1. PESIGAN VS. ANGELES (LIMITATIONS) 1. PESIGAN VS. ANGELES (LIMITATIONS)
129 SCRA 174 (1994) 129 SCRA 174 (1994) Nature:
Nature: Petition to review the order of the RTC of CaloocanPetition to review the order of the RTC of Caloocan City, Angeles.
City, Angeles. Facts:
Facts: Anselmo and Marcelino Pesigan, both carabao dealers,Anselmo and Marcelino Pesigan, both carabao dealers, transpo
transported 26 carabaos and rted 26 carabaos and a calf a calf from Sipocot Camarifrom Sipocot Camarines Sur nes Sur to Batangas on April 2, 1982 with the necessary permits. In spite to Batangas on April 2, 1982 with the necessary permits. In spite of the permits, the carabaos were confiscated by Lt. Zenarosa of the permits, the carabaos were confiscated by Lt. Zenarosa and Dr. Mirancda while passing Basud, Camarines Norte. The and Dr. Mirancda while passing Basud, Camarines Norte. The confiscation was based on EO No. 626-A which provided that confiscation was based on EO No. 626-A which provided that no carabaos shall be transported from one province to another no carabaos shall be transported from one province to another and violation would result to confiscation of said animals and and violation would result to confiscation of said animals and distribution to deserving farmers. The carabaos were distributed distribution to deserving farmers. The carabaos were distributed accordingly. The Pesigans filed for replevin and damages but accordingly. The Pesigans filed for replevin and damages but was dismissed by Judge Angeles for lack of merit.
was dismissed by Judge Angeles for lack of merit. Issue:
Issue: W o N the Pesigans can be held liable for violating EOW o N the Pesigans can be held liable for violating EO 626-A which was published on June 14, 1982.
626-A which was published on June 14, 1982. Held:
Held:The trial court’s order of dismissal, reversed and set aside.The trial court’s order of dismissal, reversed and set aside. The executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans The executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2,
on April 2, 1982 because it is 1982 because it is a penal regulation punished morea penal regulation punished more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14, than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982. It became effective only 15 days thereafter.
1982. It became effective only 15 days thereafter.
The word “laws” in Art. 2 of Civil Code includes circulars and The word “laws” in Art. 2 of Civil Code includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the penalties binding on the persons affected by it.
the penalties binding on the persons affected by it. 2. TANADA VS. TUVERA (LIMITATIONS) 2. TANADA VS. TUVERA (LIMITATIONS)
136 SCRA 27 (1985) 136 SCRA 27 (1985) Nature and Facts:
Nature and Facts:This is a case where the petitioners, LorenzoThis is a case where the petitioners, Lorenzo Tañada
Tañada, et , et al., seek a al., seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondentswrit of mandamus to compel respondents,, Juan Tuvera (in his capacity as Exec Asst to the Pres), et al., to Juan Tuvera (in his capacity as Exec Asst to the Pres), et al., to publish
publish and/or and/or cause cause the the publication publication in in the the official official gazette gazette of of var
various ious prespresidenidential tial decrdecreesees, , lettletters ers of of instinstructructionsions, , gengeneraleral orders, proclamation, executive orders, letter of implementation orders, proclamation, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders
and administrative orders Issue:
Issue: Whether or not these presidential decrees are alreadyWhether or not these presidential decrees are already enf
enforcorceableable e and and bindbinding ing even even befbefore ore pubpublicalication tion (con(containtaineded special provisions as to the date they are to take effect)
special provisions as to the date they are to take effect) Held:
Held: “The government, as a matter of policy, refrains form“The government, as a matter of policy, refrains form prosecuting violati
prosecuting violati ons of criminal ons of criminal laws until tlaws until t he same shall he same shall havehave been
been published published in in the the official official gazette gazette or or in in some some other other publication,
publication, even even though though some some criminal criminal laws laws provide provide that that theythey shall take effect immediately.”
shall take effect immediately.”
Without publication, the people have no means of knowing what Without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential
presidential decrees decrees have have actually actually been been promulgated. Withoutpromulgated. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat.”
application of the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat.” 3. PEOPLE VS. NARVAEZ (PROSPECTIVITY OF 3. PEOPLE VS. NARVAEZ (PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW AND
CRIMINAL LAW AND SELF DEFENSE/DEFENSE OFSELF DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF PROPERTY)
PROPERTY) 121 SCRA 389 (1983) 121 SCRA 389 (1983) Nature
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the : Appeal from the decision of the Court of First InstanceCourt of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I convicting the accused of murder. of South Cotabato, Branch I convicting the accused of murder. Facts
Facts: : At At aboabout ut 2:2:30 30 in in the aftethe afternrnoooon n of of AuAugugust st 2222, , 1961968,8, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibañez, together with the Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibañez, together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. the land of George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. This is located in the municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato. This is located in the municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato.
At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he arose and that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on, there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on, appellant would be prevented from getting into his house and the appellant would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega
bodega of of his his ricemill. ricemill. So So he he addressed addressed the the group, group, sayingsaying -'Pare,if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible -'Pare,if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over - what is good,' addressing the deceased we will talk it over - what is good,' addressing the deceased Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer, Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer, however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing there is a
the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the gun on the jeep, appellanjeep, appellant firedt fired at Rubia, likewise hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died as at Rubia, likewise hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died as a
a resresulult t of of thethe. . It It apappepearsars, , hohowewevever, r, thathat t thithis s inincidcident ent isis intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between the intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between the Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer was the Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer was the secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the assistant manager, on secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the assistant manager, on the one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whom the one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whom was the appellant.
was the appellant. Issue
Issue: W o N Narvaez defense of property can be appreciated.: W o N Narvaez defense of property can be appreciated. Held:
Held:Narvaez that he did so in defense of his person and of hisNarvaez that he did so in defense of his person and of his rights, and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. rights, and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. Def
Defense of ense of one'one's s persperson on or or rigrights is hts is treatreated as ted as a a jusjustifytifyinging circumstance under Art. 11, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, circumstance under Art. 11, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, but
but in in order order for for it it to to be be appreciated, appreciated, the the following following requisitesrequisites must occur: "First. Unlawful aggression; "Second. Reasonable must occur: "First. Unlawful aggression; "Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; "Third. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; "Third. La
Lack ck of of susufffficiicient ent prprovovococatiation on on on the the parpart t of of the the perpersosonn defending himself".
defending himself".
The aggression referred to by appellant is the angry utterance by The aggression referred to by appellant is the angry utterance by deceased Fleischer. There is no question, therefore, that there deceased Fleischer. There is no question, therefore, that there wa
was s aggaggresressision on on on the the papart rt of of the the vivictctimims: s: FlFleiseischecher r wawass ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in the fencing. ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in the fencing. This was indeed aggressio
This was indeed aggression, not n, not on the on the person of appellant, butperson of appellant, but on his property rights.
on his property rights. The third element of
The third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of su
sufffficiicient ent prprovovocaocatition on on on the the papart rt of of apappelpellanlant t whwho o wawass de
defefendnding ing hihis s prpropeopertyrty. . As As a a mamattetter r of of fafact, ct, ththere was ere was nono provocation
provocation at at all all on on his his part, part, since since he he was was asleep asleep at at first first andand was only awakened by the noise produced by the victims and was only awakened by the noise produced by the victims and their laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop their laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. Be that and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. Be that as
as it it maymay, , appappellellantant's 's act act in in kikillilling ng ththe e dedeceaceasesed d wawas s nonott justifiable,
justifiable, sincsince e not all not all the elementthe elements s for justificfor justificatioation n areare present, particularly the reasonable necessity of the means present, particularly the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such
employed to prevent or repel such attack.attack.He should thereforeHe should therefore be held
be held responsible for responsible for the death the death of his of his victims, but victims, but he could he could bebe credited with the
credited with the special mitigatspecial mitigating ing circumcircumstance of stance of incomplincompleteete def
defenseense, , purpursuansuant t to to paraparagragraph ph 6, 6, ArtArticle 13 icle 13 of of the Revisethe Revisedd Penal Code.
