CARLOS L. TANENGGEE vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 179448
June 26, 2013

Facts: On March 27, 1998, five separate Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial
documents were filed against petitioner. The said information portray the same mode of
commission of the crime as in Criminal case No. 98-163806 but differ with respect to the numbers
of the checks and promissory notes involved and the dates and amounts. Carlos Tanenggee is the
Manager of the Commercio Branch of Metrobank in Divisoria, Manila. It was alleged that Tanengge
caused to caused to be prepared promissory notes and cashier’s checks in the name of Romeo
Tan, a valued client of the bank since he has substantial deposits in his account, in connection with
the purported loans obtained by the latter from the bank. Tanenggee approved and signed the
cashier’s check as branch manager of Metrobank Commercio Branch. Tanenggee affixed, forged
or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as endorser and payee of the proceeds of the checks
at the back of the same to show that the latter had indeed endorsed the same for payment. He
handed the checks to the Loans clerk, Maria Dolores Miranda, for encashment. Once said
documents were forged and falsified, appellant released and obtained from Metrobank the
proceeds of the alleged loan and misappropriated the same to his use and benefit. In the middle of
January 1998, 2 Metrobank auditors conducted an audit of the Commercio Branch for more than a
week. Thereafter appellant was asked by Elvira Ong-Chan, senior vice president of Metrobank, to
report to the Head Office on the following day. The appellant arrived and was surprised that there
were 7 other people present: 2 senior branch officers, 2 bank lawyers, 2 policemen, and a
representative of the Internal Affairs unit of the bank, Valentino Elevado. Appellant claimed that
Elevado asked him to sign a paper in connection with the audit investigation and inquired him to
sign but was not offered any explanation. He was intimidated to sign and was threatened by the
police that he will be brought to the precinct if he will not sign. Appellant was not able to consult a
lawyer since he was not apprised of the purpose of the meeting and "just to get it over with" he
signed the paper which turned out to be a confession. After the said meeting, appellant went to see
Tan at his office but was unable to find the latter. He also tried to phone him but to no avail.

After the joint trial, the RTC rendered a consolidated Decision dated June 25, 1999 finding
petitioner guilty of the crimes charged. The CA promulgated its Decision affirming with modification
the RTC Decision.

Issue: WON the essential elements of estafa through falsification of commercial documents were
established

Held: Yes. "Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence, or by means of deceit, and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.” Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact,
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act
upon it to his legal injury.” Falsification as a necessary means to commit estafa. The elements of
estafa obtain in this case. By falsely representing that Tan requested him to process purported
loans on the latter’s behalf, petitioner counterfeited or imitated the signature of Tan in the cashier’s
checks.1âwphi1 Through these, petitioner succeeded in withdrawing money from the bank.
EDWINA RIMANDO y FERNANDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
November 29, 2017
G.R. No. 229701

Facts: An Information was filed against Romeo Rimando y Cachero and Edwina Rimando y
Fernando charging them with violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. According to the
prosecution, Alex Muñez, Bank Officer I of the Investigation Division, Task Department, (BSP)
Complex, East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, tasked to conduct investigations, make arrests and
conduct searches and seizures in all cases adversely affecting the integrity of currencies. His office
received information from their confidential informant that a certain Pastor Danny and Datu Romy
and their cohorts were involved in the distribution, manufacture, and printing of counterfeit US
dollar notes. They validated the information by conducting a surveillance on the suspects, including
appellant Romeo Rimando, aka Datu Romy. His team subsequently conducted a test-buy at
Farmer's Market, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City. He was able to buy 3 pieces of USDl00
counterfeit notes for ₱500 per piece. Romeo called him and offered to sell 100 pieces of USDl00
counterfeit notes at ₱500 per piece. His office formed a team to conduct an entrapment operation.
Appellants Romeo and Edwina Rimando, a freelance real estate agent, testified that they went
there upon invitation by a certain Pong who wanted to transact with them about old coins. They all
met at Makati Tower Hotel with a certain Emily. According to Pong, Emily was a trusted buyer of a
hotel guest. On the road, they were arrested by a group of 10 agents who had 3 vehicles. He and
his wife were handcuffed and forced into a Toyota Innova. Agent Armida Superales took her bag
and put a plastic wrapped bundle of US dollar bills and marked money. They were interrogated and
told to just admit that the confiscated notes belonged to them

Issue: WON the petitioner Edwina Rimando is guilty of Illegal possession and use of false treasury
or bank notes and other instruments of credit.

Held: No. The elements of the crime charged for violation of said law are: (1) that any treasury or
bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any instrument
payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another
person; (2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified; and (3)
that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.
None of these elements are present in the case of petitioner. The record is bereft of any hint that
petitioner cooperated in the commission of the crime under Article 168 of the RPC. The evidence of
the prosecution does not meet the test of moral certainty in order to establish that petitioner
conspired with her husband Romeo to commit the crime. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner
on the ground that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
LEONILA BATULANON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 139857
September 15, 2006

Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Leonila Batulanon as

its Cashier/Manager. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the
member of the cooperative. During an audit conducted, certain irregularities concerning the release
of loans were discovered. Four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents
were filed against Batulanon. It was found that Batulanon falsified 4 commercial documents, all
checks/cash vouchers representing granted loans to different persons namely: Erlinda Omadlao,
Gonafreda Oracion, Ferlyn Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon, making it appear that said names were
granted a loan and received the amount of the checks/cash vouchers when in truth and in fact the
said persons never received a grant, never received the checks, and never signed the check
vouchers issued in their names. Batulanon herself forges the signatures on the documents and
makes it appear that the payees received the loans when in fact said persons were never granted
a loan, never received the same, and never signed the cash check voucher issued in their names.
In furtherance, Batulanon released to herself the checks and received the loans and thereafter
misappropriated and converted it to her own use and benefit. Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the
charges. The prosecution then presented Medallo – posting clerk; Gopio Jr – a member of PCCI;
and Jayoma – Chairman of the PCCI Board of Directors, as witnesses. The RTC rendered a
decision convicting Batulanon of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The Court
of Appeals affirmed with modification convicting Batulanon of falsification of private documents.

Issue: WON petitioner may be convicted of falsification of private documents.

Held: Yes. The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
those in paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document;
and (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage. The subject vouchers are private documents and not
commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or other commercial law.42 Rather, they are private documents, which have been
defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public
notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced or set forth.
DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
August 2, 2017
G.R. No. 186329

These three consolidated petitions stem from a common set of facts. Abusama M. Alid (Alid) was
the Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture (DA), Regional Field Office No.
XII, Cotabato City. Frisco M. Malabanan, on the other hand, was the Program Director of the GMA
Rice Program of the DA, Field Operations Office, Diliman, Quezon City. Alid obtained a cash
advance of Pl 0,496 to defray his expenses for official travel. He was supposed to attend the
turnover ceremony of the outgoing and the incoming Secretaries of the DA and to follow up on
funds intended for the GMA Rice Program. The turnover ceremony did not push through, however,
and Alid's trip was deferred. Alid took Philippine Airlines (PAL) Flight PR 188 from Cotabato City to
Manila under PAL. He attended the turn over ceremony at the DA Central Office in Quezon City.
The following day he took a flight from Manila to Cotabato City per another ticket issued in
exchange for the PAL Ticket. On 1 September 2004, Alid instructed his secretary to prepare the
necessary papers to liquidate the cash advance. In his Post Travel Report, he declared that his
official travel transpired on 28 to 31 July 2004. He likewise attached an altered PAL Ticket where
the date and route were changed in support of his Post Travel Report. During post-audit,
discrepancies in the supporting documents were found and investigated. The Office of the Special
Prosecutor charged Alid and Malabanan before the Sandiganbayan with falsification of public
documents. Alid was indicted for falsifying his Post Travel Report; the Acting Deputy Special
Prosecutor charged Alid with falsifying the PAL Ticket; Alid and Malabanan were charged with
falsifying the Certificate of Appearance that the former attached as a supporting document for the
Post Travel Report.

Issue: WON Alid is guilty of the crime of falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.

Held: No. A conviction for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 172
violates the right of Alid to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him given
that his Information charged him only with falsification of documents committed by a public officer
under Article 171. In cases of falsification, the Supreme Court have interpreted that the criminal
intent to pervert the truth is lacking in cases showing that (1) the accused did not benefit from the
falsification; and (2) no damage was caused either to the government or to a third person. The
obvious intent of Alid in altering the PAL Ticket - to remedy his liquidation of cash advance with the
correct date of his rescheduled travel - the Supreme Court find no malice on his part when he
falsified the document. , thus they cannot justly convict Alid of falsification of a commercial
document under paragraph 1 of Article 172.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y
PILAIS AND MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN
G.R. No. 234156
January 07, 2019

The Chief of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) received a
report regarding the sale of dangerous drugs by a certain "Manu" in Barangay Cembo, Makati City
and its nearby areas. As such, a buy-bust operation was planned and after coordination with the
PDEA a buybust team was formed wherein PO3 Luisito Marcelo was designated as the poseur-
buyer and PO1 Darwin Catabay as back-up. PO3 Marcelo handed appellant Oliva the marked
money after the latter demanded payment. Appellant Oliva then showed PO3 Marcelo four (4)
transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance and asked the latter to choose one.
Meanwhile, two (2) other persons, appellants Barangot and Manalastas were also at the target
area to buy shabu. Appellants Barangot and Manalastas, and PO3 Marcelo each took one sachet
from the four sachets that appellant Oliva showed. Subsequently, PO3 Marcelo grabbed appellants
Oliva and Barangot and, thereafter, PO1 Catabay appeared and arrested appellant Manalastas.
Eventually, appellants Oliva, Barangot and Manalastas were arrested and brought to the barangay
hall where an inventory was conducted and on the basis thereof, an inventory report was prepared.
The confiscated items were then marked and photographed, and a request for laboratory
examination was accomplished and the seized items were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The substance found inside the sachets were all tested positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Upon arraignment, appellants, with the
assistance of counsel, entered pleas of "not guilty" on all charges. All appellants used denial as a
defense. The RTC found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged
against them - Article II, R.A. No. 9165. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC.

Issue: WON the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crimes charged
despite of the non-compliance of the police officers with Section 21 of RA No. 9165

Held: Yes. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 ensure an unbroken chain of custody. Non-observance
of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or confiscation is
invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and could prove
that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. The absence of a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory of the seized
items was not justifiably explained by the prosecution. A review of the Transcript of Stenographic
Notes does not yield any testimony from the arresting officers as to the reason why there was no
representative from the DOJ or the media. The only one present to witness the inventory and the
marking was an elected official, Barangay Captain Evelyn Villamor. Neither was there any
testimony to show that any attempt was made to secure the presence of the required witness.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs MYRNA GAYOSO y ARGUELLES
G.R. No. 206590
March 27, 2017

On the version of the prosecution, PI Barber of the PNP Guiuan Police Station directed SP03 De
Dios to conduct a surveillance on appellant after receiving several reports that she was peddling
prohibited drugs. 3 weeks later, SP03 De Dios confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in
illegal drug activities. PI Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to
implementing the search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a "confirmatory test-buy"
designating SP03 De Dios as poseur-buyer. The sale was consummated when appellant took the
marked money from SP03 De Dios after giving him a sachet of shabu. SP03 De Dios immediately
informed PI Barber by text message about the successful "confirmatory test-buy". PI Barber
instructed SP03 De Dios and the civilian asset to summon the Barangay Chairman to witness the
search of the house. When he arrived together with a kagawad and a media representative, SP03
Salamida read the search warrant to appellant. The team found 7 sachets of shabu and several
drug paraphernalia. An inventory of seized items was prepared and the same was signed by the
Barangay Chairman, P02 Isip, SP04 Bandoy, and appellant. The sachets of shabu were brought to
the PDEA then to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination. The results of the
examination verified that the seized sachets contained shabu.

Appellant denied the charges against her. On the version of the appellant, she claimed that
somebody forcibly kicked the front door of her house and tried to break it open. When she opened
the door, PI Barber pushed her aside and told his companions to move quickly. She maintained
that the search warrant was shown to her only after an hour and that the sachets of shabu were
planted. She argued that the police officers fabricated the charges against her since her family had
a quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero regarding the fence separating their
houses..

Issue: WON the appellant is guilty of unauthorized sale and possession of shabu

Held: No. The chain of custody of evidence was not established. The prosecution failed to
establish the charges of illegal sale and possession of shabu against her due to the gaps in the
chain of custody and the assailable integrity of the evidence in view of non-compliance with
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was
established at all. What we have here are individual links with breaks in-between which could not
be seamlessly woven or tied together. Aside from the failure of the prosecution to establish an
unbroken chain of custody, another procedural lapse casts farther uncertainty on the identity and
integrity of the subject shabu. This refers to the non-compliance by the arresting officers with the
most basic procedural safeguards relative to the custody and disposition of the seized item under
Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA NANGCAS
G.R. No. 218806
June 13, 2018

Judith and AAA was at xxx when they saw her uncle Junjun Singane and aunt Marites Simene with
Nangcas. The latter approached them and asked if they wanted to work.Interested, Judith brought
Nangcas to ask permission from her parents and Nangcas informed Judith's parents she work as a
house helper at Camella Homes in Cagayan de Oro City. Nangcas also went to AAA’s (14)
residence to meet her parents. AAA's sister CCC and their cousin BBB became interested as well.
After the girls had packed their things, Nangcas brought them to Camella Homes. The alleged
employer was not there, so Nangcas informed them that they had to go to Cogo and instructed
them to board a van as they would proceed to Iligan City where the employer was. Upon reaching
their destination, it was only then that Nangcas told them that they would be working as house
helpers in Marawi. The girls complained that their agreement was only to work at Camella Homes
in Cagayan de Oro but Nangcas told them that the previous employer is no longer looking for
helpers and that it was in Marawi that they were needed. The girls wanted to go home but they
didn't have any money. The recruits worked in Marawi for more than a month. They were
threatened not to go out or attempt to escape or else, the soldiers would kill them. Judith was able
to call her father informing him of her whereabouts and immediately went to report the incident and
seek assistance to rescue her daughter and 3 other minors. The police officers successfully
rescued the 4 girls. The parents of the recruited girls filed the instant action against Nangcas.

Issue: WON Nangcas is guilty for qualified trafficking in persons

Held: Yes. Pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 9208, the crime committed by Nangcas was qualified
trafficking, as it was committed in a large scale and three (3) of her victims were under 18 years of
age. Nangkas employed fraud and deception in order to bring the victims to Marawi City. The
testimonies of Judith and three (3) other minor victims established that Nangcas employed
deception and fraud in gaining both the victims and their parents' trust and confidence. Deceit is
the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury; while fraud is every kind
of deception whether in the form of insidious machinations, manipulations, concealments or
misrepresentations, for the purpose of leading another party into error and thus execute a
particular act.
PEOPLE OF THE :PHILIPPINES vs. SHIRLEY A. CASIO
G.R. No. 211465
December 3, 2014

International Justice Mission (IJM), a nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police in
order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Chief PSI George Ylanan,
SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso
composed the team of police operatives. PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys,
pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. Accused noticed them and
called their attention to offer service. Accused returned with AAA and BBB, private complainants
and offered service cost of P500 each. As accused counted the money, PO1 Veloso gave PSI
Ylanan a missed call. This was their pre-arranged signal. The rest of the team proceeded to Room
24, arrested accused, and informed her of her constitutional rights. The police confiscated the
marked money from accused. AAA stated that she knew accused was a pimp because AAA would
usually see her pimping girls to customers and accused solicited her services for a customer.

Issue: WON the accused violated Republic Act No. 9208 Human Trafficking

Held: Yes. Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 was amended by Republic Act No. 10364. Under
Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the
following acts:
(1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders;"
(2) The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of
the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person"
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms
of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs"
HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 162059
January 22, 2008

Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-
Cebu. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a
one-year term. Petitioner discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in
UP Diliman. Petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). President Estrada gave
P15,000,000 to the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The source of the
funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President. The renovation of Vinzons Hall
Annex failed to materialize. The succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare Bugayong, and Christine
Jill De Guzman, Secretary General of the KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of student
councils within the state university, consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds
and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, after due investigation, found
probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa. Petitioner moved
to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over
the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent. Petitioner also
argued that it was President Estrada, not the government, that was duped. She posited that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person. As a student regent, she was not a public
officer since she merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their
positions in an ex officio capacity. She addsed that she was a simple student and did not receive
any salary as a student regent. She further contended that she had no power or authority to
receive monies or funds.

