criminal law 2 case digests

8/13/2019 Criminal Law 2 Case Digests

1/26

G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,vs.

JESUS GARCIA !ANA"AT

FACTS#

For review is the conviction of accused-appellant JESUS GARCIA !A"A#A$ for ille%alpossession of five &'( )ilos of *ari+uana for which he was initiall sentenced to death.

$hat on or aout the th da of "ove*er, /001, in the Cit of #a%uio, 2hilippines, and

within the +urisdiction of this 3onorale Court, the aove-na*ed accused, did then and there

willfull, unlawfull and feloniousl have in his possession, custod and control five &'( )ilos

of co*pressed *ari+uana dried leaves, without the authorit of law to do so.

$he prosecutions case hin%es on the testi*on of Senior Inspector 45I6ER E"!47IAS. 3erecounted that on "ove*er , /001, he and S248 J4SE 2A"GA"I#A" oarded a

passen%er +eepne fro* their office in Ca*p 7an%wa, 5a $rinidad, #en%uet, en route to#a%uio Cit. 3e too) the seat ehind the +eepne driver while S248 2an%anian sat oppositehi*. $he were in civilian attire. 9hen the +eepne reached :*. 1 or ', accused JESUSGARCIA oarded the +eepne carrin% a plastic a%. 3e occupied the front seat, eside thedriver and placed the plastic a% on his lap. After a couple of *inutes, the police*ens*elled *ari+uana which see*ed to e*anate fro* accused;s a%. $o confir* theirsuspicion, the decided to follow accused when he %ets off the +eepne.

$he accused ali%hted at the #a%uio cit hall and the police officers trailed hi*. $he accusedproceeded to Ri a.*., he left his residence inAn%eles Cit to visit his rother, "IC: GARCIA, who* he had not seen for ten &/>( ears. 3earrived in #a%uio Cit at /=8> p.*. #efore proceedin% to his rother;s house, he too) astroll at the Ri> p.*., two &( *en accosted hi* at the par). $he didnot identif the*selves as police officers. $he held his hands and ordered hi* to %o with

the*. 7espite his protestations, he was forcil ta)en to a waitin% car and rou%ht to asafehouse. $here, he was as)ed aout the source of his suppl of illicit dru%s. 9hen hedenied )nowled%e of the cri*e i*puted to hi*, he was rou%ht to a dar) roo* where hishands were tied, his feet ound to a chair, his *outh covered tape and his eeslindfolded. $he started *aulin% hi*. Initiall, he clai*ed he was )ic)ed and punched onthe chest and thi%hs. 9hen as)ed further whether he suffered ruises and ro)en ris, heanswered in the ne%ative. $hereafter, he e?plained that there were no visile si%ns ofphsical ause on his od as he was onl punched, not )ic)ed. "otwithstandin% the


2/26

*altreat*ent he suffered, the accused clai*ed he stood fir* on his denial that he wasdealin% with illicit dru%s.

ISSUE#

9hether or not the police is %uilt of aritrar detention &Art. /' R2C(

HEL$#

Firstly, appellant pointed out that if the police officers indeed s*ell and the *ari+uana he

was alle%edl carrin% while the were all on oard the +eepne, the should have

i**ediatel arrested hi* instead of waitin% for hi* to ali%ht and stroll at the Ri


3/26

!andaluon%, !etro !anila Alert Bui+ada, Jr. to accused, said accusedthen and there wilfull, unlawfull and feloniousl and with intent to defraudand da*a%e Alerto Bui+ada Jr *ade alterations and wrote words, fi%ures andphrases to the ori%inal receipt which co*pletel chan%ed its *eanin% *a)in% appear thereon that it was issued on Januar 1, /00/ in the a*ountof Fift Five $housand 2esos &2'',>>>.>>( when in truth and in fact, the said

accused full well )new that the receipt was onl for the a*ount of Five$housand 2esos.

So*eti*e in earl 4ctoer /00>, a veral a%ree*ent was entered into etweenAlerto Bui+ada, Jr. &Alerto( and Avella for the sale of the for*ers house and lot located at1@ 2. Go*e< St., !andaluon%, !etro !anila for the purchase price of 2/. *illion pesos.4n4ctoer 8, /00>, an Dearnest *one in the a*ount of ten thousand pesos &2/>,>>>( was%iven to Alerto Avella. 4n 4ctoer 8/, /00>, the a*ount of one hundred and fift-fivethousand pesos &2/'',>>>( was delivered Avella representin% this ti*e the downpa*entfor the house and lot. A suseuent pa*ent of five thousand pesos &2',>>>( was *ade on

Januar /, /00/.

$he relationship etween uer and seller turned sour. Avella filed a co*plaint forestafa a%ainst Alerto for his failure to e?ecute a deed of sale and deliver the su+ectpropert. A*on% the evidence she su*itted was the cop of the receipt she prepared on

Januar /, /00/. 3owever, the receipt appeared to have een altered in the followin%*anner= /( the word Dfift was inserted efore the word Dfive on the second line of thereceipt to read Dfift five thousand instead of Dfive thousand ( the nu*er D' wasinserted efore D',>>>.>> on the third line of the receipt so that it would read D'',>>>.>>8( additional words were inserted in the last sentence of the receipt which reads, D"owcovered $.C.$. H 800 R.7. !andaluon% !!. the parties a%ree to e?ecute of sic validdeed of conveance coverin% the sa*e sale 1( on the date DJanuar / the nu*er 1 was

superi*posed so that it would read as DJanuar 1 instead and '( there now appears thea*ount of D'',>>>.>> and elow it the word Dvalue on the upper left hand corner of thereceipt.

