crim 2 case digest(salva)

7/21/2019 Crim 2 Case Digest(salva)

1/37

People vs. Lolo

G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922

FACTS:

On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left of Dutch possession. In one

of the boats was one individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat

eleven en, woen, and children, li!ewise subjects of "olland.#he second

boat arrived between the Islands of $uan% and $u!id in the Dutch &ast

Indies. #here the boat was surrounded b' si( vintas anned b' twent')four

*oros all ared. #he *oros +rst as!ed for food, but once on the Dutch boat,

too! for theselves all of the car%o, attac!ed soe of the en, and brutall'

violated two of the woen b' ethods too horrible to described. ll of the

persons on the Dutch boat, with the e(ception of the two 'oun% woen,

were a%ain placed on it and holes were ade in it, with the idea that it would

suber%e, althou%h as a atter of fact, these people, after eleven da's ofhardship and privation, were succored. #a!in% the two woen with the, and

repeatedl' violatin% the, the *oros +nall' arrived at *aruro, a Dutch

possession. #wo of the *oro arauders were -ol)lo, who also raped one of

the woen, and araw. t *aruro, the two woen were able to escape.

fter -ol)lo and araw later returned to their hoe in outh /bian,

#awi)#awi, ulu, hilippine Islands, the' were arrested and were char%ed in

the I with the crie of pirac'. #he counsel of record interposed a deurrer

on the %rounds that the oense char%ed was not within the jurisdiction of the

I, nor of an' court of the hilippine Islands, and that the facts did not

constitute a public oense, under the laws in force in the hilippine Islands.

#he deurrer was overruled b' the trial jud%e, a trial was had, and a

jud%ent was rendered +ndin% the two defendants %uilt' and sentencin%

each of the to life iprisonent 4cadena perpetua5, to return to%ether with

6inawalan% and *aulanis, defendants in another case, to the oended

parties, the thirt')nine sac!s of copras which had been robbed, or to

indenif' the in the aount of 972 rupees, and to pa' a one)half part of

the costs.

ISSUE:8O the eleents of pirac' e(ists:

HELD:

#he decided that in the present case, the facts were proven and

not disputed and all of the eleents of the crie of pirac' were present.

irac' is robber' or forcible depredation on the hi%h seas, without lawful

1


2/37

authorit' and done anio furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal

hostilit'. irac' is a crie not a%ainst an' particular state but a%ainst all

an!ind which can be punished in the copetent tribunal of an' countr'

where the oender a' be found or into which he a' be carried. #he

jurisdiction of pirac', unli!e all other cries, has no territorial liits. s it is

a%ainst all so a' it be punished b' all. #herefore it does not atter that the

crie was coitted within the jurisdictional 3)ile liit of a forei%n state,

;for those liits, thou%h neutral to war, are not neutral to cries.;

People vs Tulin

G.R. No. 111709 Auus! "0, 2001

FACTS:

In the evenin% of *arch 2, 1991, ;*evised enal ode, before its aendent,

provided that pirac' ust be coitted on the hi%h seas b'an' person not a

eber of its copleent nor a passen%er thereof. /pon its aendent b'

>epublic ct o. =CA9, the covera%e of the pertinent provision was widened

2


3/37

to include oenses coitted ;in hilippine waters.; On the other hand,

under residential Decree o. A32 4issued in 19=75, the covera%e of the law

on pirac' ebraces an' person includin% ;a passen%er or eber of the

copleent of said vessel in hilippine waters.; "ence, passen%er or not, a

eber of the copleent or not, an' person is covered b' the law.

>epublic ct o. =CA9 neither superseded nor aended the provisions on

pirac' under residential Decree o. A32. #here is no contradiction between

the two laws. #here is li!ewise no abi%uit' and hence, there is no need to

construe or interpret the law. ll the presidential decree did was to widen the

covera%e of the law, in !eepin% with the intent to protect the citienr' as well

as nei%hborin% states fro cries a%ainst the law of nations. s e(pressed in

one of the ;whereas; clauses of residential Decree o. A32, pirac' is

;aon% the hi%hest fors of lawlessness condened b' the penal statutes

of all countries.; or this reason, pirac' under the rticle 122, as aended,

and pirac' under residential Decree o. A32 e(ist haroniousl' as separatelaws.

s re%ards the contention that the trial court did not ac@uire jurisdiction over

the person of accused)appellant "ion% since the crie was coitted

outside hilippine waters, suEce it to state that un@uestionabl', the attac!

on and seiure of ;*


4/37

+shin% in the seawaters of #abo%on, ebu, and seied their +shin% boat, to

their daa%e and prejudice.

ISSUE:

8O the activities of the accused constitutes irac'.

HELD:

B&. ection 2, par. 4d5, of D o. A32, de+nes pirac' as ;an' attac!

upon or seiure of an' vessel, or the ta!in% awa' of the whole or part thereof

or its car%o, e@uipent, or the personal belon%in%s of the copleent or

passen%ers, irrespective of the value thereof, b' eans of violence a%ainst

or intiidation of persons or force upon thin%s, coitted b' an' person,

includin% a passen%er or eber of the copleent of said vessel, in

hilippine waters, shall be considered as pirac'. #he oenders shall be

considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.;ccused)appellant ar%ues that in order that pirac' a' be coitted

it is essential that there be an attac! on or seiure of a vessel. "e clais that

he and his copanion did not attac! or seie the +shin% boat of the ilapil

brothers b' usin% force or intiidation but erel' boarded the boat, and it

was onl' when the' were alread' on board that the' used force to copel

the ilapils to ta!e the to soe other place.

/rsal seied throu%h force and intiidation the pupboat of the

ilapils while the latter were +shin% in hilippine waters.

As!ora vs People

G.R. No. 15&1"0 Auus! 20, 200&

FACTS:

On epteber 1, 199=, a tea was sent to the island of Dara,

8estern aar to conduct intelli%ence %atherin% and forest protection

operations in line with the %overnents capai%n a%ainst ille%al lo%%in%.

/pon investi%ation of the %roup, *a'or stor%a was found to be the

owner of two boats. heated altercation ensued and *a'or stor%a calledfor reinforceents. #en ared en arrived in the scene. #he oended

parties were then brou%ht to *a'or stor%as house where the' had dinner

and drin!s and left at 230a. O1 apo@uian were allowed to %o down

fro the house, but not to leave the baran%a'. On the other hand, O3

inco and the rest just sat in the house until 200 a.. when the tea was

+nall' allowed to leave.

7


5/37

ISSUE:

8O stor%a is %uilt' of arbitrar' detention.

HELD:

B&. *a'or stor%a is %uilt' of arbitrar' detention. rbitrar' Detention

is coitted b' an' public oEcer or eplo'ee who, without le%al %rounds,

detains a person. #he eleents of the crie are

1. #hat the oender is a public oEcer or eplo'ee.

2. #hat he detains a person.

3. #hat the detention is without le%al %rounds.

In the case at bar, the restraint resultin% fro fear is evident. Inspite of

their pleas, the witnesses and the coplainants were not allowed b'

petitioner to %o hoe. #his refusal was @uic!l' followed b' the call for and

arrival of alost a doen Kreinforceents,L all ared with ilitar')issueriHes, who proceeded to encircle the tea, weapons pointed at the

coplainants and the witnesses. Fiven such circustances, we %ive

credence to O1 apo@uians stateent that it was not KsafeL to refuse

*a'or stor%as orders. It was not just the presence of the ared en, but

also the evident eect these %unen had on the actions of the tea which

proves that fear was indeed instilled in the inds of the tea ebers, to

the e(tent that the' felt copelled to sta' in $r%'. -ucob)-ucob. #he intent

to prevent the departure of the coplainants and witnesses a%ainst their will

is thus clear.

#ayao vs 'el %un(o

A.). No. )T*9"81" $ep!e%ber 15, 199"

FACTS:

bus driven b' the coplainant alost collided head)on with an

owner)t'pe jeepne' owned b' Jud%e del *undo. oplainant was pic!ed up

b' policeen and iediatel' brou%ht before the sala of the respondent

jud%e where he was confronted b' the latter. 8ithout %ivin% coplainant an'opportunit' to e(plain, respondent jud%e insisted that coplainant be

punished for the incident. 8hereupon, coplainant was copelled b'

respondent jud%e to choose fro three 435 alternative punishents none of

which is pleasant, to wit 4a5 to face a char%e of ultiple attepted

hoicideM 4b5 revocation of his drivers licenseM or 4c5 to be put in jail for

three 435 da's. Of the three choices, coplainant chose the third, i.e.,

A


6/37

con+neent for three 435 da's, as a conse@uence of which he was forced to

si%n a Kwaiver of detentionL b' respondent jud%e. #hereafter, coplainant

was iediatel' escorted b' policeen to the unicipal jail. #hou%h not

actuall' incarcerated coplainant reained in the preises of the unicipal

jail for three 435 da's.

ISSUE:

8O respondent jud%e is %uilt' of the char%e of warrantless arrest and

arbitrar' detention.

