.R. No. 181138 moreover against Juan Morada, Isidro Babano,
December 3, 2012 and Librado Sugcay that of previous conviction,
RICKY "TOTSIE" MARQUEZ, ROY and against Gil Revilla that of vagrancy.
BERNARDO, and JOMER MAGALONG vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Isidro Babano and Gil Revilla appealed from this
judgment, while Morada and Sugcay submitted
FACTS: to it. Later, Babano withdrew his appeal to this
The appellant was found guilty of robbery under court.
Art 299 RPC for destroying the door lock of the
stall of one SONIA VALDEROSA and HELD:
passing/entering thru the same, once inside, Under the Penal Code of the Philippines, robbery
took, robbed and carried away the items inside with force upon things, in order to be qualified,
the store. must be committed in an uninhabited place and
in a gang.
ISSUE: It did not think applicable to article 300,
WoN the Trial Court and CA correctly convicted because, according to its interpretation, the
the appellants for robbery under Art 299 RPC robbery is qualified when it is committed in an
uninhabited place and in a gang, these two
HELD: qualifications concurring, which does not
No. The records show that the store alleged to happen in the present case, for it does not appear
have been robbed by petitioners is not an that the house wherein the robbery was
inhabited house, public building or building perpetrated was located in an uninhabited place.
dedicated to religious worship and their
dependencies under Article 299 and as defined March 26, 2018 – Article 301 – WHAT IS AN
under Article 301. From Valderosa’s testimony, INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING OR
it can be deduced that the establishment BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
allegedly robbed was a store not used as a WORSHIP AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
dwelling. In fact, after the robbery took place, BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same
as she was obviously not residing in the store.58 [NO CASE FOUND]
"If the store was not actually occupied at the time
of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, March 27, 2018 – Article 302 – ROBBERY IN
since the owner lived in a separate house, the AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR IN A PRIVATE
robbery committed therein is punished under BUILDING
Article 302, not 299. BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A.
March 26, 2018 – Article 300 – ROBBERY IN MARQUEZ VS. PEOPLE

AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND G.R. NO. 181138 DECEMBER 3, 2012
ARANCES, Javy Ann G. DEL CASTILLO, J.:
THE UNITED STATES VS JUAN MORADA, ET ISSUE:

AL. Whether or not all of the accused are guilty of the
G.R. NO. L-8183, NOVEMBER 19, 1912 crime of robbery with force upon things.
PONENTE: JUSTICE ARELLANO
FACTS:
ISSUE: At around 2:30 a.m. of April 6, 2002, Marlon
Whether or not the respondents should be Mallari (Mallari) was with petitioners and Benzon
charged of Robbery in an uninhabited place and in front of the University of the East (U.E.),
by a band. Caloocan City. Marquez suggested that the group
rob the Rice-in-a-Box store located at the corner
FACTS: of U.E. Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed
On December 24, 1911, Juan Morada entered it to Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to
the shop to get, as he did, coin amounting to P20 destroy the padlock of the store. Mallari was
and various articles such as cans of salmon and designated as the look-out while petitioners and
sardines, rice, penknives, a razor and comb, all Benzon entered the store and carried away all
together worth P31.80 and not recovered, the items inside it which consisted of rice
excepting some worth P1.17. The owner of the cookers, a blender and food items.13 They then
shop, the Chinese Iyong, awoke and caught up a brought the stolen items to the house of Benzon’s
stick, but as he did, so some things fell and made uncle. Apprehensive that Mallari might squeal,
a noise, so Morada fled. The next day a penknife, the group promised to give him a share if they
a can of sardines, and another of salmon were could sell the stolen items.
found in the possession of Librado Sugcay, who
voluntarily confessed to the municipal police At 9:30 a.m. of the same day, Valderosa received
sergeant of Mambajao, the scene of the information from the daughter of the owner of
occurrence, and through him, the other the premises where her Rice-in-a- Box franchise
defendants were soon discovered. store was located, that her store had been
forcibly opened and its padlock destroyed. Upon
Evidence of alibi having been rejected and proof her arrival thereat, she discovered that the
of conviction being well established, the Court of contents of her freezer were missing along with
First Instance of Misamis classified the crime as other items inside the store. he total value of
these stolen items was approximately

P42,000.00. She reported the robbery to the ISSUE:
police. Meanwhile, on April 7, 2002, Mallari Whether the taking of the six roosters is covered
informed his older brother of his involvement in by article 302 of the Revised Penal Code
the said robbery. At around 4:00 p.m. of the next
day, he again confessed but this time to FACTS:
Valderosa. On January 9, 1966, Gorriceta was driving a
pickup truck and while going home he saw
Both the RTC and CA found them guilty of the Jaranilla, Suyo, and Brillantes. They hailed
crime of robbery with force upon things. Hence, Gorriceta who stopped the truck. Jaranilla
this petition. requested to bring them to Mandurriao, a district
in another part of the city. Gorriceta demurred.
RULING: He told Jaranilla that he (Gorriceta) was on his
Yes, the petition of the accused has no merit. way home. Jaranilla prevailed upon Gorriceta to
ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in take them to Mandurriao because Jaranilla
a private building. - Any robbery committed in an ostensibly had to get something from his uncle's
uninhabited place or in a building other than place. So, Jaranilla, Brillantes and Suyo boarded
those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article the pickup truck which Gorriceta drove to
299, if the value of the property taken exceeds Mandurriao. Upon reaching Mandurriao, the
250 pesos shall be punished by prision three passengers alighted from the truck and
correccional in its medium and maximum instructed Gorriceta to wait for them. 20 minutes
periods, provided that any of the following had passed when they reappeared. Each of them
circumstances is present: was carrying two fighting cocks. Jaranilla
directed Gorriceta to start the truck because they
1. If the entrance has been effected through any were being chased.
opening not intended for entrance or egress;
While traversing the detour road, they saw the
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or Patrolmen Jabatan and Castro running towards
window has been broken; them. Gorriceta slowed down the truck after
Patrolman Jabatan had fired a warning shot and
3. If the entrance has been effected through the was signalling with his flashlight that the truck
use of false keys, picklocks, or other similar should stop. Gorriceta stopped the truck near
tools; the policeman. Jabatan approached the right
side of the truck near Jaranilla and ordered all
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or the occupants of the truck to go down. They did
closed furniture or receptacle has been broken; not heed the injunction of the policeman.
Jaranilla shot Patrolman Jabatan. He
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as immediately started the motor of the truck and
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been drove straight home. Jaranilla kept on firing
removed, even if the same be broken open towards Jabatan. After reaching Gorriceta’s
elsewhere. home, Jaranilla warned Gorriceta not to tell
anybody about the incident. The next morning,
When the value of the property taken does not all of them were arrested.
exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be imposed. RULING:
Under Article 293 of the RPC, robbery is No, one essential requisite of robbery with force
committed by any person who, with intent to upon things under Articles 299 and 302 is that
gain, shall take any personal property belonging the malefactor should enter the building or
to another by using force upon anything. When dependency, where the object to be taken is
committed in an uninhabited place or a private found. Articles 299 and 302 clearly contemplate
building with the circumstance, among others, that the malefactor should enter the building
that any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or (casa habitada o lugar no habitado o edificio). If
window has been broken, the same is penalized the culprit did not enter the building, there
under Article 302. would be no robbery with force upon things. The
Article 302 of the RPC provides that when the term "building" in article 302, formerly 512 of the
robbery is committed in an uninhabited place or old Penal Code, was construed as embracing any
in a private building and the value of the property structure not mentioned in article 299 (meaning
exceeds P250.00, the penalty shall be prision not an "inhabited house or public building or
correccional in its medium and maximum edifice devoted to worship" or any dependency
periods provided that, among other thereof) used for storage and safekeeping of
circumstances, any wall, roof, floor, or the personal property. As thus construed, a freight
outside door or window has been broken. car used for the shipment of sugar was
Considering that petitioners burglarized the considered a private building. The unnailing of a
store of Valderosa which was not used as a strip of cloth nailed over the door, the customary
dwelling by breaking its door and stealing manner of sealing a freight car, was held to
property therein with a total value of P42,000.00, constitute breaking by force within the meaning
the penalty that must be imposed is prision of article 512, now article 302.
correccional in its medium and maximum Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from
periods. their coop should be characterized as theft and
not robbery. The assumption is that the accused
PEOPLE VS. JARANILLA were animated by single criminal impulse. The
G.R. NO. L-28547 FEBRUARY 22, 1974 conduct of the accused reveals that they
AQUINO, J.:
conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is shall be punished by presidio correccional in its
punishable as a single offense of theft. medium and maximum degrees, etc.
PEOPLE VS. TUBOG For such reasons, the penalty of the lower court
G.R. NO. L-26284 NOVEMBER 17, 1926 is modified and reduced.
ISSUE: March 27, 2018 – Article 303 – ROBBERY OF

Whether or not the accused committed the crime CEREALS, FRUITS, OR FIREWOOD IN AN
of robbery in an uninhabited place. UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
CEBALLOS, Jesus C
FACTS:
That on or about June 22, 1926, in the PEOPLE V. RADA
muncilipality of Jagna, Province of Bohol, GR NO. L-16988
Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of DEC. 30, 1991
this court, the above-named defendants did
willingly and criminally, with intent of gain and ISSUE:
through force upon things, conspiring and WoN they were properly charged in court.
armed with weapons, did take, steal and carry
away the iron safe "Safe Thomas Perry & Son, FACTS:
Bilston" containing the sum of P1,930 and other Rada, Bahenting and Canas were charged with
articles in the store, said defendants having the crime of robbery in an uninhabited house,
broken the lock of one of the doors of the store under Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
and a part of the safe for the purpose of opening The accused allegedly entered a bodega owned by
the same, and the defendant Juan Tubog as Bastida and stole nine (9) sacks of palay. On
accessory after the fact. Upon arraignment, all arraignment, they pleaded not guilty because the
accused pleaded guilty and as to the defendant crime was supposedly under Art. 303 of the RPC.
Santiago Rubi (alias Santiago Lucero) and the Thereupon, they filed a motion to quash which
appellant, as principal, each was sentenced to the court granted.
ten years and one day of presidio mayor, with the
accessory penalties, and to pay one-fourth of the HELD:
costs. The defendant Juan Tubog was sentenced No, they were not.
to five months and ten days of arresto mayor. The Court held that the term rice does not only
From this judgment the defendant Florencio mean hulled rice but also includes palay, as the
Postrero appeals without assigning any error. seed is locally known, as well as the plant itself.
If the word rice includes the grain in its original
The Attorney-General then says that in the state without the hull being taken away, then the
instant case, the information does not allege that conclusion is inevitable that “rice” is included
the store in which the robbery was committed under the term “semilla alimenticia” or cereal
was inhabited at the time of the commission of seeds.
the crime, and that for want of which, the penalty
should be imposed under article 512 (Article 302 March 27, 2018 – Article 304 – POSSESSION
of the RPC) of the Penal Code. OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS
DAHIROC, Janice L.
RULING:
Yes. In the instant case, the appellant is not PEOPLE VS. RAMON LOPEZ
specifically charged with a violation of article GR No. L-18766, May 20, 1965
508, and the information alleges that the
entrance was made by breaking "the lock of one ISSUE:
of the doors of the store." The fact that entrance Whether or not the possession of 7 false keys
was made in that manner clearly implies and constitute the crime in article 304 of the Revised
carries with it the further fact that there was no Penal Code.
person inside the store at the time the lock was
broken, and that the defendants had to break the FACTS:
lock to get into the store. At 10:00 A.M. of December 21, 1960, the Chief of
Police of Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, apprehended
For failure of the information to allege that the three suspicious-looking strangers who were
store was used occupied as "an unhabitted loitering in Pagao, a sitio of Bacuag. A bag which
place" at the time of the commission of the crime, they were carrying was confiscated with the
the contention of the Attorney-General must be following contents: three carbines, caliber .30
sustained. M1; one revolver, caliber .22; three flashlights
with batteries; two carbine ammunition
As the law now exists, the penalty for the magazines, fully loaded; twelve rounds of carbine
commission of robbery committed in "an ammunition; one balisong; a screw driver; seven
inhabited place" comes under article 508, and false keys, one of which was a master key;
the penalty for the commission of that crime in a trousers; shirts; and a pair of shoes.
store, standing alone and within itself comes
under the provisions of article 512 which After an investigation the aforesaid persons
provides: Ramon Lopez, Manuel Buico and Arturo Caniete
were charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of
Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place Bacuag with the crime of illegal possession of
or in any building other than those mentioned in firearms and, in a separate complaint, the crime
paragraph one of article five hundred and eight of illegal possession of false keys. They pleaded

guilty to illegal possession of firearms, not guilty

to illegal, possession of false keys. G.R. No. L-4429 December 24, 1908
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
HELD: vs.
Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code provides: SIXTO GALURAN, ET AL., defendants. SY-
"Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar TOC, appellant.
tools. Any person who shall without lawful cause
have in his possession picklocks or similar tools ISSUE:
specially adapted to the commission of the crime Whether or not the crime of robbery with the use
of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor false keys was committed?
in its maximum period to prision correctional in
its minimum period." FACTS:
Galuran was a porter in the warehouse of the
Such crime of illegal possession of picklocks or firm of Smith, Bell and Co. The appellant, Sy-
similar tools has, accordingly, two elements: (1) Yoc, quite frequently went to the said firm in
possession of picklocks or similar tools specially order to arrange for the sale of certain boxes that
adapted to the commission of the crime of the manufactured. On one of these visits he
robbery; (2) such possession is without lawful proposed to Galuran that he, Galuran, should
cause. get some of the cases of whiskey that were stored
in the warehouse and take them over to the
The information alleged that the accused appellant's house, and that he would pay P16 for
possessed, "without lawful cause seven (7) false each case. Sy-Yoc suggested that he take an
keys, one of which is a picklock or master key". impression of the key of the warehouse in soap
paste and have another key made by a
A picklock a tool used in picking locks is in itself locksmith. Galuran duly obtained an impression
specially adapted to the commission of robbery of the key and took it to Sy-Yoc; the latter sent
of the kind provided for in Articles 299 (a) 3 and for a locksmith, whom he paid for a key as soon
302, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code: as it was made according to the mold. Galuran
was able to open the warehouse, from which,
ART. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or assisted by Dizon, he took two cases of whisky.
public building or Office devoted to worship. Any These cases they at once took in a carromata to
armed person who shall commit robbery in an the store or establishment of Sy-Yoc, where they
inhabited house or public building or edifice were surprised, while in the act of depositing the
devoted to religious worship, shall be punished cases in question inside, and arrested by a
by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property secret-service agent who had been watching
taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if the them from the street and had followed them.
malefactors shall enter the house or building in
which the robbery was committed, by using false HELD:
keys, picklocks or similar tools." Yes. These facts, which we hold to have been
proven, clearly show the guilt of the appellant,
Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in Sy-Yoc, as the instigator of the crime herein
a private building. - Any robbery committed in an prosecuted. From him came the initiative in the
uninhabited place or in a building other than robbery; he was the first to conceive the idea of
those mentioned in the first paragraph of article its commission, and, being unable unwilling to
299, if the value of the property taken exceeds carry it out himself, he employed Galuran,
250 pesos, shall be punished by prision impelling him to the material execution of the
correccional in its medium and maximum crime by a promise to pay him P16 for each case
periods provided that any of the following of whisky that he was able to steal. The better to
circumstances is present: induce him to commit the offense, he cleverly
"3. If the entrance has been effected through the demonstrated how easily he could be
use of keys, picklocks or other similar tools." accomplished, instructed him as to the best
means of carrying it out, and offered him money
Since picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to pay for the false key. He thus removed all the
to commit robbery, a picklock is per se specially difficulties in the way of determination to
adapted to the commission of robbery. The execute, and the actual execution of the robbery
description in the information of a picklock as in question. These acts constitute a real
"specially adapted to the commission of robbery" inducement made directly for the commission of
is therefore unnecessary for its sufficiency. the said robbery, and place the appellant, Sy-
Notwithstanding the omission of such Yoc, in the position of principal in accordance
superfluous description, therefore, the charge of with paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Penal Code.
the offense of illegal possession of a picklock is
.valid. We find both elements of the crime clearly March 28, 2018 – Article 306 – WHO ARE
alleged in the information in question. BRIGANDS; PENALTY
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G.
It follows that the term "false keys" appearing in
the information sufficiently describes such tools. PEOPLE V. LAURANTE, GR NO. 116734,
MARCH 29, 1996
Wherefore, the order quashing the information is
hereby set aside and the case is remanded for FACTS:
further trial, without costs. Larry Laurente together with Melvin Dagudog
and Richard Disipulo, who are still at large,
March 28, 2018 – Article 305 – FALSE KEYS robbed Herminiano Artana of his earnings in an
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J undetermined amount along F. Concepcion St.,
Bgy. San Joaquin, Pasig, Metro Manila, which is convicted for highway robbery with homicide
a Philippine Highway. For insuring success of under P.D. No 532.
their criminal act, said accused strangled the
victim with a leather belt and hit him with a March 28, 2018 – Article 307 – AIDING AND
blunt instrument, causing him to sustain ABETTING A BAND OF BRIGANDS
physical injuries which directly caused his (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532)
death. SPO1 Crsipin Pio received a case DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
assignment relative to Herminiano Artana and
went to the place of incident. He saw inside the VIERNES VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
taxicab a dead man. He then conducted a crime GR No. 161970
scene search inside the taxicab and within the June 30, 2006
vicinity, he found a brown wallet containing a
Social Security System (SSS) ID of Larry FACTS:
Laurente and a leather belt supposedly used in On November 15, 1992, at around 7:00 in the
strangling the dead man. He requested the SSS evening, while Josefina and her husband
to secure the complete record of Laurente. From Ronaldo Lopango were on board a passenger
the SSS records, the police authorities learned jeepney, four of eight co-passengers declared a
that Laurente lived somewhere in Pasig; hold-up. Ronaldo resisted the attempt to hold
accordingly, a follow-up team was formed to him up by one of the four by kicking him, but
arrest him. Several witnesses were presented by another stabbed him three times causing him to
the prosecution. On the other hand, Laurente fall from the jeepney. Josefina also fell from the
interposed the defense of alibi. jeepney upon which she brought Ronaldo to the
hospital where he died after a few minutes.
ISSUE: Josefina reported the incident to the police
Whether or not the crime committed was station. The trial court found the accused guilty
brigandage. of highway robbery under P.D. No. 532. It was
modified on appeal by the Court of Appeals to
HELD: simple robbery.
No. Presidential Decree No. 532 is a modification
of Articles 306 and 307 on brigandage. This is ISSUE:
evident from the fact that the relevant portion WON the accused are guilty for a violation of PD
thereof which treats of highway robbery No. 532 (The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
invariably uses this term in the alternative and Robbery Law of 1974)
synonymous with brigandage, that is, as
highway robbery/brigandage. This is but in line HELD:
with previous rulings that highway robbers and In crimes of robbery, the offender must be proven
brigands are synonymous. to have unlawfully taken personal property
The main object of the Brigandage Law is to belonging to another, by means of violence
prevent the formation of bands of robbers. The against or intimidation of any person, or using
heart of the offense consists in the formation of force upon anything.
a band by more than three armed persons for the
purpose indicated in Art. 306. Such formation is While the general rule is that contradictions and
sufficient to constitute a violation of Art. 306. It discrepancies between the testimony of a witness
would not be necessary to show, in a prosecution and his sworn statement do not necessarily
under it, that a member or members of the band discredit him since ex parte statements are
committed robbery or kidnapping or any other generally incomplete, the rule is not without
purpose attainable by violent means. The crime exception as, e.g., when the omission in the
is proven when the organization and purpose of sworn statement refers to a very important detail
the band are shown to be such as are of the incident which the one relating the
contemplated by Art. 306. On the other hand, if incident as an eyewitness would not be expected
robbery is committed by a band, whose members to fail to mention, or when the narration in the
were not primarily organized for committing sworn statement substantially contradicts the
robbery or kidnapping, etc., the crime would not testimony in court.
be brigandage, but only robbery. Simply because
robbery was committed by a band of more than Josefina's assertion that the taking of her bag
three armed persons, it would not follow that it slipped from her mind because of her husband
was committed by a band of brigands. Therefore, taxes credulity as the hold-up occurred only
the coincidental fact that the robbery in the three hours earlier. To forget to mention the loss
present case was committed inside a car which, of the bag maybe excusable, but to categorically
in the natural course of things, was casually state that nothing was taken from them when
operating on a highway, is not within the she was asked, infirms Josefina's overall
situation envisaged by Section 2(e) of the decree credibility.
in its definition of terms. Besides, that particular Josefina's uncorroborated testimony is tainted
provision precisely defines highway with inconsistencies on material points to thus
robbery/brigandage and, as we have amply lead the Court to discredit it and uphold the
demonstrated, the single act of robbery constitutional presumption of innocence of the
conceived and committed by appellants in this accused.
case does not constitute highway robbery or
brigandage. In the instant case, there is not a Accused-petitioner Viernes is, on reasonable
shred of evidence that Laurente and his co- doubt, acquitted of the charge of violation of P.D.
accused, or their acts, fall within the purview of No. 532.
P.D. No. 532Thus, Laurente cannot be validly

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPPINES VS AGOMO-O Section 3, Paragraph (b) of Presidential Decree

ET AL No. 532.
GR NO. 131829
JUNE 23,2000 March 29, 2018 – Article 308 – THEFT
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
FACTS:
On September 22, 1993, at around 7:30 in the G.R. No. L-16961, September 19, 1921
evening, a passenger jeepney driven by Rodito THE UNITED STATES vs. NIEVES DE VERA Y
Lasap was stopped by three men-Eddy Paneza GAYTE
and Oscar Servando, and Ronnie Agomo-o, who,
armed with a gun,and bladed weapons FACTS:
announced a hold-up and ordered the driver to on the 20th of February, 1920, three Igorots
turn off the engine. Ronnie Agomo-o shot the named Jose II, Balatan, and Pepe were on the
driver Rodito Lasap. He died as a result of Escolta, of this city, trying to dispose of a bar of
multiple gunshot wounds. They had stolen a gold when an Ilocano invited them to go to his
wrist watch and cash money for a total value of house, stating that there was a woman there who
three thousand three eighty pesos from the would buy the precious metal. they accompanied
driver and passengers. Freddie Agrabio was also the Ilocano to the house indicated by him where
stabbed with a bladed weapon during such they met a woman, the accused herein, who
event. apparently, was desirous of buying the gold and
requested them to hand it to her so that she
ISSUE: might take it to a silversmith and have it
WON the accused are guilty of highway robbery examined, stating that she would return within
under PD No. 532 a short time to report the result. The Igorot Pepe,
who was the owner of the bar of gold, thereupon
HELD: handed it to her, together with P200 in bank
Accused-appellants assert that they cannot be notes which her requested to her to have
convicted of highway robbery as the crime was changed into silver coins were more desirable in
not committed by at least four persons, as the Mountain Province. The woman then left the
required in Article 306 of the Revised Penal Code. house at about 12 o'clock on that day, asking the
However, highway robbery is now governed by Igorots to wait there. But the woman did not
P.D. No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy return. They waited in vain for hours for her and
and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974. This law at nightfall they agreed that one of them should
provides: remain on watch while the other two went to the
Sec. 2. (e).Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The Meisic police station to report the matter. The
seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or police acted promptly and effectively. The
other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of policeman Jose Gonzales, assigned to take
the property of another by means of violence charge of the case, soon identified the woman
against or intimidation of person or force upon who had taken away the bar of gold, by the
things or other unlawful means, committed by description which the Igorots had given him, and
any person on any Philippine Highway. at a few minutes after 11 o'clock he already was
in a house on Calle Barcelona, examining the
In the case of People v. Puno,it was held that P.D. accused as to the whereabout of the bar of gold
No. 532 amended Art. 306 of the Revised Penal and the bank notes of the Igorots. As the woman
Code and that it is no longer required that there gave evasive answers, it became necessary to ask
be at least four armed persons forming a band of for assistance from the office of the police, and
robbers. The number of offenders is no longer an shortly thereafter, two other policemen, Mr.
essential element of the crime of highway Abbot and one Ronas, arrived, who took the
robbery. Hence, the fact that there were only woman to the house at No. 541 Calle Regidor,
three identified perpetrators is of no moment. followed by Gonzales and the three Igorots. There
P.D. No. 532 only requires proof that persons the bar of gold divided into three pieces was
were organized for the purpose of committing found wrapped in a handkerchief and placed
highway robbery indiscriminately. The robbery inside the water tank of a water-closet. The
must be directed not only against specific, accused requested one Mamerta de la Rosa to let
intended or preconceived victims, but against her have P150 which she in turn handed to the
any and all prospective victims. policeman.
In this case, the accused, intending to commit According to Exhibit B, which is a certificate
robbery, waited at the Barangay Mapili crossing issued by the Bureau of Science, the bar of gold
for any vehicle that would happen to travel along delivered to the accused weighed 559.7 grammes
that road. The driver Rodito Lasap and his and was worth P587.68 at the rate of P1.05 per
passengers were not predetermined targets. gramme; whereas, the three bars found by the
Rather, they became the accused's victims police weighed only 416 grammes, and were
because they happened to be traveling at the therefore, 143.7 grammes short. Of the P200
time when the accused were there. There was, bank notes delivered to the accused, she
thus, randomness in the selection of the victims, returned only P150.
or the act of committing robbery
indiscriminately, which differentiates this case In view of the above stated facts, which appear in
from that of a simple robbery with homicide. the cause to have been duly proven, the accused
was sentenced by the court a quo to the penalty
The accused were found guilty beyond already mentioned.
reasonable doubt of violating the provisions of

