Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)

Section 4D, AY 2016-2017

San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TREASON criminal case before the briefs are filed, but his withdrawal of the appeal
(Art. 114, RPC) does not remove the case from the jurisdiction of this Court which under the
law is authorized and called upon to review the decision though unappealed.
CASE 1: PEOPLE v. PEDRO VILLANUEVA (Busine) Consequently, the withdrawal of the appeal in this case could not serve to
G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958 render the decision of the People's Court final. The decision imposing the
En banc death penalty, the judgment of conviction entered in the trial court is not
final, and cannot be executed and is wholly without force or effect until the
Doctrine: Automatic review by the Supreme Court of decisions imposing the case has been passed upon by the Supreme Court en consulta; that
death penalty is something which neither the court nor the accused could although a judgment of conviction is entered by the trial court, said decision
waive or evade. has none of the attributes of a final judgment and sentence; that until it has
been reviewed by the Supreme Court which finally passes upon it, the same
Facts: Pedro T. Villanueva was sentenced to death by the Fifth Division of is not final and conclusive; and that this automatic review by the Supreme
the defunct People's Court for the crime of treason. Villanueva appealed the Court of decisions imposing the death penalty is something which neither the
case under the provisions of Section 9 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court court nor the accused could waive or evade.
which provides mandatory review by this Tribunal of all decisions or
judgments of the lower courts imposing death penalties. CASE 2: PEOPLE vs. FILEMON DELGADO (Cerda)
G.R. No. L-1446 March 4, 1949
Meantime, it was discovered that the transcript of stenographic notes taken
down, before the People's Court was missing and unavailable, by reason of Doctrine: Treason cannot be complexed.
which and upon recommendation of the Solicitor General, the case was
remanded to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the retaking of the Facts: During the month of July 1944 in Talisay, Cebu, a Japanese Navy
missing testimonies of the four witnesses who testified before the People's truck and a train coach operated by the Japanese troops were ambushed by
Court. the resistance and guerrilla forces. As a measure of reprisal on July 29,
1944, a mass arrest or concentration of the male inhabitants of Dolho,
Appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo praying that Talisay, Mambaling and Basak was effected.
he be allowed to withdraw his appeal so as to avail himself of the benefits of Many Japanese soldier accompanied by Filipino spies and undercover men
the Executive clemency granted to all prisoners convicted of treason, among them the appellant Filemon Delgado rounded up a great number of
including those whose cases were pending appeal, on condition that such men some through arrests other by invitation.
appeals be first withdrawn. Whereupon the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
returned the case to the SC for whatever action it may take in view of the Victims – Tereso Sanchez, Jose dela Cerna and Antonio dela Cerna
withdrawal requested, for, at all events, the case had to be reviewed by us
regardless of defendant's appeal. On that day Tereso Sanchez a guerrilla soldier and Antonio dela Cerna were
arrested in Mambaling, and were transferred to the Basak schoolhouse
Issue: Whether or not the appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn where they found hundred of men among them Jose de la Cerna and
Fidencio Delgado and it was there where they saw the appellant armed with
Ruling: An accused appealing from a decision sentencing him to death may a revolver and other Filipino undercover men working with and helping the
be allowed to withdraw his appeal like any other appellant in an ordinary Japanese soldiers tying up the hands of those arrested investigation and
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
torturing them in order to obtain information about the guerrillas and about the time he was under detention in the Constabulary barracks after
firearms they were suspected of possessing. Jose dela Cerna as well as he had been arrested by the Japanese forces and was made to
Antonio dela Cerna and the others were maltreated by defendant Filemon work in the Japanese air field in Cebu and later delivered to the
Delgado. Fidencio Delgado was himself tied up but he was released when Constabulary for custody
he happened to mention that his surname was Delgado.  It was not him but rather another person with the same name

The following day, Tereso Sanchez and Antonio dela Cerna were taken to Ruling of the Trial Court
the mountain of Toong. The Japanese together with defendant were Filemon Delgado was charged with treason under five counts was found
shooting to death those who insisted that they did not have any firearm, as guilty under four counts of "the crime of treason complexed with the crime of
such, Antonio dela Cerna told his captors that he indeed have a revolver and murder" and sentenced to death penalty by electrocution with all the
so, he was separated. However, Tereso who had no firearm to surrender accessories of the law.
and neither did he make any pretense that he had one was told by appellant
to turn around which he did and Filemon Delgado immediately fired at him Solicitor General’s argument
hitting him on the back of the head on the occipital region the bullet coming The offense committed is simple treason citing the doctrine laid down by this
out thru left eyes. As he fell to the ground the appellant pushed him down Court in the case of People vs. Prieto (80 Phil., 138) but accompanied by the
into a ravine. because he still moving down below some undercover men aggravating circumstance under article 14 paragraph 21, of the Revised
fired parking shots at wounding him in the back. Miraculously, Sanchez did Penal Code and not compensated by any mitigating circumstance and he
not die. recommends the imposition of the penalty of death.

Another Victim – Leonardo, Eduardo Oano and Patricio Suico Issue: Whether or not defendant Filemon Delgado should be held liable for
treason complexed with murder
In August 1944, Leonardo when arrested and taken to his house found
defendant together with other undercover men and Japanese soldiers. Ruling: The Court ruled that appellant may be convicted only of treason
Leonardo and Patricio (suspected to be a lieutenant of volunteer guards) and that the killing and infliction of Physical injuries committed by him may
were hanged and beaten with wooden sticks then they were taken back to not be separated from the crime of treason but should be regarded as acts
the house of Leonardo where they were guarded and their hands were tied. performed in the commission of treason, altho, as stated in said case the
Series of beating ps and maltreatment continues until Patricio beg that he brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be
cannot bear the torture anymore, he collapsed and fell to the ground while taken as an aggravating circumstance." The Court refer in the present case
being taken to a neighboring house. But despite his being motionless, to the manner Tereso Sanchez was shot and Patricio Suico was tortured
defendant laid him on a sled beat him, order a fire to be built under the sled and finally killed.
just below the face and buttocks, burn his face, and slashed his throat.
The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution positively pointed to and
Defenses identified the appellant not only by name but also by having actually seen
 The appellant could not have been possibly present in the arrest him and maltreated by him. As a matter of fact before the trial some of the
investigation torture and shooting committed by Japanese soldiers government witnesses had been taken to the stockade where detention
and Filipino undercover men on the inhabitants of the province of prisoners had been kept and Filemon Delgado was positively and
Cebu particularly on July 29 and August 24-25, 1944, because at unhesitatingly identified by them.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prohibition was filed in this court to have the trial judge desist from
CASE 3: JUAN D. CRISOLOGO v. PEOPLE (Chua) proceeding with the trial and dismiss the case.
G.R. No. L-6277, February 26, 1954
EN BANC The petition is opposed by the Solicitor General who, in upholding the
jurisdiction of the trial judge, denies that petitioner is being subjected to
Doctrine: The decision of the Military Court constitutes a bar to further double jeopardy.
prosecution for the same offense in Civil Courts.
Contentions of the respondents:
Facts: The petitioner is a captain in the USAFFE during the last world war A. The offense charged in the military court is different from that
and a lieutenant colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. charged in the civil court and that even granting that the offense
was identical the military court had no jurisdiction to take
A information was filed against accused of treason under article 114 of the cognizance of the same because the People's Court had previously
Revised Penal in the People's Court. acquired jurisdiction over the case with the result that the conviction
in the court martial was void. It is urged that the amended
But before the accused could be brought under the jurisdiction of the court, information filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
he was indicted for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise contains overt acts distinct from those charged in the military court;
known as the Articles of War, before a military court created by the authority B. Respondents cite the cases of Melo vs. People, 47 off. Gaz., 4631,
of the Army Chief of Staff, the indictment containing three charges, two of and People vs. Manolong, 47 Off. Gaz., 5104, where this court
which, the first and third, were those of treason: held: Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for
a. giving information and aid to the enemy leading to the capture of which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of
USAFFE officers and men and other persons with anti-Japanese the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time,
reputation (treason) ; - found innocent constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said
b. having certain civilians killed in time of war; and – found guilty and to be second jeopardy if indicted for a new offense; and
sentenced by the military court to life imprisonment. C. Claim that the military court had no jurisdiction over the case.
c. urging members of the USAFFE to surrender and cooperate with
the enemy (treason). - found innocent. Issues:
The criminal case in the court against the petitioner was transferred to the 1. Whether the decision of the military court constitutes a bar to further
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga (due to the approval of Republic Act prosecution for the same offense in the civil courts -YES ; and
No. 311 abolishing the People's Court) and there the charges of treason 2. Whether the contentions of the respondents are meritorious-NO.
were amplified.
Upon arraignment, petitioner presented a motion to quash, challenging the Ruling:
jurisdiction of the court and pleading double jeopardy because of his 1. Yes. Where an act transgresses both civil and military laws subjects the
previous sentence in the military court. offender to punishment by both civil and military authority, a conviction or an
acquittal in a civil court cannot be pleaded as a bar to a prosecution in the
But the court denied the motion and, after petitioner had pleaded not guilty, military court, and vice versa. But the rule is strictly limited to the case of a
proceeded to trial, whereupon, the present petition for certiorari and single act which infringes both the civil and the military law in such a
manner as to constitute two distinct offenses, one of which is within the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cognizance of the military courts and the other a subject of civil jurisdiction,
and it does not apply where both courts derive their powers from the same B. Wrong – Respondents overlook that in the present case no new facts
sovereignty. have supervened that would change the nature of the offense for which
It therefore, has no application to the present case the military court has petitioner was tried in the military court, the alleged additional overt acts
convicted the petitioner and the civil court which proposes to try him again specified in the amended information in the civil court having already taken
derive their powers from one sovereignty and it is not disputed that the place when petitioner was indicted in the former court.
charges of treason tried in the court martial were punishable under the
Articles of War, it being as a matter of fact impliedly admitted by the Of more pertinent application is the following from 15 American
Solicitor General that the two courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the Jurisprudence, 56-57: Subject to statutory prohibitions and the interpretation
offense charged. thereof for the purpose of arriving at the intent of the legislature enacting
them, it may be said that as a rule only one prosecution may be had for a
It appearing that the offense charged in the military court and in the civil continuing crime, and that when an offense charged consists of a series of
court is the same, that the military court had jurisdiction to try the case and acts extending over a period of time, a conviction or acquittal for a crime
that both courts derive their powers from one sovereignty, the sentence based on a portion of that period will bar a prosecution covering the whole
meted out by the military court to the petitioner should, in accordance with period. In such case the offense is single and indivisible; and whether the
the precedents above cited, be a bar to petitioner's further prosecution for time alleged is longer or shorter, the commission of the acts which constitute
the same offense in the Court of First Instance of Zambales. it within any portion of the time alleged, is a bar to the conviction for other
acts committed within the same time.
2. NO, the contentions have no merit.
C. Wrong- Well known is the rule that when several courts have
A. Wrong - While certain overt acts specified in the amended information concurrent jurisdiction of the same offense, the court first acquiring
in the Zamboanga court were not specified in the indictment in the court jurisdiction of the prosecution retains it to the exclusion of the others. This
martial, they all are embraced in the general charge of treason, which is a rule, however, requires that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
continuous offense and one who commits it is not criminally liable for as shall have first been obtained by the court in which the first charge was filed.
many crimes as there are overt acts, because all overt acts "he has done or
might have done for that purpose constitute but a single offense." The record in the present case shows that the information for treason in the
People's Court was filed first, but petitioner had not yet been arrested or
In other words, since the offense charged in the amended information in the
brought into the custody of the court — the warrant of arrest had not even
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is treason, the fact that the said
been issued — when the indictment for the same offense was filed in the
information contains an enumeration of additional overt acts not specifically
military court. Under the rule cited, mere priority in the filing of the complaint
mentioned in the indictment before the military court is immaterial since the
in one court does not give that court priority to take cognizance of the
new alleged overt acts do not in themselves constitute a new and distinct
offense, it being necessary in addition that the court where the information is
offense from that of treason, and this Court has repeatedly held that a
filed has custody or jurisdiction of the person of defendant.
person cannot be found guilty of treason and at the same time also guilty of
overt acts specified in the information for treason even if those overt acts,
Supreme Court cited two cases relevant in this case, to wit:
considered separately, are punishable by law, for the simple reason that
those overt acts are not separate offense distinct from that of treason but
constitutes ingredients thereof.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. vs. Tubig, a soldier of the United States Army in the En Banc; Carson, J.
Philippines was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga
with having assassinated one Antonio Alivia. Upon arraignment, he Doctrine: Where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in this
pleaded double jeopardy in that he had already been previously case, and it is proven that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment
convicted and sentenced by a court-martial for the same offense as an officer in that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly be taken
and had already served his sentence. The trial court overruled the into consideration as evidence of his relations with the conspirators.
plea on the grounds that a the province where the offense was
committed was under civil jurisdiction, the military court had no Facts: Appellants Francisco Bautista (BAUTISTA), Aniceto de Guzman (DE
jurisdiction to try the offense. But on appeal, this court held that GUZMAN) and Tomas Puzon (PUZON) were convicted in the CFI of Manila
"one who has been tried and convicted by a court martial under of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the
circumstances giving that tribunal jurisdiction of the defendant and Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands and the
of the offense, has been once in jeopardy and cannot for the same Government of the Philippine Islands, as defined and penalized in section 4
offense be again prosecuted in another court of the same of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.
sovereignty."
Acts subject of the conviction:
2. Grafton vs. U.S. a private in the United States Army in the (a) During the latter part of the year 1903 a junta was organized and a
Philippines was tried by a general court martial for homicide under conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos, resident in the city
the Articles of War. Having been acquitted in that court, he was of Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of
prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for murder under the United States in the Philippine Islands by force of arms and
the general laws of the Philippines. Invoking his previous acquittal establishing in its stead a government to be known as the
in the military court, he pleaded it in bar of proceedings against him Republica Universal Democratica Filipina;
in the civil court, but the latter court overruled the plea and after trial (b) That one Prim Ruiz was recognized as the titular head of this
found him guilty of homicide and sentenced him to prison. The conspiracy and one Artemio Ricarte as chief of the military forces to
sentence was affirmed by this Supreme Court, but on appeal to the the organized in the Philippines in the furtherance of the plans of
Supreme Court of the United States, the sentence was reversed the conspirators;
and defendant acquitted, that court holding that "defendant, having (c) That toward the end of December, 1903 the said Ricarte came to
been acquitted of the crime of homicide alleged to have been Manila from Hongkong in hidding on board the steamship
committed by him by a court martial of competent jurisdiction Yuensang;
proceeding under the authority of the United States, cannot be (d) That after his arrival in the Philippines he held a number of
subsequently tried for the same offense in a civil court exercising meetings in the city of Manila and the adjoining provinces whereat
authority in the Philippines." was perfected the above-mentioned conspiracy hatched in
Hongkong;
MISPRISION OF TREASON (e) That at these meetings new members were taken into the
(Art. 115, RPC) conspiracy and plans made for the enlistment of an army of
revolution and the raising of money by national and private loans to
CASE 4: US v. Francisco Bautista (Molina) carry on the campaign;
G.R. No. L-2189, November 3, 1906
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) That to this end bonds were issued and commissions as officers in (n) That at one of these conferences Muñoz offered Puzon a
the revolutionary army were granted to a number of conspirators, commission as brigadier-general of the signal corps and
empowering the officers thus appointed to raise troops and take undertook to do his part in organizing the troops; and
command thereof; and (o) That at a later conference he assured the said Muñoz that he had
(g) That the conspirators did in fact take the field and offered armed things in readiness, meaning thereby that he had duly organized in
resistance to the constituted authorities in the Philippines, only accordance with the terms of his commission.
failing in their design of overthrowing the Government because of
their failure to combat successfully with the officers of the law who As to De Guzman’s participation:
were sent against them and of the failure of the people to rise en (p) That De Guzman accepted a number of bonds from one of the
masse in response to their propaganda. conspirators, such bonds having been prepared by the
conspirators for the purpose of raising funds for carrying out the
As to Bautista’s participation plans of the conspiracy;
(h) That the appellant Francisco Bautista, a resident of the city of (q) That when he opened the bundle and discovered the nature of
Manila, was an intimate friend of the said Ricarte; the contents he destroyed them with fire, and that he never
(i) That Ricarte wrote and notified Bautista of his coming to had any dealings with the conspirators in relation to the
Manila and that, to aid him in his journey, Bautista forwarded conspiracy or the object for which it was organized.
to him secretly 200 pesos;
(j) That after the arrival of Ricarte, Bautista was present, taking Issue: Are the appellants guilty of conspiracy to commit treason?
part in several of the above-mentioned meetings whereat the
plans of the conspirators were discussed and perfected, and Ruling: Only PUZON and BAUTISTA are guilty of conspiracy to commit
(k) That at one of these meetings Bautista, in answer to a treason. DE GUZMAN is acquitted.
question of Ricarte, assured him that the necessary
preparations had been made and that he "held the people in As to the guilt of PUZON and BAUTISTA
readiness." It is contended that the acceptance or possession of an appointment as an
officer of the military forces of the conspiracy should not be considered as
As to Puzon’s participation evidence against him in the light of the decisions of this court in the cases of
(l) That the appellant, Tomas Puzon, united with the conspirators the United States vs. Antonio de los Reyes 1 (2 Off. Gaz., 364), United
through the agency of one Jose R. Muñoz, who was proven to States vs. Silverio Nuñez et al.2 (3 Off. Gaz., 408), the United States vs.
have been a prime leader of the movement, in the intimate Eusebio de la Serna et al. 3 (3 Off. Gaz., 528), and United States vs.
confidence of Ricarte, and by him authorized to distribute Bernardo Manalo et al. 4 (4 Off. Gaz., 570).
bonds and nominate and appoint certain officials, including a
brigadier-general of the signal corps of the proposed But the case at bar is to be distinguished from these and like cases by the
revolutionary forces; fact (1) that the record clearly disclose that the accused actually and
(m) That at the time when the conspiracy was being brought to a head voluntarily accepted the appointment in question and in doing so
in the city of Manila, Puzon held several conferences with the said assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance, and (2) that
Muñoz whereat plans were made for the coming insurrection; the charge in this case is that of conspiracy, and the fact that the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
accused accepted the appointment is taken into consideration merely was "the fact that a so-called appointment of sergeant was found at
as evidence of his criminal relations with the conspirators. his house."

(a) In the first of these cases — the United States vs. De los Reyes — (d) In the case of the United States vs. Bernardo Manalo et al. there
the accused was charged with treason, and the court found that was testimony that four appointments of officials in a revolutionary
the mere acceptance of a commission by the defendant, nothing army were found in a trunk in the house of one Valentin Colorado,
else being done either by himself or by his companions, was not an and the court in said case reaffirmed the doctrine that "the mere
"overt act" of treason within the meaning of the law, but the court possession of the documents of this kind is not sufficient to
further expressly held that —“That state of affairs disclosed body convict," and held, furthermore, that there was "evidence in the
of evidence, . . . the playing of the game of government like case that at the time these papers were received by the appellant,
children, the secretaries, colonels, and captains, the pictures Valentin Colorado, he went to one of the assistant councilmen of
of flags and seals and commission, all on proper, for the the barrio in which lived, a witness for the Government, showed him
purpose of duping and misleading the ignorant and the the envelope, and stated to him he had received these papers; that
visionary . . . should not be dignified by the name of treason.” he didn't know what they were and requested this councilman to
open them. The coucilman did not wish to do that but took the
(b) In the second case — the United States vs. Nuñez et al. -- wherein envelope and sent it to the councilman Jose Millora. We are
the accused were charged with brigandage, the court held that, satisfied that this envelope contained the appointments in question
aside from the possession of commissions in an insurgent band, and that the appellant did not act under the appointment but
there was no evidence to show that it they had committed the crime immediately reported the receipt of them to the authorities."
and, "moreover, that it appeared that they had never united with
any party of brigands and never had been in any way connected It is quite conceivable (a) that a group of conspirators might appoint a
with such parties unless the physical possession of these person in no wise connected with them to some high office in the conspiracy,
appointments proved such relation," and that it appeared that each in the hope that such person would afterwards accept the commission and
one of the defendants "were separately approached at different thus unite himself with them, (b) that such an appointment might be
times by armed men while working in the field and were virtually forwarded in the mail or otherwise, and thus come into the possession of the
compelled to accept the commissions." person thus nominated, and (c) that such appointment might be found in his
possession, and (d) notwithstanding all this, the person in whose
(c) In the case of the United States vs. de la Serna et al. it was possession the appointment was found might be entirely innocent of all
contended that de la Serna had confessed that "he was one of the intention to join the conspiracy, never having authorized the conspirators to
members of the pulajanes, with a commission as colonel," but the use his name in this manner nor to send such a commission to him.
court was of opinion that the evidence did not sustain a finding that
such confession had in fact been made, hence the doctrine laid Where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in this case,
down in that decision, "that the mere possession of such an and it is proven that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment
appointment, when it is not shown that the possessor executed as an officer in that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly be
some external act by the virtue of the same, does not constitute taken into consideration as evidence of his relations with the
sufficient proof of the guilt of the defendant," applies only the case conspirators.
of Enrique Camonas, against whom the only evidence of record
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-witness rule inapplicable secretary, Gregorio Ramos, Agustin Castro, Martin Soriano, Genaro Sison,
The crime of conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense Domingo Macaraeg, Carlos Caguioa, Domingo Caguioa, Antonio Romero,
from the crime of treason, and that this constitutional provision is not Fabian Rosario, Inocencio Torio, Nicolas Abalos, Roman Prado, Pedro
applicable in such cases. Miranda, Diego Casino, and Ricardo Fernandez as captains, Francisco
Fernandez, Eugenio Lomibao, and Ciriaco Verzosa as lieutenants, Domingo
DE GUZMAN is acquitted: Archangel as military governor of the pueblo of San Carlos and Celedonio
The evidence of record does not sustain the conviction of Aniceto de Ramos as military governor of the pueblo of Lingayen. Under this
Guzman. The finding of his guilt rest substantially upon his acceptance government the Province of Pangasinan was divided into six zones or
of a number of bonds from one of the conspirators, such bonds having military districts.cha
been prepared by the conspirators for the purpose of raising funds for
carrying out the plans of the conspiracy, but it does not affirmatively Issue: Whether or not appellants are guilty of the crime charged
appear (a) that he knew anything of the existence of the conspiracy or (b)
that, when he received the bonds wrapped in a bundle, he knew what the Ruling: Yes. The evidence clearly and indubitably shows the existence of
contents of the bundle was, nor (c) that ever, on any occasion, assumed any such society and the seditious character of its purposes. It shows that most
obligation with respect to these bonds. He, himself, states that when he of the defendants attended various meetings of said society, at which Pedro
opened the bundle and discovered the nature of the contents he Cabola made revolutionary and seditious speeches; and that many of the
destroyed them with fire, and that he never had any dealings with the defendants signed a document or documents seditious in character, their
conspirators in relation to the conspiracy or the object for which it was clearly indicated purpose being the destruction of the Government of the
organized. United States in the Philippine Islands. Many of the defendants were found
in possession of commission from Pedro Cabola appointing them officers in
CASE 5: US v. Cabola (Dalaguete) his military organization. Several of the defendants confessed their guilt to
GR No. L – 4663, October 9, 1909 the public officials and related facts connecting many of the other defendants
En banc with the society in question.

Facts: Appellants were charged with violation of section 4 of Act no. 292 of
the Philippine Commission, enacted for the purpose of punishing those who
should enter into a conspiracy to destroy the Government of the United QUALIFIED PIRACY
States in the Philippine Islands (Art. 123, RPC)

On or about the month of August, 1907, in the pueblo of Lingayen, in the CASE 6: PEOPLE vs. ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO
Province of Pangasinan, Pedro Cabola, in conjunction with other individuals, O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN
by means of the pacto de sangre, organized a Katipunan Society, which had DOES (Dimayuga)
for its object the destruction by force of the Government of the United States G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
in the Philippine Islands and the establishment by said defendants of THIRD DIVISION; MELO, J.:
another government in the form of a military organization in which Pedro
Cabola should figure as supreme head, Urbano Ramos as a lieutenant- Doctrine: Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the
colonel, Claro Ramos and Rafael Apostol as comandantes, Pedro Ramos as provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 piracy under Article
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and piracy under Presidential On April 10, 1991, the members of the crew were released in three batches
Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws. with the stern warning not to report the incident to government authorities for
a period of two days or until April 12, 1991, otherwise they would be killed.
Facts: "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and The members of the vessel were freed. They reported the incident to the
Transport Corporation, loaded with barrels of kerosene, gasoline and diesel authorities.
oil, amounting to P40,426,793,87, was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near
Silonay Island. The respondents were arrested, charged and convicted of qualified piracy.
The court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the
The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, was suddenly boarded, with the crime of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in Section 2(d) of Presidential
use of an aluminum ladder, by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio Decree No. 532 and the accused Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, to said
Changco, older brother of accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The pirates, crime.
including accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. were armed with
M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, and bolos. They detained the crew Issue: Did the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove
and took complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of
Loyola ordered three crew members to paint over, using black paint, the qualified piracy?
name "M/T Tabangao" on the front and rear portions of the vessel, as well
as the PNOC logo on the chimney of the vessel. The vessel was then Ruling: No. Emilio Changco, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante,
painted with the name "Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras. Jr. and others, were the ones assigned to attack and seize the "M/T
The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, all the while sending misleading Tabangao" off Lubang, Mindoro, while accused-appellant Cecilio Changco
radio messages to PNOC that the ship was undergoing repairs. was to fetch the master and the members of the crew from the shoreline of
Calatagan, Batangas after the transfer, and bring them to Imus, Cavite, and
On March 9, 1991, the ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore and cruised to provide the crew and the officers of the vessel with money for their fare
around the area presumably to await another vessel which, however, failed and food provisions on their way home. These acts had to be well-
to arrive. The pirates were thus forced to return to the Philippines on March coordinated.
14, 1991, arriving at Calatagan, Batangas on March 20, 1991 where it
remained at sea. On March 28, 1991, the "M/T Tabangao" again sailed to As for accused-appellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he can no longer be
and anchored about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore's shoreline convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as defined and penalized in Sections
where another vessel called "Navi Pride" anchored beside it. Emilio 2[d] and 3[a], respectively of Presidential Decree No. 532 because Republic
Changco ordered the crew of "M/T Tabangao" to transfer the vessel's cargo Act No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994), which amended Article 122 of the
to the hold of "Navi Pride". Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong Revised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded Presidential Decree No.
supervised the crew of "Navi Pride" in receiving the cargo. The transfer, after 532. He reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been rendered
an interruption, with both vessels leaving the area, was completed on March "superfluous or duplicitous" because both Article 122 of the Revised Penal
30, 1991. Code, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy
committed in Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to reconcile the
On March 30, 1991, "M/T Tabangao" returned to the same area and two laws, the word "any person" mentioned in Section 1 [d] of Presidential
completed the transfer of cargo to "Navi Pride." On April 8, 1991, "M/T Decree No. 532 must be omitted such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall
Tabangao" arrived at Calatagan, Batangas, but the vessel remained at sea. only apply to offenders who are members of the complement or to
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659 shall apply to is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
offenders who are neither members of the complement or passengers of the committed in Philippine waters.
vessel, hence, excluding him from the coverage of the law.
CASE 7: PEOPLE vs. LOL-LO and SARAW (Dionisio)
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO and SARAW
piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922
its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic
Doctrine: Piracy is a crime against humankind; pirates are hostes humanis
Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include
generis. Thus, the crime can be prosecuted here even if the crime was
offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand, under committed outside the Philippine territory.
Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on
piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the Facts: Two boats left Matuta for Peta (Dutch territories). One boat contained
complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a a Dutch citizen while the other contained eleven men, women, and children
member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law. (all Dutch citizens). While in between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the
Dutch East Indies, the boats were surrounded by six vintas manned by 24
armed moros. The moros initially asked for food but once on board the boat,
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on
the moros attacked the men and violated the women. All the passengers
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between with the exception of two women were asked to remain in the boat and holes
the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to were made in it.
construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the
coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well Lol-lo and Saraw (two of the Moro men involved) later returned home to
as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed Tawi-Tawi, Sulu where they were arrested and charged of piracy. A demurer
in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is was filed based on the fact that the court do not have jurisdiction which was
overruled by the trial court
"among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes
of all countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, Issues:
and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as (1) WON THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE
separate laws. (2) WON THE LAWS ON PIRACY FROM SPANISH LAW ARE STILL
APPLICABLE
As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
Ruling:
the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed
outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack (1) YES. The Court has jurisdiction.
on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates)
and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive
Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful
vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off- authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal
loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused- hostility. Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not
appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in
requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or
in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other
crimes has no territorial limits. Nor does it matter that the crime was
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those CASE 8: BENITO ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes." (Enriquez)
G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003
(2) YES. The Spanish law on piracy still applies. The transfer of Philippine First Division; Ynares-Santiago, J.
territory from Spain to the United States has the effect of abrogating the
political law of the former sovereignty. The municipal law in so far as it is Doctrine: Curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical
consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or the
restraint upon the victims person. If the acts and actuations of the accused
characteristics and institutions of the government, remains in force. As a
corollary to the main rules, laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the
to secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and
municipal character, continue until by direct action of the new government movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is,
they are altered or repealed. for all intents and purposes, detained against his will.

Hence, the articles of the Spanish Penal Code dealing with piracy are still Facts: DENR-Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western
applicable to the case at bar. Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in
line with the governments campaign against illegal logging. The team was
The crime committed by accused falls under the first paragraph of article 153 composed of Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan,
of the Penal Code in relation to article 154. There are present at least two of Forest Ranger Renato Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias, with
the circumstances named in the last cited article as authorizing
Elpidio E. Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement
either cadena perpetua or death. The crime of piracy was accompanied by
(1) an offense against chastity and (2) the abandonment of persons without Section, as team leader. The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco,
apparent means of saving themselves. Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian.