3avin% noticed the alterations, Alerto instituted a cri*inal action efore the 4ffice ofthe Cit 2rosecutor of 2asa Cit char%in% that Avella had *ade it appear that he received2'',>>> when he received onl 2',>>>. "eedless to state, the Cit 2rosecutor found that a

prima faciecase of violation of Article / of the Revised 2enal Code had een co**itted Avella and accordin%l filed the correspondin% Infor*ation.

Avella, in her defense, ad*itted that she did in fact alter the receipt ut clai*s that it

was done in the presence and at the reuest of Alerto.

4n Januar /, /00/, Alerto, alon% with his sister, ca*e to Avellas residence in!andaluon% Cit to as) for additional downpa*ent for the house and lot. At that ti*e sheonl had 2',>>> in cash which she handed over to Alerto and then pro*ised hi* a i%%ersu* in the future. Avella then hand wrote two receipts which was si%ned Alerto and hissister, as evidence of the pa*ent of 2',>>>. 4ne receipt was her cop while the other wasfor Alerto. $hree das later, on Januar 1, /00/, Avella called up !r. Celso Cunanan&Celso(, an architect, fro* who* she as)ed to orrow 2'>,>>>. Celso had earlier co**itted


4/26

to Avella that he would lend her 2'>,>>>. Celso arrived at her house that evenin% to %iveher the *one. Alread present in the house were Avella, her sister and Alerto. Celsodelivered to Avella 2'>,>>> which the latter, in the for*ers presence, handed over toAlerto. 9ith respect to the alteration, Avella e?plained that Alerto did not have with hi*his cop of the Januar /, /00/ receipt and so he told her to +ust Dadd in her cop thea*ount of 2'>,>>> to *a)e it 2'',>>>. Avella acceded to the reuest and *ade the

chan%es in front of Alerto while he was countin% the *one. Avella said she showed thealtered receipt to Alerto ut that he was not ale to affi? his si%nature thereon ecause hewas in a hurr to leave. Avellas account was corroorated the testi*on of Celso whodeclared that all these happened in his presence.

Avella further clai*ed that this case was filed a%ainst her in retaliation for the estafacase she filed a%ainst Alerto. As clai*ed Avella, she found out that the deed of salewhich purportedl transferred ownership of the house and lot to Alerto was a fa)e. Uponher reuest, the "ational #ureau of Investi%ation &".#.I.(, Buestioned 7ocu*ents 7ivision,e?a*ined the si%natures of !r. Floro Caceres and !rs. 2aciencia Castor Caceres, thetransferees of the su+ect propert, contained in the deed of sale. In its report the ".#.I.deter*ined that the uestioned si%natures and sa*ple si%natures of Floro Caceres and2aciencia Caceres were not written one and the sa*e person

ISSUE#

9K" Avella is %uilt under Art // and / of the R2C

HEL$#

$he plea lac)s *erit and is denied.

$he ele*ents of the cri*e of falsification under Article // &@( of the Revised 2enalCode are= &/( that there e an alteration &chan%e( or intercalation &insertion( on a

docu*ent &( that it was *ade on a %enuine docu*ent &8( that the alteration orintercalation has chan%ed the *eanin% of the docu*ent and &1( that the chan%es *ade thedocu*ent spea) so*ethin% false.9hen these are co**itted a private individual on aprivate docu*ent the violation would fall under para%raph , Article / of the sa*e code,ut there *ust e, in addition to the aforesaid ele*ents, independent evidence of da*a%eor intention to cause the sa*e to a third person.

Given the ad*issions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without convincin%evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private co*plainant, the Court holdsthat all four &1( ele*ents have een proven eond reasonale dout. As to the reuire*entof da*a%e, this is readil apparent as it was *ade to appear that Alerto had received2'>,>>> when in fact he did not. 3ence, Avellas conviction.

7E"IE7 and Affir*ed.

A!A$EO TETANGCO %. O!"U$S!AN

ART.220

FACTS#


5/26

$his petition for certiorari see)s to annul and set aside the O')*', of pulic respondent4*uds*an which dis*issed the Co*plaint of petitioner A*ando $etan%co a%ainst privaterespondent !aor Jose 5. Atien of the Revised 2enal Code&R2C(.

4n !arch , >>, petitioner filed his Co*plaint efore the 4*uds*an alle%in% that on

Januar @, >>/, private respondent !aor Atien>> cash financial assistanceto the chair*an and 2/,>>> to each tanod ofBarangay/>', Lone , 7istrict I. Alle%edl, on!arch ', >>/, !aor Atien,>>> or the total a*ount of the financialassistance fro* the Cit of !anila when such disurse*ent was not +ustified as a lawfule?pense.

In his Counter-Affidavit, !aor Atien 4F $3E R2C 7ES2I$E $3E ENIS$E"CE 4F A PRIMA

FACIECASE A"7 2R4#A#5E CAUSE $4 I"7IC$ 3I! F4R $3E CRI!E C3ARGE7 4R, A$ $3E6ERM 5EAS$, F4R 6I45A$I4" 4F SEC. 8&e( 4F R.A. "4. 8>/0 &A"$I-GRAF$ A"7 C4RRU2$2RAC$ICES AC$(.