HELD:

B&. #he actuations of respondent jud%e herein coplained of,

constitute abuse of authorit'. 8hile it is true that coplainant was not put

behind bare as respondent had intended, however, coplainant was not

allowed to leave the preises of the jail house. #he idea of con+neent isnot s'non'ous onl' with incarceration inside a jail cell. It is enou%h to

@ualif' as con+neent that a an be restrained, either orall' or ph'sicall',

of his personal libert'. /nder the circustances, respondent jud%e was in

fact %uilt' of arbitrar' detention when he, as a public oEcer, ordered the

arrest and detention of coplainant without le%al %rounds. In overta!in%

another vehicle, coplainant)driver was not coittin% or had not actuall'

coitted a crie in the presence of respondent jud%e. uch bein% the

case, the warrantless arrest and subse@uent detention of coplainant were

ille%al.

It would be well to ephasie at this point that the %ravit' of the isconduct

of respondent is not alone centered on his order for the detention of

coplainant. >ather, it is in%rained in the fact that coplainant was so

detained without aordin% hi his constitutional ri%hts.

)ilo vs $alana

G.R. No. L"7007 *uly 20, 1987

FACTS:n inforation for rbitrar' Detention was +led a%ainst herein private

respondent 4accused $arrio aptain #uvera, r.5 and soe other private

persons for altreatin% petitioner ?alde b' hittin% hi with butts of their

%uns and +st blows. Iediatel' thereafter, without le%al %rounds and with

deliberate intent to deprive the latter of his constitutional libert', accused

respondent and two ebers of the police force of *an%sat conspired and

C


7/37

helped one another in lod%in% and loc!in% petitioner inside the unicipal jail

of *anaoa%, an%asinan for about eleven 4115 hours.

ccused)respondent then +led a otion to @uash the inforation on

the %round that the facts char%ed do not constitute the eleents of said

crie and that the proofs adduced at the investi%ation are not suEcient to

support the +lin% of the inforation. etitioner sst. rovincial iscal *ilo

+led an opposition thereto. onse@uentl', averrin% that accused)respondent

was not a public oEcer who can be char%ed with rbitrar' Detention,

respondent Jud%e alan%a %ranted the otion to @uash in an order. "ence,

this petition.

ISSUE:

8O accused)respondent, bein% a $arrio aptain, can be liable for the

crie of rbitrar' Detention.

HELD:

B&. #he public oEcers liable for rbitrar' Detention ust be vested

with authorit' to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crie.

One need not be a police oEcer to be char%eable with rbitrar' Detention. It

is accepted that other public oEcers li!e jud%es and a'ors, who act with

abuse of their functions, a' be %uilt' of this crie. perusal of the powers

and function vested in a'ors would show that the' are siilar to those of a

barrio captain e(cept that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction

is saller. "avin% the sae dut' of aintainin% peace and order, both ust

be and are %iven the authorit' to detain or order detention. oteworth' is

the fact that even private respondent #uvera hiself aditted that with the

aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of

petitioner ?alde.

People vs. Gar+ia

G.R. No. 12252 Auus! "0, 1999

FACTS:#hat on or about the 2Nth da' of oveber, 1997, in the it' of

$a%uio, hilippines, Jesus Farcia had in his possession, custod' and control

+ve 4A5 !ilos of copressed arijuana dried leaves, without the authorit' of

law to do so.

oveber 2N, 1997, he and O3 JO& FI$ boarded a

passen%er jeepne' fro their oEce in ap Dan%wa, -a #rinidad, $en%uet,

=


8/37

en route to $a%uio it'. "e too! the seat behind the jeepne' driver while

O3 an%aniban sat opposite hi. #he' were in civilian attire. 8hen the

jeepne' reached 6. 7 or A, accused J&/ F>I boarded the jeepne'

carr'in% a plastic ba%. "e occupied the front seat, beside the driver and

placed the plastic ba% on his lap. fter a couple of inutes, the policeen

selled arijuana which seeed to eanate fro accusedGs ba%. #o con+r

their suspicion, the' decided to follow accused when he %ets o the jeepne'.

#he accused ali%hted at the $a%uio cit' hall and the police oEcers

trailed hi. "e was found to be in possession of +ve 4A5 bric!s of what

appeared to be dried arijuana leaves. #he policeoEcers then arrested the

accused and seied his ba%.

ISSUE:

8O the anner of arrest proper.

HELD:

B&. #he prosecution was able to prove appellantGs %uilt be'ond

reasonable doubt. #here is nothin% irre%ular in the anner appellant was

apprehended b' the police authorities.

On the contrar', we +nd that, without coproisin% their sworn dut' to

enforce the law, the police oEcers e(ercised reasonable prudence and

caution in desistin% to apprehend appellant inside the jeepne' when the'

initiall' suspected he was in possession of arijuana. #he' sou%ht to verif'

further their suspicion and decided to trail appellant when the latter ali%hted

fro the jeepne'. It was onl' after the' saw that one of the pac!a%es with

the torn wrapper contained what loo!ed li!e arijuana fruitin% tops did the'

accost appellant and a!e the arrest.

t that precise tie, the' had obtained personal !nowled%e of

circustances indicatin% that appellant had illicit dru%s in his possession.

#he' had reasonable %round upon which to base a lawful arrest without a

warrant.

Abay vs 'epu!y -%bu(s%anG.R. No. 1"&50" *uly 2, 1999

FACTS:

On epteber =, 199=, petitioner, to%ether with a certain herwin

Ju%albot, was arrested and detained at the -iloan olice tation, *etro ebu

for an alle%ed violation of >.. =C10. #he followin% da', or on epteber N,

N


9/37

199=, a oplaint for violation of >.. =C10 was +led a%ainst petitioner and

Ju%albot.

ounsel for petitioner wrote the hief of olice of -iloan deandin% the

iediate release of petitioner considerin% that the latter had Kfailed to

deliver the detained Jasper %ba' to the proper judicial authorit' within

thirt')si( 43C5 hours fro epteber =, 199=.L rivate respondents did not

act on this letter and continued to detain petitioner.

etitioner +led a coplaint for dela' in the deliver' of detained

persons a%ainst herein private respondents O7 eesio atividad, Jr.,

O2 &leaar *. aloon and other unidenti+ed police oEcers stationed at

the -iloan olice ubstation, before the OEce of the Deput' Obudsan for

the ?isa'as.

ISSUE:

8O the +lin% of the coplaint with the *unicipal #rial ourtconstitutes to a Kproper judicial authorit'L as conteplated b' rt. 12A of

the >evised enal ode.

HELD:

B&. rt. 12A of the > is intended to prevent an' abuse resultin%

fro con+nin% a person without inforin% hi of his oense and without

perittin% hi to %o on bail . *ore speci+call', it punishes public oEcials or

eplo'ees who shall detain an' person for soe le%al %round and shall fail

to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the periods

prescribed b' law. #he continued detention of the accused becoes ille%al

upon the e(piration of the periods provided for b' rt. 12A without such

detainee havin% been delivered to the correspondin% judicial authorities.

#he words Kjudicial authorit'L as conteplated b' rt. 12A ean Kthe

courts of justices or jud%es of said courts vested with judicial power to order

the teporar' detention or con+neent of a person char%ed with havin%

coitted a public oense, that is, the upree ourt and other such

inferior courts as a' be established b' law.

#he power to order the release or con+neent of an accused is

deterinative of the issue. In contrast with a cit' +scal, it is undisputed thata unicipal court jud%e, even in the perforance of his function to conduct

preliinar' investi%ations, retains the power to issue an order of release or

coitent. urtherore, upon the +lin% of the coplaint with the

*unicipal #rial ourt, the intent behind rt. 12A is satis+ed considerin% that

b' such act, the detained person is infored of the crie iputed a%ainst

hi and, upon his application with the court, he a' be released on bail.

9


10/37

etitioner hiself ac!nowled%ed this power of the *# to order his release

when he applied for and was %ranted his release upon postin% bail. #hus, the

ver' purpose underl'in% rticle 12A has been dul' served with the +lin% of

the coplaint with the *#. 8e a%ree with the position of the Obudsan

that such +lin% of the coplaint with the *# interrupted the period

prescribed in said rticle.

La(la( vs velas+o

G.R. Nos. 17207072 *une 1, 2007

FACTS:

#hese are consolidated petitions for the writs of prohibition and

certiorari to enjoin petitionersG prosecution for >ebellion and to set aside the

rulin%s of the Departent of Justice 4DOJ5 and the >e%ional #rial ourt of*a!ati it' 4># *a!ati5 on the investi%ation and prosecution of petitionersG

cases.

ollowin% the issuance b' resident Floria *acapa%al)rro'o of

residential roclaation o. 101= on 27 ebruar' 200C declarin% a ;tate of

ational &er%enc',; police oEcers arrested rispin $eltran on 2A ebruar'

200C, while he was en route to *arilao, $ulacan, and detained hi in ap

rae, ueon it'. n in@uest was held and $eltran was later char%ed with

rebellion before the >#. $eltran oved for a judicial deterination of

probable cause. #he trial court aEred the e(istence of probable cause.

ISSUE:

8O there is probable cause to char%e $eltran with rebellion.

HELD:

O. >ebellion under rticle 137 of the >evised enal ode is coitted

P $' risin% publicl' and ta!in% ars a%ainst the Fovernent for the purpose

of reovin% fro the alle%iance to said Fovernent or its laws, the territor'

of the >epublic of the hilippines or an' part thereof, or an' bod' of land,

naval, or other ared forces or deprivin% the hief &(ecutive or the-e%islature, wholl' or partiall', of an' of their powers or prero%atives.