Penal Code. Th
The e SC SC finfinds ds the the aggaggravravatinating g (qua(qualifylifying) ing) circcircumsumstanctance e of of evident premeditation not sufficiently established. Since in the evident premeditation not sufficiently established. Since in the case at bar, there was no direct evidence of the planning or case at bar, there was no direct evidence of the planning or preparation t
preparation t o kill o kill the victithe victi ms nor ms nor that the that the accused premeditaaccused premedita tedted the killing, and clung to his premeditated act, the trial court's the killing, and clung to his premeditated act, the trial court's conclusion as to the presence of such circumstance may not be conclusion as to the presence of such circumstance may not be endors
endorsed. Evident ed. Evident premepremeditation is ditation is further negated by further negated by appellanappellantt pleading
pleading with the with the victims to victims to stop the stop the fencing fencing and destroying and destroying hishis house and to talk things over just before the shooting. But the house and to talk things over just before the shooting. But the tr
trial ial coucourt rt hahas s prpropoperlerly y appapprereciaciated ted the the prpresesenence ce of of ththee mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, it appearing that mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, it appearing that appellan
appellant surrendered to t surrendered to the authorities soon after the the authorities soon after the shootingshooting.. Likewise, SC also finds that passion and obfuscation attended Likewise, SC also finds that passion and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. The appellant awoke to find his the commission of the crime. The appellant awoke to find his
4. PEOPLE VS. BERNARDO (NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA 4. PEOPLE VS. BERNARDO (NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA
POENA SINE LEGE) POENA SINE LEGE) 123 SCRA 365 (1983) 123 SCRA 365 (1983) Nature
Nature: Petition for certiorari of the decision of CFI Bulacan,: Petition for certiorari of the decision of CFI Bulacan, Br. VI convicting the petitioners of violating PD 772 Br. VI convicting the petitioners of violating PD 772 (Anti-Squatting Act), sentencing them to pay P 2, 500 each with Squatting Act), sentencing them to pay P 2, 500 each with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Facts
Facts: ISIDRO BERNARDO, tenant of Leda Sta. Rosa in her : ISIDRO BERNARDO, tenant of Leda Sta. Rosa in her Rice
Riceland land in in PLAPLARIDRIDELEL, , BULBULACAACAN N frofrom m OctOct. . 1971972- 2- AugAug.. 197
1974, 4, consconstructructed ted a a houshouse e for for theitheir r dwedwellinlling. g. WitWithout thehout the kno
knowlewledge dge of Sta. of Sta. RosRosa, Isidro left a, Isidro left and transfand transferreerred d to to SanSan Nicolas, transferring hi
Nicolas, transferring hi s tenancy rights to s tenancy rights to his son, CAYETANO.his son, CAYETANO. Through Dr. Patricio Cruz, Sta. Rosa took possession of the Through Dr. Patricio Cruz, Sta. Rosa took possession of the who
whole le land and land and filfiled ed forforciblcible e entrentry y agaagainst the inst the petipetitiontionersers.. Petitioners lost in the CFI and lower courts but still failed to Petitioners lost in the CFI and lower courts but still failed to vacate the land. On Aug. 22,
vacate the land. On Aug. 22, 1974, a criminal complaint for the1974, a criminal complaint for the violation of PD 772 was filed against the Bernardos and hence violation of PD 772 was filed against the Bernardos and hence were found guilty by CFI of Bulacan.
were found guilty by CFI of Bulacan. Issue:
Issue:Whether or not PD772 applies to pasture lands.Whether or not PD772 applies to pasture lands. Held:
Held: PetiPetition tion gragrantednted, , judgjudgmenment t of of convconvictiiction on set set asiaside;de; criminal case dismissed.
criminal case dismissed. PD
PD 77772 2 is is intintendended ed to to appapply ly onlonly y to to ururban ban cocommmmununitiitieses,, particularly
particularly illegal illegal constructions. constructions. No No person person shall shall be be broughtbrought within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within them; nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not them; nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the
clearly made so by the statute. (Tstatute. (There is no here is no crime when there iscrime when there is no law punishing it.)
no law punishing it.)
5. PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF M
5. PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERSEDICAL EXAMINERS (STRICT CONSTRUCTION)
(STRICT CONSTRUCTION) 28 SCRA 344 (1969) 28 SCRA 344 (1969) Nature:
Nature: Appeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila for theAppeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila for the writ of prohibition rendered on Aug. 2, 1965
writ of prohibition rendered on Aug. 2, 1965 Facts:
Facts: At the At the initinitial hearinial hearing g for an for an admadminisinistrattrative case ive case for for alleged immorality, counsel for complainants called as his first alleged immorality, counsel for complainants called as his first witnes
witness, the appellee, s, the appellee, Arsenio PasArsenio Pascual Jr., whcual Jr., who was the oneo was the one charged with malpractice.
charged with malpractice. Issue/s:
Issue/s:W o N the Board was right to call and coerce Pascual toW o N the Board was right to call and coerce Pascual to take the witness stand against himself?
take the witness stand against himself?
W o N the right against self-incrimination can be availed of in W o N the right against self-incrimination can be availed of in an administrative hearing.
an administrative hearing. Held
Held: Decision of the lower court affirmed.: Decision of the lower court affirmed. The
The constituconstitutional tional guaranguarantee tee againsagainst t self-incself-incriminarimination tion extendsextends to administrative hearings which possess a criminal or penal act. to administrative hearings which possess a criminal or penal act. The Board cannot compel the person to take the witness stand The Board cannot compel the person to take the witness stand without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice possesses a without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice possesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense that the respondent would criminal or penal aspect in the sense that the respondent would suffer revocation of his license as a medical practitioner.
suffer revocation of his license as a medical practitioner.
The right against self-incrimination extends not only to the right The right against self-incrimination extends not only to the right to refuse to answer questions put to the accused while on the to refuse to answer questions put to the accused while on the witness stand, but also to forego testimony and remain silent and witness stand, but also to forego testimony and remain silent and refuse to take the witness stand. That while crimes should not go refuse to take the witness stand. That while crimes should not go unpunished, objectives should not be accomplished by means unpunished, objectives should not be accomplished by means offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the human offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the human personality.
personality.
6. PEOPLE vs. TEMBLON (DOLO) 6. PEOPLE vs. TEMBLON (DOLO)
161 SCRA 623 (1988) 161 SCRA 623 (1988) Nature:
Nature: Appeal Appeal from from the the judgment judgment of CFof CFI of I of Agusan Agusan del del NorteNorte an
and d ButButuan uan CitCity y conconvivicticting ng VIVICECENTNTE E TETEMBLMBLOR OR alaliasias “Ronald
“Ronald” for ” for murdemurder sentencing him to r sentencing him to the penalty of reclusionthe penalty of reclusion perpetua.
perpetua.