HEL$#

In this case, the action ta)en the 4*uds*an cannot e characteri


6/26

such fund or propert were appropriated law or ordinance shall suffer the penalt ofprision correccionalin its *ini*u* period or a fine ran%in% fro* one-half to the total of thesu* *isapplied, if reason of such *isapplication, an da*a%es or e*arrass*ent shallhave resulted to the pulic service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penaltof te*porar special disualification.

If no da*a%e or e*arrass*ent to the pulic service has resulted, the penalt shall e afine fro* ' to '> percent of the su* *isapplied.

$he ele*ents of the offense, also )nown as technical *alversation, are= &/( the offender isan accountale pulic officer &( he applies pulic funds or propert under hisad*inistration to so*e pulic use and &8( the pulic use for which the pulic funds orpropert were applied is different fro* the purpose for which the were ori%inallappropriated law or ordinance. It is clear that for technical *alversation to e?ist, it isnecessar that pulic funds or properties had een diverted to an pulic use other thanthat provided for law or ordinance. $o constitute the cri*e, there *ust e a diversion ofthe funds fro* the purpose for which the had een ori%inall appropriated law orordinance.2atentl, the third ele*ent is not present in this case.

7IS!ISSE7 F4R 5AC: 4F !ERI$.

SA!ANIEGO % AGUILA

881 SCRA 18 &>>>( AR$. >1

F+ts#$he 4ffice of the 2resident %ranted the e?e*ption fro* the covera%e of theP4peration 5and $ransfer 2ro%ra*P the land owned N. 4n appeal, the CA dis*issed thepetition uestionin% the decision of the 4ffice for failure to i*plead the 4ffice of the2resident, as the should e considered as indispensale parties.

Issu*# 9hether the 4ffice of the 2resident should e considered as an indispensale partand *ust therefore e i*pleaded pursuant to the Rules.

H*-)# "o. An indispensale part is a part in interest without who* no final deter*inationcan e had of an action without that part ein% i*pleaded. Indispensale parties are thosewith such an interest in the controvers that a final decree would necessaril affect theirri%hts, or that the court cannot proceed without their presence. PInterestsP within the*eanin% of this rule, should e *aterial, directl in issue and to e affected the decreeas distin%uished fro* a *ere incidental interest in the uestion involved. 4n the otherhand, a no*inal or pro for*a part is one who is +oined as a plaintiff or defendant, not

ecause such part has an real interest on the su+ect *atter or ecause an relief isde*anded, ut *erel ecause the technical rules of pleadin%s reuire the presence of suchpart on the record. In the case at ar, the failure to i*plead the 4ffice of the 2resident doesnot warrant the dis*issal of the case as such is considered as a pro for*a part.

2eople v. !ara*ara


7/26

8/ scra Art. '/

FAC$S=

$he case is an appeal fro* the decision of the Re%ional $rial Court, !asate, !asate,convictin% accused-appellant Cresenciano !ara*ara of *urder. $hat on "ove*er /,/00/, in the evenin% thereof, at #aran%a Calpi, !unicipalit of Claveria, 2rovince of!asate, 2hilippines and within the +urisdiction of this 3onorale Court, the said accused,with intent to )ill, evident pre*editation, treacher and ta)in% advanta%e of ni%htti*e, didthen and there wilfull, unlawfull and feloniousl attac), assault and shoot with a hand%unone !i%uelito 7onato, hittin% the latter on the chest, there inflictin% wound which causedhis death. $he prosecution;s version of the )illin% of !i%uelito 7onato, as culled fro* thetesti*onies of his oun%er rother Ricardo 7onato and father Re%arder 7onato, is asfollows=

A enefit dance sponsored the Calpi Ele*entar School 2arents-$eachers Association ofwhich accused-appellant is the president, was held in the ard of accused-appellant;s house

in #aran%a Calpi, Claveria, !asate in the evenin% of "ove*er /, /00/. At aout /*idni%ht, while Ricardo 7onato was dancin% with a certain Rowena del Rosario, one 7anteArce, a friend of accused-appellant, approached Ricardo 7onato and o?ed hi* on thechest. Fri%htened, Rowena ran awa while Ricardo 7onato sca*pered toward the fence forsafet. !i%uelito 7onato was aout two &( *eters awa fro* where Ricardo 7onato staedat the fence. "ot for lon%, accused-appellant too) his hand%un tuc)ed in his waist and firedat victi* !i%uelito 7onato, hittin% the latter on the left reast. Ricardo 7onato tried to helphis fallen rother !i%uelito ut so*eod struc) Ricardo;s head with an iron ar which)noc)ed hi* out for aout three &8( *inutes. 9hen Ricardo re%ained consciousness, hehurried ho*e and infor*ed his parents of what happened to their son !i%uelito.

Re%arder 7onato, !i%uelito;s father, i**ediatel went to the cri*e scene and rushed!i%uelito to the 2io 7uran 3ospital where the latter died earl in the *ornin% of the ne?t da&"ove*er /0, /00/(. #efore !i%uelito e?pired, Re%arder 7onato as)ed who shot hi* and!i%uelito replied that it was accused-appellant.