#he eleents of the oense are

1. #hat there be a 4a5 public uprisin% and 4b5 ta!in% ars a%ainst the

FovernentM and

2. #hat the purpose of the uprisin% or oveent is either P

10


11/37

4a5 to reove fro the alle%iance to said Fovernent or its laws

415 the territor' of the hilippines or an' part thereofM or

425 an' bod' of land, naval, or other ared forcesM or

4a5 to deprive the hief &(ecutive or on%ress, wholl' or partiall', of an' of

their powers and prero%atives.

#hus, b' its nature, rebellion is a crie of the asses or ultitudes

involvin% crowd action done in furtherance of a political end. #he evidence

before the panel of prosecutors who conducted the in@uest of $eltran for

>ebellion consisted of the aEdavits and other docuents.

#he alle%ations in these aEdavits are far fro the proof needed to

indict $eltran for ta!in% part in an ared public uprisin% a%ainst the

%overnent. 8hat these docuents prove, at best, is that $eltran was in

$ucal, adre Farcia, $atan%as on 20 ebruar' 200C and that 17 'ears earlier,

he was present durin% the 1992 lenu. one of the aEdavits statedthat $eltran coitted speci+c acts of prootin%, aintainin%, or headin% a

rebellion as found in the DOJ >esolution of 2= ebruar' 200C. one of the

aEdavits alle%ed that $eltran is a leader of a rebellion. $eltranGs alle%ed

presence durin% the 1992 lenu does not autoaticall' a!e hi a

leader of a rebellion.

In his oent to $eltranGs petition, the olicitor Feneral points to

uentesG aEdavit, dated 2A ebruar' 200C, as basis for the +ndin% of

probable cause a%ainst $eltran as uentes provided details in his stateent

re%ardin% eetin%s with $eltran and the other petitioners attended in 200A

and 200C in which plans to overthrow violentl' the rro'o %overnent were

alle%edl' discussed, aon% others. "owever, what the alle%ations in

uentesG aEdavit a!e out is a case for onspirac' to oit >ebellion,

punishable under rticle 13C of the >evised enal ode, not >ebellion under

rticle 137. ttendance in eetin%s to discuss, aon% others, plans to brin%

down a %overnent is a ere preparator' step to coit the acts

constitutin% >ebellion under rticle 137. &ven the prosecution ac!nowled%ed

this, since the felon' char%ed in the Inforation a%ainst $eltran in the

criinal case is onspirac' to oit >ebellion and not >ebellion. #he

Inforation erel' alle%ed that $eltran, an Juan, and others conspired tofor a ;tactical alliance; to coit >ebellion. #hus, the ># *a!ati erred

when it nevertheless found probable cause to tr' $eltran for >ebellion based

on the evidence before it.

11


12/37

People vs. $ilonan

G.R. No. 1"7182 April 2&, 200"

FACTS:

On Januar' 1N, 1999, the >e%ional #rial ourt of ueon it' convicted

the appellants of the crie of 6idnappin% for >anso with erious Ille%al

Detention and sentencin% the to suer the penalt' of death. /pon

arrai%nent, all the appellants pleaded not %uilt' to the char%e.

#he appellants ar%ued that the fact that the' are rebel surrenderees

precludes conviction for the coon crie of !idnappin%. #he' contend that

coon cries are absorbed in rebellion. #herefore, the trial court erred

when it convicted the of !idnappin% for ranso.

ISSUE:

8O there is erit on the contention of the appellants that the cri

coitted was rebellion.

HELD:

O. #he ar%uent that the crie was politicall' otivated and that

conse@uentl', the char%e should have been rebellion and not !idnappin%,

"olds no erit. s held in OEce of the rovincial rosecutor of Qaboan%a

Del orte vs. , the political otivation for the crie ust be shown in

order to justif' +ndin% the crie coitted to be rebellion. *erel' because it

is alle%ed that appellants were ebers of the *oro Islaic -iberation ront

or of the *oro ational -iberation ront does not necessaril' ean that the

crie of !idnappin% was coitted in furtherance of a rebellion. "ere, the

evidence adduced is insuEcient for a +ndin% that the crie coitted was

politicall' otivated. either have the appellants suEcientl' proven their

alle%ation that the present case was +led a%ainst the because the' are

rebel surrenderees.

People vs -liva

G.R. No. 1082 *anuary 18, 2001

FACTS:

On or about *a' 2C, 19NC, in the ornin% thereof, at baran%a'

*apeRa, *unicipalit' of

12


13/37

*asbate, rovince of *asbate, hilippines, within the jurisdiction of this

court, the Oliva was confederatin% to%ether and helpin% one another with the

used of force, violence and intiidation, did then and there willfull',

unlawfull' and feloniousl' !idnap, detain and !eep one Jacinto *a%bojos

alias ;Da%o'; a%ainst the latterGs will.

On the basis of the evidence presented b' the prosecution, the court

found Oliva and alcedo %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of urder, not

!idnappin% with urder. "owever, Joel inco was ac@uitted. "ence, insistin%

on their innocence, Oliva and alcedo instantl' appealed.

In his brief, Oliva raises that the honorable lower court coitted a

reversible error in the conviction. "e clais that since he is a eber of the

ounist part' of the hilippines, the conviction should that be of

rebellion, in which !idnap and urder is absorbed.

ISSUE:8O Oliva should be char%ed of rebellion.

HELD:

O. Oliva asserts that he should have been char%ed with rebellion

instead of !idnappin% with urder considerin% that he is eber of the

ounist part' of the hilippines and oander of the ew eopleGs

r'. "e clais that the !illin% was coitted in furtherance of rebellion,

hence, it should be absorbed in rebellion.

OlivaGs contention that he should have been char%ed with and tried for

rebellion lac!s factual and le%al basis, hence, bereft of erit. #rue, one can

be convicted onl' of rebellion where the urders, robberies and !idnappin%

were coitted as a eans to or furtherance of rebellion. orollar',

oenses, which were not coitted in furtherance of rebellion, but for

personal reasons or other otives, are to be punished separatel' even if

coitted siultaneousl' with the rebellious acts.

In the instant case, there was no evidence at all to show that the !illin%

of Jacinto *a%bojos Jr. was in connection with or in furtherance of their

rebellious act. $esides Jr. was

not indubitabl' proved that Oliva was indeed a eber of the ew eopleGsr'.

People vs Love(ioro

G.R. No. 1122"5 Nove%ber 29, 1995

13


14/37

FACTS:

O)dut' policean O3 Jesus -ucilo was wal!in% alon% $ur%os t.,

awa' fro the Dara%a, lba' ublic *ar!et when a an suddenl' wal!ed

beside hi, pulled a .7A caliber %un fro his waist, aied the %un at the

policeanGs ri%ht ear and +red. #he an who shot -ucilo had three other

copanions with hi, one of who shot the fallen policean four ties as

he la' on the %round. fter ta!in% the latterGs %un, the an and his

copanions boarded a tric'cle and Hed.

#he incident was witnessed fro a distance of about nine eters b'

estor renta, a 2A 'ear old welder fro ilar, orso%on, who claied that

he !new both the victi and the an who +red the fatal shot. renta

identi+ed the an who +red at the deceased as &lias -ovedioro ' astro, his

nephew 4appellantGs father was his +rst cousin5 and alle%ed that he !new the

victi fro the fact that the latter was a resident of $a%uba'an.-ucilo died on the sae da' of assive blood loss fro ultiple

%unshot wounds on the face, the chest, and other parts of the bod'. On

autops', the unicipal health oEcer established the cause of death as

h'povoleic shoc!.

ISSUE:

8O accused)appellant coitted >ebellion under rt. 137 and 13A

or *urder under rticle 27N of the >:

HELD:

B&. #he court +nds the accused &-I -O?&DIO>O %uilt' be'ond

reasonable doubt as principal, actin% in conspirac' with his co)accused who

are still at lar%e, of the crie of urder, de+ned and penalied under rticle

27N of the >evised enal ode, and hereb' sentences hi to suer the

penalt' of >eclusion erpetua with all the accessories provided b' lawM to

pa' the heirs of the deceased O3 Jesus -ucilo throu%h the widow, *rs.

>eeline -ucilo, the aount of ift' #housand 4A0,000.005 esos

representin% the civil indenit' for deathM to pa' the said widow the su of

#hirt' #housand 430,000.005 esos representin% reasonable oraldaa%esM and to pa' the said widow the su of &i%hteen #housand ive

"undred &i%ht')&i%ht 41N,ANN.005 esos, representin% actual daa%es,

without subsidiar' iprisonent however, in case of insolvenc' on the part

of the said accused.

In his appeal, appellant cites the testion' of the prosecutionGs

principal witness, estor renta, as supportin% his clai that he should

17


15/37

have been char%ed with the crie of rebellion, not urder. In his $rief, he

asseverates that renta, a police inforer, identi+ed hi as a eber of

the ew eopleGs r'.