In this connection, the trial court, found the presence of one aggravating En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team spotted two more
circumstance of nocturnity, and compensating the same by the one boats being constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, Daram, Samar,
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. At least three aggravating prompting them to stop and investigate. Thus, Maniscan and Militante
circumstances, that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was disembarked from the DENRs service pump boat and proceeded to the site
deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its of the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga. After conversing
commission, that advantage was taken of superior strength, and that means
with the mayor, Militante returned to their boat for the purpose of fetching
were employed which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act, must
also be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty. Considering, therefore, Simon, at the request of Mayor Astorga.
the number and importance of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
here present, which cannot be offset by the sole mitigating circumstance of When Simon, accompanied by dela Cruz, SPO3 Cinco, and SPO1
lack of instruction, and the horrible nature of the crime committed, the court Capoquian, approached Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of
is duty bound to impose capital punishment. their mission, Simon was suddenly slapped hard twice on the shoulder by
Mayor Astorga, Mayor Astorga then ordered someone to fetch
ARBITRARY DETENTION reinforcements, and forty-five (45) minutes later, a banca arrived bearing ten
(Art. 124, RPC) (10) men, some of them dressed in fatigue uniforms, armed with M-16 and
M14 rifles, and they promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team
members. Simon then took out his handheld radio, saying that he was going
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to contact DENR in Catbalogan to inform them of the teams whereabouts. the victims person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce
Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed Simons radio. Simon then asked such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the
Mayor Astorga to allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in
retorted that they would not be allowed to go home and that they would accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents
instead be brought to Daram. The team was brought to a house where they and purposes, detained against his will.
were told that they would be erved dinner. The team had dinner with Mayor In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their
Astorga and several others at a long table, and the meal lasted between pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to
7:00-8:00 p.m. After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were go home.This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of
allowed to go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay. On the almost a dozen reinforcements, all armed with military-issue rifles, who
other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m. proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the complainants and
when the team was finally allowed to leave. the witnesses.
Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against Mayor
Astorga and his men. Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians
statement that it was not safe to refuse Mayor Astorgas orders. It was not
Issue: Whether or not the trial court grievously erred in finding the accused just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these
guilty of Arbitrary Detention notwithstanding the Affidavit of Desistance gunmen had on the actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed
executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they felt
compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The intent to prevent the departure
Ruling: Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee of the complainants and witnesses against their will is thus clear.
who, without legal grounds, detains a person. The elements of the crime are:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private
2. That he detains a person. complainants, suffice it to say that the principles governing the use of such
3. That the detention is without legal grounds. instruments in the adjudication of other crimes can be applied here. Thus, in
People v. Ballabare, it was held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an
In this case, petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, additional ground to buttress the defenses of the accused, not the sole
was then Mayor of Daram, Samar is not disputed. Hence, the first element of consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances
Arbitrary Detention, that the offender is a public officer or employee, is which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to
undeniably present. Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by
of petitioner that his acts were spurred by some legal purpose. On the the judge. Here, there are no such circumstances.
contrary, he admitted that his acts were motivated by his instinct for self-
preservation and the feeling that he was being singled out. The detention CASE 9: ROBINHOOD PADILLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Gasapo)
was thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997
enumerated above. What remains is the determination of whether or not the Third Division; Francisco, J.
team was actually detained.
Doctrine:
The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances:
curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is running fast down the highway prompting him to remark that the vehicle
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; might get into an accident considering the inclement weather. True enough,
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal immediately after the vehicle had passed the restaurant, Manarang and
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed Perez heard a screeching sound produced by the sudden and hard braking
it. of a vehicle running very fast followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a hitting something.
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
Manarang and Cruz went out to investigate and immediately saw the vehicle
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
occupying the edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight tilt to its side.
transferred from one confinement to another.
Manarang, being a member of both the Spectrum, a civic group and the
The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council, decided to report the incident to
seizure of property is valid, are as follows: the Philippine National Police of Angeles City. He took out his radio and
called the Viper, the radio controller of the Philippine National Police of
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under
Angeles City. By the time Manarang completed the call, the vehicle had
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
started to leave the place of the accident taking the general direction to the
jurisprudence,
north.
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are:
Manarang went to the location of the accident and found out that the vehicle
(a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in had hit somebody.
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
He asked Cruz to look after the victim while he went back to the restaurant,
duties;
rode on his motorcycle and chased the vehicle. During the chase he was
(b). the evidence as inadvertently discovered by the police who
able to make out the plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777. He called the
had the right to be where they are;
Viper through the radio once again reporting that a vehicle heading north
(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
with plate number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run accident. The
(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
Viper, in the person of SPO2 Ruby Buan, upon receipt of the second radio
search.
call flashed the message to all units of PNP Angeles City with the order to
apprehend the vehicle. One of the units of the PNP Angeles City reached by
Facts: the alarm was its Patrol Division at Jake Gonzales Street near the Traffic
Charge: Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions Division. SPO2 Juan C. Borja III and SPO2 Emerlito Miranda immediately
RTC: Convicted as charged boarded a mobile patrol vehicle (Mobile No. 3) and positioned themselves
CA: Sustained the RTC near the south approach of Abacan bridge since it was the only passable
way going to the north. It took them about ten (10) seconds to cover the
In the evening of October 26, 1992, Enrique Manarang and his compadre distance between their office and the Abacan bridge.
Danny Perez were inside the Manukan sa Highway Restaurant in Sto.
Another PNP mobile patrol vehicle that responded to the flash message from
Kristo, Angeles City where they took shelter from the heavy downpour that
SPO2 Buan was Mobile No. 7 of the Pulongmaragal Detachment which was
had interrupted their ride on motorcycles along McArthur Highway. While
then conducting patrol along Don Juico Avenue. On board were SPO Ruben
inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero,
Mercado and SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar. SPO Ruben Mercado
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
immediately told SPO3 Tan to proceed to the MacArthur Highway to shown in the office. After disarming appellant, SPO2 Borja told him about
intercept the vehicle with plate number PMA 777. the hit and run incident which was angrily denied by appellant. By that time,
a crowd had formed at the place. SPO2 Borja checked the cylinder of the
In the meantime, Manarang continued to chase the vehicle which figured in
gun and find six (6) live bullets inside.
the hit and run incident, even passing through a flooded portion of the
MacArthur Highway two (2) feet deep in front of the Iglesia ni Kristo church While SPO2 Borja and appellant were arguing, Mobile No. 7 with SPO
but he could not catch up with the same vehicle. When he saw that the car Ruben Mercado, SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar on board arrived. As the
he was chasing went towards Magalang, he proceeded to Abacan bridge most senior police officer in the group, SPO Mercado took over the matter
because he knew Pulongmaragal was not passable. When he reached the and informed appellant that he was being arrested for the hit and run
Abacan bridge, he found Mobile No. 3 and SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda incident. He pointed out to appellant the fact that the plate number of his
watching all vehicles coming their way. He approached them and informed vehicle was dangling and the railing and the hood were dented. Appellant,
them that there was a hit and run incident.Upon learning that the two police however, arrogantly denied his misdeed and, instead, played with the
officers already knew about the incident, Manarang went back to where he crowd by holding their hands with one hand and pointing to SPO3 Borja
came from. When Manarang was in front of Tina's Restaurant, he saw the with his right hand saying 'iyan, kinuha ang baril. Because appellant's
vehicle that had figured in the hit and run incident emerging from the corner jacket was short, his gesture exposed a long magazine of an armalite rifle
adjoining Tina's Restaurant. He saw that the license plate hanging in front of tucked in appellant's back right pocket . SPO Mercado saw this and so
the vehicle bore the identifying number PMA 777 and he followed it towards when appellant turned around as he was talking and proceeding to his
the Abacan bridge. vehicle, Mercado confiscated the magazine from appellant. Suspecting that
appellant could also be carrying a rifle inside the vehicle since he had a
Soon the vehicle was within sight of SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda of
magazine, SPO2 Mercado prevented appellant from going back to his
Mobile No. 3. When the vehicle was about twelve (12) meters away from
vehicle by opening himself the door of appellant's vehicle. He saw a baby
their position, the two police officers boarded their Mobile car, switched on
armalite rifle lying horizontally at the front by the driver's seat. It had a long
the engine, operated the siren and strobe light and drove out to intercept
magazine filled with live bullets in a semi-automatic mode. He asked
the vehicle. They cut into the path of the vehicle forcing it to stop.
appellant for the papers covering the rifle and appellant answered angrily
SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda alighted from Mobile No. 3. SPO2 Miranda that they were at his home. SPO Mercado modified the arrest of appellant
went to the vehicle with plate number PMA 777 and instructed its driver to by including as its ground illegal possession of firearms. SPO Mercado
alight. The driver rolled down the window and put his head out while raising then read to appellant his constitutional rights.
both his hands. They recognized the driver as Robin C. Padilla. There was
The police officers brought appellant to the Traffic Division at Jake Gonzales
no one else with him inside the vehicle. At that moment, Borja noticed that
Boulevard where appellant voluntarily surrendered a third firearm, a pietro
Manarang arrived and stopped his motorcycle behind the vehicle of
berreta pistol with a single round in its chamber and a magazine loaded with
appellant. SPO2 Miranda told appellant to alight to which appellant
seven (7) other live bullets. Appellant also voluntarily surrendered a black
complied. Appellant was wearing a short leather jacket such that when he
bag containing two additional long magazines and one short magazine. After
alighted with both his hands raised, a gun (Exhibit 'C') tucked on the left
appellant had been interrogated by the Chief of the Traffic Division, he was
side of his waist was revealed, its butt protruding. SPO2 Borja made the
transferred to the Police Investigation Division at Sto. Rosario Street beside
move to confiscate the gun but appellant held the former's hand alleging
the City Hall Building where he and the firearms and ammunitions were
that the gun was covered by legal papers. SPO2 Borja, however, insisted
turned over to SPO2 Rene Jesus Gregorio. During the investigation,
that if the gun really was covered by legal papers, it would have to be
appellant admitted possession of the firearms stating that he used them for
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shooting. He was not able to produce any permit to carry or memorandum private person. Both elements concurred here, as it has been
receipt to cover the three firearms. established that petitioner's vehicle figured in a hit and run - an offense
committed in the "presence" of Manarang, a private person, who then
Among the Petitioner's defenses is: (1) that his arrest was illegal and
sought to arrest petitioner. It must be stressed at this point that
consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are
"presence" does not only require that the arresting person sees the
inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.
offense, but also when he "hears the disturbance created thereby AND
proceeds at once to the scene." As testified to by Manarang, he heard the
screeching of tires followed by a thud, saw the sideswiped victim (balut
Issue: Was the arrest of the accused illegal, and consequently, the firearms
vendor), reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave chase to the
and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence
erring Pajero vehicle using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver.
under the exclusionary rule?
After having sent a radio report to the PNP for assistance, Manarang
proceeded to the Abacan bridge where he found responding policemen
Ruling: No. THE ARREST WAS LEGAL. The firearms and ammunitions
SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda already positioned near the bridge who
taken in the course of the queationed arrest are admissible in evidence.
effected the actual arrest of petitioner.
There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner,
but that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan bridge illegal.
Petitioner would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing
Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances: that the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit
and run. The Court begs to disagree. That Manarang decided to seek
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a the aid of the policemen (who admittedly were nowhere in the vicinity
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: of the hit and run) in effecting petitioner's arrest, did not in any way
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has affect the propriety of the apprehension. It was in fact the most prudent
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to action Manarang could have taken rather than collaring petitioner by
commit an offense; himself, inasmuch as policemen are unquestionably better trained and
well-equipped in effecting an arrest of a suspect (like herein petitioner)
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, who, in all probability, could have put up a degree of resistance which
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that an untrained civilian may not be able to contain without endangering
the person to be arrested has committed it. his own life. Moreover, it is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains
more success when law enforcers function in collaboration with
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
private citizens. It is precisely through this cooperation, that the
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
offense herein involved fortunately did not become an additional entry
he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
to the long list of unreported and unsolved crimes.
his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another. It is appropriate to state at this juncture that a suspect, like petitioner
herein, cannot defeat the arrest which has been set in motion in a public
Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested (i) after he has
place for want of a warrant as the police was confronted by an urgent need
committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting
to render aid or take action. The exigent circumstances of - hot pursuit, a
to commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer or
fleeing suspect, a moving vehicle, the public place and the raining nighttime
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- all created a situation in which speed is essential and delay improvident. 1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under
The Court acknowledges police authority to make the forcible stop since Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
they had more than mere "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the jurisprudence,
occupant of the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity. Moreover,
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are:
when caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm
(Smith & Wesson) and ammunition (M-16 magazine), petitioner's (a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
warrantless arrest was proper as he was again actually committing another which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
offense (illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions) and this time in the duties;
presence of a peace officer.
(b). the evidence as inadvertently discovered by the police who
Besides, the policemen's warrantless arrest of petitioner could likewise had the right to be where they are;
be justified under paragraph (b) as he had in fact just committed an
offense. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of (c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Moreover, (d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
after having stationed themselves at the Abacan bridge in response to search.
Manarang's report, the policemen saw for themselves the fast
approaching Pajero of petitioner, its dangling plate number (PMA 777 3. search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the
as reported by Manarang), and the dented hood and railings thereof. vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially
These formed part of the arresting police officer's personal knowledge when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
of the facts indicating that petitioner's Pajero was indeed the vehicle suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
involved in the hit and run incident. Verily then, the arresting police criminal activity.
officers acted upon verified personal knowledge and not on unreliable
4. consented warrantless search, and
hearsay information
5. customs search.
Furthermore, in accordance with settled jurisprudence, any
In conformity with respondent court's observation, it indeed appears that the
objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made
authorities stumbled upon petitioner's firearms and ammunitions without
before the accused enters his plea. Petitioner's belated challenge
even undertaking any active search which, as it is commonly understood, is
thereto aside from his failure to quash the information, his
a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. The seizure of the
participation in the trial and by presenting his evidence, placed him in
Smith & Wesson revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was justified for
estoppel to assail the legality of his arrest. Likewise, by applying for
they came within "plain view" of the policemen who inadvertently
bail, petitioner patently waived such irregularities and defects.
discovered the revolver and magazine tucked in petitioner's waist and
THE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITIONS SEIZED FROM THE back pocket respectively, when he raised his hands after alighting from
PETITIONER ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE his Pajero. The same justification applies to the confiscation of the M-
16 armalite rifle which was immediately apparent to the policemen as
The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and they took a casual glance at the Pajero and saw said rifle lying
seizure of property is valid, are as follows: horizontally near the driver's seat. Thus it has been held that:
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions is AFFIRMED [EXCEPT that
criminal offense, the . . . police officers should happen to discover petitioner's indeterminate penalty is MODIFIED to ten (10) years and one (1)
a criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not day, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day,
precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the as maximum].
apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus
delicti."

"Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE
found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant."
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black bag containing assorted (Art. 125, RPC)
magazines, petitioner voluntarily surrendered them to the police. This
latter gesture of petitioner indicated a waiver of his right against the CASE 10: SORIA v. DESIERTO (GATDULA)
alleged search and seizure, and that his failure to quash the G.R. Nos. 153524-25. January 31, 2005
information estopped him from assailing any purported defect. 2nd Division

Even assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products Doctrine: Based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a
of an active search done by the authorities on the person and vehicle special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the period
of petitioner, their seizure without a search warrant nonetheless can prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of
still be justified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest (first warrantless arrests, it being a no-office day.
instance). Once the lawful arrest was effected, the police may undertake a
protective search of the passenger compartment and containers in the Facts: Petitioners, thru a special civil action for certiorari, contend precisely
vehicle which are within petitioner's grabbing distance regardless of the that the public respondents herein officers of the Office of the Ombudsman
nature of the offense. This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental gravely abused their discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of
search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the delivery of detained
custody or area of immediate control and (ii) the search was persons) against private respondents herein, members of the Philippine
contemporaneous with the arrest. The products of that search are National Police stationed at the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur.
admissible evidence not excluded by the exclusionary rule. Another
justification is a search of a moving vehicle (third instance). In On or about 8:30 in the evening of 13 May 2001 (a Sunday and the day
connection therewith, a warrantless search is constitutionally before the 14 May 2001 Elections), RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA
permissible when, as in this case, the officers conducting the search were arrested without a warrant by respondents police officers for alleged
have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
either the motorist is a law-offender (like herein petitioner with respect
to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have Soria was arrested for alleged illegal possession of .38 cal. revolver (a crime
been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some which carries with it the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
criminal offense. period) and for violation of Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Bista was arrested for alleged illegal possession of sub-machine pistol UZI,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals
cal. 9mm and a .22 cal. revolver with ammunition.
sustaining petitioner's conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; and also
They were detained at the Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police Station. It was at the dismissed their Motion for Reconsideration.
Santa Police Station that petitioner Bista was identified by one of the police
officers to have a standing warrant of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa Issue: W/N the arresting officers were guilty of violating Art. 125 of the RPC.
Blg. 6 issued by the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.
Ruling: NO. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code states: Delay in the
The next day, at about 4:30 p.m. of 14 May 2001 (Monday and election delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties
day), petitioners were brought to the residence of Provincial Prosecutor provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public
Jessica Viloria in San Juan, Ilocos Sur, before whom a Joint-Affidavit against officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and
them was subscribed and sworn to by the arresting officers. From there, the shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
arresting officers brought the petitioners to the Provincial Prosecutors Office period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and there at about 6:00 p.m. the Joint-Affidavit was filed penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
and docketed; punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36)
Later that evening, Soria was released upon the order of Prosecutor hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
Viloria to undergo the requisite preliminary investigation, while petitioner their equivalent.
Bista was brought back and continued to be detained at the Santa Police
Soria was arrested without warrant are punishable by correctional penalties
Station. From the time of petitioner Sorias detention up to the time of his
or their equivalent, thus, criminal complaints or information should be filed
release, twenty-two (22) hours had already elapsed;
with the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of his arrest. The alleged
crimes for which petitioner Bista was arrested are punishable by afflictive or
On 15 May 2001, Bista was brought before the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
capital penalties, or their equivalent, thus, he could only be detained for 36
where the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 was pending. Bista
hours without criminal complaints or information having been filed with the
posted bail and an Order of Temporary Release was issued thereafter;
proper judicial authorities.
At this point in time, no order of release was issued in connection with The sole bone of contention revolves around the proper application of the
petitioner Bistas arrest for alleged illegal possession of firearms. At 4:30 in 12-18-36 periods. With respect specifically to the detention of petitioner
the afternoon of the same day, an information for Illegal Possession of Soria which lasted for 22 hours, it is alleged that public respondents gravely
Firearms and Ammunition was filed against petitioner Bista. At 5:00pm, erred in construing Article 125 as excluding Sundays, holidays and election
informations for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition and violation days in the computation of the periods prescribed within which public officers
of Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code were filed in the should deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities as the law
Regional Trial Court at Narvacan, Ilocos Sur; never makes such exception. Public respondents, on the other hand, relied
On 08 June 2001, petitioner Bista was released upon filing of bail bonds. He on the cases of Medina v. Orozco, Jr., and Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila
was detained for 26 days. and on commentaries of jurists to bolster their position that Sundays,
holidays and election days are excluded in the computation of the periods
Petitioners filed with the Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit provided in Article 125, hence, the arresting officers delivered petitioners
for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code against herein private well within the allowable time.
respondents.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No grave abuse of discretion, as defined, can be attributed to herein public complaints. Further action, like issuance of a Release Order, then rests upon
respondents. Their disposition of petitioners complaint for violation of Article the judicial authority.
125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be said to have been conjured out of
thin air as it was properly backed up by law and jurisprudence. Public Note: Just in case i-tanong ni JT ung definition ng Grave Abuse of
respondents ratiocinated thus: Discretion sa case

As aptly pointed out by the respondents insofar as the complaint of Rodolfo Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of
Soria is concerned, based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an
day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
cases of warrantless arrests, it being a no-office day. In the instant case, perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as
while it appears that the complaints against Soria for Illegal Possession of where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason
Firearm and Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3328 were filed with the of passion or hostility.
Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, only
on May 15, 200[1] at 4:30 p.m., he had already been released the day
before or on May 14, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m. by the respondents, as
CASE 11: AGBAY v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (Gelomina)
directed by Prosecutor Viloria. Hence, there could be no arbitrary detention
G.R. No. 134503. July 2, 1999
or violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to speak of.
Third division; Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
In the same vein, the complaint of Edimar Bista against the respondents for
Doctrine: MTC, in the exercise of its power to conduct preliminary
Violation of Article 125, will not prosper because the running of the thirty-six
investigations, is a proper judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 125
(36)-hour period prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint against him
from the time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, he
Facts: On September 7, 1997, petitioner, together with a certain Sherwin
has a standing warrant of arrest for Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 and it was only
Jugalbot, was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station, Metro
on May 15, 2001, at about 2:00 p.m. that he was able to post bail and secure
Cebu for an alleged violation of R.A. 7610, the Special Protection of Children
an Order of Release. Obviously, however, he could only be released if he
Against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The following day,
has no other pending criminal case requiring his continuous detention.
or on September 8, 1997, a Complaint for violation of R.A. 7610 was filed
against petitioner and Jugalbot before the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial
The criminal Informations against Bista for Violations of Article 125, RPC
Court of Liloan, Metro Cebu by one Joan Gicaraya for and in behalf of her
and COMELEC Resolution No. 3328 were filed with the Regional Trial Court
daughter Gayle. The complaint substantially provides that “…while accused
and Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, on May 15, 2001 but he
JASPER AGBAY manipulating to finger the vagina of GAYLE FATIMA
was released from detention only on June 8, 2001, on orders of the RTC and
AMIGABLE GICAYARA, his companion block the sight of the Private
MTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur.
Complainant, Mrs. JOAN A. GICAYARA, while on board a tricycle going their
destinations. Upon initial investigation of the Bgy, Captain of Bgy. Catarman,
The complaints against him was seasonably filed in the court of justice within
accused SHERWIN JUGALBOT was released and accused JASPER
the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law as discussed above. The
AGBAY is presently detain Liloan Police Station Jail.”
duty of the detaining officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 1997, counsel for petitioner wrote the Chief of Police of dismissal against herein private respondents. Petitioner moved for
Liloan demanding the immediate release of petitioner considering that the reconsideration of this Resolution but this motion was denied in an Order
latter had failed to deliver the detained Jasper Agbay to the proper judicial dated April 13, 1998.
authority within thirty-six (36) hours from September 7, 1997. Private
respondents did not act on this letter and continued to detain petitioner. Recap: In the case at bar, petitioner was arrested and detained at the Liloan
Police Station on 7 September 1997 for an alleged violation of R.A. 7610,
On September 12, 1997, the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, specifically section 5(b) thereof. This crime carries a penalty of reclusion
Metro Cebu issued an order, denominated as Detention During the temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, an afflictive penalty.
Pendency of the Case, committing petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu City. Under these circumstances, a criminal complaint or information should be
Five (5) days later, or on September 17, 1997, petitioner was ordered filed with the proper judicial authorities within thirty six (36) hours of his
released by the said court after he had posted bond. arrest.

On September 26, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the delivery PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
of detained persons against herein private respondents SPO4 Nemesio The act of private complainant in filing the complaint before the MCTC was
Natividad, Jr., SPO2 Eleazar M. Salomon and other unidentified police for purposes of preliminary investigation as the MCTC has no jurisdiction to
officers stationed at the Liloan Police Substation, before the Office of the try the offense. Petitioner argues that when a municipal trial court judge, as
Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. in the instant case, conducts a preliminary investigation, he is not acting as a
judge but as a fiscal. In support, petitioner cites the cases of Sangguniang
Regarding the complaint for violation of R.A. 7610, it is alleged by petitioner Bayan ng Batac, Ilocos Norte vs. Albano, 260 SCRA 561, and Castillo vs.
that on November 10, 1997, the 7th MCTC of Liloan, Metro Cebu issued a Villaluz, 171 SCRA 39, where it was held that when a preliminary
resolution containing the following dispositive portion: investigation is conducted by a judge, he performs a non-judicial function as
an exception to his usual duties. Thus, petitioner opines, the ruling in Sayo v.
WHEREFORE, finding probable cause for the crime in Chief of Police of Manila, 80 Phil. 862, that the city fiscal is not the proper
Violation of Republic Act 7610, it is hereby recommended judicial authority referred to in Art. 125 is applicable.
that an INFORMATION be filed against the two
aforenamed accused. As such, upon the lapse of the thirty-six hours given to the arresting officers
to effect his delivery to the proper Regional Trial Court, private respondents
Forward the record of this case to the Provincial Fiscals Office for were already guilty of violating Art. 125. Thus, petitioner argues, when the
appropriate action. Judge-Designate of the 7th MCTC issued a Commitment Order on
September 12, 1997, he was acting contrary to law since by then there was
By virtue of Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1995, dated 10 October no basis for the continued detention of petitioner.
1995 of the Office of the Ombudsman, the case for delay in delivery filed by
petitioner against herein private respondents before the Deputy Ombudsman DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, SOLICITOR GENERAL
for the Visayas was transferred to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military In addressing the issue, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
for its proper disposition. Thus, it was this office which acted on the in its 13 April 1998 Order, stated that the duty of filing the corresponding
complaint, now denominated as OMB-VIS-CRIM-97-0786, and which issued complaint in court was fulfilled by respondent when the formal complaint was
the questioned Resolution dated January 19, 1998 recommending its filed on September 8, 1997 with the 7th MCTC of Liloan-Compostela, barely
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 hours after the arrest of herein complainant of September 7, 1997. The
Solicitor General, for his part, argues that while a municipal court judge may The power to order the release or confinement of an accused is
conduct preliminary investigations as an exception to his normal judicial determinative of the issue. In contrast with a city fiscal, it is undisputed that a
duties, he still retains the authority to issue an order of release or municipal court judge, even in the performance of his function to conduct
commitment. As such, upon the filing of the complaint with the MCTC, there preliminary investigations, retains the power to issue an order of release or
was already compliance with the very purpose and intent of Art. 125. commitment. Furthermore, upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal
Trial Court, the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied considering that by such
Issue: Did the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court constitute act, the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and,
delivery to a proper judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 125 of the upon his application with the court, he may be released on bail. Petitioner
Revised Penal Code? himself acknowledged this power of the MCTC to order his release when he
applied for and was granted his release upon posting bail. Thus, the very
Ruling: YES. The words judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 125 purpose underlying Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the
mean the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial complaint with the MCTC. We agree with the position of the Ombudsman
power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged that such filing of the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period
with having committed a public offense, that is, the Supreme Court and other prescribed in said Article.
such inferior courts as may be established by law.
Finally, we note that it was the mother of private complainant who filed the
Petitioners reliance on the cited cases is misplaced. The cited cases of complaint against petitioner with the 7th MCTC of Liloan, Metro Cebu. If
Sangguniang Bayan and Castillo dealt with the issue of whether or not the there was any error in this procedure, private respondents should not be
findings of the Municipal Court Judge in a preliminary investigation are held liable. In the same manner, petitioners argument that the controversial
subject to review by provincial and city fiscals. There was no pronouncement orders issued by the MCTC are contrary to law does not give rise to criminal
in these cases as to whether or not a municipal trial court, in the exercise of liability on the part of the respondents. Respondent police officers may have
its power to conduct preliminary investigations, is a proper judicial authority rendered themselves open to sanctions if they had released petitioners
as contemplated by Art. 125. without the order of the court, knowing fully well that a complaint was already
filed with it.
Neither can petitioner rely on the doctrine enunciated in Sayo vs. Chief of
Police, supra, since the facts of this case are different. In Sayo, the WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
complaint was filed with the city fiscal of Manila who could not issue an order assailed January 19, 1998 Resolution and the April 13, 1998 Order of the
of release or commitment while in the instant case, the complaint was filed Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, the Court resolves to
with a judge who had the power to issue such an order. Furthermore, in the DISMISS the petition. No pronouncement as to costs.
Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the Sayo case, this
Court even made a pronouncement that the delivery of a detained person is
a legal one and consists in making a charge or filing a complaint against the VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
prisoner with the proper justice of the peace or judge of Court of First (Arts. 128-130, RPC)
Instance in provinces, and in filing by the city fiscal of an information with the
corresponding city courts after an investigation if the evidence against said CASE 12: MONCADO v. PEOPLE (Gementiza)
person warrants. No. L-824 January 14, 1948
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo, J. Petitioner then filed before the Supreme Court on August 10, 1946 a petition
praying that the lower court's order of denial be set aside and praying that
Doctrine: Article 128 Violation of Domicile and Article 130 Searching the prosecutor be restrained from using and presenting the documents and
domicile without witnesses things in question as evidence at the trial of the criminal case for treason.