$he defense had a different stor. At aout //=>> in the evenin%, rothers Ricardo and!i%uelito 7onato arrived at the enefit dance and approached the dancin% pair of Rowenadel Rosario and 7ante Arce. $hen Ricardo and !i%uelito %an%ed-up on 7ante Arce. Accused-appellant, who was aout ei%ht &( *eters awa, rushed to the scene to pacif the trio.Ricardo held accused-appellant;s hands at his ac) and then !i%uelito repeatedl staedaccused-appellant on different parts of his od. Accused-appellant re%ained consciousnessat the Claveria hospital where 7r. Gil GeQor%a treated hi* for a few das, then transferredhi* to the 2io 7uran 3ospital. $here was no wa accused-appellant could have resisted!i%uelito;s attac), *uch less was he capale of inflictin% in+ur on !i%uelito, since thestron%er Ricardo was holdin% accused-appellant;s hands and was dra%%in% hi* awa while!i%uelito )ept lun%in% a si?-inch laded weapon at hi*.

ISSUE=

9hether or "ot accused-appellant is liale under Art. '/

3E57=


8/26

$here is no *erit in accused-appellant;s position that he should e held liale onl for deathcaused in a tu*ultuous affra under Article '/ of the Revised 2enal Code. It was in suchsituation that accused ca*e at the scene and +oined the fra purportedl to pacif theprota%onists when !i%uelito attac)ed hi* causin% four &1( sta wounds in different parts ofhis od two on the sto*ach, one on the left nipple, and one on the left ar*. $henaccused-appellant with his hand%un shot !i%uelito.

Assu*in% that a ru*le or a free-for-all fi%ht occurred at the enefit dance, Article '/ ofthe Revised 2enal Code cannot appl ecause prosecution witnesses Ricardo and Re%arder7onato positivel identified accused-appellant as !i%uelito 7onato;s )iller.

9hile accused-appellant hi*self suffered *ultiple sta wounds which, at first lush, *alend verit to his clai* that a ru*le ensued and that victi* !i%uelito inflicted upon hi*these wounds, the evidence is inadeuate to consider the* as a *iti%atin% circu*stanceecause the defense;s version stands discredited in li%ht of the *ore credile version of theprosecution as to the circu*stances surroundin% the !i%uelito;s death.

9e do not suscrie, however, to the trial court;s appreciation of treacher which, we note,was discussed onl in the dispositive portion of the decision and which was ased solel on

the fact that appellant used a firear* in )illin% the victi* !i%uelito 7onato. $he use of afirear* is not sufficient indication of treacher. In the asence of an convincin% proof thataccused-appellant consciousl and delieratel adopted the *eans which he co**ittedthe cri*e in order to ensure its e?ecution, the Court *ust resolve the dout in favor ofaccused-appellant. And where treacher is not adeuatel proved, the accused-appellantcan e convicted onl of ho*icide.

93EREF4RE, the Court here !47IFIES the +ud%*ent appealed fro*. $he Court findsaccused-appellant Cresenciano !ara*ara %uilt eond reasonale of ho*icide, definedand penali( ears ofprision mayor, as *ini*u*, to seventeen &/( ears, and four

&1( *onths of reclusion temporal, as *a?i*u*, with all its accessor penalties, and to pathe heirs of !i%uelito 7onato in the a*ount of 2/>,>>>.>> as actual da*a%es and2'>,>>>.>> as death inde*nit.1p!i1"n#t

Costs a%ainst the accused-appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,appellee,vs.EL%IE EJAN$RA EL%IES EJAN$RA "E"OT EJAN$RA ALEJAN$RO EJAN$RA "E"OT OCA/ SUANGCO, !AG$ALENA CALUNO$ !AGANO/ !AG$ALENASALIOTSUANGCO, ANTONIO HUERA RAN$A, ROEL RE%ILLA CERON, +) E$INTA!POS A!PARO A-- )*t+4*) +t u*o C4t J+4-, u*o C4t7,appellants.

Art. @

FAC$S=


9/26

$his is a review on auto*atic appeal of the 7ecision/of the Bue


10/26

For the accused to e convicted of )idnappin% or serious ille%al detention, the prosecution isurdened to prove eond reasonale dout all the ele*ents of the cri*e, na*el, &/( theoffender is a private individual &( he )idnaps or detains another, or in an *anner deprivesthe latter of h is liert &8( the act of detention or )idnappin% *ust e ille%al and &1( in theco**ission of the offense an of the followin% circu*stances is present= &a( the )idnappin%or detention lasts for *ore than three das &( it is co**itted si*ulatin% pulic

authorit &c( an serious phsical in+uries are inflicted upon the person )idnapped ordetained or threats to )ill hi* are *ade or &d( the person )idnapped and serious ille%aldetention is a *inor, the duration of his detention is i**aterial. 5i)ewise, if the victi* is)idnapped and ille%all detained for the purpose of e?tortin% ranso*, the duration of hisdetention is i**aterial.

