Title 1: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Title 1: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes TREASON
TREASON
Laurel
Laurel v. v. Misa Misa 19471947
Filipino citizen who gave aid and comfort to the Filipino citizen who gave aid and comfort to the Japanese contends that since sovereignty is Japanese contends that since sovereignty is suspended, his allegiance as well is suspended suspended, his allegiance as well is suspended
No. Citizen owes his government No. Citizen owes his government permanent and absolute allegiance. permanent and absolute allegiance.
Treason is a war crime. It is punished by state as a Treason is a war crime. It is punished by state as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation. measure of self-defense and self-preservation. Law of treason is an emergency measure
Law of treason is an emergency measure – – dormantdormant until emergency arises
until emergency arises
What is suspended is the exercise of rights not What is suspended is the exercise of rights not sovereignty
sovereignty
People
People v. v. Perez Perez 19491949 Perez with other Filipinos apprehended womenPerez with other Filipinos apprehended women to satisfy desires of Colonel Mini.
to satisfy desires of Colonel Mini.
No. Commandeering of women, against No. Commandeering of women, against their will, to satisfy the sexual desires of their will, to satisfy the sexual desires of the enemy is not treason because it the enemy is not treason because it doesn’t directly or materially improve war doesn’t directly or materially improve war efforts of the enemy.
efforts of the enemy.
General Rule: General Rule:
-- Extent of aid/comfort given to the enemies mustExtent of aid/comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals
not merely as individuals People
People v. v. Prieto Prieto 19481948
Accused caused torture of seve
Accused caused torture of seve ral Filipinos.ral Filipinos. -- Seen dragging the American aviatorSeen dragging the American aviator -- Seen walking with the AmericansSeen walking with the Americans
No. Two witness rule was not satisfied. No. Two witness rule was not satisfied. No. There’s no complex crime of treason No. There’s no complex crime of treason and murder/PI
and murder/PI
Murder and physical injuries are inherent in the crime Murder and physical injuries are inherent in the crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and of treason characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy.
comfort to the enemy.
People
People v. v. Manayao Manayao 19471947
Accused was member of Makapili. Accused was member of Makapili. Invoked CA 63
Invoked CA 63 – – loss of citizenship:loss of citizenship: 1.
1. Oath of allegianceOath of allegiance 2.
2. Becoming an officerBecoming an officer 3.
3. Declared as deserter of armed forcesDeclared as deserter of armed forces
No. legislature did not intend that can No. legislature did not intend that can renounce duties simply by taking oath of renounce duties simply by taking oath of allegiance during war time.
allegiance during war time. -- No evidence presentedNo evidence presented
Are citizens barred from renouncing citizenship Are citizens barred from renouncing citizenship during war time?
during war time? – – YESYES
CA 63: oath of allegiance: sworn to help in war is CA 63: oath of allegiance: sworn to help in war is different from swearing to support consti and laws. different from swearing to support consti and laws.
People
People v. v. Adriano Adriano 19471947
Accused was a Makapili. Accused was a Makapili.
Witnesses presented only testified to him Witnesses presented only testified to him joining the Makapili army. Other acts were joining the Makapili army. Other acts were notnot
established by 2 witnesses. established by 2 witnesses.
No. 2-witness rule is severely restrictive. No. 2-witness rule is severely restrictive.
-- Corroboration in directCorroboration in direct testimony to the same overt act testimony to the same overt act
Being a member is an overt act Being a member is an overt act 2-witness rule: favorable to the accused 2-witness rule: favorable to the accused PIRACY
PIRACY
People v. Lol-lo and People v. Lol-lo and Saraw
Saraw 19221922
Dutch and Moros Dutch and Moros
Boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by 6 Boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by 6 vintas with moros. Took all the cargo, raped vintas with moros. Took all the cargo, raped women and attacked some men.
women and attacked some men.
Piracy is a crime against mankind. (hostes Piracy is a crime against mankind. (hostes humani generis)
humani generis)
Only political law is changed. Municipal Only political law is changed. Municipal laws remain in force
laws remain in force
Is the 2-witness rule still applicable today? Is the 2-witness rule still applicable today?
Created at a time when the only way to recall events Created at a time when the only way to recall events is through human memory and human memory is is through human memory and human memory is unreliable.
unreliable.
different events: purpose of the rule is defeated different events: purpose of the rule is defeated now, not the only way to prove treason
now, not the only way to prove treason – – VIDEOS!VIDEOS!
People
People v. v. Rodriguez Rodriguez 19851985
Tawi-tawi, MV Noria, pump boat Tawi-tawi, MV Noria, pump boat Accused stole equipments and personal Accused stole equipments and personal properties of the crew members and properties of the crew members and passengers.
passengers.
Crime was positively testified by 3 Crime was positively testified by 3 witnesses.
witnesses.
PD 532: Mandatory death penalty for PD 532: Mandatory death penalty for persons who committed piracy with rape, persons who committed piracy with rape, murder or homicide
murder or homicide
Offender Purpose Offender Purpose Piracy
Piracy External External Intent Intent to to gaingain Mutiny
Mutiny Crew/passenger Crew/passenger DefianceDefiance Robbery
Robbery Crew/Passenger Crew/Passenger Intent Intent to to gaingain People
People v. v. Siyoh Siyoh 19851985
Pilas island Pilas island
Accused was apprehended because he was seen Accused was apprehended because he was seen the pants which he took from the victim the pants which he took from the victim
Yes. Yes.
PD 532: special complex crime regardless PD 532: special complex crime regardless of number of victims
of number of victims
Qualified: if successfully boarded/seized Qualified: if successfully boarded/seized
Piracy: enough that vessel was fired upon even if the Piracy: enough that vessel was fired upon even if the offenders has not yet boarded
Title 2: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Title 2: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes ARBITRARY DETENTI
ARBITRARY DETENTION ON
Umil
Umil v. v. Ramos Ramos 19901990
NPA, PISTON NPA, PISTON Arrest
Arrested in a hospital, Constantino’sed in a hospital, Constantino’s house, etc.
house, etc.
Arrests were valid. Subversion is a Arrests were valid. Subversion is a continuing offense.
continuing offense.
Theory of hot pursuit: supposed to apprehend the accused but Theory of hot pursuit: supposed to apprehend the accused but disappeared and was later on arrested at home while asleep disappeared and was later on arrested at home while asleep -- Why would one who evades justice would go homeWhy would one who evades justice would go home Principle that subversion is a continuing o
Principle that subversion is a continuing o ffenseffense
-- Would a person spend every waking moment/100% of theWould a person spend every waking moment/100% of the time doing subversive acts?
time doing subversive acts?
-- Logical: not yet done with one overt actLogical: not yet done with one overt act -- Ridiculous: committing 100% of the timeRidiculous: committing 100% of the time
People
People v. v. Burgos Burgos 19861986
Gun was buried. Gun was buried.
NPA pamphlets under a pile of NPA pamphlets under a pile of cogon.
cogon.
He was arbitrarily detained.