ISSUE: convert it to the bailee's own use, the race being

Whether or not the evidence does not establish a mere sham to aid this purpose, is larceny. The
the essential elements of theft. rule has been applied also to cases in which a
person takes a piece of money from another to
HELD: change, and keeps it with the unlawful intent to
No. convert it and refuses to deliver the money given
The argument advanced in support of the to him or the change therefore, on demand; and
contention of the defense is that the goods the fact that the taking was open and from the
misappropriated were not taken by the accused owner is of no consequence, if the intent to steal
without the consent of the owner who had existed. This is so for the reason that the delivery
delivered them to her voluntarily, and this of money to another for the sole purpose of
element being lacking, it cannot be the crime of getting it changed is a parting with the custody
theft. only and not the amount does not relieve him
from liability for the larceny of the entire amount
It is well to remember the essential elements of given him.
the crime of theft, as expounded in the
textbooks, which are as follows: First, the taking Where the parties are engaged in a cash sale the
of personal property, second, that the property whole transaction is incomplete until the
belongs to another; third, that the taking away payment is completed; and the possession of the
be done with intent of gain; fourth, that the goods remains in the seller and that of the money
taking away be done without consent of the in the buyer, until they are simultaneously
owner; and fifth, that the taking away be exchanged. If, in such case, the buyer gets
accomplished without violence or intimidation control of the goods and makes off with them
against persons or force upon things. without paying for them, he is guilty of larceny.
And conversely if the seller gets the money and
The commentators on the Spanish Penal Code, refuses to give up the goods, it is larceny. Thus,
from which ours was adopted, lay great stress on where one surrenders up his watch with the
the first element which is the taking away, that understanding that he is immediately to receive
is, getting possession, laying hold of the thing, so 50 dollars for it, the keeping of the watch without
that, as Viada says if, the things is not taken payment of money is larceny. And where a
away, but received and then appropriated or tradesman handed good to a customer to
converted without the consent of the owner, it examine and the latter ran away with them, he
may be any other crime, that of estafa for was held guilty of larceny. Similarly, where one
instance, but in no way that of theft, which unloaded onions which he owned on the
consists in the taking away of the thing, that is, premises of a prospective buyer, who thereupon
in removing it from the place where it is kept by refused to pay for the onions or to allow the seller
the legal owner, without the latter's consent, of to remove them, it was held larceny, as the owner
the legitimate owner. never intended to part with the possession of the
onions until he received his money therefor. One,
The American decisions an textbooks on waiting in crowd to purchase a railway ticket,
"larceny," a crime which has the same requested another nearer the ticket office to buy
characteristics as those oaf theft under our Penal a ticket for her, handing him the money to pay
Code, contain abundant illustrations of the for it. He made off with money and was held
question raised in the present case. guilty of larceny.
The intention of the owner to part with his For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion,
property is the gist and essence of the offense of and so hold, that the crime proven in the cause
theft (larceny), and the vital point on which the to have been committed by the appellant by
crime hinges and is to be determined. appropriating the gold bar delivered to her for
examination, and by converting to her own use,
A felonious taking necessary in the crime of without the consent of the owner, the bank notes
larceny, and generally speaking, a taking which which had been handed her to be exchanged for
is done with the consent or acquiescence of the silver coins, is that of theft, defined and punished
owner of the property is not felonious. But is the in article 518, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code.
owner parts with the possession thereof for a And the appealed judgment being in accordance
particular purpose, and the person who receives with law, it must be, as is hereby, affirmed with
the possession avowedly for that purpose has the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
fraudulent intention to make use of it as the
means of converting it to his own use, and does G.R. No. 210760 , January 26, 2015
so convert it, this is larceny, for in such case, the KYLE ANTHONY ZABALA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
fraud supplies the place of the trespass in the PHILIPPINES
taking, or, as otherwise stated, the subsequent
felonious conversion of the property by the FACTS:
alleged thief will relate back and make the taking The evidence for the prosecution tends to
and conversion larceny. And it has been said that establish that Zabala is a jeepney driver who
the act goes farther than the consent, and may earns Two Hundred Pesos (₱200) to Four
be fairly said to be against it. If money is given to Hundred Pesos (₱400) per day on an alternate
a person to be applied to a particular purpose, it day basis. Complainant Alas, meanwhile, works
is larceny for the receiver to appropriate it to his at the Manila City Hall. It is through this job that
own use which was not the purpose he was able to save the Sixty-Eight Thousand
contemplated by the owner. Obtaining money Pesos (₱68,000) stolen by Zabala. Piñon, on the
under the false pretense that it is to be bet on a other hand, had been the girlfriend of Zabalafor
horse race, and with the intent at the time to
about five months when the incident pertinent to cited the rule that alibi is a weakdefense, and
this case occurred. cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a
truthful witness.
Alas testified that he and Zabalawere neighbors
in San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan. As ISSUE:
neighbors,he had treated Zabala as his kumpare Whether or not the accused is guilty for theft.
and would often invite the latter to drinking
sessions inside his house. At times, he would HELD:
also call Zabala to repair his vehicle, because No. The prosecution failed to establish, by
Zabala is also a mechanic. He would allow Zabala circumstantial evidence, that petitioner is guilty
to follow him to his bedroom to get cash of theft.
whenever spare parts are to be bought for the
repair of his vehicle. Unfortunately, in the case at bar, this Court
finds that the prosecution failed to present
Alas further testified that on June 18, 2007, at sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict the
about 4:00 in the morning, he left his house to petitioner of the offense charged. We find that the
go to work. When he returned from work, at pieces of evidence presented before the trial court
around 11:00 in the evening, he discovered that fail to provide a sufficient combination of
his money amounting to Sixty Eight Thousand circumstances, as to produce a conviction
Pesos (₱68,000), which he kept in an envelope beyond reasonable doubt.
inside his closet, was missing. During that time,
there were only five (5) persons living in their To recall, the evidence of the prosecution
house: Alas, his parents, his nine (9) year-old purports to establish the following narrative:
son, and his aunt. He asked his parents and first, that the complaining witness Alas hides
aunt if they knew where he kept his money, but ₱68,000 in cash in his closet inside their house;
they did not know. second, that petitioner is aware that Alas hides
money in his bedroom closet; third, that on the
Witness Piñon, on the other hand, testified that night of the incident, petitioner was with his then
in the early morning of June 18, 2007, she and girlfriend, witness Piñon; fourth, that petitioner
Zabala, her boyfriend at the time, were together climbed through the fence of Alas’s house, and
at a store owned by the latter, which was six to was able to successfully gain entrance to his
seven steps away from the complainant’s house. house; fifth, that petitioner later went out of the
She then saw Zabala climb the fence and scale house with a bulge in his pockets; and sixth, that
the tree in front of the complainant’s house, and later that day, petitioner and Piñon went
enter the house. When he returned, she noticed shopping for a cellphone.
that he had a bulge in his pocket, which she later The foregoing narration––based on the
found to be a plentiful sum of money. Zabala testimonies of the two witnesses of the
then brought her home, and agreed to meet her prosecution, even if given full faith and credit
again at about 10:00 in the morning. They then and considered as established facts––failsto
went to Greenhills, where Zabala bought two establish that petitioner committed the crime of
Nokia mobile phones, which cost about Eight theft. If at all, it may possibly constitute evidence
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (₱8,500). that petitioner committed an offense, but not
necessarily theft.
On July 7, 2011, the RTC rendered its Judgment In the case before the Court,the evidence
convicting petitioner of the offense charged. presented by the prosecution fails to establish
the corpus delicti of theft. In Tan v. People, this
Aggrieved by the Judgment, petitioner appealed Court said:
to the CA, attributing to the lower court the Corpus delicti means the "body or substance of
following errors: (1) there was a grave error in not the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the
giving credence to petitioner’s version; (2) fact that the crime has been actually committed."
petitioner was convicted of the crime charged The "essential elements of theft are (1) the taking
despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his of personal property; (2) the property belongs to
guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) petitioner another; (3) the taking away was done with intent
cannot be convicted based on circumstantial of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the
evidence. consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is
accomplished without violence or intimidation
In its presently assailed Decision promulgated on against persons or force upon things." In theft,
July 15, 2013, the CA denied the appeal and corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that
affirmed the decision of the trial court, but with the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that
modification as to the penalty to be imposed it was lost by felonious taking.
upon petitioner. The CA ruled that the
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable First, nobody saw Zabala enter the bedroom of
doubt the guilt of the appellant through Alas, where the money amounting to ₱68,000
circumstantial evidence. was allegedly kept and hidden. It is interesting to
The CA then found that the series of note that while Alas testified that there were
circumstances present in this case supports a other persons living in that house, i.e. his family
conviction, and constitutes the basis for a members, the prosecution failed to put any of
reasonable inference of the existence of the facts them on the witness stand, to testify that they
thereby sought to be proved. saw or heard something out of the ordinary at
the time the incident allegedly took place, or to
Rejecting the defense of petitioner, the CA ruled explain why nobody else was able to notice that
that he offered no evidence other than an alibi to the theft took place while Alas was absent.
exculpate him from the crime charged. It then Witness Piñon, meanwhile, merely testified that
she saw Zabala scale the fence of Alas’ house and City. To assist her in feeding the dogs and
enter it. She did not actually see Zabala enter the cleaning their cages, private complainant
room of Alas, where the money was hidden. employed the accused who would report for work
from 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. On October 19,
Second, the evidence presented below is 2006, at around 6:30 in the morning, accused
insufficient to determine without a reasonable arrived for work. Half an hour later or at 7
doubt that the ₱68,000 in cash was lost due to o’clock, private complainant left for Batangas.
felonious taking, and, more importantly, that it Before leaving, she locked the doors of her house,
was petitioner who committed the felonious and left the accused to attend to her dogs. Later,
taking. Even if believed in its entirety, the at around 7:00 in the evening, private
testimony of witness Piñon does not show that complainant arrived home, entering through the
when petitioner left the house of Alas, he was back door of her house. As private complainant
carrying the ₱68,000 incash which was was about to remove her earrings, she noticed
supposedly lost. All that Piñon saw was the bulge that her other earrings worth PhP 25,000 were
in petitioner’s pockets. Piñon’s testimony can missing. She then searched for the missing
considered as evidence to prove that when earrings but could not find them.
petitioner entered the house of Alas, he did so
because of his intent to commit asportation. Thereafter, private complainant also discovered
that her jacket inside her closet and her other
Third, Piñon' s testimony fails to establish that pieces of jewelry (rositas) worth PhP 250,000
Alas' pocket indeed contained the stolen money, were also missing. A Gameboy (portable
as she never actually saw what was inside the videogame console), a compact disc player, a
pocket of Zabala. While she testified that later Nokia cellular phone and a Nike Air Cap were
that day, they went to buy 2 cellphones likewise missing. The total value of the missing
amounting to ₱8,500, she failed to testify items supposedly amounted to PhP 297,800.
whether the money that Zabala used in paying Private complainant immediately checked her
for the cellphone was retrieved from the very premises and discovered that the main doors of
same bulging pocket which she saw earlier in the her house were destroyed. A plastic bag was also
day, which would have led to the conclusion that found on top of her stereo, which was located
Zabala's pocket contained money. Failing this, near the bedroom. The plastic bag contained a t-
what is left is the fact that Pifion saw a bulge in shirt and a pair of shorts later found to belong to
Zabala's pocket, and there is no evidence accused. Witness Nimfa Sarad, the
whatsoever to prove that his pocket in fact was laundrywoman of Vedua’s neighbor, testified
used to hide the money that he allegedly stole. seeing Viray at Vedua’s house at 6:00 a.m. By
The trial and appellate courts committed error in 11:00 a.m., she went out on an errand and saw
accepting as fact that Zabala's pocket contained Viray with an unidentified male companion
money, when there is a dearth of evidence to leaving Vedua’s house with a big sack.
support such allegation.
Another witness, Leon Young, who prepares
And fourth, the rule in circumstantial evidence official/business letters for Vedua, testified that
cases is that the evidence must exclude the he went to Vedua’s house between 10:00 and
possibility that some other person committed the 11:00 am of October 19, 2006 to retrieve a
crime.21 In the case here, however, the diskette and saw petitioner with a male
prosecution failed to prove, or even allege, that it companion descending the stairs of Vedua’s
was impossible for some other person to have house. He alleged that since he knew Viray as an
committed the crime of theft against Alas. The employee of private complainant, he simply
prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the asked where Vedua was. When he was told that
time the theft was committed, there was no other Vedua was in Batangas, he left and went back
person inside the house of Alas, or that no other three days after, only to be told about the
person could have taken the money from the robbery.
closet of Alas. Alas himself admitted that there Prosecution witness Beverly Calagos, Vedua’s
were other residents in the house, but these stay-out laundrywoman, testified that on
persons were never presented to prove their October 19, 2006, she reported for work at 5:00
whereabouts at the time the incident took place. a.m. Her employer left for Batangas at 7:00 am
This failure of the prosecution leads the Court to leaving her and petitioner Viray to go about their
no other conclusion but that they failed to chores. She went home around 8:30 a.m. leaving
establish that culpability could only belong to petitioner alone in Vedua’s house. Meanwhile,
Zabala, and not to some other person. petitioner never reported for work after that day.
Given the foregoing discussion, We find that For his defense, Viray averred that he did not
petit10ner was wrongfully convicted of report for work on the alleged date of the incident
theft.1âwphi1 In the absence of proof beyond a as he was then down with the flu. His mother
reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence even called up Vedua at 5:30 a.m. to inform his
must be upheld, and thus, petitioner should be employer of his intended absence. Around
acquitted. midnight of October 20, 2006, Vedua called
Viray’s mother to report the loss of some
G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013 valuables in her house and alleged that Viray is
RYAN VIRAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE responsible for it. Petitioner’s sister and aunt
PHILIPPINES corroborated his version as regards the fact that
he did not go to work on October 19, 2006 and
FACTS: stayed home sick.
Private complainant Vedua maintains seventy-
five (75) dogs at her compound in Caridad, Cavite
After the parties rested their respective cases, the As pointed out by both the RTC and the CA, the
trial court rendered a Decision dated December prosecution had proved the existence of the first
5, 2009, holding that the offense charged should four elements enumerated above beyond
have been robbery and not qualified theft as reasonable doubt.
there was an actual breaking of the screen door
and the main door to gain entry into the house. First, it was proved that the subjects of the
Similarly, Viray cannot be properly charged with offense were all personal or movable properties,
qualified theft since he was not a domestic consisting as they were of jewelry, clothing,
servant but more of a laborer paid on a daily cellular phone, a media player and a gaming
basis for feeding the dogs of the complainant. device. Second, these properties belong to private
complainant Vedua. Third, circumstantial
The trial court found that there is sufficient evidence places petitioner in the scene of the
circumstantial evidence to conclude that Viray crime during the day of the incident, as
was the one responsible for the taking of numerous witnesses saw him in Vedua’s house
valuables belonging to Vedua. Hence, the RTC and his clothes were found inside the house. He
found petitioner Viray guilty beyond reasonable was thereafter seen carrying a heavy-looking
doubt of robbery and sentenced him. sack as he was leaving private complainant’s
house. All these circumstances portray a chain
In the present controversy, while the CA modified of events that leads to a fair and reasonable
the decision of the trial court by convicting conclusion that petitioner took the personal
petitioner of qualified theft rather than robbery, properties with intent to gain, especially
the facts as found by the court a quo were the considering that, fourth, Vedua had not
same facts used by the CA in holding that all the consented to the removal and/or taking of these
elements of qualified theft through grave abuse properties.
of confidence were present. It is not, therefore, With regard to the fifth and sixths elements,
incumbent upon this Court to recalibrate the however, the RTC and the CA diverge in their
evidence presented by the parties during trial. respective Decisions.
The RTC found that the taking committed by
ISSUE: petitioner was not qualified by grave abuse of
Whether or not the accused is liable only for confidence, rather it was qualified by the use of
simple theft, not robbery nor qualified theft. force upon things. The trial court held that there
was no confidence reposed by the private
HELD: complainant on Viray that the latter could have
YES. abused. In fact, Vedua made sure that she locked
Art. 308 in relation to Art. 310 of the RPC the door before leaving. Hence, Viray was
describes the felony of qualified theft: compelled to use force to gain entry into Vedua’s
house thereby committing the crime of robbery,
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. – Theft is not theft.
committed by any person who, with intent to
gain but without violence against, or The CA, on the other hand, opined that the
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, breaking of the screen and the door could not be
shall take personal property of another without appreciated to qualify petitioner’s crime to
the latter’s consent. robbery as such use of force was not alleged in
xxxx the Information. Rather, this breaking of the
Art. 310. Qualified Theft. – The crime of theft door, the CA added, is an indication of
shall be punished by the penalties next higher by petitioner’s abuse of the confidence given by
two degrees than those respectively specified in private complainant. The CA held that "[Viray]
the next preceding article, if committed by a enjoyed the confidence of the private
domestic servant, or with grave abuse of complainant, being the caretaker of the latter’s
confidence, or if the property stolen is motor pets. He was given access to the outside premises
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of of private complainant’s house which he gravely
coconuts taken from the premises of the abused when he forced open the doors of the
plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery same house and stole the latter’s belongings."
or property is taken on the occasion of fire, Committing grave abuse of confidence in the
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any taking of the properties, petitioner was found by
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil the CA to be liable for qualified theft.
disturbance. This Court is inclined to agree with the CA that
The crime charged against petitioner is theft the taking committed by petitioner cannot be
qualified by grave abuse of confidence. In this qualified by the breaking of the door, as it was
mode of qualified theft, this Court has stated that not alleged in the Information. However, we
the following elements must be satisfied before disagree from its finding that the same breaking
the accused may be convicted of the crime of the door constitutes the qualifying element of
charged: grave abuse of confidence to sentence petitioner
1. Taking of personal property; Viray to suffer the penalty for qualified theft.
2. That the said property belongs to another; Instead, We are one with the RTC that private
3. That the said taking be done with intent to complainant did not repose on Viray "confidence"
gain; that the latter could have abused to commit
4. That it be done without the owner’s consent; qualified theft.
5. That it be accomplished without the use of
violence or intimidation against persons, nor of The very fact that petitioner "forced open" the
force upon things; and main door and screen because he was denied
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. access to private complainant’s house negates
the presence of such confidence in him by private
complainant. Without ready access to the in breaking the door was not alleged in the
interior of the house and the properties that were Information, petitioner can only be held
the subject of the taking, it cannot be said that accountable for the crime of simple theft under
private complaint had a "firm trust" on petitioner Art. 308 in relation to Art. 309 of the RPC.
or that she "relied on his discretion" and that the
same trust reposed on him facilitated Viray’s As for the penalty, We note with approval the
taking of the personal properties justifying his observation made by the appellate court that the
conviction of qualified theft. amount of the property taken was not
established by an independent and reliable
To warrant the conviction and, hence, imposition estimate. Thus, the Court may fix the value of the
of the penalty for qualified theft, there must be property taken based on the attendant
an allegation in the information and proof that circumstances of the case or impose the
there existed between the offended party and the minimum penalty under Art. 309 of the RPC. In
accused such high degree of confidence or that this case, We agree with the observation made by
the stolen goods have been entrusted to the the appellate court in accordance with the rule
custody or vigilance of the accused. In other that "if there is no available evidence to prove the
words, where the accused had never been vested value of the stolen property or that the
physical access to,or material possession of, the prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding
stolen goods, it may not be said that he or she penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant
exploited such access or material possession should be the minimum penalty corresponding
thereby committing such grave abuse of to theft involving the value of ₱5.00."
confidence in taking the property. Thus, in Accordingly, We impose the prescribed penalty
People v. Maglaya, this Court refused to impose under Art. 309(6) of the RPC, which is arresto
the penalty prescribed for qualified theft when mayor in its minimum and medium periods. The
the accused was not given material possession or circumstance of the breaking of the door, even if
access to the property: proven during trial, cannot be considered as a
Although appellant had taken advantage of his generic aggravating circumstance as it was not
position in committing the crime alleged in the Information. Thus, the Court finds
aforementioned, We do not believe he had acted that the penalty prescribed should be imposed in
with grave abuse of confidence and can be its medium period, that is to say, from two (2)
convicted of qualified theft, because his employer months and one (1) day to three (3) months of
had never given him the possession of the arresto mayor.
machines involved in the present case or allowed
him to take hold of them, and it does not appear Lastly, We delete the order for the reparation of
that the former had any special confidence in the stolen property. Art. 2199 of the Civil Code is
him. Indeed, the delivery of the machines to the clear that one is entitled to an adequate
prospective customers was entrusted, not to compensation only for such pecuniary loss
appellant, but to another employee. suffered by him, as he has duly proved. Since, as
aforesaid, the testimony of the private
Inasmuch as the aggregate value of the machines complainant is not sufficient to establish the
stolen by appellant herein is ₱13,390.00, the value of the property taken, nor may the courts
crime committed falls under Art. 308, in relation take judicial notice of such testimony, We cannot
to the first subdivision of Art.309 of the Revised award the reparation of the stolen goods.
Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of
prisión mayor in its minimum and medium WHEREFORE, the C Decision of August 31,
periods.1âwphi1 No modifying circumstance 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33076 is AFFIRMED
having attended the commission of the offense, with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Ryan Viray is
said penalty should be meted out in its medium found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
period, or from 7 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 SIMPLE THEFT and is sentenced to suffer the
years and 8 months of prisión mayor. The penalty of imprisonment for two (2) months and
penalty imposed in the decision appealed from is one (1) day to three (3) months of arresto mayor.
below this range. Further, for want of convincing proof as to the
value of the property stolen, the order for
The allegation in the information that the reparation is hereby DELETED.
offender is a laborer of the offended party does
not by itself, without more, create the relation of March 29, 2018 – Article 309 – PENALTIES
confidence and intimacy required by law for the FOR THEFT
imposition of the penalty prescribed for qualified DUQUE, Francis Lester M
theft. Hence, the conclusion reached by the
appellate court that petitioner committed G.R. NO. L-30859 NOVEMBER 25, 1929
qualified theft because he "enjoyed the PEOPLE VS. JUAN CARPIO
confidence of the private complainant, being the
caretaker of the latter’s pets" is without legal FACTS:
basis. The offended party’s very own admission Raymundo Silos hired automobile No. 376
that the accused was never allowed to enter the known as "Star," and was driven by the
house where the stolen properties were kept chauffeur Resurreccion Ledesma. In one
refutes the existence of the high degree of restaturant, Silos invited Ledesma to come in
confidence that the offender could have allegedly with him to eat something and while they were
abused by "forcing open the doors of the same thus engaged, Ledesma's car No. 376 was stolen
house." and was not to be found when Silos and Ledesma
emerged from the restaurant. The next day the
Without the circumstance of a grave abuse of stolen car was found, stripped of three tires with
confidence and considering that the use of force the rims. A few days thereafter, the three tires
taken from car No. 376 were found on the "Star"

car which was being driven by Juan Carpio. ISSUE:
When the owner of the car No. 376 asked Carpio WON the penalty imposed by the RTC is correct.
how his three tires came to be on Carpio's car,
the latter admitted that said three tires belonged HELD:
to the owner of the car No. 376; and they were in No. RTC is not Correct. Violation of Section 68 of
fact readily identified by their numbers. PD 705 is punishable as Qualified Theft. Under
Art. 309. Penalties. - 1.) The penalty of prisión
ISSUE: mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if
WON Carpio should be guilty of theft with respect the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000
to the tires only and not to the automobile. pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if
the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter
HELD: amount, the penalty shall be the maximum
No. The gist of the offense of larceny consists in period... 6.) Arresto Mayor in its minimum and
the furtive taking and asportation of property, medium periods, if such value does not exceed
animo lucrandi, and with intent to deprive the five pesos.
true owner of the possession thereof. The act of
asportation in this case was undoubtedly The Information alleged that the lumber valued
committed with intent on the part of the thief to in the amount of P20,930.40. To prove this
profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived allegation, the prosecution relied on Hernandez's
the true owner of the possession of the entire testimony that these amounts, are his
automobile, the offense of larceny comprised the "estimates" based on "prevailing local price." This
whole car. The fact that the accused stripped the evidence does not suffice. To prove the amount
car of its tires and abandoned the machine in a of the property taken for fixing the penalty
distant part of the city did not make the imposable against the accused under Article 309
appellant any less liable for the larceny of that of the RPC, the prosecution must present more
automobile. The deprivation of the owner and the than a mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such
trespass upon his right of possession were fact. In the absence of independent and reliable
complete as to the entire car; and the fact that corroboration of such estimate, courts may
the thieves thought it wise promptly to abandon either apply the minimum penalty under Article
the machine in no wise limits their criminal 309 or fix the value of the property taken based
responsibility to the particular parts of the car on the attendant circumstances of the case. In
that were appropriated and subsequently used the case of People v. Dator with the same set of
by the appellant upon his own car. Since subject facts, SC imposed the minimum penalty under
car was less than 1 year after being bought by Article 309 (6)45 of the RPC.
the owner, it was practically new. Upon taking
judicial notice, the car valued at 250. This put Applying penalty for qualfied theft (imposed
the penalty under par 3 of Art 309 with the penalty higher by two degrees) and taking into
penalty of prision correcional in its medium and account the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the SC
minimum period since the value of the property imposed penalty of four (4) months and one (1)
is more than 200 but does not exceed 6,000 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3)
which runs from one year, eight months and years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days
twenty-one days to two years, eleven months and of prision correcional, as maximum.
ten days.
March 29, 2018 – Article 310 – QUALIFIED
G.R. No. 158182 June 12, 2008 THEFT
SESINANDO MERIDA vs. PEOPLE FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
FACTS: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioner was charged in RTC for cutting, VS SYOU HU
gathering, collecting and removing a narra tree G.R. NO. L- 45765, JANUARY 29, 1938
inside a Mayod Property over which Tansiongco
claims ownership. ISSUE:
Tansiongco learned that petitioner cut a narra Whether accused violated article 310 of the
tree in the Mayod Property. Tansiongco reported Revised Penal Code?
the tree-cutting to the DENR forester Hernandez
who ordered petitioner not to convert the felled FACTS:
tree trunk into lumber. Later, Tansiongco Accused was living in the house of the victim,
informed Hernandez that petitioner had who had sheltered him out of charity. In August
converted the narra trunk into lumber. of 1937, the sum of P435 in cash was taken from
Hernandez went to the Mayod Property and saw the offended party without his consent.
that the narra tree had been cut into six smaller
pieces of lumber. Hernandez took custody of the HELD:
lumber,9 and issued an apprehension receipt to Yes, article 310 of the Revised Penal Code
petitioner. A complaint was filed for violation for provides that qualified theft is committed when
violation of Section 68 of PD 705 known as "grave abuse of confidence is present," making it
Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines. The trial understood thereby that the relation of cause
court found petitioner guilty as charged, and effect must exist between the abuse of
sentenced him to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) confidence and the crime. The grave abuse of
months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of confidence does not produce the crime of theft as
reclusion temporal. Merida appealed before SC effect. It is the asportation, with intent of gain, of
contending that the penalty imposed was personal property belonging to another without
excessive. the owner's knowledge and consent, which
produces it. The relation of cause and effect, 6.) That it be done with grave abuse of
therefore does not exist between the two confidence.
concepts.The grave abuse of confidence is a mere
circumstance which aggravates and qualifies the The accused was found guilty and was sentenced
commission of the crime of theft. It is not to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
necessary for said circumstance to be was ordered to pay the amount of the value of the
premeditated in order to be taken into property stolen which is P97,984.00.
consideration as an aggravating circumstance
qualifying said crime. Its presence in the ONG VS PEOPLE
commission of the crime is sufficient. The fact G.R. NO. 190475, APRIL 10, 2013
that the accused was living in the house of the
ofended party, who had sheltered him out of ISSUE:
charity, when he took the money belonging to his Whether accused is guilty of violating P.D. 1612
protector, aggravates the crime committed by (Anti- Fencing Law)?
him, inasmuch as he gravely abused the
confidence which the owner of the house reposed FACTS:
inhim upon permitting him, out of charity, to live Private complainant was the owner of 44
therein, stiffling the sentiment of gratitude firestone truck tires of which 6 were sold and 38
awakended in his bosom by his benefactor's remained inside the warehouse. Complainant,
charitable act. This abuse of confidence was all marked the tires using a piece of chalk before
the more grave because it happened between storing them inside the warehouse. The following
fellow countrymen. day all the 38 tires were stolen, the gate was
forcibly opened. Together with his caretaker they
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES reported the incident to the police. While
VS EDGARDO T. CRUZ investigation was still pending complainant upon
G.R. NO. 200081, JUNE 08, 2016 chance happened to inquire in a store if they
have tires that has same specifications with the
ISSUE: ones stolen. Accused answered in affirmative
Whether the accused violated Article 310 of the and showed it to him. Complainant happened to
Revised Penal Code? notice the marking he made during inventory.
Complainant left the store and reported the
FACTS: matter to the police. A buy bust team was formed
Complainant Eduardo S. Carlos put up a and the accused was arrested and the total of 13
business engaged in the sale of tires, batteries tires were confiscated.
and services for wheel alignment, wheel
balancing and vulcanizing. During the infancy of HELD:
the business,complainant sought the help of the Yes. Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D.
accused to tend the needs of the business 1612 as the "act of any person who, with intent
including the financial aspect. When the to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
business started to gain recognition and despite receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
the the rise of the number of clients they were dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
serving, its financial capital remained manner deal in any article, item, object or
unimpressive. Thus, by suspicion complainant anything of value which he knows, or should be
discovered through the accused's sister that he known to him, to have been derived from the
was stealing from the company. When proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."
complainant checked the daily sales report The essential elements of the crime of fencing are
containing the list of payments and balances of as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been
customers he found out that the remaining committed; (2) the accused, who is not a
balances of their customers and accused's principal or on accomplice in the commission of
advances totaled to P97, 984.00. At the bottom the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
of the balance sheet was an acknowledgement of possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
the accused that the amounts declared lost were disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner
actually used by him for his personal use. deals in any article, item, object or anything of
Complainant also discovered other irregularities value, which has been derived from the proceeds
in the business dealings of the accused. of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused
knew or should have known that the said article,
HELD: item, object or anything of value has been
Yes. When theft as defined in article 308 of the derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
Revised Penal Code is committed with grave or theft; and (4) there is, on the part of one
abuse of confidence, the crime appreciates into accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.
qualified theft punishable under article 310 of
the same code. All the elements of Qualified Theft March 31, 2018 – Article 311 – THEFT OF THE
are present in this case such as; PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND
NATIONAL MUSEUM
1.) Taking of personal property FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
2.) That the said property belongs to another [NO CASE FOUND]
3.) That the said taking be done with intent to
gain
4.) That it be done without thebowner's consent March 31, 2018 – Article 312 – OCCUPATION
5.) That it be done without the use of violence or OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
things IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.