Facts: Hilario Camino Moncado was charged for the crime of treason on Issue: Whether the seized papers and effects be used as evidence against
February 28, 1946. Almost a year before, on April 4,1945 at about 6 pm Moncado.
petitioner was arrested by members of the Counter Intelligence Corps of the
United States Army at his residence at 199-A San Rafael St., Manila without Held: YES. If the search warrant were illegal or if the officer serving the
any warrant of arrest and taken to Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa where he was warrant exceeded his authority, the party on whose complaint the warrant
detained. issued, or the officer, would be responsible for the wrong done. But this is no
good reason for excluding the papers seized, as evidence, if they were
Seven days thereafter, his wife who by then is residing in their new pertinent to the issue, as they unquestionably were. When papers are
residence at 3 Rosario Drive, Quezon City was approached by several CIC offered in evidence the Court can take no notice how they were obtained,
officers headed by Lt. Olves and ordered her to accompany them to their whether lawfully or unlawfully, nor would they form a collateral issue to
former residence at San Rafael to witness the taking of documents and determine that question.
things belonging to her husband. Upon hearing that the officers had no
search warrant for the purpose, she refused to go with them but after the (Note: 3 Justices dissented. Justice Bengzon, discussed the sanctity of
officers told her that with or without her presence they would search the one’s home.)
house at San Rafael, Mrs. Moncado decided to accompany them.
Justice Perfecto:
When they arrived at Moncado's San Rafael Residence, Mrs Moncado The seizure of the papers and effects in question, having been made without
noticed that their belongings had been ransacked by American officers. She any search warrant, was and is illegal, and was effected in open violation of
noticed that the trunks which she had kept in the attic and in the garage the following provisions of the Constitution. The illegality and
when she left the house, had been ripped open and their contents scattered unconstitutionality amounted to two criminal offenses one of them heavily
on the floor. punished with prision correctional. The offenses are punished by
articles 128 and 130 of the Revised Penal Code.
Lt. Olves informed Mrs Moncado that they are going to take a bundle of
documents and things, which where separated from the rest of the scattered To merit respect and obedience, a government must be just. To be just, the
things, because they proved the guilt of her husband. Mrs Moncado government must be good. To be good it must stick to the principles of
protested in vain. No receipt was issued to her. When she made inventory of decency and fair play as they are understood by a common man’s sense, by
her things, she found out that a lot of things were missing. universal conscience. Good ends does not justify foul means. What is bad
per se cannot be good because it is done to attain a good object. No wrong
On June 27,1946 petitioner filed with the Peoples Court a motion praying for is atoned by good intention. These are some of the maxims through which
the said court to issue an Order for the return of said documents and things. the common sense of decency and fair play is manifested.
Petition was however denied.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument that goods and personal properties illegally taken, stolen, or to Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258, docketed as
snatched from the owner or possessor without a duly issued search warrant Criminal Case No. 5047.
can be retained by the prosecution for use as evidence in a criminal case
instituted is initiated by an original and basic flaw. The argument rests on the Pending resolution of Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed against private
assumed existence or commission of a crime as its minor premise. But, respondents, among others, a criminal case, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-
under the orderly processes of law, the assumption has yet to be proved, 0109-B for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the
and it is impossible to be proved before it can be of any use to support and Ombudsman.
clinch the argument. The prosecution is called upon to make the assumption
that the goods and properties in question are evidence of a crime. To be The petitioner narrated in his Affidavit-Complaint how, on May 14, 2001,
valid, the assumption has to presuppose the commission or existence of the private respondents aimed their long fire arms at him, arbitrarily searched his
crime. That presupposition, in order to be valid, must in turn stand on an vehicle and put him in detention, thus:
authoritative pronouncement which can only be made in a final and
executory decision rendered by a court of justice. 1. That sometime on May 14, 2001 I left my house at around 1:00
o'clock in the afternoon after having lunch to meet retired police
CASE 13: FELICIANO GALVANTE vs. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO Percival Plaza and inquire about the retirement procedure for
(Groyon) policemen;
G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008 2. That upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Plaza,
together with Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin Ramirez and Pedro Ramas
Facts: Assailed herein by Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule who asked for a ride from the highway in going to Sitio Cahi-an, I
65 of the Rules of Court are the October 30, 2003 Resolution of the Office of immediately went down of the jeep but before I could call Mr. Plaza,
the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices four policemen in uniform blocked my way;
- Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) which dismissed for lack of 3. That the four policemen were [private respondents] PO1 Romil
probable cause the criminal complaint, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, Avenido, PO1 Valentino Rufano, PO1 Eddie Degran and PO1
filed by Feliciano Galvante (petitioner) against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, PO1 Federico Balolot; who all pointed their long firearms ready to fire [at]
Ramil Avenido, PO1 Eddie Degran, PO1 Valentino Rufano, and PO1 me, having heard the sound of the release of the safety lock;
Federico Balolot (private respondents) for arbitrary detention, illegal search 4. That raising my arms, I heard [private respondent] PO1 Avenido
and grave threats; and the January 20, 2004 Ombudsman Order which saying, "ANG IMONG PUSIL, IHATAG" which means "Give me
denied his motion for reconsideration. your firearm," to which I answered, "WALA MAN KO'Y PUSIL"
translated as "I have no firearm," showing my waistline when I
In the afternoon of May 14, 2001, private respondents confiscated from raised my T-shirt;
petitioner one colt pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short 5. That my other companions on the jeep also went down and raised
magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions. The confiscated materials their arms and showed their waistline when the same policemen
were covered by an expired Memorandum Receipt. and a person in civilian attire holding an armalite also pointed their
firearms to them to which Mr. Percival Plaza who came down from
Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner an his house told them not to harass me as I am also a former police
Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation officer but they did not heed Mr. Plaza's statements;
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. That while we were raising our arms [private respondent] SPO4 Apparently unaware of what transpired in Criminal Case No. 5047,
Benjamin Conde, Jr. went near my owner type jeep and conducted Ombudsman Investigation & Prosecution Officer Dennis L. Garcia issued in
a search. To which I asked them if they have any search warrant; OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, the October 30, 2003 Resolution, to wit:
7. That after a while they saw my super .38 pistol under the floormat
of my jeep and asked me of the MR of the firearm but due to fear After a careful evaluation, the undersigned prosecutor finds no probable
that their long arms were still pointed to us, I searched my wallet cause for any of the offenses charged against above-named respondents.
and gave the asked [sic] document;
8. That immediately the policemen left me and my companions The allegations of the complainant failed to establish the factual basis of the
without saying anything bringing with them the firearm; complaint, it appearing from the records that the incident stemmed
9. That at about 2:30 p.m., I left Mr. Percival's house and went to from a valid warrantless arrest. The subsequent execution of an affidavit
Trento Police Station where I saw a person in civilian attire with a of desistance by the complainant rendered the complaint even more
revolver tucked on his waist, to which I asked the police officers uncertain and subject to doubt, especially so since it merely exculpated
including those who searched my jeep to apprehend him also; some but not all of the respondents. These circumstances, coupled with the
10. That nobody among the policemen at the station made a move to presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, negates any criminal
apprehend the armed civilian person so I went to the office of liability on the part of the respondents.
Police Chief Rocacorba who immediately called the armed civilian
to his office and when already inside his office, the disarming was WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that the
done; above-captioned case be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
11. That after the disarming of the civilian I was put to jail with the said
person by Police Chief Rocacorba and was released only at 4:00 Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Ombudsman which
o'clock in the afternoon of May 16, 2001 after posting a bailbond; was subsequently dismissed.
12. That I caused the execution of this document for the purpose of
filing cases of Illegal Search, Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Issue: WON the complaint was properly dismissed by the Ombudsman
Authority against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr., of Trento Police
Station; PO1 Ramil Avenido, PO1 Velantino Rufano, PO1 Federico
Ruling: Petition lacks merit.
Balolot and PO1 Eddie Degran.

Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 5047. Upon reinvestigation, Prosecutor II It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the
Eliseo Diaz, Jr. filed a "Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss" dated Ombudsman charges private respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary
November 22, 2001, recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case No. detention, and grave threats.
5047 on the ground that "the action of the policemen who conducted the
warrantless search in spite of the absence of any circumstances justifying The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The
the same intruded into the privacy of the accused and the security of his conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized
property.” The RTC granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss. under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the
RPC punishes are only two forms of searches:
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse xxxx
in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the
liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers,
other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a
fine not exceeding P1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed xxxx
upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a
search warrant without just cause, or, having legally
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use
damages may also be adjudicated.
unnecessary severity in executing the same.

and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No.

Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The
6975.
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or
employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file against private respondents a
search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any complaint for damages with the regular courts or an administrative case with
person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his the PNP/DILG, as petitioner did in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007,
family, or in their default, without the presence of two and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman.
witnesses residing in the same locality.
Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search
Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman against private respondents was
Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a therefore proper, although the reasons public respondents cited for
search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This dismissing the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied solely
situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the on the finding that the warrantless search conducted by private respondents
RPC. was valid and that the Affidavit of Desistance which petitioner executed cast
doubt on the veracity of his complaint. Public respondents completely
overlooked the fact that the criminal complaint was not cognizable by the
The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his
Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the
vehicle is civil, under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the
result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a groundless criminal complaint
Civil Code, which provides:
for illegal search which is not an offense under the RPC. Thus, the Court
need not resolve the issue of whether or not public respondents erred in
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private their finding on the validity of the search for that issue is completely
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, hypothetical under the circumstance.
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL
liable to the latter for damages: MEETINGS
(Art. 131, RPC)
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
investigation conducted by the office of the fiscal for the City of Manila, that
CASE 14: CRISANTO EVANGELISTA vs. TOMAS EARNSHAW (Guno) said Communist Party of the Philippines is an illegal association, or
G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932 organization, which having for its principal object to incite the revolt of the
proletariat or laboring class, according to its constitution and by-laws which
Doctrine: When the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the states as follows:
constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly
and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the The Philippines, as a subject nation, in order to establish
prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the an independent government, has to revolt under the
laws, and the existence of the State. leadership of the laborers.

Facts: This is an action of mandamus brought against the defendant mayor . . . It is clear that the different political parties of
of the City of Manila. the burgesses are no different from another. They have
but one aim; to rise into power and exploit, with
The plaintiff is the president of the Communist Party in the Philippine independence or not; to enrich themselves and strengthen
Islands, a political group seeking the speedy granting of independence in the control of a government which is procapitalist and
these Islands and the redemption of the proletariat, numbering over 300,000 proimperialist.
men and women in its ranks.
Because of these, we need a Communist Party,
On the 2nd of March, 1931, by means of a letter to the defendant mayor of one that is not reformist but revolutionary. Only by
the city, the plaintiff requested the necessary permission to hold a popular revolutionary means can we demolish the slavery of man
meeting at Plaza Moriones in that city, on the afternoon of March 12, 1931, by another and of one nation by another nation. . .
to be followed by a parade through the streets of Juan Luna, Azcarraga, The principal ideal of the C. P. P. (Communist
Avenida Rizal, Echague, and General Solano in order to deliver to the Party of the Philippines) in the desire to head the
Governor-General a message from the laboring class. Philippine Government is different from that of the burgees
political parties. Its aim is not to strengthen the capitalist
The mayor of the city denied the plaintiff's petition, instructing the chief of government but to engender — as it cannot be avoided —
police, to prohibit all kinds of meetings held by the Communist Party the war of the classes and to bring about its downfall.
throughout the city, because he had revoked their permits and licenses. Therefore,
Consequently, the Communist Party has not been able to hold any private or The aims of the C. P. P. are the following:
public meetings in the city since the 6th day of March, 1931. 1. To lead the movement for the immediate and
complete independence of the Philippines.
In refusing the requested permission and in prohibiting all meetings of the 2. To fight and bring about the downfall of American
party within the city, the Communist Party claimed they had been deprived of imperialism which oppresses the Philippines;
their constitutional right. 3. To stop the exploitation of the laborers and
defend their rights and interests;
The defendant in his answer and special defense stated that subsequent to 4. To establish in the Philippines a Soviet
the issuance of the above-mentioned permit, it was discovered after an Government under the laborers.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. To bring about the downfall of capitalism. RE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT 4880.
6. Under the dictatorship of the laborers, to ARSENIO GONZALES and FELICISIMO R. CABIGAO vs. COMMISSION
emancipate and redeem the laborers and farm hands, — ON ELECTIONS (Ignacio)
to embrace communism. G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969
En banc; Fernando, J.
Issue: W/N the Mayor was guilty of Violation of Art. 131, RPC.
(Note: Consti case sya. So hindi ko alam kung ano talaga hinahanap ni
Held: NO. The right of peaceful assemblage is not an absolute one. When Justice. Baka yung discussion ng clear and present danger test tsaka
the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of dangerous tendency test lang. Haha. Nasa dulo sya ng digest. – Lotus)
freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to
punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, Facts: Petitioner Cabigao was, at the time of the filing of the petition, an
the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the Nacionalista Party
State. official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently
elected. Petitioner Gonzales, on the other hand, is a private individual, a
Considering the actions of the so-called president of the Communist Party, it registered voter in the City of Manila and a political leader of his co-
is evident that he cannot expect that the defendant will permit the petitioner. It is their claim that “the enforcement of said Republic Act No.
Communist Party to hold meetings or parades in the manner herein 4880 in question would prejudice their basic rights such as their freedom of
described. It must be considered that the respondent mayor, whose sworn speech, their freedom of assembly and their right to form associations or
duty it is "to see that nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or societies for purposes not contrary to law, guaranteed under the Philippine
excite the people to disturb the peace of the community or the safety or Constitution,” and that therefore said act is unconstitutional.
order of the Government," did only the right thing under the circumstances,
that is, cancel and withdraw, as was done, the permit previously issued by Petitioners so alleged in his action, which they entitled Declaratory Relief
him to said Communist Party, in accordance with the power granted him by with Preliminary Injunction, filed on July 22, 1967, a proceeding that should
law — "To grant and refuse municipal licenses or permits of all classes and have been started in the Court of First Instance, but treated by this Court as
to revoke the same for violation of the conditions upon which they were one of prohibition in view of the seriousness and the urgency of the
granted, or if acts prohibited by law or municipal ordinance are being constitutional issue raised. Petitioners challenged the validity of two new
committed under the protection of such licenses or in the premises in which sections now included in the Revised Election Code, under Republic Act No.
the business for which the same have been granted is carried on, or for any 4880, which was approved and took effect on June 17, 1967, prohibiting the
other good reason of general interest." too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election
campaign or partisan political activity “there is nothing in the spirit or
Instead of being condemned or criticised, the respondent mayor should be intention of the law that would legally justify its passage and [enforcement]
praised and commended for having taken a prompt, courageous, and firm whether for reasons of public policy, public order or morality, and that
stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter therefore the enactment of Republic Act [No.] 4880 under the guise of
could do more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious regulation is but a dear and simple abridgment of the constitutional rights of
speeches and utterances of its members. freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to form associations
and societies for purposes not contrary to law, x x x.” There was the further
CASE 15: IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF allegation that the nomination of a candidate and the fixing of period of
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
election campaign are matters of political expediency and convenience the time during which they may nominate candidates; the curtailment is not
which only political parties can regulate or curtail by and among themselves such, however, as to render meaningless such a basic right. Their scope of
through self-restraint or mutual understanding or agreement and that the legitimate activities, save this one, is not unduly narrowed. Neither is there
regulation and limitation of these political matters invoking the police power, infringement of their freedom to assemble. They can do so, but not for such
in the absence of clear and present danger to the state, would render the a purpose. We sustain its validity. We do so unanimously.
constitutional rights of petitioners meaningless and without effect.
The limitation on the period of “election campaign” or “partisan
Issue: Whether or not RA4880 is unconstitutional (too early nomination of political activity” calls for a more intensive scrutiny. According to Republic
candidates and the limitation found therein on the period of election Act No. 4880: “It is unlawful for any person whether or not a voter or
campaign or partisan political activity alleged by petitioners to offend against candidate, or for any group or association of persons, whether or not a
the rights of free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and freedom of political party or political committee, to in an election campaign or partisan
association) political activity except during the period of one hundred twenty days
immediately preceding an election involving a public office voted for a large
Held: In considering whether it is violative of any of the above rights, we and ninety days immediately preceding an election for any other elective
cannot ignore of course the legislative declaration that its enactment was in public office. The term ‘candidate’ refers to any person aspiring for or
response to a serious substantive evil affecting the electoral process, not seeking an elective public office, regardless of whether or not said person
merely in danger of happening, but actually in existence, and likely to has already filed his certificate of candidacy or has been nominated by any
continue unless curbed or remedied. To assert otherwise would be to close political party as its candidate. The term ‘election campaign’ or ‘partisan
one’s eyes to the realities of the situation. Nor can we ignore the express political activity’ refers to acts designed to have a candidate elected or not or
legislative purpose apparent in the proviso “that simple expressions of promote the candidacy of a person or persons to a public office x x x.”
opinion and thoughts concerning the election shall not be considered as part
of an election campaign,” and in the other proviso “that nothing herein stated The constitutional objections are thus formidable. It cannot be denied that
shall be understood to prevent any person from expressing his views on the limitations thus imposed on the constitutional rights of free speech and
current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of the press, of assembly, and of association cut deeply into their substance. This
candidates for public office whom he supports.” Such limitations qualify the on the one hand.
entire provision restricting the period of an election campaign or partisan
political activity. On the other, it cannot be denied either that evils substantial in character
taint the purity of the electoral process. There can be under the
The prohibition of too early nomination of candidates presents a circumstances then no outright condemnation of the statute. It could not be
question that is not too formidable in character. According to the act: “It shall said to be unwarranted, much less arbitrary. There is need for refraining
be unlawful for any political party, political committee, or political group to from the outright assumption that the constitutional infirmity is apparent from
nominate candidates for any elective public office voted for at large earlier a mere reading thereof.
than one hundred and fifty days immediately preceding an election, and for
any other elective public office earlier than ninety days immediately There are still constitutional questions of a serious character then to be
preceding an election." faced, The practices which the act identifies with “election campaign”
or “partisan political activity” must be such that they are free from the
The right of association is affected. Political parties have less freedom as to taint of being violative of free speech, free press, freedom of assembly,
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and freedom of association. What removes the sting from constitutional could very well be within the outermost limits of validity, beyond which lies
objection of vagueness is the enumeration of the acts deemed included in the abyss of unconstitutionality.
the terms “election campaign” or “partisan political activity.”
The other acts, likewise deemed included in “election campaign” or “partisan
They are: "(a) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or political activity” tax to the utmost the judicial predisposition to view with
other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or sympathy legislative efforts to regulate election practices deemed inimical,
undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a party or because of their collision with the preferred right of freedom of expression.
candidate; (b) holding political conventions, caucuses, conferences, From the outset, such provisions did occasion divergence of views among
meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of the members of the Court. Originally only a minority was f or their being
soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or adjudged as invalid. It is not so any more. This is merely to emphasize that
against a candidate or party; (c) making speeches, announcements or the scope of the curtailment to which freedom of expression may be
commentaries or holding interviews f or or against the election of any party subjected is not foreclosed by the recognition of the existence of a clear and
or candidate for public office; (d) publishing or distributing campaign present danger of a substantive evil, the debasement of the -electoral
literature or materials; (e) directly or indirectly soliciting votes and/or process.
undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate or
party; (f) giving, soliciting, or receiving contributions for election campaign ***Senator Larenzo M. Tañada was asked to appear as amicus curiae. That
purposes, either directly or indirectly." As thus limited, the objection that may he did, arguing most impressively with a persuasive exposition of the
be raised as to vagueness has been minimized, if not totally set at rest. existence of undeniable conditions that imperatively called for regulation of
the electoral process and with full recognition that Act No. 4880 could indeed
This Court, with the aforementioned five Justices unable to agree, is of the be looked upon as a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press,
view that no unconstitutional infringement exists insofar as the of assembly and of association, He did justify its enactment however under
formation of organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other the clear and present danger doctrine, there being the substantive evil of
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking elections, whether for national or local officials, being debased and degraded
any campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or by unrestricted campaigning, excess of partisanship, and undue
party is restricted and that the prohibition against giving, soliciting, or concentration in politics, with the loss not only of efficiency in government
receiving contribution for election purposes, either directly or but of lives as well.
indirectly, is equally free from constitutional infirmity.
***
The restriction on freedom of assembly as confined to holding political Cabansag v. Fernandez: two tests that may supply an acceptable
conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other criterion for permissible restriction. Thus: “These are the ‘clear and
similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking any present danger’ rule and the ‘dangerous tendency’ rule. The first, as
campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or party, leaving interpreted in a number of cases, means that the evil consequence of the
untouched all other legitimate exercise of such poses a more difficult comment or utterance must be ‘extremely serious and the degree of
question. Nevertheless, after a thorough consideration, and with the same imminence extremely high’ before the utterance can be punished. The
Justices entertaining the opposite conviction, we reject the contention that it danger to be guarded against is the ‘substantive evil’ sought to be
should be annulled. Candor compels the admission that the writer of this prevented.” It has the advantage of establishing according to the above
opinion suffers from the gravest doubts. For him, such statutory prescription decision “a definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the criterion as to
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what words may be published.” were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to
assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these
The Cabansag case likewise referred to the other test, the “dangerous rights while not identical. are inseparable. They are cognate rights and the
tendency” rule and explained it thus: “If the words uttered create a assurance afforded by the clause of this section of the Bill of Rights wherein
dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words they are contained, applies to all. As emphatically put in the leading case of
are punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of United States v. Cruikshank, “the very idea of a government, republican in
force, violence, or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for
be advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for redress of
be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence, or grievances.” As in the case of freedom of expression, this right is not to be
unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the limited, much less denied, except on a showing of a clear and present
utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.
seeks to prevent
In the United States, in the absence of an explicit provision of such
The choice of this Court was manifest and indisputable. It adopted the clear character, it is the view of Justice Douglas that it is primarily the first
and present danger test. As a matter of fact, in an earlier decision, Primicias amendment of her Constitution, which safeguards freedom of speech and of
v. Fugoso, there was likewise an implicit acceptance of the clear and present the press, of assembly and of petition “that provides [associations] with the
danger doctrine. protection they need if they are to remain viable and continue to contribute to
our Free Society." He adopted the view of De Tocqueville on the importance
This test as a limitation on freedom of expression is justified by the danger or and the significance of the freedom to associate. Thus: “The most natural
evil of a substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike the privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining
dangerous tendency doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also his exertions with those of his fellow creatures and of acting in common with
present. The term clear seems to point; to a causal connection with the them. The right of association therefore appears to me almost as inalienable
danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present in its nature as the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without
refers to the time element. It used to be identified with imminent and impairing the foundation of society."
immediate danger. The danger must not only be probable but very likely
inevitable. The Constitution limits this particular freedom in the sense that there could
be an abridgment of the right to form associations or societies when their
The Bill of Rights as thus noted prohibits abridgment by law of freedom of purposes are “contrary to law”.
speech or of the press. It likewise extends the same protection to the right of
the people peaceably to assemble. It is submitted that it is another way of expressing the clear and present
danger rule for unless an association or society could be shown to create an
Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for imminent danger to public safety, there is no justification for abridging the
consultation in respect to public affairs. From the same Bustos opinion: right to form associations or societies.
“Public policy, the welfare of society, and orderly administration of
government have protection for public opinion.” To paraphrase the opinion of
Justice Rufledge, speaking for the majority in Thomas v. Collins, it not by REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT
accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and of the press (Arts. 134-136, RPC)
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines
CASE 16: PEOPLE vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, et al (Lo) from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the
GR Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956 said ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ or ‘Hukbalahaps’ have risen publicly
Concepcion, J: and taken arms to attain the said purpose by then and there making armed
raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army
Doctrine: No complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to
crimes commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance
thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,
Facts: The amended Information charges accused of the crime of rebellion plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to
with multiple murder, arsons and robberies committed as follows: create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the
accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose
“That on or about March 15, 1945, in the City of Manila, accused and their
co-conspirators, being then officers and/or members of, or otherwise Then follows a description of the murders, arsons and robberies allegedly
associated with the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), an active perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of
instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) and as rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.”
such instrumentality, fully cooperates in, and synchronizes its activities with
the rebellious activities of the ‘Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, (H.M.B.) A petition for bail was filed by defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez on
and other organs, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Communist Party of June 26, 1954, and was renewed on December 22, 1955. A similar petition,
the Philippines (P.K.P.) to thereby assure, facilitate, and effect the complete filed on December 28, 1953, had been denied by a resolution of this court
and permanent success of the armed rebellion against the Republic of the dated February 2, 1954. Although not stated in said resolution, the same
Philippines, as the herein Defendants and their co-conspirators have in fact was due mainly to these circumstances:
synchronized the activities of the CLO with the rebellious activities of the
HMB and other agencies, organs and instrumentalities of the Communist The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged with, and has been
Party of the Philippines and have otherwise master-minded or promoted the convicted of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies,
cooperative efforts between the CLO and HMB and other agencies, organs, for which the capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although
and instrumentalities of the P.K.P. in the prosecution of the rebellion against the lower court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. Upon the other
the Republic of the Philippines, and being then also high ranking officers hand, the defense contends, among other things, that rebellion cannot be
and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Communist Party of the complexed with murder, arson, or robbery. Inasmuch as the issue thus
Philippines (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion raised had not been previously settled squarely, and this court was then
against the Government of the Philippines through acts therefor committed unable, as yet, to reach a definite conclusion thereon, it was deemed best
and planned to be further committed in Manila and other places in the not to disturb, for the time being, the course of action taken by the lower
Philippines, and of which party the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ court, which denied bail to the movant.
(HMB), otherwise or formerly known as the ‘Hukbalahaps’ (Huks), is the
armed force, did then and there unlawfully support, promote, maintain, Issue: Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common
cause, direct and/or command the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ (HMB) crimes?
or the ‘Hukbalahaps’ (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the
Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling: NO. Art 48, RPC provides that: “When a single act constitutes two requisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions,
or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life.
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall Being within the purview of “engaging in war” and “committing serious
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.” It is obvious, violence”, said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of
from the language of this article, that the same presupposes the commission life and property, constitutes not two or more offense, but only one
of two (2) or more crimes, and, hence, does not apply when the culprit is crime — that of rebellion plain and simple.
guilty of only one crime.
Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute one single
Article 134 of said code reads: “The crime of rebellion or insurrection is crime, it follows necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the
committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the application of Article 48, which requires therefor the commission of, at least,
purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the two crimes. Hence, this court has never in the past, convicted any person of
territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, the “complex crime of rebellion with murder”.
naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended
information against Defendant-Appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders,
Pursuant to Article 135 of the same code “any person, merely participating arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of
or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of rebellion allegedly committed by said Defendants, as means “necessary” for
prision mayor in its minimum period.” The penalty is increased to prision the perpetration of said offense of rebellion (the ingredients of a crime form
mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000 for “any person who promotes, part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot
maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection or who, while holding any be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of
public office or employment, takes part therein”: the Revised Penal Code); that the crime charged in the aforementioned
amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of
1. “engaging in war against the forces of the government”, rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that the maximum
2. “destroying property”, or penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years of
3. “committing serious violence”, prision mayor and a fine of P20,000; that, in conformity with the policy of this
4. “exacting contributions or” court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment,
5. “diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been said Defendant may be allowed bail.
appropriated”.

Whether performed singly or collectively, these five (5) classes of acts CASE 17: UMIL v. RAMOS (Maranda)
constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject G.R. No. 81567 et seq., October 3, 1991
to only one penalty — prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000. En banc; Per curiam

One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Doctrines:
Article 135, is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government” and 1. Warrantless Arrest. Sec. 5 Rule 113. Arrest without warrant; when
“committing serious violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a
expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely; resort to arms, warrant, arrest a person:
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has The information further disclosed that the man admitted was allegedly one of
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to among the 5 sparrows who murdered 2 Capcom mobile patrols. As per
commit an offense;(in flagrante delicto) hospital records, the wounded man’s name was Ronnie Javellon. However,
b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he it was confirmed by the arresting officers that his actual and real name was
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person Rolando Dural. He was arrested without warrant. Hence, a petition for
to be arrest has committed it; (hot pursuit) habeas corpus questioning the legality of his arrest without warrant was
filed.
2. Personal knowledge of facts," in arrests without warrant must be
based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or Issue: Whether the arrest was valid.
reasonable grounds of suspicion
3. Reasonable suspicion must be founded on probable cause, Ruling: Arrest without warrant is valid. Rolando Dural was arrested for being
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive
arrest organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando
4. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an
commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in offense when arrested.
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct
assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing The confidential information received by the arresting officers, to the effect
crimes. Arrest without warrant can be made if a continuing crime is that an NPA member ("sparrow unit") was being treated for a gunshot wound
committed. in the named hospital, is deemed reasonable and with cause as it was
5. Mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a based on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender
subversive is absolutely not a ground for the arrest without warrant a belief that an NPA member was truly in the said hospital. The actual facts
of the suspect. supported by circumstances are: first — the day before, or on 31 January
6. The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal 1988, two (2) CAPCOM soldiers were actually killed in Bagong Bario,
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his Caloocan City by five (5) "sparrows" including Dural; second — a wounded
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld person listed in the hospital records as "Ronnie Javellon" was actually then
from the person entitled thereto. being treated in St. Agnes Hospital for a gunshot wound; third — as the
records of this case disclosed later, "Ronnie Javellon" and his address
Facts: This case consists of consolidated cases for petition of Habeas entered in the hospital records were fictitious and the wounded man was in
Corpus (marami at sinama ko nalang baka matanong -- Kal) reality Rolando Dural.