Issue: WON
(a) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa;
(b) petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees;
(c) the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office;
(d) the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government.

Held:
a. No. R.A. No. 3019, as amended, defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their
penalties. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa. Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office. R.A. No. 3019
is a penal statute approved on August 17, 1960. The said law represses certain acts of public
officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto.
b. No. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this category.
c. No. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the Information.
Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office. An investment in an individual of
some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit
of the public makes one a public officer. The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in line
with Article XIV of the Constitution. UP performs a legitimate governmental function. Moreover, UP
is maintained by the Government and it declares no dividends and is not a corporation created for
profit.
d. No. It is averred that "petitioner requested the amount of P15,000,000 from the Office of the
President, and the latter relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave
and delivered to said accused the said amount.
RUBIN TAD-Y y BABOR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 148862
August 11, 2005

Engineer Rubin Tad-y, Structural Analyst and Engineer Nestor Velez, Building Inspector, both of the
Office of the City Engineer (OCE), Bacolod City, were charged with direct bribery under Article 210
of the Revised Penal Code. the herein accused, public officers, being then engineers at the City
Engineer’s Office, Bacolod City, with corrupt intent and motivated with pecuniary interest for
themselves, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously receive and accept marked
money in the amount of P4,000 from Julio Encabo, electrical contractor and duly-authorized
representative of Mildred Wong, offended party and owner of Atrium Building located at Gonzaga
Street, Bacolod City, in an entrapment operation conducted by the PNP Criminal Investigation
Service Command at Andre’s Bakeshop, Bacolod City, which amount was earlier solicited by said
accused from the offended party in exchange for the signing/approval of permit for building
occupancy of the building owned by the offended party, the signing/approval of said building permit
is in connection with the performance of the official duties of said accused as engineers in the
Office of the City Engineer, Bacolod City, in violation of the aforementioned law. Velez and Tad-y
were also charged with violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Issue: WON the accused committed direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

Held: No. The Court rules that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of petitioner Rubin Tad-y of
the crime charged. The Court is convinced that the findings of the MTC, the RTC and the CA, on
the substantial matters at hand, are absurd and arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence on record.
The prosecution is mandated to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the
felony and that the petitioner is the perpetrator thereof. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt for
the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Direct bribery has the following essential elements:

1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view
to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute
a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to
do; and
4. the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties.
RENE P. PONDEVIDA vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. Nos. 160929-31
August 16, 2005

Based on the submitted cashbook of Pondevida, the state auditors dicovered that the Pondevida
had a shortage of P1,176,580.59. Thus, 3 informations for malversation of public funds through
falsification of commercial documents relating to the checks disbursements were file in the
Sandiganbayan against Mayor Amigable, Pondevida, and three private individuals, namely, Victor
Grande, Norma Tiu and Glenn Celis. Allegedly, Amicable and Pondevida, public officers, conniving
with one Victor Grande, a private individual and proprietor of VN Grande Enterprises, falsified a
commercial document consisting of a check of Land Bank of the Philippines, with VN Grande
Enterprises as the payee, by making it appear therein that the municipality of Badiangan has some
accounts payable to VN Grande Enterprises for some purchases. Sandiganbayan convicted Rene
Pondevida, the Municipal Treasurer of Badiangan, Iloilo, of 3 count of the complex crime of
malversation of public funds through falsification of commercial documents. Amigable and Grande
and the Mayor were acquitted.

Issue: WON the accused committed complex offense of Malversation of Public Funds thru
Falsification of commercial document.

Held: Yes. The essential elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code are the following:
(a) That the offender be a public officer.
(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.
(c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable.
(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them.

In the present case, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that, by his overt acts of drawing and
issuing the checks to the order of Victor Grande, Glenn Celis and Norma Tiu, they were able to
encash the checks. A public officer may be liable for malversation even if he does not use public
property or funds under his custody for his personal benefit, but consents to the taking thereof by
another person, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted such taking.
MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 184908
July 3, 2013

Witness Major Eligio T. Balao, Jr testified as Disbursing Officer at the 22nd Finance Service Unit
(FSU), Presidential Security Group (PSG), Malacañang Park, Manila. His commanding officer,
Major Cantos, called him to his office and informed him that the money he (Major Cantos) was
handling, the Special Duty Allowance for the month of December, and other Maintenance
Operating Expenses in the amount of more or less P3 Million was missing from his custody.
Shocked, he asked Major Cantos where he kept the money, to which the latter replied that he
placed it in the steel cabinet inside his room. He then inquired why Major Cantos did not use the
safety vault, but Major Cantos did not reply. Major Balao further testified that Major Cantos asked
him to get a screwdriver so he went out of the office and got one from his vehicle. He gave the
screwdriver to Major Cantos, who used it to unscrew the safety vault. Then, he left the office. Major
Cantos instructed him to go to the house of Major Mendoza in Taguig to get the safety vault’s
combination number. However, Major Mendoza was not around. When he returned to the office,
NBI personnel took his fingerprints together with all the personnel of the 22nd FSU. Col. Espinelli
tried to force him to admit that he took the money, but he maintained that he was not the one who
took it. In his defense, Major Cantos testified that he was assigned as the Commanding Officer of
the 22nd FSU of the PSG, Malaca–ang Park, Manila. He received a check from Director Aguas in
the amount of P1,975,000 representing the Special Allowance of PSG personnel. He placed the
money in a duffel bag and kept it inside the steel cabinet in his office together with the P1,295,000
that was earlier also entrusted to him by Gen. Diaz. He placed the money inside the steel cabinet
because he was allegedly previously informed by Major Mendoza, that the safety vault was
defective. He was also aware that all personnel of the 22nd FSU had unrestricted access to his
office during office hours. On the following day, he inspected the steel cabinet and discovered that
the duffel bag which contained the money was missing.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of malversation of funds?

Held: Yes. In convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites the presumption in Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states that the failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to
personal uses. The presumption is, of course, rebuttable if petitioner is able to present
adequate evidence to overcome his evidence of guilt. In this case, however, petitioner failed to
explain the missing funds in his account and to restitute the amount upon demand..

The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties
3.That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and
4.That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
HERMOSO ARRIOLA and MELCHOR RADAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 165711
June 30, 2006

DENR Forest Rangers Mandia and Ferriol, Senior Inspector Alonzo, the team leader of Task Force
Kalikasan together with the Chief of Police of Magdiwang, Romblon SPO3 Ramal and some other
police officers, confiscated 44 pieces of illegally sawn lumber totaling 1,174 board feet with an
estimated value of P17,611.20. Mandia scaled the lumber and made notches on most of the pieces
before issuing the seizure receipt and turning over its custody to petitioner Arriola in the presence
of petitioner Radan. Arriola acknowledged receipt thereof and signed accordingly. Mandia
subsequently discovered the lumber missing. He went back to Barangay Dulangan accompanied
by several police officers and Foresters Gerardo Sabigan and Glenn Tansiongco. They requested
petitioners to turn over custody of the confiscated lumber but the latter claimed that the same were
taken away without their knowledge. Subsequently, petitioners produced lumber and claimed that
these were the ones they recovered. Upon closer inspection however, Mandia noted that the
lumber produced by petitioners were different from those previously confiscated. The subsequent
investigation conducted by Mandia together with Forester and Officer-in-Charge Sabigan, SPO1
Fabrique, Jr., and some members of the Multi-Sectoral Forest Protection Committee showed that
the missing lumber was actually hauled to and used in the Magdiwang Cockpit where petitioner
Arriola is a stockholder.

Issue: WON petitioners Hermoso Arriola and Melchor Radan are guilty of Malversation of Public
Property thru Negligence or Abandonment.

Held: Yes. Petitioner Hermoso Arriola is found guilty. Petitioner Melchor Radan is acquitted for
insufficiency of evidence. Arriola knowingly and willingly signed the seizure receipt for the
confiscated articles. By affixing his signature in said document, he undertook to safeguard the
lumber on behalf of the Government. Even without the seizure receipt where he signed as
custodian for the said lumber, Arriola was accountable therefor because he was the one who
originally took possession of it on behalf of the government.

The following essential elementsmalversation are:

a.] The offender is a public officer;
b.] He has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;
c.] The funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and
d.] He has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment
or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or property.

With respect to petitioner Radan, the trial court erred in judging him liable as an accessory.In all
criminal cases, mere speculations cannot substitute for proof in establishing the guilt of the
accused.
EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 136266
August 13, 2001

On October 15, 1991, accused EUTIQUIO PELIGRINO y ALAAN, a public officer being then an
Examiner II of Region IV-A of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and as such was tasked among
others, to examine or investigate Books of Accounts for Income and Business tax returns earned
by professionals (medical practitioners) in order to determine their compliance and/or tax
deficiencies and to collect payments thereof, while in the performance of his official duties as such
public officer, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally demand the amount of
P200,000.00 from Dr. Antonio N. Feliciano, a practicing genetology, found by the accused to have
incurred an alleged deficiency income tax assessment of P500,000.00 for the calendar years
1988-1989, received P200,000.00, P51,858.57 was in the form of Prudential Bank Check No.
914077 dated October 15, 1991 payable to the Bureau of Internal Revenue as full payment of Dr.
Felicianos tax liabilities and the remaining balance to be appropriated to himself, to the damage
and prejudice of Dr. Antonio Feliciano in the amount of P148,141.43 and the government in the
amount equal to the deficiency income tax due it.

Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that petitioner demanded and received the
envelope with the boodle money

Held: Yes. The elements of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019 were summed up in
Mejia v. Pamaran:
(1) the offender is a public officer
(2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or a benefit
(3) on behalf of the offender or any other person
(4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government
(5) in which the public officer, in .an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.

Petitioner is a BIR examiner assigned to the Special Project Committee tasked "x x x to undertake
verification of tax liabilities of various professionals particularly doctors within the jurisdiction of
Revenue Region No. 4-A, Manila x x x." Since the subject transaction involved the reassessment
of taxes due from private complainant, the right of petitioner to intervene in his official capacity is
undisputed. Therefore, elements (1), (4) and (5) of the offense are present. Petitioner opened the
envelope containing the boodle money, looked inside, closed it and placed the envelope beside
him on the table. Such reaction did not signify refusal or resistance to bribery, especially
considering that he was not supposed to accept any cash from the taxpayer. A person found in
possession of a thing taken from the recent execution of a wrongful act is presumed to be both the
taker and the doer of the whole act.
MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. Nos. 146368-69
October 23, 2003

The Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang, Northern Samar, passed Resolution No. 93-132, 5 authorizing
the municipality to borrow heavy equipment from the Philippine Army’s 53rd Engineering Battalion,
to be utilized in the improvement of Laoang’s Bus Terminal. Resolution No. 93-132 likewise
mandated the municipal government to shoulder the expenses for fuel, oil, and the subsistence
allowances of the heavy equipment operators for the duration of the project. The borrowed Army
equipment was diverted by the petitioner, who was then the town mayor 6 of Laoang, to develop
some of her private properties in Rawis, Laoang, Northern Samar. A concerned citizen and ex-
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang, Poso, Sr., filed a complaint against petitioner and 9
other municipal officers 7 with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), Visayas, for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Acting on the complaint, Graft Investigation Officer Alfonso S.
Sarmiento of the OMB ordered herein petitioner and her co-accused to submit their respective
counter-affidavits and other controverting evidence.

Issue: WON the accused violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Held: Yes. The elements of the offense charged in the assailed information are as follows:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for a person any government permit or
license;
(3) he directly or indirectly requested or received from said person any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and
(4) he requested or received the gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in consideration
for help given or to be given.

In the instant case, the court find that the information in Crim. Case No. 23848 alleged that: (1)
accused Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Laoang, (2)
committed the crime charged in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of her
official functions, (3) did request or receive directly or indirectly, a gift, present or other pecuniary or
material benefit in the form of five drums of diesel fuel, for herself or for another, from spouses Mr.
and Mrs. Chupo Lao, persons for whom accused Mendoza-Ong, (4) has secured or obtained, or
will secure or obtain, a Municipal Government permit or license anent the operation of the bus
company, JB Lines, owned by said spouses, in consideration for help given or to be given by the
accused.
People vs Tibon
G.R. No. 188320
June 29, 2010

Accused-appellant and his wife Gina had two children, KenKen (3) and Reguel (2). Due to financial
difficulties, Gina went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper, leaving accused-appellant with
custody of their 2 children. After some time, accused-appellant heard from his sister who was also
working in Hong Kong that Gina was having an affair with another man. After the revelation, he
was spotted drinking a lot and was seen hitting his 2 children. On the night of December 12, 1998,
accused-appellant's mother and his siblings, went to his room and saw the 2 children appeared
lifeless and bore wounds on their bodies. Accused-appellant tried to end his life but he and his 2
children, were rushed to Mary Johnston Hospital by his siblings and neighbors. The 2 children,
however, could no longer be revived. Gina immediately flew back to Manila knowing about the
incident. After being informed by SPO3 Bagkus of his constitutional rights, Tibon confided that he
was despondent and voluntarily admitted to stabbing KenKen and Reguel. Tibon denied the
charges against him and raised insanity as defense.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not considering the exempting circumstance of
insanity in favor of the accused-appellant.

Held: No. The requirements for a finding of insanity have not been met by the defense. As the
appellate court noted, Tibon's unusual behavior prior to and after he committed parricide do not
meet the stringent standards on an insanity plea as required by this Court. The presumption of
sanity has not been overcome.

Parricide is committed when:

(1) a person is killed;
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused;
(3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.

This appeal admits that parricide has indeed been committed. The defense has unsatisfactorily
shown that Tibon was insane when he stabbed his two young sons. Anyone who pleads the
exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing
evidence. There is a vast difference between a genuinely insane person and one who has worked
himself up into such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he
does.
People vs Paycana
G.R. No. 179035
April 16, 2008

Appellant, who worked as a butcher, came home from the slaughter house carrying his tools of
trade, a knife, a bolo, and a sharpener. For reasons known to him alone, appellant stabbed his wife
14 times. Tito, whose house is at back of appellant’s house, heard his daughter shouting for help.
When he arrived, he saw his daughter lying prostrate near the door and her feet were trembling.
But seeing appellant, who was armed, he stepped back. Angelina told Tito by the window that
appellant had held her mother’s neck and stabbed her. Appellant claimed that he wrested the
weapon from Lilybeth after she stabbed him first. According to him, they had an altercation on the
evening of 25 November 2002 because he saw a man coming out from the side of their house and
when he confronted his wife about the man, she did not answer. On the following morning, he told
her that they should live separately. As appellant got his things and was on his way out of the door,
Lilybeth stabbed him. But he succeeded in wresting the knife from Lilybeth. And he stabbed her.
He added that he was not aware of the number of times he stabbed his wife because he was then
dizzy and lots of blood was coming out of his wound.

Issue: WON appellant is guilty of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion

Held: Yes. The case is governed by the first clause of Article 48 because by a single act, that of
stabbing his wife, appellant committed the grave felony of parricide as well as the less grave felony
of unintentional abortion. A complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies.

The crime of parricide is committed when:

(1) a person is killed;
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and
(3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.

The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of
parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased
would be the marriage certificate.

The elements of unintentional abortion are as follows:

(1) that there is a pregnant woman;
(2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion;
(3) that the violence is intentionally exerted; and
(4) that as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled
therefrom. In the crime of infanticide, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, that
is, capable of independent existence.