US V. FUSTER their ascendants and while there, they gathered

G.R. NO. 1366, NOVEMBER 18, 1903 coconuts and made them copra.
ISSUE: Accused testified that they are the grandchildren

Whether accused violated article 312 of the of Lorenzo Cases, and during his lifetime, he
Revised Penal Code. acquired the real property in question and
declared the same in his name.
FACTS: RTC rendered judgement finding accused guilty
Accused forcibly entered and usurped the land of violation of article 312 of the Revised Penal
in questioned which was in possession of Dofia Code. The accused are further sentenced not to
Carolina Gomez de la Serna. Dofia Carolina enter or intrude upon this property rightfully
herself says that this land "does not belong to adjudged to belong to Francisco Delmonte,
anybody," and that, although she is occupying it, private complainant herein and they are ordered
it is only because she is in possession of it. There under pain of imprisonment for Contempt of
is, therefore, no evidence that the land is the Court, to Cease and Desist forever from
property of those alleged to have been injured by disturbing or molesting the peaceful and quiet
the offense charged. possession and ownership of the herein private
offended party over the property subject of
The defendant offered to prove, by authentic litigation, hence the appeal.
documents, that he was the lawful owner of the
land in question. This evidence was rejected in HELD:
the court below. In this the court erred, for it The requisites of usurpation are that the accused
unquestionably is an error to exclude proof of the took possession of anothers real property or
ownership of property in litigation when, as in usurped real rights in anothers property; that
the case of usurpation, this ownership the possession or usurpation was committed
constitutes a necessary and indispensable with violence or intimidation and that the
element for the determination of the defendant's accused had animo lucrandi. In order to sustain
guilt or innocence. If the defendant herein had a conviction for "usurpacion de derecho reales,"
shown that he was the owner of the land in the proof must show that the real property
question, there would have been no ground on occupied or usurped belongs, not to the
which he could have been convicted of the occupant or usurper, but to some third person,
offense charged, because no one can, in a legal and that the possession of the usurper was
sense, be guilty of the usurpation of his own obtained by means of intimidation or violence
property. done to the person ousted of possession of the
property.
HELD: More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, the
The law requires that the real property or the real Court stated that the elements of the offense are
right seized be the property of another, in order (1) occupation of anothers real property or
that the crime of usurpation may exist. The error usurpation of a real right belonging to another
of law into which the court fell in refusing to person; (2) violence or intimidation should be
admit the evidence of ownership offered by the employed in possessing the real property or in
defendant, and against which ruling the usurping the real right, and (3) the accused
defendant duly excepted, would be a sufficient should be animated by the intent to gain.
ground for remanding the case for a new trial. We
do not, however, consider it necessary to do this, In the present case, based on the above findings
in view of the fact that the prosecution has not and the sketch maps submitted, it is clear that
proven that the land alleged to have been the disputed land which is the red shaded area
usurped was not the property of the defendant. (Exh. "B-2") is within the boundary of the land
The burden lay with the prosecution to prove this awarded to the complainant in Civil Case No.
fact, and, having failed to do so, we must acquit 3516 [should be 3561]. The issue of ownership
the defendant, even in the absence of any over the land in question having been decided in
evidence in his behalf, because of the Civil Case No. 3516 [should be 3561] in favor of
presumption of innocence to which every the complainant in 1949, the same will not be
defendant is entitled until proven guilty. disturbed. The accused has to respect the
findings of the court., it is indeed very clear that
We therefore reverse the judgment appealed and the area claimed by the accused encroached the
acquit the defendant, with the costs of both area of the plaintiffs.
instances de oficio. So ordered.
March 31, 2018 – Article 313 – ALTERING
QUINAO V. PEOPLE BOUNDERIES OR LANDMARKS
G.R. NO. 139603, JULY 14, 2000 LAZO II, Joseph Artfel T.
ISSUE: [NO CASES FOUND]

Whether petitioners are guilty of the crime of
Usurpation of Real Property. March 31, 2018 – Article 314 – FRAUDULENT
INSOLVENCY
FACTS: NASH, Regina Mercado
On February 2, 1993 at around 9am in the
morning, accused together with their relatives, G.R. No. 38618
suddenly appeared in the land in questioned September 15, 1933
owned by Francisco Del Monte and used force, PEOPLE VS. SY GESIONG
violence and intimidation and took possession of
the land claiming that it is their inheritance from ISSUE:
ST

Whether or not Sy Gesiong is guilty of fraudulent

insolvency? ISSUE:
Whether or not Tan DIong, Pastora Padla and
FACTS: Eustaquio Baranda are guilty of fraudulent
Sy Gesiong, was convicted by the Court of First insolvency?
Instance of Bohol of the crime of estafa for having
concealed or otherwise disposed of certain FACTS:
personal property belonging to him for the As appeal has been brought to reverse a
purpose of defrauding his creditors, and judgment of the Court of First Instance of
sentenced to one year of presidio correccional, to Misamis Oriental, finding the three appellants,
indemnify Ignacio Molina and Vicente Gaviola in Tan Diong (alias Tango), Pastora Padla, and
the sum of P2,997.76 with subsidiary Eustaquio Baranda, guilty of the offense of
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay making way with the property in fraud of
the costs. From this judgment the present appeal creditors, in violation of article 523 of the old
was taken. Appellant has assigned five errors as Penal Code (article 314, R.P.C.), and sentencing
having been committed by the trial court. The them as follows: Tan Diong to imprisonment for
first error assigned raises the question of the six years and one day, presidio mayor, and
sufficiency of the facts alleged in the information Pastora Padla and Eustaquio Baranda to
filed against the appellant.The theory of the imprisonment for four years, two months and
prosecution is that the facts alleged in the one day, presidio correccional, and requiring
information constitute the crime of estafa defined them to pay proportional costs.
in article 523 of the old Penal Code and in article
314 of the Revised Penal Code. It will be noticed Prior to the acts with which we are here
that one of the essential elements of the crime concerned the appellant Tan Diong was a
thus defined is that the absconding of the merchant in good standing in the municipality of
property by the defendant must result in Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental. Pastora Padla is
prejudice to his creditors. The information filed his wife and Eustaquio Baranda is the husband
in this case contains no such allegation. It is true of the latter's niece. Prior to June, 1931, Tan
that it alleges that the defendant fraudulently Diong had become indebted to various
concealed his property mentioned in the merchants of Cebu, and a judgment against him
information, but such allegation is not sufficient had been rendered in favor of Lim Tian Ting &
to fulfill the requirement of the law. A person may Co. for more than five thousand pesos. Upon this
fraudulently dispose of some of his property, and judgment an execution had been issued, but it
yet such act may not necessarily result in realized only the sum of P198.23 from certain
prejudice to his creditors; for he may have some personal property levied upon in Tan Diong's,
other property with which to satisfy his store. Tan Diong and his wife had previously
obligations. It is too well-settled to require the owned various parcels of real property in the
citation of authorities that to warrant conviction, municipality, but investigation showed that prior
every element of the crime must be alleged and to the events mentioned they had transferred all
proved. The second assignment of error attacks to their co-defendant Eustaquio Baranda.
the findings of fact of the trial court. On this
point, the evidence for the prosecution shows The proof amply shows that these conveyances
that the goods alleged to have been concealed were made for the purpose of putting the
and otherwise disposed of by the appellant were property beyond the reach of Tan Diong's
shipped from Bohol to Cebu under suspicious creditor's, and that the consideration mentioned
circumstances. Appellant admitted having in the deeds of conveyance from Tan Diong and
shipped the goods to Cebu, but claimed that he wife to Baranda was fictitious. No error, in our
did so as a commission or purchasing agent for opinion, was committed in finding the appellant
a firm in that city. Appellant further claimed that Tan Diong guilty of the offense charged.
he had no knowledge of the order of the court of
July 31, 1931, which was notified to him by his As to Eustaquio Baranda, we note that the
attorney only on August 15, 1931; and that, conveyances by which these properties were
besides the goods alleged to have been conveyed to him were unilateral character.
fraudulently disposed of or concealed by him, he Baranda did not participate in the conveyances,
still had in his possession property valued at and his alleged participation in the fraud
P4,600. consisted only of the fact that he has asserted
ownership in the property conveyed. In our
HELD: opinion, this does not justify his conviction as a
No, Sy Giong was not guilty of fraudulent participant in the fraud. His resolution to accept
insolvency. Upon a careful consideration of the the benefit of the fraudulent conveyances may
facts and circumstances of the case, the court have been formed only after the act. His guilt as
believe that the guilt of the appellant has not a co-conspirator in the fraud is therefore not
been established beyond a reasonable doubt. proved.
In view of the above conclusions, we do not deem
it necessary to discuss the other errors assigned HELD:
by the appellant. The judgment appealed from is therefore
The judgment appealed from was reversed, and reversed as to Pastora Padla and Eustaquio
the defendant was acquitted with costs de oficio. Baranda, without prejudice to the right of the
creditors, or any creditor, of Tan Diong to bring
G.R. No. L-39177 a civil action against Baranda. So ordered, with
February 21, 1934 costs de oficio against said appellants. As to Tan
PEOPLE vs. TAN DIONG (alias TANGO), Diong, the judgment appealed from is modified
PASTORA PADLA, and EUSTAQUIO BARANDA by sentencing him to an indeterminate period of
from one year, prision correccional, to eight years made out nine checks drawn against Philippine
and one day, prision mayor; and as thus National Bank (PNB), eight of which were
modified, the judgment as to him is affirmed, postdated for the payment of such jewelries.
with costs. Madarang received the checks because of
Villanueva's assurance that they would all be
March 31, 2018 – Article 315 – ESTAFA honored upon presentment. However, the
(SWINDLING) draweee bank paid only one of the eight
OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P. postdated checks since the remaining checks
were dishonored by reason of Account Closed or
LITO CORPUZ VS PEOPLE Drawn Against Insufficient Funds. Villanueva
G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014 denies the crime and insists on the absence of
fraud when she drew the postdated checks. She
ISSUE: claims that (a) the checks were issued as
Whether or not Corpuz is guilty of the crime of replacement; (b) the checks could only be
Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC. deposited or encashed after Madarang was
notified of the sufficiency of funds; and (c) the
FACTS: receipt presented by the Prosecution failed to
Lito Corpuz received from complainant Tangcoy embody the real intention of the parties. She
pieces of jewelry with an obligation to sell the further contends that the checks were not
same and remit the proceeds of the sale or to executed prior to or simultaneous with the
return the same if not sold, after the expiration alleged fraud and that Madarang had instigated
of 30 days.The period expired without Corpuz her to issue the checks, hence, she cannot be
remitting anything to Tangcoy. When Corpuz held liable for estafa.
and Tangcoy met, Corpuz promised that he will
pay, but to no avail. Tangcoy filed a case for HELD:
estafa with abuse of confidence against Corpuz. YES. The estafa charged under Article 315
However, Corpuz argued as follows – that the paragraph 2(d) may be committed when: (1) the
proof submitted by Tangcoy (receipt) is offender has postdated or issued a check in
inadmissible for being a mere photocopy and the payment of an obligation contracted at the time
fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved. of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of
postdating or issuance of said check, the
HELD: offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds
YES. The court agreed that the admissibility of deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount
evidence, which was only a mere photocopy was of the check; and (3) the payee has been
valid, stating that the established doctrine is that defrauded. The deceit should be the efficient
when a party failed to interpose a timely cause of the defraudation, and should either be
objection to evidence at the time they were prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of the
offered in evidence, such objection shall be fraud. In the present case, all the elements of
considered as waived. In the instant, Corpuz estafa were present.
never objected to the admissibility of the said
evidence at the time it was identified, marked In the instant case, the first element was
and testified upon in court by Tangcoy. Corpuz admitted by Villanueva, who confirmed that she
also failed to raise an objection in his comment had issued the checks to Madarang in exchange
to the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and for the jewelry she had purchased. There is no
even admitted having signed the said receipt. question that Madarang accepted the checks
Moreover, the court pointed out that no specific upon the assurance of Villanueva that they
type of proof is required to show that there was would be funded upon presentment. The second
demand. Demand need not even be formal; it element was also established because the checks
may be verbal. The specific word “demand” need were dishonored upon presentment due to
not even be used to show that it has indeed been insufficiency of funds or because the account
made upon the person charged, since even a was already closed. The third element was also
mere query as to the whereabouts of the money, proved by the showing that Madarang suffered
in this case, property, would be tantamount to a prejudice by her failure to collect from Villanueva
demand. The court cited the case of Tubb vs. the balance of P995, 000.00. In her defense,
People, where the complainant merely verbally Villanueva adverts to an agreement with
inquired about the money entrusted to the Madarang whereby the latter would deposit or
accused, the query was tantamount to a encash the checks only after being informed of
demand. Hence, Lito Corpuz is liable for the the sufficiency of funds in Villanueva's account.
crime of Estafa. This defense, however, was bereft of merit
because she did not present proof of the
supposed agreement. Hence, Villanueva is guilty
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JULIE of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) of the
GRACE K. VILLANUEVA RPC.
G.R. NO. 163662, FEBRUARY 25, 2015
March 31, 2018 – Article 316 – OTHER FORMS
ISSUE: OF SWINDLING
Whether or not Villanueva commit Estafa under PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
Article 315 paragraph 2(d), of the RPC.
ESTRELLADO-MAINAR V PEOPLE
FACTS: GR NO. 184320 ( JULY 29, 2015)
The complainant Madarang went to Villanueva's
residence and was able to sell to Villanueva five ISSUE
sets of jewelry worth P 1,010,000.00. Villanueva Whether or not accused Mainar is liable under
Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal register of deeds. Magno demanded the return of
Code his money from the accused but the latter failed
to do so.
FACTS
Petitioner Mainar offered for sale to Eric Naval, HELD
portions of land located in Matina Aplaya, Davao Yes. It is evident that the appellant obtained the
City. During the negotiations for this sale, the loan from complainant through false
petitioner told Naval that the title to the land she representation or deceit which is one of the
was selling had no problems. The petitioner also elements constituting the crime of estafa. It is
informed Naval that the area subject of the apparent that the complainant had granted the
proposed sale would "still be segregated from the loan to appellant in the belief that the security
mother title.” offered was good and sufficient to guarantee his
investment because it was free from any lien or
Subsequently, representatives from JS Francisco encumbrance. Had he known that it was already
& Sons, Inc. (JS Francisco) demolished Naval's encumbered, the likelihood was that he would
house. It was only then that Naval discovered not have granted the loan, which proves the
that the lot sold to him had been the subject of a fraud of which he was a victim.
dispute between the petitioner's family and JS
Francisco. Naval demanded from the petitioner April 01, 2018 – Article 317 – SWINDLING A
the return of the amount he paid for the land, as MINOR
well as to pay the value of the house demolished, PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
but the latter refused to heed these demands.
[NO CASE FOUND]
The prosecution charged petitioner with the
crime of other forms of swindling under Article April 01, 2018 - Article 318 – OTHER DECEITS
316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D.
MTCC found petitioner guilty of Article 316,
paragraph 2 of the RPC, which the RTC affirmed. PEOPLE VS. GANASI
The petitioner Mainar challenged the RTC ruling C.A., 61 O.G 3603
in the CA, but the latter denied it.
ISSUE:
HELD Whether or not Ganasi was guilty of other deceits
No. The information in the present case, under Article 318 and not under paragraph 1(a)
expressly indicated in its caption that it is of Article 315.
charging the petitioner under Article 316,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. We FACTS:
reiterate that the Information in the present case Ganasi incurred a debt from Dacanay in the
did not allege that the petitioner made an express amount of P3,500. As security for the debt,
representation that the property sold is free from Ganasi offered to mortgage Lot No. 1 to Dacanay.
any encumbrance. This Information was crafted Ganasi then showed to Dacanay a plan to the lot,
in such a way that only one particular crime was and accompanied him for an ocular inspection of
charged did not constitute ground for conviction the premises. Finding the land suitable for a
under paragraph 2, which may be committed carpentry shop he intended to build, Dacanay
even by the owner of the property. consented to the execution of a deed of mortgage.
Moreover, the petitioner cannot be charged When said obligation became due, Ganasi, being
under Article 316 paragraph 1 of the Revised unable to raise the amount, decided to sell the
Penal Code. The presented pieces of evidence do mortgage property to Dacanay, the same to
not also warrant a conviction for the crime for answer for everything he owed to the latter.
which the petitioner had been charged, that is, Thereafter, Dacanay went to the Register of
Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Deeds of Benguet to have his ownership over Lot
Code. No. 1 registered. Much to his surprise, he was
informed that what Ganasi sold to him was not
PEOPLE V. GALSIM Lot No. 1 but Lot No. 2 composed mostly of
GR NO. L-14577 ( FEBRUARY 29, 1960) uneven and hilly terrain and which was
worthless for what he intended to use it.
ISSUE
Whether or not accused Galsim is liable under HELD:
Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code Yes, Ganasi was guilty of other deceits under
Article 318 and not under paragraph 1(a) of
FACTS Article 315.
Accused Galsim obtained a loan from Mauro
Magno in the amount of P2,500.00 payable The Solicitor General erred in stating that the
within a period of five years, and to secure its offense comes within the purview of paragraph
payment the former executed in favor of the latter 1(a) of Article 315. Under such provision, the
a deed of chattel mortgage assigning and obligation to deliver already exists, and the
conveying by way of first mortgage a two-story offender on making delivery has altered the
house located in the City of Manila. substance, quantity or quality of the thing
delivered. The facts of this case were not
Magno subsequently found out that the house in foursquare with such provision of law. Here,
question had already been previously mortgaged Ganasi deceitfully pointed to Dacanay one parcel
by its owner to a certain Dela Torre. As a result, of land, offering it as security, on the strength of
the deed of mortgage executed by the accused in which deceit, Dacanay parted with his money.
favor of Magno was refused registration by the The deceit practiced by Ganasi preceded the
alienation of substance, quantity or quality in of the crime as charged. Since, the other
the sense intended by paragraph 1(a) of Article elements of the crime under Art. 315, paragraph
315 in Ganasi’s execution of the mortgage and 2(d) were proved which included those of deceit
later of the sale. and damage, it was correct to convict Sales of the
crime under Article 318 (Other deceits) of the
Thus, the offense committed by Ganasi must Revised Penal Code.
perforce come within the meaning and
intendment of the blanket provisions of Article GUINHAWA VS. PEOPLE
318 since it was not covered by Article 315, 316 G.R. NO. 162822, AUGUST 25, 2005
and 317. CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
JOVITA SALES v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ISSUE:

G.R. No. L-47817. August 29, 1988 Whether or not Guinhawa was guilty of other
GUTIERREZ, JR., J. deceits under Article 318.
ISSUE: FACTS:
Did the act of Sales in causing the "stop Jaime Guinhawa was engaged in the business of
payment" order of the checks in questions selling brand new motor vehicles under the
constitute the deceit referred to in Article 318 of business name of Guinrox Motor Sales in Naga
the Revised Penal Code? City.
FACTS: On March 17, 1995, Guinhawa purchased a

Jovita Sales issued two checks, one, for the sum brand new Mitsubishi L-300 Versa Van. When
of P2 000.00 and another one, for the sum of said van was transported from Manila to Naga
P6,000.00, both dated January 30, 1971. The City it suffered an accident. Guinhawa then
said checks were issued in favor of Renato repaired the van and later offered it for sale in his
Magdaluyo. When both checks were presented showroom.
for encashment or deposited for clearance with
Magdaluyo’s bank, they were dishonored On October 1995, spouses Ralph and Josephine
because Sales made a communication to her Silo went to Guinhawa’s office to buy a new van
bank to issue a "stop payment" order regarding and were shown the L-300 Versa Van which was
the same. on display. Unaware that the van had been
damaged and repaired on account of the
Magdaluyo then looked for Sales and the latter accident, the couple decided to purchase the
promised him the payment of the amount of the van.
dishonored checks in cash. However, the
promise was never fulfilled. A formal demand When the spouses noticed the defects of the van
was subsequently made, and when no and were informed that it had been involved in
compliance was still made, the charge of estafa an accident before, they filed a criminal
was filed. complaint for violation of paragraph 1, Article
318 of the Revised Penal Code against
After trial, instead of convicting Sales of the Guinhawa.
crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, the City Court of Pasay HELD:
found her guilty of the crime "Other deceits" YES. The false or fraudulent representation by a
under Art. 318 of the same Code. seller that what he offers for sale is brand new
(when, in fact, it is not) is one of those deceitful
HELD: acts envisaged in paragraph 1, Article 318 of the
Yes, the act of Sales in causing the "stop Revised Penal Code.
payment" order of the checks in questions did For one to be liable for other deceits under the
constitute the deceit referred to in Article 318 of law, it is required that the prosecution must
the Revised Penal Code. prove the following essential elements:
In estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d), the elements (a) false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense
are: other than those in the preceding articles;
1) Postdating or issuance of a check in payment (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or
of an obligation contracted at the time the check pretense must be made or executed prior to or
was issued; simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; and
(2) Lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered
damage or prejudice.
(3) Damage to the payee thereof (People v. Sabio,
86 SCRA 568). It is essential that such false statement or
fraudulent representation constitutes the very
Sales’ act of causing the "stop payment" order of cause or the only motive for the private
the checks in question undoubtedly makes her complainant to part with her property.
liable for the crime of estafa. It was only the
failure on the part of the prosecution to show The provision includes any kind of conceivable
that Sales had insufficient funds in the bank to deceit other than those enumerated in Articles
cover the checks in question at the time she 315 to 317 of the Revised Penal Code. It is
postdated them that prevented Sales’ conviction
intended as the catchall provision for that the terrace where the fire started, but appellant
purpose with its broad scope and intendment. ran away when he saw her and Dorecyll.
April 1, 2018 – Article 316 – REMOVAL, SALE Appellants neighbor, Felicitas Sarzona,also saw
OR PLEDGE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY appellant near Celerinas house after it caught
RIVERA, Marynit P. fire, following which, appellant fled on seeing
Jovelyn and Dorecyll stepping out of the house,
G.R. No. L-9892 as other neighbors repaired to the scene to help
April 15, 1957 contain the flames. Felicitas also saw Celerina,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES who was at a neighbors house before the fire
vs. started, enter the burning house and resurface
FRANCISCO BASALO with her grandsons Alvin and Joshua.Celerina
and Alvin sustained third degree burns which led
ISSUE: to their death. Joshua sustained second degree
What is the proper penalty for the accused? burns.
FACTS: RULING:
Francisco Basalo was charged with having No. Apellant is only guilty of arson.In cases
unlawfully and fraudulently sold and disposed of where both burning and death occur, in order to
eighty cavans of palay, he had mortgaged to the determine what crime/crimes was/were
Philippine National Bank, without the knowledge perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and
and consent of the mortgagee, to the damage and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain
prejudice of the said bank in the sum of at least the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the
P280. Upon arraignment, the accused interposed main objective is the burning of the building or
the defense of prescription on the ground that edifice, but death results by reason or on the
more than five years had elapsed from the time occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and
the offense was allegedly committed to the filing the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the
of the information on June 5, 1953. Answering other hand, the main objective is to kill a
the defense of prescription, the prosecution particular person who may be in a building or
claimed that the Bank discovered the offense edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
only in the year 1953. accomplish such goal the crime committed is
murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is,
HELD: likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact
Under Article 319, the penalty for the offense is the offender has already done so, but fire is
arresto mayor or a fine double the value of the resorted to as a means to cover up the killing,
property involved. In other words, the fine is an then there are two separate and distinct crimes
alternative penalty. In conclusion, to determine committed homicide/murder and arson.
the prescriptibility of an offense penalized with a The Court finds that there is no showing that
fine, whether imposed as a single or as an appellants main objective was to kill Celerina
alternative penalty, such fine should not be and her housemates and that the fire was
reduced or converted into a prison term, but resorted to as the means to accomplish the goal.
rather it should be considered as such fine under
Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code; and that for As reflected above, as it was not shown that the
purposes of prescription of the offense, defined main motive was to kill the occupants of the
and penalized in Article 319 of the Revised Penal house, the crime would only be arson, the
Code, the fine imposable therein if correctional homicide being a mere consequence thereof,
or afflictive under the terms of Article 26, same hence, absorbed by arson.
Code, should be made the basis rather than that
of arresto mayor, also imposable in said Article PEOPLE VS. CEDENIO
319. G.R. NO. 93485 JUNE 27, 1994
April 3, 2018 – Article 320 AMENDED BY PD ISSUE:

NO 1613 Whether or not the appellant should be charged
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M. by a complex crime of arson with murder.
PEOPLE VS BALUNTONG FACTS:

G.R. No. 182061 On November 26, 1986, Dorio residence was
MARCH 15, 2010 gutted with fire. Five members of the family, then
occupying the house were burned to death. The
ISSUE: five bodies retrieved were those of Mario Hilario
Whether or not Baluntong is guilty of Double Dorio, with wounds on the head and chest, Flora
murder with frustrated murder or the crime of Dorio with a wound on the leg and head almost
arson. severed, Mario Dorio with wounds on the leg and
left nipple, Nicanora Tabanao with a wound in
FACTS: the stomach and infant Dioscora with no wounds
At around 10:30 p.m. while then 12-year old at all but charred to the bone.
Jovelyn Santos was sleeping in the house of her
grandmother,she was awakened by heat Two witnesses testified that the three appellants
emanating from the walls of the house. She thus namely, Pedro Cedenio, Jurito Amarga and
roused her cousin Dorecyll and together they Felipe Antipolo were seen running out of the
went out of the house.Jovelyn saw appellant burning house, holding bolos stained with blood.
putting dry hay (dayami) around the house near

Another witness testified that Pedro Cedenio xxxxxxxxx

borrowed from him a bolo on the night of
November 26, and the following morning, the By prision correccional in its medium period to
bolo was returned to him with a bloodstain on prision mayor in its minimum period, when the
the handle. The accused Pedro Cedinio, also told damage caused is over 200 pesos but does not
him “do not worry, if this incident reaches the exceed 1,000 pesos, and any of the property
court, I will answer (for) everything” referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the next
preceding subdivision is set on fire; but when the
The trial court found the accused-appelants value of such property does not exceed 200
guilty of Arson with Multiple Murder as defined pesos, the penalty next lower in degree than that
and penalized under Section 5 of Presidential prescribed in this subdivision shall be imposed
Decree No. 1613. when the property burned is a building used as
a dwelling in an uninhabited place, and the
RULINGS: penalty of arresto menor and a fine ranging from
No. The late Mr. Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino fifty to one hundred per centum of the damage
cites Groizard- caused shall be imposed, when the property
…when the fire is used with the intent to kill a burned consists of grain fields, pasture lands,
particular person who may be in the house and forests or plantations shall be applied and must
that the objective is attained by burning the be read in relation to article 365 of the same
house, the crime is murder only. When the Penal code. The issue hinges on the penalty for the
Code declares that killing committed by means crime of Arson through Reckless Imprudence
of fire is murder, it intends that fire should be which has resulted only in damage to the
purposely adopted as a means to that end. There property of another.
can be no murder without a design to take life.
In other words, if the main object of the offender The applicability of the third paragraph of said
is to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder. Article 365 was not considered in said case. In
But if the main objective is the burning of a any event, the first paragraph of Article 365,
building, the resulting homicide may be pursuant to which "any person who, by reckless
absorbed by the crime of arson. imprudence shall commit any act which, had it
From the evidence adduced, it is evident that been intentional, would have constituted a less
after the victims were hacked and stabbed to grave felony," shall suffer the penalty of "arresto
death, appellants set the house afire to hide their mayor in its minimum and medium periods,"
gruesome act. Thus, the appellant are guilty of a merely establishes a general rule. The same is
separate crime of four counts of murder and subject to the exception found in the third
arson. And not the complex crime of arson with paragraph of the same article, namely, when the
murder. execution of said act shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender
April 2, 2018 – Article 321 – OTHER FORMS shall be punished by a fine ranging from an
OF ARSON amount equal to the value of said damage to
SALVERON, Jan Ione R. three times such value, but which shall in no
case be less than 25 pesos." The present case is
G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 precisely the one contemplated in said exception.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
VICTORIANO BUENO, alias VICTOR Inasmuch as the reckless and imprudent act of
herein accused has "only resulted in damage to
ISSUE: property," worth, according to the complaint and
Whether article 321 of the Revised Penal Code is the information, P500, the maximum penalty
applicable in this case? imposable is, therefore, a fine of P1,500, which is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Justice of the
FACTS: Peace Court. As a consequence, neither was the
Victoriano Bueno was the owner of a parcel of Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its
agricultural land covered with rice hays set fire appellate jurisdiction, competent to hear and
to the rice hays on his land in a careless and decide this case on its merits over defendant's
imprudent manner without taking the necessary objection. The decision appealed from is hereby
precautions to prevent its spread to the set aside and this case is dismissed.
neighbouring properties. Pedro Tanap’s hut
which was situated on the adjoining land owned April 2, 2018 – Article 322 – CASES OF ARSON
by Victoriano was burned, including all the NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING
farming implements and properties kept in it and ARTICLES
surrounding trees belonging to Pedro. The entire SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
loss of said hut and properties in it in the value
of five hundred pesos (P500). [NO CASE FOUND]
Victoriano was subsequently convicted with the April 3, 2018 – Article 323 – ARSON OF
crime of arson through reckless imprudence. PROPERTY OF SMALL VALUE
TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
HELD:
YES. Paragraph 5 of article 321 of the Revised [NO CASE FOUND]
Penal Code which states:
When the arson consists in the burning of other April 3, 2018 – Article 324 – CRIMES
property and under the circurmstances given INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
hereunder, the offender shall be punished: UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
Yes. The crime of damage to property is not