Facts: On Dec. 30, 1980, at around 7:30 pm in Brgy. Talo-ao, Facts: On Dec. 30, 1980, at around 7:30 pm in Brgy. Talo-ao, Buenavi
Buenavista, Agusan del sta, Agusan del Sur, TEMBLSur, TEMBLOR OR bought a bought a half-pachalf-pack of k of Hop
Hope e cigacigarettrette e frofrom m the the storstore e of of JULJULIUS IUS CAGCAGAMPAMPANGANG.. While the latter was opening the pack, a gun shot was heard and While the latter was opening the pack, a gun shot was heard and CAGAMPANG fell to the floor with a gunshot wound in the CAGAMPANG fell to the floor with a gunshot wound in the
head. The accused, together with another, barged into the room, head. The accused, together with another, barged into the room, demanding the firearms of the victim. Before fleeing with the demanding the firearms of the victim. Before fleeing with the victim’s .38 caliber gun, TEMBLOR filed tow more shots. victim’s .38 caliber gun, TEMBLOR filed tow more shots. On Aug. 198
On Aug. 1981, duri1, during the mass surng the mass surrenrender der of dissof dissidenidents,ts, TEMBL
TEMBLOR surrendered to OR surrendered to Mayor Dick Carmona. On Mayor Dick Carmona. On Nov. 26,Nov. 26, 1981, he was arrested by the Buenavista Police at the public 1981, he was arrested by the Buenavista Police at the public market and detained at the municipal jail where he was seen by market and detained at the municipal jail where he was seen by VIC
VICTORTORIA IA CAGCAGAMPAMPANGANG, , the the vicvictim’tim’s s widwidow ow and and waswas positively identified.
positively identified. TEMBL
TEMBLOR’s defense was an alibi: on OR’s defense was an alibi: on the said date, he the said date, he and hisand his father had been in the house of SILVERIO PEROL in Brgy. father had been in the house of SILVERIO PEROL in Brgy. Camagong.
Camagong. Issue
Issue: W o N motive is essential in convicting Temblor : W o N motive is essential in convicting Temblor Held:
Held: DeDeciscisioion n of of lolowewer r coucourt rt afaffifirmrmed; ed; civcivil il inindedemnmnityity increased to P30,000.
increased to P30,000.
Motive is not essential when culprit has been identified. Fact Motive is not essential when culprit has been identified. Fact th
that at accaccusused ed hahas s knknowowleledge dge of of ththe e dedeceaceasesed’d’s s fifirearearm rm isis sufficient enough for motive. The fleeing of the accused after sufficient enough for motive. The fleeing of the accused after killing and
killing and taking CAGAMPANGtaking CAGAMPANG’s ’s firearm implies admissionfirearm implies admission of guilt.
of guilt.
Accused’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of Accused’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the witness who had no base motive to accuse him of the crime. the witness who had no base motive to accuse him of the crime. In order for alibi to
In order for alibi to be acceptable as a be acceptable as a defensdefense, it is e, it is not enoughnot enough fo
for r ththe e apappepellllanant t to to be be elelsesewhwherere e wwhehen n ththe e crcrimime e wawass commi
committed, but it tted, but it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt thatmust be proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Nasip
crime. Nasipit is accessible to Talo-ao by jeep or it is accessible to Talo-ao by jeep or tricyctricycle for le for 1515 to 20 minutes. to 20 minutes. 7. PEOPLE vs. HASSAN 7. PEOPLE vs. HASSAN 157 SCRA 261 (1988) 157 SCRA 261 (1988) Nature:
Nature:Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Zamboanga CityAppeal from a decision of the RTC of Zamboanga City finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced to reclusion peretua.
of murder and sentenced to reclusion peretua. Facts
Facts: J: Jululy 2y 23, 3, 19198181, a, at at arorounund 7d 7pm pm JOJOSE SE SASAMSMSON ON wwasas a backrider on the motorcycle of RAMON PICHEL JR. when a backrider on the motorcycle of RAMON PICHEL JR. when they went to buy mangoes at the Fruit Paradise near the Barter they went to buy mangoes at the Fruit Paradise near the Barter Trade Zone in Zamboanga City. SAMSON saw a person stab Trade Zone in Zamboanga City. SAMSON saw a person stab PICHEL only once while he was parked 2-3 meters away. After PICHEL only once while he was parked 2-3 meters away. After stabbin
stabbing, the g, the suspecsuspect t fled to fled to PNB. SAMSON rushed the victimPNB. SAMSON rushed the victim to the General Hospital where the latter died. In the hospital, the to the General Hospital where the latter died. In the hospital, the witness was interrogated as to the suspect’s description, who witness was interrogated as to the suspect’s description, who according to him was had semi-long hair, wearing white polo according to him was had semi-long hair, wearing white polo short-sleeved shirt, maong pants, standing 5’5’’ and with a dark short-sleeved shirt, maong pants, standing 5’5’’ and with a dark complexion. According to SAMSON, he only knows the suspect complexion. According to SAMSON, he only knows the suspect by
by face face and and not not by by name. name. At At Funeraria Funeraria La La Merced, Merced, policepolice brought the accused
brought the accused – alone, for identi– alone, for identi fication where the fication where the witnesswitness positively identified him as the kil
positively identified him as the kil ler.ler. Held:
Held:Decision reversed; accused is acquitted.Decision reversed; accused is acquitted.
Evidence of the prosecution does not satisfy quantum of proof— Evidence of the prosecution does not satisfy quantum of proof— beyond reasonable doub
beyond reasonable doub t. Value judgment must not t. Value judgment must not be separatedbe separated from the
from the constituconstitutionally guaranteed presumptiotionally guaranteed presumption n of of innocenceinnocence.. Pro
Prosecsecutioution’s n’s evievidencdence e is is weaweak k and and uncounconvinvincinncing. g. ExpExpertert te
testistimomony ny of of the the memedicdico-lo-legegal al offofficeicer r (D(DR.R.VAVALELENTNTININ BE
BERNRNALALEZEZ) ) concontrtradiadictcted ed on on mamaterterial ial popointints s of of the the lonlonee witness. He found two stab wounds, (chest and at the left arm witness. He found two stab wounds, (chest and at the left arm posterior),
posterior), the the nature nature of of the the wounds wounds indicating indicating they they werewere inflicted while the suspect was in front of the victim.
inflicted while the suspect was in front of the victim. The investigati
The investigation on conducteconducted by d by the police the police was not was not satisfasatisfactory.ctory. The lone presentation of HASSAN to SAMSON at the funeral The lone presentation of HASSAN to SAMSON at the funeral parlor
parlor violated violated the the accused accused rights to rights to counsel counsel in alin all thl the stages e stages of of investigation into the commission of a crime.
investigation into the commission of a crime.
Motive is essential when there is doubt as to the identity of the Motive is essential when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.
culprit.