In the present case, the unborn fetus was also killed when the appellant stabbed Lilybeth several
times.
People vs Oyanib y Mendoza
G.R. Nos. 130634-35
March 12, 2001

Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza and Tita T. Oyanib were married and had 2 children, Desilor
and Julius. Due to marital differences, Manolito and Tita separated, with Manolito keeping custody
of their 2 children. Tita rented a room at the 2nd floor of the house of Edgardo Lladas, not far from
the place where her family lived. Despite their separation, Manolito tried to win Tita back and
exerted all efforts towards reconciliation for the sake of the children. Tita was very reluctant to
reconcile with Manolito. She flaunted her relationship with other men in front of Manolito. Manolito
confronted Tita and Jesus about this. They just ignored him; they even threatened to kill him. In the
evening of September 4, 1995, Manolito went to Tita's house to ask her to attend the school
meeting of their daughter in his behalf. He caught his wife Tita and Jesus having sexual
intercourse. Upon seeing him, Jesus kicked Manolito in the cheek. Manolito immediately stabbed
Jesus. In the commotion, Manolito stabbed Jesus, hitting him in the abdomen. Jesus fell down and
Manolito stabbed him again. Meanwhile, Tita stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken Tanduay
bottle. This angered Manolito and he stabbed Tita in the left breast. He stabbed her 3 more times
in different parts of her body. Tita fell near the lifeless body of her paramour. It was at this point that
Edgardo, the owner of the house Tita was renting, appeared from the ground floor and inquired
about what had happened. Manolito told Edgardo not to interfere because he had nothing to do
with it. Edgardo left the house and called the police. Meanwhile, the neighbors brought Tita to the
hospital. She died on the way to the hospital. Manolito left and stayed at the wake of his friend's
neighbor and went away to Zamboanga. While in Lentogan, he heard over radio DXIC that there
was a call for him to surrender. He heeded the call and gave himself up to the police authorities in
Precinct 2, Nonocan, Iligan City.

Issue: WON Manolito Oyanib is committed homicide and parricide

Held: No. Oyanib’s argument that he killed them both under the exceptional circumstances
provided in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code was found by the court as meritorious. Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the following essential elements for such a defense:
(1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person;
(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and
(3) that he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she
has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.

There is no question that the first element is present in the case at bar. Admittedly, accused-
appellant surprised his wife and her lover in the act of sexual intercourse.
People vs Abarca
G.R. No. 74433
September 14, 1987

Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The
illicit relationship apparently began while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar
examinations. The accused missed his itineraries that day so he decided to go home. Upon
reaching home, the accused found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual
intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got
his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped
and ran away. The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He went to the house of a
PC soldier, got an M-16 rifle, and went back to his house but he was not able to find his wife and
Koh there. He proceeded to the “mahjong session” as it was the “hangout” of Kingsley Koh. The
accused found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three times with his rifle hitting Koh,
as well as Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room where Koh
was playing mahjong. Kingsley Koh died instantaneously. Arnold Amparado was hospitalized and
operated on in the kidney to remove a bullet Arnold’s wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in the
hospital as she was hit by bullet fragments.

Issue: WON the trial court erred

1. in entering a judgment of conviction under Art 247 of the RPC
2. and the liability of the accused-appellant for the physical injuries suffered by Lina
Amparado and Arnold Amparado

Held:
1. Yes. Article 247 prescribes the following elements:
(1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person; and
(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.

These elements are present in this case. The shooting must be understood to be the continuation
of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. It only requires that the death caused be the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the
basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors.

2. The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although
as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule
presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. The accused-appellant was not committing
murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional
circumstances is not murder. This does not mean, however, that the accused-appellant is totally
free from any responsibility. Granting the fact that he was not performing an illegal act when he
fired shots at the victim, he cannot be said to be entirely without fault. The court hold him liable
under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less serious physical injuries through
simple imprudence or negligence.
People vs Beduya
G.R. No. 175315
August 9, 2010

At around 11:45 p.m., Bughao was carrying a torch on his way home from the birthday celebration
of his cousin when Elizer and Ric suddenly appeared. Ric went around him while his brother Elizer
pointed a knife. Bughao shouted at them to ask why they wanted to hurt him but the Beduya
brothers did not reply and continued their assault. Bughao then scrambled for safety and ran
towards the yard of victim Acope, Sr. and hid in a dark area. The victim and his son Acope, Jr. were
roused from their sleep by the noise went outside while his son peeped through the window. The
victim saw Bughao and said that Elizer pointed a knife at him. He hid and while hiding, he saw the
Beduya brothers approach the victim after they were advised to go home since it was already late.
The Beduya brothers did not heed the advice and instead Ric slapped the victim while Elizer
stabbed him. The victim retaliated by striking them with a piece of wood he got hold of. Elizer and
Ric ran away. Acope, Jr. immediately proceeded and sought help. Their Barangay Captain, who
responded saw the victim lying on the ground and bleeding from a stab wound. The victim told him
that, he was stabbed by Elizer. On the next day, the victim died due to "septic and hypovolemic
shock secondary to stabbed wound."

Issue: WON the trial court erred in considering the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength

Held: No. The fact that two persons attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime
was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the
aggressors and the victim. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this
circumstance. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage or
that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength
means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked. Elizer Beduya is held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
People vs Comadre
G.R. No. 153559
June 8, 2004

At around 7:00 in the evening, Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and
Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father.
Jaime Agbanlog was seated on the banister of the terrace listening to the conversation of the
companions of his son. As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants
Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking. The three stopped in front of the
house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed an object which fell on the roof
of the terrace. Appellants immediately fled by scaling the fence of a nearby school. The object,
which turned out to be a hand grenade, exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Robert
Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were hit by shrapnel
and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the San Jose General Hospital in
Lupao, Nueva Ecija for medical treatment. However, Robert Agbanlog died before reaching the
hospital. Denying the charges against them, appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and
Danilo Lozano claimed that they were at their own homes when the incident happened.

Issue: WON the trial court erred when it imposed on the accused-appellants the supreme penalty
of death despite the evident lack of the quantum of evidence to convict them of the crime charged
beyond reasonable doubt

Held: Yes. A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must be
shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of
a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship. The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have any
participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be set free. There being no
conspiracy, only Antonio Comadre must answer for the crime. Under the Article 48 (complex
crimes), when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period irrespective of
the presence of modifying circumstances, including the generic aggravating circumstance of
treachery in this case. Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum penalty for the most
serious crime (murder) is death. The trial court, therefore, correctly imposed the death penalty.
Antonio Comadre is convicted of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano are
ACQUITTED for lack of evidence to establish conspiracy, and they are hereby ordered immediately
released from confinement unless they are lawfully held in custody for another cause.
de Guzman vs People
G.R. No. 178512
November 26, 2014

At about 10pm, Alexander Flojo was fetching water below his rented house when suddenly Alfredo
De Guzman , the brother of his land lady, Lucila Bautista hit him on the nape. Alexander informed
Lucila about what Alfredo did to him. Lucila apologized to Alexander and told the latter to just go
up. Alexander obliged and went upstairs and took a rest. At around 12:00 to 12:15 A.M., Alexander
went down and continued to fetch water. While pouring water into a container, Alfredo suddenly
appeared in front of Alexander and stabbed him on his left face and chest. Cirilino Bantaya, a son-
in-law of Alexander, saw the latter bleeding on the left portion of his body and begging for help.
Alexander then told Cirilino that Alfredo stabbed him. Cirilino immediately loaded Alexander into his
motorcycle and brought him to the Mandaluyong City Medical Center. Upon arrival at the hospital,
the doctors immediately rendered medical assistance to Alexander. Alexander stayed in the
emergency room of said hospital for about 30 to 40 minutes. Then, he was brought to the second
floor of the said hospital where he was confined for two days. Thereafter, Alexander was
transferred to the Polymedic General Hospital where he was subjected for further medical
examination. On the other hand, Alfredo denied having stabbed Alexander.

Issue: Was the petitioner properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide?

Held: Yes. The elements of frustrated homicide are:

(1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his
assault;
(2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance;
and
(3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, is present.

The essential element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the
victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. The medical records
indicate, indeed, that Alexander sustained two stab wounds, specifically, one on his upper left
chest and the other on the left side of his face. The petitioner’s attack was unprovoked with the
knife used therein causing such wounds, thereby belying his submission, and firmly proving the
presence of intent to kill. There is also to be no doubt about the wound on Alexander’s chest being
sufficient to result into his death were it not for the timely medical intervention.
People vs Caballero
G.R. Nos. 149028-30
April 2, 2003

In an afternoon of August 03, 1994, Caballero brothers Armando, Marciano and Robito were in the
house of their other brother Ricardo having drinking sessions in the Mondragon compound. By
7pm of that same day, Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Bacurna arrived in the sari-sari store of Wilma
Broce which was across the Mondragon compound. Later on, Armando angrily approached
Eugene, and the latter insisted that there is no quarrel between them. Armando left and after
minutes, his brothers joined him, armed with knives. Armando grabbed Eugene and when the latter
resisted, the other Caballeros ganged up on him. Armando hit him with the wooden support of
clothesline and Eugene was stabbed on the chest three times. Arnold tried to help but he was also
stabbed on the left side of his body and twice on his forearm. Leonilo Broce, nephew of Wilma,
rushed to help but was also stabbed on the chest by Robito. Eugene and Leonildo eventually died
from the sustained wounds. The Caballero borthers, except for Robito, were convicted of murder
for the deaths of Eugene and Leonildo, and frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold. The
appellants insists that the decision is incorrect

Issue: WON the appellants are guilty of Frustrated Murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6
and Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by treachery.

Held: Yes. The appellants are guilty of frustrated murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6,
first paragraph of the Revised Penal Code. A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The
essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

The appellants are guilty as co-principals by direct participation of murder, qualified by treachery. In
order that treachery may be considered as a qualifying circumstance, the prosecution is burdened
to prove that (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or
consciously adopted. The attack on the hapless Eugene was swift and unannounced. Undeniably,
the appellants killed Eugene with treachery.
People vs Tuniaco
G.R. No. 185710
January 19, 2010

Aleman, in the course of a drinking accused Datulayta and Tuniaco, Dondon Cortez threatened to
report their illegal activities to the police unless they gave him money for his forthcoming marriage.
According to Aleman, Datulayta and Tuniaco had already planned to kill Cortez for making the
same threats and now they decided to do it. They got Cortez drunk then led him out supposedly to
get the money he needed. The 3 accused brought Cortez to Apopong near the dump site and
Aleman turned on Cortez and stabbed him on the stomach. Datulayta drew out his M16 pistol and
shot Cortez on the head and handed it over to Aleman who fired another shot on Cortez's head.
Tuniaco used the same gun to pump some bullets into Cortez's body, then covered him with rice
husks. The substance of Aleman’s statement was explained by Tabucon, then signed it in the
presence of Atty. Besinga. The police brought Aleman to the City Prosecutor's Office where he
swore to his statement before an assistant city prosecutor. In the afternoon, Datulayta and Aleman
led Tabucon, the city prosecutor, and a police inspector, to the dump site where they left their
victim's body. All 3 accused, assisted by Atty. Besinga, pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
Accused Tuniaco filed a demurrer to evidence which the Court granted, resulting in the dismissal of
the case against him. On being re-arraigned at his request, accused Datulayta pleaded guilty to the
lesser offense of Homicide. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment of 6 years and one day
and to pay P50,000.00 to the victim's family. The trial court had Aleman subjected to psychiatric
examination at the Davao Mental Hospital but he escaped and later recaptured. When trial in the
case resumed, Aleman's new PAO lawyer raised the defense of insanity wchich prompted the court
to require the Provincial Jail Warden to issue a certification regarding Aleman's behavior and
mental condition while in jail to determine if he was fit to stand trial. The warden complied, stating
that Aleman had been observed to have good mental condition and did not commit any infraction
while in jail. Aleman during the taking of his extrajudicial confession, however, recanted what he
said to the police during the trial. He testified that some police officers took him from his aunt's
house and brought him to the Lagao police station where he was asked to admit having taken part
in the murder of Cortez. When he refused, they tortured him until he agreed to sign a document
admitting his part in the crime. Accused Aleman also testified that he could not remember having
been assisted by Atty. Besinga during the police investigation. He even denied ever knowing the
lawyer. Aleman further denied prior association with accused Tuniaco and Datulayta. He said that
he met them only at the city jail where they were detained for the death of Cortez.

Issue: WON
a) the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and
b) whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.

Held:
a. Yes. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body, foundation, or substance of a crime. The
evidence of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that murder has
been committed. Corpus delicti has two elements: (a) that a certain result has been established, for
example, that a man has died and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for it. That
physical confirmation, coming after his testimony of the gruesome murder, sufficiently establishes
the corpus delicti of the crime.
b. Yes. Confession to be admissible must be a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing. These requirements were met
here.
People vs Unlagada
G.R. No. 141080
September 17, 2002

On January 27, 1989 at around 9:00 in the evening Danilo Laurel left his house together with
Edwin Selda, a visitor from Bacolod City, to attend a public dance at Negros Occidental. After 2
hours, Danilo asked Edwin to take a short break from dancing to attend to their personal
necessities outside the dance hall. Once outside, they decided to have a drink and bought beer.
Not long after, Danilo, halfway on his first bottle, left to look for a place to relieve himself. According
to Edwin, he was only about three meters from Danilo who was relieving himself when a short,
dark bearded man walked past him, approached Danilo and stabbed him at the side. Danilo
retaliated by striking his assailant with half- filled bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a group of
men numbering of 7, ganged up on Danilo and hit him with assorted weapons. Edwin, who was
petrified, could only watch helplessly as Danilo was being mauled and overpowered by his
assailants. Danilo fell to the ground and died before he could be given medical attention. Edwin
Selda confirmed the identity of the suspect who was then in the custody of the police. Thereat, he
executed an a!davit and a!rmed before the police authorities, that the man under detention,
Anecito Unlagada, was the same man who stabbed his friend Danilo. The accused assails his
conviction.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Unlagada guilty of murder instead of
tumultuous a"ray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code?

Held: No, a tumultuous a"ray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons who
engage in a confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed or wounded
and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case is between a distinct
group of individuals , one of whom was su!ciently identified as the principal author of the killing,
as against a common, particular victim. It is not, as the defense suggests, a―tumultuous a"ray
within the meaning of Art. 251 of The Revised Penal Code, that is, a melee or free- for- all, where
several persons not comprising definite or identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and
disorganized manner, resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them. Verily, the attack was
qualified by treachery. The deceased was relieving himself, fully unaware of any danger to his
person when suddenly the accused walked past witness Edwin Selda, approached the victim and
stabbed him at the side. There was hardly any risk at all to accused-appellant; the attack was
completely without warning, the victim was caught by surprise, and given no chance to put up any
defense. Wherefore, the decision of conviction appealed from is a!rmed.
Wacoy vs People
G.R. No. 213792
June 22, 2015

According to prosecution witness Edward Benito (Benito), at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of
April 11, 2004, he was eating corn at a sari-sari store located at Bungis Ambongdolan, Tublay,
Benguet, when he heard a commotion at a nearby establishment. Upon checking what the ruckus
was all about, he saw his cousin, Elner Aro (Aro), already sprawled on the ground. While in that
position, he saw Wacoy kick Aro's stomach twice, after which, Wacoy picked up a rock to throw at
Aro but was restrained from doing so. As Aro stood up, Quibac punched him on the stomach,
causing him to collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, Aro was taken to the hospital. At the hospital,
Aro was diagnosed to be suffering from "blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the jejunum" and
was set for operation. However, Aro suffered cardiac arrest during the operation, and while he was
revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he lapsed into a coma after the operation. Due to
financial constraints, Aro was taken out of the hospital against the doctor's orders and eventually,
died the next day. In their defense, herein petitioners, Wacoy and Quibac, denied the charge
against them. They engaged in a fist fight. Quibac came over to pacify the two and told Wacoy to
go home.

Issue: WON the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide.