[NO CASE FOUND] determined solely by the mere act of inflicting
injury upon the property of a third person, but it
April 3, 2018 – Article 325 – BURNING ONE'S must be shown that the act had for its object the
OWN PROPERTY AS MEANS TO COMMIT injury of the property merely for the sake of
ARSON damaging it. Without this circumstance the
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. essential element of the crime is lacking and the
criminal intention of the culprit cannot be
[NO CASE FOUND] established.
April 3, 2018 – Article 326 – SETTING FIRE TO The facts clearly proven in this case is that the
PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY OWNED BY THE two defendants cut eighty cocoanut shoots,
OFFENDER which were producing tuba, without having any
VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S. right so to do; that they occasioned thereby
serious damage to the interests of those who
[NO CASE FOUND] planted the trees; that the damage caused
amounted to 400 pesos. The defendants
April 4, 2018 – Article 327 – WHO ARE LIABLE executed this act, prompted, doubtless, by
FOR MALICIOUS MISCHIEF grievance, hate, or revenge, because the injured
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. party and her husband had leased the land from
the manager of the hacienda after Catalino
THE UNITED STATES Gerale, one of the defendants and the father of
v. the other defendant, had been expelled from said
CATALINO GERALE, ET AL. land by the attorney of the owners. When the
G.R. No. 1768 February 17, 1905 injured party tried to stop the damage they were
causing to the property, defendants threatened
ISSUE: her and followed her as far as the road.
Whether or not Catalino and Bartolome are guilty
of the crime of Malicious Mischief under Article It is clearly proven that the defendants knew very
327 of the Revised Penal Code. well that they were not the owners of the
property; they had consented to the injured party
FACTS: herein profiting by said trees, extracting the tuba
In the early hours of the morning of July 23, by means of her laborers, mananguetes, and
1903, the defendants, Catalino and Bartolome therefore, when the defendants cut said shoots,
Gerale, father and son, proceeded to the property they acted with malicious intention of injuring
in question, situated in the barrio of Tanque, the property of the offended party.
town of Talisay, Province of Cebu.
Therefore,, taking into consideration the
The defendants climbed some coconut trees provisions of articles 83 and 92 of the Penal
which were growing upon said property and Code, the court sentenced Catalino Gerale and
immediately proceeded to cut about eighty Bartolome Gerale to pay a fine of 400 pesos.
shoots and forty small trees that were producing
tuba; that when Eugenia Bacho saw them she THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
scolded them and asked how and why they cut vs.
the coconut shoots on her property and warned RESTITUTO FALLER (alias R. Aguilar)
them not to continue damaging her property. The G.R. No. L-45964 April 25, 1939
defendants then becoming angry, came down out
of the trees and advanced toward her, raising ISSUE:
their bolos and saying, "Here we shall all die;" Whether or not the crime of malicious mischief
that as the woman started to run, crying for help may be committed through reckless imprudence
in order to bring the neighbors to her assistance,
the defendants followed her as far as the road; FACTS:
that each one of the shoots was of the value of 5 Restituto Faller was charged with the crime of
pesos and that said shoots produced tuba to the damage caused to another's property maliciously
value of 2 reales per day; that the coconut trees and willfully. After hearing the evidence, the
which were planted on the land had been planted Court of First Instance of Rizal found that the
about twelve years previously by said Eugenia damage was not cause maliciously of and
Bacho and her husband, Luis Abarques; that the willfully, but through reckless imprudence, and
land was part of the hacienda of Santo Niño, the sentenced Restituto Faller, under paragraph 3 of
property of the friars; that this hacienda was article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as
then transferred to the Compania Agricola de principal in the crime of damage through
Ultramar; that Abarques and Bacho, after reckless imprudence, to pay a fine of P38 and to
leasing the land from the manager of said indemnify the offended party Ramon Diokno in
hacienda, planted therein some coconut trees the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment
some twelve years ago, by their laborers called in case of insolvency.
mananguetes, cleaned off the land and cultivated
the same and obtained tuba from the trees HELD:
thereon, without any opposition whatever for Yes. There is a crime of malicious mischief
about four months prior to September of said through reckless imprudence
year.
Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself. It is
HELD: simply a way of committing it and merely
determines a lower degree of criminal liability.
The information alleges that the appellant acted She thus filed with the Municipal Trial Court
willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and criminally. (MTC) of Bataan a criminal complaint for
To this information no objection was interposed. malicious mischief against the petitioner.
Negligence being a punishable criminal act when
it results in a crime, the allegation in the Valeroso admitted in his counter-affidavit and
information that the appellant also committed during his oral testimony that he indeed
the acts charged unlawfully and criminally demolished the structure of complainant Julita
includes the charge that he acted with Castillo in his capacity as caretaker of the owner,
negligence. PNB, Republic Bank, after he warned her and all
illegal occupants to vacate the premises even
SEPARATE OPINION: posting NO TRESPASSING signs to indicate that
If malicious mischief (art. 327, Revised Penal the place is privately owned; he also absolved all
Code) is an offense distinct from damage to his co-defendants from any liability alleging that
property by reckless imprudence (art. 365, he acted alone during the demolition of said
Revised Penal Code) and the latter is not structure.
necessarily included in the former or the
situation does not call for the application of other Valeroso admits that he deliberately demolished
exceptions laid down by this court, the Mrs. Castillos nipa hut. He, however, contends
conviction of the accused under article 365 of the that the third element of the crime of malicious
Revised Penal Code, notwithstanding his mischief, i.e., that the act of damaging anothers
prosecution under article 327 thereof, was property be committed merely for the sake of
erroneous. An accused is entitled to be informed damaging it, is not present in this case. He
of the nature and cause of the accusation against maintains that he demolished Mrs. Castillos nipa
him (par. 17, sec. 1, Art. III, Constitution of the hut to safeguard the interest of his employer, the
Philippines, in relation to section 15, par. 2, and PNB, and for no other reason. His motive was
section 6, par. 3, of General Orders, No. 58), and lawful and that there was no malice in causing
for this purpose the law requires that a the damage to the private complainants
complaint or information must charge but one property. In other words, he did not act out of
offense, subject to a single exception (sec. II, hatred, revenge or other evil motive.
General Orders, No. 58). There are two reasons,
however, why the decision of the lower court HELD:
should be affirmed. First, because the Yes. All the elements of the crime of Malicious
constitutional and legal purpose has been amply Mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal
served in this case, it appearing that the accused Code are present.
himself, in the course of the trial, put up the The elements of the crime of malicious mischief
defense that he was at most responsible for the under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:
offense of damage to property by reckless
imprudence. 1. That the offender deliberately caused damage
Secondly, assuming that the two offenses here to the property of another;
are dinstinct, I think that they are at least akin 2. That such act does not constitute arson or
to each other so as to justify the application of other crimes involving destruction;
the rule laid down in United States vs. Solis 3. That the act of damaging anothers property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
MARIO VALEROSO
vs. Contrary to the petitioners contention, all the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES foregoing elements are present in this case. First,
G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 he admits that he deliberately demolished the
nipa hut of Mrs. Castillo. Second, the demolition
ISSUE: does not constitute arson or any other crime
Whether or not Valeroso is guilty of the crime of involving destruction.
malicious mischief under article 327 of the
Revised Penal Code. Neither can the petitioner rightfully invoke
paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code
FACTS: which states:
Valeroso was a former barangay captain of Balon
Anito, Balanga, Bataan. On August 21, 1996, the Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following
Philippine National Bank (PNB) hired him as do not incur any criminal liability:
caretaker of its lot situated in Porto del Sol
Subdivision, Balon Anito, Balanga, Bataan. 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
Consequently, the petitioner put up on the said duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
lot a sign which reads “No Trespassing, PNB
Property” to ward off squatters. The requisites of the foregoing justifying
circumstance are:
Sometime in April 1997, despite the sign, Mrs.
Julita Castillo, believing that the said lot was (1)that the accused acted in the performance of
owned by her grandparents, constructed a nipa a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and
hut thereon. She spent P12,350 for the huts (2)that the injury caused or the offense
construction. committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
On June 5, 1997, the petitioner, together with such right or office.
Jorge Valeroso, Fernando Operario, Peter
Morales and Rolando de Guzman, tore down and In this case, Valeroso deliberately demolished
demolished Mrs. Castillos hut. the property of Mrs. Castillo without any lawful
authority. Thus, while the first requisite is when the CRV overtook his Vitara while
present, the second is unavailing. Valeroso was proceeding toward the booth to pay their parking
not acting in the fulfillment of his duty when he fee, as a consequence of which, their side view
took the law into his own hands and summarily mirrors collided. On the same occasion, the hood
demolished Mrs. Castillos hut. of his Vitara was also pounded, and he was
badmouthed by the complainant's wife and
ROBERT TAGUINOD, daughter when they alighted from the CRV to
-versus- confront him for the collision of the side view
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, mirrors.
G.R. No. 185833 October 12, 2011
These circumstances motivated the accused to
ISSUE: push upward the ramp complainant's CRV until
Whether or not Taguinod is guilty of the crime of it reached the steel railing of the exit ramp.
Malicious Mischief under article 327 of the
Revised Penal Code First, the hitting of the back portion of the CRV
FACTS: by the petitioner was clearly deliberate as
Pedro Ang (private complainant) was driving his indicated by the evidence on record. The version
Honda CRV (CRV) from the 3rd basement of the private complainant that the petitioner
parking, while Robert Taguinod (petitioner) was chased him and that the Vitara pushed the CRV
driving his Suzuki Vitara (Vitara) from the 2nd until it reached the stairway railing was more
basement parking. When they were about to believable than the petitioner's version that it
queue at the corner to pay the parking fees, the was private complainant's CRV which moved
respective vehicles were edging each other. The backward and deliberately hit the Vitara
CRV was ahead of the queue, but the Vitara tried considering the steepness or angle of the
to overtake, which resulted the touching of their elevation of the P2 exit ramp. It would be too
side view mirrors. The side view mirror of the risky and dangerous for the private complainant
Vitara was pushed backward and naturally, the and his family to move the CRV backward when
side view mirror of the CRV was pushed forward. it would be hard for him to see his direction as
This prompted the private complainant's wife well as to control his speed in view of the
and daughter, namely, Susan and Mary Ann, gravitational pull.
respectively, to alight from the CRV and confront
the petitioner. Second, the act of damaging the rear bumper of
the CRV does not constitute arson or other
Taguinod appeared to be hostile, hence, the crimes involving destruction. Lastly, when the
private complainant Ang instructed his wife and Vitara bumped the CRV, the petitioner was just
daughter to go back to the CRV. While they were giving vent to his anger and hate as a result of a
returning to the car, petitioner accelerated the heated encounter between him and the private
Vitara and moved backward as if to hit them. The complainant.
CRV, having been overtaken by the Vitara, took
another lane. Private complainant was able to April 4, 2018 – Article 328 – SPECIAL CASES
pay the parking fee at the booth ahead of OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
petitioner. When the CRV was at the upward ALAMEDA, Manuel
ramp leading to the exit, the Vitara bumped the
CRV's rear portion and pushed the CRV until it [NO CASE FOUND]
hit the stainless steel railing located at the exit
portion of the ramp. April 5, 2018 – Article 330 – DAMAGE AND
OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF
As a result of the collision, the CRV sustained COMMUNICATION
damage at the back bumper spare tires and the ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
front bumper, the repair of which amounted to [NO CASE FOUND]
P57,464.66.
April 5, 2018 – Article 331 – DESTROYING OR
HELD: DAMAGING STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS
Yes. Taguinod is proven beyond reasonable OR PAINTINGS
doubt to have committed the crime of Malicious BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
Mischief.
[NO CASE FOUND]
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief
under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:
April 5, 2018 – Article 332 – PERSONS
(1) That the offender deliberately caused damage EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
to the property of another; BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A.
(2) That such act does not constitute arson or
other crimes involving destruction; INTESTATE ESTATE OF DE CARUNGCONG
(3)That the act of damaging another's property be VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
committed merely for the sake of damaging it. G.R. NO. 181409. FEBRUARY 11, 2010
CORONA, J.:
The incident involving the collision of the two ISSUE:
side view mirrors is proof enough to establish the Whether or not the accused can apply for the
existence of the element of hate, revenge and benefits under article 322 of the Revised Penal
other evil motive. Here, the accused entertained Code.
hate, revenge and other evil motive because to
his mind, he was wronged by the complainant FACTS:
ST

On November 24, 1992, William Sato induced G.R. NO. L-63202 APRIL 9, 1985
Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong, who GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
was already then blind and 79 years old[,] to sign
and thumbmark a special power of attorney ISSUE:
dated November 24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Whether or not the accused is exempt from
Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter of said accused, criminal liability under Article 322 of the Revised
making her believe that said document involved Penal Code.
only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that
said document authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C. FACTS:
Sato, then a minor, to sell, assign, transfer or On November 20, 1973, Rodrigo Gomez,
otherwise dispose of to any person or entity of husband of accused, went to the residence of his
her properties all located at Tagaytay City. sister Belen, in Angeles City because there was
somebody in Manila interested in buying some
Mediatrix Carungcong, the duly appointed pieces of jewelry. Belen, together with Lourdes
administratrix of the intestate estate of her Balajadia and Rodrigo, went to the residence of
deceased mother Manolita Gonzales Vda. De accused. At the house of Rodrigo and Dolores
Carungcong, filed a complaint for estafa against Gomez and in the presence of Rodrigo and
her brother-in-law, William Sato. Lourdes, Belen delivered to Dolores three pieces
of jewelry. On November 21, 1973, Milagros
William Sato filed a motion to quash the Gomez, sister-in-law of Dolores, accompanied by
information alleging that he is exempt from Belen Tiotuico, brought to her residence a pair of
criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised dangling earrings. The four pieces of jewelry were
Penal Code. In an order dated April 17, 2006, the left with Dolores without any acknowledgment
trial court granted Satos motion and ordered the receipt as they were relatives, under the
dismissal of the criminal case. Dissatisfied with condition that, if after two or three days, the
the trial courts rulings, the intestate estate of jewelry would be sold, Milagros would give
Manolita, represented by Mediatrix, filed a Dolores and Rodolfo Punongbayan P2,000.00
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals except for the dominic ring in which she would
which, however, in a decision dated August 9, give them P200.00; and if they could sell the
2007, dismissed it. Hence, this petition. jewelry for more than her price, the difference
would belong to them (Dolores and Rodolfo) but
RULING: should they fail to sell the same, they would
No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of return the same.
the Revised Penal Code only applies to the
felonies of theft, swindling and malicious A few days after the consignation, Belen kept on
mischief. Under the said provision, the State reminding Dolores about the jewelries but
condones the criminal responsibility of the Dolores always answered that the jewelries were
offender in cases of theft, swindling and not yet sold. Sensing something was wrong after
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State she again talked with Rodolfo in the evening of
waives its right to prosecute the offender for the the same day, Belen reported the matter to the
said crimes but leaves the private offended party Philippine Constabulary in San Fernando,
with the option to hold the offender civilly liable. Pampanga, and asked them to look for Dolores,
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly Rodrigo, and Wilson. Only the dominic ring was
limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The returned to Belen. The remaining two were
plain, categorical and unmistakable language of pledged to Jose Lontok. When Belen tried to
the provision shows that it applies exclusively to redeem the 7 Karat pink ring, Lontok declined
the simple crimes of theft, swindling and her because the receipt she handed was not the
malicious mischief. It does not apply where any original receipt. The next day, Belen returned to
of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is Jose to redeem the jewelry and told him she had
complexed with another crime, such as theft merely asked Dolores to sell it for her. Jose
through falsification or estafa through promised to give her the jewelry if Willie would
falsification. come with her and bring the original receipt. The
next day when Willie and Belen came, she was
In this case, The Information against Sato able to recover the ring after paying Jose the
charges him with estafa. However, the real amount of P25,000.00. After Wilson had given
nature of the offense is determined by the facts Belen the receipt of Antonio Tambunting's
alleged in the Information, not by the designation Pawnshop, as to the jewelry Dolores pledged to
of the offense. A reading of the facts alleged in guarantee payment of P6,000.00, and after she
the Information reveals that Sato is being (Belen) executed an affidavit that she was the
charged not with simple estafa but with the real owner of the jewelry pledged, Belen was able
complex crime of estafa through falsification of to redeem it after paying the amount of P6,000-
public documents. Since the crime with which 00. As to the pair of dangling earrings, Belen was
respondent was charged was not simple estafa not able to recover the same and so she had to
but the complex crime of estafa through pay on installments, the value thereof to Belen
falsification of public documents, Sato cannot Tiotuico from whom she had received the jewelry.
avail himself of the absolutory cause provided
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code in On February 24, 1977, the Court of First
his favor. Instance of Manila convicted Dolores Gomez of
the crime of estafa or swindling under Article 315
DOLORES G. GOMEZ VS. HON. of the Revised Penal Code. A motion for
INTERMEDIATE APELLATE COURT AND reconsideration filed by Dolores Gomez was
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES denied by the respondent court in a resolution
dated October 19, 1982.
RULING:
Yes. Both Rodrigo and Wilson were exempt from
criminal liability since they were the brothers of
Belen. In Dolores’ case, the Supreme Court ruled
to acquit her criminal charges. There are other
circumstances in the records strongly suggesting
that the transactions were between Belen and
her two brothers and that the petitioner came
into the picture only because she was the wife of
one of the brothers.
In the case at bar, the evidence presented by the

people to establish the presence of conspiracy is
even murkier than the proof on the commission
of the crime itself. The factual findings of the
respondent Court of Appeals and the trial court
do not show the participation of the petitioner in
the events that followed after the pieces of jewelry
were delivered to her and her husband, Rodrigo.
The records show that the only participation of
the petitioner in the transaction was when she
and her husband received the pieces of jewelry
from Belen Gomez Espiritu on November 10 and
21, 1973 at their residence. After the same were
received, Rodrigo and Wilson Gomez took
possession of the said pieces of jewelry and
disposed of them without the knowledge of the
petitioner. Rodrigo and Wilson Gomez alone
absconded with the pieces of jewelry. As a matter
of fact, the petitioner did not even know the
whereabouts of Rodrigo and Wilson who were
then in possession of the said pieces of jewelry.
The participation of petitioner Dolores in the
attempts to locate the missing brothers and to
compel them to return the jewelry to their sister
is not proof of conspiracy in a crime. It was
understandable why she was involved in looking
for her own husband at the behest of her sister-
in-law. To establish conspiracy, there must be
evidence of intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose (People v. Agda,
111 SCRA 330). There is no evidence of such
kind of participation. Without conspiracy, the
petitioner cannot be held liable as she had no
direct participation in the commission of the
crime charged. The presumption of innocence in
favor of the petitioner has not been successfully
overcome by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

TITLE ELEVEN – CRIMES AGAINST Basco. In a short time after the marriage, the
CHASTITY defendant, Pedro Pitoc, and his wife left the city
of Manila and went to Calumpit, Bulacan, to
April 6, 2018 – Article 333 – WHO ARE GUILTY reside. Later Pedro Pitoc returned to Manila,
OF ADULTERY leaving his wife at Calumpit, promising to return
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. March 15, 1921. For his failure to return on
March 17, 1921, his wife came to Manila to look
PILAPIL V. IBAY-SOMERA for him. March 17, his wife came to Manila where
GR NO. 80116 she found the defendant living in the same house
JUNE 30, 1989 and under the same roof with his former
paramour, staying around her store and keeping
ISSUE: company with her, under circumstances which
WoN Pilapil can be charged by Geiling with strongly tend to show that they had resumed
adultery. their former relations.
FACTS: HELD:
Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and Erich Yes. The word cohabit has many different
Geiling, a German citizen, were married in meanings, each depending upon the sense in
Germany. Subsequently, Geiling filed a divorce which it is used. Here, we have a law intended to
against Pilapil in Germany, which the prohibit a married man from keeping a mistress
Schoneberg Court granted on January 15, 1986. in his dwelling or anywhere else under
Geiling then filed a case of adultery against "scandalous circumstances." Hence, the
Pilapil at the RTC of Manila on June of 1986. He meaning of the word cohabit here must relate
alleged that in 1982, Pilapil had an affair with and he confined to the subject matter of the law
William Chia and Jesus Chua in 1983. itself. When used in that sense, it should be
construed to mean "to dwell or live together as
HELD: husband and wife; to live together as husband
No, she cannot be charged. and wife although not legally married; to live
Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code together in the same house, claiming to be
(RPC), the crime of adultery, as well as four other married; to live together at bed and board."
crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted (Corpus Juris, vol., 11, p. 950.)
except upon a sworn written complaint filed by
the offended spouse. Corollary to such exclusive Applying the facts to such definition, it is
grant of power to the offended spouse to institute undisputed that before his marriage to Petronila
the action, it necessarily follows that such Roque, the defendant and his coaccused were
initiator must have the status, capacity or legal living together for a number of years in illicit
representation to do so at the time of the filing of relations. The defendants, Pedro Pitoc, legally
the criminal action. married Petronila Roque in the city of Manila on
February 21, 1921, and together they went to
Article 344 of the RPC thus presupposes that the Calumpit, Bulacan, to live. In a short time he left
marital relationship is still subsisting at the time his wife there and came to Manila, promising to
of the institution of the criminal action for return on March 15, twenty-three days after
adultery. their marriage. He never did return. March 17,
his wife came to Manila where she found the
In the present case, the fact that Geiling obtained defendant living in the same house and under
a valid divorce in his country, the Federal the same roof with his former paramour, staying
Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce around her store and keeping company with her,
and its legal effects may be recognized in the under circumstances which strongly tend to
Philippines insofar as Geiling is concerned in show that they had resumed their former
view of the nationality principle in our civil law relations. It is, indeed, significant that the
on the matter of status of persons. Thus, Geiling defendant Pitoc would leave his wife whom he
ceased to be the lawful spouse of Pilapil at the married on February 21, and return to Manila
time he initiated the criminal complaint against and go direct to, and obtain a room in, the same
Pilapil. house where his former paramour was living,
and violate his promise to return tho his newly
April 6, 2018 – Article 334 – CONCUBINAGE wedded wife on March 15.
DAHIROC, Janice
Petronila Roque testified that she asked her
PEOPLE VS. PEDRO PITOC AND MARCIANA husband if that woman, meaning his coaccused,
DEL BASCO was his paramour, and that he answered yes,
G.R. NO. 18513 SEPTEMBER 18, 1922 and that she asked him what would be her
situation and "he answered me that he could not
ISSUE: abandon that woman, referring to Marciana del
Whether or not Pedro Pitoc and Marciana del Basco, and that I could do anything I pleased."
Basco cohabition constitutes the crime of
concubinage. This evidence was not denied by the defendant,
Pedro Pitoc. When this is considered with the
FACTS: defendant's conduct and all the other evidence,
February 21, 1921, the defendant, Pedro Pitoc, surrounding facts and circumstances, the proof
was legally married to Petronila Roque in the city is conclusive that the defendant, Pedro Pitoc, did
of Manila. For several years prior to their cohabit "with a woman who is not his wife," and
marriage, the defendant, Pedro Pitoc, had that he is guilty of the crime charged.
sustained illicit relations with Marciana del
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of

They were both found guilty as charged. discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
BUSUEGO VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
MINDANAO AND ROSA BUSUEGO or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where
G.R. NO. 196842 OCTOBER 9, 2013 the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or
ISSUE: hostility. In this regard, petitioner failed to
Whether or not the Ombudsman committed a demonstrate the Ombudsman's abuse, much
grave abuse of discretion in finding probable less grave abuse, of discretion.
cause to indict Alfredo and Sia for Concubinage.
The Ombudsman merely followed the provisions
FACTS: of its Rules of Procedure. No information may be
Private respondent Rosa S. Busuego (Rosa) filed filed and no complaint may be dismissed without
a complaint for: (1) Concubinage under Article the written authority or approval of the
334 of the Revised Penal Code; (2) violation of ombudsman in cases falling within the
Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan, or of the proper
Women and Their Children); and (3) Grave Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases.
Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal
Code, before the Office of the Ombudsman Notably, Rosa's complaint contained not just the
against her husband, Alfredo. Alfredo is the Chief Concubinage charge, but other charges: violation
of Hospital, Davao Regional Hospital. They have of Republic Act No. 9262 and Grave Threats.
2 children. However, their marriage turned sour. Upon the Ombudsman's perusal, the complaint
was supported by affidavits corroborating Rosa's
Rosa went to the US and was eventually joined accusations. Thus, at that stage, the
by her 2 children, Alfred and Robert. Robert Ombudsman properly referred the complaint to
eventually returned to Davao City to study Alfredo for comment. Nonetheless, while the
medicine. Sometime in 1997, Rosa learned that Ombudsman found no reason for outright
a certain Emy Sia (Sia) was living at their dismissal, it deemed it fit to hold a clarificatory
conjugal home. When Rosa asked Alfredo, he hearing to discuss the applicability of Article 344
said that Sia, nurse at the Regional Hospital, was of the Revised Penal Code, the issue having been
just in a sorry plight and was allegedly raped by insisted upon by Alfredo.
Rosa's brother-in-law so he allowed her to sleep
at the maids' quarters. Surely the procedural sequence of referral of the
complaint to respondent for comment and
In October 2005, Rosa finally learned of Alfredo's thereafter the holding of a clarificatory hearing is
extra-marital relationships. Robert and the provided for in paragraph b, Section 2 and
housekeepers executed a joint affidavit to paragraphs d and f, Section 4 of Rule II, which
support Rosa's allegations. Rosa and the other the Court have at the outset underscored. The
son Alfred flew to Davao without informing Ombudsman merely facilitated the amendment
Alfredo. She gathererd and consolidated of the complaint to cure the defect pointed out by
information of her husband's sexual affairs. She Alfredo. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction,
also averred that during the course of the albeit concurrent with the DOJ, to conduct
marriage, Alfredo physically and verbally abused preliminary investigation of crimes involving
her and her family. Alfredo denied all public officers, without regard to its commission
accusations. In their subsequent exchange of in relation to office, had long been settled in Sen.
responsive pleadings, Rosa maintained Alfredo's Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating
culpability, and naturally, Alfredo claimed Prosecutors of DOJ.
innocence.
The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman
In the course thereof, the procedural issue of Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan
Rosa's failure to implead Sia and de Leon as Law, as amended, do not give to the Ombudsman
respondents cropped up. Alfredo insisted that exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses
Rosa's complaint ought to be dismissed for committed by public officers or employees. The
failure to implead his alleged concubines as authority of the Ombudsman to investigate
respondents. offenses involving public officers or employees is
concurrent with other government investigating
HELD: agencies such as provincial, city and state
No. The Ombudsman has full discretionary prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in the
authority in the determination of probable cause exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases
during a preliminary investigation. This is the cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over,
reason why judicial review of the resolution of the at any stage, from any investigating agency of the
Ombudsman in the exercise of its power and government, the investigation of such cases.
duty to investigate and prosecute felonies and/or
offenses of public officers is limited to a In other words, respondent DOJ Panel is not
determination of whether there has been a grave precluded from conducting any investigation of
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess cases against public officers involving violations
of jurisdiction. Courts are not empowered to of penal laws but if the cases fall under the
substitute their judgment for that of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the
Ombudsman. respondent Ombudsman may, in the exercise of
its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage.
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
Thus, with the jurisprudential declarations that within the provision of Article 336 of the Revised
the Ombudsman and the DOJ have concurrent Penal Code.
jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation,
the respective heads of said offices came up with
OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 for the April 7, 2018 – Article 337 – QUALIFIED
proper guidelines of their respective prosecutors SEDUCTION
in the conduct of their investigations. DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
WHEREFORE the petition is DISMISSED. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIANO

FONTANILLA
April 7, 2018 – Article 335 WHEN AND HOW G.R. No. L-25354, June 28, 1968
RAPE IS COMMITTED
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is criminally liable
Note: under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code
Art. 335 has been repealed by Rep. Act. No. 8353,
otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997" FACTS:
which took effect on October 22, 1997. See page On September 1960, Fe Castro, a fifteen-year old
523 of this Book II. (Article 266-A) virgin, was brought by her mother to the house
of Mariano Fontanilla and his second wife,
April 7, 2018 – Article 336 ACTS OF Magdalena Copio, a sister of Fe's mother, to serve
LASCIVIOUSNESS as a helper. Fe Castro testified that during her
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G stay in the house of Fontanilla for about three
months, the accused succeeded in having carnal
ISSUE: knowledge of her repeatedly, the total number of
Whether or not the case for Acts of times she could not recall. Prior to this incident,
Lasciviousness can be sustained. the accused had made amorous overtures and
advances toward her.
FACTS: Fe Castro further testified that she subsequently
Tiburcio Balbar allegedly entered the room where repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the
public schoolteacher Ester Gonzales was accused, as she was induced by his promises of
conducting her classes. Without warning and marriage and frightened by his acts of
right after complainant had finished writing on intimidation. The accused made love to her
the blackboard, Balbar placed his arms around during the day when his wife was away and at
her and kissed her on the eye. Shocked, night when the latter was already asleep. Their
complainant instinctively pushed Balbar away intimacies lasted for almost three months until
and tried to flee. Balbar brought out his "daga" her aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them in
(a local dagger) and pursued her, catching up flagrante on the kitchen floor. The following day
with her before she was able to get out of the she returned to her parents, and revealed
room. Balbar embraced her again, at the same everything to her mother two days later.
time holding on to his "daga". They both fell to
the floor, as a result of which complainant HELD:
sustained slight physical injuries. Gonzales Yes. It is nevertheless settled that deceit,
injured her right arm which required 3 to 4 days although an essential element of ordinary or
to heal. Two informations, one for Direct Assault simple seduction, does not need to be proved or
Upon a Person in Authority and another for Acts established in a charge of qualified seduction. It
of Lasciviousness were filed by the Assistant is replaced by abuse of confidence. When the
Provincial Fiscal against defendant before the offender is a public officer, a priest or minister, a
CFI Batangas. Balbar filed separate motions to servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any
quash, contending that with respect to Criminal title is in charge of the education or keeping of
Case for Acts of Lasciviousness, the accused the offended woman, as in the present case, the
would be placed in double jeopardy and that the act is punishable although fraud or deceit may
complaint charges two offenses. not have been used or, if employed, has not been
proved. The seduction of a virgin over twelve and
HELD: under eighteen years of age, committed by any of
NO. Upon examination of the events which gave the persons enumerated in art. 337 "is
rise to the filing of the 2 informations, the offense constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction ...
of Acts of Lasciviousness does not appear to have even though no deceit intervenes or even when
been committed at all. The presence or absence such carnal knowledge were voluntary on the
of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the part of the virgin, because in such a case, the law
acts themselves and the environmental takes for granted the existence of the deceit as
circumstances. In the instant case, considering an integral element of the said crime and
the manner, place and time under which the acts punishes it with greater severity than it does the
complained of were done, even as alleged in the simple seduction ... taking into account the
information itself, lewd designs can hardly be abuse of confidence on the part of the agent
attributed to accused. The factual setting, i.e., a (culprit), an abuse of confidence which implies
schoolroom in the presence of complainant's deceit or fraud."
students and within hearing distance of her co-
teachers, rules out a conclusion that the accused There is no evidence on record that Fe Castro,
was actuated by a lustful design or purpose or then a 15-year old single girl, was unchaste prior
that his conduct was lewd or lascivious. It may to her living with the Fontanilla spouses. Such
be that he did embrace the girl and kiss her but, being the case, her virginity before she was
this of itself would not necessarily bring the case seduced by the appellant must be presumed.
Presumption of a woman's virginity arises age and committed by any of the persons
whenever it is shown that she is single, and enumerated in Art. 337 of the Revised Penal
continues until overthrown by proof to the Code. Abuse of confidence is the qualifying
contrary. circumstance in the offense. Notably, among the
persons who can commit qualified seduction is a
G.R. Nos. 104942-43 "domestic". And a "domestic," for purposes of
November 25, 1993 said legal provision, has been interpreted
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NAPOLEON judicially as —
SUBINGSUBING
. . . Upon the word domestic being employed in
ISSUE: said legal provision segregating it from that of a
Whether or not the accused is guilty under servant, the term is applied to persons usually
Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code living under the same roof, pertaining to the
same house, and constituting, in the sense, a
FACTS: part thereof, distinguishing it from the term
Accused Napoleon was charged with the crime of servant whereby a person serving another on a
rape in three separate informations. salary is designated; in this manner, it has been
properly used.
The complainant Mary Jane in all of these The verified complaint for rape contains
actions is sixteen years old and unmarried. She allegations, sans averment on the use of force,
was living with her grandmother and the accused which impute the crime of qualified seduction.
Napoleon who was her uncle. On November 25 Any deficiency in the complaint is supplied by
and 28, 1989, the accused poked his garand rifle the supporting affidavit, where complainant
and then boxed the belly of Mary Jane, which averred that the accused Napoleon
rendered her unconscious. He proceeded having Subingsubing, her uncle, who was living in the
carnal knowledge with her against her will and same house as the complainant, had sexual
without her consent. On November 30, 1989, the intercourse with her. The accused took
accused put over the nose of the victim advantage of his moral ascendancy if not
handkerchief soaked with chemical which dominance over the complainant. She was
rendered her unconscious. He then proceeded presumably a virgin. As already stated, the
having carnal knowledge with her. accused was a domestic in relation to the
complainant within the meaning of Art. 337 of
Mary Jane did not reveal to anybody the things the Revised Penal Code.
that happened to her for fear that the accused
might really kill her as the accused had April 8, 2018 – Article 340 - CORRUPTION OF
threatened to do. Months later, Mary Jane finally MINORS
divulged everything to her mother. They reported FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
the incidents to the police station.Thereafter, she
had herself physically examined and was found FRANCISCA ALIMAGNO & JOVITA MELO
pregnant. VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
At the trial, the accused Napoleon denied the G.R. NO. L-36458, FEBRUARY 21, 1983
charge of rape as narrated above and proferred a
different story. He interposed consent on the part ISSUE:
of the complainant as a defense. Three other Whether Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code
witnesses for the defense were presented who was violated by the accused?
corroborated the story of the accused and
testified that indeed, the complainant and the FACTS:
accused were seen going out together and Victim was employed as a domestic helper when
sharing happy moments months after November she came to know the accused who was then
1989. bringing money to her employer. One time,
accused tried to convince her to leave the house
HELD: of her employer promising her a better job.
The evidence for the prosecution cannot, on its Accused succeeded in pursuing the victim to
own, stand and suffice to establish the guilt of leave. Upon leaving the house of her employer a
the accused for the crime of rape beyond note was left saying " Ako ho ay nagtanan
reasonable doubt. A perusal of the records and kasama ko ay lalake. Your utusan" which was
the testimony of the complainant discloses admitted to have been written by the accused.
contradictions and inconsistencies on vital After abandoning the house of her employer,
details which lead one to seriously doubt the victim was brought by the two accused to a hut
veracity of her story. and there allowed her to be ravished by a man
The complainant admitted that she still went out whom she saw for the first time.
with the accused to watch betamax movies or get RULING: Yes. Article 340 of the Revised Penal
food for the pigs in the ricefields. Such behaviour Code provides that any person who shall
directly contradicts the normal or expected promote or facilitate or corruption of persons
behaviour of a rape victim. under age to satisfy the lust of another shall be
Appellant's exculpation from the offense of rape punished.
does not mean, however, that his responsibility
is merely moral and not penal in character. He The Court clearly found through evidence and
was found guilty of qualified seduction in one of witnesses presented that the accused violated
the informations. this article. The accused Alimagno was found
guilty as principal to the crime and accused Melo
Qualified seduction is the act of having carnal was found guilty as an accomplice in the the
knowledge of a virgin over 12 years to 18 years of consumated crime.
Jesus Nuevas contracted the services of 4 women

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES of ill repute whom he brought and maintained in
VS SIMPLICIO DELANTAR a house he rented in Batangas to engage in
G.R. NO. 169143, FEBRUARY 2, 2007 prostitution. He provided them food and lodging
and in return he would receive ½ of the
ISSUE: prostitutes’ earnings in their illicit traffic with
Was the accused guilty for violation of R.A. No. soldiers. It was established that the prostitutes
7610 in relation to Article 340 of the Revised would charge the soldiers for 10 pesos each
Penal Code? sexual intercourse. The accused now contended
FACTS: The victim was a minor below 12 years that under article 341 of the Revised Penal Code
old and through her testimony showed that the prosecution (a) must identify the alleged
accused procured her as a child prostitute for at house of ill fame, (b) must proved it to be really a
least two clients: the first, an Arab national house of ill fame, and (c) must further proved
named Mr. Hammond and the second, then that the accused is either the owner or the lessee
Congressman Romeo Jalosjos.Victim testified of the house.
that she was brought to the first client at least
eleven (11) times. Once left alone with the victim, Held: Yes. The accused is guilty of the said
the client would perform lascivious acts, the felony. Under Article 341 penalizes three acts: (a)
recurrent salient points of her harrowing engaging in the business of prostitution, (b)
experience revolved around the client's kissing profiting by prostitution, or (c) enlisting the
her, touching her breasts, embracing her, and service of women for the purpose of prostitution.
inserting his finger in her private parts. After Any person committing any one of these acts
their first visit to the client, victim told accused comes within the purview of said article. The
that she did not want to go back because the proofs show beyond reasonable doubt that the
client was "bastos." Accused promised her that appellant (a) enlisted the services of the women
they would no longer go back but the promise for the purpose of prostitution and (b) profited
was broken as they went back a few more times. thereby. Even if the appellant were not the lessee
of particular house, he could not escape the
As with the first client, accused would tell the penalty imposed by the law for the immoral and
victim that they had to go to the second client illicit trade in which he engaged. As a matter of
because they had obligations to pay. During each law, once it was proved that the accused had
of these visits, the client would give the victim enlisted the services of women for the purpose of
money ranging from P2,000.00 to P10,000.00. prostitution, he was criminally liable even if
The details of what transpired when victim was there were no proof that he had shared in the
left alone with the second client were vividly profit. And even if there were no proof that he
recounted in People v. Jalosjos, where the second had enlisted the services of women for the
client was convicted of two (2) counts of rape and purpose of prostitution, he would still be
six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness, all criminally liable because there is indubitable
committed against the victim on various dates. proof in this case that he had share in the income
of the prostitutes.
HELD:
Yes. There is no doubt, drawing from the April 10, 2018 – Article 342 – FORCIBLE
evidence, that the victim was a child who was ABDUCTION
exploited in prostitution as defined in Section 5, IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
Article III of R.A. No. 7610. The law punishes not
only the person who commits the acts of sexual G.R. NO. 131914 APRIL 30, 2001
intercourse or lascivious conduct with the child PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JAIME
but also those who engage in or promote, ABLANEDA
facilitate or induce child prostitution. Accused is
one such person. Accused in his brief, does not FACTS:
deny that he brought the victim to the clients. On February 18, 1993, at around 7:00 o’clock in
He, however, attempts to exculpate himself by the morning, 6-year old Magdalena Salas, a
stating that he did not coerce or influence the Grade I pupil at the Baldovino Elementary
victim to go to the two clients to be exploited in School, Camambugan, Daet, Camarines Norte,
prostitution. Verily, it was against the victim's was walking to school. Along the way, accused-
will and consent to see the two clients. But even appellant Jaime Ablaneda, also known as Joey
if the victim had in fact consented, appellant may Capistrano, approached her and asked if he
still be prosecuted for child prostitution under could share her umbrella, because it was
Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 because the raining. Suddenly, Ablaneda boarded a tricycle
child's consent or lack of it is not an element of with Magdalena and brought her to a small hut.
the offense. While inside, Ablaneda removed his underwear
and the Magdalena’s panties. He applied cooking
April 8, 2018 – Article 341 – WHITE SLAVE oil, which he had bought earlier, on his organ
TRADE and on’s. Then, he proceeded to have sexual
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z. intercourse with the little girl. Magdalena felt
pain but was too terrified to speak or cry out.
PEOPLE V. NUEVAS After satisfying his lust, Ablaneda ordered
Magdalena to go home. When Magdalena arrived
ISSUE: at their house, Ailene Villaflores, her uncle’s
WON accused Nuevas is guilty for violating sister-in-law, noticed that she looked pale and
Article 341 of the RPC weak, and found traces of blood on her dress.
Ailene asked her what happened, but Magdalena
FACTS: merely said that her classmate had pushed her.
Ailene did not believe this, so she brought her to in the house of appellant and saw the appellant
a quack doctor. The latter told her that naked and was rape. Victim was raped 5 times
Magdalena had been raped. Ailene then brought and was detained for 6 days.
Magdalena to the Daet Police Station and, later,
to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital to The RTC rendered judgement finding the
have her medically examined. When Ailene saw accused guilty of violating Art. 342 of Forcible
Magdalena’s bloodied panties, she again asked Abduction with Rape.
her what happened. This time, Magdalena In his appeal, appellant contends that there were
confessed that she was raped by a man who had no sufficient evidence to convict him. According
a scar on the stomach. to him, he did not rape AAA because she was not
in his custody at the time said incident allegedly
The lower court found that the Ablaneda guilty happened. Appellant adds that he entrusted AAA
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of to the custody of Florante Magay’s sister because
forcible abduction with rape. he was working. Appellant also insists that AAA
voluntarily went with him to his house.
ISSUE:
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain ISSUE:
the conviction of the accused? Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain
the conviction of the accused?
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that there was HELD:
sufficient evidence to convict Ablaneda. All The elements of the crime of forcible abduction,
elements of the crime of forcible abduction were as defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal
proven in this case. The victim, who is a woman, Code, are: (1) that the person abducted is any
was taken against her will, as shown by the fact woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or
that she was intentionally directed by accused- reputation; (2) that she is taken against her will;
appellant to a vacant hut. At her young age, and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs.
Magdalena could not be expected to physically On the other hand, rape under Article 266-A is
resist considering that the lewd designs of committed by having carnal knowledge of a
Ablaneda could not have been apparent to her at woman by: (1) force or intimidation, or (2) when
that time. Physical resistance need not be the woman is deprived of reason or is
demonstrated to show that the taking was unconscious, or (3) when she is under twelve
against her will. The employment of deception years of age.
suffices to constitute the forcible taking,
especially since the victim is an unsuspecting The prosecution was able to prove all these
young girl. Considering that it was raining, going elements in this case. The victim, AAA was a
to the hut was not unusual to Magdalena, as seven (7) year-old girl who was taken against her
probably the purpose was to seek shelter. Barrio will by appellant who told her that he knew her
girls are particularly prone to deception. It is the mother and that he would bring her home. At her
taking advantage of their innocence that makes tender age, AAA could have easily been deceived
them easy culprits of deceiving minds. Finally, by appellant. The employment of deception
the evidence shows that the taking of the young suffices to constitute the forcible taking,
victim against her will was effected in especially since the victim is an unsuspecting
furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. Such young girl. It is the taking advantage of their
lewd designs in forcible abduction is established innocence that makes them easy culprits of
by the actual rape of the victim deceiving minds. The presence of lewd designs in
forcible abduction is established by the actual
In the case at bar, Magdalena testified in open rape of the victim.
court that accused-appellant inserted his penis
into her private parts. The fact of sexual In the prosecution of rape cases, conviction or
intercourse is corroborated by the medical acquittal depends on the complainant's
findings wherein it was found that the victim testimony because of the fact that usually only
suffered from complete hymenal laceration. the participants are witnesses to their
Whether or not she consented to the sexual occurrences. The issue therefore boils down to
contact is immaterial considering that at the time credibility.
thereof, she was below twelve years of age. Sex Testimonies of child-victims are normally given
with a girl below twelve years, regardless of full weight and credit, since when a girl,
whether she consented thereto or not, particularly if she is a minor, saysthat she has
constitutes statutory rape. been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show thatrape has in fact been
G.R. NO. 199100 committed.
JULY 18, 2014 Wherefore, the decision was affirmed finding the
PEOPLE V. ROSENDO AMARO accused guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape.
FACTS: April 10, 2018 – Article 343 – CONSENTED

26th day of March, 1998, at 5pm in the ABDUCTION
afternoon, in front of Boots and Maya, AAA a 7 LAZO, Joseph Artfel T.
year old girl was forcibly abducted by appellant
Rosendo Amaro. AAA testified that on her way The following cases could not be found:
home from school, she met appellant and asked PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO, 46 PHIL 775
her to buy him some cigarettes. Appellant offered PEOPLE VS AMANTE, 49 PHIL 679
her food. As she was finished eating the food, she
felt dizzy and was unconscious. She later awoke
April 12, 2018 – Article 344 – PROSECUTION prosecution officer. The complaint contemplated
OF THE CRIME OF ADULTERY, by the law and the rules is necessarily that one
CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, filed in court. The "salaysay" was filed with the
RAPE, AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS. Fiscal and not with the court; it did not start the
NASH, Regina Mercado criminal proceedings
G.R. No. L-8520. June 29, 1957 "In front of these provisions of law, it cannot be
PEOPLE v. ENGRACIO SANTOS, ET AL. certainly pretended that the aforementioned
‘salaysay’ or written statement of the offended
ISSUE: party, Exhibit 1, could be considered as the
Whether or not the “salaysay’ or written complaint required by law for the proper
statement of Policarpia Bansuelo, the offended initiation of the present case of rape.
party filed with the Fiscal and not in court is the
complaint contemplated by Art. 344 of RPC? "It is argued, however, that said Exhibit 1 should
be considered as the complaint required by law,
FACTS: for on the basis thereof the provincial fiscal of
Respondent Engracio Santos was charged in the Rizal conducted the preliminary investigation
Court of First Instance of Rizal with the crime of and then filed the information at bar. It is further
rape. After trial, said respondent was convicted a argued that since under Republic Act No. 732,
pd sentenced to the maximum period of provincial fiscals have now the same authority as
reclusion temporal, from 17 years, 4 months and the Justice of the Peace to conduct preliminary
1 day to 20 years, and to pay the costs. Appealing investigation, said Exhibit 1 should be
to the Court of Appeals, respondent filed a considered as the complaint contemplated in the
motion to quash and for discharge, on the Rules of Court and the Revised Penal Code. We
ground that the trial court was without cannot concur to this theory, for according to
jurisdiction, there having been no valid Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732, after the
complaint subscribed and sworn to by the provincial fiscal has conducted an investigation
offended party as required by Article 344 of the of a case, he has the duty to have prepared an
Revised Penal Code. Said motion was granted. information or complaint. The pertinent portion
Hence this appeal by the petitioners. of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732 provides:
It is contended that the "salaysay" executed and
signed by petitioner Policarpia Bansuelo on ‘A provincial fiscal shall have authority to
January 12, 1954, before and in the presence of conduct investigation into the matter of any
Fiscal Nicanor P. Nicolas of Rizal and Capt. crime or misdemeanor and have the necessary
Hermogenes Marco of the PCAC, is sufficient in information or complaint prepared or made
form and substance to serve as the complaint against persons charged with the commission of
required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal the same.’
Code. That the law requiring that the crime of
rape, among others, shall be commenced by a And the complaint mentioned in this provision of
complaint filed by the offended party is merely law is precisely what is defined and mentioned in
"designed for the protection of the offended party the Rules of Court and the Revised Penal Code.
and her family who may prefer to suffer the Accordingly, we hold the view that in the case at
outrage in silence rather than go through with bar, after the fiscal has investigated the case, he
the scandal of a public trial" (Samilin v. Court of should have procured the filing of a complaint by
First Instance of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304); the offended party to properly initiate this case
that when petitioner Bansuelo executed said and not file by himself an information as he did."
"Salaysay", she had manifested her desire to
prosecute the maniacal abuse committed against It is also argued that in affixing her signature and
her; that said "salaysay" has conformed swearing to the allegations of the information
substantially to the requisites of a, valid together with the fiscal, petitioner Bansuelo had
complaint; that it cannot be considered as her complied with the requirement of a valid
testimony during the preliminary investigation complaint. Respondent Santos has answered
because, if it were so, the other witnesses should this argument by saying that such fact is not
have also signed it. borne out by the records; that such assertion has
never been made before the Court of Appeals;
After a thorough examination of the "salaysay" in that the opening paragraph of the information
question, we agree with the appealed decision clearly and unmistakably shows that the fiscal
that it is a narration of how the crime of rape was alone accuses respondent Santos of the crime of
committed against petitioner Bansuelo. As rape; that the offended party has never been
correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General in referred to in the body of the information as
his comment on the motion for reconsideration, having requested its filing.
such sworn statement "salaysay" is not the
complaint contemplated in and required by We cannot consider the information, although
sections 1, 2 and 5 of Rule 106 of the Rules of signed by petitioner Bansuelo together with the
Court and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. fiscal, as equivalent to the complaint required by
law, because said information lacks the oath of
"The complaint is the process which begins the the complainant; the jurat contained therein is
criminal action, and no other pleading on the the subscribed and sworn certification of the
part of the government is necessary. So, if a fiscal that he had conducted the preliminary
criminal action, had been commenced by investigation in which obviously the offended
complaint in appropriate cases, it would be error party had taken no participation whatsoever; in
for the court to dismiss it, because it was not very unequivocal terms, the information
presented through the mediation of the commences with the statement that "the
undersigned fiscal accuse Engracio Santos of the she pleaded with him not to abuse her, but
crime of rape", the offended party not having Sajiron told her that if she would submit to his
been mentioned at all as one of the accusers. desire, her life would be spared. Sajiron had
carnal knowledge with AAA against the latter’s
It is not altogether true that to require the will. During the entire time that AAA was being
offended party to draft the complaint in legal abused by Sajiron, Maron stood guard and
form and terminology, — otherwise the watched them. Sajiron instructed Egap to guard
complaint will be insufficient, — would impose a AAA and to shoot her if she would attempt to
penalty on ignorance, and that a person with no escape. Nine days after the abduction, upon
legal training will not be able to institute a instruction of Egap, AAA and Sajiron were
criminal action for private crimes; because, as married by an Imam. The marriage was
may be gathered from the provisions of Section 2 solemnized against AAA's will and without the
of Republic Act 732, it is the duty of the presence of her parents. After the marriage, AAA
Provincial Fiscal to prepare the necessary and Sajiron lived in the house of Egap, together
complaint after having taken down the testimony with the latter's wife, children and mother-in-
of the offended party and his witnesses during law. AAA stayed in one room with Sajiron. While
the preliminary investigation. Indeed, the law detained, AAA did not try to escape, because her
required this, since the victims of crimes which house was very far from the place where she was
cannot be prosecuted except upon their held captive, and her captors threatened to kill
complaint may be ignorant of the law. her and her family if she would attempt to
escape. During her detention, Sajiron abused her
This Court has invariably maintained strict twice every night. She was free to roam within
compliance with the jurisdictional requirement the vicinity of the house but she was usually
of a complaint by the offered party, as defined in accompanied by Egap's wife who served as her
Section 2 of Rule 106 and Article 344 of the guard. She was also guarded and threatened by
Revised Penal Code. In the case of People v. Egap's sons. She got pregnant after some time. A
Palabao (L-8027, August 31, 1954), we crime of abduction with rape was charged
considered insufficient an information filed with against the appellants.
the Provincial Fiscal, wherein the offended party
signed at the bottom thereof and above the ISSUE:
signature of the prosecuting officer, the Whether or not the crime imputed and the
information even reciting that the Provincial corresponding civil liability under ART. 345 was
Fiscal charged defendant with the crime of correct.
seduction at the "instance of the offended party."
In the case of People v. Martinez, (76 Phil. 559), HELD:
this Court motu proprio dismissed the case for YES. The court held that Sajiron and Maron, who
failure of the aggrieved party to file the proper are private individuals, forcibly took and dragged
complaint for the offense of oral defamation, AAA, a minor, to the forest and held her captive
although the accused never raised the question against her will. The crime of serious illegal
on appeal, thereby showing the necessity of strict detention consists not only of placing a person in
compliance with the legal requirement even at an enclosure, but also of detaining him or
the cost of nullifying all the proceedings already depriving him in any manner of his liberty.For
had in the lower court. there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the
victim is restrained from going home.Its essence
HELD: is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty,
The decision appealed from was affirmed without coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of
costs. the accused to effect such deprivation. In the
present case, although AAA was not actually
April 11, 2018 – Article 345 – CIVIL LIABILITY confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly
OF PERSONS GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST restrained and deprived of her liberty, because
CHASTITY she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a
OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P. piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to
EGAP MADSALI, SAJIRON LAJIM AND physically drag her to the forest away from her
MARON LAJIM VS PEOPLE home. The crime of rape was also proven beyond
G.R. NO. 179570 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 reasonable doubt in this case. Sajiron succeeded
in having carnal knowledge of AAA through the
FACTS: use of force and intimidation. For fear of losing
Fifteen-year-old AAA and her aunt Inon Dama her life, AAA had no choice but to give in to
were fetching water in a cave in Barangay (Brgy.) Sajiron's beastly and lustful assault.
Malitub, Bataraza, Palawan. Suddenly, Sajiron Consequently, the court further stated that, AAA
arrived, running towards them and carrying a was sexually abused and gave birth. There was
badong (bolo). They tried to run away, but no showing that AAA had previously been
Sajiron overtook them. Sajiron then drew his sexually abused or had sexual relations with
gun, which was tucked in his waist, pointed it at other men. Therefore, it can be logically deduced
Inon Dama and said, “If you will not go, I will that Sajiron is the father of the child. Under Art.
shoot you”. Inon Dama went home and reported 345 of the Revised Penal Code, he is civilly liable
the incident to AAA's mother. When Inon Dama for the support of his offspring. Hence, he is
left the place, Maron, Sajiron's father, suddenly directed to provide support to the victim's child
appeared with a gun and told AAA to come with born out of the rape, subject to the amount and
them. When AAA refused, Sajiron and Maron tied conditions to be determined by the trial court,
her hands behind her back, covered her mouth after due notice and hearing, in accordance with
with a piece of cloth, and brought her to the Art. 201 of the Family Code.
forest. There, while Sajiron was undressing AAA,
PEOPLE VS. SGT. MORENO BAYANI