8. PEOPLE vs. AH CHONG (MISTAKE OF
8. PEOPLE vs. AH CHONG (MISTAKE OF FACT)FACT) 15 PHIL 488 (1910)
4. PEOPLE VS. BERNARDO (NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA 4. PEOPLE VS. BERNARDO (NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA
POENA SINE LEGE) POENA SINE LEGE) 123 SCRA 365 (1983) 123 SCRA 365 (1983) Nature
Nature: Petition for certiorari of the decision of CFI Bulacan,: Petition for certiorari of the decision of CFI Bulacan, Br. VI convicting the petitioners of violating PD 772 Br. VI convicting the petitioners of violating PD 772 (Anti-Squatting Act), sentencing them to pay P 2, 500 each with Squatting Act), sentencing them to pay P 2, 500 each with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Facts
Facts: ISIDRO BERNARDO, tenant of Leda Sta. Rosa in her : ISIDRO BERNARDO, tenant of Leda Sta. Rosa in her Rice
Riceland land in in PLAPLARIDRIDELEL, , BULBULACAACAN N frofrom m OctOct. . 1971972- 2- AugAug.. 197
1974, 4, consconstructructed ted a a houshouse e for for theitheir r dwedwellinlling. g. WitWithout thehout the kno
knowlewledge dge of Sta. of Sta. RosRosa, Isidro left a, Isidro left and transfand transferreerred d to to SanSan Nicolas, transferring hi
Nicolas, transferring hi s tenancy rights to s tenancy rights to his son, CAYETANO.his son, CAYETANO. Through Dr. Patricio Cruz, Sta. Rosa took possession of the Through Dr. Patricio Cruz, Sta. Rosa took possession of the who
whole le land and land and filfiled ed forforciblcible e entrentry y agaagainst the inst the petipetitiontionersers.. Petitioners lost in the CFI and lower courts but still failed to Petitioners lost in the CFI and lower courts but still failed to vacate the land. On Aug. 22,
vacate the land. On Aug. 22, 1974, a criminal complaint for the1974, a criminal complaint for the violation of PD 772 was filed against the Bernardos and hence violation of PD 772 was filed against the Bernardos and hence were found guilty by CFI of Bulacan.
were found guilty by CFI of Bulacan. Issue:
Issue:Whether or not PD772 applies to pasture lands.Whether or not PD772 applies to pasture lands. Held:
Held: PetiPetition tion gragrantednted, , judgjudgmenment t of of convconvictiiction on set set asiaside;de; criminal case dismissed.
criminal case dismissed. PD
PD 77772 2 is is intintendended ed to to appapply ly onlonly y to to ururban ban cocommmmununitiitieses,, particularly
particularly illegal illegal constructions. constructions. No No person person shall shall be be broughtbrought within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within them; nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not them; nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the
clearly made so by the statute. (Tstatute. (There is no here is no crime when there iscrime when there is no law punishing it.)
no law punishing it.)
5. PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF M
5. PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERSEDICAL EXAMINERS (STRICT CONSTRUCTION)
(STRICT CONSTRUCTION) 28 SCRA 344 (1969) 28 SCRA 344 (1969) Nature:
Nature: Appeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila for theAppeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila for the writ of prohibition rendered on Aug. 2, 1965
writ of prohibition rendered on Aug. 2, 1965 Facts:
Facts: At the At the initinitial hearinial hearing g for an for an admadminisinistrattrative case ive case for for alleged immorality, counsel for complainants called as his first alleged immorality, counsel for complainants called as his first witnes
witness, the appellee, s, the appellee, Arsenio PasArsenio Pascual Jr., whcual Jr., who was the oneo was the one charged with malpractice.
charged with malpractice. Issue/s:
Issue/s:W o N the Board was right to call and coerce Pascual toW o N the Board was right to call and coerce Pascual to take the witness stand against himself?
take the witness stand against himself?
W o N the right against self-incrimination can be availed of in W o N the right against self-incrimination can be availed of in an administrative hearing.
an administrative hearing. Held
Held: Decision of the lower court affirmed.: Decision of the lower court affirmed. The
The constituconstitutional tional guaranguarantee tee againsagainst t self-incself-incriminarimination tion extendsextends to administrative hearings which possess a criminal or penal act. to administrative hearings which possess a criminal or penal act. The Board cannot compel the person to take the witness stand The Board cannot compel the person to take the witness stand without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice possesses a without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice possesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense that the respondent would criminal or penal aspect in the sense that the respondent would suffer revocation of his license as a medical practitioner.
suffer revocation of his license as a medical practitioner.
The right against self-incrimination extends not only to the right The right against self-incrimination extends not only to the right to refuse to answer questions put to the accused while on the to refuse to answer questions put to the accused while on the witness stand, but also to forego testimony and remain silent and witness stand, but also to forego testimony and remain silent and refuse to take the witness stand. That while crimes should not go refuse to take the witness stand. That while crimes should not go unpunished, objectives should not be accomplished by means unpunished, objectives should not be accomplished by means offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the human offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the human personality.
personality.
6. PEOPLE vs. TEMBLON (DOLO) 6. PEOPLE vs. TEMBLON (DOLO)
161 SCRA 623 (1988) 161 SCRA 623 (1988) Nature:
Nature: Appeal Appeal from from the the judgment judgment of CFof CFI of I of Agusan Agusan del del NorteNorte an
and d ButButuan uan CitCity y conconvivicticting ng VIVICECENTNTE E TETEMBLMBLOR OR alaliasias “Ronald
“Ronald” for ” for murdemurder sentencing him to r sentencing him to the penalty of reclusionthe penalty of reclusion perpetua.
perpetua.
Facts: On Dec. 30, 1980, at around 7:30 pm in Brgy. Talo-ao, Facts: On Dec. 30, 1980, at around 7:30 pm in Brgy. Talo-ao, Buenavi
Buenavista, Agusan del sta, Agusan del Sur, TEMBLSur, TEMBLOR OR bought a bought a half-pachalf-pack of k of Hop
Hope e cigacigarettrette e frofrom m the the storstore e of of JULJULIUS IUS CAGCAGAMPAMPANGANG.. While the latter was opening the pack, a gun shot was heard and While the latter was opening the pack, a gun shot was heard and CAGAMPANG fell to the floor with a gunshot wound in the CAGAMPANG fell to the floor with a gunshot wound in the
head. The accused, together with another, barged into the room, head. The accused, together with another, barged into the room, demanding the firearms of the victim. Before fleeing with the demanding the firearms of the victim. Before fleeing with the victim’s .38 caliber gun, TEMBLOR filed tow more shots. victim’s .38 caliber gun, TEMBLOR filed tow more shots. On Aug. 198
On Aug. 1981, duri1, during the mass surng the mass surrenrender der of dissof dissidenidents,ts, TEMBL
TEMBLOR surrendered to OR surrendered to Mayor Dick Carmona. On Mayor Dick Carmona. On Nov. 26,Nov. 26, 1981, he was arrested by the Buenavista Police at the public 1981, he was arrested by the Buenavista Police at the public market and detained at the municipal jail where he was seen by market and detained at the municipal jail where he was seen by VIC
VICTORTORIA IA CAGCAGAMPAMPANGANG, , the the vicvictim’tim’s s widwidow ow and and waswas positively identified.
positively identified. TEMBL
TEMBLOR’s defense was an alibi: on OR’s defense was an alibi: on the said date, he the said date, he and hisand his father had been in the house of SILVERIO PEROL in Brgy. father had been in the house of SILVERIO PEROL in Brgy. Camagong.
Camagong. Issue
Issue: W o N motive is essential in convicting Temblor : W o N motive is essential in convicting Temblor Held:
Held: DeDeciscisioion n of of lolowewer r coucourt rt afaffifirmrmed; ed; civcivil il inindedemnmnityity increased to P30,000.
increased to P30,000.