Held: Yes. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code with the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13 (3) of the same Code. Art. 249. Homicide. - Any
person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, without the attendance
of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of
homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

The elements of Homicide are the following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him
without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of
Parricide or Infanticide.
Dado vs People
G.R. No. 131421
November 18, 2002

On the night of May 25, 1992, the Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed three teams to
intercept cattle rustlers from Barangay Laguinding, Sultan Kudarat. The team, composed of
petitioner SPO4 Geromino Dado and CAFGU members Francisco Eraso, Alfredo Balinas, and
Rufo Alga, waited behind a large dike at Sitio Paitan, Sultan Kudarat. Alfredo Balinas and Rufo
Alga, who were both armed with M14 armalite rifles, positioned themselves between petitioner,
who was armed with a caliber .45 pistol, and accused Francisco Eraso, who was carrying an M16
armalite rifle. They were all facing southwards in a half-kneeling position and were about 2 arms
length away from each other. At around 11:00 of the same evening, the team saw somebody
approaching at a distance of 50 meters. Though it was a moonless night, they noticed that he was
half-naked. When he was about 5 meters away from the team, Alfredo Balinas noticed that
Francisco Eraso, who was on his right side, was making some movements. Balinas told Eraso to
wait, but before Balinas could beam his flash light, Eraso fired his M16 armalite rifle at the
approaching man. Immediately thereafter, petitioner, who was on the left side of Rufo Alga, fired a
single shot from his .45 caliber pistol. The victim shouted his identity as he fell on the ground. The
victim turned out to be Silvestre "Butsoy" Balinas, the nephew of Alfredo Balinas and not the cattle
rustler the team were ordered to intercept. Repentant of what he did, accused Eraso embraced
Alfredo Balinas saying that it was not intentional but an accident.

Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty for the crime of homicide

Held: No. the prosecution failed to prove that the metallic fragments found in the fatal wound of the
victim are particles of a .45 caliber bullet that emanated from the .45 caliber pistol fired by
petitioner. For this reason, the Court cannot in good conscience affirm his conviction for the crime
of homicide. Nevertheless, petitioner is not completely without liability. Absent an intent to kill in
firing the gun towards the victim, petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of
firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code.

The elements of this crime are:

(1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person; and
(2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person.
Arnulfo Jacaban vs People
G.R. No. 184355
March 23, 2015

Evidence for the prosecution established that on July 15, 1999, P/SInsp. Dueñas of the now
defunct PAOCTF filed an Application for Search Warrant before Branch 22 of the RTC, Cebu City,
to search the premises of [appellant's] residence at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City and seize 6
firearms. At about 12:45 in the morning of July 16, 1999, the search warrant was implemented by
P/S Insp. Dueñas as the team leader, SPO2 Mendoza, SPO2 Abellana. PO1 Jalagpas, PO3 Sarte
and other members of the PAOCTF. Before reaching appellant's house, the policemen invited 3
Brgy tanods from Guadalupe's Barangay outpost to accompany them to the house of the appellant.
Upon arrival, SPO2 Abellana served the search warrant to appellant and upon informing appellant
of the search warrant, he became angry and denied having committed any illegal activity. P/SInsp.
Dueñas assured appellant that he had nothing to worry about if the PAOCTF would not find
anything. The team proceeded to search the living room in the presence of 3 tanods and the
appellant himself. SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 placed in the ceiling. Appellant, who was at
the living room that time, rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2 Abellana but failed to get
hold of the gun. Other firearms and ammunitions were recovered from the searched premises. An
inventory was made at the living room of appellant in the presence of appellant himself, the
barangay tanods and other persons present during the search. After appellant and the witnesses
signed the inventory receipt, the team proceeded back to their office with appellant and the
confiscated items. Based on their office's master, appellant is not licensed to possess any kind of
firearm or ammunition.

Issue: WON the RTC erred in finding him guilty of the crime of violation of PD 1866, as amended
by RA 8294

Held: No. The prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under PD 1866
as amended by RA 8294. The existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions was
established through the testimony of PO3 Sarte. There was an inventory of the items seized which
was made in the presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily
signed the inventory receipt. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized items in open court. It was
convincingly proved that petitioner had constructive possession of the gun and the ammunitions,
coupled with the intent to possess the same. Even assuming that petitioner is not the owner of the
house where the items were recovered, the ownership of the house is not an essential element of
the crime under PD 1866 as amended.
People vs Capareda
G.R. No. 128363
May 27, 2004

Rizalyn Torres Lufera (13 yrs old) and her younger brother Ricardo Torres and their mother Jocelyn
Torres Lufera resided in the 2 storey house of the latter’s parents, the spouses Cariño and
Victorina Torres, in Cagayan de Oro City. The ground floor of the house had two bedrooms, one
occupied by Rizalyn’s grandparents and the other occupied by her three unnamed uncles who
were then still studying. Rizalyn, her mother and her younger brother Ricardo, occupied one of the
three rooms in the second floor. The appellant Emiliano Capareda was the brother-in-law of Cariño
Torres. The appellant, together with his family attended the interment of a family and stayed for
some time in the house of Cariño Torres. At around 8pm on June 10, 1992, Rizalyn was studying
her lessons, and the other occupants of the house are downstairs, the appellant entered the room
to get some things and to change his clothes. Rizalyn was shocked when suddenly, the appellant
held her by her shirt collar and poked his right clenched fist at her and warned her. He then pushed
her to the floor and laid on top of her. The appellant removed his short pants and briefs and pulled
down Rizalyn’s shorts and underwear. He spread her thighs, inserted his penis into her vagina and
made push and pull movements. Rizalyn felt severe pain in her vagina and cried. Satiated, the
appellant stood up and wiped his penis. He put on his briefs and short pants and left the room,
leaving the sobbing Rizalyn alone. She kept the shocking experience to herself because of the
appellant’s warning. The appellant raped Rizalyn again on June 12, 1992 and 2 more times in July
1992. The appellant sneaked upon Rizalyn while the latter was studying in her room and, while
holding a bolo, threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the matter to her mother.
Meanwhile, Jocelyn noticed that Rizalyn had not had her monthly menstruation. Jocelyn confronted
Rizalyn, who then confessed that the appellant had raped her on four separate occasions, in June
and July 1992, while she was alone in her room. Jocelyn was shocked at her daughter’s revelation.
Jocelyn brought Rizalyn to the Northern Mindanao Regional Training Hospital at Cagayan de Oro
City

Issue: WON the accused committed rape

Held: Yes. Under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code the essence of rape as
defined is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will. The appellant failed to show that Rizalyn
consented to have sexual intercourse with him. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the
carnal acts were done against her will. The "sweetheart defense" proffered by the appellant is
barren of factual consideration. The alleged "illicit love affair" angle appears to be a mere
fabrication of the appellant’s, to exculpate himself from the rape charges filed against him. Having
admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the complainant on the dates and times in question,
the appellant bears the burden of proving his affirmative defense by clear and convincing evidence.
People vs Wilson Dreu
G.R. No. 126282
June 20, 2000

Josephine Guevarra and several companions went to a dance in Rangas, Juban, Sorsogon. At
around one o'clock in the morning Josephine, with her aunt Leonora Diche and some friends,
decided to go home in Mabini, Casiguran, Sorsogon, about 2 km from Rangas. On their way,
Minda Dollesin, Josephine's close friend of 2 years, invited her to pass by Minda’s house.
Josephine accepted Minda's invitation so they proceeded to Minda's house, while the rest went
their separate ways. Instead of going to Minda's house, the 2 went to the house of a certain Victor
Guerrero where Minda had a small store. Minda said she wanted to get something from her store.
Minda went inside the store and told Josephine to wait outside. Moments later, a man whom
Josephine recognized as accused-appellant, came out of the store and covered Josephine's head
with a jacket laced with rugby which made her dizzy, making it easy for him to drag her a few
meters from the store and led to a grassy area where she was made to lie on the ground. Accused-
appellant then removed the jacket from Josephine's head and removed her pants. Josephine
wanted to fight back, but she felt weak and afraid. She tried to talk accused-appellant out but
accused-appellant paid no heed to her pleas, as he took off his pants. At this point, Josephine lost
consciousness. When she came to about 30 minutes later, she found her private parts bleeding.
She saw accused-appellant put on his pants and then leave. Josephine then put on her own pants
and went to the waiting shed by the roadside. She was weeping when her brother, Jessie
Guevarra, and the latter's companions found her. Jessie asked Josephine what happened to her
but, as the she was about to recount her ordeal, Minda Dollesin arrived together with Panny Dreu,
accused-appellant's brother. Minda told them that they should not involve her in the incident.
Jessie then took Josephine home. Later that morning, Josephine told her brother what had
happened to her. Jessie then reported the matter to their father, Pablo Guevarra, who lost no time
in reporting the incident to the authorities.

Issue: WON the accused employed threat and intimidation in committing rape.

Held: Yes. In People v. Barcelona: Even if indeed accused-appellant and complainant are
sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have
sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and,
worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust.” In People v.
Fraga, “The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the
victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried
out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual
assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical
injuries in the hands of the rapist. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of
proving resistance.”

In this case, accused-appellant covered Josephine's head with a jacket laced with rugby which
made her dizzy, making it easy for him to drag her to a secluded area and abuse her. He poked a
knife at her side. The nausea and fear not only prevented Josephine from putting up a resistance,
but even caused her to lose consciousness.
People vs Alberca
G.R. No. 217459
June 7, 2017

On September 7, 2000, at around 1 in the afternoon, AAA was on her way home from her
grandmother's house, the accused-appellant, her mother's live-in partner, dragged her towards the
Mabaguhan trees. Accused-appellant removed his short pants and then undressed her. She tried
to resist but he threatened to kill her with the long firearm that he was carrying at that time. He then
made her lie down, held her hands together, placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into
her vagina and made rapid push and pull movements. Thereafter, AAA went home and did not tell
anybody about the incident as accused-appellant threatened to kill her and her family. On January
4, 2001, at around seven o'clock in the morning, AAA was on her way to school with her brother
and classmates when they saw accused-appellant who ordered her to go with him to the forest.
AAA refused but accused-appellant· held her hands and made her walk ahead of him. When they
reached the forest, he dragged her inside the hut, took his short pants off, undressed her, made
her lie down, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made repeated push and pull movements.
Thereafter, he told her to go to school. AAA's brother and classmates told her mother that accused-
appellant brought AAA to the forest. This prompted CCC to bring AAA to the police station to report
the incident and to the hospital for an examination, where it was found out that AAA was no longer
a virgin. AAA was re-examined and found out that she was about four months pregnant. The child
was, however, delivered prematurely at seven months and died. Accused-appellant raised the
defense of denial and alibi, he further averred that AAA was ill-motivated in filing false charges of
rape against him because she wanted him and her mother to separate.

Issue: WON the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Qualified
Rape.

Held: Yes. Accused-appellant attacks AAA's credibility, averring that the facts and circumstances
narrated by AAA are improbable and questionable. The Court is not at all swayed by the arguments
of the accused-appellant. The Court is one with the RTC and CA in applying the jurisprudential
principle that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a
girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
was indeed committed. Accused-appellant's imputation of ill-motive to the young victim deserves
scant consideration. In People vs Corpuz, “Indeed, no woman, least of a child, will concoct a story
of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule
if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to
her.” Pitted against AAA's clear, convincing, and straightforward testimony, accused-appellant's
unsupported denial and alibi cannot prevail.
People vs Amarela and Racho
G.R. No. 225642-43
January 17, 2018

AAA, single, housekeeper and a resident of [XXX], Calinan, Davao City. On February 10, 2009, at
around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, she was watching a beauty contest with her aunt at Maligatong,
Baguio District, Calinan, Davao City. The contest was being held at a basketball court where a
make-shift stage was put up. The only lights available were those coming from the vehicles
around. She had the urge to urinate so she went to the comfort room beside the building of the
Maligatong Cooperative near the basketball court. She was not able to reach the comfort room
because Amarela suddenly pulled her. She was no match to the strength of Amarela who pulled
her under the stage of the day care center. He punched her in the abdomen which rendered her
weak then undressed her. She tried to resist him but he was stronger. He boxed her upper thigh
and she felt numb. He placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis inside her vagina and
made a push and pull movement. She shouted for help and then 3 men came to her rescue
Amarela fled. The 3 persons brought her to a hut but they closed the hut and had bad intentions
with her. So she fled to the house of Godo Dumandan who brought her first to the Racho residence
because Dumandan thought her aunt was not at home. Dumandan stayed behind so Neneng
Racho asked her son Racho to bring her to her aunt's house instead. AAA then said that Racho
brought her to a shanty along the way against her will. Racho boxed her abdomen and she felt
sick. She resisted by kicking him but he succeeded in undressing her. He undressed himself and
placed himself on top of AAA. Racho then inserted his penis into her vagina. After the act, Racho
left her. So AAA went home alone. She went inside her room and cried. The following morning, she
decided to leave home. Her mother was surprised at her decision until eventually, AAA]told her
mother about what happened to her. She told her eldest brother first who got very angry. They
reported the matter to the police and eventually Amarela and Racho were arrested.

Issue: WON Amarela and Racho is guilty of the crime of Rape.

Held: No. Accused-appellants are acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. It has often been
noted that if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the
latter should be given more weight since affidavits being taken ex parte are usually incomplete and
inadequate. In this case, however, the version in AAA's affidavit-complaint is remotely different
from her court testimony. The Court cannot say that this inconsistency is simply a minor detail
because it casts some doubt as to whether AAA was telling the truth - that she was abducted
against her will before she was raped.

What needs to be stressed here is that a conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof
beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty that the accused is guilty. Absolute guarantee of guilt
is not demanded by the law to convict a person of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be
moral certainty on each element essential to constitute the offense and on the responsibility of the
offender. The prosecution in this case miserably failed to present a clear story of what transpired. It
should have been the prosecution's duty to properly evaluate the evidence if it had enough to
convict Amarela or Racho.
Ricalde vs People
G.R. No. 211002
January 21, 2015

On January 30, 2002, XXX requested his mother to pick up Ricalde at McDonald’s Bel-Air, Sta.
Rosa at past 8:00 p.m. Ricalde, then 31 years old, is a distant relative and textmate of XXX, then
10 years old. XXX’s mother told Ricalde to spend the night at their house as it was late. He slept
on the sofa while XXX slept on the living room floor. It was around 2:00 a.m. when XXX awoke as
"he felt pain in his anus and stomach and something inserted in his anus." He saw that Ricalde
"fondled his penis." When Ricalde returned to the sofa, XXX ran toward his mother’s room to tell
her what happened. He also told his mother that Ricalde played with his sexual organ. XXX’s
mother armed herself with a knife for self-defense when she confronted Ricalde about the incident,
but he remained silent. She asked him to leave. On February 4, 2002, XXX and his mother
executed their sworn statements at the Sta. Rosa police station, leading to the criminal complaint
filed against Ricalde. Ricalde denied the accusations and denied the alleged rape through sexual
assault.

Issue: WON petitioner Richard Ricalde’s guilt for the crime of rape through sexual assault.

Held: Yes. Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or
object rape," "gender-free rape," or "homosexual rape." The gravamen of rape through sexual
assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into another person’s genital or anal orifice."

The court found that XXX’s "straightforward, unequivocal and convincing testimony" sufficiently
proved that petitioner committed an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into XXX’s anal
orifice. There was no showing of ill motive on the part of XXX to falsely accuse petitioner. The
gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victim’s dignity. The degree of penetration is not
important. Rape is an "assault on human dignity."
People vs Michael Joson
G.R. No. 206393
January 21, 2015

AAA lives with appellant and his common-law partner. AAA testified that at around 1:00 in the
morning of 14 May 2009, and while appellant’s wife was away, AAA was awakened by appellant
undressing her. AAA tried to struggle but appellant was tightly holding her arms. After undressing
her, appellant kissed and mounted her. Appellant was able to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA
felt pain in her genitalia. Thereafter, appellant went back to sleep leaving AAA crying. At about 6:00
or 7:00 in the morning, appellant left AAA with a letter apologizing for what happened and begging
her not to tell on his wife. At around 5:00 in the afternoon of that same date, AAA related to
appellant’s wife the rape incident. And on 1 June 2009, AAA, accompanied by her father, reported
the incident to the police and she executed a sworn statement detailing the rape. The prosecution
presented a provisional medico-legal report which essentially states that there is no evident injury
on AAA at the time of the examination. Appellant admitted that AAA is his sister but he proffered the
defense of alibi and denied the accusation against him and speculated that AAA resented him
because he was strict with his sister. Appellant also denied writing the apology letter and
presented his specimen handwriting in court.