G.R. NO. 120894. OCTOBER 3, 1996
FACTS:
Sgt. Moreno Bayani, a member of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), seeks the reversal of
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the
accessory penalties provided by law; to
indemnify complainant Maria Elena Nieto. On
the other hand, the People, through the
Appellees Brief filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General, refuted the accuseds arguments, and in
closing, recommended that apart from the FIFTY
THOUSAND (P50,000.000) PESOS as indemnity,
appellant should be made to support his
illegitimate child with Maria Elena, in conformity
with Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bayani is accountable under
ART. 345 of the RPC.
HELD:
No. Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that persons guilty of rape, seduction,
or abduction, shall be sentenced to: (a) indemnify
the offended woman; (b) acknowledge the
offspring, unless the law should prevent him
from so doing; and (c) in every case, to support
the offspring. While under Article 283 of the Civil
Code, the father is obliged to recognize the child
as his natural child in cases of rape, abduction,
and seduction when the period of the offense
coincides, more or less, with the period of the
conception. It has been held, however, that
acknowledgment is disallowed if the offender is a
married man, with only support for the offspring
as part of the sentence. Article 176 of the Family
Code confers parental authority over illegitimate
children on the mother, and likewise provides for
their entitlement to support in conformity with
the Family Code. As such, there is no further
need for the prohibition against acknowledgment
of the offspring by an offender who is married
which would vest parental authority in him.
Therefore, under article 345 of the Revised Penal
Code, the offender in a rape case who is married
can only be sentenced to indemnify the victim
and support the offspring, if there be any. In the
instant case, the accused should also be ordered
to support his illegitimate offspring, Tracy Jhuen
Nieto,with Marie Elena Nieto, but in light of
Article 201 of the Family Code, the amount and
terms thereof to be determined by the trial court
only after due notice and hearing.
April 10, 2018 – Article 346 – LIABILITY OF

ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS, TEACHERS, OR
OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH THE
CUSTODY OF THE OFFENDED PARTY.
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
[NO CASE FOUND]

door of a charitable person, a new-born child

TITLE TWELVE – CRIMES AGAINST THE which is in condition to stand the first
CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS inclemencies of the weather, is supposed to do it
in order that it may be taken up and protected,
April 11, 2018 – Article 347 – SIMULATION OF and therefore the legal presumption must be that
BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR he does not act with any other purpose than to
ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR cause the loss of any trace as to the filiation of
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD the child. Finally, the same penalty is imposed
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P upon anyone who conceals or exposes a
legitimate child with the intention of making him
G.R. NO. 9279 lose his civil status. It must be remembered that
MARCH 25, 1915 by the word child must be understood a fully
U.S. VS. CAPILLO, ET AL. developed and living being, as the child born not
capable of living has no status, nor can he
ISSUE: transmit any rights whatever. It is, therefore, an
Whether or not Capillo is guilty of concealment essential condition of this crime, that the child
or abandonment of a legitimate child who has been exposed or concealed shall have
been born alive.
FACTS:
That on or about the 12th day of August, 1913, April 11, 2018 – Article 348 – USURPATION OF
in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said CIVIL STATUS
defendants Saturnino Capillo and Petrona PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D
Paduga, conspiring and confederating together
and helping one another, did then and there [NO CASE FOUND]
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously expose a
child, 1 month old, the legitimate son of the April 11, 2018 – Article 349 – BIGAMY
accused Saturnino Capillo and his wife Vicenta RIVERA, Marynit P.
Umanbang to lose his civil status in the following
manner to wit: That the defendant Saturnino G.R. No. 200233
Capillo, with intent to cause his legitimate child JULY 15, 2015
to lose his civil status and in cooperation with LEONILA G. SANTIAGO vs. PEOPLEOF THE
the defendant Petrona Paduga, took the said PHILIPPINES
child without the permission of his mother
Vicenta Umanbang or the authority of the courts ISSUE:
of this city and agreed with one Chua Pue Tee to Whether or not the petitioner should be charged
deliver to him the said child and never to claim it with bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC
again, asking the said Chua Pue Tee at the same
time to lend them the sum of P150 to defray the FACTS:
expenses incurred by the defendant Saturnino The prosecution adduced evidence that Nicanor
Capillo during the last sickness and death of his Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang
wife Vicenta Umanbang, and received from said since 2 June 1974, asked petitioner to marry
Chua Pue Tee the sum of P106 of which P50 him. Petitioner, who 'was a 43-year-old widow
corresponded to the defendant Saturnino Capillo then, married Santos on 29 July 1997 despite
and P56 to defendant Petrona Paduga. That the the advice of her brother-in-law and parents-in-
living of said child under such circumstances in law that if she wanted to remarry, she should
the possession of said Chua Pue Tee and his wife choose someone who was "without
Sio Suat King exposes said child to lose his civil responsibility."
status, to wit, that of the legitimate son of the
said defendant Saturnino Capillo and his wife Petitioner asserted her affirmative defense that
Vicenta Umanbang to that of an unknown and she could not be included as an accused in the
nameless child or at the most to that of the child crime of bigamy, because she had been under
of one Chua Pue Tee and his wife. the belief that Santos was still single when they
got married.
HELD:
Yes. The exposition which is caused by Eleven years after the inception of this criminal
abandoning a new-born child in a place where it case, the first wife, Estela Galang, testified for the
cannot be easily assisted, intending that it prosecution. She alleged that she had met
should perish and save the honor of the mother, petitioner as early as March and April 1997, on
is a crime against life. The exposition of a child which occasions the former introduced herself as
and the abandonment thereof in a place where it the legal wife of Santos. Petitioner denied this
may not be in danger may be a crime against the allegation and averred that she met Galang only
safety of persons. Only that which has for its in August and September 1997, or after she had
purpose the deprivation of the new-born child’s already married Santos.
civil status is what constitutes the present crime.
In order that it may be so, it is necessary HELD:
therefore that the acts committed by the guilty Yes.
party plainly show his intent. The fact that one In Montanez v. Cipriano, this Court enumerated
abandons, in the midst of a lonely forest, an the elements of bigamy as follows:
unfortunate child that needs all kinds of
assistance during the first moments of coming The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the
into the world cannot be admitted as intent to offender has been legally married; (b) the
destroy its civil status, but as an attempt against marriage has not been legally dissolved x x x; (c)
its life. On the contrary, he who places at the that he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent petitioner appealed the decision before the Court
marriage has all the essential requisites for of Appeals contending that the court a quo erred
validity. The felony is consummated on the in not ruling that his criminal action or liability
celebration of the second marriage or had already been extinguished. Petitioner claims
subsequent marriage. It is essential in the that since his previous marriage was declared
prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second null and void, "there is in effect no marriage at
marriage, having all the essential requirements, all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of."
would be valid were it not for the subsistence of
the first marriage. HELD:
Yes.
For the second spouse to be indicted as a co- The elements of this crime are as follows:
accused in the crime, People v. Nepomuceno, Jr. 1. That the offender has been legally married;
instructs that she should have had knowledge of 2. That the marriage has not been legally
the previous subsisting marriage. People v. dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
Archilla likewise states that the knowledge of the the absent spouse could not yet be presumed
second wife of the fact of her spouse's existing dead according to the Civil Code;
prior marriage constitutes an indispensable 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent
cooperation in the commission of bigamy, which marriage; and
makes her responsible as an accomplice. 4. That the second or subsequent marriage has
all the essential requisites for validity.
In the present case, there was a clear showing
that she knew of the first marriage as shown by The instant case has all the elements of the crime
the totality of the following circumstances: (1) of bigamy. Petitioner was legally married to
when Santos was courting and visiting petitioner Thelma. He contracted a second or subsequent
in the house of her in-laws, they openly showed marriage with Edita. At the time of his second
their disapproval of him; (2) it was incredible for marriage with Edita, his marriage with Thelma
a learned person like petitioner to not know of was legally subsisting. It is noted that the finality
his true civil status; and (3) Galang, who was the of the decision declaring the nullity of his first
more credible witness compared with petitioner marriage with Thelma was only about five (5)
who had various inconsistent testimonies, years after his second marriage to Edita. Finally,
straightforwardly testified that she had already the second or subsequent marriage of petitioner
told petitioner on two occasions that the former with Edita has all the essential requisites for
was the legal wife of Santos. Given that petitioner validity. Petitioner has in fact not disputed the
knew of the first marriage, the petitioner was validity of such subsequent marriage. Thus, it is
validly charged with bigamy. evident therefore that petitioner has committed
the crime charged.
G.R. No. 188775
August 24, 2011 April 12, 2018 – Article 350 – MARRIAGE
CENON R. TEVES vs. PEOPLE OF THE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF
PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON LAWS
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner should be charged [NO CASE FOUND]
with bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC
April 12, 2018 – Article 351 – PREMATURE
FACTS: MARRIAGES
On 26 November 1992, a marriage was SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
solemnized between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and
Thelma Jaime-Teves (Thelma). After the REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10655 on
marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. She would March 13, 2015
only come home to the Philippines for vacations. and DECRIMINILIZED the crime of PREMATURE
While on a vacation in 2002, she was informed MARRIAGES
that her husband had contracted marriage with
a certain Edita Calderon (Edita). To verify the April 12, 2018 – Article 352 – PERFORMANCE
information, she went to the National Statistics OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY
Office and secured a copy of the Certificate of SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
Marriage indicating that her husband and Edita
contracted marriage on 10 December 2001. On RENE RONULO, vs.PEOPLE OF THE
13 February 2006, Danilo Bongalon, uncle of PHILIPPINES
Thelma, filed a complaint accusing petitioner of G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
committing bigamy. Petitioner was charged on 8
June 2006 with bigamy defined and penalized FACTS:
under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as The presented evidence showed that Joey
amended. Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to
marry each other on March 29, 2003 at the Sta.
During the pendency of the criminal case for Rosa Catholic Parish Church of San Nicolas,
bigamy, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of the wedding,
decision dated 4 May 2006 declaring the the supposed officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza,
marriage of petitioner and Thelma null and void refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning
on the ground that Thelma is physically that the couple failed to secure a marriage
incapacitated to comply with her essential license. As a recourse, Joey, who was then
marital obligations pursuant to Article 36 of the dressed in barong tagalong,and Claire, clad in a
Family Code. Refusing to accept such verdict, wedding gown, together with their parents,
sponsors and guests, proceeded to the

Independent Church of Filipino Christians, also The elements of this crime are as follows:
known as the Aglipayan Church. They requested
the petitioner, an Aglipayan priest, to perform a (1) authority of the solemnizing officer
ceremony to which the latter agreed despite (2) his performance of an illegal marriage
having been informed by the couple that they ceremony.
had no marriage certificate.
In the present case, the RONULO admitted that
The petitioner prepared his choir and scheduled he has authority to solemnize a marriage. Hence,
a mass for the couple on the same date. He the only issue to be resolved is whether the
conducted the ceremony in the presence of the alleged "blessing" by the petitioner is tantamount
groom, the bride, their parents, the principal and to the performance of an "illegal marriage
secondary sponsors and the rest of their invited ceremony" which is punishable under Article 352
guests. of the RPC, as amended.
An information for violation of Article 352 of the While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, was filed not specifically define a "marriage ceremony" and
against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial what constitutes its "illegal" performance,
Court (MTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly Articles 3(3) and 6 of the Family Code are clear
performing an illegal marriage ceremony. on these matters. These provisions were taken
from Article 55 of the New Civil Code which, in
The petitioner entered the plea of "not guilty" to turn, was copied from Section 3 of the Marriage
the crime charged on arraignment. Law with no substantial amendments.
The prosecution’s witnesses, Joseph and Mary Article 6 of the Family Code provides that "no
Anne Yere, testified on the incidents of the prescribed form or religious rite for the
ceremony. Joseph was the veil sponsor while solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall
Mary Anne was the cord sponsor in the wedding. be necessary, however, for the contracting
Mary Anne testified that she saw the bride walk parties to appear personally before the
down the aisle. solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of
not less than two witnesses of legal age that they
She also saw the couple exchange their wedding take each other as husband and wife."
rings, kiss each other, and sign a document. She
heard the petitioner instructing the principal Pertinently, Article 3(3) mirrors Article 6 of the
sponsors to sign the marriage contract. Family Code and particularly defines a marriage
Thereafter, they went to the reception, had lunch ceremony as that which takes place with the
and took pictures. She saw the petitioner there. appearance of the contracting parties before the
She also identified the wedding invitation given solemnizing officer and their personal
to her by Joey. declaration that they take each other as husband
Florida Umadac, the mother of Joey, testified and wife in the presence of not less than two
that she heard the couple declare during the witnesses of legal age.
ceremony that they take each other as husband
and wife.8 Days after the wedding, she went to On the issue on the penalty for violation of Article
the municipal local civil registrar of San Nicolas, 352 of the RPC, as amended, this provision
Ilocos Norte with Atty. Mariano R. Nalupta Jr. clearly provides that it shall be imposed in
where she was given a certificate that no accordance with the provision of the Marriage
marriage license was issued to the couple. Law. The penalty provisions of the Marriage Law
are Sections 39 and 44 which provide as follows:
The petitioner, while admitting that he
conducted a ceremony, denied that his act of Section 39 of the Marriage Law provides that:
blessing the couple was tantamount to a Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of Marriage –
solemnization of the marriage as contemplated Any priest or minister solemnizing marriage
by law. without being authorized by the Director of the
Philippine National Library or who, upon
The MTC found the petitioner guilty of violation solemnizing marriage, refuses to exhibit the
of Article 352 of the RPC. authorization in force when called upon to do so
by the parties or parents, grandparents,
The RTC affirmed the findings of the MTC. guardians, or persons having charge and any
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. bishop or officer, priest, or minister of any
church, religion or sect the regulations and
ISSUE: practices whereof require banns or publications
WON Ronulo is guilty of violation of Art, 352 of previous to the solemnization of a marriage in
the RPC accordance with section ten, who authorized the
immediate solemnization of a marriage that is
HELD: subsequently declared illegal; or any officer,
Yes priest or minister solemnizing marriage in
The elements of the crime punishable under violation of this act, shall be punished by
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, were proven imprisonment for not less than one month nor
by the prosecution more than two years, or by a fine of not less than
Article 352 of the RPC, penalizes an authorized two hundred pesos nor more than two thousand
solemnizing officer who shall perform or pesos.
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony.

On the other hand, Section 44 of the Marriage

Law states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation

of any provision of this Act not specifically
penalized, or of the regulations to be
promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than two hundred
pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one
month, or both, in the discretion of the court.
From a reading of the provisions cited above, we
find merit in the ruling of the CA and the MTC
that the penalty imposable in the present case is
that covered under Section 44, and not Section
39, of the Marriage Law.
The penalized acts under Section 39 of Act No.

3613 do not include the present case. As
correctly found by the MTC, the petitioner was
not found violating the provisions of the Marriage
Law but Article 352 of the RPC, as amended. It
is only the imposition of the penalty for the
violation of this provision which is referred to the
Marriage Law. On this point, Article 352 falls
squarely under the provision of Section 44 of Act
No. 3613 which provides for the penalty for any
violation of the regulations to be promulgated by
the proper authorities; Article 352 of the RPC, as
amended, which was enacted after the Marriage
Law, is one of such regulations.