He was arbitrarily detained. Warrantless arrest: only if urgentWarrantless arrest: only if urgent
-- If not urgent, why not just secure a warrantIf not urgent, why not just secure a warrant
Milo
Milo v. v. Salanga Salanga 19871987 Barrio captain.Barrio captain. Detained for 11 hours. Detained for 11 hours.
Barrio captain can be held liable for Barrio captain can be held liable for Arbitrary detention.
Arbitrary detention.
RA 3590: revised barrio charter RA 3590: revised barrio charter
-- Power and duties of barrio captain similar to that of mayorsPower and duties of barrio captain similar to that of mayors
SEARCH WARRANTS SEARCH WARRANTS
Stonehill
Stonehill v. v. Diokno Diokno 19671967
42 search warrants, search premises 42 search warrants, search premises of office/warehouse/residence, take of office/warehouse/residence, take possession of persona properties possession of persona properties (book of accounts, financial records, (book of accounts, financial records, etc.) as violation of Central Bank etc.) as violation of Central Bank Laws, Custom Laws, Internal Laws, Custom Laws, Internal Revenue Code and RPC Revenue Code and RPC
Search warrants were invalid. Search warrants were invalid. Documents were inadmissible as Documents were inadmissible as evidence.
evidence.
Level of specificity Level of specificity
-- Look for evidence or fish for evidenceLook for evidence or fish for evidence -- No idea of a specific crime committedNo idea of a specific crime committed -- No specific chargeNo specific charge
Fruit of the poison tree Fruit of the poison tree
-- Prohibit illegal search and all fruits obtained Prohibit illegal search and all fruits obtained from itfrom it Why use exclusionary principle when we already have A.128? Why use exclusionary principle when we already have A.128? -- Incentive/disincentiveIncentive/disincentive
-- Need for other means of deterrenceNeed for other means of deterrence
-- If more lenient to police officers= the government willIf more lenient to police officers= the government will benefit from the search
benefit from the search
-- Tendency: just do it, will be pardoned later onTendency: just do it, will be pardoned later on Exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule -- DeterrenceDeterrence
-- Imperative of judicial integrityImperative of judicial integrity -- Should not profit from lawless behaviorShould not profit from lawless behavior
-- Minimize risk of seriously undermining popular trust inMinimize risk of seriously undermining popular trust in government
Burgos
Burgos v. v. Chief Chief of of Staff Staff 19841984
Metropolitan Mail, We Forum Metropolitan Mail, We Forum Searched office and seize printing Searched office and seize printing machines and equipments, motor machines and equipments, motor vehicles, numerous papers and vehicles, numerous papers and documents
documents
Search warrants were invalid Search warrants were invalid No sufficient basis for the finding of No sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause.
probable cause.
Did not discuss what subversive acts were committed Did not discuss what subversive acts were committed -- Police did not make FACTUAL STATEMENTSPolice did not make FACTUAL STATEMENTS
-- Should have described what is there and let the judge makeShould have described what is there and let the judge make the conclusion
the conclusion
-- Determination of WON the act is subversive is done by Determination of WON the act is subversive is done by thethe courts
courts
What the police did: “it is subversive” What the police did: “it is subversive”
What they should’ve done: present evidence of subversion like What they should’ve done: present evidence of subversion like written articles, etc.
written articles, etc.
Distinguish between factual and non-factual statements Distinguish between factual and non-factual statements OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
People
People v. v. Mandoriao Mandoriao 19551955
INC, debate INC, debate
“Jesus Christ is not God, but only “Jesus Christ is not God, but only man”
man”
Religious rally in a public place Religious rally in a public place (Baguio)
(Baguio)
Religious rally is not a religious Religious rally is not a religious ceremony
ceremony
-- Not a place of worshipNot a place of worship -- Object of meeting was toObject of meeting was to
persuade new converts persuade new converts -- There was already a commotionThere was already a commotion
before Mandoriao went up the before Mandoriao went up the stage
stage
-- Act was not notoriously offensiveAct was not notoriously offensive to feelings of the faithful to feelings of the faithful
Look at his acts and determine WON it is a religious ceremony Look at his acts and determine WON it is a religious ceremony
People v. Baes People v. Baes
Church of Christ Church of Christ
Funeral would pass the churchyard Funeral would pass the churchyard of a Roman Catholic Church. Priest of a Roman Catholic Church. Priest prevented them but was threaten prevented them but was threaten with physical violence. He was with physical violence. He was prevailed.
prevailed.
Fiscal dismissed the case for Fiscal dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. insufficiency of evidence.
Fiscal was ordered to comply with Fiscal was ordered to comply with hishis duties. REMANDED.
duties. REMANDED.
-- Question of WON it isQuestion of WON it is offensive to the religious offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful is a feelings of the faithful is a question of fact. question of fact. Determined in a Determined in a proceeding. proceeding.
According to the feelings of the Catholic not of the other faithful According to the feelings of the Catholic not of the other faithful ones.
ones.
General Rule: perspective of the one offended General Rule: perspective of the one offended
Not a ruling on guilt but on sufficiency of allegation for trial to Not a ruling on guilt but on sufficiency of allegation for trial to proceed
proceed
People
People v. v. Tengson Tengson 19711971
Christ is the answer Christ is the answer
Funeral; performed religious rites in Funeral; performed religious rites in the house and in an unfinished the house and in an unfinished barrio chapel
barrio chapel
-- Chanting of AllChanting of Alleluia,eluia, singing religious hymns singing religious hymns
Acquitted. Acquitted.
Second element that the act is Second element that the act is notoriously offensive to the feelings notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful was not present. of the faithful was not present. Offense should not be depend upon Offense should not be depend upon the subjective conception or the subjective conception or characterization of such religious act. characterization of such religious act.
Laurel Standard: (dissent from Baes) Laurel Standard: (dissent from Baes) -- Perspective of the faithful IN GENERALPerspective of the faithful IN GENERAL
-- Believers of Jesus Christ regardless of religious sect orBelievers of Jesus Christ regardless of religious sect or denomination
denomination
People
People v. v. Nanoy Nanoy 19721972
Assembly of God, drunk Assembly of God, drunk
Accused entered the chapel, he was Accused entered the chapel, he was drunk and grab the song leader drunk and grab the song leader
Acquitted. Acquitted.
No intention of interrupting the No intention of interrupting the services as he allowed himself to be services as he allowed himself to be led out,
led out,
Title 3: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Title 3: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT
REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT
Enrile
Enrile v. v. Salazar Salazar 19901990
Enrile was arrested and charged with Enrile was arrested and charged with rebellion with murder and multiple rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder in line with the failed frustrated murder in line with the failed coup attempt.
coup attempt.
Hernandez ruling is maintained. Hernandez ruling is maintained.
Why not complex? Why not complex?
CONECEPTUAL: they are elements of the crime of rebellion CONECEPTUAL: they are elements of the crime of rebellion
STATUTORY: there are penalties for crimes committed in furtherance STATUTORY: there are penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion (old law)
of rebellion (old law)
-- NOW: statutory cannot be invokedNOW: statutory cannot be invoked
-- But there’s no case yet to decideBut there’s no case yet to decide if absent the statutoryif absent the statutory reason, can it be complexed.
reason, can it be complexed.