"owever, the appellantGs clai re%ardin% the political color attendin%

the coission of the crie bein% a atter of defense, its viabilit' depends

on his sole and unsupported testion'. inall', treacher' was ade@uatel'

proved in the court below. #he attac! delivered b' appellant was sudden,

and without warnin% of an' !ind. 71 #he !illin% havin% been @uali+ed b'

treacher', the crie coitted is urder under rt. 27N of the >evised

enal ode. In the absence of an' iti%atin% and a%%ravatin% circustances,

the trial court was correct in iposin% the penalt' of reclusion perpetua

to%ether with all the accessories provided b' law. #he trial courtGs decision

dated epteber 17, 1993, sentencin% the accused of *urder is hereb'

I>*&D.

People vs ernan(e/

G.R. No. L025 )ay "0, 19&

FACTS:

#his is the appeal prosecuted b' the defendants fro the jud%ent

rendered b' the ourt of irst Instance of *anila, "on. %ustin . *ontesa,

presidin%, in its riinal ase o. 1AN71, eople vs. ado ?. "ernande, et

al., and riinal ase o. 1A7=9, eople vs. $a'ani &spiritu, et al. In riinal

ase o. 1AN71 4F.>. o. -)C02C5 the char%e is for >ebellion with *ultiple

*urder, rsons and >obberies. #he appellants are ado ?. "ernande, Juan

J. ru, Fenaro de la ru, ado >acanda', erin >odillas and Julian

-uano%M @uilino $unsol, driano ason and ndres $aisa, Jr. were aon%

those sentenced in the jud%ent appealed fro, but the' have withdrawn

their appeal. In riinal ase o. 1A7=9 4F.>. o. -)C02C5 the char%e is for

rebellion with urders, arsons and !idnappin%s. #he accused are $a'ani

&spiritu #eopista ?alerio and ndres $alsa, Jr.M the' all appealed but ndres

$alsa, Jr. withdrew his appeal.

joint trial of both cases was held, after which the court rendered the

decision subject of the present appeals.

ISSUE:

8O the defendants)appelants are liable for the crie of conspirac'

and proposal to coit rebellion or insurrection under rt. 13C of the >:

1A


16/37

HELD:

B&. #he court found defendants)appellants "ernande, eber of the

ounist art' of the hilippines, resident of the on%ress of -abor

Or%aniations 4-O5, had close connections with the ecretariat of the

ounist art' and held continuous counications with its leaders and

its ebers, and others, %uilt' as principal of the crie char%ed a%ainst hi

and sentenced hi to suer the penalt' of reclusion perpetua with the

accessories provided b' law, and to pa' the proportionate aount of the

costs.

In the testionies shown in court, it further appears that #aruc and

other leaders used to send notes to appellant "ernande, who in turn

issued press releases for which he found space in the local papers. "is acts

in this respect belon% to the cate%or' of propa%anda, to which he appears tohave liited his actions as a ounist.

"owever, in their appeal, defendants)appellants ado ?. "ernande,

Juan J. ru, ado >acanda' and Fenaro de la ru are absolved fro the

char%es contained in the inforation, with their proportionate share of the

costs de o+cio. $ut other defendants)appellants, nael', Julian -uano% and

erin >odillas, $a'ani &spiritu and #eopista ?alerio were found %uilt' of the

crie of conspirac' to coit rebellion, as de+ned and punished in rticle

13C of the >evised enal ode, and each and ever'one of the is hereb'

sentenced to suer iprisonent for +ve 'ears, four onths and twent')one

da's of prision correccional, and to pa' a +ne of A,000.00, with subsidiar'

iprisonent in case of insolvenc' and to pa' their proportional share of the

costs.

People vs 'asi

G.R. No. 1002"1 April 28, 199"

FACTS:

ppellants >odri%o Dasi%, &dwin uRe and C others were char%edto%ether of shootin% >edepto *anatad, a police oEcer, as he died while

perforin% duties. /pon arrai%nent, appellant and &dwin uRes entered a

plea of ;not %uilt'.; "owever, after the prosecution had presented its +rst

witness, accused uRes chan%ed his plea of ;not %uilt'; to ;%uilt'.; "ence,

the lower court held in abe'ance the proul%ation of a jud%ent a%ainst

said accused until the prosecution had +nished presentin% its evidence.

1C


17/37

8hile trial was still on%oin%, uRe died on *arch 10, 19N9, thereb'

e(tin%uishin% his criinal liabilit'.

t about 700 oGcloc! in the afternoon, fc. ataora noticed ei%ht 4N5

persons, one of who he identi+ed as &dwin uRe, actin% suspiciousl'. "e

noticed one of the %ivin% instructions to two of the en to approach fc.

*anatad. On u%ust 1C, 19N=, two teas of police oEcers were tas!ed to

conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of ebers of the sparrow

unit located in eace ?alle', ebu it'. /pon reachin% the place, the %roup

saw >odri%o Dasi% and &dwin uRes tr'in% to escape. #he tea of apt.

ntonio Forre captured uRes and con+scated a .7A caliber revolver with 3

a%aines and aunitions, while the %roup of %t. >onald rnejo pursued

Dasi%, who threw a %renade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper

ar and subse@uentl' apprehended while a .3N caliber revolver with 1= live

aunitions were con+scated fro hi. #hereafter, Dasi% was brou%ht to

the hospital for treatent, while uRes was turned over to the *etrodiscofor investi%ation. Dasi% confessed that he and the %roup of &dwin uRes

!illed fc. *anatad. "e li!ewise aditted that he and uRes were ebers

of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were ;rand; and ;*abi,;

respectivel'.

#he e(tra)judicial confession of appellant was si%ned b' hi on ever'

pa%e thereof with the +rst pa%e containin% a certi+cation li!ewise si%ned b'

hi. "owever, Dasi% contends that the procedure b' which his e(tra)judicial

confession was ta!en was le%all' defective, and contrar' to his onstitutional

ri%hts. "e further contends that assuin% he conspired in the !illin% of fc.

*anatad, he should be convicted at ost of siple rebellion and not urder

with direct assault. ppellant also clais that the custodial interro%ation was

done while he was still ver' sic! and conse@uentl', he could not have full'

appreciated the wisdo of adittin% such a serious oense.

$$34

8O the accused)appellant is liable for e(tra)judicial !illin% of the

deceased and participated in the act of rebellion:

HELD:B&. ccused >o%elio Dasi% is found %uilt' of participatin% in an act of

rebellion be'ond reasonable doubt and is hereb' sentenced to suer the

penalt' of iprisonent of ei%ht 4N5 'ears of prision a'or, and to pa' the

heirs of fc. >edepto *anatad, A0,000.00 as civil indenit'.

s to the proper iposable penalt', the Indeterinate entence -aw is

not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion 4ec. 2, >.. 72035, contrar'

1=


18/37

to the insinuation of the olicitor Feneral. rticle 13A of the >evised enal

ode iposes the penalt' of prision a'or and a +ne not e(ceedin%

20,000.00 to an' person who prootes, aintains, or heads a rebellion.

"owever, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant

Dasi% headed the crie coitted. s a atter of fact he was not

speci+call' pinpointed b' fc. ataora as the person %ivin% instructions to

the %roup which attac!ed fc. *anatad.

ppellant erel' participated in coittin% the act, or just e(ecuted

the coand of an un!nown leader. "ence, he should be ade to suer the

penalt' of iprisonent of ei%ht 4N5 'ears of prision a'or. or the resultin%

death, appellant is li!ewise ordered to pa' the heirs of fc. *anatad I#B

#"O/D &O 4A0,000.005 as civil indenit'.

People vs #abreraG.R. No. 177&8 )ar+ &, 1922

FACTS:

#he hilippine onstabular' has %rud%es a%ainst the police of *anila

and the' want to inHict reven%e for the followin% reasons 415 On Deceber

13, 1920, a *anila police arrested a woan who is a eber of the

household of a constabular' soldier and was alle%edl' abused b' the said

policean. 425 rivate *acasina% of the onstabular' was shot b' a *anila

police and was ortall' wounded. da' after the incident, a ruor spread

aon% the onstabular' that the olice who shot *acasina% was bac! to his

ori%inal duties while *acasina% was declared dead. #here were also ruors

that the said shootin% was ordered. On the ni%ht of Deceber 1A soe

ebers of the onstabular' escaped their barrac!s throu%h a window 4the

saw out the window bars5. #he' had riHes and aunitions and were

or%anied in %roups under the coand of their ser%eants and corporals.

#he' attac!ed soe *anila policeen in these speci+c instances 415 On

alle >eal, Intrauros, a %roup of the onstabular' shot and !illed an

erican olicean and his friend. 425 #he onstabular' indiscriinatel'

shot at a passer) b', causin% a death and woundin% ost of the passen%ers.435 8hile ridin% a otorc'cle driven b' policean aplala, aptain 8illia &.

8ichan 4asst. chief of police in *anila5 was shot and !illed to%ether with

aplala

ISSUES:

415 8O there was connivance


19/37

425 8O the accused are properl' convicted of a violation of the

#reason and edition -aw.