Issue: WON appellant Michael Joson is guilty of the crime of rape

Held: Yes. For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
prosecution must prove that:
(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
(2) he accomplished this act through force, threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.

AAA’s testimony has established all the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code. First, appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. AAA positively identified
her own brother as the assailant. She was likewise unwavering in her narration that appellant
inserted his penis into her vagina. Second, appellant employed threat, force and intimidation to
satisfy his lust.
People vs Charlie Butiong
G.R. No. 168932
October 19, 2011

A 29-year-old mental retardate, was invited by Butiong, her long-time neighbor, to go over to his
house because he would give her something. AAA obliged. He locked the door as soon as she had
stepped inside his house, and then took off his shorts and the shorts of AAA. He led her to the
sofa, where he had carnal knowledge of her. AAA remembered that she then felt pain in her
abdomen and became angry at him for what he had done. Upon reaching home, AAA forthwith told
her older sister what had happened. Her sister brought AAA to the police station, and later on to
the NBI, where AAA underwent a medico-legal examination by Dr. Armie M. Soreta-Umil. The
medico-legal examination revealed that AAA’s hymen was intact but "distensible and its orifice wide
as to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection
without producing any genital injury." Noticing AAA’s disorientation and incoherence, Dr. Soreta-
Umil endorsed her to the NBI Psychiatric Section for evaluation. The results of the psychological
tests showed that she had a mild level of mental retardation, and that her mental age was that of a
child aged from 6-7 years.

Issue: WON Butiong is guilty of rape and the court erred in finding that the offended party is a
mental retardate.

Held: Yes. Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 because a mental retardate is not
capable of giving her consent to a sexual act. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, it
being sufficient for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress between the accused and the
victim, and, two, the mental retardation of the victim. It should no longer be debatable that rape of a
mental retardate falls under paragraph 1, b), of Article 266-A, supra, because the provision refers
to a rape of a female "deprived of reason," a phrase that refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or
retardation.

In People v. Dalandas, mental retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early
childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. It
manifests itself in impaired adaptation to the daily demands of the individual’s own social
environment. Commonly, a mental retardate exhibits a slow rate of maturation, physical and/or
psychological, as well as impaired learning capacity.
People vs Edgar Jumawan
G.R. No. 187495
April 21, 2014

Accused-appellant and his wife, KKK were married they Iived together since then and raised their 4
children as they put up several businesses over the years. Conjugal intimacy did not really cause
marital problems between KKK and the accused-appellant. It was, in fact, both frequent and
fulfilling. He treated her well and she, of course, responded with equal degree of enthusiasm.
However, in 1997, he started to be brutal in bed. He would immediately remove her panties and,
sans any foreplay, insert her penis in her vagina. His abridged method of lovemaking was
physically painful for her so she would resist his sexual ambush but he would threaten her into
submission. The one subject rape incident happened when accused-appellant asserted his sexual
yearning and KKK tried to resist. She tried to wrestle him away but he held her hands and
succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying out his carnal desires, KKK continued to protest
by desperately shouting KKK's pleas were audible in their children's bedroom where MMM lay
awake. The accused-appellant's aggression recurred again and even threatened her that he can
even have sex with her in front of their children because he is the head of the family. He then
ordered their children to leave which frightened them. Sensing that the commotion in their bedroom
has ceased, MMM and OOO scurried upstairs and found their mother crouched on the bed with
her hair disheveled, crying told them he forced her to have sex even if she didn’t feel well. The
accused-appellant denied raping his wife and asserted that KKK merely fabricated the rape
charges as her revenge because he took over the control and management of their businesses.
KKK wanted to cover-up her extra-marital affairs. She also wanted their property divided between
them with 3/4 thereof going to her and 1/4 to the accused-appellant.

Issue: WON Edgar Jumawan is guilty of rape.

Held: Yes. The Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for each count of rape, meted upon
the accused-appellant for being in accord with Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the RPC. Under
Article 266-A, Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

Rape is a crime that evokes global condemnation because it is an abhorrence to a woman's value
and dignity as a human being. Husbands are once again reminded that marriage is not a license to
forcibly rape their wives. A husband does not own his wife's body by reason of marriage. By
marrying, she does not divest herself of the human right to an exclusive autonomy over her own
body and thus, she can lawfully opt to give or withhold her consent to marital coitus.
Rustan Ang vs C.A. and Irish Sagud
G.R. No. 182835
April 20, 2010

Complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in
Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" sweethearts towards the end
of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife),
whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with him. Before Rustan got married, he got in touch
with Irish and tried to convince her to elope with him but she rejected the proposal and told Rustan
to take on his responsibility to the other woman and their child. Irish changed her cellphone
number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Irish received
through multimedia message service (MMS) an edited picture of a naked woman with spread legs
and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure and threatened to spread the picture through the
internet. Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the police.
Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess Resort and the
arrested him and seized his phone.

Issue: WON a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this case, already
constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262

Held: Yes. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women includes an act or acts
of a person against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship. "Violence
against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or
had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to
result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.
People vs Marivic Genosa
G.R. No. 135981
January 15, 2004

Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben
in their house at Isabel, Leyte. However, appellant and Ben rented from Steban Matiga a house at
Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived with their two children, namely: John Marben and
Earl Pierre. On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after receiving
their salary. They each had 2 bottles of beer before heading home. When they arrived at the house
of Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to look for him. Ben went inside his
house, while Arturo went to a store across it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner
to place a bet. The next day Joseph Valida was waiting for a bus going to Ormoc when he saw
appellant going out of their house with her two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking the
gate and taking her children to the waiting area where he was. On November 18, 1995, the
neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about the foul odor emanating from his house being rented by
Ben and appellant. Steban went there to find out the cause of the stench and saw the lifeless body
of Ben lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with injuries at
the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and sent word to the mother of
Ben about his son's misfortune. Dr. Cerillo concluded that the cause of Ben's death was
'cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture
of the occipital [bone].' Appellant admitted killing Ben. They allegedly fought and appellant then
'smashed' Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was about to pick up the blade to harm her.

Issue: WON
1. the fact that Ben and Marivic Genosa were legally married and that she was
therefore liable for parricide
2. treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.

Held:
1. In People v. Malabago,"The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship
between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence of a marriage
certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the trial court if
such proof is not objected to." The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby
affirmed.
2. No. There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from
the defense that the offended party might make. In order to qualify an act as treacherous, the
circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced
from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence.
Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively as the
killing itself. The testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of treachery.
People vs Francisco Ejercito
G.R. No. 229861
July 02, 2018

At around 6 o'clock in the evening of October 10, 2001, AAA, then a15 year old high school student
saw Ejercito pointing a gun at her and dragged her to a nearby barn, removed her shorts and
underwear, while he undressed and placed himself on top of her. He covered her mouth with his
right hand and used his left hand to point the gun at her, as he inserted his penis into her vagina
and made back and forth movements. When he finished the sexual act, Ejercito casually walked
away and warned AAA not to tell anybody or else, her parents will get killed. The following day,
AAA absented herself from school and headed to the house of her aunt, CCC, who asked if she
was okay. At that point, AAA tearfully narrated the incident and requested CCC to remain silent, to
which the latter reluctantly obliged. Wanting to start her life anew, AAA moved to the city to
continue her schooling there. However, Ejercito was able to track AAA down, and made the latter
his sex slave. From 2002 to 2005, Ejercito persistently contacted AAA, threatened and compelled
her to meet him, and thereafter, forced her to take shabu and then sexually abused her. Ejercito's
wife discovered her husband's relationship with AAA, the former filed a complaint against AAA
before the barangay. After undergoing rehabilitation, AAA finally disclosed to her parents that she
was raped by Ejercito back in 2001 and reported the same to the authorities. In his defense,
Ejercito pleaded not guilty to the charge against him, and maintained that he had an illicit
relationship with AAA.

Issue: WON Ejercito's conviction for the crime of Rape must be upheld.

Held: Yes. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
For a charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA
8353, to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, e.g.,
through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman
against her will.

In this case, it has been established that Ejercito committed the act of sexual intercourse against
and without the consent of AAA, who was only fifteen (15) years old at that time. As such, she is
considered under the law as a child who is "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse;" hence, Ejercito's act may as well be classified as a violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610.
RA 8353 is not only the more recent statutory enactment but more importantly, the more
comprehensive law on rape; therefore, the Court herein clarifies that in cases where a minor is
raped through sexual intercourse, the provisions of RA 8353 amending the RPC ought to prevail
over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 although the latter also penalizes the act of sexual intercourse
against a minor.
Felinda Rosales vs People
G.R. No. 173988
October 8, 2014

Seven yearold Michael Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan Elementary School
located in the Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly entering his classroom when he
accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher, petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a
bamboo sofa. Roused from sleep, petitioner asked Michael Ryan to apologize to her. When
Michael did not obey but instead proceeded to his seat, petitioner went to Michael and pinched him
on his thigh. Then, she held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor then his body hit a
desk. As a result, he lost consciousness. Petitioner proceeded topick Michael Ryan up by his ears
and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor. Michael Ryan cried. Accompanied by two of his
classmates, Louella Loredo and Jonalyn Gonzales, went home crying and told his mother about
the incident. His mother and his Aunt Evangeline Gonzales reported the incident to their Barangay
Captain who advised them to have Michael Ryan examined by a doctor. Michael Ryan’s aunt and
Barangay Councilman Ernesto Ligante brought him to the Dr. Ricardo Y. Ladrido Hospital where he
was examined by Dr. Castigador. They, likewise, reported the incident to the Police Station. The
petitioner was criminally charged with child abusein the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City.

Issue: WON the acts of the petitioner constitute child abuse penalized under Section 10 (a) of RA
No. 7610

Held: Yes. Section 3 of RA No. 7610 defines child abuse thusly:

(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes
any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

The physical pain experienced by the victim had been aggravated by an emotional trauma that
caused him to stop going to school altogether out of fear of the petitioner, compelling his parents to
transfer him to another school where he had to adjust again. Such established circumstances
proved beyond reasonable doubt thatthe petitioner was guilty of child abuse by deeds that
degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of Michael Ryan as a human being.
People vs Bringas
G.R. No. 189093
April 23, 2010

Sometime around 11:30 a.m. Eric's house helper Maricel received a phone call from Eric's brother-
in-law, Johnson, informing that a gift will be delivered for Patrick. She was instructed to wait for the
driver who will be arriving soon. At around 1:30pm, the doorbell rang and Maricel went to check the
gate and saw Rosales and Calaguas with the latter holding a large gift in Christmas wrapper.
Maricel then openend the gate. Calaguas then poked a gun at Maricel and pulled her towards
Eric’s house. Maricel, Sweeney and the other house helpers, Dina and Melanie were herded by
Calaguas to the children’s room at the 2nd floor together with Eric’s children, Patrick and Mikee.
Sulayao, Calaguas and Pajarillo tied their hands and feet. Maricel identified Ross as among those
who took Patrick. The kidnappers also took Eric's red Toyota Corolla. After the kidnappers left, the
girls extricated themselves from their bindings, they immediately called Kim Teng (Kimbol), the
brother of Eric, who rushed to Eric's house. Shortly thereafter, Eric rushed home. Eric received the
first call from one of the kidnappers demanding a ransom of PhP 10 million for his son and ordered
him not to report the matter to the police else Patrick will be harmed. A friend of the grandparents
of Patrick, however, reported the kidnapping to the PACC Special Operations Task Force Habagat.
Eric was then instructed to have the ransom money delivered, which at that time was significantly
reduced to PhP 2.5 million and which he was able to raise that day. The PACC then suspected
Chung (one to deliver the money) to be in cahoots with the kidnappers. Five minutes after Chung's
arrival, Gen. Lacson and his men arrived and arrested Chung. The team arrested Calaguas,
Sulayao, Ross, Pajarillo, Bobby Bringas and Dennis Ticsay in Pampanga.

Issue: WON the accused conspired with the other perpetrators.

Held: Yes. The crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention, under Art. 267 of the RPC, has
the following elements:
(1) the offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim or a public officer who
has a duty under the law to detain a person;
(2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
(a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority;
(c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made or
(d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official.

In the instant case, all the elements of the crime of kidnapping for ransom has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused are all private individuals. The kidnapping of Patrick Teng, then
three years old, a minor is undisputed. That ransom was demanded and paid is established.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a crime and decide to commit it. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together
and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details
by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. fail to appreciate the direct participation of Bobby
Bringas in the conspiracy. Thus, accused-appellants Jimboy Bringas, Chung and Navarro together
with the other accused Pajarillo, Sulayao, Ross and Calaguas are equally guilty and liable for the
crime charged for having conspired to commit and did commit kidnapping for ransom of Patrick.
People vs Ibrahim Ali
G.R. No. 222965
December 6, 2017

At around 7:30 P.M., Antonio Lim (Antonio), Mary Lim (Mary), and Cherry Lim (Cherry) left their
family-owned grocery and were on their way to their house in Zamboanga City, on a Nissan
vehicle. With them were their driver Igno and Oliz, their helper. When they were near EAAB along
Sta. Maria Road, Igno stopped the car to avoid bumping into a motorcycle with three persons on
board. The 3 men, later identified as Ali, Hassan, and Amat, approached the vehicle and told the
passengers that they were policemen. They ordered Antonio and Igno to transfer to the back of the
vehicle and sit with Oliz, Mary, and Cherry. The passengers were told that they would be brought to
the police station on a tip that they were transporting contraband goods. With Amat in the driver's
seat, Ali beside him, and Hassan at the back with the other passengers. Once inside, Ali instructed
Hassan to handcuff Igno and Antonio. Amat did not stop when they reached the Sta. Maria police
station but kept on driving. Due to the buildup of traffic at the intersection after the Sta. Maria police
station, Mary was able to escape her captors by jumping out of the vehicle. Amat continued to drive
towards Pitogo and then veered towards the beach. There, the occupants were ordered to alight
from the vehicle. Oliz was able to escape when she saw a woman walking nearby because only
Antonio, Cherry, and Igno were guarded. She then told the woman that her employer was being
kidnapped. Oliz was then accompanied to a nearby house where they contacted the authorities.
Before the police arrived, Oliz heard a commotion outside and saw bystanders mauling Ali. Oliz
told the people around that he was their abductor. When the police arrived, Ali was turned over to
the authorities who brought him to the police station together with Oliz.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention

Held: Yes. Under Article 267, paragraph 2 and of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section
8 of Republic Act No. 7659. In order for the accused to be guilty of serious illegal detention, the
following elements must concur:
(a) the offender is a private individual;
(b) he or she kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(d) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present:
(1) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(2) it is committed by simulating public authority;
(3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill the victim are made; or
(4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.

In the case at bar, the elements of serious illegal detention were duly proven by the prosecution.
First, Ali and his cohorts were clearly private individuals. Second, they deprived Oliz of her liberty.
This was manifested by the fact that they forcibly boarded the vehicle and placed Igno and Antonio
in handcuffs evincing their intent to detain the occupants of the motor vehicle. Third, Oliz was a
female victim. The CA was correct in ruling that the period of detention became immaterial in view
of the victim's circumstances. If, during the deprivation of liberty, any of the circumstances under
Article 267(4) of the RPC occurs, i.e, the victim was a female, the crime of serious illegal detention
is consummated.
People vs Armando Dionaldo
G.R. No. 207949
July 23, 2014

At around 8 o'clock in the morning Roderick dropped his brother Edwin off at the Health Is Wealth
Gym in Caloocan City. Thirty minutes later, he received a text message from another brother who
told him that Edwin had been kidnapped. Records show that 3 men, later identified as Armando,
Renato, and Mariano, forcibly dragged a bloodied Edwin inside a dark green Toyota car. Upon
receiving the message, Roderick immediately reported the incident to the police. In the same day,
he received a phone call from Edwin’s kidnappers who threatened to kill Edwin if he should report
the matter to the police. The following day, the kidnappers demanded ransom money in the amount
of ₱15 million which became P110 thousand then instructed to bring the money to Batangas and
wait for their next call. Roderick went and after several hours, an orange Mitsubishi car pulled up in
front of his vehicle where 4 men alighted but they returned to their car and drove away. A team
organized to investigate the kidnapping of Edwin investigated Rodolfo, an employee at the Health
Is Wealth Gym who confessed that he was part of the plan to kidnap Edwin. He gave information
on the whereabouts of his cohorts, leading to their arrest. The team found the dead body of Edwin
at Sitio Pugpugan Laurel, Batangas, which Roderick identified. During arraignment, accused-
appellants pleaded not guilty and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi.