TITLE THIRTEEN – CRIMES AGAINST of misconduct in public office, bribery,

HONOR malversation of public funds, graft and
corruption, if true, would constitute actual
April 13, 2018 – Article 353 – DEFINITION OF crimes punishable under the Penal Code or
LIBEL special laws. The gravity of the imputations are
TADO, Diann Kathelline A. sufficient to impeach the complainant's honesty,
virtue, integrity and reputation as a public
G.R. No. L-47971 October 31, 1990 official.
LOPE O. DAEZ, petitioner,
vs. The matter of publication was also proven on the
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE basis of evidence on record as found both by the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. appellate court and the trial court. As indicated
in the letter, copies thereof were distributed in
ISSUE: the municipal court and municipal council of
Whether or not the accused is guilty of libel Meycauayan, Bulacan and chief of police in that
under Article 353 place. Several witnesses testified as to having
read the libelous letter. Further, evidence shows
FACTS: that petitioner even read the questioned letter
Appellant Lope Daez was the chairman of the before a gathering at a local party meeting
Liberal Party in Meycauayan, Bulacan, and in wherein the complainant was present.
that capacity helped the complainant Celso Anent the last element of malice, the law
Legaspi campaign for the position of Mayor of presumes that every defamatory imputation is
that town. When Legaspi was already serving as malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
Mayor of Meycauayan, he often received and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
recommendations from appellant regarding the except in cases concerning privileged
employment of certain persons in the police or communications (Article 354, Revised Penal
other departments of the municipality. In 1972, Code). Hence, the burden of proving justifiable
appellant recommended a certain Villareal for motive is upon the author of the libel.
the position of policeman and a certain Rubio for
that of performance officer. However, Legaspi As a rule, it is the right and duty of a citizen to
failed to appoint these persons. This omission of make a complaint of any misconduct on the part
Legaspi as well as the prejudice which his of public officials, which comes to his notice, to
subsequent renovation of the public market those charged with supervision over them. Such
caused appellant's relatives resulted in a communication is qualifiedly privileged and the
appellant's resentment of him. author is not guilty of libel. The rule on privilege,
however, imposes an additional requirement.
On April 19,1972, while Legaspi was on leave as Such complaints should be addressed solely to
mayor, appellant wrote the then acting mayor, some official having jurisdiction to inquire into
Vicente Barazon stating: the charges, or power to redress the grievance or
"Sala-ula at bulok ang iyong pangasiwaan, ang has some duty to perform or interest in
iyong polisia ay tinuruan mong maging collector connection therewith (US v. Galeza, 31 Phil.
mo ng tong, ang daan libong pisong buwis ay 365). In the instant case, none of the persons to
ayaw mong ipakolekta sa Ingat Yaman Bayan, whom the letter was sent, was vested with the
ang tanong ng bayan, kangino napupunta ang power of supervision over the mayor or the
daan libong buwis na ito? At mabuti na lamang authority to investigate the charges made
kung hindi mahalungkat sa fael ng army ang against the latter.
Salaysay laban sa iyo nuong ikaw ay hulihin ng
7th BCT. Kaya mag-ingat ka Alkalde sapagkat OGIE DIAZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE
hindi mabilang ang iyong atraso. Ang bahay mo PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 159787, MAY 25,
ay nakatayo sa buhangin, mabuay at sa 2007
bahagyang ihip ng hangin ay babagsak."
ISSUE:
Thus causing to the complaining witness Celso Whether the subject article is libelous.
R. Legaspi dishonor, discredit and contempt to
his damage and prejudice. FACTS:
On or about December 28, 1991, the accused
Trial Court rendered judgment finding the being then the Managing Editor and writer,
accused guilty. Court of Appeals which affirmed respectively of Bandera, a newspaper of general
the decision. circulation written, published or caused to be
published in the movie section of said newspaper
RULING: an article. In which words and phrases, which
Yes. were used by many people, the said accused
The elements of libel are: 1) The imputation of a meant and intended to convey as in fact, they
discreditable act or condition to another; 2) meant and conveyed false and malicious
publication of the imputation; 3) Identity of the imputations that the said Florinda Bagay is a
person defamed; and 4) existence of malice. sexual pervert and possesses lascivious and
immoral habits, the accused well knowing that
There is no doubt as to the presence of the first said imputations are devoid of truth and without
three elements in the instant case. A simple foundation in fact whatsoever, highly libelous
perusal of the letter will show the injurious and offensive to the good name, character, and
nature of the imputations made to the reputation of the said Florinda Bagay.
complainant mayor. The charges in the disputed Florinda Bagay, complaining witness, testified
letter against the mayor that the latter was guilty that she is a graduate of medical secretarial
course. She tried her luck in the movies under defamatory imputation is presumed to be
the guidance of her godmother, Mila Parawan, a malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
writer covering the entertainment industry. and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
Florinda adopted and used "Patricia Santillan" as There is malice when the author of the
her screen name. imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or
spite and speaks not in response to duty but
Florinda claimed she was the "Miss S" alluded to merely to injure the reputation of the person who
in petitioner’s column "Pakurot" considering that claims to have been defamed. (Alonzo v. Court of
her screen name is "Patricia Santillan." Appeals, supra.). We agree with the Court of
Mila Parawan also took the witness stand and Appeals that there was neither good reason nor
corroborated Florinda’s testimony. She further motive why the subject article was written except
testified that after Philip and Florinda parted to embarrass "Miss S" and injure her reputation.
ways, her former press relations officer, who
used the nom de plume "Isko Peta," wrote an On the element of publication, there can be no
item entitled "Ibinulgar namin ang babaeng question that the article appeared in the
inanakan ni Philip Henson" which appeared in December 28, 1991 issue ofBandera, a local
the December 2, 1991 issue of Artista Magazine. tabloid.
Philip believed that Florinda released their story
to the press. He then caused the publication of The last element of libel is that the victim is
the libelous article against her. identified or identifiable from the contents of the
libelous article. In order to maintain a libel suit,
Mila Parawan added that Florinda came from a it is essential that the victim be identifiable,
well respected family in their community. Thus, although it is not necessary that the person be
she could not have done the acts being imputed named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the
to her. allusion is apparent or if the publication
contains matters of description or reference to
On cross-examination, Mila Parawan stated she facts and circumstances from which others
was certain the "Miss S" referred to in the article reading the article may know the person alluded
is Florinda because petitioner and Pichel, her to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous
good friends, told her that "Miss S" is her "alaga" circumstances so that those knowing such
(ward). person could and did understand that he was the
person referred to.
Petitioner Ogie Diaz admitted that while he wrote Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid
the column "Pakurot" where the alleged libelous the rule that this requirement is complied with
statements appeared, however, he did not know where a third person recognized or could identify
the complaining witness or "Miss S." The source the party vilified in the article.
of his article was Philip Henson. The libelous article, while referring to "Miss S,"
does not give a sufficient description or other
RULING: indications which identify "Miss S." In short, the
NO. article fails to show that "Miss S" and Florinda
For an imputation to be libelous, the following Bagay are one and the same person.
requisites must be present: (a) it must be
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must Although the article is libelous, we find that
be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be Florinda Bagay could not have been the person
identifiable. Absent one of these elements, a case defamed therein. In Uy Tioco v. Yang Shu Wen,7
for libel will not prosper. we held that where the requirement for an
identified or identifiable victim has not been
We find the first element present. In determining complied with, the case for libel must be
whether a statement is defamatory, the words dismissed.
used are to be construed in their entirety and
should be taken in their plain, natural, and April 13, 2018 – Article 355 – LIBEL MEANS BY
ordinary meaning as they would naturally be WRITINGS OR SIMILAR MEANS
understood by the persons reading them, unless VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.
it appears that they were used and understood
in another sense. G.R. No. 159787
MAY 25, 2007
In the instant case, the article in question details OGIE DIAZ VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
the sexual activities of a certain "Miss S" and one
"Philip Henson" who had a romantic liaison. In ISSUE:
their ordinary sense, the words used cast Whether or not the subject article is libelous.
aspersion upon the character, integrity, and
reputation of "Miss S." The words convey that FACTS:
"Miss S" is a sexual libertine with unusually Manny Pichel and Ogie Diaz, Managing Editor
wanton proclivities in the bedroom. In a society and writer, respectively for Bandera, were
such as ours, where modesty is still highly prized accused of conspiring and confederating together
among young ladies, the behavior attributed to and mutually helping each other, with the
"Miss S" by the article in question had malicious purpose of impeaching the integrity,
besmirched both her character and reputation. honor and reputation of one Florinda Bagay. The
accused were alleged to feloniously wrote and
As to the element of malice, we find that since on published an article about the sexual activities of
its face the article is defamatory, there is a certain “Miss S” and Philip Henson, in which
presumption that the offender acted with malice. through the words and phrases used in the
In Article 354 of the same Code, every article meant and conveyed malicious
imputation that this “Miss S” is a sexual pervert In Uy Tioco v. Yang Shu Wen, where the
and possesses lascivious and immoral habits. requirement for an identified or identifiable
Florinda Bagay, who happened to use “Patricia victim has not been complied with, the case for
Santillan” as her screen name, claims that she libel must be dismissed.
was this “Miss S” being referred to in the said
article. April 14, 2018 – Article 356 – THREATENING
TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PRESENT SUCH
HELD: PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
For an imputation to be libelous, the following VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
requisites must be present: (a) it must be
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; © it must UNITED STATES VS EGUIA
be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be 38 PHIL 857
identifiable. 2 Absent one of these elements, a
case for libel will not prosper. FACTS:
Salvador A. Eguia and Sebastian Lozano,
In the case at bar, it may be find that the first conspiring and confederating with each other,
element present. In determining whether a willfully, unlawfully, and criminally threatened
statement is defamatory, the words used are to one Maria S. Tuason to publish in The
be construed in their entirety and should be Independent, a weekly newspaper edited and
taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary published in the said city of Manila, a libel
meaning as they would naturally be understood consisting of certain letters which, according to
by the persons reading them, unless it appears the said defendants, would expose the name of
that they were used and understood in another said Maria S. Tuason to public contempt, the
sense. In the instant case, the article in question said defendants promising at the same time,
details the sexual activities of a certain “Miss S” moved by a desire to gain, to prevent the
and one “Philip Henson” who had a romantic publication of said letters in the above-
liaison. In their ordinary sense, the words used mentioned newspaper, should the
cast aspersion upon the character, integrity, and aforementioned Maria S. Tuason agree to pay
reputation of “Miss S.” The words convey that them the sum of P4,000, Philippine currency.
“Miss S” is a sexual libertine with unusually
wanton proclivities in the bedroom. In a society ISSUE:
such as ours, where modesty is still highly prized Whether or not the defendant is guilty of threats
among young ladies, the behavior attributed to to publish libel.
“Miss S” by the article in question had
besmirched both her character and reputation. RULING:
YES.
As to the element of malice, since on its face the Section 10 of the Libel Law (Act No. 277) is as
article is defamatory, there is a presumption that follows:
the offender acted with malice. In Article 354 of "Every person who threatens another to publish
the same Code, every defamatory imputation is a libel concerning him, or any parent, husband,
presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no wife, or child of such person, or any member of
good intention and justifiable motive for making his family, and every person who offers to
it is shown. There is malice when the author of prevent the publication of any libel upon another
the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or person, with intent to extort any money or other
spite and speaks not in response to duty but valuable consideration from any person, shall be
merely to injure the reputation of the person who punished by a fine of not exceeding one
claims to have been defamed. There was neither thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not
good reason nor motive why the subject article exceeding six months, or both."
was written except to embarrass “Miss S” and In common parlance, blackmail and extortion
injure her reputation. are synonimous, although the latter term may
have the wider signification. Blackmail, in its
The last element of libel is that the victim is metaphorical sense, may be defined as any
identified or identifiable from the contents of the unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to the
libelous article. In order to maintain a libel suit, fears of the victim, especially extortion of money
it is essential that the victim be identifiable, by threats of accusation or exposure. Two words
although it is not necessary that the person be are expressive of the crime hush money. The
named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the gravamen of the offense is the intent to extort
allusion is apparent or if the publication money or other thing of value. The extortion is
contains matters of description or reference to committed by obtaining property from another
facts and circumstances from which others without his consent, induced by wrongful use of
reading the article may know the person alluded fear. The end is the same as in crimes against
to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous property, but the means employed are different.
circumstances so that those knowing such Indeed, certain classes of threatening letters
person could and did understand that he was the have been held in the United States when
person referred to. followed by extortion to constitute robbery.
The libelous article, while referring to “Miss S,” The circumstances of this case are such that
does not give a sufficient description or other they lead to the irresistible conclusion that Eguia
indications which identify “Miss S.” In short, the was the prime mover in this nefarious scheme.
article fails to show that “Miss S” and Florinda The only reasonable deduction is that he took the
Bagay are one and the same person. letters from the post office box of Mrs. Tuason.
He was the only person who had possession of
Although the article is libelous, Florinda Bagay the key to the box. He knew that Mrs. Tuason
could not have been the person defamed therein. was writing to Dr. Harmer. Not all the letters
found in the possession of Lozano were from Mrs. his fingers half-closed, an act tending to cause
Tuason but all had been addressed to Dr. dishonor, discredit and contempt on the
Harmer. The post office box used by Mrs. Tuason complainant and causing her mental anguish,
was in the name of Dr. Harmer and so if any mail wounded feelings and moral suffering for which
was returned to Manila with his name on it, it she is entitled to moral and exemplary damages
would be put in this box. The night on which the in an amount to be determined by the honorable
letters were delivered, Lozano went in the court. Contrary to law.
direction of Eguia's house to get the letters.
Eguia composed the note that fixed the price for ISSUE:
the letters at P8,000. He entered into and agreed Whether or not petitioners act of poking a dirty
to the plot made up by Villaba. He introduced finger at complainant constitutes grave slander
Villaba to Lozano. Though Eguia never appeared by deed
in the open he was always lurking in the
background. HELD:
Defendants attack the evidence from two Yes, but only simple slander by deed.
directions. They contend, in the first place, that Slander by deed is a crime against honor, which
the court erred in taking into consideration is committed by performing any act, which casts
against each appellant evidence presented at the dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another
trial of the other defendant. While the court person. The elements are (1) that the offender
rendered but one judgment, it is nevertheless performs any act not included in any other crime
true that practically the same facts were adduced against honor, (2) that such act is performed in
in the two trials. Each defendant, moreover, the presence of other person or persons, and (3)
endeavors to shield himself behind the acts of his that such act casts dishonor, discredit or
codefendant. Of course, such a contention contempt upon the offended party. Whether a
cannot be permitted to avail for a moment, where certain slanderous act constitutes slander by
the proof shows that both defendants are deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the
inculpated. social standing of the offended party, the
circumstances under which the act was
We hold that Salvador A. Eguia and Sebastian committed, the occasion, etc.[32] It is libel
Lozano have been proven guilty beyond a committed by actions rather than words. The
reasonable doubt most common examples are slapping someone or
spitting on his/her face in front of the public
April 14, 2018 – Article 357– PROHIBITED market, in full view of a crowd, thus casting
PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN dishonor, discredit, and contempt upon the
THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS person of another.
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. Pointing a dirty finger ordinarily connotes the
phrase Fuck You, which is similar to the
[NO CASE FOUND] expression Puta or Putang Ina mo, in local
parlance. Such expression was not held to be
April 14, 2018 – Article 358 – SLANDER libelous in Reyes v. People,[38] where the Court
Alameda Jr., Manuel F. said that: This is a common enough expression
in the dialect that is often employed, not really to
VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE slander but rather to express anger or
APRIL 10, 2006 displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its
G.R. NO. 160351 literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection
on the virtues of a mother. Following Reyes, and
FACTS: in light of the fact that there was a perceived
The Councilor and Vice-Mayor of a town, both provocation coming from complainant,
holders of exalted government positions, became petitioners act of pointing a dirty finger at
slaves to their human limitations and engaged in complainant constitutes simple slander by deed,
a verbal scuffle at the municipal hall as if they it appearing from the factual milieu of the case
were ordinary men in the streets. A moment of that the act complained of was employed by
unguarded emotional outburst lead to the long- petitioner "to express anger or displeasure" at
drawn out twists and turns of this case, which complainant for procrastinating the approval of
should have been avoided if only they have his leave monetization. While it may have cast
imbedded in their complex emotions, habits and dishonor, discredit or contempt upon
convictions that consciousness to regulate these complainant, said act is not of a serious nature,
deflecting forces and not to let them loose, either thus, the penalty shall be arresto menor
to their own detriment or to that of the public meaning, imprisonment from one day to 30 days
they serve. This is the high price they have to pay or a fine not exceeding P200.00.
as occupants of their exalted positions.
On September 12, 1994 around four thirty (4:30 PEOPLE VS PADER
P.M.) in the afternoon, more or less, at the G.R. NO. 139157
Municipal Building of Concepcion, Tarlac, where 8 FEBRUARY 2000
public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties, and in the presence of several FACTS:
persons, the accused Noel L. Villanueva while in Atty. Benjamin Escolango (ESCOLANGO) was a
the process of hurling verbal insults at the candidate for vice mayor of Morong, Bataan in
complainant, then and there unlawfully, the 8 May 1995 Elections. Escolango and Pader
feloniously and contemptuously gave the were neighbors. On the evening of 20 Apr 1995,
complainant what is commonly known as "dirty Pader was drunk. Pader was angry at Escolango
finger" by poking his hand at complainant's face because of something that Escolango had done
with the middle finger extended and the rest of when Pader’s father had died. On 20 Apr 1995,
Escolango was conversing with his political complaint at the Office of the City Prosecutor
leaders at the terrace of his house. Rogelio Pader (OCP) together with Principe.
(PADER) a political opponent of Escolango
suddenly appeared at the gate and shouted Version of the Defense
“putang ina mo Atty. Escolango.
Napakawalanghiya mo!” Prior incident,when De Leon, with his son John,
while having breakfast with their fellow joggers
ISSUE: at the Philippine National Railroad-Tutuban
Was Pader guilty of slight oral defamation, or of Station, were approached by SPO3 Leonardo who
serious oral defamation. arrived on his scooter. With his gun drawn, SPO3
Leonardo walked fast towards the group and at a
HELD: distance of two meters, more or less, he said,
The defamatory words only amounted to SLIGHT "Putang ina mo, tapos ka na Ricky Boy, referring
ORAL DEFAMATION. DOCTRINE: to De Leon." He pressed the trigger but the gun
Defamatory words will fall under slight or serious did not fire, when he was to strike again, De Leon
oral defamation, depending not only upon their was able to escape with the help of John.
sense, grammatical significance, and accepted
ordinary meaning judging them separately, but ISSUE:
also upon the special circumstances of the case, Whether or not the crime of slander tenable in
antecedents or relationship between the offended this case.
party and the offender, which might tend to
prove the intention of the offender at the time. HELD:
“Putang ina mo” is a common enough utterance The crime committed is only Slight Oral
in the dialect that is often employed, not really to Defamation. Oral Defamation or Slander is libel
slander but rather to express anger or committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in
displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an writing. It is defined as "the speaking of base and
expletive that punctuates one’s expression of defamatory words which tend to prejudice
profanity. another in his reputation, office, trade, business
or means of livelihood."[35] The elements of oral
DE LEON VS PEOPLE defamation are: (1) there must be an imputation
JAN 11, 2016 of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
GR NO. 212623 imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4)
FACTS: and maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or
The said accused, with the deliberate intent to juridical person, or one who is dead; (6) which
besmirch the honor and reputation of one SPO3 tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt
PEDRITO L. LEONARDO, did and there wilfully, of the person defamed. Oral defamation may
unlawfully, feloniously publicly proffer against either be simple or grave. It becomes grave when
the latter slanderous words and expressions it is of a serious and insulting nature.An
such as "WALANGHIYA KANG allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes
MANGONGOTONG NA PULIS KA, ANG YABANG to a person the commission of a crime, the
YABANG MO NOON. PATAY KA SA AKIN possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary
MAMAYA [,]" and other words and expressions of or any act, omission, condition, status or
similar import, thereby bringing the said SPO3 circumstance which tends to dishonor or
PEDRITO L. LEONARDO into public contempt, discredit or put him in contempt or which tends
discredit and ridicule. to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To
determine whether a statement is defamatory,
Version of the Prosecution: the words used in the statement must be
construed in their entirety and should be taken
The first hearing was scheduled on April 17, in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as
2006 at the PLEB office on the 5th Floor of the they would naturally be understood by persons
Manila City Hall; At around 1:30 o'clock in the reading them, unless it appears that they were
afternoon, while waiting outside the PLEB office used and understood in another sense. It must
on the 5th floor of the Manila City Hall, SPO3 be stressed that words which are merely
Leonardo noticed De Leon and several of his insulting are not actionable as libel or slander
companions approaching. Before entering the per se, and mere words of general abuse however
PLEB office, De Leon uttered these words to opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether
SPO3 Leonardo, "Walanghiya kang written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for
mangongotong na pulis ka, ang yabang yabang an action for defamation in the absence of an
mo noon. Patay ka sa akin ngayon." allegation for special damages. The fact that the
language is offensive to the plaintiff does not
The words uttered by De Leon caused SPO3 make it actionable by itself. In this case, the
Leonardo embarrassment because there were Court agrees that the words uttered by De Leon
several persons present at the PLEB premises. were defamatory in nature. It is, however, of the
He could have arrested De Leon but he did not view that the same only constituted simple oral
want to make a scene. Afterwards, De Leon's defamation. Whether the offense committed is
wife, Concepcion, emerged from the said office serious or slight oral defamation, depends not
and apologized to Leonardo for her husband's only upon the sense and grammatical meaning
actuations. SPO3 Leonardo calmly proceeded to of the utterances but also upon the special
the Special Operations Group of the Philippine circumstances of the case, like the social
National Police (PNP) located at the Manila City standing or the advanced age of the offended
Hall to have the incident entered in its blotter. party. "The gravity depends upon: (1) the
On the same day, SPO3 Leonardo filed his expressions used; (2) the personal relations of
the accused and the offended party; and (3) the defendant was described as having the natural
special circumstances of the case, the temperament, vehemence of expression, and
antecedents or relationship between the offended other peculiar characteristics which indicates
party and the offender, which may tend to prove the kind of a woman that would stir up
the intention of the offender at the time. In disturbances with the least provocation or
particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory whenever she feels offended.
words in the heat of anger, with some
provocation on the part of the offended party As a result, the defendant hurled at the
constitutes only a light felony." complainant offensive and scurrilous epithets,
including words imputing unchastity to the
VICTORIO V. COURT OF APPEALS mother and tending to injure the characters of
G.R. NOS. L-32836-37 her daughters.
MAY 3, 1989
ISSUE:
FACTS: WON the oral words imputing unchastity to a
Appellant-petitioner called Atty. Ruiz, woman were actionable without proof of special
"estapador", which attributes to the latter the damage.
crime of estafa, a serious and insulting
imputation. Appellant-petitioner imputed the HELD:
crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer one- Yes. The words of the defendant were uttered
time Justice of the Peace and member of the with evident intent to injure complainant, to ruin
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, a professor of her reputation, and to hold her in public
law and for sometime a president of the Nueva contempt, for the sake of revenge. One who will
Ecija Bar Association. thus seek to impute vice or immorality to
another, the consequences of which might
ISSUE: gravely prejudice the reputation of the person
whether or not the defamatory words constitute insulted, in this instance, apparently an
serious oral defamation or simply slight oral honorable and respectable lady and her young
defamation. daughters, all prominent in social circles,
deserves little judicial sympathy. Certainly, it is
HELD: time for the courts to put the stamp of their
The term oral defamation or slander as now disapproval on this practice of the vile and loud
understood, has been defined as the speaking of slander, which so debauches and degrades
base and defamatory words which tend to womanhood. Shrews must be tamed in the
prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, modern Philippines.
business or means of livelihood (33 Am. Jur. 39).
Article 358, Revised Penal Code, spells out the PEOPLE VS ATIENZA
demarcation line, between serious and slight oral OCTOBER 26, 1968
defamations, as follows: " Oral defamation shall G.R. NO. L-19857
be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum FACTS:
period, if it is of a serious and insulting nature, Damaso Atienza, was charged with grave oral
otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor or defamation in the said Court upon a sworn
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos." (Balite v. People, complaint signed by the offended party, Pilar Lee.
18 SCRA 280 [1966]). The scurrilous words The defamatory word allegedly uttered by the
imputed to the offended party the crime estafa. defendant were: "Pauli na, puta ka. Oo, puta ka
The language of the indictment strikes deep into puta kat bilaw." The translation given in the
the character of the victim; He 'has sold the complaint itself is: "Go home, you prostitute. Yes,
union; he 'has swindled the money of the you are a prostitute, really a prostitute." Damaso
vendees; he 'received bribe money in the amount Atienza, was charged with grave oral defamation
of P10,000.00 ... and another P6,000.00'; He 'is in the said Court upon a sworn complaint signed
engaged in racketeering and enriching himself by the offended party, Pilar Lee. The defamatory
with the capitalists'; He 'has spent the funds of word allegedly uttered by the defendant were:
the union for his personal use.' "Pauli na, puta ka. Oo, puta ka puta kat bilaw."
The translation given in the complaint itself is:
In the instant case, appellant-petitioner imputed "Go home, you prostitute. Yes, you are a
the crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer prostitute, really a prostitute."
one-time Justice of the Peace and member of the
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, a professor of ISSUE:
law and for sometime a president of the Nueva Whether or not the word "puta" connotes
Ecija Bar Association. As the scurrilous prostitution thus defamatory.
imputation strikes deep into the character of the
victim, no special circumstance need be shown HELD:
for the defamatory words uttered to be The word "puta" alleged to have been uttered by
considered grave oral defamation the defendant in referring to the offended party
does not necessarily connote the crime of
US vs. TOLOSA prostitution as defined in Article 202 of the
G.R. No. L-12696 Revised Penal Code.
November 19, 1917
REYES VS PEOPLE
FACTS: G.R. NOS. L-21528 & L- 21529
The two families were living in houses about 15 MARCH 28, 1969
meters apart. They had several altercations. The
FACTS: Subsequently, Balite met with the Marine

Rosauro Reyes, was a former civilian employee of Officers Guild and engaged in conversation with
the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, Cavite City, Marine Officer Canlas, while the latter’s
whose services were terminated on May 6, 1961. companions gathered around and within hearing
In the afternoon of June 6, 1961, he led a group distance of the two. Balite then uttered the
of about 20 to 30 persons in a demonstration words, as already translated –
staged in front of the main gate of the United
States Naval Station at Sangley Point. They "Mr. Mercader sold the Union. The money of the
carried placards bearing statements such as, Union was swindled in the strike staged by the
"Agustin, mamatay ka;" "To, alla boss con Democratic Labor Association against the Cebu
Nolan;" "Frank do not be a common funk;" Stevedoring Company. Atty. Mercader received
"Agustin, mamamatay ka rin"; "Agustin, Nolan bribe money in the sum of P10,000.00 from the
for you;" "Agustin alla bos con Nolan;" "Agustin, copra exporter Richard Corominas & Co. and
dillega, el dia di quida rin bo chiquiting;" and another P6,000.00 from the Cebu Stevedoring
others. The base commander, Capt. McAllister, Company/ Atty. Mercader is engaged in
called up Col. Patricia Monzon, who as Philippine racketeering and that he is enriching himself
Military Liaison Officer at Sangley Point was in with the capitalists. The money of the Union was
charge of preserving harmonious relations spent by him to his own personal benefit".
between personnel of the naval station and the
civilian population of Cavite City. The three jeeps At the time of the incident, Mercader was legal
carrying the demonstrators parked in front of counsel of the Marine Officers Guild. The
Hallare's residence after having gone by it twice imputation apparently affected the guild's feeling
Rosauro Reyes got off his jeep and posted himself and attitude towards Atty. Mercader. For,
at the gate, and with his right hand inside his subsequently, he was eased out as the guild's
pocket and his left holding the gate-door, he legal counsel.
shouted repeatedly, "Agustin, putang ina mo.
Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, Mercader filed a complaint for grave oral
papatayin kita." Thereafter, he boarded his jeep defamation against Balite.
and the motorcade left the premises. Meanwhile,
Hallare, frightened by the demeanor of Reyes and Balite pleads prescription as it was merely one
the other demonstrators, stayed inside the for slight oral defamation which lapses in two
house. months.
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether or not the words "putang ina mo WON there is slight oral defamation.
constitute oral defamation.
HELD:
HELD: No. Rather there is grave oral defamation.
The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the The scurrilous words impute to the offended
utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang ina party the crime of estafa. The language of the
mo". This is a common enough expression in the indictment strikes deep into the character of the
dialect that is often employed, not really to victim:
slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its • He "has sold the union"
literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection • He "has swindled the money of the members"
on the virtues of a mother. In the instant case, it • He "received bribe money in the amount of
should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by P10,000.00 . . . and another P6,000.00"
appellant against Agustin Hallare, evidently to • He "is engaged in racketeering and enriching
make the same more emphatic. On the basis of himself with the capitalists"
the foregoing events Rosauro Reyes was charged • He "has spent the funds of the union for his
on July 24 and 25, 1961 with grave threats and personal use."
grave oral defamation, respectively
No amount of sophistry will take these
BALITE VS. PEOPLE statements out of the compass of grave oral
G.R. NO. L-21475 defamation. They are serious and insulting. No
SEPTEMBER 30, 1966 circumstances need be shown to upgrade the
slander. And, no circumstances were alleged in
FACTS: the complaint.
The Democratic Labor Association declared a
strike against the Cebu Stevedoring Company. A Balite wanted the union officers to pocket the
copra exporter affected by the strike offered the amount. He was frustrated in his wish. Then he
union president Mercader P10,000 as aid to the conducted a smear campaign against the union
union and presumably to pave the way for the president. For these, he was expelled from the
amicable settlement. At first, it was decided that union. Long after, came the meeting with the
the amount be distributed amongst all the officers of the Marine Officers Guild. There, in
members. However, at a subsequent meeting cool and forceful deliberation, he let go the
Balite proposed that the amount should be given slanderous statements— in the absence of
solely to the officers. Passions seemed to have Mercader. This time, he had his way. Mercader
run so high that Balite walked out of the meeting, was eased out as legal counsel of the Marine
threatened to destroy the union and to expose Officers Guild. The People has thus clinched a
president and pursued a smear campaign case for grave oral defamation.
against Mercader.

CRUZ VS CA June 28, 2017

G.R. NOS. L-56224-26 G.R. No. 223844
NOVEMBER 25, 1982 DANILO CALIVO CARIAGA vs. EMMANUEL D.
SAPIGAO and GINALYN C. ACOSTA
FACTS:
Purisima Gestoso Cruz, and Santiago Gayomali FACTS:
were next-door neighbors, being residents of Claiming that the statements in the blotter
houses standing on adjacent lots at Rizal Street, entries were completely false and were made to
Guimbal, Iloilo. At about 9:00 a.m. on August 5, dishonor and discredit him, Cariaga filed a
1976, while Severina Gayomali, wife of Santiago complaint against respondents for in their
Gayomali, was at the ground floor of their house respective capacities as Barangay Chairman and
at Rizal, Street, Guimbal, Iloilo (which ground Secretary of Brgy. Carosucan Sur, Asingan,
floor was also used as a store) she saw petitioner Pangasinan, made two (2) spurious entries in the
and heard her utter the following words from a barangay blotter.
distance of about five meters:
ISSUE:
... Usurper of land. They are shameless. They go WoN respondents were liable under Art 359 rpc
to church but they are shameless; they steal the
land of others. They ride in an automobile and HELD:
when they walk on the road they are as if No. The questioned blotter entries were all made
somebody but they are shameless. The land in in good faith and merely for recording purposes;
Igcocolo would better be surveyed and given to done in the performance of respondents' official
Santiago Gayomali'. duties; and based on personal knowledge of what
actually transpired.
The next day Santiago Gayomali was at the store
at the ground floor of his residence at Rizal November 13, 1934
Street, Guimbal, Iloilo. With him were his wife, G.R. No. L-41757
Severina, and their maid. At that time, petitioner, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
who stood on the boundary of the lot of her vs. ANTONIO NOSCE
mother and that of Santiago Gayomali, and while
facing the store of the latter from a distance of FACTS:
about five meters, uttered the following words: Antonio Nosce slapped the Reverend Father Ulric
Arcand, a catholic priest, before a large
... Judge who is a thief. Santiago is a land congregation.
usurper. Che. Punyeta, a lawyer who is a thief.
Thunder, if I only know that to be a lawyer is a ISSUE:
good course, I would have taken it. Because if WoN appellant was liable under Art 259 RPC
you are an attorney, you just have the land of
others surveyed, it becomes yours, the genital HELD:
organ of Severina is dilated in smile and the Yes. The offended party is invested with
penis of Santiago is in erection in stealing the sacerdotal dignity in his religion and was
land of others', and other similar words of officiating as such priest during solemn religious
import. ceremonies before a large congregation. There
certainly could have been no other
ISSUE: circumstances under which greater dishonor,
whether or not the abusive remarks be discredit and contempt could be cast upon him
considered as serious oral defamation. before the faithful over whom he held so high a
dignity.
HELD:
Although uttered on three different occasions; April 14, 2018 – Article 360 – PERSONS
they originated from the same anticedents, and RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
were fomonted by the same basic dispute. ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
Fanning fire to the situation was a feeling of
desperation and anxiety, over the final BONIFACIO ET AL VS RTC OF MAKATI AND
consequences because of the position. and JESSIE JOHN GIMENEZ
alleged influence of complainant Judge G.R. NO. 184800, Marh 5, 2010
Gayomali..Although the abusive remarks may Ponente: Justice Carpio Morales
ordinarily be considered as serious defamation,
under the environmental circumstances of the ISSUE:
case, there having been provocation on Whether or not the offended party can file the
complainant's part, and the utterances criminal case for libel in the place where he
complained of having been made in the heat of gained access to the libelous article published
unrestrained anger and obfuscation, petitioner is over the Internet.
liable only for the crime of Slight Oral
Defamation. Article 358 of the Revised Penal FACTS:
Code penalizes Slight Oral Defamation with Petitioners Bonifacio et al were charged with the
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00. crime of libel after private respondent Gimenez,
on behalf of Yuchengco family and Malayan
April 14, 2018 – Article 359 – SLANDER BY Insurance Co., filed a criminal complaint before
DEED the Makati City Prosecutor for libel under Article
ALILIAN, Enna B. 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal
Code.

The complaint alleged that petitioners, together discourage and prevent. It would do chaos
with several John Does, publicly and maliciously wherein website author, writer, blogger or
with intention of attacking the honesty, virtue, anyone who post messages in websites could be
honor and integrity, character and reputation of sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines.
Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., and Yuchengco
family for exposing them to public hatred and The information is quashed and the case is
contempt, and published in the said website dismissed.
(http://www.pepcoalition.com) a defamatory
article persuading the public to remove their TULFO VS PEOPLE
investments and policies from the said company. G.R. NO. 161032, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
PONENTE: JUSTICE VELASCO, JR.
Petitioners filed before the respondent RTC of
Makati a Motion to Quash on the grounds that it ISSUE:
failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the Whether or not lack of participation in the
acts complained of in the Information are not preparation of libelous articles does shield the
punishable by law since internet libel is not persons from liability of libel.
covered by Article 353 of the RPC. Petitioners
maintained that the Information failed to allege a FACTS:
particular place within the trial courts Atty. Carlos Ding So of the Bureau of Customs
jurisdiction where the subject article was printed filed and charged petitioners Erwin Tulfo, as
and first published or that the offended parties author/writer, Susan Cambri, as managing
resided in Makati at the time the alleged editor, Rey Salao, as national editor, Jocelyn
defamatory material was printed and first Barlizo, as city editor, and Philip Pichay, as
published, and the prosecution erroneously laid president of the Carlo Publishing House, Inc., of
the venue of the case in the place where the the daily tabloid Remate, with the crime of libel.
offended party accessed the internet-published That private respondent was indicated as an
article. Since the article was first published and extortionist, a corrupt public official, smuggler
accessed by Gimenez at Makati City, pursuant to and having acquired his wealth illegally.
Art. 360 of the RPC as amended by RA 4363.
Petitioner Cambri, managing editor of Remate,
HELD: testified that she classifies the news articles
No. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions written by the reporters, and that in the Editorial
such that the place where the crime was Division, the officers are herself; Briones, her
committed determines not only the venue of the supervisor; Lydia Bueno, as news and city editor;
action but constitutes an essential element of and Salao as national editor. She testified that
jurisdiction. petitioner Barlizo is her subordinate, whose
Art. 360 of the RPC provides: duties and responsibilities are the typesetting,
editing, and layout of the page assigned to her,
“Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the Metro page. She further testified that she had
the publication or exhibition of any defamation no participation in the writing, editing, or
in writing or by similar means, shall be publication of the column of Tulfo because the
responsible for the same. column was not edited. She claimed that none
xxxx among her co-accused from the Remate
newspaper edited the columns of Tulfo, that the
The criminal action and civil action for damages publication and editing of the subject articles
in cases of written defamations, as provided for were the responsibility of Tulfo, and that he was
in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or given blanket authority to write what he wanted
separately with the RTC of the province or city to write. She also testified that the page wherein
where the libelous article is printed and first Tulfos column appeared was supervised by
published or where any of the offended parties Bueno as news editor.
actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense. xxxx” HELD:
That venue of libel cases where the complainant The Court held that the publisher could not
is a private individual is limited only to: escape liability by claiming lack of participation
in the preparation and publication of a libelous
1. Where the complainant actually resides at the article.
time of the commission of the offense; or
The claim that they had no participation does not
2. Where the alleged defamatory article was shield them from liability. The provision in the
printed and first published. RPC does not provide absence of participation as
a defense, but rather plainly and specifically
If the circumstances as to where the libel was states the responsibility of those involved in
printed and first published was used as basis for publishing newspapers and other periodicals. It
the venue of the action, the Information must is not a matter of whether or not they conspired
allege with particularity where the defamatory in preparing and publishing the subject articles,
article was printed and first published. The same because the law simply so states that they are
measures cannot be reasonably expected when it liable as they were the author. Neither the
pertains to defamatory material appearing on a publisher nor the editors can disclaim liability for
website on the internet as there would be no way libelous articles that appear on their paper by
of determining the point of its printing and first simply saying they had no participation in the
publication. To give credence to Gimenez’s preparation of the same. They cannot say that
argument would spawn the very ills that the Tulfo was all alone in the publication of Remate,
amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to on which the subject articles appeared, when
they themselves clearly hold positions of the latter approximately P30,000.00 without
authority in the newspaper, or in the case of interest because he was the Mayor's compadre;
Pichay, as the president in the publishing that the purpose of said Publications is to cause
company. the dishonor, discredit and put in public
contempt the plaintiffs. At the time of the
As Tulfo cannot simply say that he is not liable publication of the allegedly offending essay,
because he did not fulfill his responsibility as a private respondents Antonio Villegas and Juan
journalist, the other petitioners cannot simply Ponce Enrile were the Mayor Of the City of
say that they are not liable because they did not Manila and Undersecretary of Finance and
fulfill their responsibilities as editors and concurrently Acting Commissioner of Customs,
publishers. An editor or manager of a newspaper, respectively, with offices in the City of Manila.
who has active charge and control of its
management, conduct, and policy, generally is On February 26, 1968, respondent court
held to be equally liable with the owner for the deferred the determination of the motion to
publication therein of a libelous article. dismiss until after trial of the case on the merits,
the court having considered that the grounds
On the theory that it is the duty of the editor or relied upon in the motion do not appear to be
manager to know and control the contents of the indubitable. Petitioner moved for reconsideration
paper, it is held that said person cannot evade of the deferment private respondents again
responsibility by abandoning the duties to opposed. Respondent judge issued an order re-
employees, so that it is immaterial whether or affirming the previous order of deferment for the
not the editor or manager knew the contents of reason that "the rule laid down under Republic
the publication. Act. No. 4363, amending Article 360 of the
Revised Penal Code, is not applicable to actions
Under Art. 360 of the RPC, as Tulfo, the author against non-resident defendants, and because
of the subject articles, has been found guilty of questions involving harassment and
libel, so too must Cambri, Salao, Barlizo, and inconvenience, as well as disruption of public
Pichay. service do not appear indubitable. ..."
Failing in its efforts to discontinue the taking of
TIME, INC. VS REYES the depositions, previously adverted to, and to
G.R. NO. L-28882 MAY 31, 1971 have action taken, before trial, on its motion to
PONENTE: JUSTICE REYES dismiss, petitioner filed the instant petition for
certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, under the provisions of RA 4363 HELD:
the respondent CFI of Rizal has jurisdiction to The respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal is
take cognizance of the civil suit for damages without jurisdiction to take cognizance of its Civil
arising from an allegedly libelous publication, Case.
considering that the action was instituted by Provisions of RA No. 4363 provides that Art. 360
public officers whose offices were in the City of of the of the Revised Penal Code is further
Manila at the time of the publication. amended to read that any person who shall
publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or
FACTS: exhibition of any defamation in writing or by
The petition alleges that petitioner Time, Inc., is similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
an American corporation with principal offices at
Rocketfeller Center, New York City, N. Y., and is The limitation of the choices of venue, as
the publisher of "Time", a weekly news magazine; introduced into the Penal Code through its
the petition, however, does not allege the amendments by Republic Act 4363, was
petitioner's legal capacity to sue in the courts of intended " to minimize or limit the filing of out-
the Philippine. of-town libel suits" to protect an alleged offender
from "hardships, inconveniences and
In the aforesaid civil case, therein plaintiffs- harassments" and, furthermore, to protect "the
respondents Antonio J. Villegas and Juan Ponce interest of the public service" where one of the
Enrile seek to recover from petitioner Time, Inc. offended parties is a public officer. But since the
damages upon an alleged libel arising from a offending publication was not printed in the
publication of Time (Asia Edition) magazine, in Philippines, the alternative venue was not open
its issue of Aug. 18, 1967, of an essay, entitled to respondent Mayor Villegas of Manila and
"Corruption in Asia", which talks about the Undersecretary of Finance Enrile, who were the
investigation of Manila mayor Antonio Villegas offended parties.
due to the discovery of his excessive and
unreasonable resources. More specifically, the CAMPITA VS VILLANUEVA
plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Time magazine G.R. NO. L-20228, NOVEMBER 28, 1964
published a libelous article, publicly, falsely and PONENTE: JUSTICE CONCEPCION
maliciously imputing to plaintiffs the
commission of the crimes of graft, corruption and ISSUE:
nepotism, that said publication particularly 1. Whether or not a complaint by the offended
referred to plaintiff Mayor Antonio J. Villegas as party necessary in action for oral defamation.
a case in point in connection with graft,
corruption and nepotism in Asia; that said 2. Whether or not an action for defamation
publication without any doubt referred to co- imputes a crime which cannot be prosecuted de
plaintiff Juan Ponce Enrile as the high oficio.
government official who helped under curious
circumstances plaintiff Mayor Villegas in lending
FACTS: introduce evidence on the truth thereof but that