HELD:

415 B&. onspiracies are %enerall' proved b' a nuber of inde+nite acts,

conditions, and circustances which var' accordin% to the purposes to be

accoplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued b' their acts the

sae object, one perforin% one part and another another part of the sae,

so as to coplete it, with a view to the attainent of the sae object, one

will be justi+ed in the conclusion that the' were en%a%ed in a conspirac' to

the eect that object. It is incontestable that all of the defendants were

ibued with the sae purpose, which was to aven%e theselves on the

police force of *anila. coon feelin% of resentent aniated all.

425 B&. edition, in its ore %eneral sense, is the raisin% of cootions

or disturbances in the tate. #he hilippine law on the subject a!es allpersons %uilt' of sedition who rise publicl' and tuultuousl' in order to

obtain b' force of outside of le%al ethods an' one of +ve objects, includin%

that of inHictin% an' act of hate or reven%e upon the person or propert' of

an' oEcial or a%ent of the Insular %overnent or of a provincial or unicipal

%overnent. #he counsel contested that it is necessar' that the oender

should be a private citien and the oended part' a public functioinar', and

what reall' happened was a +%ht between two ared bodies of the

hilippine Fovernent. #he court held that this contention is without

foundation.

#he #reason and edition -aw a!es no distinction between the persons to

which it applies. 8hat is iportant is that there is a public risin% to incite or

inHict an' act of hate or reven%e upon the person or propert' of an' oEcial

or a%ent of the Insular %overnent or of a provincial or unicipal

%overnent.

People vs %ali

G.R. No. L580" Nove%ber 29, 195&

FACTS:

19


20/37

#he cople( crie of which appellants arciso /ali, et. al were found

%uilt' was said to have been coitted durin% the raid sta%ed in the town of

#iaon%, ueon, between N00 and 900 in the evenin% of oveber 17,

19A1, b' ared en. #he raid too! place resultin% in the burnin% down and

coplete destruction of the house of *a'or *arcial unalan includin% its

content valued at 27,023M the house of ?alentin >obles valued at 10,000,

and the house of one *orte%a, the death of atrolan Doin%o isi%an and

civilians ?icente oriano and -eocadio /ntalan, and the woundin% of

atrolan edro -acorte and +ve civilians.

Durin% and after the burnin% of the houses, soe of the raiders

en%a%ed in lootin%, robbin% one house and two hinese storesM and that the

raiders were +nall' dispersed and driven fro the town b' the hilippine

r' soldiers stationed in the town led b' aptain late.

ISSUE:8O the accused)appellants are liable of the char%es a%ainst the of

cople( crie of rebellion with ultiple urder, frustrated urder, arson

and robber':

HELD:

B&. #he appellants were %uilt' of sedition, ultiple urder, arson,

frustrated urder and ph'sical injuries. or the crie of sedition each of the

appellants is sentenced to A 'ears of prision correctional and to pa' a +ne of

7,000M for each of the three urders, each of the appellants is sentenced to

life iprisonent and to indenif' the heirs of each victi in the su of

C,000M and for the arson, for which we ipose the a(iu penalt'

provided in rticle 321, para%raph 1, of the >evised enal ode, for the

reason that the raiders in settin% +re to the buildin%s, particularl' the house

of unalan the' !new that it was then occupied b' one or ore persons,

because the' even and actuall' saw an old lad', the other of unalan, at

the window, and in view of the a%%ravatin% circustances of ni%httie, each

of the appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pa' the

indenities entioned in the decision of the lower court. It shall be

understood, however, the pursuant to the provisions of rticle =0 of the>evised enal ode the duration of all penalties shall not e(ceed 70 'ears. In

view of the heav' penalties alread' iposed and their lon% duration, the

court +nds it unnecessar' to +( and ipose the prison sentences

correspondin% to frustrated urder and ph'sical injuriesM however, the sus

awarded the victis 4-acorte, Orte%a, nselo, >ivano, Farcia and -ector5, b'

20


21/37

the court below will stand. 8ith these odi+cations, the decision appealed

fro is hereb' aEred, with costs.

People vs Nabon

G.R. No. L"&2 Nove%ber ", 19"2

FACTS:

In the latter part of Januar', 1931, the head of the counists in the

hilippine Islands, died in the unicipalit' of anta >osa, ueva &cija, and a

necrolo%ical service in his eor' was appointed b' his followers to be held

at anta >osa on the evenin% of Januar' 30. #he fact that said eetin% was

to be held cae to the attention of *ajor ilvino Fallardo, in char%e of the

hilippine onstabular' in abanatuan, and he was infored that the red

Ha% would be displa'ed in this eetin% as an eble of the counists. "e

then et the appellant abon%, and !nowin% the relation between the latter

and eleo, the leader of the counists in that province, *ajor Fallardore@uested abon% to interfere and prevent the displa' of the red Ha% at the

eetin% referred to.

fter perusin% the opinion abon% said that he did not a%ree with the

conclusion of the +scalM and he, therefore, refused to accopan' the

onstabular' oEcers and the deput' provincial +scal to anta >osa, statin%

that, if he were to %o there, he would tell the counists that no law

prohibited the displa' of the red Ha% and that he would induce the to

displa' the sae. "e added that, if the counist were forbidden to use the

Ha%, a disturbance would probabl' result.

lthou%h abon%, as above stated, had refused to accopan' *ajor

Fallardo and his copanions on their trip to anta >osa, he waited a while at

abanatuan and afterwards left for anta >osa, arrivin% in tie to participate

in the eetin%. t this eetin% the red Ha% was displa'ed, contrar' to the

proise that eleo had ade to *ajor Fallardo. couple of thin%s happened

and eleo was arrested for sedition. #he arrest and reoval of eleo resulted

in disorder aon% the people present at the eetin%, and *ajor Fallardo

found it advisable to a!e a short speech e(plainin% wh' eleo had been

arrested.

I%nacio abon% who delivered a speech statin% that the constabular'coitted a real abuse in seiin% the Ha%, and that the' ou%ht to be united

to suppress abuse. Overthrow the present %overnent and establish our own

%overnent, the %overnent of the poor.

ISSUE:

8O abon% should be %uilt' of incitin% to sedition.

21


22/37

HELD:

B&. #he lan%ua%e used b' the appellant clearl' iported an

overthrow of the Fovernent b' violence, and it should be interpreted in the

plain and obvious sense in which it was evidentl' intended to be understood.

#he word ;overthrow; could not have been intended as referrin% to an

ordinar' chan%e b' the e(ercise of the elective franchise. #he use of the

whip, an instruent desi%ned to leave ar!s on the sides of adversaries, is

inconsistent with the ild interpretation which the appellant would have us

ipute to the lan%ua%e. It was the purpose of the spea!er, be'ond a doubt,

to incite his hearers to the overthrow of or%anied %overnent b' unlawful

eans. #he words used b' the appellant anifestl' tended to induce the

people to resist and use violence a%ainst the a%ents of the onstabular' and

to insti%ate the poor to cabal and eet to%ether for unlawful purposes. #he'

also su%%ested and incited rebellious conspiracies, thereb' tendin% to stir upthe people a%ainst the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the

counit' and the order of the Fovernent.

It is not necessar', in order to be seditious, that the words used should

in fact result in a risin% of the people a%ainst the constituted authorities. #he

law is not aied erel' at actual disturbance, and its purpose is also to

punish utterances which a' endan%er public order.

Geli vs People

G.R. No. 17"150 *uly 28, 2010

FACTS:

On Jul' 1=, 19N1, at around 1000 ocloc! in the ornin%, -'dia

confronted Fea after learnin% fro >oseller that Fea called hi a

;siss'; while in class. -'dia slapped Fea in the chee! and pushed her,

thereb' causin% her to fall and hit a wall divider. s a result of -'dias violent

assault, Fea suered a contusion in her ;a(illar' area;, as shown b' a

edical certi+cate issued b' a doctor in the $o%o Feneral "ospital. "owever,

Fea continued to e(perience abdoinal pains and started bleedin% twoda's after the incident.

On u%ust 2N, 19N1, she was aditted in the outhern Islands "ospital

and was dia%nosed, to her surprise, to have suered incoplete abortion.

ccordin%l', a edical certi+cate was issued.

22


23/37

he was then convicted for coittin% the cople( crie of direct

assault with unintentional abortion but the found her %uilt' onl' of the

crie of sli%ht ph'sical injuries.

#he vacated the trial courts jud%ent. It ruled that -'dia cannot be

held liable for direct assault since Fea descended fro bein% a person in

authorit' to a private individual when, instead of pacif'in% -'dia or inforin%

the principal of the atter, she en%a%ed in a +%ht with -'dia. -i!ewise,

-'dias purpose was not to def' the authorities but to confront Fea on

the alle%ed nae)callin% of her son. "owever, it declared that -'dia can be

held %uilt' of sli%ht ph'sical injuries but later on appealed for corrections.

ISSUE:

8O -'dia Feli% should be convicted on direct assault.

HELD:B&. #he case of -'dia falls under the second ode of direct assault. Its

eleents are

1. #hat the oender 4a5 a!es an attac!, 4b5 eplo's force, 4c5 a!es a

serious intiidation, or 4d5 a!es a serious resistance.

2. #hat the person assaulted is a person in authorit' or his a%ent.

3. #hat at the tie of the assault the person in authorit' or his a%ent 4a5 is

en%a%ed in the actual

perforance of oEcial duties, or SbT that he is assaulted b' reason of the

past perforance of oEcial duties.