Motive is not essential when culprit has been identified. Fact Motive is not essential when culprit has been identified. Fact th
that at accaccusused ed hahas s knknowowleledge dge of of ththe e dedeceaceasesed’d’s s fifirearearm rm isis sufficient enough for motive. The fleeing of the accused after sufficient enough for motive. The fleeing of the accused after killing and
killing and taking CAGAMPANGtaking CAGAMPANG’s ’s firearm implies admissionfirearm implies admission of guilt.
of guilt.
Accused’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of Accused’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the witness who had no base motive to accuse him of the crime. the witness who had no base motive to accuse him of the crime. In order for alibi to
In order for alibi to be acceptable as a be acceptable as a defensdefense, it is e, it is not enoughnot enough fo
for r ththe e apappepellllanant t to to be be elelsesewhwherere e wwhehen n ththe e crcrimime e wawass commi
committed, but it tted, but it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt thatmust be proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Nasip
crime. Nasipit is accessible to Talo-ao by jeep or it is accessible to Talo-ao by jeep or tricyctricycle for le for 1515 to 20 minutes. to 20 minutes. 7. PEOPLE vs. HASSAN 7. PEOPLE vs. HASSAN 157 SCRA 261 (1988) 157 SCRA 261 (1988) Nature:
Nature:Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Zamboanga CityAppeal from a decision of the RTC of Zamboanga City finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced to reclusion peretua.
of murder and sentenced to reclusion peretua. Facts
Facts: J: Jululy 2y 23, 3, 19198181, a, at at arorounund 7d 7pm pm JOJOSE SE SASAMSMSON ON wwasas a backrider on the motorcycle of RAMON PICHEL JR. when a backrider on the motorcycle of RAMON PICHEL JR. when they went to buy mangoes at the Fruit Paradise near the Barter they went to buy mangoes at the Fruit Paradise near the Barter Trade Zone in Zamboanga City. SAMSON saw a person stab Trade Zone in Zamboanga City. SAMSON saw a person stab PICHEL only once while he was parked 2-3 meters away. After PICHEL only once while he was parked 2-3 meters away. After stabbin
stabbing, the g, the suspecsuspect t fled to fled to PNB. SAMSON rushed the victimPNB. SAMSON rushed the victim to the General Hospital where the latter died. In the hospital, the to the General Hospital where the latter died. In the hospital, the witness was interrogated as to the suspect’s description, who witness was interrogated as to the suspect’s description, who according to him was had semi-long hair, wearing white polo according to him was had semi-long hair, wearing white polo short-sleeved shirt, maong pants, standing 5’5’’ and with a dark short-sleeved shirt, maong pants, standing 5’5’’ and with a dark complexion. According to SAMSON, he only knows the suspect complexion. According to SAMSON, he only knows the suspect by
by face face and and not not by by name. name. At At Funeraria Funeraria La La Merced, Merced, policepolice brought the accused
brought the accused – alone, for identi– alone, for identi fication where the fication where the witnesswitness positively identified him as the kil
positively identified him as the kil ler.ler. Held:
Held:Decision reversed; accused is acquitted.Decision reversed; accused is acquitted.
Evidence of the prosecution does not satisfy quantum of proof— Evidence of the prosecution does not satisfy quantum of proof— beyond reasonable doub
beyond reasonable doub t. Value judgment must not t. Value judgment must not be separatedbe separated from the
from the constituconstitutionally guaranteed presumptiotionally guaranteed presumption n of of innocenceinnocence.. Pro
Prosecsecutioution’s n’s evievidencdence e is is weaweak k and and uncounconvinvincinncing. g. ExpExpertert te
testistimomony ny of of the the memedicdico-lo-legegal al offofficeicer r (D(DR.R.VAVALELENTNTININ BE
BERNRNALALEZEZ) ) concontrtradiadictcted ed on on mamaterterial ial popointints s of of the the lonlonee witness. He found two stab wounds, (chest and at the left arm witness. He found two stab wounds, (chest and at the left arm posterior),
posterior), the the nature nature of of the the wounds wounds indicating indicating they they werewere inflicted while the suspect was in front of the victim.
inflicted while the suspect was in front of the victim. The investigati
The investigation on conducteconducted by d by the police the police was not was not satisfasatisfactory.ctory. The lone presentation of HASSAN to SAMSON at the funeral The lone presentation of HASSAN to SAMSON at the funeral parlor
parlor violated violated the the accused accused rights to rights to counsel counsel in alin all thl the stages e stages of of investigation into the commission of a crime.
investigation into the commission of a crime.
Motive is essential when there is doubt as to the identity of the Motive is essential when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.
culprit.
8. PEOPLE vs. AH CHONG (MISTAKE OF
8. PEOPLE vs. AH CHONG (MISTAKE OF FACT)FACT) 15 PHIL 488 (1910)
Nature:
Nature: Appeal Appeal from from the the judgment judgment of of CFI CFI of of Rizal Rizal convictingconvicting the appellant of the crime of simple homicide with extenuating the appellant of the crime of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances sentenced to 6 years 1 day of presidio mayor. circumstances sentenced to 6 years 1 day of presidio mayor. Facts: Ah Chong was employed as a cook at Fort McKinley. He Facts: Ah Chong was employed as a cook at Fort McKinley. He was roomm
was roommates with the deceased, ates with the deceased, PASCUAPASCUAL GUALBEL GUALBERTORTO at officer’s quarters #27, about 40 meters away form the nearest at officer’s quarters #27, about 40 meters away form the nearest building,
building, without without a a lock lock and and had had only only 1 1 door door opening opening to to thethe porch
porch and and 1 1 window. window. As As a a safety safety precaution, precaution, Ah Ah Chong Chong andand Gualberto had an understanding that if either returned late at Gualberto had an understanding that if either returned late at night, he should knock and
night, he should knock and acquainacquaint the t the other as to other as to his identity.his identity. On Aug. 14,
On Aug. 14, 191908 08 at at ararouound nd 10 pm, 10 pm, he he wawas s awawakeakened byned by someone trying to force open the door. He called out twice, someone trying to force open the door. He called out twice, “Who is there?”, to which no answer was given. Because of the “Who is there?”, to which no answer was given. Because of the vines covering the porch, the room was very dark. While calling vines covering the porch, the room was very dark. While calling out a threat to
out a threat to the invader, he was struck above the knee by thethe invader, he was struck above the knee by the edge of the
edge of the chair which was thrown towardchair which was thrown towards his direction whens his direction when the door was
the door was opened forciblyopened forcibly. . Getting the common knife under Getting the common knife under his pillow and struck wildly at the intruder which turned out to his pillow and struck wildly at the intruder which turned out to be
be GUALBERTO. SeeGUALBERTO. See ing ing it it was was his his roommate, roommate, Ah Ah Chong Chong ranran back to his room to
back to his room to secure bandages and secure bandages and called to his emplocalled to his emplo yeesyees in Room #28 for help.
in Room #28 for help. Pr
Prioior r to to the the inincidcidentent, , thethere re hahad d beebeen n seseveveral ral insinstantances ces of of robberies inside the port.
robberies inside the port. Issue/s
Issue/s: W o N one can be held criminally liable for doing an act: W o N one can be held criminally liable for doing an act that would be exempt form criminal liability had there been no that would be exempt form criminal liability had there been no mistake of fact.
mistake of fact.