$o warrant an i*position of the death penalt for the cri*e of )idnappin% and serious ille%aldetention for ranso*, the prosecution *ust prove the followin% eond reasonale dout=&a( intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victi* of his liert &( actualdeprivation of the victi* of his liert and, &c( *otive of the accused, which is ranso* forthe victi* or other person for the release of the victi*. $he purpose of the offender ine?tortin% ranso* is a ualifin% circu*stance which *a e proven his words and overtacts efore, durin% and after the )idnappin% and detention of the victi*. "either actual

de*and for nor actual pa*ent of ranso* is necessar for the cri*e to e co**itted.Ranso* as e*ploed in the law is so used in its co**on or ordinar sense *eanin%, a su*of *one or other thin% of value, price, or consideration paid or de*anded for rede*ption ofa )idnapped or detained person, a pa*ent that releases fro* captivit. /It *a includeenefits not necessaril pecuniar which *a accrue to the )idnapper as a condition for thevicti*s release.

In this case, the appellants not onl de*anded ut also received ranso* for the release ofthe victi*. $he trial court correctl sentenced the appellants to death. 3owever, the trialcourt erred in failin% to order the appellants to pa, +ointl and severall, to Ed 3enderson,his parents Eddie and !arileen $an the a*ount of 21',>>>.>> as actual da*a%es and thea*ount of 2/,>>>,>>>.>> as *oral da*a%es. Under Article //> of the Revised 2enal Code,the principals are +ointl and severall liale for the civil liailities arisin% fro* the delict.

ONG CHIU 8AN,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, +) t* PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, respondents.

AR$.

FAC$S=

9hat is efore the Court for consideration is the decision of the Court of Appeals affir*in%the conviction of accused 4n% Chiu :wan, for un+ust ve?ation.

Assistant Cit 2rosecutor Andres !. #aona of #acolod filed with the !unicipal $rial

Court, #acolod Cit an infor*ation char%in% petitioner with un+ust ve?ation for cuttin% theelectric wires, water pipes and telephone lines of DCra


11/26

$he !unicipal $rial Court found 4n% Chiu :wan %uilt of un+ust ve?ation, andsentenced hi* to Di*prison*ent for twent das. $he court also ordered hi* to pa *oralda*a%es, findin% that the wron%ful act of aruptl cuttin% off the electric, water pipe andtelephone lines of DCra


12/26

DIt is star)l hallow, otiosel written, vacuous in its content and trite in its for*. Itachieved nothin% and atte*pted at nothin%, not even at a si*ple su**ation of facts whichcould easil e done. Its inadeuac spea)s for itself.

Jud%es si*ilarl disposed to pa lip service to their wor) *ust rethin) their place in the+udiciar or seriousl ta)e refresher courses on decision writin%. 9e warn the* of stiff

sanctions for such lac)adaisical perfor*ance.

Conseuentl, the case *a e re*anded to the lower court for co*pliance with theconstitutional reuire*ent of contents of a decision. 3owever, considerin% that this casehas een pendin% for so*eti*e, the ends of +ustice will e full served if we review theevidence and decide the case.

2etitioner ad*itted havin% ordered the cuttin% of the electric, water and telephone lines ofco*plainants usiness estalish*ent ecause these lines crossed his propert line. 3efailed, however, to show evidence that he had the necessar per*it or authori>.>>, and thecosts. $he award of *oral and e?e*plar da*a%es and attornes fees is here deleted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. AR!AN$O REGALA A"RIOL,accused-appellant.

ART. 29:27

FACTS#

Ar*ando Re%ala appeals fro* the +ud%*ent in Cri*inal Case "o. 00 rendered theRe%ional $rial Court of !asate, !asate, #ranch 1@, 'th Judicial Re%ion, convictin% hi* ofthe cri*e of Roer with Rape.

$hat on or aout Septe*er //, /00', in the evenin% thereof, at #aran%a #an%on,!unicipalit of Aroro, 2rovince of !asate, 2hilippines, the said accused confederatin%to%ether and helpin% one another, with intent to %ain, violence and inti*idation uponpersons, did then and there wilfull, unlawfull and feloniousl enter the )itchen of thehouse of Consuelo Arevalo and when inside, ho%tied said Consuelo Arevalo and%randdau%hter "erissa Re%ala &sic(, ta)e, steal, ro and carr awa cash a*ount of28,>>>.>> and two &( %old rin%s worth 2@,>>>.>>, to the da*a%e and pre+udice of ownerConsuelo Arevalo in the total a*ount of 20,>>>.>>, 2hilippine Currenc and in pursuance of


13/26

the co**ission of the cri*e of roer a%ainst the will and consent of the %randdau%hter"erissa Re%ala &sic( wilfull, unlawfull and feloniousl accused Ar*ando Re%ala Ariol hasfor two ti*es se?uall aused andKor intercoursed with her, while ho%tied on the ed and inthe )itchen.

Accused-appellant was apprehended the police four das after the incident. 3e was

identified at a police line-up "erissa and her %rand*other.

$he defense presented accused-appellant who testified that on Septe*er //, /00', he wasstain% in the house of Antonio Ra*ilo at aran%a Sndicate, Aroro, !asate. Ra*ilo wasthe *ana%er in the %old pannin% usiness where accused-appellant was e*ploed. AntonioRa*ilo testified and corroorated his defense and stated that accused-appellant was in hishouse, which is aout ' )ilo*eters awa fro* #aran%a #an%on.

$he trial court held that the defense of alii cannot overco*e the positive identification ofthe accused. $he Court found accused Ar*ando Re%ala Ariol %uilt eond reasonaledout of the cri*e of Roer with Rape.