7. #hat the oender !nows that the one he is assaultin% is a person in

authorit' or his a%ent in the e(ercise of his duties.

7. #hat there is no public uprisin%.

On the da' of the coission of the assault, Fea was en%a%ed in

the perforance of her oEcial duties, that is, she was bus' with paperwor!

while supervisin% and loo!in% after the needs of pupils who are ta!in% their

recess in the classroo to which she was assi%ned. Fea then proceeded

towards the principals oEce but -'dia followed and resorted to the use offorce b' slappin% and pushin% her a%ainst a wall divider. #he violent act

resulted in Feas fall to the Hoor. Fea bein% a public school teacher,

belon%s to the class of persons in authorit' e(pressl' entioned in rticle

1A2 of the >evised enal ode, as aended.

#he fact reains that at the oent -'dia initiated her tirades,

Fea was bus' attendin% to her oEcial functions as a teacher. he tried to

23


24/37

pacif' -'dia b' oerin% her a seat so that the' could tal! properl', but -'dia

refused and instead unleashed a barra%e of verbal invectives.

Rivera vs People

G.R. No. 1"855" *une "0, 2005

FACTS:

?icti, >uben went to a nearb' store to bu' food. ccused >ivera was

in the sae vicinit'. 8hen he saw >uben, >ivera oc!ed >uben for bein%

jobless and dependent on his wife. #his caused an e(chan%e of heated words

between the two.

#he ne(t da' when >uben and his dau%hter were once a%ain bu'in%

food, >ivera and two other en attac!ed >uben. #he two en punched and

auled >uben while >ivera, on the other hand, %ot a hollowbloc! and hit>ubenss head with it three ties. >ivera and his copanions left onl' when

the policeen arrived.

>uben was brou%ht to the hospital and it was said that he suered onl'

sli%ht and super+cial wounds but were it not for the arrival of the policeen,

>uben would have died.

#he #rial ourt held that the three are %uilt' of frustrated urder while

the ourt of ppeals aEred the decision of the trial court, with

odi+cations.

ISSUE:

8O there was intention to !ill.

HELD:

B&. #here is intent to !ill in the case at bar.

#he pieces of evidence re@uired to prove intent to !ill are as follows

1. *eans used b' the alefactorsM

2. ature,location and nuber of wounds sustained b' the victiM

3. onduct of the alefactor before, durin% and after the coission of the

crieM7. ircustances under which the crie was coittedM and,

A. *otive of the accused.

ppl'in% the eleents to the case at bar, the eans or weapons used

b' >I?&> is a piece of hollow bloc!. s to nature, location and nuber of

wounds, >ivera inHicted injuries on the head of >uben three ties. onduct

before durin% and after the coission of the crie, >ivera was an%r' at

27


25/37

>uben because of the circustances that transpired between >uben and

hi.

People vs Abalos

G.R. No. 88189 *uly 9, 199

FACTS:

In the evenin% of *arch 20, 19N3, while accused #iburcio balos and

his father, olice *ajor ecilio balos, were havin% a heated ar%uent, a

woan shouted Kolice oEcer, help usU oebod's a!in% trouble here.L

#he victi,


26/37

intention to oend, injure or assault the oended part' as a person in

authorit' or an a%ent of a person in authorit'. "ere, -abine was a dul'

appointed eber of the then I in atbalo%an, aar and, thus, was an

a%ent of a person in authorit' pursuant to rticle 1A2 of the >. #here is

also no dispute that he was in the actual perforance of his duties when

assaulted b' appellant, that is, he was aintainin% peace and order durin%

the +esta in $aran%a' anlapwas. ppellant hiself testi+ed that he

personall' !new -abine to be a policean and, in fact, -abine was then

wearin% his unifor. #hese facts should have suEcientl' deterred appellant

fro attac!in% hi, and his de+ant conduct clearl' deonstrates that he

reall' had the criinal intent to assault and injure an a%ent of the law.

8hen the assault results in the !illin% of that a%ent or of a person in

authorit' for that atter, there arises the cople( crie of direct assault

with urder or hoicide. #he !illin% in the instant case constituted the

felon' of urder @uali+ed b' alevosia throu%h treacherous eansdeliberatel' adopted fc. -abine was struc! fro behind while he was bein%

confronted at the sae tie b' appellants father. #he evidence shows that

appellant deliberatel' went behind the victi who he then hit with a piece

of wood which he deliberatel' %ot for that purpose.

People vs 'ural

G.R. No. L8&921 *une 8, 199"

FACTS:

couple of witnesses testi+ed that at about 12 oGcloc! in the

afternoon of Januar' 31, 19NN both of the were at supposed do %o

soewhere but were not able to arrive there because while on their wa' or

fro a distance of twelve arslen%th the' heard successive %un+res so the'

run and hid theselves in a concrete fence near a storeV fro the place the'were hidin% or fro a distance of ten arslen%th the' saw three en each of

the ared with .7A pistol, +rin% upon at the two apco soldiers on board

a apco obile car which was then on a full stop althou%h its en%ine was

still runnin%V two of the %unen positioned theselves beside each of the

side of the obile car while the third %unan who the' identi+ed as

accused >olando Dural.

2C


27/37

$oth Itucal and Dural denied authorship of the crie char%ed and

interposed the defense of alibi. #he trial court rejected the defense of alibi on

the %round that e'ewitnesses >ener >aos and Dennis antos,whose

testionies ;were lo%ical, strai%htforward and probable; and whose

;credibilit' was not sha!en in an' anner b' the ri%orous e(aination to

which the' have been e(posed,; positivel' identi+ed the accused. #he

ppellants +led their notice of appeal on 1 epteber 19NN.

ISSUE:

4158O Durals alibi has erit.

425 8O he should be %uilt' of direct assault.

HELD:

415 O. In the instant case, Dural was positivel' identi+ed b' the

principal witnesses for the prosecution. It is e@uall' settled that for alibi toprosper, it ust not onl' be shown that the accused was at soe other place

at the tie of the incident but that it was ph'sicall' ipossible for hi to

have been at the scene of the crie at the tie of its coission. #his was

not proven b' Dural.

425 B&. #here is no doubt in Our inds that appellant Dural and the

two other %unen !new that the victis, #enato

*an%li%ot, were ebers of the hilippine onstabular' detailed with the

O* as the' were then in unifor and ridin% an oEcial O* car. #he

victis, who were a%ents of persons in authorit', were in the perforance of

oEcial dut' as peace oEcers and law enforcers. or havin% assaulted and

!illed the said victis, in conspirac' with the other two %unen, appellant

Dural also coitted direct assault under rticle 17N of the >evised enal

ode. #he cries he coitted, therefore, are two cople( cries of

urder with direct assault upon an a%ent of a person in authorit'. ursuant

then to rticle 7N of the >evised enal ode, the a(iu of the penalt' for

the ore serious crie which is urder, should be iposed.

Te+son vs #our! o6 AppealsG.R. No. 11"218 Nove%ber 22, 2001

FACTS:

On or about pril 2N, 1990, in the it' of *anila, hilippines, the said

accused did then and there willfull', unlawfull', feloniousl' and !nowin%l'

have in his possession and under his custod' and control, with intent to use

2=


28/37

and pass, as in fact he did use and pass ten 4105 pieces of 100/ dollar

notes of the ederal >eserve ote, or a su of W1,000.00 4/ Dollar5 to edro

. -abita, a con+dential assistant of the entral $an! of the hilippines,

which bills were in the reseblance and siilitude of the dollar bills issued

b' the /nited tates Fovernent, the said accused !nowin%, as he did, that

the said / dollar bills were for%ed and falsi+ed. nd' #ecson appealed then

defended hiself and said that the said bu')bust operation was created to

frae hi.

ISSUE:

8O the o erred in its jud%eent %iven #ecsons defense.

HELD:

O. 8e +nd no co%ent reason to overturn the decision of respondent

ourt of ppeals which aEred the jud%ent of the trial court +ndin% thepetitioner %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the crie char%ed in the case

at bar. #he prosecution established, throu%h the testionies of edro -abita

and Johnn' *ar@ueta, that a bu'bust operation was conducted b' the

cobined a%ents of the entral $an! of the hilippines and the / ecret

ervice, and that

the petitioner was therein cau%ht in Ha%rante delicto in the possession of and

in the act of oerin% to sell counterfeit / dollar notes.

Durin% the bu'bust operation, prosecution witnesses -abita and

*ar@ueta were introduced b' the civilian inforer to the petitioner as

interested bu'ers of fa!e / dollar notes. 8hen the petitioner was in the act

of drawin% the ten 4105 pieces of fa!e / W100 dollar notes fro his wallet,

he was iediatel' placed under arrest b' -abita and his tea.

