Resto Case Digest

G.R. No.
L-10726 December 1, 1915

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. FELISA VILLALUZ and MARTINA
PALERMO, defendants. FELISA VILLALUZ, Appellant.
FACTS:
These defendants were charged with the crime of hurto domestico (theft by a domestic
servant). The complaint alleged: "That on or about the 18th day of March, 1914, in the
municipality of Valladolid, Province of Occidental Negros, Philippine Islands, the herein
accused did, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally, with intent of unlawful gain and without
employing violence or intimidation upon persons or force upon things, remove, seize and
appropriate to themselves one gold-plated watch together with its chain and gold fob, all
valued in the sum of one hundred and two pesos (P102) Philippine currency, belonging to
Jose Espinosa, said accused acting without the latter's knowledge or consent.
Martina Palermo, by reason of her tender age and the fact that she "did not act with
discernment or understanding in taking the watch, chain and fob," the property of her
master, Jose Espinosa, and other circumstances mentioned in the decision, was relieved
from the sentence of imprisonment, with costs de oficio but was put under the control and
vigilance of Jose Espinosa, under terms which are mentioned in the decision of the lower.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Feliza Villaluz is guilty of theft by a domestic servant.
RULING:
We are of the opinion, after a careful examination of the record brought to this court, that
the defendant, Felisa Villaluz, is guilty, as an accessary of the crime of larceny, and that she
took part, subsequent to the commission of the crime, in the concealment of the fruits
thereof, with full knowledge of its commission.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
law library
Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Valcesar Estioca vs People of the Philippines (GR 173876 June 27, 2008)
Facts
A number of persons were accused of conspiring and robbing an elementary school. One of
which is Boniao who was 14 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. They were
found guilty by the lower court. When the case was appealed to the CA, RA 9344 took effect
and Boniao was acquitted since he was a minor at the time of the crime but without
prejudice to his civil liability. Custody was given to his parents.
ISSUE:
Whether RA 9344 can retroact to Boniao's case.
HELD:
Yes, the reckoning point in considering minority is the time of the commission of the crime.
In this case Boniao is 14 years old hence exempted from criminal liability without prejudice
to his civil liability. Art 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws may be given
retroactive effect if they are in favor of the accused.
People vs. Cortezano, September 23, 2003
Mitigating Circumstances (RPC, Article 13)
Facts:
Leah, 8 years old, was raped of about thirty-six times by her uncles, Joel, 13 years old, and
Bernardo, 12 years old. The two wetted her vagina with saliva, acted in conspiracy by acting
as a lookout for each other, threatened to kill her and her family if such case be divulged,
forced Boyet to rape her, laughed at him while he was raping her, and ordered Leah Lou and
Lionel, the victim’s siblings to see her naked and did the same threat.
ISSUE:
Whether or not they should be exempted because they are minors when they committed
the acts.
Held:
The contention is wrong. A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen years old at
the time of the commission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability only when the said
minor acted without discernment.
In this case, the evidence on record show beyond cavil that the appellants acted with
discernment when they raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victims vagina before
they raped hey; (b) one of them acted as a lookout while the other was raping the victim; (c)
they threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her parents what they did to her; (d) they
forced Boyet to rape the victim; (e) they laughed as Boyet was raping the victim; (f) they
ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their sister naked after the appellants had raped her.
However, though they are not exempted, their charges are mitigated. Where the accused
are minors at the time they committed the offenses, they are entitled to benefits of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, as provided in Art 68 of the RPC, par 1.
The Keyword:
Discernment: The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal
liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited
by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and
such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the
facts and circumstances, afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very
attitude, the very comportment and behavior of the said minor, not only before and during
the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
ART. 12: EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE CASE NO. 8:
LLAVE V PEOPLE
Facts:
Neil Llave, 12 years old, raped Debbielyn. The victim was pulled from a vacant lot.
The accused ordered her to lie down on the cement. He removed her shorts and underwear
and his own. He penetrated his penis into the victim’s vagina and had a push and pull
movement. Teofisto, the witness, saw the incident and shouted. The accused fled the
scence. During trial the accused argued that being a minor, he is presumed that he acted
without discernment under paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code thus exempt
from criminal liability.
Issue: Whether or not the accused acted with discernment
Ruling:
Yes, the accused acted with discernment. The factual circumstance which bolstered
the he acted with discernment is when the accused stated that he was an outstanding
student. This allegation proves that he acted with discernment with full knowledge and
intelligence. He was possessed of intelligence well beyond his years and thus was able to
distinguish which conduct is right or wrong. Hence, the accused is not exempt from criminal
liability.
Ortega vs. People
G. R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008
Facts:
At the time of commission of rape, the accused was 13 years old while the victim was 6. The
case was pending when the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) was
enacted amending among others the age of criminal irresponsibility being raised from 9 to
15 years old. At the time of the promulgation of judgment, the accused already reached the
age of majority.
Issue:
Whether or not the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be applied,
in the resolution of the case.
Held:
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be applied. By virtue of R.A.
No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old, this law
is evidently favorable to the accused. Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the
commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live birth, by
petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother. Furthermore, petitioner’s
age was never assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and the CA. Indubitably,
petitioner, at the time of the commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. Under
R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted from criminal liability.

Resto Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resto Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Resto Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-10726 December 1, 1915

Mitigating Circumstances (RPC, Article 13)

Ortega vs. People

G. R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008

You might also like