ISSUE=

9K" the accused is %uilt of Roer with Rape.

3E57=

9e are not persuaded the contention of accused-appellant that the contradictor repliesof Consuelo Arevalo when as)ed whether Re%ala re*oved his *as) PeforeP or PafterP sheand "erissa were ho%tied e?posed the fact that she was not ale to identif the accused-appellant. $he contradiction referred to a *inor detail and cannot detract fro* the fact thatoth "erissa and Consuelo positivel identified Re%ala as there was a flashli%ht used to

focus at the *one while it was ein% counted and there was a reflection on the face ofRe%ala. #oth "erissa and Consuelo re*e*ered the earrin% on his left ear, which he wasstill wearin% at the ti*e of the police line-up inside the police station.!isoedp

$he cri*e of roer with rape was co**itted in /00' when RA @'0 was alread in force.Article 01 of the Revised 2enal Code as a*ended now provides, under para%raph / thereof=Edp*is

P/. $he penalt of reclusion perpetuato death, when for an reason of or onoccasion of the roer, the cri*e of o;44)*shall have een co**itted, orwhen the roer shall have een acco*panied '+


14/26

the felonious acts of appellant and his cohorts, with all acts or rape on that occasion ein%inte%rated in one co*posite cri*e.

In view of the fore%oin%, the additional rape co**itted herein accused-appellant shouldnot e considered as a%%ravatin%. $he penalt of reclusion perpetuai*posed the trialcourt is proper.Supre*e

Jud%*ent convictin% Ar*ando Re%ala Ariol %uilt eond reasonale dout of the cri*eof Roer with Rape, is here AFFIR!E7.

ANICIA RA!OSAN$AN, 2etitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

AR$. 8/'

FAC$S=

Instant petition for review on certiorari see)in% to reverse the 7ecision /and the Resolutionof the Court of Appeals entitled PPeople of t!e P!ilippines% plaintiff&appellee% 'ersus AniciaRamos&Andan and Potenciana (ieto% accused% Anicia Ramos Andan% accused&appellant"P

4n Feruar 1, /00/, Anicia Ra*os-Andan, herein petitioner, and 2otenciana "ietoapproached Eli


15/26

$he trial court held that while it was 2otenciana who issued the chec)s, nonetheless, it waspetitioner who induced Eli>>.>>considerin% the R$Cs findin% that=

Co*plainant, however, was ale to present in Court onl 2lanters 7evelop*ent #an)&Chec)( "o. /1/8/, dated June 8>, /00/, in the a*ount of 28,>>>.>> and the fact of itsein% dishonored. $he other two chec)s were neither presented nor the fact of ein%dishonored proven. 5i)ewise, the two chec)s were not *entioned in the de*and letter*ar)ed as E?hiit C. Althou%h, therefore, it is clear fro* the records, in fact ad*itted the accused, that the total a*ount of 28,>>>.>> as purchase price of the dia*ond rin% hasnot een paid, the accused should onl e held liale for the dishonor of the chec) aove-stated as the dishonor of the two other chec)s was not proven in Court.

2etitioner filed a *otion for reconsideration, ut this was denied the Appellate Court.

3ence a petition to the Supre*e Court.

ISSUE=

9hether or not the accused is %uilt under Art.8/'

3E57=

$he ele*ents of the offense as defined and penali


16/26

Facts=

$his is an appeal fro* the decision of R$C-!anila findin% 7ante !anansala %uilt of rapea%ainst his /1-ear old dau%hter, Jennifer !anansala. 4n direct e?a*ination, she said thatshe was raped her father on occasions fro* the period "ov /, /00/

up to "ov /8, /00/ in a taho factor where he was livin%.

3eld=

Reversed on the %round of reasonale dout.

Ratio=

Incestuous rape is ad*ittedl one of the heinous cri*es. 3owever, the constitutionalpresu*ption of innocence is sedulousl oserved. For this purpose, the Court has for*ulateda set of principles= &/( An accusation for rape is eas to *a)e, difficult to prove and even*ore difficult to disprove &( In view of the intrinsic nature of the cri*e, where onl persons are usuall involved, the testi*on of the co*plainant *ust e scrutini


17/26

FAC$S=

$his is an ad*inistrative co*plaint a%ainst Re%ional $rial Court Jud%e Silverio B. Castillo foralle%edl )nowin%l renderin% an un+ust +ud%*ent in a cri*inal case andKor renderin%

+ud%*ent in %ross i%norance of the law.

4n Januar 0, /0@', accused 5ucena Escoto contracted *arria%e with Jor%e de 2erio, Jr.,sole*ni


18/26

9hether or not respondent Jud%e should e held ad*inistrativel liale for )nowin%lrenderin% an un+ust +ud%*ent andKor %ross i%norance of the law.

3E57=

Re%ional $rial Court Jud%e Silverio B. Castillo is here FI"E7 in the a*ount of $en $housand

2esos &2/>,>>>( with a S$ER" 9AR"I"G that a repetition of the sa*e or si*ilar acts will edealt with *ore severel.

Applin% the rule as then prevailin%, and in line with applicale +urisprudence, the sanctionon respondent Jud%e should e a fine in the a*ount of 2/>,>>>.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GLENN $E LOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.