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of said evidence was insufficient.
First Instance of Quezon, dismissing the petition
in the above entitled case. CA: The case before us does not fit within the
rules just cited and, therefore, TUMANG cannot
In a complaint filed with the Court of First seek the protection of the provisions of said
Instance of Quezon, the municipal mayor of article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, in order to
Lukban, was charged by petitioner Romana justify his criminal intent and secure his
Campita with the crime of acts of lasciviousness. acquittal, it appearing that many of the
On June 7, 1962, an officer of the Constabulary, imputations made against Felix Manalo in the
in turn, accused petitioner of serious oral libelous article in question do not constitute a
defamation, for having allegedly made on May crime; while in others where an insinuation was
27, 1962, the following defamatory statement: made of some criminal, act, the evidence
"Yang si Mayor Dator ay walang hiya, bastos, submitted to prove the truth has completely
masamang tao at manggagahasa". Petitioner failed to support the stand of the accused, and in
moved to dismiss this complaint against her general the imputations made against Manalo
upon the ground that the said Municipal Court are not at all connected with the discharge of the
had no jurisdiction over the case, because the duties of a Government official or employee, as it
aforementioned defamatory statement imputes is well known that Felix Manalo is not a
to Dator the crime of either rape or acts of Government employee and proof of the truth of
lasciviousness, none of which may be prosecuted the imputations would not be admissible.
except upon complaint of the offended party,
pursuant to Article 360 of the Revised Penal LEGAL ISSUE:
Code. W/N TUMANG should be acquitted based on
Article 361 of the RPC.
HELD:
1. The fourth paragraph of Article 360 of the HELD:
Revised Penal Code requiring the complaint in an NO. Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
action for defamation imputing a private offense Art 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal
to be expressly filed by the offended party, prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in
applies not only to written but also to oral evidence to the court and if it appears that the
defamation. Consequently, a complaint for oral matter charged as libelous is true, and moreover,
defamation imputing rape does not confer that it was published with good motives and for
jurisdiction on the lower court where it was not justifiable ends, the defendant shall be
expressly filed by the offended party but by a acquitted.
Constabulary Officer.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or
2. A statement in a complaint for defamation that omission not constituting a crime shall not be
the accused therein allegedly used the term admitted unless the imputation shall have been
"manggagahasa" in referring to the offended made against Government employees with
party, is held to impute a crime which cannot be respect to facts related to the discharge of their
prosecuted de oficio because the word "gahasa" official duties.
does not refer to force in general but only to force
or violence when applied to a woman for the In such cases if the defendant proves the truth
purpose of satisfying the lust of the actor. of the imputation made by him, he shall be
acquitted.
The crimes which may not be prosecuted de
oficio are adultery, concubinage, seduction, In view of the above, we find no merit in
abduction, and acts of lasciviousness (Art. 344, petitioner's contention that he had been
Revised Penal Code). unlawfully deprived of his right to prove the truth
of the libelous imputations. The Court of Appeals
April 16, 2018 – Article 361 – PROOF OF THE has rightfully held that proof of the truth of those
TRUTH acts imputed the offended party which do not
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L. constitute a crime can be admitted, since he is
not a government employee, and, consequently,
G.R. No. L-48498 September 30, 1942 none of those imputations can have any
SALVADOR G. TUMANG vs. reference to facts related to the discharge by a
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. government employee of his official duties. This
Ponente: YULO, C.J. is in consonance with the second paragraph of
article 361 which limits the scope of the general
FACTS: rule set forth in the first paragraph of the same
TUMANG made many imputations against Felix article.
Manalo. He was then filed with libel and found
guilty on the lower courts. G.R. No. 172203 February 14, 2011
DIONISIO LOPEZ y ABERASTURI vs.
It appears that the libelous article contained PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
imputations which insinuate the commission of SALVADOR G. ESCALANTE, JR.
criminal acts as well as of many other acts which Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.
do not constitute a crime.
FACTS:
As to those imputations insinuating the Evidence introduced for the prosecution reveals
commission of a crime, the Court of Appeals that in the early part of November 2002, while
found that the petitioner was allowed to exercising his official duties as Mayor of Cadiz
City, private respondent saw billboards with the however, reveals that the reasons elicited by the
printed phrase "CADIZ FOREVER" with a blank prosecution mainly relate to the discharge of
space before the word "NEVER" directly under private respondent’s official duties as City Mayor
said phrase. Those billboards were posted on the of Cadiz City.
corner of Gustilo and Villena streets, in front of
Cadiz Hotel and beside the old Coca-Cola April 16, 2018 – Article 362 – LIBELOUS
warehouse in Cadiz City. He became intrigued REMARKS
and wondered on what the message conveyed BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A.
since it was incomplete.
DORR, ET. AL. VS. UNITED STATES
Some days later, on November 15, 2002, private 195 U.S. 138 (1904)
respondent received a phone call relating that DAY, J.:
the blank space preceding the word "NEVER"
was filled up with the added words "BADING ISSUE:
AND SAGAY." The next day, he saw the Whether or not the accused committed the crime
billboards with the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER of Libelous remarks.
BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" printed in full.
Reacting and feeling that he was being maligned FACTS:
and dishonored with the printed phrase and of The case was a prosecution for libel, brought at
being a "tuta" of Sagay, private respondent, after the instance of Don Benito Legarda, a member of
consultation with the City Legal Officer, caused the Philippine Commission, against the plaintiffs
the filing of a complaint for libel against in error, Dorr and O'Brien, who were proprietors
petitioner. He claimed that the incident resulted and editors of a newspaper published in the city
in mental anguish and sleepless nights for him of Manila known as the 'Manila Freedom.' It
and his family. He thus prayed for damages. appears that Legarda was the prosecuting
witness against one Valdez, editor of a certain
Petitioner admitted having placed all the Spanish newspaper called the 'Miau.' At the time
billboards because he is aware of all the things of the trial of Valdez, under the Spanish law then
happening around Cadiz City. He mentioned in force in the islands, the truth could not be
"BADING" because he was not in conformity with given in defense in a prosecution for criminal
the many things the mayor had done in Cadiz libel. Notwithstanding this fact, counsel for
City. He insisted that he has no intention Valdez, in the form of an offer of proof, read a
whatsoever of referring to "Bading" as the "Tuta" paper in court, making certain statements with
of Sagay. He contended that it was private reference to the libel charged, tending to show
respondent who referred to Bading as "Tuta" of the truth thereof. In what purported to be a
Sagay. He further maintained that his personal report of the proceeding, the Manila Freedom
belief and expression was that he will never love printed an article containing the matter set forth
Bading and Sagay. He concluded that the in the offer to prove, with headlines in large type,
message in the billboards is just a wake-up call as follows:
for Cadiz City.
'TRAITOR, SEDUCER, AND PERJURER.
LEGAL ISSUE: SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
W/N Lopez should be acquitted on the crime of COMMISSIONER LEGARDA.
libel based on Article 361 of the RPC. MADE OF RECORD AND READ IN ENGLISH-
SPANISH READING WAIVED.
HELD:
YES. For that matter, granting that the Wife would have killed him.
controversial phrase is considered defamatory, Legarda pale and nervous.'
still, no liability attaches on petitioner. Pursuant The prosecution of the plaintiffs in error was
to Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the based upon the [195 U.S. 138, 150] publication
defamatory statement is made against a public of these headlines, which were charged to be a
official with respect to the discharge of his official false and malicious libel, printed in the English
duties and functions and the truth of the language, of and concerning Don Benito Legarda.
allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled At the time Valdez was tried, in which case the
to an acquittal even though he does not prove occurrence undertaken to be reported took place,
that the imputation was published with good the Spanish law was in force, denying the right
motives and for justifiable ends. As the Court to put in evidence the truth of the alleged libelous
held in United States v. Bustos,22 the policy of a matter. At the time of the trial of the plaintiffs in
public official may be attacked, rightly or wrongly error the Philippine Commission had passed act
with every argument which ability can find or No. 277, known as the libel law. Sec.8 of the said
ingenuity invent. The public officer "may suffer law provides that: Libelous remarks or
under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the comments connected with matter privileged by
wound can be assuaged by the balm of a clear the last section receive no privilege by reason of
conscience. A public [official] must not be too being so connected.
thin-skinned with reference to comments upon
his official acts." RULING:
Yes. The contention is that the publication is
In arriving at an analogous finding of guilt on privileged under 7 and 8, the claim being that the
petitioner, both lower courts heavily relied on the publication was a fair and truthful report of
testimony of the petitioner pertaining to the judicial proceedings. Testimony was introduced
reasons behind the printing of the phrase in the court below tending to show malice, and
"CADIZ FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY there was no proof to support the truth of the
NEVER." Our in-depth scrutiny of his testimony, charges in the alleged libel, which were found to
be without basis and wanton, and as the findings is the imputation itself when made before an
of the two lower courts in a case brought in administrative or judicial officer, whereas in
review here are not ordinarily disturbed, the case article 363 of the Revised Penal Code the
upon this branch might rest upon that gravamen of the offense is performing an act
proposition. It is evident, however, that the which "tends directly" to such an imputation.
publication in question did not stop with a Article 326 of the old Penal Code punishes false
simple report of the judicial proceedings. Indeed, prosecutions whereas article 363 of the Revised
the paper offered in evidence could not have been Penal Code punishes any act which may tend
received under the law then in force,-a fact directly to cause a false prosecution.
concerning which no comment was made in the
report of the proceedings. Furthermore, 8 of the The subject article punishes the acts of
law, while permitting, as privileged, a fair and “planting” evidence and the like, which do not
truthful report of judicial proceedings, except themselves constitute false prosecutions but
upon express proof of malice, does not make tend directly to cause false prosecutions.
privileged libelous remarks or comments in
connection with the privileged matter. The April 16, 2018 – Article 364 – INTRIGUING
draftsman of the law evidently had in mind the AGAINST HONOR
law of criminal libel in newspaper publications DAHIROC, Janice L.
as it exists in this country. The privilege extends
to a full and correct report of judicial proceedings THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
without prejudicial comment. BENEDICTO BAO
G.R. No. L-12102 September 25, 1959
These headlines were not privileged matter at the
common law, and were libelous remarks or ISSUE:
comments if the matter could be deemed Whether or not the evidence adduced by the
otherwise privileged, within the meaning of 8 of prosecution establish the crime of intriguing
the Philippine libel law. An inspection of them against honor penalized by article 364 of the
would seem to be sufficient to demonstrate this revised Penal Code and not the oral defamation
fact. The complainant was held up to the public as appealed.
where the paper circulated in striking headlines
as 'Traitor, Seducer, Perjurer,' and while these FACTS:
words were quoted, as well as the phrase 'Wife This is an appeal by the Government from an
would have killed him,' their publication in this order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
manner was certainly the equivalent to a remark Occidental, dismissing, upon defendant-
or comment unnecessary to a fair and truthful appellee's motion the case against him for
report of judicial proceedings, and likely to raise serious oral defamation.
inferences highly detrimental to the character
and standing of the one concerning whom they On May 13, 1955, Benedicto Bao was charged
were printed and published. with oral defamation in the justice of the Peace
Court of Aloran, Misamis Occidental, in a
April 16, 2018 – Article 363 – INCRIMINATING complaint filed by the offended party, Maximina
INNOCENT PERSON Banguis for allegedly speaking publicly and
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. uttering "Si Maximina Banguis, aking nakuha"
(Maximina Banguis was carnally taken by me)
PEOPLE V. RIVERA and other words of similar import and meaning
G.R. NOS. 38215 & 38216 implying that the offended party no longer a
DECEMBER 22, 1933. virgin despite her being a single woman, thus
exposing her to public contempt, disrepute and
ISSUE: ridicule. The said complaint was later amended
WoN Rivera was guilty of Art. 363 of the Revised to charge the crime or serious defamation. The
Penal Code. defendant having waived his right to the
preliminary investigation and the justice of the
FACTS: peace court being of the opinion that the case did
Vito and Moreno were charged with theft by Sgt. not fall within its jurisdiction, the record of the
Ranas, Q. with Faustino Rivera as the witness of case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance
the crime. The charge against them was of the province for trial on the merits.
dismissed by the Court of First Instance of
Lucena. Thereafter, Vito and Moreno filed a case Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of
against Rivera for violation of Art. 363, not guilty and the case was tried. After the
Incriminating innocent person. The case was prosecution had rested its case, the accused,
also dismissed. The Attorney-General appealed thru his counsel, filed a motion to quash on the
to the Supreme Court. grounds the facts alleged in the information did
not constitute the crime of serious oral
HELD: defamation and that the evidence presented was
No, he is not guilty of the crime. insufficient to convict him of any criminal
Art. 363 do not apply to the instant case since it offense. The prosecution opposed the motion to
would open the door to a flood of prosecutions in quash, but the trial court, in its order of
cases where the defendants were acquitted. The November 3, 1956 - finding that the evidence
gravamen of the offense is performing an act adduced by the prosecution establish the crime
which "tends directly" to such an imputation of intriguing against honor penalized by article
364 of the revised Penal Code, which is within
It will be observed that under article 326 of the the exclusive jurisdiction of the justice of the
former Penal Code, the gravamen of the offense peace court to try, and not oral defamation as
defined and punished under article 358 of the

same code - granted the motion and dismissed Mayor Villapando was the duly elected Municipal
the case with costs de oficio. In that the same Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan when the alleged
order the court directed the provincial fiscal to crime was committed. On July 1998, the accused
file the corresponding action before the proper appointed Orlando Tiape, who lost in May 1998
justice of the peace court. The prosecution election, as Municipal Administrator of the said
moved for reconsideration of the order but the municipality. However, respondents contend
motion having been denied, it appealed directly that the appointee possesses all the
to this Court. qualifications stated in Article 244 of the Revised
Penal Code.
HELD:
We believe the appeal if bereft of merit. On the other hand, petitioner argues that the
Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division acted with
This Court has already held that the dismissal of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
a criminal case on the ground of variance excess of jurisdiction because its interpretation
between the allegations in the information and of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code does not
the evidence amounts to an acquittal. (People vs. complement the provision on the one-year
Opemia, et al., 98 Phil., 698; 52 Off. Gaz., 1951.) prohibition found in the 1987 Constitution and
And while there appears to be merit in the the Local Government Code.
Solicitor General's contention that the offense of
intriguing against honor is necessarily included HELD:
in the crime of serious oral defamation charged Yes. Villapandos contention and the
in the information and therefore the accused Sandiganbayan, Fourth Divisions interpretation
could be validly convicted by the trial court of of the term legal disqualification lack cogency.
that crime under the same information, the fact Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be
remains that the case was dismissed after the circumscribed lexically. Legal disqualification
prosecution had rested its case and upon motion cannot be read as excluding temporary
by the defendant on the grounds that the fact disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the
remains that the case alleged in the information legal prohibitions under Section 6, Article IX of
did not constitute the crime charged and that, at the 1987 Constitution and Section 94(b) of the
any rate, the evidence presented was not Local Government Code of 1991. Its
sufficient to establish his guilt. The dismissal, interpretation of the term legal disqualification in
likewise, amounts to an acquittal or discharge of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code defies legal
the defendant, from which the prosecution cogency. Legal disqualification cannot be read as
cannot appeal without doing violence to the excluding temporary disqualification in order to
constitutional provision on double jeopardy. exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under
(People vs. Cabarles, 54 Off. Gaz., 7051, and the the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government
case cited therein). It goes without saying that Code of 1991.
such dismissal constitutes a bar to another
prosecution not only for the offense charged, but We reiterate the legal maxim ubi lex non
also "for any offense which necessarily includes distinguit nec nosdistinguere debemus. Basic is
or is necessarily included" therein. the rule in statutory construction that where the
law does not distinguish, the courts should not
Wherefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the distinguish. There should be no distinction in the
Government must be, as it is hereby, dismissed application of a law where none is indicated.
with costs de oficio.
The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division having
Article 244. Unlawful Appointments. - Any public acted with grave abuse of discretion in
officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint disregarding the basic rules of statutory
to any public office any person lacking the legal construction resulting in its decision granting
qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of Villapandos Demurrer to Evidence and
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 acquitting the latter, we can do no less but
pesos. declare its decision null and void.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.THE The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) and May 20, 2004 of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth
ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO Division, in granting private respondent
G.R. No. 164185 July 23, 2008 Alejandro A. Villapandos Demurrer to Evidence
and acquitting him of the crime of unlawful
ISSUE: appointment under Article 244 of the Revised
Whether or not Villapando is guilty of the crime Penal Code is hereby declared NULL and VOID.
of Unlawful appointment under article 244 of the Let the case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan,
Revised Penal Code. Fourth Division, for further proceedings.
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari filed by the Office
of the Ombudsman towards the decision of the
Sandiganbayan, granting private respondent
Alejandro A. Villapando's Demurrer to Evidence
and acquitting him of the crime of unlawful
appointment under Article 244 of the Revised
Penal Code.

every undesirable accident. Furthermore, the act

of offering to the mother of the deceased a
carabaos and a horse by way of indemnity,
indicates on the one hand that the defendant
admitted the commission of the crime, on the
other it shows that he performed that act without
criminal intent and only through a real
imprudence.
G.R. NO. 195671 JANUARY 21, 2015

ROGELIO J. GONZAGA, PETITIONER,
VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rogelio is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with
MDouble Serious Physical Injuries and Damage
to Property punishable under Article 365 in
relation to Article 263 of the RPC.
FACTS:
At around 6 o'clock in the morning of June 25,
1997, Dionesio Inguito, Sr. (Dionesio, Sr.) was
driving his motorcycle along Brgy. Kiara, Don
Carlos, Bukidnon towards Brgy. Bocboc of the
same municipality, to bring his two (2) minor
children, Dionesio Inguito, Jr. (Dionesio, Jr.) and
TITLE FOURTEEN – QUASI-OFFENSES Cherry Inguito (Cherry), to school. While they
were ascending the curving road going to Bocboc
April 19, 2018 – Article 365 – IMPRUDENCE on their proper lane on the right side of the road,
AND NEGLIGENCE a Toyota Land Cruiser (Land Cruiser)driven by
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J Rogelio was swiftly descending the same lane
from the opposite direction. Dionesio, Sr. blew
G.R. NO. L-24084 NOVEMBER 3, 1925 the horn of his motorcycle to signal the Land
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Cruiser to return to its proper lane but the Land
VS. Cruiser remained.8 In order to avoid collision,
PEDRO RAMIREZ, Dionesio, Sr. tried to swerve to the left, but the
Land Cruiser suddenly swerved towards the
ISSUE: same direction and collided head-on with the
Is the defendant criminally liable, and if so, did motorcycle.
he act with malice?
As a result of the collision, Dionesio, Sr. and his
FACTS: 2 children were thrown off the motorcycle.
The defendant, along with Victoriano Ranga, the Dionesio, Sr. was pinned beneath the Land
deceased, and Agustin Menor, were invited by Cruiser, while Cherry and Dionesio, Jr. were
one Bartolome Quiaoit to hunt in the mount thrown over the hood of the Land Cruiser and fell
Balitok of the municipality of Nueva Era, on the side of the road, causing injuries to their
Province of Ilocos Norte. The three proceeded to legs. Siblings Rolf, Cherry, and Jenny Ann
hunt, leaving Quiaoit in a hut approximately 1 Aquino, who were traversing the same road
kilometer from the scene of the crime. Upon aboard their own motorcycle, stopped to help
arrival on said mount Balitok, defendant, who and placed the victims together on the rightmost
was then carrying the shotgun of Quiaoit and a side of the road facing Brgy. Bocboc, while
lantern, happened to hunt a deer, and thereafter Rogelio remained inside the Land Cruiser.
told his companions to stay there, watch over the
prey, while he was going away looking for In view of the foregoing mishap, the provincial
another; that being far away from his prosecutor filed an Information charging Rogelio
companions, he seemed to have seen with his for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
lantern something like the eyes of a deer about with Double Serious Physical Injuries and
fifty meters from him and then he shot it. But Damage to Property "with the aggravating
much to his surprise, on approaching what he circumstance that accused failed to lend on the
thought was a deer, it proved to be his spot to the injured party such help that was in
companion, Victoriano Ranga. his hands to give" before the RTC. Upon
arraignment, Rogelio entered a plea of not guilty.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that although there HELD:
was no malice on the part of the defendant, he is YES.
still criminally liable for homicide through Reckless imprudence, as defined in Article 365 of
reckless imprudence. The defendant, knowing the RPC, consists in voluntarily, but without
that he had two companions, should have malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
exercised all the necessary diligence to avoid material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the to give." Based on case law, the obligation under
person performing or failing to perform such act, this paragraph: (a) is dependent on the means in
taking into consideration his employment or the hands of the offender, i.e., the type and
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical degree of assistance that he/she, at the time and
condition and other circumstances regarding place of the incident, is capable of giving; and (b)
persons, time and place. requires adequate proof.
In order to establish a motorist’s liability for the

negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown
that there was a direct causal connection
between such negligence and the injuries or
damages complained of. To constitute the offense
of reckless driving, the act must be something
more than a mere negligence in the operation of
a motor vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard
of the consequences is required. Willful, wanton
or reckless disregard for the safety of others
within the meaning of reckless driving statutes
has been held to involve a conscious choice of a
course of action which injures another, either
with knowledge fserious danger to others
involved, or with knowledge of facts which would
disclose the danger to any reasonable person.
Verily, it is the inexcusable lack of precaution or
conscious indifference to the consequences of
the conduct which supplies the criminal intent
and brings an act of mere negligence and
imprudence under the operation of the penal
law, without regard to whether the private
offended party may himself be considered
likewise at fault.
In the present case, the RTC and the CA

uniformly found that Rogelio’s act of driving very
fast on the wrong side of the road was the
proximate cause of the collision, resulting to the
death of Dionesio, Sr. and serious physical
injuries to Dionesio, Jr. and Cherry. Notably, the
road where the incident occurred was a curve
sloping upwards towards Brgy. Bocboc where the
Inguitos were bound and descending towards the
opposite direction where Rogelio was going.
Indeed, the very fact of speeding, under such
circumstances, is indicative of imprudent
behavior. As a motorist, Rogelio was bound to
exercise ordinary care in such affair by driving at
a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with
the conditions encountered, as this would enable
him to keep the vehicle under control and avoid
injury to others using the highway. Moreover, it
is elementary in traffic school that a driver slows
down before negotiating a curve as it may be
reasonably anticipated that another vehicle may
appear from the opposite direction at any
moment. Hence, excessive speed, combined with
other circumstances such as the occurrence of
the accident on or near a curve, as in this case,
constitutes negligence. Consequently, the Court
finds that Rogelio acted recklessly and
imprudently in driving at a fast speed on the
wrong side of the road while approaching the
curve where the incident happened, thereby
rendering him criminally liable, as well as civilly
accountable for the material damages resulting
therefrom. Nonetheless, while the CA and the
RTC concurred that the proximate cause of the
collision was Rogelio’s reckless driving, the CA
Decision made no mention as to the presence or
absence of the limiting element in the last
paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC, which
imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon
the offender who "fails to lend on the spot to the
injured parties such help as may be in his hands

CRIMINAL LAW 2 Everyday Digest Edited 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW 2 Everyday Digest Edited 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW 2 Everyday Digest Edited 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW II

DAILY CASE DIGEST

Jennica Gyrl Delfin

4 | 1ST YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

November 27, 2017– Article 117 – ESPIONAGE PEOPLE VS. CATANTAN

November 27, 2017– Article 118 – INCITING TO ISSUE:

November 27, 2017 – Article 119 – VIOLATION FACTS:

Atty. Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay

6 | 1ST YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by committed as a result or on the occasion of

PEOPLE V. ANG CHO KIO

8 | 1ST YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

November 29, 2017 – Article 124 – ARBITRARY ISSUE:

FELICIANO GALVANTE VS HON. ORLANDO FACTS:

ISSUE: December 1, 2017- Article 127- EXPULSION

They also stated that accused should not be

FACTS: Alvero asked for the reconsideration of said order

its suppression. There must be the probability of

The offense falls within the provisions of article

It is further alleged that the people thus

Persons who meet for the purpose of religious

December 7, 2017 – Article 133 – OFFENDING

PEOPLE VS. PROCORPIO REYES, ET AL.

TRILLANES IV V PIMENTEL, SR. The HERNANDEZ and their co-conspirators,

committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,

redundant and mere duplication of “engaging in FACTS:

As held in People v. Hernandez, supra:

In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a

HELD: Commander Torio and about 20 armed men.

ISSUE: December 13, 2017 – Article 140 – PENALTY

FACTS: December 13, 2017 – Article 140 –

On 1951 election, Punzalan ran for reelection. To FACTS:

Many witnesses were presented both by the FACTS:

Constabulary, using words substantially to the

LOPEZ V. DE LOS REYES Before a warrant of arrest in said criminal cases

The repugnancy between such an expansion of

Whether Article 146 of the Revised Penal Code

lawful duties as a police officer when the assault

RIVERA v. PEOPLE 1. The assault is committed with a weapon

sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively.

ISSUE: December 22, 2017 – Article 151 -

FACTS: PEOPLE VS CHAN FOOK

Atty. Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay

HELD: Nothing in the records indicate that the area was

Whether or not accused Doriquez was placed in

Accused Bacolod was charged with two HELD:

January 11, 1965, directed that execution of the

December 27, 2017 – Article 157 – EVASION OF FACTS:

Atty. Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay

December 28, 2017 – Article 158 – EVASION OF HELD:

In the case at bar, President has chosen to HELD:

38 | 1ST YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

P22,000.00. What is unique, however, with the

40 | 1ST YR – BLK 4 JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

defendant be acquitted of the crime charged in

DEL ROSARIO VS PEOPLE Marqueta, that a buy-bust operation was

HELD: January 7, 2018 – Article 168 – ILLEGAL