Issue: WON accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention.

Held: Yes. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is established, the
responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally liable
regardless of the extent of their respective participations. The factual circumstances in this case
clearly show that accused-appellants acted in concert at the time of the commission of the crime
and that their acts emanated from the same purpose or common design, showing unity in its
execution. The prosecution was able to clearly establish all the elements of the crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, namely: (a) the offender is a private individual;
(b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(d) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
(1) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(2) it is committed simulating public authority;
(3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made; or
(4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, except when the accused is any of the
parents, female or a public officer.
People vs Rubirosa Pastrana
G.R. No. 143644
August 14, 2002

While in Canada, Erma was introduced by her sister, Elma Saludarez to spouses Leopoldo and
Rebecca Frias who informed her that their daughter, accused-appellant Rubirosa Pastrana of
Tondo, Manila, can help process Willy’s travel documents to Canada. Erma agreed to hand the
processing of her son’s papers to accused-appellant and consequently sent her Canadian dollars
equivalent to a total of P18,300.00. Accused-appellant went to the house of Erma at in Caloocan
City and introduced herself to the children of Erma as the one who will work out the processing of
their travel documents to Canada. Accused-appellant fetched Willy and Aresola from Caloocan and
brought them to her apartment in Tondo, for the purpose of bringing Willy to the hospital but she
was not able to bring him because she spent Erma’s money to pay her personnal obligations. After
Willy was treated, accused-appellant demanded P4,000.00 for the alleged expenses she incurred
for Willy’s medical treatment asked her to send P60,000.00 to purchase a water purifier. Erma,
however, refused to transmit the amounts asked by accused-appellant and ordered her to return
Willy to Caloocan but the latter ignored her. Erma found out from Aresola that accused-appellant
did not return Willy to Caloocan. Accused-appellant went to Caloocan and informed Doroteo that
Willy was missing. Erma returned to the Philippines to look for her son. Through the help of the
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), Erma discovered that, contrary to the claim of
accused-appellant, Willy was not actually treated by Dr. Rebecca Nakpil Miranda. Accused-
appellant vehemently denied the charges against her. She allegedly last saw Willy playing inside
their apartment that morning and reported Willy’s disappearance to the authorities and did her best
to find him.

Issue: WON the accused-appellant is guilty of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article
270 of the Revised Penal Code

Held: Yes. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code
has two essential elements, namely: (1) the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor
person; and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.
What is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure
of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. Regardless of
whether Willy stayed in accused-appellant’s apartment permanently or temporarily, the first
element of the offense charged is satisfied because during said period Willy was entrusted to
accused-appellant who undertook the responsibility of seeing to it that he was well-taken care of.
Evidently, accused-appellant deliberately ignored Erma’s instruction to return Willy to Caloocan so
she can use him as a pawn to demand money.
Salvador Marzalado vs People
G.R. No. 152997
November 10, 2004

Cristina N. Albano was the lessee of a unit in the house owned by Luz Marzalado, the mother of
herein petitioner, Salvador Marzalado, Jr. Luz Marzalado filed an ejectment case against Albano.
Judgment was rendered against Albano, who was ordered to vacate the leased premises and to
pay the unpaid rentals. Albano appealed to the RTC. During the pendency of the appeal, the
electricity supply of the unit was cut off due to non-payment of bills. As a result, Albano transferred
her children to her father's house, 4 houses away, leaving a maid to sleep in the unit. Albano
claims that on November 2, 1993, at around 1:00 p.m., she went to her unit. She noticed that the
lead pipe she used to hang clothes to dry was missing. When she returned the following day, the
padlock of the main door changed, preventing her from entering the premises. She went to see
petitioner but he was not around. The next day she saw that the place was already empty. She
immediately reported the matter to the barangay officials, who in turn, advised her to go to the
police. Thereafter, she filed a complaint for grave coercion, qualified trespass to dwelling and theft
against petitioner. She was informed that Marzalado, Jr., and his female companion took her lead
pipe and took her personal belongings and brought them inside his house. For his defense,
Marzalado, Jr. asked for two barangay tanods to accompany him to the vacated unit beacuse he
found an open faucet, with water flooding the floor. He accused Albano of deliberately leaving the
faucet open. He claimed Albano filed the criminal case of trespass to dwelling to harass him and to
retaliate against him and his family.

Issue: WON Court of Appeals err in sustaining the conviction of Marzalado, Jr., for qualified
trespass to dwelling

Held: Yes. In trespass to dwelling, the elements are: (1) the offender is a private person; (2) that he
enters the dwelling of another; and (3) such entrance is against the latter's will. The exact date
when the alleged trespass occurred is not an essential element of the offense of trespass. It is
sufficient that the Complaint or Information states that the crime has been committed at any time
as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Marzalado, Jr., acted for the justified
purpose of avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother's property caused by the open
faucet. No criminal intent could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial action he had
taken. There was an exigency that had to be addressed to avoid damage to the leased unit. There
is nothing culpable concerning Marzalado, Jr.'s judgment call to enter the unit and turn off the
faucet instead of closing the inlet valve. The Court find the evidence on record insufficient to hold
petitioner guilty of the offense charged. Palpable doubt exists in the Court’s mind as to the guilt of
petitioner.
People vs Marlon de Leon
G.R. No. 179943
June 26, 2009

Eduardo Zulueta and Fortunato Lacambra III, both gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, cashier; and
Edralin Macahis, security guard; all employees of Energex Gasoline Station in San Mateo, Rizal,
were on duty when a mint green-colored Tamaraw FX arrived for service at the said gasoline
station. He went to the driver’s side in order to take the key of the vehicle from the driver so that he
could open the gas tank. He proceeded to fill up the gas tank. After doing this, he returned the key
to the driver. While returning the key, the driver told him that the engine of the vehicle would not
start. Zulueta and Lacambra III offered to give the vehicle a push but as ready to push, the 6 male
passengers of the vehicle, except the driver, alighted and announced a hold-up. They were armed
with a shotgun and pistol. Appellant, who guarded Eduardo Zulueta, poked a gun at the latter and
took the latter's wallet hit the latter on his nape with a gun. 4 members of the group went to the
cashier's office and took the money shot Edralin Macahis in the stomach and took his service
firearm. Zulueta saw appellant and his companions immediately leave the place and boarded the
same vehicle. Edralin Macahis died at the hospital due to the gunshot wound. However, according
to appellant a Tamaraw FX, of a certain Christian Gersalia, a relative of appellant and his cousin
Catherine. Catherine asked Gersalia if he would allow appellant to hitch a ride on his vehicle and
Gersalia agreed. When the vehicle reached Masinag, appellant was not allowed to alight. Appellant
fell asleep and woke up in the gas staton and saw his company conducting hold-up. As a result of
the above incident, four Informations for Robbery with Homicide were filed against appellant, Rudy
Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, an alias
"Rey," an alias "Jonard," an alias "Precie," and an alias "Renato”.

Issue: WON Marlon de Leon is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide

Held: Yes. In People v. De Jesus, the Court had exhaustively discussed the crime of robbery with
homicide. For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the prosecution is burdened to prove
the confluence of the following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.

In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The homicide may take place
before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as
to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that
has to be taken into consideration. It can be inferred from the role appellant played in the
commission of the robbery, that a conspiracy existed and he was part of it. To be a conspirator, one
need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or
need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the
conspiracy. Appellant offered no evidence that he performed an overt act neither to escape from
the company of the robbers nor to prevent the robbery from taking place to detach him from
conspiracy.
Lily Sy vs Sec. of Justice
G.R. No. 171579
November 14, 2012

Petitioner Lily Sy claimed that in the morning of December 16, 1999, respondents Benito and
Glenn together with "Elmo," a security guard of Hawk Security Agency, went to petitioner's
residence and forcibly opened the door, destroyed and dismantled the door lock then replaced it
with a new one, without petitioner's consent. She, likewise, declared that as a diversionary ruse,
respondent Jennifer was at the lobby of the same building who informed petitioner’s helper
Geralyn that the elevator was not working. Glenn and Benito’s act of replacing the door lock
appeared to be authorized by a resolution of Fortune Wealth Mansion Corporation’s Board of
Directors, namely, respondents Glenn, Jennifer, William Sy (William), Merlyn Sy (Merlyn), and
Merry Sy (Merry). In the evening of the same date, petitioner supposedly saw Benito, Glenn,
Jennifer, Merry and respondent Berthold Lim (Berthold) took from her residence numerous boxes
containing her personal belongings without her consent and, with intent to gain, load them inside a
family-owned van/truck named "Wheels in Motion." Respondents Benito and Berthold denied the
accusations against them. They explained that petitioner made the baseless charges simply
because she hated their wives Merry and Jennifer due to irreconcilable personal differences on
how to go about the estates of their deceased parents then pending before the RTC of Manila.

Issue: WON the petitioner was no longer in possession of the unit simply becasue the petitioner
was in possession of another unit.

Held: Yes. Respondents were charged with robbery in an uninhabited place, which was later
amended to reflect the facts as alleged in the complaint that the robbery was committed in an
inhabited place and that it was committed through force upon things. To constitute robbery, the
following elements must be established:
(1) The subject is personal property belonging to another;
(2) There is unlawful taking of that property;
(3) The taking is with the intent to gain; and
(4) There is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force upon things.

Admittedly, the subject 10th floor unit is owned by the corporation and served as the family
residence prior to the death of petitioner and respondents’ parents. The 10th floor unit, including
the personal properties inside, is the subject of estate proceedings pending in another court and is,
therefore, involved in the disputed claims among the siblings (petitioner and respondents). The
said corporate action was arrived at because petitioner had allegedly prevented prospective buyers
from conducting ocular inspection. In this case, it was shown that respondents believed in good
faith that they and the corporation own not only the subject unit but also the properties found
inside. If at all, they took the As part-owners of the entire building and of the articles allegedly
stolen from the 10th floor of said building … the very same properties that are involved between
the same parties in a pending estate proceeding, the respondents cannot, as co-owners, be
therefore charged with robbery. The fact of co-ownership negates any intention to gain, as they
cannot steal properties which they claim to own.m openly and avowedly under that claim of
ownership.
Aurora Fransdilla vs People
G.R. No. 197562
April 20, 2015

Private complainant Lalaine Yreverre saw appellant Aurora Engson in front of their gate. Upon
noticing Aurora, Lalaine went to the gate and asked Aurora what is their purpose, as there were 4
of them. Aurora then inquired about Cynthia Yreverre, Lalaine's sister. The latter replied that
Cynthia was in the Japanese Embassy and asked Aurora if there was any other person whom she
wanted to talk to. It was then that Aurora pretended and told Lalaine that she was from the POEA
so Lalaine offered herself to instead talk to her and allowed her to enter their house. The 4 other
men outside the gate, who were with Aurora, suddenly came inside the house. Accused Edgardo
Cacal poked a gun at Lalaine's neck and announced that it was a hold-up. Danilo Cuanang and the
2 other men proceeded to the kitchen and herded their maids, private complainant's niece and
cousin inside the bodega. Cacal who was still poking the gun at Lalaine's neck, pulled her hair and
dragged her and brought her inside Cynthia's room. Cacal looked around the room and spotted the
vault. He dropped Lalaine, opened the door and called for his companions to come along. They
carried the vault and brought it downstairs. Cacal went back and tied Lalaine. Cacal and Cuanang
searched the entire room and took all the jewelries and things they saw. When Cuanang and Cacal
left the room, Lalaine followed and she saw them tucking their guns around their waists. Appellants
and their co-accused left the house on 2 cars that were waiting for them just outside the house,
and one of which was driven by accused Manuel Silao, together with appellant Edgardo Silao who
was seated at the front passenger seat. Lalaine shouted for help then a relative came by to help
and untied her. She called Cynthia and ralted the incident. Cynthia reported the incident to the
police authorities.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty as a co-conspirator in robbery; and guilty for the complex crime
of robbery in an inhabited house by armed men and robbery with violence against and intimidation
of persons

Held: Yes. Napolis v. Court of Appeals is controlling in this case. To start with, the information fully
alleged the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299, Revised Penal
Code, and robbery with intimidation or violence under Article 294, Revised Penal Code by averring
that "the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, and by means of
violence and intimidation upon person rob the residence x x x." And, secondly, the Prosecution
competently proved the commission of the complex crime by showing during the trial that the
accused, after entering the residential house of the complainants took away valuables and in the
process committed acts of violence against and intimidation of persons during the robbery by
slapping and threatening Lalaine and tying her up, and herding the other members of the
household inside the bodega of the house.
People vs Marlon Belmonte
G.R. No. 220889
July 5, 2017

Hiroshi Emmanuel Zorilla celebrated his 17th birthday with his friends in the house of his aunt
Teodora and uncle Robert Dela Cruz in Pasig City. When it was already 12:00 midnight, Jolly, one
of Hiroshi's friends, left the group to buy some beer from a nearby store. At the store, Jolly met
Enrile, who asked him if he could join them in the drinking spree at Hiroshi's place. Enrile then
helped Jolly carry the half case of beer and joined in the drinking spree at Hiroshi's house. At
around 2:00 a.m. of September 1, 2007, Jolly left the group, followed by Enrile, but the latter
returned to the party with accused-appellant and his brother Marvin, and Noel. Armed with guns
and a knife, the 3 men suddenly boxed Enrile, then tied the hands of all the persons inside the
house and ordered them to lie down on the floor as they took their personal belongings. The maids
namely, AAA and Rhea Brioso, were awakened inside their quarters by the presence of 2 men,
later identified as accused-appellant and Noel. Upon Noel's order, AAA was left inside the room.
Noel immediately locked the door, and at gunpoint, ordered AAA to remove her pants. He told AAA
to lie down, then he inserted his penis into her vagina. Noel and Marvin entered the room of
spouses Teodora and Robert through the window. At gunpoint, Noel and Marvin ordered the
spouses to lie on the bed while they took away some pieces of jewelry, laptop, ATM card, cash.

Issue: WON accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape

Held: Yes. The crime of Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the RPC, as amended
by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659. Robbery with Rape is a special complex crime under Article
294 of the RPC. It contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take,
with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion
thereof or as an accompanying crime. Once conspiracy is established between several accused in
the commission of the crime of robbery, as in the present case, they would all be equally culpable
for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them
proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape.

Accused-appellant Marlon Belmonte is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape
even if he did not rape AAA, as accused-appellant Marlon Belmonte had the opportunity but did not
endeavor to stop accused Noel Baac from raping AAA.x x x The accused's failure to prevent his
co-accused from committing rape despite an opportunity to do so made him liable for the rape
committed. x x x.
People vs Cesar Concepcion
G.R. No. 200922
July 18, 2012

While private complainant Jennifer Acampado was at the corner of Mother Ignacia Street, Quezon
City, a male person riding at the back of the driver of a motorcycle whom she later identified in
open court as accused Cesar Concepcion, snatched her brown Avon bag with black strap which at
that time, was placed on her left shoulder. The black motorcycle with white covering at the back
side and with plate number which is not visible to the eye, came from behind her. As the
motorcycle sped away, the accused even raised and waved the bag that he snatched from Jennifer
who was unable to do anything but just cry and look at the snatcher so much so that she
recognized him in the process. Witness Joemar de Felipe was driving his R & E Taxi, in the same
vicinity, he witnessed the subject snatching incident. As the accused was waving the bag at
Jennifer, he blew his horn. Ogardo drove faster so that de Felipe gave a chase and kept on
blowing his horn. Eventually, Ogardo lost control of the motorcycle and it crashed in front of his
taxi, sending its two occupants to the pavement. De Felipe immediately alighted from the taxi with
the intention to arrest the snatchers. At that juncture, some policemen from the Kamuning Police
Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, arrived. Seeing that the snatchers were badly injured,
the policemen brought them to the East Avenue Medical Center, Quezon City where Ogardo later
expired.