W o N malice or criminal intent is an essential element or W o N malice or criminal intent is an essential element or ing
ingrediredient ent of of the the crimcrimes es of of homhomicidicide e and and assassassassinatination ion asas defined and penalized in the penal code.
defined and penalized in the penal code. Held:
Held:Decision reversed; accused is acquitted.Decision reversed; accused is acquitted.
The definitions of crimes and offenses as set out in the penal The definitions of crimes and offenses as set out in the penal code rarely contain provisions expressly declaring that malice or code rarely contain provisions expressly declaring that malice or cr
crimimininal al inintetent nt is is an an esessesentntiaial l iningrgrededieient nt of of ththe e crcrimime.e. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, the the provisions provisions of of Art. Art. 1 1 indicate indicate malice malice andand criminal intent as an essential requisite.
criminal intent as an essential requisite.
Voluntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act, and which, Voluntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act, and which, without intention there can be no crime. Voluntary implies and without intention there can be no crime. Voluntary implies and includes the words “con malice” or with malice. When the act includes the words “con malice” or with malice. When the act which was actually intended to be done was in itself a lawful which was actually intended to be done was in itself a lawful one, and in
one, and in the absence of negligence or the absence of negligence or imprudimprudence, in generalence, in general without intention, there can be no crime.
without intention, there can be no crime. *Requisites of Mistake of fact:
*Requisites of Mistake of fact: Th
The e act wouact would ld havhave e bebeen en lawlawfuful l hahad d ththe e fafacts be cts be how thehow the accused believed them to be;
accused believed them to be;
The intention would have been lawful; The intention would have been lawful;
The mistake was not attended by any fault or negligence on the The mistake was not attended by any fault or negligence on the part of the accused.
part of the accused.
There must be no reasonable opportunity to ascertain the facts There must be no reasonable opportunity to ascertain the facts Excessive force negates mistake of fact (OANIS)
Excessive force negates mistake of fact (OANIS) 9. PEOPLE VS. OANIS 9. PEOPLE VS. OANIS
74 PHIL 257 (1943) 74 PHIL 257 (1943) Nature
Nature: : ApAppeapeal l frfrom om the judgthe judgmement nt of of CFCFI I of of NuNueveva a EcEcijaija fi
findnding ing ththe e accaccusused ed guguililty ty of of hohomimicidcide e thrthrouough gh rereckckleslesss imprudence.
imprudence. Facts:
Facts: On December 24, On December 24, 1938, Provincia1938, Provincial l InspeInspector, CAPT.ctor, CAPT. GODOFREDO MONSOD received a telegram from MAYOR GODOFREDO MONSOD received a telegram from MAYOR GUI
GUIDO DO ordorderinering g the arrest (whetthe arrest (whether her dead or dead or alivalive) e) of of oneone ANSEL
ANSELMO BALAGTAS, who was MO BALAGTAS, who was an escaped an escaped convictconvict. . TheThe said convict was informed to be with a bailarina named IRENE. said convict was informed to be with a bailarina named IRENE. MONSO
MONSOD then D then informinformed the ed the defenddefendants and ants and instrucinstructed them toted them to arrest Balagtas, and if overpowered, they were to follow the arrest Balagtas, and if overpowered, they were to follow the instructions in the telegram.
instructions in the telegram.
OANIS, knowing a certain IRENE, accompanied GALANTA OANIS, knowing a certain IRENE, accompanied GALANTA and went to the location of IRENE at Rizal St. Upon reaching and went to the location of IRENE at Rizal St. Upon reaching the place, they asked BRIGADA MALLARE to point where the place, they asked BRIGADA MALLARE to point where IRENE’s room was. They were also informed that Irene was IRENE’s room was. They were also informed that Irene was slee
sleeping with ping with her her parparamoamour. When ur. When they reachethey reached d the the roomroom,, se
seeieing ng a a mman an wwitith h hihis s bbacack k totowwarards ds ththe e dodooror, , ththeyey simultaneously and successively fired at him killing him. The simultaneously and successively fired at him killing him. The
man killed turned out not to be Balagtas, but one SERAPIO man killed turned out not to be Balagtas, but one SERAPIO TECSON.
TECSON. Issue
Issue: W o N the killing of Tecson was a mistake of fact to: W o N the killing of Tecson was a mistake of fact to exempt Oanis and Galanta from criminal liability.
exempt Oanis and Galanta from criminal liability. Held
Held: : DefDefendaendants are nts are guiguilty lty of of murmurder with der with the mitigathe mitigatingting circumstance of incomplete requisites of performance of duty circumstance of incomplete requisites of performance of duty appreciated in their favor and sentenced to reclusion temporal. appreciated in their favor and sentenced to reclusion temporal. Ignorance of fact can be appreciated only when the mistake is Ignorance of fact can be appreciated only when the mistake is commi
committed without tted without fault of fault of carelesscarelessness. Defendanness. Defendants ts had amplehad ample time and opportunity to ascertain the victim’s identity since he time and opportunity to ascertain the victim’s identity since he was asleep. Mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot was asleep. Mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered reckless imprudence.
be considered reckless imprudence.
10. PEOPLE VS. BUAN (CULPA) 10. PEOPLE VS. BUAN (CULPA)
22 SCRA 1383 (1968) 22 SCRA 1383 (1968) Nature:
Nature: Appeal Appeal from from an an order order of of CFI CFI Bulacan Bulacan in in its its CriminalCriminal Case #5423, overruling a motion to quash on the ground of Case #5423, overruling a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy.
double jeopardy. Fac
Facts: JOSE BUAN was driving a ts: JOSE BUAN was driving a paspassengsenger bus er bus of the of the LaLa Mallorca Company on July 23, 1962 along McArthur Highway, Mallorca Company on July 23, 1962 along McArthur Highway, Guigui
Guiguinto, Bulacan when it nto, Bulacan when it collided with the passenger jeep of collided with the passenger jeep of Se
Sergrgio io LuLumimidao dao injinjuriuring ng 9 9 paspassesengngerers. s. (6 (6 susufffferered ed slsligightht physical
physical injuries, injuries, 3 3 serious serious physical physical injuries injuries and and damaging damaging thethe jeep to the extent of P 1, 395.00)
jeep to the extent of P 1, 395.00)
On December 19, 1963, he was acquitted in the Justice of Peace On December 19, 1963, he was acquitted in the Justice of Peace Court for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence. Court for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence. However, prior the acquittal, the provincial fiscal of Bulacan However, prior the acquittal, the provincial fiscal of Bulacan filed in the
filed in the CFI a case CFI a case for serious physifor serious physical injuries and damagecal injuries and damage through property through reckless imprudence.
through property through reckless imprudence. Issue:
Issue:W o N the 2W o N the 2ndndcase places the appellant twice in jeopardycase places the appellant twice in jeopardy
for the same offense and is barred by the previous acquittal. for the same offense and is barred by the previous acquittal. Held:
Held:The order of the CFI is reversed and is ordered to quashThe order of the CFI is reversed and is ordered to quash and dismiss the charges.
and dismiss the charges. On
Once ce acqacquituitted ted or or conconvivictected d of of a a spspeciecifific c acact t of of recrecklklesesss imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act. The gravity of the consequences is only taken into same act. The gravity of the consequences is only taken into ac
accoucount nt to to detdetermerminine e the the penpenaltalty, y, it it doedoes s not not ququalialify fy ththee substance of the offense.
substance of the offense.