AR$.8@'

FAC$S=

$hat on or aout 4ctoer >', /00', in the earl *ornin%, at !aitu* 3i%hwa, within#aran%a 2uerto, Ca%aan de 4ro Cit, 2hilippines, and within the +urisdiction of this3onorale Court, the aove-na*ed accused, with delierate intent to )ill, ta)in% advanta%eof his driven *otor vehicle, an Isu-0'(, wearin% lac) $-shirts andlac) short pants, perfor*in% an PEndurance RunP of 8' )ilo*eters co*in% fro* their ca*pin !anolo Fortich, #u)idnon, headin% to Re%ional $rainin% 3eaduarters in Ca*p Ala%ar,Ca%aan de 4ro Cit, runnin% in a colu*n of 8, with a distance of two feet, *ore or less,fro* one trainee to another, thus for*in% a sic three lines, with a len%th of *ore or less '>

*eters fro* the /st

*an to the last *an, unale to defend the*selves, ecause the accusedran or *oved his driven vehicle on the direction of the ac)s of the 2"2 +o%%ers in spite ofthe continuous warnin% si%nals *ade si? of the +o%%ers, na*el= 24/ Allan $aaconEspana, 9aldon Sinda Sacro, 5e*uel Mane< 2an%ca, Arte*io Ja*il 6illaflor, "ardo 4*asasCollantes and Joselito #user Escartin, who were at the rear echelon of said run, actin% as%uards, continuousl wavin% their hands at the accused for hi* to ta)e the left lane ofthe hi%hwa, %oin% to the Cit proper, fro* a distance of />> *eters awa fro* the +o%%ersrear portion, ut which accused failed and refused to heed instead, he proceeded tooperate his driven vehicle &an Isu


19/26

G5E"" showed an ine?cusale lac) of precaution. Article 8@' of the Revised 2enal Codestates that rec)less i*prudence consists in voluntaril, ut without *alice, doin% or failin% todo an act fro* which *aterial da*a%e results reason of ine?cusale lac) of precautionon the part of the person perfor*in% or failin% to perfor* such act, ta)in% into consideration&/( his e*plo*ent or occupation &( his de%ree of intelli%ence &1( his phsical conditionand &8( other circu*stances re%ardin% persons, ti*e and place.

In the case at ar, it has een alle%ed in the infor*ation and proved durin% the trial thatG5E"" Pescaped fro* the scene of the incident, leavin% ehind the victi*s.P It ein% crstalclear that G5E"" failed to render aid to the victi*s, the penalt provided for under Article8@' shall e raised one de%ree. 3ence, for rec)less i*prudence resultin% in *ultipleho*icide with serious phsical in+uries and less serious phsical in+uries, the penalt wouldeprision correccional in its *a?i*u* period toprision mayorin its *ediu* period.Applin% Article 1, the *a?i*u* of said penalt, which isprision mayorin its *ediu*period, should e i*posed. For the separate offenses of rec)less i*prudence resultin% insli%ht phsical in+uries, G5E"" *a e sentenced to suffer, for each count, the penalt ofarresto mayorin its *ini*u* period.

Althou%h it was estalished throu%h the testi*onies of prosecution witness 5e*uel 2an%ca

and of G5E"" that the latter surrendered to Governor E*ano of !isa*is 4riental, such*iti%atin% circu*stance need not e considered pursuant to the aforestated fifth para%raphof Article 8@'.

Under the Indeter*inate Sentence 5aw, G5E"" *a e sentenced to suffer anindeter*inate penalt whose *ini*u* is within the ran%e of the penalt ne?t lower inde%ree to that prescried for the offense, and whose *a?i*u* is that which could properle i*posed ta)in% into account the *odifin% circu*stances. 3ence, for the co*ple? cri*eof rec)less i*prudence resultin% in *ultiple ho*icide with serious phsical in+uries and lessserious phsical in+uries, ualified his failure to render assistance to the victi*s, he *ae sentenced to suffer an indeter*inate penalt ran%in% fro* arresto mayorin its *a?i*u*period toprision correccionalin its *ediu* period, as *ini*u*, toprision mayorin its*ediu* period, as *a?i*u*. As to the cri*es of rec)less i*prudence resultin% in sli%ht

phsical in+uries, since the *a?i*u* ter* for each count is onl two *onths theIndeter*inate Sentence 5aw will not appl.

HEREFORE,the decision of the Re%ional $rial Court, #ranch 8, Ca%aan de 4ro Cit, ishere SET ASI$E, and another one is rendered holdin% herein accused-appellant G5E""7E 54S SA"$4S %uilt eond reasonale dout of &/( the co*ple? cri*e of rec)lessi*prudence resultin% in *ultiple ho*icide with serious phsical in+uries and less seriousphsical in+uries

ELPI$IO "ON$A$, JR., / "URAC, appellant,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee.

RA 0/@' 7an%erous dru%s act of >>

FACTS#

$hat on or aout the 0thda of Januar >>1, in the Cit of !ari)ina, 2hilippines and withinthe +urisdiction of this 3onorale Court, the aove-na*ed accused, without ein% authori.> %ra* of !etha*pheta*ine 3drochloride &shau( contained in one &/( heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, a dan%erous dru%.