Issue: WON Concepcion should be held liable for simple theft only

Held: Yes. Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime committed by "any person who, with
intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against
or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything." Robbery with homicide occurs when,
by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. Theft,
on the other hand, is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without
the latter’s consent. Acampado herself merely testified that Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag
which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did not say that Concepcion used violence,
intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of
Acampado’s shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.
People vs Charlie Orosco
G.R. No. 209227
March 25, 2015

At around two o’clock in the afternoon,Arca went to the store of Lourdes Yap (Yap) at Barangay
Rawis, Legazpi City to buy ice. After purchasing the ice, he noticed there was a verbal tussle
between Yap and 2 male customers. The men were arguing that they were given insufficient
change and insisting they gave a P500 bill and not P100. When Yap opened the door, the 2 men
entered the store. Arca, thru the store’s open window grills, saw one of the men placed his left arm
around the neck of Yap and covered her mouth with his right hand while the other man was at her
back restraining her hands. He recognized the man who was holding the hands of Yap as Charlie
Orosco (appellant), while he described the man who covered her mouth as thin, with less hair and
dark complexion. The latter stabbed Yap at the center of her chest. When they released her, she
fell down on the floor. Appellant then took a thick wad of bills from the base of the religious icon or
"santo" at the altar infront of the store’s window, after which he and the man who stabbed Yap fled
together with two other men outside who acted as lookouts. Arca went near the bloodied victim but
also left and went home afraid because he was seen by one of the lookouts. Yap was brought to
the Aquinas University Hospital but she was declared dead on arrival. Later, at the NBI Legazpi
City District office, Arca gave descriptions of the faces of appellant and the dark thin man who
stabbed Yap ("John Doe"). From a surveillance digital photo and video clip shown to him, Arca
positively identified Abner Astor as one of the 2 men sitting beside the store as lookouts.
Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against appellant and Astor. But only appellant was
arrested as Astor, John Doe and Peter Doe remained at large.

Issue: WON Charlie Orosco is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Held: Yes. Robbery with homicide is defined under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. The elements of the crime of robbery with homicide are:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is
committed.

Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if it is committed
(a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit;
(b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot;
(c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or
(d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime.

In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the
robbery. Here, the homicide was committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery as
appellant and John Doe had to kill Yap to accomplish their main objective of stealing her money.
The earlier verbal tussle where the two pretended to have paid a greater amount and asked for the
correct change was just a ploy to get inside the store where the victim kept her earnings.
Ricky Marquez vs People
G.R. No. 181138
December 3, 2012

At around 2:30 a.m. of April 6, 2002, Marlon Mallari (Mallari) was with petitioners and Benzon in
front of the University of the East (U.E.), Caloocan City. Marquez suggested that the group rob the
Rice-in-a-Box store located at the corner of U.E. Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed it to
Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to destroy the padlock of the store. Mallari was designated
as the look-out while petitioners and Benzon entered the store and carried away all the items
inside it which consisted of rice cookers, a blender and food items. They then brought the stolen
items to the house of Benzon’s uncle. Apprehensive that Mallari might squeal, the group promised
to give him a share if they could sell the stolen items. Valderosa received information from the
daughter of the owner of the premises where her Rice-in-a- Box franchise store was located, that
her store had been forcibly opened and its padlock destroyed. Upon her arrival, she discovered
that the contents of her freezer were missing along with other items inside the store. The total
value of these stolen items was approximately P42,000.00. She reported the robbery to the police.
Meanwhile, on April 7, 2002, Mallari informed his older brother of his involvement in the said
robbery. At around 4:00 p.m. of the next day, he again confessed but this time to Valderosa.

Issue: WON the petitioners, in conspiracy with each other, guilty of the crime of robbery with force
upon things.

Held: Yes. Under Article 293 of the RPC, robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to
gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another by using force upon anything. When
committed in an uninhabited place or a private building with the circumstance, among others, that
any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken, the same is penalized under
Article 302. Save from the identities of the perpetrators, Valderosa’s testimony clearly indicates that
a robbery under Article 293 in relation to Article 302 of the RPC was committed. “The testimony of
a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, will be considered sufficient if given in a straightforward
manner and it contains details which could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought”.
Filoteo vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 79543
October 16, 1996
Herman Medina vs People
G.R. No. 182648
June 17, 2015

Henry Lim (Lim) is a resident of Calao West, Santiago City, Isabela. He is the registered owner of a
Sangyong Korando Jeep with Plate No. WPC-207, which was involved in an accident that caused
damage to its roof and door. On April 27, 2002, he engaged the services of Medina, who is a
mechanic and maintains a repair shop in Buenavista, Santiago City, Isabela. At the time the jeep
was delivered to Medina’s shop, it was still in running condition and serviceable because the under
chassis was not affected and the motor engine, wheels, steering wheels and other parts were still
functioning. A reasonable time elapsed, but no repairs were made on the jeep. So, in the morning
of September 4, 2002, Purita Lim (Purita), Lim’s sister, instructed Danilo Beltran (Beltran) to
retrieve the jeep from Medina’s shop on the agreement that he would instead repair the vehicle in
his own auto shop. Beltran, however, was not able to get the jeep since its alternator, starter,
battery, and two tires with rims worth ₱5,000.00, ₱5,000.00, ₱2,500.00, and ₱10,000.00,
respectively, could not be found. Upon inquiry, Medina told him that he took and installed them on
Lim’s another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was also being repaired in the shop. Beltran went
back in the afternoon of the same day and was able to get the jeep, but without the missing parts.
He had it towed and brought it to his own repair shop. Before placing the jeep therein, he reported
the incident to Purita. Later, the jeep was fully repaired and put back in good running condition. On
September 12, 2002, a criminal complaint for simple theft was filed by Purita, representing her
brother. The City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Medina. In his arraignment, Medina
pleaded not guilty.

Issue: WON petitioner Herman Medina is guilty of the crime of simple theft

Held: Yes. Under Article 308, in relation to Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC). Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent. As defined and penalized, the elements of the crime are:
(1) there was taking of personal property;
(2) the property belongs to another;
(3) the taking was done with intent to gain;
(4) the taking was without the consent of the owner; and
(5) the taking was accomplished without the use of violence against, or intimidation of persons or
force, upon things.
Laurel vs Hon. Zeus Abrogar
G.R. No. 155076
February 27, 2006

Baynet Co., Ltd. Is being sued for network fraud. Laurel is the board member and corporate
secretary of Baynet. 2 other filipinos and two japanese composed the board. (Baynet) sells "Bay
Super Orient Card" which uses an alternative calling patterns called International Simple Resale
(ISR). ISR is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using
International Private Leased Lines (IPL), cables, antenna or air wave or frequency, which connect
directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the terminating country (the country where
the call is destined). The operator of an ISR is able to evade payment of access, termination or
bypass charges and accounting rates, as well as compliance with the regulatory requirements of
the NTC. Thus, the ISR operator offers international telecommunication services at a lower rate, to
the damage and prejudice of legitimate operators like PLDT. Search warrants were issued against
baynet through PLDT's complaint. The seach was followed by an inquest investigation. The
prosecutor found probable cause for THEFT and filed Information. After preliminary investigation
the information was amended to include Laurel and the other members of the board for THEFT
using ISR. Accused Laurel filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)" on the
groundS that RPC does not punish use of ISR, The telephone calls belong to the person calling not
to PLDT, and that no personal property was stolen from PLDT. There is no crime when there is no
law punishing the crime.

Issue: WON international long distance calls and the business of providing communication or
telephone services are considered as personal properties subjected to theft.

Held: No. The Amended Information does not contain material allegations charging the petitioner of
theft of personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The international telephone
calls placed by Bay Super Orient Card holders, the telecommunication services provided by PLDT
and its business of providing said services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.– Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence, against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
property of another without the latter’s consent. For one to be guilty of theft the accused must have
an intent to steal (animus furandi) personal property, meaning the intent to deprive another of his
ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from and concurrently with
the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo (dolus malus).

An information or complaint for simple theft must allege the following elements:
(a) the taking of personal property;
(b) the said property belongs to another;
(c) the taking be done with intent to gain; and
(d) the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation of person/s or force upon
things.
Cherry Benayabe vs People
G.R. No. 203466
February 25, 2015

Petitioner Benabaye was the Loans Bookkeeper of Siam Bank and was authorized to collect and/
or accept loan payments of Siam Bank’s clients and issue provisional receipts therefor, accomplish
a cash transfer slip at the end of each banking day detailing the amounts of money that she has
received, and remit such payments to Tupag, her supervisor. Sometime in 2001, Siam Bank
conducted an audit investigation of its loan transactions and found out that fraud and certain
irregularities attended the same. It discovered the non-remittance of some loan payments received
from its clients based on the provisional receipts issued by its account officers, as well as the daily
collection reports corresponding to the said provisional receipts. Siam Bank directed Benabaye to
explain the discrepancies between the provisional receipts she had issued and the unremitted
money involved, and made a final demand upon her to return the amount of the money involved. In
her written explanation, Benabaye claimed that the discrepancies could be clarified by her
supervisor, Tupag, to whom she had submitted her daily cash transfer slips together with the
corresponding provisional receipts. Tupag admitted his accountability and, while claiming that
some of his co-employees were privy to the acts which resulted in the discrepancies, he did not
disclose their identities.
Siam Bank terminated the employment of both Benabaye and Tupag and subsequently filed a
criminal case for Estafa. The RTC found both Benabaye and Tupag guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b). The CA affirmed Benabaye’s conviction in toto,
similarly finding that all the elements of Estafa through misappropriation have been established.
The CA ruled that conspiracy between Benabaye and Tupag was sufficiently established,
considering that both had access and facility to determine if payments made by Siam Bank’s
clients were properly remitted.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining Benabaye’s conviction for the crime of Estafa through
misappropriation.

HELD: No. The first element of Estafa through misappropriation has not been established. The
elements of Estafa under this provision are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the
offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the
misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the
offended party that the offender return the money or property received.

It bears to stress that a sum of money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is

considered to be only in the material possession of the employee. The material possession of an
employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of
the employer. The first element of Estafa through misappropriation has not been established,
insisting that her possession of the collected loan payments was merely material and not juridical;
therefore, she cannot be convicted of the said crime.
Jarcia vs People
G.R. No. 187926
February 15, 2012

Belinda Santiago lodged a complaint with the NBI against the petitioners, Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr.
and Dr. Marilou Bastan, for their alleged neglect of professional duty which caused her son, Roy
Alfonso Santiago, to suffer serious physical injuries. Upon investigation, the NBI found that Roy Jr.
was hit by a taxicab; that he was rushed to the Manila Doctors Hospital for an emergency medical
treatment; that an X-ray of the victim’s ankle was ordered; that the X-ray result showed no fracture
as read by Dr. Jarcia; that Dr. Bastan entered the emergency room and, after conducting her own
examination of the victim, informed Mrs. Santiago that since it was only the ankle that was hit,
there was no need to examine the upper leg; that 11 days later, Roy Jr. developed fever, swelling
of the right leg and misalignment of the right foot; that Mrs. Santiago brought him back to the
hospital; and that the X-ray revealed a right mid-tibial fracture and a linear hairline fracture in the
shaft of the bone. The NBI indorsed the matter to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila for
preliminary investigation. Probable cause was found and a criminal case for reckless imprudence
resulting to serious physical injuries, was filed against Dr. Jarcia, Dr. Bastan and Dr. Pamittan,
before the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-196646. On June 14, 2005, the RTC found the
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Imprudence Resulting to Serious
Physical Injuries.

Issue: Whether or not Jarcia is guilty of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injuries

Held: No. Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act
from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the person performing or failing to perform such act. The elements of simple negligence are: (1)
that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender, and (2) that the damage impending to be
caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest. In this case, the Court is not
convinced with moral certainty that the petitioners are guilty of reckless imprudence or simple
negligence. The elements thereof were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Norman Gaid vs People
G.R. No. 171636
April 7, 2009

At around 12:00 noon on 25 October 2001, petitioner was driving his passenger jeepney along a
two-lane road where the Laguindingan National High School is located toward the direction of
Moog in Misamis Oriental. His jeepney was filled to seating capacity. At the time several students
were coming out of the school premises. Meanwhile, a 14 year-old student, Michael Dayata, was
seen by eyewitness Artman Bongolto sitting near a store on the left side of the road. From where
he was at the left side of the road, Dayata raised his left hand to flag down petitioner’s jeepney
which was traveling on the right lane of the road. However, neither did petitioner nor the conductor,
Dennis Mellalos, saw anybody flagging down the jeepney to ride at that point. The next thing
Bongalto saw, Dayata’s feet was pinned to the rear wheel of the jeepney, after which, he laid flat on
the ground behind the jeepney. Another prosecution witness, Usaffe Actub, who was also situated
on the left side of the street but directly in front of the school gate, heard "a strong impact coming
from the jeep sounding as if the driver forced to accelerate in order to hurdle an obstacle.” Dayata
was then seen lying on the ground and caught in between the rear tires. Petitioner felt that the left
rear tire of the jeepney had bounced and the vehicle tilted to the right side. Mellalos heard a shout
that a boy was run over, prompting him to jump off the jeepney to help the victim. Petitioner
stopped and saw Mellalos carrying the body of the victim. Mellalos loaded the victim on a
motorcycle and brought him to the hospital. Dayata was first brought to the Laguindingan Health
Center, but it was closed. Mellalos then proceeded to the El Salvador Hospital. Upon advice of its
doctors, however, Dayata was brought to the Northern Mindanao Medical Center where he was
pronounced dead on arrival. Dr. Tammy Uy issued an autopsy report stating cranio-cerebral
injuries as the cause of death. She testified that the head injuries of Dayata could have been
caused by having run over by the jeepney.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Gaid is guilty of the crime of Simple Negligence Resulting in
Homicide and of the charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide

Held: No. Petitioner cannot be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, as found
by the trial court. The proximate cause of the accident and the death of the victim was definitely his
own negligence in trying to catch up with the moving jeepney to get a ride. Negligence has been
defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury. The elements of simple negligence: are (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part
of the offender; and (2) that the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is
not clearly manifest. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born
of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. The prosecution was
not able to establish that the proximate cause of the victim’s death was petitioner’s alleged
negligence, if at all, even during the second stage of the incident.
Jason Ivler vs San Pedro
G.R. No. 172716
November 17, 2010

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before the MeTC
of Pasig City, Branch 71, with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponce’s
husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. Petitioner posted bail for
his temporary release in both cases. On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge
and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to
quash the Information for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of
reckless imprudence. The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to the RTC of Pasig
City, Branch 157, in a petition for certiorari. Meanwhile, petitioner sought from the MeTC the
suspension of proceedings, including the arraignment on 17 May 2005, invoking a prejudicial
question. Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the MeTC proceeded with the arraignment and,
because of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest. 7 days later, the MeTC
issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings and postponing his
arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this
petition, the motion remained unresolved. Relying on the arrest order against petitioner,
respondent Ponce sought in the RTC the dismissal of S.C.A. No. 2803 for petitioner’s loss of
standing to maintain the suit. Petitioner contested the motion.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars
further proceedings

Held: Yes. Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act
of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the
essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.
Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler
protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby
denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any
disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-
crime effects qualifying as "light offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence
prosecuted belatedly). If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to quasi-
crimes the sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be imposed
under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized as grave, less grave or light
offenses. This will still keep intact the distinct concept of quasi-offenses.
Manila Bulletin vs People
G.R. No. 170341
July 5, 2017