11. PEOPLE VS. DIZON (NEGLIGENCE) 158 SCRA 127 11. PEOPLE VS. DIZON (NEGLIGENCE) 158 SCRA 127
(1988) (1988) Nature:
Nature: An An admadminisinistrattrative ive comcomplaiplaint nt agaiagainst nst resrespondpondentent Baltazar R. Dizon for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision Baltazar R. Dizon for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision due to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law due to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law Facts:
Facts:The case in which the The case in which the respondrespondent rendered a decision of ent rendered a decision of acquittal involved a tourist, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught by a acquittal involved a tourist, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught by a Cu
Custstomoms s guguarard d at at the the MaManilnila a InInterternanatiotional nal AiAirprporort t whwhileile attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instrum
instruments out of ents out of the country. At the the country. At the time of his time of his apprehenapprehension,sion, he was found carrying with him foreign currency and foreign he was found carrying with him foreign currency and foreign eexxchchaangnge e iinnsstrtruummeennts ts ((38380 0 ppiiececeses) ) aammoouunntitinng g toto US$
US$355,355,349349.57.57, , in in varvarious ious currcurrency ency denodenominminatioations ns witwithouthout authority as provided by law.
authority as provided by law.
At the time the accused was apprehended, he was able At the time the accused was apprehended, he was able to exhibit two
to exhibit two currency declaratcurrency declarations, which he ions, which he was supposed towas supposed to have accomplished upon his arrival in Manila in previous trips. have accomplished upon his arrival in Manila in previous trips.
Inf
Informormatioation n was filed againswas filed against t Lo Lo Chi Fai Chi Fai witwith h thethe RTC of Pasay City for violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular RTC of Pasay City for violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960.
No. 960.
The respondent judge, in his decision acquitting the The respondent judge, in his decision acquitting the accused, stated: “The factual issue for this Court to determine is accused, stated: “The factual issue for this Court to determine is whethe
whether or r or not the accused willfully violated Sec. 6 not the accused willfully violated Sec. 6 of Circular of Circular No.
No. 960. 960. The The fact fact that that the the accused accused had had in in his his possession possession thethe fo
foreireign gn curcurrerencincies es whwhen en he he wawas s ababout out to to depdeparart t frfrom om ththee Ph
Phililippippineines s didid d not by not by thathat t act alone make act alone make him liabhim liable le fofor r violati
violation of on of Sec. 6. What is Sec. 6. What is imperatimperative is ive is the purpose for whichthe purpose for which the act of bringing foreign currencies out of the country was the act of bringing foreign currencies out of the country was done – the very intention.”
Issue:Whether or not the respondent judge was guilty of gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in rendering the decision in question
Held: The Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct.
The respondent judge has shown gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding that to convict the accused for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960; the prosecution must establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. The respondent ought to know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in
offenses punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita.
12. PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ (PROPOSAL AND
CONSPIRACY)159 SCRA 153 (1988)
Nature:This case is before us on automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union, convicting the accused-appellants Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them to death.
Facts:The house of the Maquiling family stands on the slope of a mountain in Barangay Ambagat, Santol, La Union. At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of 7 June 1977, the victim Eleno Maquiling, his sisters Leticia and Thelma, his mother Esmenia, and his father Juanito were all in the yard of their house. Esmenia and Juanito were under the awning of their house facing north, engaged in stringing together tobacco leaves. The victim's brother Dionisio was eating his dinner in the wall-less kitchen located on the ground floor of the house. The victim Eleno was seated with his back toward the north and plucking a guitar. The place and its surroundings were lighted by a 300 candle power petromax lamp hanging under the northern end of the awning of the house.
While the Maquilings were thus seated in their yard, a relative of the family, one Carolina, arrived and asked Esmenia to accompany her to a prayer meeting. Esmenia demurred and instead asked Eleno to accompany Carolina. The victim was then just about two (2) meters away from his parents and about to stand up when suddenly a very loud gun shot rang out from the northern side of the yard and Eleno fell to the ground, crying out to his father for help. Juanito rushed to his fallen son and carried him into their house; Eleno, however, died immediately thereafter.
The victim's mother Esmenia was about to succor Eleno when she instinctively looked toward the direction from whence the gunshot came and saw the two(2) accused, Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio, running down the hill away from the bamboo groves on the northern side of the house. Dionisio Maquiling, brother of the victim, also testified that he too had seen Danilo
with a gun and Simplicio both running away in a westernly direction. Danilo stated that he was then about seven (7) meters away from the accused-appellants. Danilo Valdez was a neighbor and a relative of the Maquilings, while Simplicio Orodio was their old acquaintance residing in Sitio Villaga, Barangay Corooy of the same town; thus, both were well-known to Esmenia and Dionisio Maquiling. On 8 June 1977, the Municipal Health, Officer of Balaoan, Dr. Monico O. Morales, conducted an autopsy which showed that the victim Eleno had sustained eight (8) gunshot (pellet) wounds on his back.
The morning after the shooting, on 8 June 1977, Sgt. Segundo Tuvera of the Integrated National Police, Santol, La Union, went to the house of the Maquilings to investigate the death of Eleno. He saw a petromax lamp hanging from the awning of the northern end of the house, as well as footprints near the bamboo groves near the northern side of the house. During his investigation, neither Esmenia nor Dionisio informed Sgt. Tuvera of what they had seen.
On 10 June 1977, Juanito Maquiling, the victim's father, executed a sworn statement before the police in the Santol Police Substation. Juanito admitted in his statement that he had not seen the accused-appellants on the night of the shooting. He did relate, however, that three(3) days prior to the shooting of Eleno, Eleno had informed him that in case something untoward happened to him (Eleno), the accused-appellants Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio should be held responsible, since he (Eleno) had quarreled with them concerning their stealing and robbing. Juanito, further, stated that the accused Danilo has had a personal grudge against Eleno; Danilo had mortgaged to Eleno's brother a stolen spading fork, a circumstance that Eleno discovered when the real owner of the spading fork came to talk to him. Esmenia, Eleno's mother, gave no sworn statement on that day. Ten (10) days later, on 20 June 1977, however, she made a sworn statement to the Philippine Constabulary in San Fernando, La Union. Shortly thereafter, on 23 June 1977, Dionisio Maquiling, Eleno's brother, gave his own separate sworn statement also to the Philippine Constabulary. Both Esmenia and Dionisio identified Danilo Orodio as Eleno's killers. At the trial, Esmenia Maquiling was firm and categorical in identifying the appellants as the men she saw running from the bamboo groves immediately after the shooting..
Held: There is nothing in the record to show that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any improper motive to accuse falsely the accused-appellants — one a relative and the other an old acquaintance — of so grave a crime as murder. The prosecution's evidence was more than adequate to sustain the finding of the trial court of a conspiracy between Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio. Conspiracy being present, it does not matter that the prosecution had failed to show who as between the two actually pulled the trigger of the shotgun that killed Eleno Maquiling. 17 Both Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio are liable as conspirators since any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act.
The trial court correctly appreciated the presence of treachery and evident premeditation. The accused had purposely sought nocturnity and hid themselves behind the bamboo groves located close by the victim's house and had fired at Eleno Maquiling suddenly, without any warning, from behind obviously to ensure the success of their deadly purpose without any risk to themselves and without any possibility of retaliation.