#le%en!e vs People

G.R. No. 19&"7 *une 15, 2011

FACTS:

On u%ust =, 200=, at around 330 p, an inforant in the person of

inate rancis dela ru approached JO1s Doin%o David, Jr. and *ichael

assilan. #he inforant narrated that he received a counterfeit A00.00 bill

fro appellant with orders to bu' a bottle of soft drin! fro the *anila it'

2N


29/37

Jail $a!er'. #he ba!er' eplo'ee, however, reco%nied the bill as a fa!e and

refused to accept the sae. onse@uentl', JO1s David and assilan, alon%

with the inforant, proceeded to appellantGs cell for a surprise inspection.

ursuant to their a%reeent, the inforant entered the cubicle +rst and

found appellant therein, l'in% in bed. #he inforant returned to appellant the

latterGs A00.00 bill. #he jail %uards then entered the cell and announced a

surprise inspection. JO1 assilan fris!ed appellant and recovered a blac!

wallet fro his bac! poc!et. Inside the wallet were twent'three pieces of

A00.00, all of which were suspected to be counterfeit. #he' con+scated the

sae. ppellant was conse@uentl' arrested and brou%ht out of his cell into

the oEce of the Intelli%ence and Investi%ation $ranch of the *anila it' jail

for interro%ation. ppellant sipl' raised the defense of fraeup.

On appeal before the , petitioner ar%ued that the ># erred in

+ndin% hi %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt for violatin% rticle 1CN of the

>. etitioner contended that one of the eleents of the crie which isintent to use the counterfeit bills was not established because the inforant

rancis dela ru did not ta!e the witness stand.

ISSUE:

8O there is a issin% eleent for leente to be convicted.

HELD:

B&. #he ourt +nds that the ># and the had overloo!ed certain

substantial facts of value to warrant a reversal of its factual assessents.

8hile petitionerGs denial is an intrinsicall' wea! defense which ust be

buttressed b' stron% evidence of nonculpabilit' to erit credence, said

defense ust be %iven credence in this case as the prosecution failed to

eet its burden of proof.

ossession of false treasur' or ban! notes alone, without an'thin%

ore, is not a criinal oense. or it to constitute an oense under rticle

1CN of the >, the possession ust be with intent to use said false treasur'

or ban! notes.

In this case, the prosecution failed to show that petitioner used the

counterfeit one' or that he intended to use the counterfeit bills. rancisdela ru, to who petitioner supposedl' %ave the fa!e A00.00 bill to bu'

soft drin!s, was not presented in court. ccordin% to the jail oEcers, the'

were onl' infored b' rancis dela ru that petitioner as!ed the latter to

bu' soft drin!s at the *anila it' jail ba!er' usin% a fa!e A00.00 bill. In

short, the jail oEcers did not have personal !nowled%e that petitioner as!ed

29


30/37

rancis dela ru use the A00.00 bill. #heir account, however, is hearsa'

and not based on the personal !nowled%e.

ernan(e/ vs. ernan(e/

G.R. No. 17115 February 1&, 2011

FACTS:

oetie in 199A, *>D entered throu%h its president,respondent

*ario ?illaor into various a%reeents with corespondents "IF and -and

$an! of the hilippines , in connection with the construction of the Isabel

"oes housin% project in $atan%as and of the *onuento laa coercial

and recreation cople( in aloocan it'.

On oveber 13, 199=, *>D entered into a *eorandu of

%reeent 4*O5 whereb' it was %iven the option to bu' pieces of landowned b' petitioners. On *arch 23, 199N, it entered with -$ and Deetrio X

the latter purportedl' actin% under authorit' of the sae special power of

attorne' as in the *O X into a Deed of ssi%nent and onve'ance 4D5.

In its Januar' 21, 1999 letter to Deetrio, however, *>D, throu%h

?illaor, stated that the ##s could no lon%er be delivered bac! to

petitioners as the covered properties had alread' been conve'ed and

assi%ned to the sset ool pursuant to the *arch 23, 199N D. In the

correspondence that ensued, petitioners disowned Deetrios si%nature in

the D and labeled it a ere for%er'. $oldl', the' asserted that the

fraudulent e(ecution of the D was ade possible throu%h the connivance

of all the respondents.

ISSUE:

8O the contention that Deetrios si%nature has been for%ed holds

erit.

HELD:

O. irl' settled is the jurisprudential rule that for%er' cannot be

presued fro a ere alle%ation but rather ust be proved b' clear,positive and convincin% evidence b' the part' alle%in% the sae. #he

burden to prove the alle%ation of for%er' in this case has not been

conclusivel' dischar%ed b' petitioners because +rst, nothin% in the records

supports the alle%ation e(cept onl' perhaps Deetrios e(plicit selfservin%

disavowal of his si%nature in

open court.

30


31/37

Ta%ani vs $alva(or

G.R. No. 171&97 April &, 2011

FACTS:

On Jul' 29, 19NC, a oplaint for @uietin% of title was +led b'

4respondents5 spouses >oan alvador and iloena $ravo a%ainst

4petitioners5#aani et al. over a 731 s@. . parcel of land located at olano,

ueva ?ica'a.

>espondents and the pouses #aani are co)owners of an undivided

parcel of land with an area of ==C s@. . under ## o. NAN2. /nder said

title, respondents own 37A s@. . of the propert' whereas the pouses#aani own the reainin% 731 s@. . 4disputed propert'5.

On u%ust 1=, 19A9, the pouses #aani alle%edl' sold the disputed

propert' to *ila%ros ru and ru thereafter sold the disputed propert' to

respondents.

t the >#, petitioners +led an nswer wherein the' ar%ued that the'

were the lawful owners and were in actual possession of the disputed

propert' havin% inherited the sae fro their parents. etitioners contend

that the si%nature of their parents were for%ed and thus assail the validit' of

the u%ust 1=, 19A9 Deed of bsolute sale between ru and their parents.

Durin% trial, at the instance of petitioners, the si%nature of Deetrio #aani

appearin% on the deed of sale and his standard si%natures were subitted

for e(aination and coparison to the uestioned Docuents Division of

the $I. $ienvenido . lbacea 4lbacea5, a docuent e(ainer of the $I,

+led a $I report +ndin% that Kthe @uestioned and standard si%natures

KD&*>IO #*IL are 8>I##& b' one and the sae person.L Dissatis+ed

with the $I report, petitioners as!ed for another e(aination of the

si%natures, this tie subittin% the sae to the rie -aborator'

ervice. *el' orra 4orra5, a docuent e(ainer of the , +led a

report +ndin% that Kthe @uestioned si%nature of D&*>IO #*I ar!edY appearin% on the Deed of bsolute ale dated u%ust 1=, 19A9 and the

standard si%natures of Deetrio #aani ar!ed Y)1Z to Y)11Z and Y)19Z

8&>& 8>I##& $B #8O DI&> &>O.L

#he ># rendered a Decision rulin% in petitioners favor onfronted

with conHictin% testionies fro handwritin% e(perts, the ># %ave ore

31


32/37

wei%ht to the report and testion' of orra because of her educational,

professional and wor! bac!%round.

Dissatis+ed with the decision of the >#, respondents +led a otice of

ppeal. #he issued a Decision rulin% in respondents favor. #he ruled

that the ># erred when it relied solel' on orras educational, professional

and wor! bac!%round when it decided to %ive ore credence to the

report. #he , after e(ainin% the @uestioned and standard si%natures of

#aani opined that Kthe siilarities of stro!es are ore proinent and

pronounced than the dissiilarities and the apparent dissiilarities are

overshadowed b' the stri!in% siilarities in the @uestioned and the standard

si%natures.L

ISSUE:

8O the is correct in overturnin% the factual +ndin%s of the >#.

HELD:

O. 8ell settled is the rule that in the e(ercise of Our power of review

the +ndin%s of facts of the are conclusive and bindin% on this ourt.

"owever, there are reco%nied e(ceptions, aon% which is when the factual

+ndin%s of the trial court and the appellate court are conHictin%. #he

disa%reeent between the ># and the in their respective factual

conclusions with re%ard to the alle%ed for%er' of the si%nature of #aani

authories this ourt to re)e(aine the testionies and evidence subitted

b' the parties. It is noteworth' to point out that two e(pert witnesses

testi+ed, each with a dierent opinion on the issue at hand.

$efore an'thin% else, this ourt observes that the present spectacle of

havin% two e(pert witnesses with conHictin% +ndin%s could have been

avoided had respondents tiel' objected to petitioners otion to have a

second re)e(aination of #aanis si%nature. fter all, respondents are

correct in their clai that the +rst e(aination was at the instance of

petitioners. >espondents should have, therefore, objected to the second re)

e(aination, as the ># would have li!el' sustained the otion. "owever, a

perusal of the records would show that counsel for respondents never

objected to petitioners otion for a re)e(aination of #aanis si%nature.#he anner b' which the ># disposed of the issue leaves uch to be

desired. 8hile credentials of an e(pert witness pla' a factor in the

evidentiar' and persuasive wei%ht of his testion', the sae cannot be the

sole factor in deterinin% its value. #he was thus correct when it declared

that the jud%e ust conduct his own independent e(aination of the

si%natures under scrutin'.

32


33/37

"owever, after painsta!in%l' reviewin% the testionies of the e(pert

witnesses and the docuentar' evidence at hand, this ourt is ore inclined

to believe that the si%nature of #aani appearin% on the u%ust 1=, 19A9

Deed of ale was for%ed as can be %leaned fro the testion' of orra, the

docuent e(ainer fro the rie -aborator'.