Enrile
Enrile v. v. Amin Amin 19901990
Enrile was charged with violation of Enrile was charged with violation of PDPD 1829 for harboring and concealing 1829 for harboring and concealing Honasan in his house.
Honasan in his house.
He cannot be separately charged. He cannot be separately charged.
Overlap of factual foundation. Overlap of factual foundation.
Exactly the same evidence as in the crime of reb
Exactly the same evidence as in the crime of reb ellion that on the eveellion that on the eve of the coup attempt they were on the house of Enrile.
of the coup attempt they were on the house of Enrile. Same basis
Same basis – – Government has to make up its mind oGovernment has to make up its mind o n which one itn which one it should charge
should charge
People
People v. v. Dasig Dasig 19931993
A police officer manning the traffic was A police officer manning the traffic was killed. The suspects were apparently killed. The suspects were apparently members of the sparrow unit of NPA. members of the sparrow unit of NPA.
Simple Rebellion Simple Rebellion
General Rule General Rule::
Prosecutor’s determination of what crime is usually binding. Court Prosecutor’s determination of what crime is usually binding. Court will not change this so long as the charge is correct or that the act will not change this so long as the charge is correct or that the act constitutes the crime.
constitutes the crime. Exception:
Exception: If favorable to the accused.If favorable to the accused. – – justice should be served.justice should be served. Hernandez doctrine
Hernandez doctrine
If person accused of murder, other acts would be separate charges. If person accused of murder, other acts would be separate charges. But in rebellion, additional charges are
But in rebellion, additional charges are absorbedabsorbed -- Avoid circumventionAvoid circumvention
People
People v. v. Lovedioro Lovedioro 19951995 Accused shot a police. The witnessAccused shot a police. The witness identifies him as member of NPA. identifies him as member of NPA.
Murder. Murder.
Defense merely picked up and Defense merely picked up and followed through upon the followed through upon the witness’ testimony. witness’ testimony.
Catch 22: damn if you do, damn if you don’t Catch 22: damn if you do, damn if you don’t Confess as member = confess the crime Confess as member = confess the crime If not = will not be appreciated If not = will not be appreciated SEDITION
SEDITION
People
People v. v. Cabrera Cabrera 19221922
Outrage of policemen, Constabulary v. Outrage of policemen, Constabulary v. police
police
There a rift between a constabulary and a There a rift between a constabulary and a police officer. A rumor spread that the police officer. A rumor spread that the member of constabulary was allowed to member of constabulary was allowed to resume work. 77 soldiers escaped resume work. 77 soldiers escaped barracks and had a shooting spree. barracks and had a shooting spree.
Sedition, murder and physical Sedition, murder and physical injuries.
injuries.
Sedition is raising of commotion Sedition is raising of commotion in state. Persons inflicting any act in state. Persons inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the of hate or revenge upon the person or property of an official person or property of an official agent.
agent.
Sedition does not absorb other offenses. Sedition is a violation of Sedition does not absorb other offenses. Sedition is a violation of public peace while murder is a crime against persons.
public peace while murder is a crime against persons. No distinction as to persons to which it applies. No distinction as to persons to which it applies.
INCITING TO SEDITION INCITING TO SEDITION
US
US v.Tolentino v.Tolentino 19061906
Kahapon, ngayon at bukas Kahapon, ngayon at bukas
A play was presented in Teatro Libertad A play was presented in Teatro Libertad wherein false, seditious and scurrilous wherein false, seditious and scurrilous language were used.
language were used.
Guilty. Guilty.
Manner and form of expression Manner and form of expression as well as current environment as well as current environment are important considerations. are important considerations.
Time, place, manner doctrine. Time, place, manner doctrine.
No need to prove that people actually committed sedition. No need to prove that people actually committed sedition.
What to prove: If implied/indirect: leave the audience to What to prove: If implied/indirect: leave the audience to interpret
Espuelas
Espuelas v. v. People People 19511951
Pictured himself to be hanging lifeless Pictured himself to be hanging lifeless Accused took a picture of himself to be Accused took a picture of himself to be hanging lifeless with suicide note hanging lifeless with suicide note containing:
containing:
-- Displeased/ashamed of Displeased/ashamed of government
government
-- Infested with hitlers andInfested with hitlers and mussolinis
mussolinis
-- Unable to put under juez deUnable to put under juez de cuchillo all the Roxas people cuchillo all the Roxas people
Guilty. Guilty.
It was scurrilous. It was scurrilous.
He suggested assassination of He suggested assassination of Roxas.
Roxas.
Variance in appreciation underscores difficulty. Variance in appreciation underscores difficulty. Clear and Present danger.
Clear and Present danger. -- Punishes the tendencyPunishes the tendency
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Martinez
Martinez v. v. Morfe Morfe 19721972
Immunity from arrests Immunity from arrests
Both the accused were members of Both the accused were members of ConCon. One was charged with ConCon. One was charged with falsification while the other was accused falsification while the other was accused of illegal campaigning. (both were of illegal campaigning. (both were criminal charges.)
criminal charges.)
Not immune. Not immune.
Lawmakers are exempt only from Lawmakers are exempt only from civil arrests and not from arrests civil arrests and not from arrests involving crimes.
involving crimes. RPC
RPC – – 1932; Constitution - 19351932; Constitution - 1935
Odd since civil liability doesn’t include arrests. Odd since civil liability doesn’t include arrests.
Art 145 of RPC is superceded by Art 16 Sec 2 of the Constitution. Art 145 of RPC is superceded by Art 16 Sec 2 of the Constitution. 1935 constitution: no exemption for criminal arrests
1935 constitution: no exemption for criminal arrests -- But there is no civil arrest in the PhilippinesBut there is no civil arrest in the Philippines -- And no one gets imprisoned in civil casesAnd no one gets imprisoned in civil cases ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
People
People v. v. Narvasa Narvasa 19881988
Armed goons Armed goons
Because of reports of missing carabaos, Because of reports of missing carabaos, pigs and goats, patrolling policemen pigs and goats, patrolling policemen suggested that armed goons should be suggested that armed goons should be tracked. When they went to investigate, tracked. When they went to investigate, they were met with a volley of gunfire. they were met with a volley of gunfire.
Homicide with special Homicide with special aggravating circumstance of aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearms. unlicensed firearms.
RA 8294 is applied retroactively RA 8294 is applied retroactively because it is favorable to the because it is favorable to the accused.
accused.
RA 8294 considers the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating RA 8294 considers the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide.
circumstance in murder or homicide.
DIRECT ASSAULT DIRECT ASSAULT
People
People v. v. Beltran Beltran 19851985
Puzon compound Puzon compound
Mayor and chief of police went to the compound of congressman. Upon Mayor and chief of police went to the compound of congressman. Upon reaching the compound, there was simultaneous discharge of firearms. Mayor reaching the compound, there was simultaneous discharge of firearms. Mayor was injured and his son was killed.
was injured and his son was killed.