20/26

7enin% the char%es a%ainst hi*, appellant, a for*er police officer, clai*ed that he wasfra*ed up and %ave the followin% version=

4n Januar 0, >>1, while he was plain% inside 8 Cs illiard hall, 24 #ruio, who* he)new was a police*an, entered the illiard hall. After %reetin% 24 #ruio in Bicolano, hecontinued plain% ut 24 #ruio suddenl handcuffed hi* and as)ed hi* PSumama )a

muna.P Another person who was at his ac) pushed hi* out of the illiard hall in the courseof which he felt 24 #ruio reachin% his &appellants( ri%ht front poc)et, drawin% hi* torestrain the hand of 24 #ruio, tellin% hi* Ppera )o yanVP

Aware that his son was inside the illiard hall, appellant su**oned and handed hi* hiswallet containin% 2,>>>. 24 #ruio, however, too) the wallet fro* his son, tellin% hi*P*uag )a ma)ialam dito.P 3e was then *ade to oard a car and ta)en to the 4ffice of theSAI7S4$F at the police station.

Appellants defense was corroorated his son Christian Jeffre C. #ondad, and Roerto U.!ata who was a PspotterP &referee( at the illiard hall at the ti*e appellant was arrested.

ISSUE#

9K" accussed appellant is 5iale under RA 0/@'

HEL$#

Appellant clai*s that there was failure to follow the reuire*ents of Sec. / of R.A. "o.0/@', hence, it co*pro*ised the inte%rit and evidentiar value of the alle%edl sei


21/26

"on-co*pliance the apprehendin%Ku-ust tea* with Section / is not fatal aslon% as there isust4=4+?-* g'ou) therefor, and +s -og +s t* 4t*g'4t +)t* *&4)*t4+' &+-u* o= t* o=4s+t*)Bs*4*) 4t*;s, +'*


22/26

R4""IE AG4!4-4, accused,

E$$/ PANEA +) OSCAR SER%AN$O, accused-appellants.

27. '8

FAC$S=

$his is an appeal fro* a decision of the Re%ional $rial Court, #ranch 8, Iloilo Cit, findin%accused-appellants Edd 2ane>>.>>( oth elon%in% to J4SE A!A74R, another a*ount of 4"E 3U"7RE7 $3IR$M2ES4S &2/8>.>>( elon%in% to FRE77IE AGRA#I4, and the a*ount of $94 3U"7RE7 2ES4S&2>>.>>( elon%in% to the driver, R47I$4 5ASA2, with a total value of $3REE $34USA"7

$3REE 3U"7RE7 EIG3$M 2ES4S &28,8>.>>(, 2hilippine Currenc, to the da*a%e andpre+udice of the aforesaid persons and on the occasion of said roer, the accused, withintent to )ill shot the driver R47I$4 5ASA2, with the firear*s the were provided at thatti*e which resulted in the death of Rodito 5asap and with delierate intent to )ill li)ewisesta one FRE77IE AGRA#I4 with a laded weapon the were provided thus hittin% hi* onthe left elow, thus co**encin% the co**ission of ho*icide directl overt acts ut didnot perfor* all the acts of e?ecution which would produce the felon reason of so*ecause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance.

ISSUE=

9K" accused is liale under 27'8

3E57=

It is settled that so lon% as the witnesses testi*onies a%ree on sustantial *atters, theinconseuential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses crediilitnor the verit of their testi*onies. As this Court has held=

In su*, the inconsistencies referred to the defense are inconseuential. $he points that*attered *ost in the eewitnesses testi*onies were their presence at the locus criminis%

their identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the cri*e and theircredile and corroorated narration of accused-appellants *anner of shootin% CrisantoSuare


23/26

eco*es less plausile when it is corroorated relatives and friends who *a then not ei*partial witnesses. Alii is an inherentl wea) defense and *ust e re+ected when theaccuseds identit is satisfactoril and cate%oricall estalished the eewitnesses to theoffense, especiall when such eewitnesses have no ill *otive to testif falsel. In the caseat ar, the defense failed to show that Freddie A%raio and Jose A*ador were *otivated ill will.

Further*ore, accused-appellants defense of alii and denial cannot e elieved as thethe*selves ad*itted their pro?i*it to the scene of the cri*e when the offense occurred.Edd 2ane


24/26

Revised 2enal Code. 3owever, hi%hwa roer is now %overned 2.7. "o. '8, otherwise)nown as the Anti-2irac and Anti-3i%hwa Roer 5aw of /01. $his law provides=

Sec. . &e(. *ig!ay Robbery-Brigandage.W $he sei@ of the Revised2enal Code and that it is no lon%er reuired that there e at least four ar*ed personsfor*in% a and of roers. $he nu*er of offenders is no lon%er an essential ele*ent of thecri*e of hi%hwa roer. 3ence, the fact that there were onl three identified perpetratorsis of no *o*ent. 2.7. "o. '8 onl reuires proof that persons were or%ani


25/26

9K" Socorro 7. Ra*ire< is %uilt of RA 1>> Anti- wire $appin% Act.

3E57=

$he nature of the conversations is i**aterial to a violation of the statute. $he sustance ofthe sa*e need not e specificall alle%ed in the infor*ation. 9hat R.A. 1>> penali


26/26

A perusal of the Senate Con%ressional Records, *oreover, supports the respondent court;sconclusion that in enactin% R.A. 1>> our law*a)ers indeed conte*plated to *a)e ille%al,unauthori

criminal law 2 case digests

Documents