Main case Sec. 5 (b) Rule 113 provides for warrantless arrest on the ground of
Acting upon a confidential information received by their office about a probable cause. “Probable cause" must also be coupled with acts done in
“Sparrow man” (NPA member), respondents herein who were military agents good faith by the officers who make the arrest, the Court notes that the
went to St. Agnes Hospital to verify such report that an NPA member was peace officers who arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same
admitted with a gunshot wound. in good faith, considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularly
perform their official duties. The records show that the arresting officers did
not appear to have been ill-motivated in arresting Dural. It is therefore clear
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that the arrest, without warrant, of Dural was made in compliance with the disposition. Furthermore, Buenaobra mooted his own petition for habeas
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113. corpus by announcing to this Court during the hearing of these petitions that
he had chosen to remain in detention in the custody of the authorities.
Parenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a few day after Dural's
arrest, without warrant, an information charging double murder with assault And at the time of the actual arrests, the following circumstances surrounded
against agents of persons in authority was filed against Dural in the Regional said arrests which confirmed the belief of the military agents that the
Trial Court of Caloocan City (Criminal Case No. C-30112). He was thus information they had received was true and the persons to be arrested were
promptly placed under judicial custody (as distinguished from custody of the probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes: first: search warrant was
arresting officers). duly issued to effect the search of the Constantine safehouse; second: found
in the safehouse was a person named Renato Constantine, who admitted
Second case that he was a ranking member of the CPP, and found in his possession were
Facts: Military agents(respondents) received information imparted by a unlicensed firearms and communications equipment; third: at the time of
former NPA about the operations of the CPP and NPA in Metro Manila and their arrests, in their possession were unlicensed firearms, ammunitions
that a certain house occupied by one Renato Constantine, was being used and/or subversive documents, and they admitted ownership thereof as well
as their safehouse; that in view of this information, pursuant to a search as their membership in the CPP/NPA. And then, shortly after their arrests,
warrant duly issued by court, a search of the house was conducted; that they were positively identified by their former comrades in the organization
when Renato Constantine was then confronted he could not produce any as CPP/NPA members. In view of these circumstances, the corresponding
permit to possess the firearms, ammunitions, radio and other informations were filed in court against said arrested persons.
communications equipment, and he admitted that he was a ranking member
of the CPP. In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, he arrived at the house of With all these facts and circumstances existing before, during and after the
Renato Constantino and admitted that he was an NPA courier and he had arrest of the afore-named persons, no prudent an can say that it would have
with him letters to Renato Constantine and other members of the rebel been better for the military agents not to have acted at all and made any
group. On the other hand, the arrest of Amelia Roque was a consequence of arrest. That would have been an unpardonable neglect of official duty and a
the arrest of Buenaobra who had in his possession papers leading to the cause for disciplinary action against the peace officers involved.
whereabouts of Roque (petitioner NPA member); that, at the time of her
arrest, the military agents found subversive documents and live For, one of the duties of law enforcers is to arrest lawbreakers in order to
ammunitions, and she admitted then that the documents belonged to her place them in the hands of executive and judicial authorities upon whom
devolves the duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged violation of
Issue: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid. law and to prosecute and secure the punishment therefor. An arrest is
therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. The power to arrest
Ruling: YES. They were searched pursuant to search warrants issued by a without warrant is without limitation as long as the requirements of Section 5,
court of law and were found wit unlicensed firearms, explosives and/or Rule 113 are met. This rule is founded on an overwhelming public interest in
ammunition in their persons. They were, therefore, caught in flagrante peace and order in our communities.
delicto which justified their outright arrests without warrant, under Sec 5(a),
Rule 113, Rules of Court. Parenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a In ascertaining whether the arrest without warrant is conducted in
few davs after their arrests without warrant, informations were filed in court accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, this Court
against said petitioners, thereby placing them within judicial custody and determines not whether the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the crime for which they were arrested. Not evidence of guilt, but "probable hearings to dismiss the case. Case against Espiritu (Criminal Case No. 88-
cause" is the reason that can validly compel the peace officers, in the 68385) has been provisionally dismissed and his bail bond cancelled.
performance of their duties and in the interest of public order, to conduct an
arrest without warrant. Fourth case (Nazareno vs. Station Commander of Muntinlupa)
Facts: Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men in Alabang,
The courts should not expect of law-enforcers more than what the law Muntinlupa, Metro Manila; and Ramil Regala, one of the suspects in the said
requires of them. Under the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, killing, was arrested and he pointed to Narciso Nazareno (petitioner) as one
particularly paragraph (b) thereof, even if the arrested persons are later of his companions during the killing of Bunye II; That on the same morning of
found to be innocent and acquitted, the arresting officers are not liable. But if December 28, 1988, the police agents arrested Nazareno, without warrant,
they do not strictly comply with the said conditions, the arresting officers can for investigation.
be held liable for the crime of arbitrary detention, for damages under Article
32 of the Civil Code and/or for other administrative sanctions. Ruling: Although the killing of Bunye II occurred on 14 December 1988,
while Nazareno's arrest without warrant was made only on 28 December
Third case (Espiritu vs. Gen. Alfredo Lim et al) 1988, or 14 days later, the arrest fans under Section 5(b) of Rule 113, since
Facts: Petitioner was arrested after speaking at a gathering of drivers and it was only on 28 December 1988 that the police authorities came to know
sympathizers where he said among other things: “Bukas tuloy ang welga that Nazareno was probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II and
natin . . . hanggang sa magkagulo na”. The Police authorities present where the arrest had to be made promptly, even without warrant, (after the police
Espiritu called for a nationwide strike (of jeepney and bus drivers) arrested were alerted) and despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days to prevent possible
him for according to them he was inciting to sedition. flight.

Ruling: Many persons may differ as to the validity of such perception and Ruling on collateral issues (Sinama ko na baka matanong – Kal)
regard the language as falling within free speech guaranteed by the Issue: As to the effect of extrajudicial confessions (some petitioners
Constitution. But, then, Espiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre- admitted that they were members of NPA, owned unlicensed firearms,
trial or trial on the merits, that he was just exercising his right to free speech ammunitions and in possession of subversive materials.
regardless of the charged atmosphere in which it was uttered. But, the
authority of the peace officers to make the arrest, without warrant, at the Ruling: These admissions, as revealed by the records, strengthen the
time the words were uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thing. In the Court's perception that truly the grounds upon which the arresting officers
balancing of authority and freedom, which obviously becomes difficult at based their arrests without warrant, are supported by probable cause, i.e.
times, the Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in favor of authority but that the persons arrested were probably guilty of the commission of certain
only for purposes of the arrest (not conviction). Let it be noted that the Court offenses, in compliance with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. To
has ordered the bail for Espiritu's release to be reduced from P60,000.00 to note these admissions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons
P10,000.00. arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon which their warrantless
arrests were predicated. The task of determining the guilt or innocence of
Let it also be noted that supervening events have made the Espiritu case persons arrested without warrant is not proper in a petition for habeas
moot and academic. For Espiritu had before arraignment asked the court a corpus. It pertains to the trial of the case on the merits.
quo for re-investigation, the peace officers did not appear. Because of this
development, the defense asked the court a quo at the resumption of the Issue: Whether the following doctrines should be abandoned:
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. 92163 June 5, 1990
Ilagan Doctrine (from Ilagan vs. Enrile): A writ of habeas corpus is no longer En Banc; Narvasa, J.
available after an information is filed against the person detained and a
warrant of arrest or an order of commitment, is issued by the court where Doctrine: The ruling in People vs. Hernandez, i.e. that rebellion cannot be
said information has been filed. complexed with common crimes under Art. 48, remains to be good law. A
contrary ruling would lead to an interpretation of Art. 48 that will, contrary to
(The petitioners claim that the said ruling, which was handed down during the intent behind the provision, impose a more severe penalty on the culprit.
the past dictatorial regime to enforce and strengthen said regime, has no
place under the present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic, Facts: In the afternoon of 27 February 2003, Juan Ponce Enrile was
fundamental, and constitutional rights of the people. Petitioners point out that arrested on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar (RTC
the said doctrine makes possible the arrest and detention of innocent Quezon City Branch 103) charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco
persons despite lack of evidence against them, and, most often, it is only and Erlinda Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with
after a petition for habeas corpus is filed before the court that the military murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period
authorities file the criminal information in the courts of law to be able to hide of a failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator
behind the protective mantle of the said doctrine. This, petitioners assert, Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft
stands as an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of the people and permits Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the
lawless and arbitrary State action.) information and none fixed in the arrest warrant.

Garcia Doctrine (from Garcia vs. Enrile): Subversion is a continuing offense, The following morning, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon
to justify the arrest without warrant of any person at any time as long as the City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the Northern Police District. Sen. Enrile through counsel filed a petition for
offense. habeas corpus (originally a petition for certiorari and prohibition), on the
grounds that his constitutional rights were violated as he was:
Ruling: NO. There is no compelling reason at this time to disturb the same, 1. held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the
particularly ln the light of prevailing conditions where national security and statute books;
liability are still directly challenged perhaps with greater vigor from the 2. charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no
communist rebels. What is important is that every arrest without warrant be complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was
tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding. This Court. will conducted, hence was denied due process;
promptly look into — and all other appropriate courts are enjoined to do the 3. denied his right to bail; and
same — the legality of the arrest without warrant so that if the conditions 4. arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without
under Sec. 5 of Rule 113, Rules of Court, as elucidated in this Resolution, the judge who issued it first having personally determined the
are not met, then the detainee shall forthwith be ordered released; but if existence of probable cause.
such conditions are met, then the detainee shall not be made to languish in
his detention but must be promptly tried to the end that he may be either Issue: Given the crimes charged in the information, are Enrile, et al.
acquitted or convicted, with the least delay, as warranted by the evidence. entitled to bail?
1. Should the ruling in Hernandez be abandoned in favor of the view
CASE 18: ENRILE vs. SALAZAR (Medina) expressed in J. Montemayor’s dissent from Hernandez, i.e. that
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes, and that under Article b. for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its
48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion may properly be complexed maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying
with common offenses? circumstances present.
2. Should the Hernandez ruling be applicable only to offenses In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the
committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means for the extreme penalty could not be imposed. However, under Article 48
commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of said penalty would have to be meted out even in the absence of a
a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less single aggravating circumstance. The construction of the law would
grave character? be unfavorable to the accused. Article 48 was enacted for the
3. Should the Court maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty
absorb all other offenses committed in its course, whether or not more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts
necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof? performed by him were punished separately.

Ruling: YES. Following the Hernandez ruling, the information should be 3. YES. There is insufficient basis to warrant the reversal of
understood as charging Enrile, et al. with simple rebellion only. Therefore, Hernandez. Thus, under the allegations of the amended
since simple rebellion is a bailable offense, he is entitled to bail as a matter information, the murders described are mere ingredients of the
of right, and the case should be remanded to the trial court for bail to be crime of rebellion allegedly committed by the defendants, as means
fixed. "necessary" for the perpetration of rebellion. However, although
Enrile is technically correct in saying that he is being charged with a
1. NO. The majority opinion in Hernandez remains good law. This crime that does not exist in the statute books insofar as rebellion
view is reinforced by the fact that Pres. Corazon Aquino saw fit to may not be complexed with other offenses committed on the
repeal PD No. 942 which precisely sought to nullify or neutralize occasion thereof, the information does indeed charge the petitioner
Hernandez by enacting a new provision into the Revised Penal with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code:
Code (Art. 142-A) to the effect that "when by reason, or on the simple rebellion.
occasion, of any of the crimes penalized in Chapter I of Title 3
(which includes rebellion), acts which constitute offenses upon SEDITION
which graver penalties are imposed by law are committed, the (Art. 139, RPC)
penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period shall be
imposed upon the offender." In effect, the President reinstated CASE 19: PEOPLE v. HADJI, et al. (Molina)
Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law. G.R. No. L-12686, October 24, 1963
En Banc; Per Curiam
2. NO. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two
crimes were punished separately, the following penalties would be DOCTRINE: Common crimes are distinct and separable from the crime
imposable upon the accused: of Sedition (A139)
a. for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 *Here, defendant Kamlon was challenging on appeal the propriety of his
and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending separate conviction for the kidnapping case when it should have been
upon the modifying circumstances, but never exceeding absorbed in the conviction for sedition
12 years of prision mayor; and
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: Kamlon Hadji, together with a number of other defendants, was paddled out far into the sea. When he returned, he no longer had with him
charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu for different crimes in different his gruesome load.
cases, namely: (1) rebellion, (2) multiple murder and multiple injuries, and
(3) kidnapping with murder and attempted murder. The cases were tried Meanwhile, Kamlon decided to spare Hatib from the fate he imposed on
jointly. The judgment of the trial court were as follows: Jamalul. Jamalul was "tried' by Kamlon for his alleged participation in the
(1) For the charge of rebellion: GUILTY of the CRIME OF disappearance of two of his followers. Jamalul was merely told to raise the
SEDITION; sum of P105.00 as fine and thereafter he was set free.
(2) For the charge of multiple murder and multiple injuries:
dismissed; Defendant’s Version (not relied upon by any court)
(3) For the charge of kidnapping with murder and attempted It was alleged that the victims were attacked by the relatives of a woman
murder: GUILTY. they were abducting.

The instant appeal pertains solely to the KIDNAPPING CASE for which Critical point of defendant’s appeal:
the accused, Kamlon, was found guilty and sentenced to the death Citing the cases of People v. Hernandez, et al., 52 O.G. 5506 and People v.
penalty. Geronimo, 53 O.G. No. 1, p. 68, Kamlon argues that "the trial court erred
in convicting herein accused for kidnapping with murder in spite of the
Facts attending the KIDNAPPING CASE (version relied upon by the trial fact that said acts of violence were committed in furtherance of
court and upheld by the SC): sedition and therefore absorbed in this latter crime."
Kamlon Hadji (KAMLON), the herein defendant, together with two other
armed companions, ULLUH and ANGKANG, set out to look for two men Issue: Did the trial court err in not considering the acts of violence as having
whom they suspected were responsible for the disappearance of two of the been committed in furtherance of sedition?
followers of the defendant. Kamlon and his companions chanced upon Hatib
Ajibun (HATIB) and Jamalul Alling (JAMALUL). Hatib and Jamalul were Ruling: NO. The trial court correctly ruled against the absorption of the
brought to Kamlon under the threat of being killed. Kamlon made known to common crime of kidnapping with murder in the crime of sedition.
his captives the reason for their abduction, and, although Ajibun and Alling
disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for the disappearance of the two No Legal Basis
persons Kamlon was seeking to avenge, their protestations of innocence There is neither law nor jurisprudence which can allow this Court to uphold
were disbelieved and altogether unheeded. the defendant's claim that acts of violence like murder and kidnapping are
absorbed by sedition. The aforecited cases of Hernandez and
Hatib and Jamalul were detained overnight. The next day, they were brought Geronimo,supra, cannot properly be invoked as authority for that legal
to the market place and, in a store, they were made to sit on chairs, one proposition since those two cases involved the crime of rebellion and not
beside the other. On being ordered by Kamlon, their hands were then tied to sedition.
the roof by Ulluh. Thus seated and with their hands tied to the roof, Kamlon
leveled his automatic carbine at Jamalul and fired, killing him instantly. Indeed, as this Court adheres to and is guided in great measure by the rule
Kamlon then ordered Ulluh to cut the neck of the dead man whereupon of stare decisis, We deem ourselves unfree at the moment to disregard our
Ulluh, with a barong or native bolo, did as he was bidden. Ulluh then brought rulings in the cases of People v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64, and People v. Umali,
the headless body and the severed head to his vinta by the shore and G.R. No. L-5803, Nov. 29, 1954.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same; Case of CABREARA Clearly then, the rule obtaining in this jurisdiction allows for the
In the Cabrera case, this Court held: treatment of the common offenses of murder etc. as distinct and
It is merely stating the obvious to say that sedition is not the independent acts separable from sedition.
same offense as murder. Sedition is a crime against public order;
murder is a crime against persons. Sedition is a crime directed Same; Case of HERNANDEZ and GERONIMO
against the existence of the State, the authority of the In citing the cases of Hernandez and Geronimo, supra, it seems to Us that
government, and the general public tranquility; murder is a the herein defendant missed a very significant point. When We held in
crime directed against the lives of individuals. (U.S. v. Abad those two cases that murder and other acts of violence were absorbed
[1902], 1 Phil. 437.) Sedition in its more general sense is the by "rebellion," the common crimes alleged to have been committed in
raising of commotions or disturbances in the state; murder at furtherance of the rebellion were specifically charged in the
common law is where a person of sound mind and discretion information and, for that reason, were consequently necessarily
unlawfully kills any human being, in the peace of the alleged to have been committed for political ends.
sovereign, with malice aforethought, express or implied.
Application to Facts
The offenses charged in the two informations for sedition and In the prosecution at bar, however, as pointed out by the Solicitor General,
murder are perfectly distinct in point of law however nearly they "the information makes no allegation of political motivation, and the
may be connected in point of fact. Not alone are the offenses com evidence is totally devoid of any such motivation, for on the contrary,
nomine different, but the allegations in the body of the information the proof adduced shows that the killing had no political or social
are different. The gist of the information for sedition is the public color, but purely motivated by personal vengeance."
and tumultuous uprising of the constabulary in order to attain by
force and outside of legal methods the object of inflicting an act of
hate and revenge upon the persons of the police force of the city of CASE 20: PEOPLE vs. UMALI (Pagdanganan)
Manila by firing at them in several places in the city of Manila; that G.R. No. L-5803, November 29, 1954
gist of the information in the murder case is that the Constabulary, En banc
conspiring together, illegally and criminally killed eight persons and
gravely wounded three others. The crimes of murder and serious Doctrine: If the attack was not exactly against the Government it is not
physical injuries were not necessarily included in the information for rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local
sedition; and the defendants could not have been convicted of Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation,
these crimes under the first information. (Emphasis supplied) etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong.
Same; Case of UMALI Hence the crime committed is sedition.
And, in the case of People v. Umali, supra, after rejecting the government's
theory that the crime committed was rebellion complexed with multiple Facts: (To understand the reason for and object of the raid) Umali and
murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery, but rather We proceeded to Punzalan were old time friends belonging to same political faction. Umali
convict the defendants therein of the said crime of sedition and the common campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected Mayor of Tiaong. Punzalan
crimes of murder, frustrated murder, etc. in his turn campaigned and worked for Narciso Umali resulting in the latter's
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
election as Congressman. However, in the words of Punzalan, Umali
became jealous because of his fast growing popularity among the people of (eto hindi nadiscuss sa case pero nasa information) raid took place resulting
Tiaong who looked to him instead of Umali for political guidance, leadership, in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor
and favors. From then on, they ceased to have any dealings with each other. Punzalan, the house of Robles and one Mortega and that during and after
They even filed mutual accusations against each other (umali allegedly the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing
induced the special policemen of Punzalann to join Huks and Punzalan one house and two Chinese stories. The raid resulted to the death of
allegedly disarmed Umali’s men and charged them with illegal possession of Patrolman Pisigan and two civilians and the wounding of Patrolman Lacorte
firearms but eventually the cases were dismissed) Punzalan ran for and five civilians
reelection against Pasumbal. Umali supported and actively campaigned for
Pasumbal. The pre-election campaign was intense and bitter, even ruthless. The participation of Pasumbal and Capino was duly established as they
Punzalan and Umali bitterly attacked each other during political campaign. were seen in the yard of Punzalan firing at the house with automatic
Umali even told the voters that even if Punzalan won the election, he would weapons and hand grenades.
not sit for blood will flow, and that he (Umali) had already prepared a golden
coffin for him (Punzalan). (so basically, eto yung history ng LQ nila) criminal responsibility of Umali was also established, tho indirectly.
Mendoza heard his instruction to Pasumbal and was seen with other Huks
According to the testimony of Mendoza, in the morning of November 12th, holding revolver in the lanzones grove.
that is, on the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal's father, he
heard Umali instruct Pasumbal to contact the Huks through Commander Defense: Umali and Pasumbal claim that during the raid, they were in the
Abeng so that Punzalan will be killed, Pasumbal complying with the order of home of Pasumbal in Taguan, about seven kilometers away from Tiaong
his Chief (Umali) went to the mountains and held a conference with where a consolation party was being held
Commander Abeng. It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling
that Punzalan was going to win in the elections the next day, and that his CFI Judgment: The accused are guilty of complex crime of rebellion with
death was the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight but that multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery. According to the trial
Commander Abeng suggested that Pasumbal may yet win the election the court, the house of Pasumbal is only about seven kilometers and the
following day, thereby rendering unnecessary the raid and the killing of stillness and darkness of the night, the burning of houses and the firing of
Punzalan. Mendoza told the court that with the due to the victory of weapons must have been seen by them. The natural and logical reaction on
Punzalan, on November 14, Abeng and his troops numbering about fifty with the part of Umali and Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong since
Pasumbal, armed with garands and carbines went to Punzalan's house and their relatives reside there. And yet, they fled in the opposite direction
attacked it with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and even with bottles towards Candelaria. And Umali fled to manila on November 16. This
filled with gasoline (popularly known as Molotov's cocktail) with the purpose prompted the trial court in its decision to repeat the old saying "The guilty
of killing him. Mrs Punzalan together with her children ran out of the house man flees even if no one pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion.
and went to hide in the house of a neighbor. According to a witness, he saw
Umali holding revolver and other armed men in the lanzones grove Umali, Pasumbal, and Capino appealed directly to the Tribunal.
belonging to the father of Umali (near the house of Punzalan) As a
diversionary measure, part of the attacking force, the camp or station of the Issue: Is the judgment of the CFI correct?
Army was fired upon, not exactly to destroy or drive out that Army unit but to
keep it from going to the rescue and aid of the main objective of the raid. Ruling: NO.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raiders using firearms against which the victims were defenseless, with the
(Considering that, assuming for the moment that there is no such complex aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
crime of rebellion with murder, etc., and that consequently appellants could
not have been legally charged with, much less convicted of said complex
crime, and the information should therefore, be regarded as having charged PENALTY FOR SEDITION
more than one offense, contrary to Rule 106, section 12 and Rule 113, (Art. 140, RPC)
section 2 (e), of the Rules of Court, but that appellants having interposed no
objection thereto, they were properly tried for and lawfully convicted if guilty CASE 21: PEOPLE v. CAMERINO (Pedrozo)
of the several, separate crimes charged therein) –just in case matanong G.R. No. L-13484, May 20, 1960

The crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition. The Doctrine: In specifying the separate and different criminal acts attributed to
purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up the defendants, it was not the purpose or intention of the Government to
arms was not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing hold them criminally liable in the present proceedings, but merely to
the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under rebellion. complete the narration of facts.
The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local
Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, Facts: Dominador Camerino and 86 others were accused before the CFI of
etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or Cavite of the crime of sedition. The said accused in having allegedly
property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. perpetrated for political and social ends, insistent, repeated and continuous
Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to constitute sedition. acts of hate, terrorism and revenge against private persons, leaders,
members and sympathizers of the Nacionalista Party in the town of Bacoor,
As regards the crime of robbery with, the Court is also of the opinion that it Cavite, and frustrating by force, threats and violence, and intimidation the
was not one of the purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap or kill free expression of the popular will in the election held on November 10,
Punzalan and destroy his house. The robberies were actually committed by 1953.
only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an afterthought, the
articles being intended presumably to replenish the supplies of the The information described in detail the manner in which the alleged seditious
dissidents in the mountains. For these robberies, only those who actually acts were performed, specifying the dates and the places where they were
took part therein are responsible, and not the three appellants herein. committed and the persons who were victims thereof, under fourteen
different overt acts of sedition.
With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated murder, while the assault
upon policeman Lacorte caused him injuries resulting in his blindness in one Motion to Quash Information by accused
eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the wounding of five civilians Before arraignment, 48 of the 87 accused, headed by Camerino
should be considered as mere physical injuries. Ground: Double jeopardy, claiming in support thereof that they had been
previously convicted or been in jeopardy of being convicted and/or acquitted
The crimes committed are, therefore, those of sedition, multiple murder, of the offense charged in other cases of the same nature before the court.
arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries. The murders may not be
qualified by evident premeditation because the premedition was for the The Assistant Provincial Fiscal
killing of Punzalan. The killing may, however, be qualified by treachery, the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed written opposition to the motion saying that although it was alleged in
the information that the accused had been charged with various crimes In conclusion, the information filed in this case did not charged more
under different and separate informations, that would not place them in than one offense but only that of sedition; that in specifying the separate
double jeopardy, because those previous charges were being specified and different criminal acts attributed to the defendants, it was not the
in the information only as a bill of particulars for the purpose of purpose or intention of the Government to hold them criminally liable in the
describing in detail the offense of sedition, but not to hold the present proceedings, but merely to complete the narration of facts,
defendants liable for punishment under said separate and different though specifying different offenses which as a whole, supposedly constitute
specifications; in other words, the specifications describing separate crimes the crime of sedition. Consequently, the information is valid.
were alleged in the information merely to complete the narration of facts
which constitute the crime of sedition. CASE 22: JOSE LEAGUE vs. PEOPLE (Quintos)
G.R. No. L- 47367, September 2, 1941
RTC
Sustained motion to quash and dismissing the information on the ground Doctrine: Rebellion is a rising that affects a large portion of territory; it is
that the information charged more than one offense (other grounds not national and not the local in character, and have purely political purpose."
important according to SC) The SC confirmed the CA's decision of finding appellant League guilty of
rebellion and sentenced him to the indeterminate sentence of two years, four
Issue: WON the Information charged more than one offense. months and one day of prision correctional to eight years and one day of
imprisonment, and a fine of P10,000, plus the costs of prosecution.
Ruling: NO. The accused herein were being charged only with one offense,
namely, that of sedition, defined in Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, as Facts: Jose League accused was the party treasurer-general called
amended by Commonwealth Act No. 202, and penalized under Article 140 of Sakdalista aimed at obtaining the absolute independence of the Philippines
the same code. before the end of 1935. Sakdalistas that planned an armed uprising in
several provinces, especially the Laguna; that on the night of May 2, 1935
The 14 different acts or specifications charging some or all of the telegraph wires connecting the phone and the municipality of Santa Rosa,
accused with having committed the offenses charged therein, were Laguna, with neighboring towns and Manila were cut, electric lighting and
included in the information merely to describe and to narrate the houses closed off; that armed men stood in the road to stop the passage of
different and specific acts the sum total of which constitutes the crime the vehicles, requisitioning passengers and robbing them carrying
of sedition. Different and separate acts constituting different and separate weapons; several hundreds of sakdalistas, provided with bands, flags and a
offenses may serve as a basis for prosecuting the accused to hold them variety of weapons, marched in groups to take over the municipal building in
criminally liable for said different offenses. Yet, those different acts of Santa Rosa and subtract the municipality of obedience to the duly
offenses may serve merely as a basis for the prosecution of one single constituted government. There was a bloody encounter between those
offense like that of sedition. sakdalistas and Constabulary who were sent to restore order; there have
been killed and wounded in this encounter. That among the vehicles that
For instance, one may be accused of sedition, and at the same time be sakdalistas tried to stop car at night cars Feliciano Gomez lawyer who was
prosecuted under another information for murder or homicide as the case in the passenger with several members of his family was; that failure to stop
may be, if the killing was done in pursuance of and to carry out the acts that car to the intimation of sakdalistas was shot by them; that Jose League,
constituting sedition. the appellant here, was among those armed people who tried to stop the car
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gomez attorney. This was seen by wintesses Damian Hernandez at the Law No. 217 of the Commonwealth, which came into force one year after
a distance from where the vehicle were just meters away; that the defendant having committed the crime of cars they are not substantial, they are
fired two shots with his shotgun against the car of Gomez and projectiles got different. Are these:
in the car body thereof; that among the detainees vehicles had
a jitney property of Ricardo Mendoza who recognized among the people 1st prevent the enactment of laws, the execution thereof, or the
who head them to the accused because it was well lit by the light cast by the celebration of a popular election;
lanterns of the jitney.
2nd Prevent the Insular Government or any provincial or municipal
RTC judgment government or its officials the free exercise of their duties or the
The Court of First Instance of Laguna found him guilty of rebellion and performance of any administrative order;
sentenced him to the indeterminate sentence of two years, four months and
one day of prision correctional to eight years and one day of imprisonment, 3rd exercise any act of hatred or revenge on the person or property
and a fine of P10, 000 , plus the costs of prosecution. of any public official or employee;

Appellants’ defense 4th exercise with a political or social purpose any act of hatred or
The appellant defended in the Court of First Instance and the Court of revenge against individuals or social class.
Appeal. He tried to prove an alibi, saying that on the occasion of the crime,
he was in Manila.
Looting 5th, with a political or social order, of all or part of their
property to any person, the municipality, the province or island
Issue: Is appellant guilty of the crime of Rebellion? governments or the United States.