Direct Assault Direct Assault
Mayor is person in authority and the other was a policeman and both Mayor is person in authority and the other was a policeman and both were in their official duties to maintain peace and order in
were in their official duties to maintain peace and order in community. community. People v. Dollantes People v. Dollantes Barangay captain Barangay captain
Barangay captain was stabbed to death Barangay captain was stabbed to death while delivering speech during a town while delivering speech during a town dance.
dance.
Direct Assault Direct Assault
It is the captain’s duty to enforce It is the captain’s duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the laws and ordinances within the barangay.
the barangay.
Construe it as wide as possible. Construe it as wide as possible.
In the Philippines, there are a lot of ceremonial functions. In the Philippines, there are a lot of ceremonial functions. DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL
DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Alberto v. De la Cruz Alberto v. De la Cruz
Assistant provincial warden Assistant provincial warden
Orbita was supposed to bring the Orbita was supposed to bring the prisoner to Governor’s house to help in prisoner to Governor’s house to help in the construction of a fence. He left the the construction of a fence. He left the prisoner unguarded and so the latter prisoner unguarded and so the latter managed to escape.
managed to escape.
Not guilty Not guilty
Neither the governor nor the Neither the governor nor the warden can be guilty under A.156 warden can be guilty under A.156
A. 156
A. 156 – – committed by outsider not in charge with custodycommitted by outsider not in charge with custody A. 223
A. 223 – – public officer who connived or consentedpublic officer who connived or consented A. 224
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Tanega
Tanega v. v. Masakayan Masakayan 19671967
Never arrested Never arrested
Convicted of slander but was never Convicted of slander but was never arrested.
arrested.
Invoked prescription of the offense. Invoked prescription of the offense.
Prescription does not start to run Prescription does not start to run because of evasion of sentence. because of evasion of sentence.
She was never arrested
She was never arrested – – never commenced sentence; how cannever commenced sentence; how can she possibly evade it?
she possibly evade it?
Custody: placed at disposal of authorities Custody: placed at disposal of authorities Start counting: in prison already, under Start counting: in prison already, under custodycustody People
People v. v. Abilong Abilong 19481948
Destierro Destierro
Accused was sentenced to destierro for Accused was sentenced to destierro for attempted robbery but he went beyond attempted robbery but he went beyond the limits made against him.
the limits made against him.
Guilty. Guilty.
SC relied on the Spanish text. SC relied on the Spanish text. Destierro
Destierro – – deprived of liberty todeprived of liberty to enter the prohibited zone enter the prohibited zone
It is unfair that there are other meanings. It is unfair that there are other meanings. English should now be the prevailing text. English should now be the prevailing text. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
Torres
Torres v. v. Gonzales Gonzales 19871987
Conditional pardon Conditional pardon
Accused was granted pardon on the Accused was granted pardon on the condition that he will not commit any condition that he will not commit any crime under RPC.
crime under RPC.
He was charged with 20 counts of estafa. He was charged with 20 counts of estafa.
Conviction of crime by a final Conviction of crime by a final judgment is not necessary. If the judgment is not necessary. If the
President chooses RAC, no President chooses RAC, no judicial pronouncement (for the judicial pronouncement (for the
crimes after the pardon) is crimes after the pardon) is needed to recommit the convict. needed to recommit the convict.
Grant of Pardon can be: 1) an executive act Sec. 64 of the Revised Grant of Pardon can be: 1) an executive act Sec. 64 of the Revised Administrative Code or 2) a judicial act Art 159, RPC
Administrative Code or 2) a judicial act Art 159, RPC
QUASI-RECIDIVISM QUASI-RECIDIVISM
People
People v. v. Dioso Dioso 19641964
New Bilibid Prison New Bilibid Prison
Both the accused were already serving Both the accused were already serving their sentence. They were members of their sentence. They were members of Batang Mindanao gang
Batang Mindanao gang – – rival of Happyrival of Happy Go Lucky gang. They feigned sickness so Go Lucky gang. They feigned sickness so they could kill the victim who was then they could kill the victim who was then confined in the prison hospital. confined in the prison hospital.
Max penalty
Max penalty – – regardless of regardless of mitigating circumstances. mitigating circumstances.
Quasi recidivism: committing crime charged with while Quasi recidivism: committing crime charged with while servingserving sentence for a prior offense
Title 4: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Title 4: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes COUNTERFEITING
COUNTERFEITING
People
People v. v. Kong Kong Leon Leon 19501950
Counterfeited US gold coins Counterfeited US gold coins
Accused had in his possession counterfeited coins Accused had in his possession counterfeited coins. . CoinsCoins were already out of circulation.
were already out of circulation.
Guilty. Guilty.
Counterfeiting includes foreign coins Counterfeiting includes foreign coins withdrawn from circulation. withdrawn from circulation.
What is punished is not merely the harm What is punished is not merely the harm to the public that may be caused if it to the public that may be caused if it enters the circulation but also potential enters the circulation but also potential danger that counterfeiter produces should danger that counterfeiter produces should he apply his trade.
he apply his trade.
Defrauding people in buying the coin Defrauding people in buying the coin FORGERY
FORGERY Del
Del Rosario Rosario v. v. People People 19611961
Genuine treasury notes Genuine treasury notes
Genuine notes were presented however one digit of the Genuine notes were presented however one digit of the serial number had been erased.
serial number had been erased.
Guilty. Guilty. 2
2ndndmodemode – – even if genuineeven if genuine
People
People v. v. Galano Galano 19581958
Victory Victory
Accused bought balut eggs but uses false pre-war bills. Bills Accused bought balut eggs but uses false pre-war bills. Bills such kinds had been withdrawn but are redeemable at face such kinds had been withdrawn but are redeemable at face value.
value.
Guilty. Guilty.
Still punishable despite having been Still punishable despite having been withdrawn from circulation. withdrawn from circulation.
Problem: where will counterfeited notes Problem: where will counterfeited notes made from scratch and not just altered be made from scratch and not just altered be punishable? punishable? -- nonenone FALSIFICATION FALSIFICATION People
People v. v. Romualdez Romualdez 19321932
Bar exam Bar exam
Accused were correctors of the bar exams. The niece (of Accused were correctors of the bar exams. The niece (of Justice Romualdez, examiner of PolLaw) raised the grade of Justice Romualdez, examiner of PolLaw) raised the grade of one examinee but did not sign her name when
one examinee but did not sign her name when she made theshe made the correction.
correction.
Guilty of A.300/301 par 2,3,6 Guilty of A.300/301 par 2,3,6 2
2 – – cause it to appear that personcause it to appear that person participated in the act
participated in the act 3
3 – – attribute to persons statementsattribute to persons statements other than those made by them other than those made by them 6
6 – – alteration/intercalationalteration/intercalation
if she signed her name
if she signed her name – – no falsificationno falsification
Beradio
Beradio v. v. CA CA 19821982
Time records Time records
Lawyer was assigned as election registrar of COMELEC. Her Lawyer was assigned as election registrar of COMELEC. Her job was mostly field work. She was a
job was mostly field work. She was accused of falsifying herccused of falsifying her time records
time records – – timed in when she was really out attendingtimed in when she was really out attending sessions.
sessions.
Not guilty. Not guilty.