Since both treachery and evident premeditation were present, and only one qualifying circumstance is necessary to constitute homicide into murder, evident premeditation may be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of nighttime is, however, absorbed by treachery. A second aggravating circumstance — that the victim who had given no provocation was slain in his dwelling — was also found by the
trial court.
13. PEOPLE VS. NACIONAL 248 SCRA 122 (1995)
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City
Facts: The six accused, including the accused-appellant, were all civilian members of the barangay organization of the CPP-NPA at Daraga, Albay. Their organization had a conference for the purpose of identifying suspe cted informers of the milita ry whom they perceived as posing a threat to the NPA’s operations within the vicinity. They identified Quirino Lagason and Joel Lagason as military informers and were targeted for liquidation.
According to Crisanto Miranda, a neighbor who accompanied the accused that day, Walter Nacional approached Quirino and said something to him. Walter then pulled out a gun from his waist and shot Quirino in the face, hitting him between the eyebrows. Quirino fell to the ground and died instantly. A few seconds later, Absalon Millamina shot Joel Lagason on the head. The group then fled towards the direction of the RCPI
Relay Station. Joel’s mother, who was at the scene of the crime, rushed him to the hospital where he died a few hours later.
The defense set up by the accused consisted of denials. Accused-appellant Javier Mirabete insisted on his claim that he was merely watching a volleyball game when the shooting happened. He denied being a member of the NPA or any rebel organization. He likewise denied the existence of a plot and a conspiracy to kill the Lagasons. Accused-appellants claimed that he was a mere farmer, already 69 years old and had barely finished third grade in school. According to him, his advanced age made it impossible for him to join the NPA at the time of the incident. He contended that the testimonies of the witnesses identifying him with the group that killed the Lagasons were unreliable and hearsay because both witnesses never knew him. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant’s contention is with merit
Held: The decision appealed from was affirmed insofar as the criminal liability of accused-appellant was concerned.
Evidence proved beyond doubt that accused-appellant was a civilian member of the CPP-NPA and was part of the group that deliberately planned the killing of the Lagasons. The events that led to the victim’s deaths also showed that the group members deliberately planned, plotted and premeditated their victims’ deaths. Evident premeditation exists when the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent. There must be, between the reflection and execution of the crimes, a space of time sufficient for the offender to arrive at a calm judgment.
It was also held that the prosecution had clearly and convincingly established the existence of a conspiracy in the planning and execution of the crimes. Conspiracy arises at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith to actually pursue it. It hardly matters that the accused-appellant was not actually present at the specific place of the shooting. He was at the waiting shed but this was for the purpose of providing security to those who carried out the shooting. The waiting shed was located along the way to the Lagason’s house, strategically at the entrance to and exit from it. A conspiracy, once established, makes each of the conspirators liable for the acts of the others. All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent of their participation because in the contemplation of law, the act of one
is the act of all.
14. PEOPLE VS. TRINIDAD 169 SCRA 51 (1989)
Nature: APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial Cou rt of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Br. 7, convicting the accused of two counts of murder and frustrated murder.
Facts: The deceased victim, Lolito Soriano, was a fish dealer based in Davao City. His helpers were Ricardo Tan, a driver,
and the other deceased victim Marcial Laroa. On 19 January 1983, using a Ford Fiera, they arrived at Butuan City to sell fish. In the morning of 20 January 1983 Soriano together with Laroa and a helper of one Samuel Comendador left for Buenavista. Tan was left behind in Butuan but followed to later in the morning.
While at Buenavista, accused Emeliano Trinidad, a member of the Integrated National Police, assigned at Nasipit Police Station, and residing at Baan, Butuan City, asked for a ride to Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, which is on the way to Davao City. He was in uniform and had two firearms, a carbine, and the other, a side-arm .38 caliber revolver. The four left Butuan on 20 January 1983 at about 5:20 P.M. bound for Davao City. Tan was driving, seated to his right were Soriano, then Laroa and the accused. When they reached the stretch between El Rio and Afga, the police advised them to drive slowly because, according to him, the place was dangerous. All of a sudden, Tan heard two gunshots. Soriano and Laroa slumped dead. He did not actually see the shooting of Laroa but he witnessed the shooting of Soriano, having been alerted by the sound of the first gunfire. Both were hit on the head. The accused had used his carbine in killing the two victims.
Ricardo hurriedly got off the Fiera, ran towards the direction of Butuan City and hid himself in the bushes. He heard a shot
emanating from the Fiera while he was hiding in the bushes, then a passenger jeep passed by, he hailed it and rode on the front seat. However, after sometime, he noticed that the accused-appellant was seated at the back. Apparently noticing him as well, the accused ordered him to get out and to approach him. Instead of following, Tan moved backward and ran around the jeep followed by the appellant. When the jeep started to drive away, Ricardo clung to its side. The accused fired two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. As another passenger jeep passed by, he jumped from the first jeep and ran to the second. However, the passengers in the latter jeep told him to get out not wanting to get involved in the affray. Pushed out, Ricardo crawled until a member of the P.C. chanced upon him and helped him board a bus for Butuan City. Trinidad was convicted for the murder of Laroa and Soriano and for the frustrated murder of Ricardo.
Issue: W o N the accused the attack on Tan constitutes frustrated or attempted murder.
Held: Decision modified. Trinidad was found guilty of the two murders and attempted murder.
The defense is correct in contending that in the Frustrated Murder case, TRINIDAD can only be convicted of Attempted Murder. He had commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but was unable to perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of causes other than his spontaneous desistance, such as, that the jeep to which TAN was clinging was in motion, and there was a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body. Moreover, the wound on his thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted Murder, the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about death.
15. PEOPLE VS. VELASCO 73 SCRA 574 (1976)
Nature:Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court Facts:On Nov. 2, 1967, the offended party, Estelita Lopez, five years old, accompanied by her cousin Nenita Lopez, was at the North Cemetery, Manila. The defendant, Ricardo Velasco, called them, gave Nenita a five-centavo coin and asked her to buy cigarettes for him. After she left, the accused held Estelita by the hand and brought her to an alley. Once in a hidden place between the tombs, he kissed her on the l ips, took off her panties and placed himself on top of the girl while she was lying down on the ground face up and tried to insert his sexual organ into that of the victim. The girl shouted in pain, “Aray, aray!”
Arsenio Perez, who happened to see the accused holding the hand of the girl while walking along 24thstreet in the
cemetery as well as when they turned into the alley and who at first thought that the accused was a relative of the girl, upon hearing the shouts of the girl and because of the shouts believed that something bad was being done to the girl, proceeded to the place where the shouts came and upon standing on top of one of
the tombs he saw, a short distance away, the accused on top of the girl, with his pants and drawers lowered down to his knees, and the dress of the girl raised up and the buttocks of the accused making upward and downward movements. He tried to seek for help and upon seeing Jose Castro on the 24thstreet told
him, “Mang Pepe, Mang Pepe, the daughter of Mang Pidiong is being raped!” Castro proceeded to the place pointed by Perez
with the latter following him, and while standing on top of a tomb, a short distance away, Castro saw the defendant on top of the girl.
The accused then stood up and raised his pants while the girl rose from the ground crying. Castro approached the defendant and the girl and asked him what happened, and he said the girl lost her way and was crying. The girl was bleeding at the same time and he noticed that she even wiped off with her dress the blood on the front part of her thighs.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of consummated rape