Ruling: YES. The rebellion has more transcendental purposes, and its The acts performed by the appellant and his henchmen do not fit into any of
effects are more serious and more damaging to the government, that of the remaining listed in that article that speaks of sedition.
sedition, because it is a part or all of the Philippine territory or any body of
his armed force, or strip the CEO or the Legislature of some or all of its
In view of the facts declared proven the Court of Appeals, and considering
prerogatives or powers. This, or at least get the absolute independence by
the reasons for the judgment of the Court, under revision, it is adjusted to the
force of arms, by the end of 1935 that was when I occurred the uprising,
law; hereby we confirm the same and condemn the appellant to pay the
make this take place in several provinces, and take the municipality of Santa
costs of the proceedings. So it is ordered.
Rosa, occupying the municipal building to sustraerlode obedience to
constituted government, it is what they set out the put the appellant and his
henchmen or sakdalistas that was treasurer to take up arms, as they rose, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
going so far as to attack the Constables who had gone there to restore (Art. 141, RPC)
order, causing them some casualties.
CASE 23: THE UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO PLANAS (Sanchez)
G.R. No. 6867. December 23, 1911
The purpose of sedition, under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code
EN BANC
referred, which remains the same because the amendments introduced in
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts: Defendant was accused of the crime of conspiring to commit sedition. the despoliation, with a political or social object, of certain classes of
After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge, in his persons, natural and artificial, in the township of Bambang, the Province
decision, made the following findings of fact: of Nueva Vizcaya, and the Insular Government, and the property thereof;
3. and did utter seditious words tending to instigate others to cabal or
The defendant, Maximino Planas, was the president of the town of meet together for unlawful purposes, suggesting or inciting rebellious
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. conspiracies, tending to stir up the people against the lawful
authorities and tending to disturb the peace of the community and the
September 1, 1910 - an uprising or insurrection against the authority of the safety and order of the Government, and did knowingly conceal such
US in the Philippine Islands, and having for its object the overthrow of the evil practices from the constituted authorities; contrary to law."
Government of the Philippine Islands, and provincial and municipal
governments of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya and other provinces in the Defendant was arrested and he pleaded "not guilty." Honorable Richard
Philippine Islands, took place in and about the township of Solano in the Campbell, judge, found the defendant guilty of conspiring to commit
Province of Nueva Vizcaya. sedition and sentenced him to be imprisoned for three years, to pay a fine
of P1,000. Defendant appealed.
September 3, 1910 - Maximino Planas called together the policemen of the
said town of Bambang, four of them, and said “The insurrectos have entered Issues:
Solano and seized the money from the treasury, burned the papers, and 1. Did the court err in not dismissing the case for the reason that the
made prisoners of the padres. Now you must bring your arms to my house complaint was defective?
so that I can deliver them to the insurrectos when they reach here and you 2. Did the court err in finding that the evidence introduced at the trial by the
must all be ready to join the insurrectos when they reach Bambang because prosecution justifies the conviction of the defendant?
I am captain of insurrectos, and when they come we will kill the Americans 3. Did the court err in not acquitting the defendant, inasmuch as his guilt was
Bennett and Scott and the Romanista padre, and burn the convent. Do not not proved beyond all reasonable doubt?
tell anything of this to the Americans or the insurrectos will kill you when they
come,” or words to that effect. Ruling:
1. When no objection is made to the sufficiency of the complaint in the
September 4, 1910 - councilmen of Bambang assembled at the presidencia court below, the objection will not be considered on appeal. Objections of
of said town in obedience to a call or bandillo which had been published the this character cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.
previous evening in said town by the defendant. Accused then repeated 2. The other two assignments of error relate only to the sufficiency of
substantially the same conversation as he had with the policemen. the evidence. Many witnesses were presented both by the government and
the defendant. The facts were conclusively and overwhelmingly proven by
A complaint was filed stating that the defendant did conspire to rise publicly the testimony of the prosecution which consisted of the evidence of four
and tumultuously in order to attain by force or outside of legal methods: policemen of the town of Bambang, three councilmen of said town, and its
1. the infliction of acts of hate or revenge upon officials or agents of municipal treasurer and his clerk.
the Insular Government, the provincial government of Nueva Vizcaya, and
the municipal government of Bambang; We are of the opinion that the findings of fact made by the lower court are in
2. the infliction, with a political or social object, of acts of hate or accordance with such evidence, and show that the defendant was guilty of
revenge upon certain individuals or classes of individuals in the Islands, the crime charged beyond per-adventure of doubt.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
writer is removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty.
INCITING TO SEDITION
(Art. 142, RPC) If it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental
structure but only President Roxas and his men, the reply is that article 142
CASE 24: Espuelas vs People (Santos) punishes not only all libels against the Government but also "libels against
G.R. No. L-2990, December 17, 1951 any of the duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the
Government obviously refer of least to the President, his Cabinet and the
Facts: On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of majority of legislators to whom the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis
Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza had his picture taken, making were naturally directed. On this score alone the conviction could be upheld.
it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope
suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or
standing on a barrel. After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent riots and tends to stir up people against the constituted authorities, or to
copies of same to Free Press, the Evening News, the Bisayas, Lamdang of provoke violence from opposition who may seek to silence the writer. Which
general circulation and other local periodicals in the Province of Bohol but is the sum and substance of the offense under consideration.
also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a
suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir
fictitious suicide, Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's supposed up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses; that is to say to induce
wife translation of which letter or note, stating his dismay and administration people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the
of President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds.
and directing his wife his dear wife to write to President Truman and
Churchill of US and tell them that in the Philippines the government is ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY
infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis. AND OTHER SIMILAR BODIES
(Art. 143, RPC)
Issue: Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the
RPC against the Government of the Philippines? CASE 25: PEOPLE v. ALIPIT (Medina)

Held: Yes. The accused must therefore be found guilty as charged. And Doctrine:
there being no question as to the legality of the penalty imposed on him, the
decision will be affirmed with costs. Facts: Exequiel Alipit had been elected municipal president of Cabuyao,
Laguna. However, Dedicatora, et al. petitioned for his election not to be
Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences, the article written confirmed since Alipit was allegedly a minor.
bybthe accused, cannot fail to impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow
the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere 30 May 1920—The municipal council held an extraordinary meeting, which
effort to persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to was called at the instance of two councilors. Notices had been prepared for
martyrdom and what with is failure to particularize. When the use irritating all the members of the council, although those addressed to the municipal
language centers not on persuading the readers but on creating president and some councilors were not delivered to their addresses. Alipit
disturbances, the rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or and the other councilors were absent from the municipality when an attempt
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
was made to deliver to them the notice of that meeting; thus, notices to the Ruling:
councilors who were in Manila were placed in the hands of Dedicatora who (1) YES. Despite the lack of notice to some of the councilors, there were five
was coming to Manila. councilors present at the meeting, constituting a quorum. In American
jurisprudence (which was applicable at the time), where the members of a
Basa presided over the meeting as chairman because Alipit had not arrived council are absent from the municipality, the necessity of notice is dispensed
at the agreed time. While the meeting was held, chief of police Victorio with. Furthermore, the meeting was not apparently illegal. Thus, it enjoys the
Alemus entered the room, saying that he had an order from the president to presumption of regularity, and nobody has the right to dissolve, through
arrest vice-president Basa. Councilor Dominador Delfino persuaded Alemus violence, the meeting of a council under the present of the existence of such
to wait until the meeting was over. A few minutes later, Alipit and after taking a legal defect which was not apparent, but required an investigation before it
one of the revolvers in the police office, fired a shot in the air, entered the could be determined.
room where the meeting was being held and said loudly to Alemus, "Arrest
him, arrest him," pointing to Basa. Alemus obeyed the order, holding the (2) NO. The proper charge should have been a violation of Act 1175. Under
vice-president by the arm and taking him to the jail, Alipit following them with the statute, any person who willfully or by force or fraud prevent or attempts
revolver in hand. to prevent, inter alia, the meeting or organizing of any provincial board or
municipal or township council, or who is guilty of any disorderly conduct in
Shortly afterwards, Delfino asked Alipit if they could continue the meeting, to the immediate view or presence of any such body tending to interrupt the
which Alipit answered: "Whoever dare continue holding the meeting will be proceedings of such body or to impair the respect due to its authority, shall
arrested." The councilors then dispersed. Alipit ordered the taking of the be punished by a fine of not more than P2,000.00 or by imprisonment for not
books and documents used in the meeting and went to Calamba where he more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
obtained from the Constabulary three armed soldiers to protect him against
any possible attack from Basa. By his order, the three soldiers watched (3) NO. Alipit’s order was in the first place unlawful. Thus, he cannot be
Basa and held him incommunicated in the jail until about 2:00 a.m., when he absolved from criminal liability.
was released by the provincial governor.
DIRECT ASSAULTS
Alipit and Alemus were charged with coercion and convicted of coercion (Art. 148, RPC)
through illegal detention. They were sentenced to five months of arresto
mayor and a fine of 1,500 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of CASE 26: RIVERA vs. PEOPLE (Tabilog)
insolvency, the accessory penalties and costs. G.R. No. 138553, June 30, 2005
Garcia, J.
Issues:
(1) Is the special meeting a lawful assembly, considering the lack of notice to Doctrine: Rivera’s case falls under the second mode, which is the more
some of the councilors of the municipality? common form of assault and is aggravated when:
(2) Were the accused charged with and convicted of the proper offense and,
therefore, adjudged the proper penalty? a. the assault is committed with a weapon; or
(3) May Alemus invoke the justifying circumstance of obedience to a b. when the offender is a public officer or employee; or
superior? c. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts: On March 20, 1993 at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, Police insulting words and cautioned him to take it easy and then informed him that
Inspector Edward M. Leygo, Deputy Chief of Police for Operation and Patrol he was being arrested for violation of the chicken dung ordinance. Rivera
of the La Trinidad Police Station, La Trinidad, Benguet and SPO1 Joseph removed his jacket, placed it inside the vehicle, assumed a fighting stance
Basquial were conducting routinary patrol on board a police car somewhere and challenged the policeman. Inspector Leygo then approached Rivera and
in Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet when they came upon a truck unloading warned him anew that he was being arrested. Rivera responded by
sacks of chicken dung at the stall of accused Enrique Totoy Rivera which punching Inspector Leygo on his face, particularly on his lip. The two then
was located along the Halsema Highway at Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet. grappled as Inspector Leygo tried to hold Rivera. Finally, with the help of
Inspector Leygo advised the driver to stop unloading the manure as it Policemen Dayap and Bongcado, Rivera was subdued. The accused was
violates La Trinidad Municipal Ordinance No. I-91 (Exhibit C) which then pushed into one of the police cars but he resisted until Alfredo Castro,
prohibits, among others, the loading and unloading of chicken manure along one of the chicken dung dealers in the area, boarded the police car to
the sidewalks or road shoulders or within 15 meters from the center of the accompany him.
Halsema Highway located at La Trinidad, Benguet. The driver complied with
the police directive. The policemen then escorted the truck back to Crime charged: Direct Assault
Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet and proceeded to the police headquarters. RTC ruling: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Assault
Not long after, the said truck returned and was again stop by police officers CA ruling: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Assault
under Inspector Leygo, Leygo told them that he would be proceeding to the
area. Issue: Whether or not Reyes is guilty of Direct Assault

Meanwhile, back at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet, Enrique Totoy Rivera Ruling: YES. Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed
arrived before the group of Inspector Leygo did and ordered the driver not to in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising,
obey the policemen but instead obey him, as he was the boss. The truck shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
driver followed Rivera’s order and drove the truck towards Shilan, La enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by
Trinidad, Benguet with the Rivera following closely behind in his vehicle. any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, employ
Inspector Leygo and his group arrived in time to see the truck pulling away force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his
and so they gave chase. The police were able to overtake and stop the truck agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of
at Dengsi, Tomay, La Trinidad, Benguet. Inspector Leygo confronted the such performance. Unquestionably, petitioner’s case falls under the second
truck driver and asked him why he still insisted on proceeding to Shilan to mode, which is the more common form of assault and is aggravated when:
unload chicken manure despite the fact that he was ordered to go back (a) the assault is committed with a weapon; or (b) when the offender is a
earlier in the evening. The truck driver stated that he was just following the public officer or employee; or (c) when the offender lays hand upon a person
orders of Rivera. Immediately, Inspector Leygo turned around to see Rivera in authority.
who had at that time alighted from his vehicle behind the truck. Inspector
Leygo asked Rivera why he insisted on defying the ban on the unloading In any event, this Court has said time and again that the assessment of the
and loading of chicken manure. Instead of answering however, Rivera credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial
pointed a finger on the policeman and uttered words like Babalian kita ng court, what with reality that it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses
buto (I’ll break your bones). Ilalampaso kita (I’ll scrub you). Pulis lang kayo first-hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude while testifying.
(you are only policemen) and other unsavory and insulting words. Inspector Its findings on such matters, absent, as here, of any arbitrariness or
Leygo who was a little bit angry warned the accused to stop uttering further
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance, are final and always on the defensive as if he had every right in this world to do and say
conclusive upon this Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal. whatever he wanted to. Over all, he exuded an aura of arrogance and
defiance of authority.
We are not persuaded. The evidence on record clearly bears out that it was
Lt. Leygo who was attacked by petitioner, not the other way around, as CASE 27: PEOPLE vs. RECTO (Tamondong)
petitioner would want us to believe. Both the witnesses for the prosecution G.R. No. 129069. October 17, 2001
and the defense are one in saying that it was only petitioner who was in En banc; Panganiban, J.
confrontation with Lt. Leygo. Evidently, petitioners anger started to burst
when the truck driver reported to him that Lt. Leygo prohibited the unloading Doctrine: An agent of a person in authority is any person who, by direct
of the chicken dung and ordered him to return, such that when the same provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is
delivery truck was again intercepted by Lt. Leygo’s group, petitioners anger charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security
was too much for him to contain. We quote with approval what the trial court of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and
has said in its decision: barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority. A barangay chief tanod is clearly an agent of a person in
The accused, however, denies that he ever laid hands on the cop. But the authority.
bigger question is, how then did the policeman sustain his injuries? It is
highly improbable, if not absurd, for the policeman to inflict it on himself. It is Facts: A meeting was held on April 18, 1994 at Ambulong, Magdiwang,
also very unlikely that his co-policemen would punch him just to make it Sibuyan Island, Romblon to settle the issue on the land dispute involving
appear that the accused did it. The accused admits of being at the place. He Linda Rance and Cornelio Regis, Jr. While the meeting was in progress,
admits having been confronted by the policeman but he denies that he ever Brgy Capt Percival Orbe was summoned by SPO4 Fortunato Rafol to
lifted a finger against the policeman. Yet all the witnesses both for the proceed to the bodega of Rance. There, they noticed that the padlock of the
prosecution and the defense are in accord in saying that it was only the bodega was destroyed, and the palay stored therein, stolen. At this point,
accused who was in confrontation with the policeman. The only logical Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto passed by. He saw SPO4 Rafol, Wilfredo
conclusion that can be derived from this is that it is indeed the accused who Arce, Spouses Crestito and Linda Rance at the bodega. He went to
punched the policeman. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from Barangay Captain Orbe and inquired why they were there. Barangay
the mouth of the credible witness but it must be credible in itself. No better Captain Orbe told him that the padlock of the bodega was destroyed and the
test has yet been found to measure the value of the testimony of a witness palay, stolen. Orbe requested Melchor Recto to stay as he might be needed.
than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind
While SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male were leaving the premises, the group of
We have consistently ruled that the trial court judge is in the best of position Appellant Julio Recto, Cornelio Regis, Jr., Dante Regis, Melvar Relox,
to see and observe the demeanor, actuation and countenance of a witness, Teodoro de la Serna, Enrica Regis and Nida Regis arrived. The group
matters which are not normally expressed in the transcripts of his testimony. stopped at the first trampa near the bodega. Barangay Captain Orbe advised
We see no reason, therefore, to disturb the following observations of the trial them not to create trouble, but, Dante Regis pulled a piece of wood and
court in its decision: The demeanor of the accused on the witness stand also threw it towards them. Thereafter, Appellant Recto, while holding
shows that he is the kind who is impatient with authority. His manner of a balisong or fan knife, approached Barangay Captain Orbe. The latter
answering questions bespeaks of one who has trouble abiding with responded by telling the former to surrender the balisong. Appellant stepped
authority. He portrayed a very aggressive manner and his answers were backward, opened his jacket and pulled out a gun. Upon seeing the gun,
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barangay Captain Orbe retreated, while Barangay Kagawad Antonio somewhere else. He threw the gun later on the disputed land and ran to the
Macalipay stepped forward with both arms raised and uttered the words: Do direction of the banana plantation of Regis, Jr. and he reached his house.
not do it. Well just settle this. Julio Recto, however, immediately pulled the
trigger, hitting Barangay Kagawad Macalipay, causing him to fall down on RTC Romblon found Julio Recto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) two
the ground. Then Cornelio Regis, Jr. approached the fallen Macalipay and counts of the complex crime of qualified direct assault with frustrated
flipped his bolo at the latter who rolled and fell into the rice paddy. homicide (Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1971), (2) the complex crime of
qualified direct assault with murder (Criminal Case No. 1972), and (3)
Melchor Recto saw the shooting from his hiding place behind a concrete homicide (Criminal Case No. 1973). As consequence thereof, the penalty of
pillar. He then ran inside the old dilapidated bathroom of the death is imposed. The cases are forwarded before the SC for automatic
bodega. Barangay Captain Orbe also followed. Inside the bathroom, Melchor review.
Recto peeped through the window and saw Appellant Recto fire his gun at
Emilio Santos. Santos also fired his revolver at appellant and later, turned Issues:
around and crawled. While crawling, Santos fired another shot towards 1. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of direct assault with
Regis, Jr, but, the latter was able to reach and hack the former with a bolo. frustrated murder against Melchor Recto (Crim Case No 1970)
2. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of direct assault with
Amidst the din, Percival Orbe and Melchor Recto heard Appellant Julio frustrated murder against Percival Orbe (Crime Case No. 1971)
Recto saying: Where is that kapitan? When Melchor could no longer see 3. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of direct assault with
Julio Recto, he jumped out of the bathroom window and ran. While running, murder against Antonio Macalipay (Crim Case No 1972)
Julio Recto shot him hitting the latters thigh. Barangay Captain Orbe also got
out of the bathroom through the top and landed onto the ricefield. Before he Held:
could take a step, he was also shot by Appellant Julio Recto at his right 1. NO. Accused is guilty of attempted homicide. An agent of a person in
elbow, but was still able to continue running and cross the southern portion authority is any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by
of the ricefield. He caught up with the wounded Melchor Recto and both appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
went their separate ways. On the other hand, both Barangay Kagawad public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as
Antonio Macalipay and Emiliano Renato Santos died due to multiple wounds barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person
inflicted on them by herein appellant. who comes to the aid of persons in authority. In the case at bar, the victim,
Melchor Recto -- being then the barangay chief tanod of Ambulong,
Thereafter, five informations were filed against the appellant charging him of Magdiwang, Romblon -- was clearly an agent of a person in
different crimes. authority. However, contrary to the findings of the trial court, he was not
engaged in the performance of his official duties at the time he was
Julio Recto interposed self-defense and defense of his co-accused Cornelio shot. Neither was he attacked on the occasion of such performance. Melchor
Regis, Jr. According to co-accused Julio Recto they were berated at the explained that when appellants group arrived, it was Barangay Captain
bodega, and it was there that the late Emiliano Santos shot co-accused Percival Orbe and Kagawad Antonio Macalipay who talked to the group.
Cornelio Regis, Jr. and he was hit and he (Julio) retreated two (2) steps Melchor did not do anything to avert the tension. He only watched what was
backward. Julio Recto was able to take possession of a gun from Wilfredo transpiring and later hid himself when the first shot was fired.
Arce, took cover behind a post and still managed to shoot Santos who was
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for reasons other than his own desistance, appellant was not able G.R. Nos. L-20246-48, April 24, 1967
to perform all the acts of execution necessary to consummate the killing, En banc
since the wounds he inflicted were not mortal. Further, there is no treachery
to qualify as murder in the attempt of killing Melchor Recto since the decision Doctrine: Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of Resistance or
to kill the latter was spontaneous. Disobedience to a person in authority or the agent of such person, it must be
shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the person he
Thus, the crime committed against him is attempted homicide
disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the agent of such person
2. NO. Accused is guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide. On the who is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties.
other hand, when, Brgy Captain Percival Orbe was attacked on the occasion
of the performance of his duty. At the time, he was attempting to pacify Facts:
appellant and to keep the peace between the two groups. Evidently, Prosecution – At about noon of March 12, 1959, in the private market of
appellant had not yet been able to perform all the acts of execution Manuel Zambales in Panacan, Aborlan, Rosalino Jagmis was informed by
necessary to bring about the death of Orbe, because the latter was able to his brother-in-law, Zambales, that the previous day a certain Eduardo
run away after being fired at. Although appellant had already directly created trouble in the market, overturning the tables. Jagmis got mad and
commenced the commission of a felony by overt acts (shooting Orbe with started talking in a loud voice. Appellant Jorge Vytiaco, who was passing by,
a de sabog), he was not able to consummate that felony for some reason heard Jagmis. Appellant told him to calm down. Jagmis did not take the
other than his spontaneous desistance. Thus, he remark good-naturedly. He told appellant to mind his own business. An
committed attempted homicide. exchange of unfriendly words followed and the two in no time grabbed each
other. Esteban Gapilango, a PC enlisted man who was in plain clothes and
Given these circumstances, appellant should be convicted of the complex on patrol duty, saw the two adversaries and separated them. Appellant ran
crime of direct assault with attempted homicide away but told Jagmis to wait and he would get his gun. On the way,
appellant met his brother-in-law, Ramon Ramos, carrying a .22 caliber rifle
3. NO. Accused is guilty of direct assault with homicide. Considering that
and a .38 caliber pistol. Someone apparently had relayed the tiff to
Antonio Macalipay was a kagawad who was in the actual performance of his
appellant's house. When Gapilango saw Ramos handing the pistol to
duties when he was shot, the attack on him constituted direct assault.
appellant, he approached to demand the surrender of the firearms. He,
However, accused-appellant should only be held liable for the crime of direct however, failed to get the weapons because Ramos ran away with the rifle
assault with homicide because of the absence of treachery in the process of and appellant held him by the waist and tried to snatch his service pistol in
killing Antonio Macalipay. If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no his back pocket. He tried to prevent appellant from gaining possession of the
treachery, even if the position of the victim was vulnerable, because it was pistol and while they were grappling, it went off. Gapilango lost his balance
not deliberately sought by the accused, but was purely accidental. and appellant succeeded in wresting the gun from him. With a revolver in
each hand, his own and that of Gapilango, appellant ordered the former and
Jagmis, who followed Gapilango, to raise their hands and not to advance or
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY he would shoot them. Gapilango did as ordered but asked appellant to return
OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON to him his pistol, identifying himself as a PC soldier. Appellant refused to
(Art. 151, RPC) give the gun back and did not recognize Gapilango's authority. So Gapilango
sent somebody to call the PC detachment commander, Sgt. Pelucio Buñag.
CASE 28: JORGE VYTIACO vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Tan) Sgt. Buñag came and asked appellant for Gapilango's pistol and promised
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that he would try to amicably settle the case. Appellant, who was standing was released, appellant went inside his house and told the soldiers to come
outside his house, again declined to yield the gun and instead went inside inside if they wanted to get the pistol. But the soldiers left instead. Appellant
and told the soldiers to get it if they wanted it. Later in the afternoon, Capt. then delivered Gapilango's revolver to the vice mayor.
Pastor Escano, PC assistant provincial commander to whom Sgt. Buñag
reported the incident, went to appellant's house and talked to him. The Charges
revolver was returned to Capt. Escano by the vice mayor of Aborlan to - Grave Threats against Jagmis
whom appellant surrendered it earlier. - Direct Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority (Gapilangco)
- Serious Disobedience to an Agent of a Person in Authority (Gapilangco)
Defense – On the day in question, appellant went to Zambales' market to
see a Mr. Murillo to have him sign some papers. While conversing with Trial Court – Guilty as charged
Murillo, appellant heard Jagmis angrily talking aloud. Appellant, in a manner CA
of greeting Jagmis who was his friend, told him to cool off as the weather - Acquitted Vytiaco of Grave Threats and Serious Disobedience
was already hot. Jagmis resented the remark and collared appellant. - As to the Direct Assault, CA held him liable for Resistance and Serious
Surprised by Jagmis' reaction, appellant tried to free himself and protested Disobedience instead and not of the former crime. The reason is because he
that he had done Jagmis no wrong and that they were friends. A companion did not return the gun of Gapilango after Gapilango had identified himself as
of appellant and another man, who turned out to be Gapilango, intervened a constabulary soldier. The evidence does not show whether or not, after
and Jagmis released appellant. When appellant asked Jagmis why he knowing Gapilango's identity, appellant continued to point the gun at him.
collared him, he (appellant) having merely intended his remark as a greeting There is no question, however, that he thereafter went home. Under the
to a friend, Jagmis again grabbed him and said that appellant was a rich circumstance, it cannot be said with certainty that there was on the part of
man and had no business interfering. Jagmis' brother-in-law, Zambales, appellant a palpable intent or determination to defy a law officer and
intervened and separated the two. Already peeved and embarrassed, therefore his failure to heed Gapilango's order to return the revolver
appellant prepared to defend himself if Jagmis would charge again. But as constitutes merely resistance and serious disobedience.
appellant happened to look towards the road, he saw his brother-in-law
carrying a rifle and a pistol. So he ran out and shouted at him to go home. Issue: WON Vytiaco is guilty of Resistance and Serious Disobedience to an
He was followed by Gapilango and Jagmis. Jagmis told Gapilango to get the Agent of a Person in Authority (Gapilangco).
guns. Gapilango drew his pistol and demanded the surrender of the
firearms. Appellant sensing Gapilango to be close behind suddenly wheeled Ruling: NO. The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby
around and seeing the latter's gun aimed at him, grabbed it. In the ensuing reversed, and the petitioner is thereby acquitted of the crime of Resistance
struggle for its possession, it fired. Finally, appellant was able to wrest it from and Serious Disobedience of which he was found guilty by the Court of
Gapilango and with his own revolver which he got from his brother-in-law, Appeals.
appellant pointed them at Gapilango and Jagmis and warned them, while
retreating, not to go near him or he would shoot. Mrs. Zambales at this stage We find merit in the contention of petitioner. We gather, from a reading of the
approached appellant and they went home together. A little later after he had decision of the Court of Appeals, that the petitioner was acquitted of the
hidden the guns and while he was standing outside his house, Gapilango charge of grave threats against the person of Rosalino Jagmis upon the
and Sgt. Buñag came. Sgt. Buñag, without asking any question, collared him ground that when he pointed a gun at Jagmis his act did not constitute an
and hereby demanded for Gapilango's revolver. Gapilango also held him by intimidation, which is an essential element in the crime of grave threats. It
the shirt. Appellant asked Sgt. Buñag that they clear matters first. When he was simply an act of self-defense to prevent Jagmis and Esteban Gapilango
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from getting nearer to him while he (petitioner) was at the same time constabulary soldier at the time when he grabbed Gapilango's gun and at
retreating. The Court of Appeals said: "Appellant was able to wrest the time when he started pointing the guns at both Gapilango and Jagmis.
Gapilango's pistol. While retreating, he warned Gapilango, together with The Court of Appeals had found this act of petitioner in pointing the guns at
Jagmis, not to advance or he would shoot. At this particular moment when both Gapilango and Jagmis as an act of self-protection. As the petitioner
appellant could understandably be under the apprehension that his was pointing the guns at Gapilango and Jagmis, he was retreating and at the
pursuers, one of whom he still did not know to be a constabulary soldier, same time warning them not to approach. Under that circumstance we
were still after him, his act of pointing the guns at them with warning not to consider that the refusal of the petitioner to return the gun to Gapilango was
come forward is not properly an act of intimidation but rather of self- but one of the series of acts on his part to protect himself. Under that
protection; appellant thereby hoped to discourage them from circumstance, it cannot reasonably be said that he meant to defy, or
committing any rush action or violence against his person." The Court resist, or disobey an agent of a person in authority who was in the
of Appeals further said: "Appellant, who had just been subjected to performance of his official duties. What assurance had the petitioner at
unwarranted violence by Jagmis, on his part, thought that he would be that precise moment, immediately after he had a struggle with Gapilango for
attacked again. Thus, it is not far-fetched, as we have observed above, that the possession of the latter's gun and while he was pointing that gun to
the purpose of the appellant in pointing the gun at Jagmis was to protect Gapilango and Jagmis, that Gapilango was really a peace officer? The
himself from what he thought was an impending aggression. This is evident evidence shows that Gapilango was in civilian clothes, he did not exhibit
from appellant's warning to Jagmis not to come near him while at the same any badge — he simply identified himself verbally after the petitioner
time retreating. The essence of threat is intimidation. Appellant's act, in this, had wrested his gun from him. The refusal of petitioner to return
particular case, cannot be considered an act of intimidation." Gapilango's gun was but a continuation of his efforts to defend himself
from whatever harm that could come from both Jagmis and Gapilango .
It is urged by the petitioner that there is no positive finding by the Court of Under the circumstances, the petitioner had reason to believe that once he
Appeals that in failing to obey Gapilango's demand for the return of his gun had returned the gun to Gapilango, Gapilango would use that gun against
petitioner intended to resist or seriously disobey said Gapilango in his him. His refusal to return the gun was what any reasonable person would
capacity as an agent of a person in authority engaged in the performance of have done under the situation that the petitioner found himself.
his official duties. The petitioner maintains that the particular act for which
the petitioner was held guilty by the Court of Appeals — that is, his failure to We agree with the petitioner that in the decision of the Court of Appeals,
return the gun — was but one of a series of acts done in self-defense and/or there is no positive finding that the petitioner intended to resist or seriously
under a mistake of fact, one act following the other closely in point of time, disobey an agent of a person in authority while engaged in the performance
all arising from the same incident and each one performed under the same of official duties. Likewise, there is no positive finding that when the
impulse. The petitioner points out that Gapilango's demand for the return of petitioner refused to return Gapilango's gun he believed that Gapilango was
the gun and petitioner's refusal to deliver the same happened immediately a constabulary soldier, and that the petitioner knew that Gapilango was at
after the struggle for the gun and the warning made by petitioner to the time performing his official duties as a peace officer. We accept the
Gapilango and Jagmis not to advance any farther or he would shoot, and hypothesis offered by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had
that was at a time when petitioner was understandably under the reason to suspect that Gapilango was helping Jagmis, because right at the
apprehension that his pursuers were still after him. start of the incident between Jagmis and the petitioner at the store of Ramon
Zambales, Gapilango did not identify himself as a peace officer and both of
We find merit in the stand of the petitioner. Let it be noted that, as the Court them pursued the petitioner from the store.
of Appeals itself had found, the petitioner did not know that Gapilango was a
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of resistance or of the colony, was assigned in January 1996 as a domestic helper of the
disobedience to a person in authority or the agent of such person, it Camacho family. Both helpers resided in a hut located about ten meters
must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that away from the house of the Camacho family.
the person he disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the
agent of such person who is actually engaged in the performance of One evening, at about 7:30 p.m., Julio Sr. left the house to attend a bible
his official duties. What is punished as an act of resistance or serious study at the dormitory in the Agronomy Section of the Penal Farm. Heather
disobedience under the Revised Penal Code is not the resistance or and her son, Jasper, were in Aborlan town. Only Jorge and his sister Julie
disobedience against a person in authority or an agent of such person in his were left in the house. While Julio Sr. was away, the two accused killed
capacity as a private individual but in his official capacity as an authority Jorge and kidnapped Julie whom they took to the mountains and detained
under the law, or as agent of the law, while engaged in the performance her for more than five days.
of his official duties. The facts as narrated in the decision of the Court of
Appeals engender in the mind a serious doubt as to whether or not the Upon arraignment, the accused Baldogo pleaded not guilty. Bermas on the
petitioner had the intention to resist and disobey a peace officer who other hand died before he could be arraigned.
was in the performance of his official duty. That doubt must be The Verdict of the Trial Court
resolved in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, we hold that the Court of A. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12900 finding the accused Gonzalo
Appeals erred when in case CA-G.R. No. 00528-R, it found the petitioner Baldogo, alias Baguio, guilty as principal of the crime of murder
guilty of the crime of resistance and serious disobedience as defined in
B. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12903 finding the accused GONZALO
Article 161 (now Art. 151) of the Revised Penal Code. BALDOGO, alias, Baguio, guilty as principal of the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized
in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section
8 of Republic Act No. 7659
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
(Art. 160, RPC) The case as against co-accused Edgar Bermas is ordered
dismissed by reason of extinction of criminal liability occasioned by his
death pending conclusion of the proceedings as against him.
CASE 29: PEOPLE vs. BALDOGO (Pedrozo)
G.R. No. 129106-07 January 24, 2003 The trial court imposed on accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death
Doctrine: The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant showing in Criminal Case No. 12900 and reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No.
that he was convicted record is not the best evidence under Section 3, Rule 12903.
130 of the Revised Rules of Court, to prove the judgment of the trial court
and to prove that said judgment had become final and executory. Issue:
1. WON the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism should be
Facts: Julio Camacho, Sr. and his wife, Heather Esteban, had four children, appreciated
namely: Julio, Jr., Jorge, Julie, and Jasper. Julio Sr. was employed as a 2. WON the trial court was correct in convicting the accused of
security guard in the Iwahig Prison and Penal Colony. He and his family separate crimes
lived in a compound inside the sub-colony. Edgardo Bermas alias Bunso, an
inmate of the penal colony, was assigned as a domestic helper of the Ruling:
Camacho spouses. Accused-appellant Baldogo alias Baguio, also an inmate
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NO. The prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the
prison record of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of CASE 30: TECSON vs. CA (Vergara)
Homicide by the RTC of Baguio City with a penalty which he was serving at G.R. No. 113218. November 22, 2001
the Iwahig Penal Colony. The excerpt of the prison record is not the best DE LEON, JR., J.:
evidence under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, to prove
the judgment of the RTC Baguio City and to prove that said judgment had Doctrine: Possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act
become final and executory. of using or at least with intent to use the same as shown by a clear
and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime.
Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence
which is inadmissible, absent proof that the original of the Facts: A civilian informer personally informed the Cash Department of
judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot the Central Bank of the Philippines that a certain Mang Andy was
be produced without the fault of the prosecution. Therefore the involved in a syndicate engaging in the business of counterfeit US
aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism cannot be dollar notes. On April 26, 1990 a test-buy operation was ordered by
appreciated in this case. The barefaced fact that accused- Atty. Pio Chan, Jr., Chief of the Investigation Staff of the Central
appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that Bank, which resulted in the purchase from Mang Andy of one (1) US
final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him. There dollar note for Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) that was found to be
being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime, counterfeit by the Currency Analysis and Redemption Division of the
accused-appellant should be meted the penalty of reclusion Central Bank. Consequently, Atty. Chan formed a team to conduct a
perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised penal Code. buy-bust operation composed of prosecution witnesses. At about 11:30
o’clock in the morning, the team proceeded to the Jollibee restaurant
2. YES. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of two separate crimes in Rizal Ave., Sta. Cruz, Manila. Three (3) members of the team
and not the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide namely: William Pasive, Carlos Toralde, Jr., and Warren Castillo
under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as positioned themselves outside the Jollibee restaurant while Pedro Labita
amended by Republic Act 7659. The trial court is correct. There is no and Johnny Marqueta proceeded inside. Subsequently, the civilian
evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained first by accused- informer arrived inside the restaurant and approached a man who was
appellant and Bermas before he was killed. The last paragraph of Article seated two (2) tables away from where Labita and Marqueta were
267 of the Code is applicable only if kidnapping or serious illegal detention is positioned. The informer introduced to Mang Andy the said Pedro
committed and the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the Labita and Johnny Marqueta as the persons interested in buying US
kidnapping or serious illegal detention. dollar notes. Apparently convinced, the man drew ten (10) pieces of
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Regional Trial US $100 dollar notes from his wallet. At that moment, and upon a
Court is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION: Both penalties should pre-arranged signal from the informer, Labita and Marqueta introduced
be reclusion perpetua. themselves as Central Bank operatives and apprehended the man
called Mang Andy whom they later identified as the herein petitioner
Alejandro Tecson.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK
NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty under Article 168?
(Art. 168, RPC)
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling: YES. The elements of the crime charged for violation of Article CASE 31: BATULANON v. PEOPLE (Busine)
168 of the Revised Penal Code, are: G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006
1. that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation First Division
and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to
order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is Doctrine: Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through
forged or falsified by another person; falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted of
2. that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the
forged or falsified; and allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and
3. that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.
such forged or falsified instruments. Hence, possession of
fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act of using or at Facts: Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI)
least with intent to use the same as shown by a clear and employed Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to
deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime, as was December 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and
sufficiently proven in the case at bar. releasing loans to the member of the cooperative.