-- No strict obligation to keep andNo strict obligation to keep and submit time records
submit time records
-- Criminal intention is necessaryCriminal intention is necessary
Luague
Luague v. v. CA CA 19821982 Salary warrants, poor widow Salary warrants, poor widow
Wife signed and got the check for her husband. Wife signed and got the check for her husband.
Not guilty Not guilty
-- No criminal intentNo criminal intent
No intent = no deceiving No intent = no deceiving
The person who is ought to receive it (one The person who is ought to receive it (one that should’ve been deceived) is the one that should’ve been deceived) is the one who asked her to sign.
who asked her to sign. Cabigas v. People
Cabigas v. People
Securities custodian Securities custodian
Accused has devised his own routine procedure in preparing Accused has devised his own routine procedure in preparing treasury bills. There were discrepancies that appeared. treasury bills. There were discrepancies that appeared.
Par. 4 Par. 4
-- Making untruthful statement in narration of factsMaking untruthful statement in narration of facts There should be legal obligation to disclose
There should be legal obligation to disclose
People v. People v. Sandaydiego Sandaydiego 19781978 Vouchers Vouchers
Accused were charged of misappropriating government Accused were charged of misappropriating government funds allocated for projects
funds allocated for projects – – bridge, roads, etc.bridge, roads, etc.
If falsification was resorted to hide If falsification was resorted to hide malversation, both are separate malversation, both are separate crime and not complexed. crime and not complexed.
Sandaydiego merely relied on the Sandaydiego merely relied on the signatures of the others signatures of the others Signatures were real
Signatures were real – – there should be nothere should be no falsification
Siquian
Siquian v. v. People People 19891989
20 year old clerk 20 year old clerk
Mayor employed a girl for clerk position when no such Mayor employed a girl for clerk position when no such position exist on the budget.
position exist on the budget.
Guilty Guilty
-- Took advantage of positionTook advantage of position
Should have developed the “conclusion of Should have developed the “conclusion of law” statement
law” statement
Remove it from a question of fact and Remove it from a question of fact and elevate it to a question of law. elevate it to a question of law. -- Part of discretionary fundsPart of discretionary funds People
People v. v. Villalon Villalon 19901990 Attorney in fact Attorney in fact
Attorney was only authorized on half portion of the land.
Attorney was only authorized on half portion of the land. Action has prescribed.Action has prescribed.
Accused wrote something else which Accused wrote something else which made it appear as if he was given made it appear as if he was given authority
authority USE OF FALSIFIED
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTSDOCUMENTS
People
People v. v. Dava Dava 19911991
License License
Accused was involved in a vehicular accident. His license was Accused was involved in a vehicular accident. His license was confiscated. He procured a fake license but was caught confiscated. He procured a fake license but was caught driving. He presented his fake license when caught. driving. He presented his fake license when caught.
Guilty. Guilty.
He knew that he could not legally He knew that he could not legally have a license. have a license. USURPATION USURPATION People v. Cortez People v. Cortez BIR Agent BIR Agent
Accused presented an id (of another person) along with Accused presented an id (of another person) along with other BIR paper to inspect books and receipts (and later on other BIR paper to inspect books and receipts (and later on ask money) from victim.
ask money) from victim.
Guilty. Guilty.
Usurpation can be complexed with Usurpation can be complexed with other crimes. Falsification of public other crimes. Falsification of public document was employed to document was employed to perpetuate usurpation. perpetuate usurpation. Gigantoni v. People Gigantoni v. People CIS Agent CIS Agent
Accused represented himself as CIS agent of Phil Accused represented himself as CIS agent of Phil Constabulary investigating a kidnapping to the PAL legal Constabulary investigating a kidnapping to the PAL legal officer. He was an employee of BMMI and was actually officer. He was an employee of BMMI and was actually investigating the officials of the corp.
investigating the officials of the corp.
Not guilty. Not guilty.
He is really a CIS agent but was He is really a CIS agent but was merely suspended.
merely suspended. He was not notified of his He was not notified of his termination from office. termination from office. USING FICTITIOUS NAME
USING FICTITIOUS NAME
Legamia
Legamia v. v. IAC IAC 19841984
Live-in arrangement Live-in arrangement
Woman claims to be the wife and claims death benefits of Woman claims to be the wife and claims death benefits of dead ‘husband’. Husband is married to someone else but dead ‘husband’. Husband is married to someone else but they represented themselves as married couple for 19 years they represented themselves as married couple for 19 years and has a child.
and has a child.
Not guilty. Not guilty.
Not uncommon in Phil Society
Not uncommon in Phil Society Assumed role without sinister purposeAssumed role without sinister purpose
PERJURY PERJURY
Diaz
Diaz v. v. People People 19901990
Civil service commission, reappointment as school admin Civil service commission, reappointment as school admin assistant
assistant
Accused misrepresented himself to have graduated from Accused misrepresented himself to have graduated from Cosmopolitan and Harvardian college when in fact Cosmopolitan and Harvardian college when in fact he washe was not.
not.
Guilty.
Guilty. Why Why not not falsification?falsification?
-- Because of precedent: People v. CruzBecause of precedent: People v. Cruz
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Ouano v. CA Ouano v. CA
Auction Auction
Ouano and Echavez agreed that only the latter would bid and Ouano and Echavez agreed that only the latter would bid and if accepted they will divide the property. They also induce the if accepted they will divide the property. They also induce the other party to withdraw.
other party to withdraw.
Guilty. Guilty.
Agreement that one will refrain from taking part in auction and inducing another bidder Agreement that one will refrain from taking part in auction and inducing another bidder to not bid is considered machination in public auctions.
Title 6: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Title 6: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
GAMBLING GAMBLING Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes PD 1602
PD 1602 LOI 816 LOI 816
IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS
People v. Kottinger People v. Kottinger
Pictures of natives Pictures of natives
Accused owns Camera Supply co. Postcards Accused owns Camera Supply co. Postcards were confiscated for being obscene and were confiscated for being obscene and indecent.
indecent. – – portraying inhabitants in theirportraying inhabitants in their native dress native dress Not obscene/indecent. Not obscene/indecent. Test: Test:
Whether it will deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open Whether it will deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influence and into
to such immoral influence and into whose hands a publicationwhose hands a publication or article charged as obscene may fall
or article charged as obscene may fall
Whether it shocks the ordinary/common sense of men of Whether it shocks the ordinary/common sense of men of indecency
indecency
Standard of general morality allows context Standard of general morality allows context People v. Aparici
People v. Aparici
Hula-hula dance Hula-hula dance
Woman performs a dance wearing skimpy Woman performs a dance wearing skimpy clothes in a theater with male audience. clothes in a theater with male audience.
Guilty. Guilty.
-- Reaction of the publicReaction of the public during performance is during performance is the gauge
the gauge
There’s a degree of unreliability –
There’s a degree of unreliability – different reaction fromdifferent reaction from different people
different people People
People v. v. Padan Padan 19571957 Fighting fish, toroFighting fish, toro
Performance of actual sexual intercourse
Performance of actual sexual intercourse GuiltyGuilty
An actual exhibition of sexual act has no redeeming feature and An actual exhibition of sexual act has no redeeming feature and nothing in it but clear unmitigated obscenity
nothing in it but clear unmitigated obscenity VAGRANCY
VAGRANCY
Perez v. Perez v. Navarro-Domingo
Domingo vagrancy vagrancy
Art. 202 is unconstitutional which Art. 202 is unconstitutional which penalizes the act of loitering penalizes the act of loitering impinges on the individual’s right impinges on the individual’s right to locomotion and freedom of to locomotion and freedom of expression.
expression.