#he value of the opinion of a handwritin% e(pert depends not upon his ere

stateents of whether a writin% is %enuine or false, but upon the assistance

he a' aord in pointin% out distin%uishin% ar!s, characteristics and

discrepancies in and between %enuine and false speciens of writin% which

would ordinaril' escape notice or detection fro an unpracticed observer.

8hile adittedl' this ourt was unable to full' coprehend all the

dierences noted b' orra %iven that her testion' was fairl' technical in

nature and description, it would, however, not be aiss to state that this

ourt has observed a %ood nuber of the dierences noted b' her.

-astl', while it was iproper for the ># to rel' solel' on orrascredentials, her superior credentials, copared to that of lbacea, %ive

added value to her testion'.

8"&>&O>&, preises considered, the petition is F>#&D.

Guilleran vs People

G.R. No. 185&9" February 2, 2011

FACTS:

oetie in 19N=, petitioner Fuiller%an, a -ieutenant olonel in the ,

directed *aster er%eant &dna eclon, hief ler! of the optrollers

OEce, to cause the preparation of the pa'rolls of their civilian intelli%ence

a%ents with supportin% tie record and boo!. #he a%ents naes were

copied and, based on their appointent papers, certi+ed as correct b'

Fuiller%an

and then approved b' $ri%adier Feneral Doin%o #. >io. &ach tie the

processin% unit returned the pa'rolls for lac! of si%natures of the pa'ees,Fuiller%an would direct #echnical er%eant eesio ". $utcon 4$utcon5, the

$ud%et and iscal onoissioned OEcer, to aE( his initial on the

;>ear!s


34/37

ISSUES:

8O petitioner is %uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of the crie of

falsi+cation of public

docuents.

HELD:

B&. #he eleents of falsi+cation of docuents under para%raph 1,

rticle 1=2 are 15 the oender is a private individual or a public oEcer or

eplo'ee who did not ta!e advanta%e of his oEcial positionV 25 the oender

coitted an' of the acts of falsi+cation enuerated in rticle 1=1V and 35

the falsi+cation was coitted in a public or oEcial or coercial

docuent.

ll of the fore%oin% eleents of rticle 1=2 are present in this case.

irst. Fuiller%an as a public oEcer when he coitted the oense char%ed.

"e was the coptroller to the e%ion C. 8hile theInforation said that he too! advanta%e of his position in coittin% the

crie, the andi%anba'an found that his wor! as coptroller did not include

the preparation of the appointents and pa'rolls of Is. or did he have

oEcial custod' of the pertinent docuents. "is oEcial function was liited

to !eepin% the records of the resources that the coand received fro

ap rae.

Galeos vs People

G.R. Nos. 17473037 Feb!a" #$ %011

FACTS:

On% was elected *a'or of the a%a in 19NN and served as such until

199N.

On June 1, 1997, On% e(tended peranent appointents to Faleos and

ederico #. >ivera for the positions of onstruction and *aintenance *an and

luber I, respectivel', in the OEce of the *unicipal &n%ineer.

rior to their peranent appointent, Faleos and >ivera were casual

eplo'ees of the unicipal %overnent. In their individual tateent of

ssets, -iabilities and et 8orth 4-5 for the 'ear 1993, Faleos answered;o; to the @uestion ;#o the best of 'our !nowled%e, are 'ou related within

the fourth de%ree of consan%uinit' or of aEnit' to an'one wor!in% in the

%overnent:; while >ivera indicated ;n


35/37

?isa'as a%ainst On% ,Faleos and >ivera for dishonest', nepotis, violation of

the ode of onduct and &thical tandards for ublic OEcials and &plo'ees

and ntiFraft and orrupt ractices ct, and for the crie of falsi+cation of

public docuents on the basis that said petitioners are related.

ISSUE:

8O the petitioners are %uilt' of falsi+cation of ublic Docuent.

HELD:

B&. alsi+cation of ublic Docuent b' a!in% untruthful stateents

concernin% relatives in the %overnent service. ll the eleents of

falsi+cation of public docuents b' a!in% untruthful stateents have been

established b' the

prosecution. etitioners ar%ue that the stateents ;the' are not related

within the fourth civil de%ree of consan%uinit' or aEnit'; and ;that ection=9 of the -ocal Fovernent ode has been coplied with in the issuance of

the appointents; are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as

both re@uire the application of the rules on relationship under the law of

succession. ourt disa%rees.

conclusion of law is a deterination b' a jud%e or rulin% authorit'

re%ardin% the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a +ndin%

of fact, which interprets the factual circustances to which the law is to be

applied. narration of facts is erel' an account or description of the

particulars of an event or occurrence.

Gon/alu(o vs People

G.R. No. 150910 February , 200

FACTS:

On Januar' 20, 1993, >osearie Felo%o and Fre%% anlas e(ecuted a

Deed of ale,

witnessed b' petitioner. In that deed, >osearie Felo%o si%ned as

>osearie F. ?illaHor and represented herself to be the lawful owner of the2store' house. $' virtue of the sae deed, vendee Fre%% anlas ac@uired all

of >osearies ri%hts and interest on the subject house.-ater, upon

coplaint of /l'ssess widow nita *anlan%it, an Inforation dated *a' 31,

1997 was +led with the >e%ional #rial ourt of $acolod it' char%in%

>osearie Felo%o, alias >osearie ?illaHor, the spouses Fre%% anlas and

3A


36/37

*elba anlas and petitioner with the crie of &stafa thru alsi+cation of

ublic Docuent.

tt'. >aon $. lapi, to the eect that she is the lawful owner of the

said house and aE(in% or causin% to be aE(ed thereon her nae and

si%nature, >osearie F. ?illaHor, purportedl' as wife of the deceased /l'sses

?illaHor, thus a!in% untruthful stateent in the narration of facts as

accused well !now that such was not the case for the deceased /l'sses

?illaHor has a le%al wife in the person of the herein oended part', b' reason

of which accused was able to eect the sale and eventual occupanc' of the

said house to the herein accused ps. Fre%% anlas and *elba anlas who

despite of their !nowled%e that such house was not owned b' >osearie

Felo%o bou%ht the sae fro her in the aount of N0,000.00 and, herein

accused $ienvenido Fonaludo despite of his !nowled%e that such house

was not owned b' >osearie Felo%o, participated in the coission of the

herein oense b' causin% his nae and si%nature to be aE(ed in the saidDeed of ale as witness to the fraudulent sale entered into b' the parties.

ISSUE:

8O the petitioner is %uilt' of &stafa #hru alsi+cation of ublic

Docuent.

HELD:

O. #he petitioner a' onl' be found %uilt' of the crie of alsi+cation

of ublic Docuent. $ased on the provisions of rt. 1=1, the sae penalt'

shall be iposed upon an' ecclesiastical inister who shall coit an' of

the oenses

enuerated in the para%raphs of this article, with respect to an' record or

docuent of such character that its falsi+cation a' aect the civil status of

persons.

s correctl' found b' the trial court, petitioner conspired with

>osearie to falsif', that is, b' a!in% untruthful stateent in the narration

of facts in the deed of sale, b' declarin% >osearie to be the owner of the

house subject of such sale and si%nin% as ;>osearie ?illaHor; instead of her

real nae, >osearie Felo%o, in order to sell the sae to the anlasspouses. It is established b' evidence be'ond reasonable doubt that

>osearie coitted the crie of falsi+cation of public docuent. -i!ewise,

proof be'ond reasonable doubt has been dul' adduced to establish

conspirac' between >osearie and petitioner who is the brotherinlaw of

*elba anlas, one of the bu'ers of the house in this case.

3C


37/37

Gar+ia vs #our! o6 Appeals

G.R. No. 12821" 'e+e%ber 1", 2005

FACTS:

oetie in earl' October 1990, a verbal a%reeent was entered into

between lberto uijada, Jr. 4lberto5 and vella for the sale of the forers

house and lot located at 7C . Foe t., *andalu'on%, *etro *anila for the

purchase price of 1.2 illion pesos.

On October 23, 1990, an ;earnest one'; in the aount of ten

thousand pesos 410,0005 was %iven to lberto b' vella. On October 31,

1990, the aount of one hundred and +ft')+ve thousand pesos 41AA,0005

was delivered b' vella representin% this tie the downpa'ent for the

house and lot. subse@uent pa'ent of +ve thousand pesos 4A,0005 was

ade on Januar' 21, 1991. 8ith respect to this last transaction, vellaprepared in her own handwritin% two identical receipts.

#he relationship between bu'er and seller turned sour. vella +led a

coplaint for estafa a%ainst lberto for his failure to e(ecute a deed of sale

and deliver the subject propert'. on% the evidence she subitted was the

cop' of the receipt she prepared on Januar' 21, 1991. "owever, the receipt

appeared to have been. "avin% noticed the alterations, lberto instituted a

criinal action a%ainst vella.

ISSUE:

8O vella should be %uilt' of falsi+cation of a public docuent.

HELD:

B&. Fiven the adissions of vella that she altered the receipt, and

without convincin% evidence that the alteration was with the consent of

private coplainant, the ourt holds that all four 475 eleents have been

proven be'ond reasonable doubt. s to the re@uireent of daa%e, this is

readil' apparent as it was ade to appear that lberto had received A0,000

when in fact he did not. "ence, vellas conviction.

crim 2 case digest(salva)

Documents