Mere possession coupled with intent to use the counterfeit US dollar During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities
notes is sufficient to constitute the crime under Article 168 of the concerning the release of loans were discovered.
Revised Penal Code; The accused’s natural reaction to the seeming
interest of the poseur buyers to buy fake US dollar notes constitutes Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial
an overt act which clearly showed his intention to use or sell the documents were filed against Batulanon.
counterfeit US dollar notes; The instant case involves a case of
entrapment, which is allowed, and not instigation. Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the charges, afterwhich a joint trial on the
merits ensued.
*Note: When the arrest of the petitioner was made, Labita did not have
to rely on the prearranged signal of the informer inasmuch as he The prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses.
(Labita) had unhindered view and appreciation of what was then taking Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the
place right before his eyes. Hence, the ten (10) counterfeit US $100 preparation of cash vouchers testified that Batulanon forged the signatures
dollar notes are admissible in evidence for the reason that the of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that Oracion is
petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by the prosecution witnesses Batulanon’ sister-in-law and Dennis Batulanon is her son who was only 3
during the said buy-bust operation. In other words, this is a case of a years old in 1982. He averred that membership in the cooperative is not
legally valid warrantless arrest and seizure of the evidence of the open to minors.
crime.
Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She claimed that she did not
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE; OR NOTARY OR sign the vouchers in the names of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo; that the
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER same were signed by the loan applicants in her presence at the PCCI office
(Art. 171, RPC) after she personally released the money to them; that the three were
members of the cooperative as shown by their individual deposits and the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ledger; that the board of directors passed a resolution in August 1982 The motion for reconsideration was denied. Petition assailing the decision of
authorizing her to certify to the correctness of the entries in the vouchers; the CA was filed to the SC.
that it has become an accepted practice in the cooperative for her to release
loans and dispense with the approval of Gopio Jr., in case of his absence; Issue: Whether or not Batulanon can be held liable for Falsification of
that she signed the loan application and voucher of her son Dennis Private Documents under Par. 2, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code
Batulanon because he was a minor but she clarified that she asked Gopio, even if the charge in the information was estafa through falsification of
Jr., to add his signature on the documents to avoid suspicion of irregularity; commercial document.
that contrary to the testimony of Gopio, Jr., minors are eligible for
membership in the cooperative provided they are children of regular Ruling: YES. Although the offense charged in the information is estafa
members. through falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted
of falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the
Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her son's name because she allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and
is no longer qualified for another loan as she still has to pay off an existing not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.
loan; that she had started paying off her son's loan but the cooperative
refused to accept her payments after the cases were filed in court. She also The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172,
declared that one automatically becomes a member when he deposits paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code are:
money with the cooperative. When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI from (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
1980 to 1982, the cooperative did not have by-laws yet. those in paragraph 7, Article 171;
(2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and
The trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulano of estafa thru (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
falsification of commercial documents and is sentenced in each of the four falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
cases to 4 months of ARRESTO MAYOR to 1 year and 2 months of
PRISION CORRECTIONAL, to indemnify the PCCI in the total sum of The act of Batulanon of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171,
P16,660.00 with legal interest from the institution of the complaints until fully i.e., causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
paid, plus costs. proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. This is because by
signing the name of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial 30A, 237A, and 267A, respectively, as payee of the amounts appearing in
court. Appellant LEONILA BATULANON is found guilty beyond reasonable the corresponding cash vouchers, Batulanon made it appear that they
doubt of Falsification of Private Documents under Par. 2, Article 172 of the obtained a loan and received its proceeds when they did not in fact secure
Revised Penal Code; and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate said loan nor receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers.
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayormaximum, AS MINIMUM, to four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, AS MAXIMUM; The CA correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and
to pay a fine of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos; and to indemnify the not commercial documents because they are not documents used by
Polomolok Cooperative Credit , Inc. the sum of thirteen thousand one merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit
hundred sixty (P13,160.00), plus legal interests from the filing of the transactions nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce
complaints until fully paid, plus costs. or other commercial law. Rather, they are private documents, which have
been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by part of the receivables of PCCI, damage was still caused to the latter
which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. because the sum misappropriated by her could have been loaned by PCCI
to qualified members, or used in other productive undertakings. At any rate,
As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private the disturbance in property rights caused by Batulaono's misappropriation is
document, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Article 315.
with falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a
private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper CASE 32: PEDRO BERMEJO v. BARRIOS (Cerda)
crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without G.R. No. L-23614 and L23615, February 27, 1970
the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is
estafa. Doctrine: Petition for Habeas Corpus is a document contemplated in Article
171-172, RPC.
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documentss in the cases Facts: There are two interrelated cases here.
of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.
G.R. No. L-23614
However, in the case involving her son, the crime committed by Batulanon Petitioner Pedro M. Bermejo and Julia "Doe" (her identity at the time was
is estafa and not falsification. Records show that Batulanon did not falsify the unknown) were charged in the city court of Roxas City, on August 22, 1963,
signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: Ibatulanon” to indicate of the crime of falsification of public or official document. They allegedly
that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act does prepared and executed a document consisting of an amended petition for
not fall under any of the modes of Falsification under Article 171 because habeas corpus entitled "Pedro M. Bermejo and Jovita Carmorin, petitioners,
there is nothing untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis vs. Jose M. Bernales and Wilfredo Bernales, respondents", which petition
and that as representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan Pedro M. Bermejo signed while Julia "Doe" placed her thumbmark over the
from PCCI. The essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or name "Jovita Carmorin". The two accused stated and made it appear in the
false statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to whether, such amended petition that the same was signed and sworn to by Jovita Carmorin
representation involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different as one of the petitioners when in truth and in fact the said Jovita Carmorin
matter which will make her liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it never signed and swore to it, because it was in fact the accused Julia "Doe"
was an error for the courts below to hold that Batulanon is also guilty of who signed and swore to that petition as Julia Carmorin.
Falsification of Private Document with respect to the case involving the cash Bermejo’s contention
voucher of Dennis Batulanon. - the amended petition for habeas corpus (in Special Proceeding No.
V-2669 of the Court of First Instance of Capiz), allegedly falsified, is
In the instant case, there is no doubt that as Cashier/Manager, Batulanon not a document contemplated under the provisions of Article 172 of
holds the money for administration and in trust for PCCI. Knowing that she is the Revised Penal Code
no longer qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently used the name of her - that in a previous judgment of the Court of First Instance of Capiz in
son who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from PCCI. Her the habeas corpus proceedings it was declared that the thumbmark
misappropriation of the amount she obtained from the loan is also not in the amended peti tion was that of Jovita Carmorin
disputed as she even admitted receiving the same for personal use. Respondent City Judge denied the motion to quash and the subsequent
Although the amount received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as motion for reconsideration.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
liberty, of one Soterania Carmorin, and that said petition was duly
G.R. No, L-23615 subscribed and sworn to before Clerk of Court Leopoldo B. Dorado and filed
Jovita Carmorin was charged by respondent City Fiscal Quirico Abela with with the Court of First Instance of Capiz, forming, therefore, a part of the
perjury, on August 23, 1963, in the same city court of Roxas City for court records in said proceedings, it cannot be disputed that said petition is a
allegedly having "subscribed and swore to an affidavit . . . . that she was public or official document as contemplated in Articles 171 and 172 of the
really the one who signed with her thumbmark as Jovita Carmorin . . . . the Revised Penal Code.
amended petition for habeas corpus . . . . when in truth and in fact, as she What is a document?
very well knew, she had not done such act of signing with her thumbmark - U. S. v. Orera, a "document" is defined as a deed, instrument or
said petition and it was another person, who signed with a thumbmark said other duly authorized paper by which something is proved,
petition as Jovita Carmorin. . . ." After posting a bond, said accused, thru her evidenced or set forth.
counsel, Atty. Pedro M. Bermejo (the same person accused in the fal - U. S. v. Asensi, this Court held that any instrument authorized by a
sification case), filed a motion to quash the information. notary public or a competent public official, with the solemnities
Jovita’s. Contention required by law, is a public document.
- no offense was commit ted by the accused because it had already What are public documents?
been declared by the Court of First Instance of Capiz in the habeas Section 38, Rule 123 of the old Rules of Court, enumerates the following as
corpus case (Special Proceedings No. V-2669) that the thumbmark public writings:
appearing in the petition for habeas corpus was the true thumbmark
of accused Carmorin "(a) The written acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of
City Judge Barrios issued an order denying the motion to quash and official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and
motion for reconsideration. executive, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

Both Bermejo and Jovita filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with "(b) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private writings."
preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance of Capiz, also The same principle also obtains in the United States, that "defendant's
naming as respondents City Judge Barrios and City Fiscal Abela. pleadings and papers, which were involved in civil actions and which were in
CFI decision on the petition for certiorari custody of county clerk as ex-oficio clerk of superior court in which action
The Court of First Instance of Capiz issued an order, on January 6, was pending, were 'public documents' and were within scope of subject
1964, declaring that it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the two matter of statute making alteration of court records an offense.
special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction, and the court set the hearing of the two cases for January 24, Therefore, Bermejo cannot say that he committed no crime if it can be
1964. shown that, as charged in the information, that he connived or conspired
- It dismissed the two petitions. with a certain Julia "Doe" in falsifying said petition by making it appear that
Jovita Carmorin placed her thumbmark therein when in fact she did not do
Issue: Whether the petition for habeas corpus allegedly falsified is a public so.
document
As to the contention that there was already a judgement in a Special
Ruling: Considering that the petition for habeas corpus (Special Proceeding case declaring that it was indeed the thumbmark of Jovita:
Proceedings No. V-2669) alleged the illegal confinement, or deprivation of
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court ruled that the record of the habeas corpus proceeding is not upon ascertaining that the municipal secretary had already been paid,
before them, and they have no means of knowing what actually transpired in manifested his displeasure therewith and told the municipal secretary that he
that proceeding. The proper determination of such question will involve not would not approve the roll; that the secretary, who appeared to be
only the introduction and consideration of evidence, but also calls for a intoxicated, then became incensed the attempted to take the pay roll away
detailed inquiry on the principle of estoppel by, or conclusiveness of, from the president, and that in the ensuing struggle the pay roll was torn.
judgment.
Due to the destruction of the payroll, Camcacho, as municipal president, was
The case was remanded to the City Court of Roxas City for trial on the charged with the crime of unfaithfulness in the custody of public
merits. documents.

CASE 33. PEOPLE vs. EUSEBIO C. CAMACHO (Chua) The Court found that there was considerable ill-feeling between the
G.R. No. L-18688 , February 10, 1923 president and the secretary due to political rivalry and that the treasurer also
OSTRAND, J. EN BANC was hostile to the president. In view of the fact that no deduction was made
upon the pay roll for the P33 alleged to have been overdrawn by the
Doctrine: A mere blank form for an official document is not in itself a public president, the reason given by the prosecution for the destruction of the pay
document within the meaning of article 360 of the Penal Code. roll does not appear very probable and considering the enmity existing
Facts: The municipal treasurer of the Province of Pangasinan, sent by between the parties it seems more likely that the president, finding that the
means of a messenger to Eusebio C. Camacho, as municipal president, for salary of the secretary had been paid without his approval, felt that he and
his examination, certification and signature, the municipal pay roll for the his office had been slighted by the treasurer and that, losing control of his
payment of the salaries due the municipal functionaries and employees for temper, he, and not the municipal secretary, was principal responsible for
the month of June, 1920. The roll was not signed or certified to by any of the the damage to the roll.
officials whose signatures were required before payments of salaries could The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan sentenced him to suffer one year,
be legally made, but it appears that notwithstanding this fact the municipal eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, with the
treasurer had already paid the salary of the municipal secretary when the roll corresponding accessory penalties prescribed by law, to pay a fine of 325
was presented to the president for approval. pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and with
disqualification for public office for the term of eleven years and one day.
According to the prosecution, the president, upon being handed the roll,
became angry because it was accompanied by a memorandum requiring Issues:
him to reimburse the municipality for the sum of P33 alleged to have been Whether or not the unsigned payroll is a public document- NO; and
overdrawn by him by way of per diem allowances, and that he therefore tore Whether or not defendant municipal president can be held liable for the
the roll into pieces. crime of unfaithfulness in the custody of public documents upon destruction
of the payroll-NO
The defendant denies that any demand was made upon him for a
reimbursement or that he, for that reason, destroyed the pay roll. Ruling:
1. No. A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be
The witnesses for the defense, among them the clerk who prepared the pay proven and affirmed. The writing here in question proves nothing and
roll and brought it to the president for approval, testify that the president, confirms nothing; it is not a document but merely a draft of one. Until
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
approved or certified to by one or more of the proper officials, it would
not be entitled to filing in any public office or archive and might be
I hereby certify on my official oath that the above Pay Roll is correct and that the services have
disapproved or even destroyed by the official whose approval was
duly rendered as stated.
necessary to give it effect, without giving rise to criminal liability on his
part. ............................................................................................. (as to office of President an
(Municipal President) police force).
In the absence of the approval of the president, the payment of that
salary was contrary to law (Administrative Code, sec. 2300), and being ............................................................................................. (as to office of Secretary).
thus completely unauthorized, neither the payment nor the receipt (Municipal Secretary)
therefor, nor the signature signifying such receipt can be considered or
official character. ............................................................................................. (as to office of Treasurer).
(Municipal Treasurer)
The Attorney-General, in his brief, cites the case of United States vs.
Asensi, as authority for the contention that the writing in question is a ............................................................................................. (as to office of ..................
public document. It is true that in a dictum in the decision in that case
the court, citing United States vs. Carrington, said "We have also held
that the blank forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippine Islands, Neither the certificate nor space for the approval of the roll have been
in accordance with Act No. 90 of the Philippine Commission, are public signed. The only signature on the roll is that of "A. Garcia" appearing by way
documents." An examination of the Carrington case shows that what of receipt for the salary of the municipal secretary. In that incomplete state
the court there held, and what it evidently meant to say in the Asensi of the pay roll, the signature "A. Garcia" had no legitimate place thereon and
case, was that documents executed on blank forms prepared by the for the purpose of determining the character of the instrument may be
Auditor of the Philippine Islands in accordance with Act No. 90 of the entirely disregarded.
Philippine Islands, are public documents.
Counsel for the defendant argues that there in the present case was no
To hold that a mere blank in itself alone is a public document would deduction of the alleged document in so far as it, with slight repairs, might
lead to the absurdity that a person might be criminally prosecuted have been made serviceable. There is some force in this contention, but, in
under article 360 of the Penal Code for the destruction of a printed view of our conclusions as to the character of the writing, the point need not
blank form containing no other writing whatever. be discussed.

2. No. The alleged public document, with the destruction of which the CASE 34: ADAZA vs SANDIGANBAYAN (Pagdanganan)
defendant is charged, is in the evidence before us. It consist of a G.R. No. 154886. July 28, 2005
printed blank form called "Municipal Pay Roll" filed in with the names of Third Division
the municipal officials and employees to whom salaries were due,
together with their designations and the amounts due them. At the foot Doctrine: It does not suffice to merely allege in the information that the
of each page there is a blank space for its approval by the municipal crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office or that
president and in addition thereto the following form for a certificate he took advantage of his position as these are conclusions of law. The
appears: specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
intimacy between the discharge of the offenders official duties and the and Aristela Petitioner was charged in two Informations filed before the
commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having Sandiganbayan. 1. For falsifying a public document, namely Disbursement
been committed in relation to public office, are controlling. Voucher bycounterfeiting the signature Mejorada 2 for falsifying a public
document in conspiracy with Aristela, DPB Check issued by the DPWH
Facts: In 1996, (DPWH) of the 1 st District of Zamboanga del Norte awarded
to the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) of Manawan National High Sandiganbayan: found petitioner guilty in the first case, and acquitted him
School (MNHS) in MZamboanga del Norte a contract for the construction of and his wife Aristela in the second case for insufficiency of evidence. MR
a school building consisting of two classrooms at an agreed consideration of was filed by petitioner but was denied by Sandiganbayan
P111,319.50. Petitioner at that time was municipal mayor of Jose Dalman. It
was completed on June 24, 1997 but PTA failed to receive the last A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed before SC assailing the
installment payment in the amount of P20,847.17. PTA President Mejoranda Resolution] of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Ludwig H. Adaza
st
upon verification was informed by Pearanda Cashier II of the 1 Engineering (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public
District of Zamboanga del Norte, that the check for P20,847.17 had been Document penalized under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 1
released to petitioner. of the Revised Penal Code.

Mejorada requested that he be furnished with certified true copies of the Defense: SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
disbursement voucher and the corresponding check representing the last OFFENSE CHARGED OF FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
payment. Upon checking, he detected in Disbursement Voucher that the UNDER ARTICLE 172 PARAGRAPH 1 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 171
signature above his printed name thereon acknowledging receipt of the PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AGAINST THE
check from Releasing Officer-Cashier Pearanda was not his. And he noticed ACCUSED (FORMER) MUNICIPAL MAYOR (WITH SALARY GRADE 27)
that petitioners signature was affixed on the voucher. In DBP Check issued WHO DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION IN THE
to payee PTA Pres. Mejorada he noticed that there were two signatures at ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AS RULED BY THE
the dorsal portion thereof, his forged signature and another which he found SANDIGANBAYAN. SUCH BEING THE CASE, THE ALLEGED OFFENSE
to be that of Aristela Adaza (Aristela), wife of petitioner. WAS NOT COMMITTED IN RELATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE
MUNICIPAL MAYOR WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE
According to Pearanda, the petitioner offered to take the disbursement SANDIGANBAYAN.
voucher and have it signed by Mejorada, hence, she handed it to petitioner
but kept the check in her custody; and when petitioner returned the voucher Issue: WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
to Pearanda later that day, the check already bore a signature purporting to
be that of Mejorada. The check was allegedly encashed by Aristela. Ruling: Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
Petitioner went to his house informing him that he would be paid within the
week but No payment was made. Mejorada filed a complaint against For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
petitioner and his wife Aristela before NBI. The complaint, for falsification of Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur:
public document, was forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman. During the (1) the offense committed is a violation of
pendency of the preliminary investigation, Mejorada executed an Affidavit of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Desistance alleging that he had been paid in full by the spouses. Thereafter, Practices Act),
Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth),
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised The offender under Article 172 must be a private individual or maybe a
Penal Code (the law on bribery), public officer, employee or notary public who does not take advantage of his
(d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 official position.[62] Under Article 171, an essential element of the crime is that
(sequestration cases), or the act of falsification must be committed by a public officer, employee or
(e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed notary who takes advantage of his official position.
with other crimes;
(2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is It is thus apparent that for purposes of acquisition of jurisdiction by the
a public official or employee[42] holding any of the positions Sandiganbayan, the requirement imposed by R.A. 8249 that the offense be
enumerated in paragraph A of Section 4; and committed in relation to the offenders office is entirely distinct from the
(3) the offense committed is in relation to the office concept of taking advantage of ones position as provided under Articles 171
and 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge against petitioner falls under above-quoted Section 4, paragraph
B of R.A. 8249. It is undisputed that at the time the alleged crime was R.A. 8249 mandates that for as long as the offenders public office is
committed, he was the municipal mayor of Jose Dalman, a position intimately connected with the offense charged or is used to facilitate the
corresponding to salary grade 27 which fact was properly alleged in the commission of said offense and the same is properly alleged in the
information. information, the Sandiganbayan acquires jurisdiction. On the other hand, the
element of taking advantage of ones position under the Revised Penal Code
However, it does not suffice to merely allege in the information that the crime becomes relevant only in the present case, not for the purpose of
charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office or that he determining whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, but for purposes of
took advantage of his position as these are conclusions of law. The specific determining whether petitioner, if he is held to be liable at all, would be
factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy legally responsible under Article 171 or Article 172.
between the discharge of the offenders official duties and the commission of
the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed While the Sandiganbayan is declared bereft of jurisdiction over the criminal
in relation to public office, are controlling. case filed against petitioner, the prosecution is not precluded from filing the
appropriate charge against him before the proper court.
Although herein petitioner was described in the information as a public RESOLUTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN IS NULL AND VOID.
officer being then the Mayor with salary grade 27 of Jose Dalman,
Zamboanga del Norte, there was no allegation showing that the act of CASE 35: GALEOS v. PEOPLE (Dalaguete)
falsification of public document attributed to him was intimately connected to GR No. 174730-37, February 9, 2011
the duties of his office as mayor to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Third Division; Villarama, Jr., J.
the Sandiganbayan. Neither was there any allegation to show how he made
use of his position as mayor to facilitate the commission of the crimes Doctrine: In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to
charged. The information merely alleges that petitioner falsified the have taken advantage of his official position when:
disbursement voucher by counterfeiting therein the signature of Mejorada. (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the
For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is this allegation that is preparation of a document; or
controlling, not the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial. (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority total/supplemental appropriation of a local government
regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a finding unit; salary rates; abolition and creation of positions, etc.;
of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be Section 76, organizational structure and staffing pattern;
applied.While, a narration of facts is merely an account or description of the Section 79 on nepotism; Section 80, posting of vacancy
particulars of an event or occurrence. and personnel selection board; Section 81 on
compensation, etc. have been duly complied with in the
Facts: Ong was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Mayor of the Municipality issuance of this appointment.
of Naga, Cebu on April 16, 1986. He was elected Mayor of the same
municipality in 1988 and served as such until 1998. This is to certify further that the faithful observance of
On June 1, 1994, Ong extended permanent appointments to Galeos and these restrictions/requirements was made in accordance
Federico T. Rivera (Rivera) for the positions of Construction and with the requirements of the Civil Service Commission
Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal before the appointment was submitted for review and
Engineer. Prior to their permanent appointment, Galeos and Rivera were action.
casual employees of the municipal government.
The above certification was signed by Ong and HR Officer-Designate Editha
In their individual Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for C. Garcia.
the year 1993, Galeos answered "No" to the question: "To the best of your
knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu
affinity to anyone working in the government?" while Rivera indicated "n/a" filed a letter-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas
on the space for the list of the names of relatives referred to in the said against Ong (then incumbent Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for
query. The boxes for "Yes" and "No" to the said query were left in blank by dishonesty, nepotism, violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Galeos in his 1994 and 1995 SALN. Rivera in his 1995 SALN answered "No" Standards for Public Officials and Employees and Anti-Graft and Corrupt
to the question on relatives in government. In their 1996 SALN, both Galeos Practices Act, and for the crime of falsification of public documents.
and Rivera also did not fill up the boxes indicating their answers to the same
query.7 Ong’s signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the On August 11, 2000, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the
person who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the recommendation of OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas that criminal
foregoing documents. charges be filed against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsification of public
documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in
In a letter-certification dated June 1, 1994 addressed to Ms. Benita O. connection with the Certification dated June 1, 1994 issued by Ong and the
Santos, Regional Director, Civil Service Commission (CSC), Regional Office false statements in the 1993, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Rivera and the 1993,
7, Cebu City, it was attested that: 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos.

This is to certify that pursuant to the provisions of R.A. Both Galeos and Rivera testified that they only provided the entries in their
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of SALN but did not personally fill up the forms as these were already filled up
1991, all restrictions/requirements relative to creation of by "people in the municipal hall" when they signed them.
positions, hiring and issuance of appointments, Section
325 on the limitations for personal services in the The Sandiganbayan found them guilty of Art. 171.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public
Galeos contends that the Sandiganbayan erred when it held that the subject officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the
documentary evidence contained untruthful statements in a narration of falsification.
facts.
In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken
Galeos argues that he did not make untruthful or false statements in his advantage of his official position when:
SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and thus silence or (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the
non-disclosure cannot be considered one. And even if they are considered preparation of a document; or
statements, Galeos contends that they were not made in a "narration of (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
facts" and the least they could be considered are "conclusions of law." He
also argues that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to support Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary
the finding that he was aware of their relationship at the time of the that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person
execution of the SALN. With the presence of good faith, Galeos avers that because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the
the fourth element of the crime – the perversion of truth in the narration of violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person – is solemnly proclaimed.
missing. He also faults the Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness despite the fact Petitioners argue that the statements "they are not related within the fourth
that there are aspects in his testimony that do not inspire belief civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local
Government Code has been complied with in the issuance of the
On the part of Ong, he argues that he cannot be held liable for falsification appointments" are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as both
for merely administering the oath in a document since it is not among the require the application of the rules on relationship under the law of
legal obligations of an officer administering the oath to certify the truthfulness succession.
and/or veracity of the contents of the document. Neither can he be made
liable for falsification regarding the letter-certification he issued since there A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority
was no evidence adduced that it was made to support Rivera’s appointment. regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a finding
of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be
Issue: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime charged applied.

Ruling: YES. Petitioners were charged with falsification of public document A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of
under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. an event or occurrence.
The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows:
1. the offender makes in a public document untruthful We have held that a certification by accused officials in the Statement of
statements in a narration of facts; Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished qualifies as a narration of facts as
2. he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as it
narrated by him; and consisted not only of figures and numbers but also words were used therein
3. the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. giving an account of the status of the flood control project.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives "within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a Issue: Should there be a real document for falsification to be committed?
description of such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a
particular set of facts. Ruling: No. In his brief the Attorney-General stated that an order of arrest
which had not been duly issued by a competent authority was simulated,
Since petitioner Galeos answered "No" to the question in his 1993 SALN if that an official document was imitated. The official titles “Assistant
he has relatives in the government service within the fourth degree of Prosecuting Attorney” and “Captain of Police,” following the signatures, and
consanguinity, he made an untruthful statement therein as in fact he was the wording of the order of arrest, being in due form, were more important
related to Ong, who was then the municipal mayor, within the fourth degree than the seal, the heading, and the exactness of the signatures. It induced
of consanguinity, he and Ong being first cousins (their mothers are sisters). the belief that it was “real” to such extent that the municipal president of
As to his 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in blank the boxes for the Corregidor hastened to comply with the order in question, believing it a
answer to the similar query. genuine one contained in a request which he also thought was genuine
made by the said captain of police.
The prosecution having established with moral certainty the guilt of
petitioners for falsification of public documents under Article 171 (4) of the A. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting or signature or rubric
Revised Penal Code, as amended, the court found no legal ground to
reverse petitioner's’ conviction. CASE 37: NORMALLAH A. PACASUM vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES (Dionisio)
CASE 36: UNITED STATES vs. AMADEO CORRAL (Dimayuga)
G.R. No. L-5325, March 3, 1910
Facts: Petitioner was Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in
En Banc; Arellano, C.J.:
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in the
performance of her official functions, taking advantage of her official position,
Doctrine: FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT The simulation of a
she allegedly falsified her Employee Clearance submitted to the Office of the
public or official document, done in such a manner as to easily lead to error
Regional Governor of the ARMM, by imitating the signature of Laura Y.
as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification. It is not essential
Pangilan, the Supply officer I of the DOT-ARMM, for the purpose of claiming
that the falsification shall have been made in a real public or official
her salary for the months of August and September 2000
document.