Bill of attainder Bill of attainder
-- Punish status not punish actsPunish status not punish acts
PD 1563 PD 1563 RA 9208 RA 9208
Title 7: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Title 7: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes BRIBERYAND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
BRIBERYAND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALSOFFICIALS
Manipon v. Sandiganbayan Manipon v. Sandiganbayan
Something for the new year Something for the new year
Dominguez was then mayor and was tasked Dominguez was then mayor and was tasked to execute the decision of labor arbiter. to execute the decision of labor arbiter. Manipon garnished the account of Manipon garnished the account of Dominguez but did not inform the arbiter Dominguez but did not inform the arbiter about it. M told D that he could remedy the about it. M told D that he could remedy the withdrawal so they could have something for withdrawal so they could have something for the new year.
the new year.
Direct Bribery. Direct Bribery.
Promise of public officer to Promise of public officer to perform act or to refrain from perform act or to refrain from doing it may be expressed or doing it may be expressed or implied.
implied.
Novation: Novation: Original
Original – – pursuant to the judgment of labor arbiterpursuant to the judgment of labor arbiter Novated
Novated – – C/D agreed to pay/receive less amountC/D agreed to pay/receive less amount
Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan
Tax clearance, Rizal café Tax clearance, Rizal café
Dacumas, revenue examiner, offered to Dacumas, revenue examiner, offered to settle tax liability of Revilla by pulling out its settle tax liability of Revilla by pulling out its assessment papers from office of BIR and assessment papers from office of BIR and procuring tax clearance.
procuring tax clearance.
Direct Bribery. Direct Bribery.
Implausibility of public official’s Implausibility of public official’s promise does not mean that promise does not mean that they are not made. they are not made. GRAFT AND CORRUPTION
GRAFT AND CORRUPTION
Almeda v. Perez Almeda v. Perez
Assistant Director of NBI Assistant Director of NBI
Almeda was accused of having unexplained Almeda was accused of having unexplained wealth as his acquisitions were m
wealth as his acquisitions were m anifestlyanifestly out of proportion to his income.
out of proportion to his income. Issue is WON petition may be amended Issue is WON petition may be amended without consent of Almeda.
without consent of Almeda.
RA 1379. RA 1379.
Yes. It is CIVIL in nature. Yes. It is CIVIL in nature.
-- Proceeding ends inProceeding ends in forfeiture not a penalty forfeiture not a penalty -- Different proceedingDifferent proceeding
from that of CRIMPRO from that of CRIMPRO
BASIS: rule on criminal procedures BASIS: rule on criminal procedures CIVIL: petition > answer
CIVIL: petition > answer
CRIMINAL: Preliminary Investigation > reading > plea CRIMINAL: Preliminary Investigation > reading > plea >>
trial > judgment trial > judgment
RA 1379 did not specify what process will be followed RA 1379 did not specify what process will be followed
Cabal v. Kapunan Cabal v. Kapunan
Chief of Staff of AFP Chief of Staff of AFP
Cabal was accused of having unexplained Cabal was accused of having unexplained wealth. He was asked to take the witness wealth. He was asked to take the witness stand for the other party. He refused. Fiscal stand for the other party. He refused. Fiscal charged with contempt.
charged with contempt.
Civil in procedure. Civil in procedure.
Criminal in substance and effect. Criminal in substance and effect.
Why differentiate? Why differentiate?
The prohibition against self-incrimination also applies to The prohibition against self-incrimination also applies to civil proceedings. The constitution does not qualify. civil proceedings. The constitution does not qualify. Right against self incrimination:
Right against self incrimination: 1.
1. Refuse to answer questionRefuse to answer question 2.
2. Be called as a witnessBe called as a witness
Both apply to criminal. Only No. 1 is applicable to civil. Both apply to criminal. Only No. 1 is applicable to civil. Quantum of proof required:
Quantum of proof required: Civil
Civil – – preponderancepreponderance Criminal
Criminal – – beyond reasonable doubtbeyond reasonable doubt
Rule on evidence: not just procedural but also substantive Rule on evidence: not just procedural but also substantive
Republic v. CA Republic v. CA
Civil engineer, Bureau of public highways Civil engineer, Bureau of public highways
Accused of having unexplained wealth; complaint include
Accused of having unexplained wealth; complaint include d wife and father.d wife and father. Respondent presented evidence that the
Respondent presented evidence that the properties came from donations andproperties came from donations and loans from GSIS, DBP, parent in law,
loans from GSIS, DBP, parent in law, and Cong. Durano.and Cong. Durano.
Not Guilty. Not Guilty. SALN
Morfe v. Mutuc Morfe v. Mutuc
Constitutionality of RA 3019 Constitutionality of RA 3019
1.
1. Exceed permissible police powerExceed permissible police power 2.
2. Due processDue process 3.
3. Right to privacy (search&seizure)Right to privacy (search&seizure)
Statutory provisions requiring Statutory provisions requiring public officials to periodically public officials to periodically submit sworn SAL are part of submit sworn SAL are part of police power of state and are not police power of state and are not an invasion of private liberty an invasion of private liberty protected by DPC.
protected by DPC.
Is it an encroachment to privacy? Is it an encroachment to privacy?
Yes, but it is part. Yes, but it is part.
No other practicable way to prohibit/ensure that public No other practicable way to prohibit/ensure that public officials won’t steal.
officials won’t steal.
Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan
Assistant principal of a HS Assistant principal of a HS
Jaravata proposed to 6 teachers that he Jaravata proposed to 6 teachers that he would follow up their salary differentials would follow up their salary differentials provided that they would reimburse his provided that they would reimburse his expenses. However, what he took from the expenses. However, what he took from the teachers exceed the expenses he incurred. teachers exceed the expenses he incurred.
Not guilty. Not guilty.
Intervention in salary differential Intervention in salary differential is NOT one of the obligations or is NOT one of the obligations or responsibilities of his position. responsibilities of his position.
Trieste v. Sandiganbayan Trieste v. Sandiganbayan
Vouchers, mayor Vouchers, mayor
Trieste was charged with 12 violation of RA Trieste was charged with 12 violation of RA 3019 in relation to the 12 vouchers he signed 3019 in relation to the 12 vouchers he signed as mayor.
as mayor.
Not guilty. Not guilty.
There must be DIRECT PARTICIPATION or intervention on the part of the public official and in the There must be DIRECT PARTICIPATION or intervention on the part of the public official and in the use of such power becomes influential in the acts made by him
use of such power becomes influential in the acts made by him
Mejorada v. Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan
Road widening, right of way agent Road widening, right of way agent Mejorada contacted the owners of the land Mejorada contacted the owners of the land which will be affected by the road widening which will be affected by the road widening project. He made them sign a blank paper. project. He made them sign a blank paper. The value received by the owners is lower The value received by the owners is lower than that written on the “agreement”. than that written on the “agreement”.