On 20 December 1990, Batuigas wrote an article in his Bull’s Eye column in Tempo titled “Crucial
task for JoeCon’s successor.” The article dealt with the letter-complaint of the Waray employees of
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Region VIII on the “[m]ismanagement, low moral[e],
improper decorum, gross inefficiency, nepotism, etc.” in the office. One of the public officials
complained of was petitioner Regional Director Victor Domingo (Domingo) who was accused of
dereliction of official duties, among others. The “JoeCon” referred to was the outgoing DTI
Secretary, Jose Concepcion. On 4 January 1991, Batuigas wrote in his column titled “A challenge
to Sec. Garrucho” about the alleged “lousy performance of Regional Director R.D. Domingo in DTI
Region 8,” among others. Peter Garrucho was the newly appointed DTI Secretary who took over
from Jose Concepcion. Offended by these two articles, Domingo filed, on 18 January 1991, a
complaint for libel against Batuigas before the Provincial Prosecutor of Palo, Leyte. On 7 February
1991, Domingo likewise filed a complaint for Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Palo, Leyte, against Batuigas and the Manila Bulletin. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No.
91-02-23, was raffled to the RTC, Branch 6, Palo, Leyte. On 18 March 1991, the Provincial
Prosecutor terminated the preliminary investigation with the filing of an Information for Libel against
Batuigas, viz:That on or about the 20th day of December 1990, and the 4th day of January 1991,
the above-named accused, with malice afterthought and with intent to damage, ruin and discredit
the good name and reputation of one VICTOR A. DOMINGO of Tacloban City, Leyte, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously wrote and published in the TEMPO Publication in Manila.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court finds that there can be no civil
liability in Civil Case No. 91-02-23 because no libel was committed. The 20 December 1990 article
was not libelous because it was only a fair and true report by Batuigas using the documents
received by him thus relieving him of criminal liability pursuant to Art. 354 (2) of the RPC. On the
one hand, the privileged nature of the 16 January1991 article and the failure of Domingo to
discharge his burden of proving actual malice on the part of Batuigas failed to support a finding that
there was libel. Clearly, there was no act that exists from which the civil liability may arise. Records
cannot sustain a finding that Domingo was able to establish that Batuigas had actual malice in
writing this article. Batuigas testified that sometime in the latter part of 1990 and until 1991, he
received letters of complaint denouncing Domingo. Although Batuigas was not able to present
these letters during the hearing of these cases it can be rationally deduced that he was in actual
receipt of the complaints against the DTI Region VIII officials and employees because he was able
to cite the specifics of the grievances of the Waray employees in his 20 December 1990 article.
Presumably, too, the letters that Batuigas received were those complaints that had been dismissed
by the CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman, and with the corresponding resolutions evidencing
the dismissal of these complaints having been presented by Domingo during the hearing of the
cases. It was evident that the statements as to the “lousy performance” and “mismanagement” of
Domingo cannot be regarded to have been written with the knowledge that these were false or in
reckless disregard of whether these were false, bearing in mind that Batuigas had documentary
evidence to support his statements. Batuigas merely expressed his opinion based on the fact that
there were complaints filed against Domingo, among others. If the comment is an expression of
opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken,
as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.
Ogie Diaz vs People
G.R. No. 159787
May 25, 2007

On or about December 28, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused being then the
Managing Editor and writer, respectively of Bandera, a newspaper of general circulation, conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with the malicious purpose of
impeaching the integrity, honor and reputation of one FLORINDA BAGAY, and with the evident
intent of exposing her to public interest, hatred, contempt, and ridicule, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously write and publish, or cause to be written and published in the movie
section of said newspaper an article. In which words and phrases, which were used by many
people, the said accused meant and intended to convey as in fact, they meant and conveyed false
and malicious imputations that the said Florinda Bagay is a sexual pervert and possesses
lascivious and immoral habits, the accused well knowing that said imputations are devoid of truth
and without foundation in fact whatsoever, highly libelous and offensive to the good name,
character, and reputation of the said Florinda Bagay. Upon being arraigned on June 8, 1993,
petitioner Ogie Diaz and his co-accused Pichel, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. After the
pre-trial, the case was heard on the merits.

Issue: Whether the subject article is libelous

Held: No. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides: A libel is a public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural
or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. This provision should be read in
relation with Article 355 of the same Code which states: A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action
which may be brought by the offended party. Thus, for an imputation to be libelous, the following
requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given
publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable. Absent one of these elements, a case for libel will
not prosper. The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or identifiable from the contents
of the libelous article. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable,
although it is not necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the
allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and
circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the latter
is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did
understand that he was the person referred to
Dionisio Lopez vs People
G.R. No. 172203
February 14, 2011
Rene Ronulo vs People
G.R. No. 182438
July 2, 2014

Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on March 29, 2003 at the
Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. On the day of the wedding, the supposed
officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza, refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning that the
couple failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse, Joey, who was then dressed in barong
tagalong,and Claire, clad in a wedding gown, together with their parents, sponsors and guests,
proceeded to the Independent Church of Filipino Christians, also known as the Aglipayan Church.
They requested the petitioner, an Aglipayan priest, to perform a ceremony to which the latter
agreed despite having been informed by the couple that they had no marriage certificate. An
information for violation of Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, was filed against the petitioner
before the Municipal Trial Court of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly performing an illegal marriage
ceremony. The petitioner entered the plea of "not guilty" to the crime charged on arraignment. The
petitioner, while admitting that he conducted a ceremony, denied that his act of blessing the couple
was tantamount to a solemnization of the marriage as contemplated by law.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of violating Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code
for allegedly performing an illegal marriage ceremony.

Held: Yes. Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are: (1) authority of the
solemnizing officer; and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. The first element is
present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage. The
second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by Petitioner is tantamount to the
performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
Lucio Morigo vs People
G.R. No. 145226
February 06, 2004

Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of one Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran
City, Bohol for four years. Their communication was broken after school year 1977-1978. In 1984,
Lucio received a letter from Lucia from Singapore. After an exchange of letters, the two
became sweethearts. Lucia later returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work
there. Nonetheless, the sweethearts maintained a constant communication. Lucia, later came back
to the Philippines. The two agreed to get married, thus, they were married at Iglesia de Filipina
Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving Lucio
behind. Barely a year, August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with Ontario Court a petition for divorce which
was granted and took effect in February of 1992. On October that year Lucia married Maria
Lumbago also in Tagbilaran City. September 21, 1993, Lucio filed a complaint for nullity of
marriage in Regional Trial Court of Bohol on the ground that there was no marriage ceremony
actually took place. He was later charge with Bigamy filed by City Prosecutor of the Regional Trial
Court of Bohol. The petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal case invoking prejudicial
question. The civil case is a prejudicial question to bigamy. The Court granted unfortunately denied
by the motion for reconsideration of the prosecution. The Regional Trial Court of Bohol held Lucio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. He filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. While the
case was pending in Court of Appeals, the trial court granted the petition for nullty of marriage
since no marriage ceremony took place. No appeal was taken from this decision, thus, became
final and executory. But the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit. Hence, the
petition was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner committed bigamy

Held: No. No marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer.
Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private act
of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly
valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Leonila Santiago vs People
G.R. No. 200233
July 15, 2015

Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on 29 July 1997, Leonila G. Santiago and
Nicanor F. Santos faced an Information for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," while her
putative husband escaped the criminal suit. The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who
had been married to Estela Galang since 2 June 1974, asked petitioner to marry him. Petitioner,
who 'was a 43-year-old widow then, married Santos on 29 July 1997 despite the advice of her
brother-in-law and parents-in-law that if she wanted to remarry, she should choose someone who
was "without responsibility.” Petitioner asserted her affirmative defense that she could not be
included as an accused in the crime of bigamy, because she had been under the belief that Santos
was still single when they got married. She also averred that for there to be a conviction for
bigamy, his second marriage to her should be proven valid by the prosecution; but in this case, she
argued that their marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license. Eleven years after the
inception of this criminal case, the first wife, Estela Galang, testified for the prosecution.1âwphi1
She alleged that she had met petitioner as early as March and April 1997, on which occasions the
former introduced herself as the legal wife of Santos. Petitioner denied this allegation and averred
that she met Galang only in August and September 1997, or after she had already married Santos.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner cannot be a co-accused in bigamy

Held: No. The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b)
the marriage has not been legally dissolved x x x; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
Given that petitioner knew of the first marriage, the Court concurs with the ruling that she was
validly charged with bigamy. Petitioner married Santos while knowing full well that they had not yet
complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code.
Consequently, it will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act
to escape criminal conviction. However, the Court disagree with the lower courts' imposition of the
principal penalty on her. As modified, petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy as an accomplice. She is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision
correctional as maximum plus accessory penalties provided by law.
People vs Sandy Domingo
G.R. No. 225743
June 7, 2017

AAA is a saleslady in a public market in Rosario, Cavite. On 24 January 2004, at around 8:00 in
the evening, private complainant was waiting for her cousin to fetch her, when appellant, who
worked in a fish stall in the market, approached her. Appellant asked if he could accompany private
complainant to her aunt's home, where she resided. Since AAA's cousin was not around to fetch
her, she agreed for appellant to accompany her home. The two boarded a tricycle. As they were
about to leave, appellant brought out a bladed weapon and poked the same on AAA's right waist.
Struck with fear, AAA was unable to ask for help. Along the way, AAA realized that they were no
longer proceeding to her aunt's house because the tricycle made a different turn. They stopped at
a place that was not familiar to her. Thereafter, the two of them alighted after appellant paid the
tricycle driver. The entire time, however, appellant was holding the knife and poking it against
AAA's side. With appellant still holding the knife and poking it against AAA's waist, the two walked
toward a house, appellant knocked on the door, and a man came out. Appellant and AAA were
allowed entry inside the house. The man did not say anything and immediately went inside a room.
Appellant ordered AAA to enter another room. Once inside, appellant who was still holding the
knife, undressed himself. Appellant ordered AAA to undress next, but AAA did not obey. Appellant,
still holding the knife, forcibly undressed AAA until the latter was completely naked. Appellant
ordered AAA to lie down on the wooden bed. While still holding the knife, appellant inserted his
penis into private complainant's vagina. AAA felt pain in her private part. Appellant also kissed
AAA's neck and lips. Appellant made a pumping motion while his penis was inserted in AAA's
vagina. Afterwards, appellant pulled out his penis, kissed AAA, and played with the knife on the
latter's face. They did not sleep. After a while, appellant again inserted his penis inside her vagina
and kissed her. After removing his penis, he inserted it again for the fourth time. Thereafter,
appellant dressed up and ordered her to put on her clothes. While he was helping her put on her
clothes, she told him that she wants to go home. He answered that he will let her go home if she
will not tell anybody what happened. At around 3:00 in the morning, they went out of the house and
headed towards the tricycle terminal. She went home and told her Aunt what happened.
Thereafter, they went to the police station to report the incident.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of forcible abduction with rape

Held: No. Under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of forcible abduction are: (1)
the taking of a woman against her will; and (2) with lewd designs. The crime of forcible abduction
with rape is a complex crime that occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted
woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman
is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age
or is demented. Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, the appellant should be
convicted only of rape. His forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his
real objective in abducting her was to commit the rape. Where the main objective of the culprit for
the abduction of the victim of rape was to have carnal knowledge of her, he could be convicted only
of rape.
People vs Dominador Ladra
G.R. No. 221443
July 17, 2017

Sometime between 2000 to 2001, when AAA was around 5 years old, she and her siblings were
left at home with accused-appellant. After their meal, accused-appellant ordered them to sleep.
Suddenly, AAA was awakened when she felt accused-appellant, who was already naked, on top of
her, forced his penis into her vagina, and made push and pull movements, causing her pain.
Accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Thereafter, accused-appellant
repeatedly molested her, each time bringing his bolo with him. The sexual abuse ceased in 2002,
when accused-appellant left their house. Years later, or on the evening of April 16, 2008, AAA - who
was already 12 years old at the time - was surprised when she saw accused-appellant in their
kitchen. To her shock, accused-appellant squeezed her vagina and told her that they were going to
visit his house. Scared, AAA cried and told her cousin, DDD, about the incident. She also told DDD
about the first rape incident and the subsequent ones committed by accused-appellant. Eventually,
AAA told BBB about her traumatic experiences in the hands of accused-appellant when she was 5
years old. Together, they reported the incident to the barangay and thereafter, had the incident
recorded in the police blotter. Later, AAA filed criminal cases against accused-appellant, who was
subsequently arrested.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for Rape and Unjust
Vexation

Held: No. However, the Court disagrees with the CA's affirmance of the RTC's finding that
accused-appellant can only be held guilty of Unjust Vexation. After a punctilious review of the
evidence, the Court finds that he should instead be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness, as
charged in the information, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. It cannot be denied that the
presence of AAA' s brother in the room does not negate the commission of the crime. "Rape can
be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school
premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where
other members of the family are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of
the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being
committed. It is settled that lust is not a respecter of time or place and rape is known to happen in
the most unlikely places.” Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct
under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the requisites of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized
under Article 336 of the RPC above-enumerated must be met in addition to the requisites for
sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) that the child, whether male or female, is
below 18 years of age.
Norberto Cruz vs People
G.R. No. 166441
October 8, 2014

Norberto Bartolome and his wife Belinda were selling plastic wares and glass wares in different
municipalities around the country. On December 20, 1993, they employed AAA and BBB to help
them sell in Bangar, La Union. AAA and BBB boarded a passenger jeepney, accompanied by
Norberto, Belinda, Ruben (driver) and a sales boy named Jess. Upon reachingLa Union in the
evening of December 20, 1993, they brought out all the goods and wares for display. 2 tents were
fixed in order that they will have a place to sleep. Belinda and the driver proceeded to Manila in
order to get more goods to be sold. On December 21, 1993, at around 1:00 o’clock in the morning,
AAA and BBB went to sleep. Less than an hour later, AAA was awakened when she felt that
somebody was on top of her. Norberto was mashing her breast and touching her private part. AAA
realized she was naked. Norberto ordered her not to scream or she’ll be killed. She fought back
and kicked Norberto twice. Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires. Norberto offered her
money and told her not to tell the incident to her mother otherwise, she will be killed. AAA went out
of the tent to seek help from Jess but she failed to wake him up. When AAA returned to their tent,
she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. When she finally entered the tent, Norberto
left and went outside. Later that day, AAA and BBB narrated to Jess the incident that took place
that early morning. In the evening of December 21, 1993, AAA and BBB went straight to the
municipal hall where they met a policeman named “Sabas". They told Sabas the sexual advances
made to them by Norberto. Norberto was summoned to the police station where he personally
confronted his accusers. When Norberto’s wife, Belinda, arrived at the police station, an argument
ensued between them. The police investigator ordered the complainants to return. Norberto and
Belinda were still able to bring AAA and BBB home with them and worked for them until December
30, 1994, after which they were sent back to Lingayen, Pangasinan. On January 10, 1994, AAA
and BBB went back to La Union and executed their respective sworn statements against Norberto.

Issue: Whether or not the acts performed by the petitioner constituted attempted rape

Held: No. The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from
his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts directly leading to rape. Rape is
consummated once the penis touches the external genitalia of the female. If the acts of the
petitioner did not constitute attempted rape, did they constitute acts of lasciviousness? It is obvious
that the fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the
offender’sintent to lie with the female. In rape, intent to lie with the female is indispensable, but this
element is not required in acts of lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed, therefore, when the
"touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate
is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching
the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness
is committed. With such allegation of the information being competently and satisfactorily proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. At
most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her.

Based on Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, the felony of acts of lasciviousness is
consummated whenthe following essential elements concur, namely:
(a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person of either sex;
and
(b) the act of lasciviousness or lewdness is committed either: (i) by using force or intimidation; or
(ii) when the offended party is deprived ofreason or is otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the
offended party is under 12 years of age.3