Facts: Paz Ramos, wife or seamstress of Amado Corral went to the police In 2002, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification
station in Paco and complained that Corral had ill-treated her. Corral came of Public Documents, defined under paragraph 1 of Article 171 of the
after Ramos and they left the station together. When Ramos left him, taking Revised Penal Code. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking that
with her a trunk and a diamond ring, he simulated a warrant of arrest. The she be given the opportunity to file her counter-affidavit during a preliminary
municipal president of Corregidor received a warrant by mail, sent for investigation in order that her right to due process would not be violated.
Ramos and said to her: “Here is a warrant and Captain Crame wants you Petitioner further filed an Urgent Motion for Preliminary Investigation and/or
because there is a case against you in the hands of the fiscal.” Corral was Reinvestigation with a Prayer to Recall or Defer Issuance of Warrant of
prosecuted and argued that the document was not an official document, and Arrest.
at the trial, he added that it was nothing at all, not an official letter.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for preliminary all the office properties issued to her. A few days later, she was called by her
investigation/reinvestigation decreeing that petitioner was not deprived of the mother-in-law to go to the latter’s office and inspect the Employees
opportunity to be heard before the Office of the Ombudsman as she had Clearance submitted by the representative of petitioner. She went to her
waived her right to be heard on preliminary investigation. Petitioner pleaded mother-in-law’s office and was shown the Employees Clearance of
not guilty to the crime charged. petitioner. Upon seeing the same, she denied the signature appearing on top
of her name. Thereupon, Marie Cris Batuampar, the representative of
Subaida Pangilan testified that one of her duties was to receive applications petitioner, took the Employees Clearance and left.
for clearance of Regional Secretaries of the ARMM. She explained that an
Employees Clearance was a requirement to be submitted in compliance with Laura revealed she executed a joint complaint-affidavit dated 28 August
a memorandum issued by then Governor Nur Misuari, directing all officers 2001 regarding the instant case. She issued a certification with a
and employees to clear themselves of property and money accountabilities memorandum receipt dated 23 November 1999, signed by petitioner. The
before their salaries for August and September 2000 would be paid. Upon certification attested she did not sign petitioner’s Employees Clearance
inspection of the Employees Clearance, she noticed that the signature of because all the office properties issued to petitioner had not been turned
Laura Pangilan (Laura) contained in said document was not hers. She said over or returned to the Supply Officer of the DOT - ARMM. Finally, she said
Laura Pangilan was her daughter-in-law, and that the latter’s signature was that as of 2 January 2005, her last day as Supply Officer, petitioner had not
very familiar to her. Mrs. Pangilan immediately photocopied the original returned anything.
Employees Clearance with the intention of sending the same to her
daughter-in-law for the purpose of having the latter confirm if the signature The last witness for the prosecution, Rebecca A. Agatep, Telegraph
on top of her name in the Employees Clearance was hers. There being no Operator, Telegraph Office, Quezon City, testified that she had been a
messenger \available, she instead called up Laura to come to her office to telegraph operator for nineteen years. On 31 May 2005, she was at the
verify the signature. Laura, whose office was only a walking distance away, Telegraph Office in Commission on Audit, Quezon City. She received two
came and inspected the clearance, and denied signing the same. After she telegrams for transmissions both dated 31 May 2005. One was addressed to
denied that she signed the clearance, and while they were conversing, the petitioner and the other to Marie Cris Batuampar. Upon receiving said
bearer of the Employees Clearance took said document and left. documents, she transmitted the documents through telegram. The telegram
addressed to petitioner was received by her relative, Manso Alonto, in her
Mrs. Pangilan said she did not know the name of the person who took the residence on 1 June 2005, while that addressed to Ms. Batuampar was
original of the Employee Clearance, but said that the latter was a niece and transmitted to, and received in, Cotabato City on 1 June 2005.
staff member of the petitioner. She said that all the signatures appearing in
the Employees Clearance were all genuine except for Laura’s signature. For her defense, petitioner testified that although she was aware of the
memorandum issued requiring the clearance, she argues that the same did
The next witness for the prosecution was Laura Y. Pangilan, the person not apply to her because she had no cash advances. Only those with cash
whose signature was allegedly imitated. Laura testified that Marie advances were required to get an Employees Clearance before they could
Cris Batuampar, an officemate and niece of petitioner Pacasum, went to her receive their salaries. Petitioner said she did not know where the original of
house with the Employees Clearance of petitioner. Batuampar requested her her Employees Clearance was. Neither did she know if the signature of
to sign in order to clear petitioner of all property accountabilities. She refused Laura Pangilan therein had been imitated or forged. She likewise said that
to sign the clearance because at that time, petitioner had not yet turned over
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although the Employee Clearance was in her name, she did not cause Petitioner argued that the photocopy of her Employees Clearance had no
Laura’s signature to be affixed thereto. probative value in proving its contents and was inadmissible because the
original thereof was not presented by the prosecution. The Sandiganbayan
Petitioner disclosed that she was able to get her salary for the month of did not agree. It said that the presentation and admission of secondary
August . Petitioner claims also that she has not seen the original of the evidence, like a photocopy of her Employees Clearance, was justified to
subject Employees Clearance.When she first saw the photocopy of the prove the contents thereof, because despite reasonable notices (telegrams)
Employees Clearance, the signature of Laura was not there. She was able made by the prosecution to petitioner and her assistant secretary to produce
to see the photocopy of the Employees Clearance again after this case had the original of her Employees Clearance, they ignored the notice and
been filed with the Sandiganbayan, already with the alleged signature of refused to present the original of said document.
Laura. Petitioner said it was not she who placed or caused Laura’s purported
signature to be affixed there. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
DENIED by the Sandiganbayan
SANDIGANBAYAN RULING: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
falsification. The Sandiganbayan found the signature of Supply Officer Laura Issue: Petition for Certiorari
Y. Pangilan appearing in the Employees Clearance of petitioner to have (1) WON petitioner needed an Employees Clearance
been falsified/forged. It did not give much weight on petitioner’s defense (2) WON petitioner benefited from the alleged falsification, hence must
denying she was the one who actually falsified her Employees Clearance by be deemed the author thereof;
imitating the signature of Laura Pangilan and that she had no idea about the
alleged falsification, because it was her assistant secretary, Marie Cris Ruling:
Batuampar, who worked for her clearance. The Sandiganbayan added that
considering it was petitioner who took advantage of and profited from the (1) NO. Petitioner contends that under the memorandum, she was not
use of the falsified clearance, the presumption was that she was the material required to file an Employees Clearance to draw her salary but what was
author of the falsification. Despite full opportunity, she was not able to rebut required was a credit notice. She does not need to submit the clearance
said presumption. since she had no cash advances. Hence, the signature in her Employees
Clearance was "irrelevant and a non-issue".
The Sandiganbayan likewise did not sustain petitioner’s contention that she
did not stand to benefit from the falsification of her Employees Clearance. The Court agrees that what was required before she could draw her salaries
The lower court explained that the memorandum applied to petitioner, she was a Credit Notice from the COA and not an Employees Clearance. The
being an official of the ARMM. It said that the applicability of said memorandum states that what was required from officers/employees who
memorandum to petitioner was even admitted by her when she, in had unliquidated cash advances was the corresponding Credit Notice issued
compliance therewith, instructed her staff/assistant secretary to work for her by the COA after they had settled their accounts. There was indeed no
Employees Clearance to enable her to collect her salary for the month of mention of any Employees Clearance therein. Up to this point, we agree with
August 2000. It said that the fact that she (allegedly) had no existing cash petitioner.
advances did not exempt her from the coverage of the memorandum,
because she must show she had no cash advances and the only way to do
(2) YES. It is to be made clear that the "use" of a falsified document is
this was by obtaining a clearance.
separate and distinct from the "falsification" of a public document. The
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
act of "using" falsified documents is not necessarily included in the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Sandiganbayan in
"falsification" of a public document. Using falsified documents is Crim. Case No. 27483 dated 7 August 2007 and its resolution dated 22
punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case at October 2007 are hereby AFFIRMED.
bar, the falsification of the Employees Clearance was consummated
the moment the signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated. In the CASE 38: PEOPLE v. SENDAYDIEGO (Enriquez)
falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the G.R. No. L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253 January 20, 1978
contents set forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that Second Division; Aquino, J.
the signature of another was counterfeited.
Doctrine: The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified
It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents, it is document and be made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and
not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the
third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document, the falsification. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or
of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, the purpose for which the possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or
falsification was made and whether the offender profited or hoped to to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in
profit from such falsification are no longer material. the forgery.
Facts: In these three cases of malversation through falsification, the
Petitioner denies having "actually" falsified her Employees Clearance by prosecution's theory is that in 1969 Licerio P. Sendaydiego, the provincial
imitating the signature of Laura Pangilan, claiming that she had no treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Juan Samson y Galvan, an
knowledge about the falsification because it was her assistant secretary, employee of a lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, and with
Marie Cris Batuampar, who worked for her Employees Clearance. Anastacio Quirimit, the provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used forged
provincial vouchers in order to embezzle from the road and bridge fund the
Petitioner’s denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. total sum of P57,048.23.
In the case at bar, petitioner did not even present as her witness Marie Cris
Batuampar, the person whom she instructed to work for her Employees The Provincial voucher (Voucher No. 10724 ) evidences the payment to the
Clearance. Her failure to present this person in order to shed light on the Carried Construction Supply Co. of Dagupan City for lumber and hardware
matter was fatal to her cause materials supposedly used in the repair of the bridge in Barrio Libertad at the
Umingan-Tayug road in Pangasinan along the Nueva Ecija boundary. The
Moreover, it is an established rule, that in the absence of a satisfactory falsity of that provincial voucher is proven by the following instances:
explanation, when a person has in his possession or control a falsified
document and who makes use of the same, the presumption or inference is a. That there was no project for the repair of the bridge at Barrio
justified that such person is the forger or the one who caused the forgery Libertad
and, therefore, guilty of falsification. In line with this, and considering that it
was the accused who took advantage and profited in the use of the falsified b. That the amount of P16,727.52 was never received by the Carried
Employees Clearance in question, the presumption is inevitable that she is Construction Supply Co The alleged official receipt No. 3025 of the
the material author of the falsification. company dated March, 1969 is forged.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. That the lumber and materials mentioned were never delivered by engineer and provincial treasurer. He was personally known to those
the company to the provincial government provincial officials and the employees of their offices (21-22 Sendaydiego's
brief).
d. the signatures of the following office were forged: Salvador F.
Oropilla senior civil engineer; Rodolfo P. Mencias, supervising civil The six (6) forged provincial vouchers, with their respective supporting
engineer Victoriano M. Sevilleja, acting provincial engineer, and papers, were hand-carried by Samson. He delivered the papers to
Ricardo B. Probincias, chief of equipment of the governor's office. Carmencita Castillo, the ledger clerk in the provincial engineer's office, for
These four office denied that their signatures in the two vouchers recording and for her signature.
are their genuine signatures.
Thereafter, Samson brought the papers to the provincial treasurer's office.
e. (e) That the imprint of the rubber stamp on Exhibits A and B, Marcelo Crusade, a laborer in that office who performed the chore of
containing the words "Approved: For and By Authority of the recording the vouchers and payrolls, recorded Vouchers Nos. 11869, 11871
Governor (signed) Ricardo B. Primicias, Chief of Equipment", is not and 11872 (Exh. P, R and S). Crusadas initials appear on the upper lefthand
the imprint of the genuine rubber stamp used in Primicias office. corner of the said vouchers with the date 4/17/69.

f. (f) That charge invoice No. 3327 of the Carried Construction Supply Samson signed on the left margin of the vouchers to indicate that he
Co. dated February 18, 1969 is fake because, according to presented them to the provincial t r's office. Crusade said that after Samson
Ambrosio Jabanes, the company's assistant had presented the said papers to him, Samson brought them to Ricardo
Baraan, the book-keeper of the provincial treasurer's office for processing
g. (g) That three other documents, supporting the provincial voucher and for the latter's signature (Exh. WW).
(Exh. K), were also forged. Those documents are the taxpayer's
cate dated February 10, 1969 (Exh. C) stating that no tax is due on From Baraan's office, Samson hand-carried the vouchers to the provincial
the goods sold in the fake invoice No. 3327 and the two certificates auditor's office. He asked Virginia Cruz, a clerk to record the same (Exh.
as to the samples of lumber allegedly purchased from the Carried CC).
Construction Supply Co., (Exh. D and E). Narciso P. Martinez, a
district forester, denied that his signatures in Exhibits D and E are Afterwards, Samson asked Donato Rosete the assistant provincial treasurer,
his signatures. to initialled the voucher After Rosete had initialled the vouchers, Samson
went to the provincial treasurer's office where the amounts covered by the
h. (h) That Angelo C. Manuel the checker of the provincial auditor's voucher were paid by Sendaydiego to him in cash (instead of by check) as
office, denied that his signature on the left margin is his signature representative of the Carried Construction Supply Co. He received the
payments on March 31 and April 29 and 28 (four payments on that date) as
Samson played a stellar role in the processing of the six vouchers. He used shown on the face of the vouchers.
to be an employee of the pro treasurer's office. He resigned and worked with
several firms doing business with the provincial government. In 1969 he was The signature of Sendaydiego and Quirimit, the auditor, on the said six
the collector of the Carried Construction Supply Co. He represented that firm vouchers are admittedly authentic. Sendaydiego signed the vouchers ahead
in its dealings with the offices of the governor, provincial auditor, provincial of Rosete, his assistant. Sendaydiego's defense is that he signed the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vouchers in the honest belief that the signatures therein of the provincial But the expert is in error in concluding that Samson did not forge the
office concerned were genuine because the voucher had been pre-audited questioned signatures or in implying that Samson had no hand in the writing
and approved by the auditor. thereof.

Samson denied the authenticity of his two signatures on each of the six The truth is that Samson used two forms of signature. His supposed genuine
vouchers showing that he received from Sendaydiego the amounts covered signatures found in his residence certificates, income tax returns and the
thereby as representative of the lumber and hardware firm (Exh. OO to TT) genuine office receipt of the Carried Construction Supply Co. are "in an
and that he presented the vouchers to the provincial s treasurer's office. arcade form or rounded form of writing". The surname Samson is encircled.
Sendaydiego testified that Samson's signatures are genuine.
On the other hand, the questioned signatures used in Samson's transactions
After trial the lower court acquitted the auditor, Quirimit and found with the provincial government are in angular form; his surname is not
Sendaydiego and Samnson guilty of malversation through falsification of encircled, and the questioned signatures terminate in angular and horizontal
public or official documents imposing each of the following penalties strokes.

(Baka hanapin nyo si Sendaydiego sa kaso. Namatay na sya habang naka Samson was consistent in his fakeries. Knowing that the six vouchers
appeal yung case. Si Samson na lang ang bida sa kwento na connected sa evidenced fictitious transactions, he used therein his fake signature, or the
Art. 171 re: Falsification -- Richard) signature which is different from his signature in genuine documents. He
used his forged signatures in the six fake official receipts of the Carried
Issue: Samson contends that the trial court erred in disregarding the expert Construction Supply Co., stating that the amounts covered by the six
testimony that his signatures on the vouchers are not his signature; in finding vouchers were received by him . the expert admitted that a person may have
that he forged the vouchers and received the proceeds thereof. two forms of signature.

Ruling: Samson sought to prove, through Lieutenant Colonel Jose G. Signatures may be deliberately disguised with the dishonest intention of
Fernandez, retired chief of the Constabulary crime laboratory, a handwriting denying the same as and when necessary.
expert, that his signatures on the vouchers are not his signatures.
Sendaydiego himself testified that the questioned signatures of Samson in
Fernandez found that the questioned signatures and the alleged genuine the six vouchers were Samson's signatures.
signatures (exemplars) of Samson have fundamental differences. The expert
concluded that the questioned signatures and the exemplar signatures of Fernandez, the handwriting expert, declared that the questioned signatures
Samson were not written by one and the same person. of Samson in the vouchers were written by only one person.

After examining the questioned and genuine signatures and analysing the The evidence conclusively proves that Samson, as the representative or
evidence and contentions of the parties, we find that the expert is correct in collector of the supposed creditor, Carried Construction Supply Co., hand-
declaring that (as admitted by the trial court) there are radical differences carried the vouchers in question to the offices of the provincial engineer,
between the questioned and authentic signatures. treasurer and auditor and then back to the treasurer's office for payment. He
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually received the cash payments. Under those circumstances, Samson B. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act
is presumed to be the forger of the vouchers. or proceeding whn they did not in fact so participate

The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and be CASE 39: DOMINGO v. PEOPLE (Gasapo)
made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the Citation: G.R. No. 186101
presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is Third Division
especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely
connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven Doctrine: Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of
to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection Commercial Document under Art. 172 are:
with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery. (U.S. vs. (1) that the offender is a private individual;
Castillo, 6 Phil., 453; People vs. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People vs. Domingo, (2) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification; and
49 Phil. 28; People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338 People vs. Manansala, 105 (3) (3) that the act of falsification is committed in a commercial
Phil. 1253). document.

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession If a person has in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it,
of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the taking advantage of it and profiting from it, the presumption is that he is the
forger. material author of the falsification.

Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification of a

Samson's use of one form of signature for his crooked transactions
commercial document, because what the law seeks to repress is the
with the provincial government and another form of signatures of his
prejudice to the public confidence in such documents.
valid transactions or papers shows the deviousness of the
falsifications perpetrated in these cases.
Facts:

Penalties. — The trial court and the assumed that three complex crimes of
RTC: 17 counts of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document
malversation through falsification of public documents were committed in this
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC
case. That assumption is wrong.
Being the wife of the best friend of Remedios son, petitioner had a close
The crimes committed in these three cases are not complex. Separate relationship with Remedios and her family. On June 15, 1995, Remedios
crimes of falsification and malversation were committed. These are not accompanied petitioner to BPI because the latter wanted to open an account
cases where the execution of a single act constitutes two grave or less grave therein. Remedios then introduced petitioner to the banks staff and officers.
felonies or where the falsification was used as a means to commit Soon thereafter, petitioner frequented Remedios office and volunteered to
malversation. deposit her checks in her bank account at BPI.

In the six vouchers the falsification was used to conceal the malversation. It Sometime in October 1996, Remedios wanted to buy a car thinking that she
is settled that if the falsification was resorted to for the purpose of hiding the already had a substantial amount in her account. Thus, she went to BPI to
malversation, the falsification and malversation are separate offenses. withdraw two hundred thousand pesos (PhP 200,000). To her surprise,
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however, she found out that her money had already been withdrawn. The Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) punishes any private individual
withdrawals were effected through 18 encashment slips bearing her forged who commits any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 of the
signatures reaching the amount of eight hundred thirty-eight thousand pesos Code in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other
(PhP 838,000). She denied having affixed her signatures on the encashment kind of commercial document. The acts of falsification enumerated in Art.
slips used. 171 are:

Testimonies showed that on several occasions beginning September 18, Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary
1995 until October 18, 1996, petitioner presented a number of encashment or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and
slips of various amounts to BPI, and by virtue of which she was able to a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
withdraw huge amounts of money from the checking account of the any public officer, employee or notary who, taking
complainant. She deposited the bigger portion of these amounts to her own advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document
account and pocketed some of them, while also paying the rest to Skycable. by committing any of the following acts:
The transactions were processed by four tellers of BPI, namely: Regina
Ramos, Mary Antonette Pozon, Sheila Ferranco, and Kim Rillo who verified 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
the signatures of the complainant on the questioned encashment slips. signature, or rubric;
After having been apprised of the illegal transactions of petitioner on 2. Causing it to appear that persons have
complainants account, the latter complained to the bank for allowing the participated in any act or proceeding
withdrawal of the money with the use of falsified encashment slips and when they did not in fact participate;
demanded that the amount illegally withdrawn be returned. She was 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in
required by BPI to submit checks bearing her genuine signature for an act or proceeding statements other than
examination by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. After those in fact made by them;
examination, Josefina dela Cruz of the PNP Crime Laboratory came up with 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
a finding that complainants signatures on the questioned encashment slips facts;
had been forged. Only then did the bank agree to pay her the amount of PhP 5. Altering true dates;
645,000 representing a portion of the amount illegally withdrawn with the use 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
of the forged encashment slips. genuine document which changes its
meaning;
Remedios and BPI filed a complaint before the prosecutor’s office. Upon 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a
motion by the prosecution, the 17 cases were consolidated and tried jointly document purporting to be a copy of an
by the trial court. original document when no such original
exists, or including in such copy a statement
Issue: Whether or not the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient contrary to, or different from, that of the
to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
Ruling: The evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient. to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
or official book. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of Commercial As found by the trial court, the totality of the testimonies of Remedios, dela
Document under Art. 172 are: (1) that the offender is a private Cruz, the handwriting expert, and the bank tellers bears the earmarks of
individual; (2) that the offender committed any of the acts of truth that the questioned encashment slips had been falsified by petitioner
falsification; and (3) that the act of falsification is committed in a and that they were presented to the bank in order to defraud the bank or
commercial document. holder of the account.

As borne by the records, all the elements of the crime are present in Moreover, it cannot be said that since none of the prosecution witnesses
the instant case. Petitioner is a private individual who presented to the saw the falsification actually done by petitioner, she cannot be held liable.
tellers of BPI 17 forged encashment slips on different dates and of The bank tellers who processed the illegal transactions of petitioner involving
various amounts. The questioned encashment slips were falsified by the account of Remedios were consistent in their testimonies that it was
petitioner by filling out the same and signing the name of the private petitioner herself who presented the encashment slips and received the
complainant, thereby making it appear that Remedios signed the proceeds of the slips. In such a situation, the applicable rule is that if a
encashment slips and that they are genuine in all respects, when in person has in his possession a falsified document and he made use of
fact petitioner knew very well that Remedios never signed the subject it, taking advantage of it and profiting from it, the presumption is that
encashment slips. he is the material author of the falsification. In the instant case,
petitioner has failed to overthrow the presumption.
In her testimony, Remedios categorically denied having filled out and signed
any of the subject encashment slips on the dates indicated on them. Her Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the questioned encashment
testimony is further strengthened by the testimonies of the bank manager slips are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general,
and the bank tellers, who facilitated the banking transactions carried out by documents or instruments which are used by merchants or
petitioner with their branch. Their testimonies were coherent and consistent businessmen to promote or facilitate trade. An encashment slip
in narrating that it was indeed petitioner who presented the encashment necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose
slips, received the proceeds of the transactions, and/or caused the transfer name and signature appears thereon to encash a check and withdraw
of the money to her own bank account. the amount indicated therein.

Typically, such inconspicuous divergences noted by dela Cruz on the Even more, petitioner would have this Court believe that the crime of
questioned signatures could not be easily detected by untrained eyes or by falsification of a commercial document did not exist because Remedios and
one who had no formal training in handwriting examination; thus, resort to BPI did not suffer any damage. Such argument is specious. It has been
the opinion of an expert is imperative. This explains why the bank tellers who ruled that damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in
processed the illegal transactions entered into by the petitioner on the falsification of a commercial document, because what the law seeks to
account of Remedios failed to notice the forgery or falsification. As a result, repress is the prejudice to the public confidence in such documents.
they allowed the encashment by petitioner. The training or skill, if any, of the
tellers in detecting forgeries is usually minimal or inadequate and their Therefore, the acts of petitioner clearly satisfy all the essential elements of
opinion is generally unreliable. It was, therefore, prudent on the part of the the crime of Falsification of Commercial Document. In the case before us, all
bank to seek the opinion of an expert to determine the genuineness of the the elements of estafa are present. Once petitioner acquired the
signatures in the encashment slips. possession of the amounts she encashed by means of deceit, she
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
misappropriated, misapplied, and converted the same to her own Santiago was originally the administrator of the estate of his mother
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the private Remedios Bermejo Villaruz. However, he was removed as such for patent
complainant and BPI. neglect of his legal duties and failure to comply with the court orders. In his
place, respondents eldest brother, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr., was appointed
Without a doubt, the falsification of the encashment slips was a regular administrator, upon filing and approval by this Court of an
necessary means to commit estafa. At that time, the offense of Administrators Bond.
falsification is already considered consummated even before the
Nicolas filed a motion for the approval of his bond. Santiago and his brother
falsified document is used to defraud another.
Jose Ma. Villaruz opposed Nicolas motion and prayed that Jose Maria be
instead appointed regular administrator. Attached to their opposition was a
Therefore, the trial court aptly convicted petitioner for the complex crime of
certification, executed by their mother Remedios before she passed away,
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document.
authorizing Santiago to take possession of and/or to manage her nipa lands,
which were then in his care, for a period of 20 years or during her lifetime,
C. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
whichever was longer. Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz also gave Santiago the
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them
option of leasing the properties for P120,000.00 a year plus land taxes. The
oppositors likewise submitted an agreement, executed by the three children
CASE 40: MENDOZA-ARCE vs. OMBUDSMAN (Gatdula)
of Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz, in which they agreed to honor the lease until
G.R. No. 149148. April 5, 2002
August 23, 2008.
SECOND DIVISION
In an order, Judge Patricio denied the oppositors opposition, while
Doctrine: Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of recognizing the validity of the certification executed by Remedios Bermejo-
dolo, such as falsification. Villaruz and the agreement of the heirs, and stated that the administration of
the new administrator was subject to them. No mention of the agreement
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to annul the resolution, dated April 20, was, however, made in the dispositive portion of the order, which simply
2001, of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), finding a prima facie case read:
for violation of 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
and Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Susan Mendoza- WHEREFORE, premises considered, for lack of merit,
Arce, and the order, dated June 29, 2001, denying her motion for oppositors Opposition and Motion dated July 15, 1998 is
reconsideration. denied, while action on petitioners Motion to Approve
Administrators Bond dated July 1, 1998 is held in
Santiago B. Villaruz is one of the oppositors in Special Proceeding, entitled abeyance until after petitioner submits to this Court, within
In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Remedios Bermejo- ten (10) days from receipt of this order, an updated
Villaruz, deceased, v. Nicolas P. Villaruz.[1] The case, originally assigned to certification from the Supreme Court to the effect that the
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Roxas City, of which Judge Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. has no
Roger B. Patricio was presiding judge, was later re-assigned to Branch 19 pending obligation and/ or liability to the government
of the same court, presided over by Judge (now Justice of the Court of insofar as confiscated bonds in civil and criminal cases are
Appeals) Sergio Pestao.[2] concerned.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 1998, Judge Sergio Pestao, to whom the case was in the investing him with full authority to take possession of all property/ies of the
meantime reassigned, approved the administrators bond of respondent decedent, because the fact was that it was Judge Patricio who had
Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. appointed Nicolas administrator of the estate subject to the terms and
conditions of the lease agreement in favor of respondent Santiago B.
After receiving a copy of Judge Pestaos order, respondent Susan Mendoza-
Villaruz. Respondent claimed that he had been deprived of income in the
Arce, Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, prepared a
amount of P33,000.00 every week, as well as of the bancas and boats used
Letter of Administration (LOA) which read:
in his business, as a result of the issuance of the order in question.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
Graft Investigation Officer Estrela Alma A. Singco stated that the allegations
That by order of this Court dated October 12, 1998, issued
in the complaint warrant further investigation and recommended that
by Honorable Sergio Pestao, Judge of the Regional Trial
petitioner be ordered to file her counter-affidavit.
Court, Branch 19, Roxas City, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. has
been appointed Administrator of the estate of Remedios Petitioner admitted issuing the LOA in favor of Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. She
Bermejo-Villaruz, deceased, with full authority to take claimed, however, that she acted in compliance with the order of Presiding
possession of all property/ies of said deceased in any Judge Sergio Pestao and that, in preparing the LOA, she merely adopted the
province or provinces in which it may be situated and to legal form prescribed in the Manual for Clerks of Court, which had been
perform all other acts necessary for the preservation of approved by this Court. She said she issued the LOA in line [with] my official
said property, he having filed a bond satisfactory to the functions which [are] ministerial in nature and devoid of any bad faith and
Court. Said Administrator shall within three months from with manifest partiality
the date of this appointment return to the Court a true
Ricardo A. Rebollido, Graft Investigation Officer II, found probable cause
inventory and appraisal of the real and personal estate of
against petitioner. Based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits submitted
the deceased which have come into his possession or
by the parties, he found petitioner guilty of the charge by making it appear
knowledge and shall render a true and just account of his
that it was Judge Pestao, instead of Judge Patricio, who had appointed
administration to the Court within one year and at any
Nicolas B. Villaruz as administrator, without regard to the lease agreement in
other time when required by the Court.
favor of respondent Santiago B. Villaruz. The Graft Investigation Officer
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign and seal these presents
found that although petitioners duties were ministerial, she should have read
in Roxas City, Philippines, this 16th day of October 1998.
the order recognizing the lease.
(sgd.) Susan Mendoza-Arce
(t)SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE The Office of the Ombudsman found a prima facie case against Petitioner.
Susan Mendoza-Arce was charged with Falsification by a Public Officer Issue: W/N Petitioner is guilty of Falsification under Art. 171 of the RPC.
under Art. 171 (3) of the RPC, for stating in the Letter of Administration that
Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. had been appointed administrator by Judge Sergio Ruling: NO. The Office of the Ombudsman found a prima facie case for
Pestao when what the latter did was to approve the administrators bond; and falsification under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code against
Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) petitioner because she stated in the letter of administration that Nicolas B.
Villaruz, Jr. had been appointed administrator by Judge Sergio Pestao when
Santiago also accused Petitioner of acting with manifest partiality, evident what the latter did was to approve the administrators bond.
bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence by falsely attributing to Judge
Pestao the appointment of Nicolas B. Villaruz as new administrator and
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the Ombudsmans findings. Art. 171, par. 3 of the Revised 4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
Penal Code provides: authority;

Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical minister. 5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be regulation;
imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts: 7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding 8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
statements other than those in fact made by them. 9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of dolo, such lust for vengeance;
as falsification. In this case, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the 10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
requisite criminal intent or mens rea was present. Petitioner prepared the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
letter of administration on the basis of the order of Judge Pestao, dated denied.
October 12, 1998, approving the administrators bond filed by Nicolas B.
Villaruz, Jr. By the approval of his bond, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. qualified as
administrator so that in a sense, therefore, the statement in the letter of D. Making untruthful Statements in a narration of facts
administration [t]hat by order of this Court dated October 12, 1998, issued by
Honorable Sergio Pestao, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, CASE 41: DENNIS MANGANGEY, GABRIEL WANASON and ANSELMO
Roxas City, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. has been appointed Administrator of the FORAYO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (5th Division) and PEOPLE (Gementiza)
estate of Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz, deceased is correct. There was GR No. 147773-74, February 18, 2007
nothing willful or felonious in petitioners act warranting her prosecution for Velasco, J.
falsification.
Doctrine: Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
(Note: Just in case itanong ni JT. – Ivan)

Exceptions to non-interference in the conduct of preliminary Facts: Sometime in October 1986, the Municipality of Paracelis, Mountain
investigations: Province undertook the widening and partial relocation of the Banilag-Minoli
Road. The project was awarded to private contractor Leon Acapen.
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused; The project was allegedly completed on December 8, 1986 as shown in the
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance. The certificate was prepared and
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; signed by Construction and Maintenance Foreman of the Office of the
Provincial Engineer, Dennis Mangangey. He attested that he personally
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; inspected the project and that it was 100% completed in accordance with the
agreed specifications. The other accused who were also public officers all
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
attested that they personally inspected the work done by Leon. The aside from the lone circumstances that the government paid for an
Government issued a check for P106,970 as payment for the project. incomplete project, no other evidence or circumstance was adduced to
prove that they indeed conspired with Wandag. No proof that they had
Sometime in February 1989, Simon Naigsan wrote to Regional Office of knowledge of Wandag’s criminal intent to defraud the government as it was
Commission of Audit and complained about the anomalies in the established that Wandag alone committed the offense. They also point out
construction of the road. An actual site inspection was then made by Engr. that it was Wandag alone who benefited from the crime as petitioners were
Angluben and in his affidavit he attested thereto that the facts in the never shown to have shared the proceeds with Wandag.
certificates of inspection and acceptance were false.
*Petitioners filed Motion for Reconsideration before Sandingabayan: Denied.
Thereafter, a criminal case of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents Lack of Merit.
was filed before the Sandiganbayan against Wandag (Mayor or Paracelis),
Forayo (then a Municipal Revenue Clerk), Wanason (then Municipal *Case brought to SC: Filed Petition for Review under Rule 45
Planning and Development Coordinator), Mangangey (then Maintenance
Foreman, Office of the Provincial Engineer) and Leon Acapen (the private Ruling: Petition denied.
contractor).
As to Falsification of public documents, the Supreme Court said “there is no
All the accused pleaded not guilty except Wandag who took flight to the question that petitioners were public officials and employees performing their
United States. official duty when they certified in a public document that they inspected and
found that the road was 100% complete per contract specifications. The
Sandiganbayan: conclusion that could be drawn is that the Banilag-Minoli Road was far from
finished at the time the certification were signed by petitioners and when
The Sandiganbayan found that the signatories of the Certificate of Inspection they government paid for the road project”.
and Acceptance, namely Mangangey, Wanason, Forayo and the late
Bernardo, in their own official functions falsified a public document when As to the requirement that the accused had a legal obligation to disclose the
they attested that they personally inspected the work of Leon and reported truth of the facts narrated, suffice it to say that a Certificate of Inspection and
that it was 100% completed in accordance with the plan, specifications and Acceptance is required in the processing of vouchers for the payment of
contract requirements notwithstanding that the project was not yet finished. government projects. Patently, the falsification of this document by the
The Sandiganbayan found the petitioners conspired with Wandag to petitioners caused the release of the payment for an unfinished road at great
defraud the Government. cost to the government.