Guilty. Guilty.
Elements of RA 3019 Sec.3(e) Elements of RA 3019 Sec.3(e)
1.
1. Public officer charged with duty of Public officer charged with duty of grantinggranting licenses/permits
licenses/permits 2.
2. He caused undue injury to any party or gaveHe caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefit
unwarranted benefit 3.
3. Injury/unwarranted benefit was done with manifestInjury/unwarranted benefit was done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. negligence. PLUNDER PLUNDER Estrada v. Sandiganbayan Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Perjury is a crime mala in se. Criminal intent must be proved. Perjury is a crime mala in se. Criminal intent must be proved. There’s no need to prove each and every act of p
There’s no need to prove each and every act of p lunder. All that needs to be proven is a pattern of acts that constitute plunder.lunder. All that needs to be proven is a pattern of acts that constitute plunder. Combination
Combination – – at least 2 acts from different categoriesat least 2 acts from different categories Series
Series – – at least 2 acts from the same categoryat least 2 acts from the same category MALVERSATION MALVERSATION Labatagos v. Labatagos v. Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan
Cashier, leave of absence(maternity leave) Cashier, leave of absence(maternity leave) Labatagos was the cashier and collecting Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of Mindanao State Univ. There were officer of Mindanao State Univ. There were discrepancies in the remittances. The money discrepancies in the remittances. The money was used for tuition privileges, uniforms, was used for tuition privileges, uniforms, basketball balls.
basketball balls.
Malversation of public funds Malversation of public funds
-- Not only in misapp orNot only in misapp or converting public funds to converting public funds to one’s personal use but also one’s personal use but also knowingly allowing others to knowingly allowing others to make use/misapp them make use/misapp them
Public funds can only be disbursed with proper Public funds can only be disbursed with proper authorization
authorization
Generally, it is the head of the department. Generally, it is the head of the department. Usually, a different person other than the custodian. Usually, a different person other than the custodian.
Estepa v. Sandiganbayan Estepa v. Sandiganbayan
Brownout, paymasters Brownout, paymasters
Paymaster lost 50,000 because of his Paymaster lost 50,000 because of his negligence.
negligence.
Malversation through negligence Malversation through negligence -- There is prima facie evidenceThere is prima facie evidence
where accountable officer where accountable officer fails to account for public fails to account for public funds entrusted to him upon funds entrusted to him upon demand of a duly authorized demand of a duly authorized officer
officer
A.217 can be committed intentionally or through A.217 can be committed intentionally or through negligence negligence Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan Postmaster Postmaster
Ilogon granted cash advancements to Ilogon granted cash advancements to employees which result to a shortage in his employees which result to a shortage in his account.
account.
Guilty. Guilty.
-- No need for direct evidenceNo need for direct evidence of personal misapp as long as of personal misapp as long as there is shortage in his there is shortage in his account and he cannot account and he cannot satisfactorily explain it satisfactorily explain it
In malversation, what is punished is the breach of trust, In malversation, what is punished is the breach of trust, not so much the damage caused
not so much the damage caused
Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan
Earth moving business Earth moving business
Azarcon was tasked to keep the properties of Azarcon was tasked to keep the properties of a delinquent taxpayer. He failed to do so as a delinquent taxpayer. He failed to do so as the delinquent taxpayer was able to get the the delinquent taxpayer was able to get the property from him.
property from him.
He is not a public officer. He is not a public officer.
-- P.O. does not only performP.O. does not only perform public duties but he should public duties but he should have authority in performing have authority in performing such functions granted by such functions granted by law, election or competent law, election or competent authority
authority
Power to make a person a depository cannot be stretched Power to make a person a depository cannot be stretched to include power to appoint him as public officer to include power to appoint him as public officer
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERSPRISONERS Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan
Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan
Assisting a female prisoner Assisting a female prisoner
Rodillas was tasked to escort a female Rodillas was tasked to escort a female prisoner. Latter was able to escape. prisoner. Latter was able to escape.
Guilty Guilty
Title 8: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Title 8: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes PARRICIDE
PARRICIDE People v. Jumawan
People v. Jumawan Husband was killed by relatives of wife. WifeHusband was killed by relatives of wife. Wife wanted to be separated from husband wanted to be separated from husband
Murder. Murder.
Relationship should be alleged in the information for the accused to be convicted for Relationship should be alleged in the information for the accused to be convicted for parricide.
parricide.
People v. Tomotorgo People v. Tomotorgo
Wife wanted to sell conjugal home. One day, Wife wanted to sell conjugal home. One day, when husband returned home, his wife was when husband returned home, his wife was gone. He followed his wife and caught up gone. He followed his wife and caught up with her. Wife throws the baby on the grass, with her. Wife throws the baby on the grass, husband got mad and hit wife with a stick husband got mad and hit wife with a stick
The fact that one only intended The fact that one only intended to maltreat his wife does not to maltreat his wife does not exempt him from the liability of exempt him from the liability of killing her.
killing her. DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLCITED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCESINFLCITED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
People v. Abarca People v. Abarca
Wife had an affair with another man Wife had an affair with another man whilewhile husband was reviewing for bar exams. One husband was reviewing for bar exams. One day, husband caught wife with her other day, husband caught wife with her other man. He left the house and went to a PC man. He left the house and went to a PC soldier to get a gun.
soldier to get a gun. He looked for the wife’sHe looked for the wife’s paramour and killed him.
paramour and killed him.
Article applies. Article applies.
RPC doesn’t require the killing be RPC doesn’t require the killing be instantly after witnessing the instantly after witnessing the infidelity but only requires that infidelity but only requires that the killing be the direct result of the killing be the direct result of husband’s outrage in witnessing husband’s outrage in witnessing infidelity.
infidelity. MURDER AND HOMICIDE
MURDER AND HOMICIDE
People v. Buensuceso People v. Buensuceso
Fan knife, police department Fan knife, police department
Victim was invited to the police dept because Victim was invited to the police dept because he refuses to surrender his fan knife. A he refuses to surrender his fan knife. A heated argument ensued which led to the heated argument ensued which led to the killing of the victim.
killing of the victim.
Murder. Murder.
Killing is qualified by treachery. Killing is qualified by treachery. Deceased was already retreating Deceased was already retreating backwards when he was shot backwards when he was shot and was subjected to successive and was subjected to successive shots after.
shots after. – – FIRED WHENFIRED WHEN ALREADY SHOT
ALREADY SHOT
Medical report did not identify which wound killed the Medical report did not identify which wound killed the victim. The person who shot the fatal wound was victim. The person who shot the fatal wound was unknown.
unknown.
Victim died as a result of wounds received from several Victim died as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other.
persons acting independently of each other. – – ALL AREALL ARE LIABLE.
LIABLE.
There is poor ballistic evidence. It is easy to determine There is poor ballistic evidence. It is easy to determine who fired. We already have the technology for it. who fired. We already have the technology for it.