As for Leon Acapen, the Sandibaganbayan acquitted said accused on As to Elements of estafa, Supreme Court said that all were duly proven (Art.
ground of reasonable doubt. 315 par.2).The falsification were made during the commission of the crime.
The falsified certificates of inspection and acceptance resulted in the
Contention of Petitioners before the SC: government paying for the unfinished project to the disadvantage and injury
of the State. Altogether, the elements of the complex crime of estafa through
From the evidence submitted, it has not been established that petitioners falsification of public document are present.
conspired to falsify documents to defraud the government. They posit that
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to question of conspiracy, the Supreme Court said that: “the concerted
acts of the co-conspirators resulted in the processing and release of the Evidence for the Prosecution
payment for an unfinished road to the disadvantage and damage to the Engr. Ramos testified that he prepared three (3) programs of work upon the
government. The circumstances based on the facts proven by the instructions of Vallejos. The first two (2) programs of work, dated January 5,
prosecution, pointing to Wandag and petitioners as conspiring to defraud the 1998 and January 14, 1998, respectively, were for the upgrading of
Government. barangay roads; the third, also dated January 5, 1998, was for the
construction of market stalls. He declared that he never implemented any of
E. Altering true Dates these projects. He later discovered that these projects had already been
implemented by the previous municipal engineer; hence, the programs of
CASE 42: PEOPLE vs PANTALEON (Gelomina) work and subsequent disbursements were not really needed.
G.R. Nos. 158694-96, March 13, 2009
Brion, J. On cross-examination, he stated that he was asked to prepare the programs
of work in March 1998; that he submitted the programs upon completion to
Facts: Appellants Teofilo G. Pantaleon, Jr. (Pantaleon) and Jaime F. Vallejos who told him that he (Vallejos) would give them to Pantaleon for
Vallejos (Vallejos), former Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, approval. He assumed the programs of work were disapproved because
respectively, of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales were charged and nobody coordinated with him regarding their implementation.
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of malversation of
public funds through falsification of public documents. On re-direct examination, Engr. Ramos explained that Pantaleon and
Vallejos instructed him to place dates earlier than March 1998 in the
The joint affidavit-complaints alleged that the appellants, Ken Swan Tiu, and three (3) programs of work, although he prepared them only in March
Engr. Ramos conspired to illegally disburse and misappropriate the public 1998.
funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales in the amounts of
P166,242.72 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-328), Aurelio, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Castillejos, testified that no
P154,634.27 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349), and market stall was constructed in the public market in 1998 and 1999, and no
P90,464.21 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9804-415), by falsifying upgrading, excavation, and back filling of any barangay road likewise took
the supporting documents relating to three (3) fictitious or ghost construction place in 1998 in Castillejos. He added that no infrastructure project could
projects, namely: (a) the upgrading of barangay roads in Barangays Looc, have been made in January 1998 because it was an election period.
Nagbayan, Magsaysay, and San Pablo; (b) the upgrading of barangay roads
in Barangays Looc proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles, and San Nida, the senior bookkeeper of Castillejos, testified that vouchers were all
Pablo-Sitio San Isidro; and (c) the construction of market stalls at the public approved by Pantaleon, although they did not pass through her office for
market of Castillejos. pre-audit. She likewise explained that the certification of the accountant and
the budget officer were necessary even if the funds were sourced from the
The affidavit-complaints further alleged that the disbursement vouchers were development fund.
not signed by the municipal accountant and budget officer; that the
Sangguniang Bayan did not adopt a resolution authorizing Pantaleon to Ken Swan Tiu (also known as Sonny Tiu, Tiu Ken Swan and Ken Swan Lee
enter into a contract with La Paz Construction and/or Ken Swan Tiu; and that Tiu), owner of the La Paz Construction, testified that he did not enter into
no projects were actually undertaken by the Municipality of Castillejos. any negotiated contract with the Municipality of Castillejos, and that his
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
company never received any payment from the municipality. He stated that entry of Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328, 101-9803-349 and 10-
the signatures in the vouchers were not his, and reiterated that he did not 9804-415. These items were required to be filled up by Nida as the
have any transaction with the Municipality of Castillejos. He added that he municipal accountant. Thus, Vallejos made it appear that the municipal
has no agent to collect or enter into transactions in his behalf. accountant participated in signing the disbursement vouchers.

SANDIGANBAYAN: convicted them as charged The appellants were likewise guilty of falsification under paragraph 5 of
MEANWHILE: Pantaleon was granted conditional pardon, he move to Article 171. Engr. Ramos testified that Pantaleon and Vallejos instructed him
withdraw his appeal which was subsequently granted by the SC. Thus, this to place the dates January 5, 1998 on the first and third programs of work,
Decision at this point relates solely to appellant Vallejos. and January 14, 1998 on the second program of work, although he prepared
the programs only in March 1998. Thereafter, the appellants affixed their
In his brief, appellant Vallejos argued, among others, that the signatures on these programs of work. The projects covered by these
Sandiganbayan erred programs of work served as basis for the issuance of the disbursement
voucher.
1. in convicting him of the crime charged despite merely occupying a
salary grade (SG) 24 position; (ruling by SC: Pantaleon is salary grade 27, AS TO THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION
hence, Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction) There is sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence. The essential elements
2. in convicting him of the crime charged despite the absence of notice to common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
restitute from the Provincial Auditor of Zambales; Code are the following:
3. in convicting him of the crime charged despite merely acting (a) That the offender be a public officer - Appellants are public officers
ministerially on the disbursement vouchers in question; and (b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason
4. in finding that a conspiracy existed between him and Pantaleon. of the duties of his office – yes, as treasurer and municipal mayor
(Ruling: there was conspiracy) (c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for
which he was accountable – the funds were sourced from
Issue: Is he guilty of malversation of public funds through falsification of development funds of the municipality, hence they are public funds
public documents.? YES to which the appellants are accountable
(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or,
Ruling related to our topic: through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to
 Falsification was a necessary means to commit the crime of take them – the projects did not materialize
malversation
F. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document
Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it which changes its meaning
to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a
proceeding; and (b) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate CASE 43: AVELLA GARCIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Groyon)
in the act or proceeding. G.R. No. 128213, December 13, 2005

In the present case, both testimonial and documentary evidence showed Facts: Sometime in early October 1990, a verbal agreement was entered
that Vallejos filled up the spaces for the voucher number and the accounting into between Alberto Quijada, Jr. (Alberto) and Avella for the sale of the
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
formers house and lot for the purchase price of P1.2 million pesos. On On January 21, 1991, Alberto, along with his sister, came to Avellas
October 23, 1990, an earnest money in the amount of ten thousand pesos residence in Mandaluyong City to ask for additional downpayment for the
(P10,000) was given to Alberto by Avella. On October 31, 1990, the amount house and lot. At that time she only had P5,000 in cash which she handed
of one hundred and fifty-five thousand pesos (P155,000) was delivered by over to Alberto and then promised him a bigger sum in the future. Avella
Avella representing this time the downpayment for the house and lot. A then hand wrote two receipts which was signed by Alberto and his sister, as
subsequent payment of five thousand pesos (P5,000) was made on January evidence of the payment of P5,000. One receipt was her copy while the
21, 1991. With respect to this last transaction, Avella prepared in her own other was for Alberto. Three days later, on January 24, 1991, Avella called
handwriting two identical receipts. up Mr. Celso Cunanan (Celso), an architect, from whom she asked to
borrow P50,000. Celso had earlier committed to Avella that he would lend
The two receipts were signed by Alberto and his sister Alicia Q. Gonzales, her P50,000. Celso arrived at her house that evening to give her the money.
as witness. One receipt was given to Alberto, while the other was retained Already present in the house were Avella, her sister and Alberto. Celso
by Avella. delivered to Avella P50,000 which the latter, in the formers presence,
handed over to Alberto. With respect to the alteration, Avella explained
The relationship between buyer and seller turned sour. Avella filed a that Alberto did not have with him his copy of the January 21, 1991
complaint for estafa against Alberto for his failure to execute a deed of sale receipt and so he told her to just add in her copy the amount
and deliver the subject property. Among the evidence she submitted was the of P50,000 to make it P55,000. Avella acceded to the request and made
copy of the receipt she prepared on January 21, 1991. However, the receipt the changes in front of Alberto while he was counting the money.
appeared to have been altered in the following manner: 1) the word fifty was Avella said she showed the altered receipt to Alberto but that he was
inserted before the word five on the second line of the receipt to read fifty not able to affix his signature thereon because he was in a hurry to
five thousand instead of five thousand; 2) the number 5 was inserted before leave. Avellas account was corroborated by the testimony of Celso
5,000.00 on the third line of the receipt so that it would read 55,000.00; 3) who declared that all these happened in his presence.
additional words were inserted in the last sentence of the receipt which
reads, Now covered by T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the parties The trial court found Avellas account unworthy of belief. The court stated in
agree to execute of [sic] valid deed of conveyance covering the same sale; its decision that if, by her claim, she made the changes in the receipt while
4) on the date January 21 the number 4 was superimposed so that it would Alberto was counting the money it would not have taken more than five (5)
read as January 24 instead; and 5) there now appears the amount seconds to affix his signature thereon even if he was in a hurry to leave. The
of 55,000.00 and below it the word value on the upper left hand corner of the trial court, thus, held that the elements of Article 172 (2), in relation to Article
receipt. 171 (6), of the Revised Penal Code have been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
Having noticed the alterations, Alberto instituted a criminal action before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City charging that Avella had made it Avella appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the penalty
appear that he received P55,000 when he received only P5,000. by lowering it, but affirmed the conviction.

Avella, in her defense, admitted that she did in fact alter the receipt but Issue: WON Avella’s testimony as to why alteration was made is sufficient to
claims that it was done in the presence and at the request of Alberto. Her acquit him of the crime of falsification under Art 171 (6)
account is as follows:
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling: The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the Panglungsod of Tangub City, were charged with the crime of falsification of
Revised Penal Code are: public documents.

(1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a Evidence for the Prosecution
document; The accused are all public officers in the City Government of Tangub City.
(2) that it was made on a genuine document; Accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. was then the incumbent Mayor who assumed
(3) that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the office on May 5, 1988, while accused Aniceto T. Siete as the incumbent
document; and Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.
(4) that the changes made the document speak something false. Accused Camilo B. Zapatos was the Acting Presiding Officer of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod, while accused Marlene L. Mangao, who was a
When these are committed by a private individual on a private document the clerk in the Office of the Mayor, was designated as Acting Secretary of the
violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the same code, but City Council during the period corresponding to the alleged commission of
there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent evidence the crimes charged against the accused.
of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person.
When accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. assumed the mayoral post it has been
Given the admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without the practice that the proposals for resolutions and ordinances originated
convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private from him or his office. Often, when a proposal is put in the agenda of the
complainant, the Court holds that all four (4) elements have been proven Sangguniang Panglungsod, a prepared resolution is already available so
beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of damage, this is readily that it will be easier for the City Council to just accept or adopt the
apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had received P50,000 when resolutions.
in fact he did not. Hence, Avellas conviction.
During the session of the Sangguniang Panglungsod the Council was
G. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a presented with the Minutes for the sessions held on June 23, 30, July 14 and
copy of an original document purporting to be a copy, etc. 21, respectively. The minutes of said sessions reflected resolutions and
ordinances allegedly taken up, deliberated and passed upon by the
CASE 44: ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR. and CAMILO B. ZAPATOS vs. Sangguniang Panglungsod namely: Resolution 50-A on June 23, 1988,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) Resolution 56 and 56-A on June 30, Resolution No. 63 and 61 on July 14,
(Guno) Resolution 64 and 68 on July 21. The actual copies of the Resolutions,
G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13, 2009 Appropriations and Ordinances all contained the signatures of the four (4)
accused and approving the same.
Doctrine: In falsification of a public document, the falsification need not be
made on an official form. It is sufficient that the document is given the However, some of the Council Members questioned the validity of the said
appearance of, or made to appear similar to the official form. Resolutions and Ordinances. They alleged that the Resolutions and
Ordinances were neither taken up, deliberated nor passed upon during the
Facts: Petitioners, along with Aniceto T. Siete, former Vice-Mayor, and one above-mentioned dates. Roberto O. Taclob, private complainant, testified
Marlene L. Mangao,[3] then Acting Secretary of the Sangguniang that the questioned Resolutions were not taken up and thus could not have
been deliberated nor passed upon. His testimony was corroborated by
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prosecution witnesses, Estrelita M. Pastrano, Elizabeth L. Duroy Albarico
and Agustin L. Opay, all former members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod Issue: Whether or not petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Tangub City [private complainants]. Although the questioned resolutions
were subsequently ratified by the Sanggunian through Resolution by a vote Held: YES.
of five (5) to four (4), with the four (4) complaining witnesses abstaining, Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
dated October 15, 1988, the Council Members still filed criminal complaints ecclesiastic minister. —…Any public officer, employee, or notary
with the Sandiganbayan. who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
Evidence for the Defense …..
In his defense, Mayor Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. testified that before approving 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act
resolutions or ordinances, he consults his legal counsel to check if there are or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
any irregularities in the resolutions and whether or not the resolutions are ….
beneficial to the City of Tangub. He also stated that he did not attend or 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a
participate in the sessions of the City Council, asserting that, as Mayor, he copy of an original document when no such original exists, or
did not, in any way, influence the deliberations of the Sanggunian. He including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different
stressed that the Sangguniang Panglungsod is totally independent of his from, that of the genuine original;
office and as the approving officer of the Municipal Government, he relies on
the certification of the Presiding Officer that the resolutions and the For falsification of a public document to be established, the following
ordinances are valid and lawful before affixing his signature. The accused, elements must concur: 1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or
Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. contends that he signed the questioned resolutions in notary public; 2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that
good faith and with the belief that they were deliberated and passed upon. he falsifies a document by committing any of the aforementioned acts.
Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary
It is further contended by accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. that the questioned that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person
Resolutions were taken up and passed upon during the sessions. The same because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the
accused further claimed that the minutes of the sessions of the Sanggunian violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
were inaccurate since the entire proceedings were not completely and solemnly proclaimed.
accurately taken down by the stenographer or Council Secretary present
during the meetings, thus, the deliberations on the questioned resolutions All elements of the offense punishable under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7
were not entirely recorded. Lastly, the same accused claimed that the of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case.
complainants even admitted in their Affidavit of Desistance the inaccuracy of
the minutes "x x x although the matters taken during the sessions of the In the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials
Sangguniang Panglungsod wherein we were present, were discussed and or by private persons, it is not that there be present the idea of gain or intent
deliberated upon, we are not sure whether or not said deliberations and to injure a third person. Verily, the pieces of evidence reveal the specific acts
discussions were recorded in the minutes x x x." The defense of the accused of the four (4) accused in the commission of the crime of falsification.
Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. is corroborated by the testimony of Rogelio Taburada,
[Taburada] who was then a Councilor of Tangub City. Firstly, the accused caused it to appear in a document that members of the
Sandiganbayan’s Decision: Guilty as charged. Sangguniang Panglungsod participated in the sessions, deliberations and
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passed the questioned resolutions. The said resolutions reflect the Under the law at that time, the city mayor had the power to veto the
attendance of all the members of the Sanggunian on the dates thereon, ordinances and resolutions enacted or adopted by the Sangguniang
including their unanimous approval of the resolutions. The pieces of Panglungsod. Contrary to Mayor Regidor's submission, the veto power
evidence and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, however, reveal confers authority beyond the simple mechanical act of signing an ordinance
otherwise. If, in truth and in fact, Resolutions 50-A, 56, 56-A, 63, 61, 64 and or resolution as a requisite to its enforceability.
68 were indeed taken up and passed upon on their respective dates, it
would be contrary to human reason why the members of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod who approved it unanimously, to suddenly file a case against FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED
the accused and deny the existence of a legislative act they authored. DOCUMENTS
(Art. 172, RPC)
Secondly, the accused are found to have committed the act of issuing in
authenticated form, a document purporting to be a copy of an original CASE 45: BATULANON v. PEOPLE (Ignacio)
document when no such document exists. In issuing the subject G.R. No. 139857. September 15, 2006
Resolutions, Mayor Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Vice-Mayor Aniceto T. Siete and Division
SP Camilo B. Zapatos, consummated the crime of falsification by purporting
them to be original copies of valid, deliberated and approved resolutions Doctrines: Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through
when no such documents exist and no proceedings regarding them ever falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted of
took place as established by the prosecution. In falsification of a public falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the
document, the falsification need not be made on an official form. It is allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and
sufficient that the document is given the appearance of, or made to not the technical name given in the preamble of the 35 information.
appear similar to the official form.
The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code are:
Third. Petitioners were public officers at the time of the commission of the (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
offenses charged. Mayor Regidor was then Mayor of Tangub City, while those in paragraph 7, Article 171;
Zapatos was a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and was a (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and
Temporary Presiding Officer thereof. (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
Fourth. The petitioners took advantage of their respective official positions
because they had the duty to make or to prepare, or otherwise to intervene As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private
in the preparation of the document, or have the official custody of the document, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged
document which they falsified. Zapatos, as a member and, at the time, with falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a
Temporary Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, had the duty private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper
to make or prepare or intervene in the preparation of the assailed crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without
resolutions. In like manner, Mayor Regidor cannot claim that as mayor he the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is
had no participation in the making, or preparation of, nor any intervention in estafa.
the assailed resolutions. (Note: This case consists of consolidated cases. – Fam)
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626, and 3453 The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art.
315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code are:
Facts: The prosecution established that Batulanon caused the preparation
of the Cash Vouchers in the name of Omadlao and Oracion knowing that (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the
they are not PCCI members and not qualified for a loan from the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
cooperative. In the case of Arroyo, Batulanon was aware that while the any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to
former is a member, she did not apply for a loan with the cooperative. return, the same;
(2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
Ruling: Batulanon’s act of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171, property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt;
i.e., causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. This is because by prejudice of another;
signing the name of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
30A, 237A, and 267A, respectively, as payee of the amounts appearing in (Note: The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of
the corresponding cash vouchers, Batulanon made it appear that they misappropriation of the goods by the defendant.)
obtained a loan and received its proceeds when they did not in fact secure
said loan nor receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers. Knowing that she is no longer qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently
used the name of her son who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from
Criminal Case No. 3627 PCCI. Her misappropriation of the amount she obtained from the loan is also
Facts: The trial court convicted petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis not disputed as she even admitted receiving the same for personal use.
Batulanon’s signature in the cash voucher based on the Information Although the amount received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as
charging her of signing the name of her 3 year old son, Dennis. The records, part of the receivables of PCCI, damage was still caused to the latter
however, reveal that in Cash Voucher No. 374A, petitioner Batulanon did not because the sum misappropriated by her could have been loaned by PCCI
falsify the signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: lbatulanon” to to qualified members, or used in other productive undertakings. At any rate,
indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said the disturbance in property rights caused by Batulanon’s misappropriation is
act does not fall under any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Article 315.
because there in nothing untruthful about the fact that she used the name of
Dennis and that as representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the CASE 46: GUILLERGAN vs. PEOPLE (Lo)
loan from PCCI. G.R. No. 185493. February 2, 2011
Abad, J:
Ruling: The crime committed by Batulanon is estafa and not
falsification.The essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or Doctrine: Accused may be convicted for an offense (fasification under Art.
false statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to whether, such 172) other than that charged in the Information (estafa in relation to Art.
representation involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different 171). Although the charge was estafa in relation to Article 171 of the RPC,
matter which will make her liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it the facts alleged in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation
was an error for the courts below to hold that petitioner Batulanon is also of Article 172 of which Guillergan was convicted. What is important is that
guilty of falsification of private document with respect 50 to Criminal Case the Information described the latter offense intelligibly and with reasonable
No. 3627 involving the cash voucher of Dennis. certainty, enabling Guillergan to understand the charge against him and
suitably prepare his defense.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sandiganbayan Second Division: found Guillergan guilty of falsification
Facts: On 1995, the Office of the Ombudsman indicted petitioner Roberto K. penalized under Article 172 of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer the
Guillergan for estafa through falsification of public documents. The evidence penalty of imprisonment for 2 years and 4 months as minimum to 4 years, 9
shows that sometime in 1987, petitioner Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in months and 10 days as maximum. The court acquitted the other accused on
the AFP, directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon, Chief Clerk of the the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Comptrollers Office, to cause the preparation of the payrolls of their civilian
intelligence agents (CIAs) with supporting time record and book. The agents’ Issues:
names were copied and, based on their appointment papers, certified as 1. WON the Sandiganbayan can convict Guillergan of violation of Article 172
correct by Guillergan and then approved by Brigadier General Domingo T. of the RPC under an Information that charged him with estafa in relation to
Rio. Each time the processing unit returned the payrolls for lack of Article 171 of the Code - YES
signatures of the payees, Guillergan would direct Technical Sergeant 2. WON petitioner is guilty of the crime of falsification of public documents -
Nemesio H. Butcon, the Budget and Fiscal Non-Commissioned Officer, to YES
affix his initial on the Remarks/Sig column of the payrolls to complete the
requirements and facilitate the processing of the time record, book, and Ruling:
payrolls. Also, on Guillergan’s instruction, the CIAs payrolls in Region 6 for 1. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed falsification by making
1987, totaling P732,000.00, were covered by cash advances payable to it appear in several public documents that P1,519,000.00 in AFP funds
Captain Roland V. Maclang, Jr., which advances were issued upon his intended for the CIAs payroll were paid for that purpose when in truth these
request as disbursing officer for that purpose. When ready, Guillergan were just given to Rio, resulting in damage and prejudice to the government.
received the corresponding cash or checks then turned them over to Rio. At Although the charge was estafa in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the
the end of 1987, Rio further received P787,000.00 in administrative funds to facts alleged in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation of
be paid out to contractors for repairs in the men’s barracks, the firing range, Article 172 of which Guillergan was convicted. What is important is that the
the guesthouse and others. But Rio requested that this administrative funds Information described the latter offense intelligibly and with reasonable
be re-aligned to intelligence funds in order to facilitate clearing. certainty, enabling Guillergan to understand the charge against him and
suitably prepare his defense.
On 1989, the AFP Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint against Rio, Butcon,
Maclang, Jr., Seclon, and Guillergan for violating Articles of War 94 in What is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of the
relation to Article 217 of the RPC. public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.
Generally, the elements of Article 171 are:
- The Office of the Ombudsman recommended the dismissal of the case for 1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
lack of merit. 2) he takes advantage of his official position; and
-However, the Ombudsman Investigator issued a memorandum, 3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done.
recommending the filing of charges of illegal use of public funds against Rio
and the exoneration of the other respondents. On the other hand, the elements of falsification of documents under
- The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the filing of charges paragraph 1, Article 172 are:
against all the accused 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did
- Information filed: estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) in relation to Article not take advantage of his official position;
171 of the RPC.
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in suggests that the lists on the payrolls are names of ghost agents. Even
Article 171; and more, the board made a comment that x x x Guillergan denies knowledge of
3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial the persons appointed even if he certified to the correctness of the payrolls.
document.
The only conclusion x x x is the deliberate falsification of the payrolls;
2. All of the foregoing elements of Article 172 are present in this case. First. causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding
Guillergan was a public officer when he committed the offense charged. He when they did not in fact so participate. The Court finds no error in the
was the comptroller to the PC/INP Command in Region 6. While the decision of the Sandiganbayan that found Guillergan guilty beyond
Information said that he took advantage of his position in committing the reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172 of
crime, the Sandiganbayan found that his work as comptroller did not include the RPC.
the preparation of the appointments and payrolls of CIAs. Nor did he have
official custody of the pertinent documents. His official function was limited to FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE CERTIFICATES OF MERITS
keeping the records of the resources that the command received from Camp OR SERVICE, ETC.
Crame. Still, he took the liberty of intervening in the preparation of the time (Art. 174, RPC)
record, book, and payrolls in question.
CASE 47: JUDGE ESPANOL v. JUDGE TOLEDO-MUPAS (Maranda)
Second. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed the offense
charged by causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or a Doctrine: Falsification of one’s certificate of service, renders a public officer
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. In People v. not only administratively liable for serious misconduct under Section 1, Rule
Yanson-Dumancas, the Court held that a person may induce another to 140 of the Rules of Court but also criminally liable under Articles 174 and
commit a crime in two ways: 1) by giving a price or offering a reward or 175 of the Revised Penal Code
promise; and 2) by using words of command. In this case, the
Sandiganbayan found that Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the receive Facts: The instant case is a Second Motion for Reconsideration over a
portion of the payrolls as payee to make it appear that persons whose Decision (conviction in 3 cases) finding respondent guilty of gross ignorance
names appeared on the same had signed the document when they in fact of the law and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service
did not. with forfeiture of all benefits due her, excluding her accrued leave benefits,
and with perpetual disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
Third. There is no dispute that the falsification was committed on the time public service including government-owned or controlled corporations.
record, book, and payrolls which were public documents.
Previous convictions with the following illegal acts:
Additionally, the appointment papers from which these payrolls were based 1. Respondent failed to explain why there were motions for execution of
do not reveal any information about the acceptance of the appointments by decided cases which she had not acted upon for a considerably long time,
the agents. In a letter of the Anti-Graft Board of the AFP x x x [to this renders her guilty of gross inefficiency
Ombudsman Vasquez], it was stated that the appointment papers of the
agents must be accompanied by the acceptance of the agents. These 2. Respondent failed to forward to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
papers should ordinarily be attached to the payrolls for proper clearing (OPP) of Cavite the records of at least 370 cases which she dismissed after
purposes. Since there were no acceptance papers presented, it only preliminary investigation. Respondent justified such omission on the pretext
Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017
San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that her clerk of court and other court personnel secured photocopies of the Respondent begs the Court for compassion arguing the penalty of dismissal
cases for their own file in order to help litigants who made queries regarding is too harsh.
their cases. (Under Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
explicitly states that within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the Issue: Whether the motion shall be granted.
preliminary investigation, an investigating judge shall transmit to the
provincial or city prosecutor for appropriate action her resolution of the case Ruling: Partly granted.
together with the records thereof). Respondent judge claims that the failure
to promptly transmit the resolution and records of the cases which she The respondent judge failed to live up to the exacting standards of her office.
dismissed after preliminary investigation is not her fault but that of her clerk The magnitude of her transgressions, taken collectively, casts a heavy
of court. However, it remains the duty of a judge to devise an efficient shadow on respondent’s moral, intellectual and attitudinal competence and
recording and filing system in their courts to enable them to monitor the flow rendered her unfit to don the judicial robe and to perform the functions of a
of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition.4 If respondent magistrate.
was diligent in the performance of her obligations and responsibilities, the
records of cases which were not forwarded to the OPP would not have On the other hand, four members of the Court concurred as to the findings of
reached an alarming number. gross ignorance of the law but dissented as to the penalty of dismissal,
opting to impose the penalty of suspension without salaries, and other
3. Respondent also failed to refute the findings of the OCA that the court benefits for a period of three (3) years, and a fine of P40,000.00 with a very
records in her sala were in disarray which compromises their confidentiality stern warning that a commission in the future of the same or similar
and integrity. Records of cases are necessarily confidential, and to preserve infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
their integrity and confidentiality, access thereto ought to be limited only to
the judge, the parties or their counsel and the appropriate court personnel in
charge of the custody thereof

4. (IN RELATION TO ART. 174) Respondent in previous cases was

charged of falsifying certificate of service that she was able to gain.
Respondent neither denied nor refuted the charge that she was able to draw
her salaries by submitting fraudulent certificates of service to the effect that
she had no undecided cases. Falsification of one’s certificate of service,
renders a public officer not only administratively liable for serious misconduct
under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court but also criminally liable
under Articles 174 and 175 of the Revised Penal Code.

5. Respondent judge continued with the practice of issuing documents

denominated “Detention Pending Investigation of the Case” even after her
attention had been called. Worse, she remained insistent in her erroneous
belief that the document was an implied waiver of the rights of the accused
under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code.