People v. Pugay People v. Pugay
Human torch, retardate Human torch, retardate Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda. Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda. Samson set Miranda on fire. Samson set Miranda on fire.
Pugay Pugay ::
Homicide thru reckless Homicide thru reckless imprudence imprudence Samson Samson:: Homicide Homicide
H thru RI: you should not pour gasoline on a person H thru RI: you should not pour gasoline on a person because of the likelihood that he will be injured because of the likelihood that he will be injured -- But is pouring of gasoline a lawful act/But is pouring of gasoline a lawful act/
Q.C . of fire: cannot be appreciated if not intentionally Q.C . of fire: cannot be appreciated if not intentionally used
used
“great waste” –
“great waste” – even if only 1 person, arguableeven if only 1 person, arguable UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
People v. Salufrania
People v. Salufrania Boxing stomach of pregnant womanBoxing stomach of pregnant woman
Complex crime of parricide with Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion unintentional abortion
-- Merely intended to killMerely intended to kill victim but not to cause victim but not to cause abortion
abortion
Inquiry should be: what purpose Inquiry should be: what purpose -- Kill mother?Kill mother?
HAZING HAZING RA 8049 RA 8049 RAPE RAPE People v. Orita
People v. Orita Boarding houseBoarding house
Only small part of his penis was inserted. Only small part of his penis was inserted.
Consummated rape Consummated rape
-- No crime of frustrated rape.No crime of frustrated rape. -- Perfect penetration is notPerfect penetration is not
necessary to consummate necessary to consummate rape.
rape. People v. Mangalino
People v. Mangalino Takbuhan, 6 yrs old Takbuhan, 6 yrs old
Accused raped the girl and gave her 2 pesos. Accused raped the girl and gave her 2 pesos.
Statutory rape: Statutory rape:
Proof of intimidation or force is Proof of intimidation or force is immaterial.
immaterial.
People v. Balbuena
People v. Balbuena Tomboy Tomboy GuiltyGuilty
An exception to the general framework of rape cases An exception to the general framework of rape cases – – not the typical complainant
not the typical complainant – – worked for her that she is aworked for her that she is a tomboy
tomboy
“not exactly ugly” “not exactly ugly”
Proof: looks like a man, dresses like a man, drinks with Proof: looks like a man, dresses like a man, drinks with men
men
Typical rape: Barrio lass doctrine Typical rape: Barrio lass doctrine People v. Castro
People v. Castro
First cousi
First cousi n, 6 yrs old, ‘nasabit sa hiyero’ n, 6 yrs old, ‘nasabit sa hiyero’ Defense: chased by dog, envy of the lola to Defense: chased by dog, envy of the lola to the scholastic records
the scholastic records
Guilty Guilty People v. Atento
People v. Atento Mentally retardate, ‘masarap’ Mentally retardate, ‘masarap’ 16 years old, mental age of 9 to 12
16 years old, mental age of 9 to 12 GuiltyGuilty
Determining factor: lack of reason Determining factor: lack of reason
If 30, mental age of 16, consensual: not rape If 30, mental age of 16, consensual: not rape
People v. Campuhan People v. Campuhan
“ayoko, ayoko” “ayoko, ayoko”
Accused was helper of the uncle of the Accused was helper of the uncle of the victim. While the mother was preparing Milo, victim. While the mother was preparing Milo, she heard her daughter cry, “ayoko, ayoko”. she heard her daughter cry, “ayoko, ayoko”. She rushed to the bedroom and found the She rushed to the bedroom and found the accused on top of the child.
accused on top of the child.
Attempted Rape Attempted Rape
-- Should be touching with intent of penetrationShould be touching with intent of penetration -- Mother is not in the position to seeMother is not in the position to see
-- No evidenceNo evidence
Child denies penetration: kept her legs crossed Child denies penetration: kept her legs crossed People v. Gallo
People v. Gallo Qualified rapeQualified rape
Accused was the father of the victim. Accused was the father of the victim.
Not qualified. Not qualified.
-- Relationship, to be appreciated as Q.C., should be alleged in the informationRelationship, to be appreciated as Q.C., should be alleged in the information Cannot be appreciated even if proven during the trial
Cannot be appreciated even if proven during the trial People v. Berana
People v. Berana Buntot pageBuntot page
Berana raped his sister in law. Berana raped his sister in law.
Not qualified. Not qualified.
-- Prosecution failed to adduce proof of the relationshipProsecution failed to adduce proof of the relationship
-- Should’ve presented evidence to establish the marriage of accused with the sister of victimShould’ve presented evidence to establish the marriage of accused with the sister of victim More stringent proof is necessary like marriage contract, etc.
Title 9: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Title 9: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Title
Title Year Year Facts Facts / / Tags Tags Held/Ratio Held/Ratio Sir's Sir's NotesNotes KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION
KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION
People
People v. v. Tomio Tomio 19911991
Japanese Buddhist priest held and kept by Japanese Buddhist priest held and kept by the accused in their company until money the accused in their company until money they advanced were paid to them. they advanced were paid to them.
Circumstances taken together - foreigner, no money, passport Circumstances taken together - foreigner, no money, passport being held, constant fear of being re-arrested - enough to create being held, constant fear of being re-arrested - enough to create fear which restrained him from doing the things he wanted to fear which restrained him from doing the things he wanted to do | Any payment that releases one from captivity is a ransom do | Any payment that releases one from captivity is a ransom
Deprivation of liberty need not be Deprivation of liberty need not be physical
physical
People
People v. v. Mercado Mercado 19841984
Accused held at knife point sister of his Accused held at knife point sister of his common law wife, for the purpose of common law wife, for the purpose of producing the latter.
producing the latter.
Not grave coercion since the intent of accused was to deprive Not grave coercion since the intent of accused was to deprive liberty, with specific purpose of producing his common law wife liberty, with specific purpose of producing his common law wife
Means employed may be basis for Means employed may be basis for determining whether there is determining whether there is deprivation of liberty or coercion. deprivation of liberty or coercion.
People
People v. v. Del Del Socorro Socorro 19901990
Accused took from Mandaluyong and Accused took from Mandaluyong and brought to Antipolo a child to be adopted, brought to Antipolo a child to be adopted, for consideration of P700. Contends for consideration of P700. Contends afterwards that child was brought there only afterwards that child was brought there only for safekeeping.
for safekeeping.
There is kidnapping. There were a number of other t There is kidnapping. There were a number of other t hingshings accused could have done instead of bringing the child to accused could have done instead of bringing the child to Antipolo if the child's welfare was the primary concern. Antipolo if the child's welfare was the primary concern.
Known within the area that the Known within the area that the person to whom the child was person to whom the child was brought wanted to adopt. brought wanted to adopt.
People
People v. v. Lim Lim 19901990
Aida and Avelyn taken in by Mameng Lim in Aida and Avelyn taken in by Mameng Lim in her store. When found by her father 2 weeks her store. When found by her father 2 weeks later, no tearful reunion.
later, no tearful reunion.
NO kidnapping. There was no detention, Aida was free to come NO kidnapping. There was no detention, Aida was free to come and go as she pleased. No motive for detention. That accused and go as she pleased. No motive for detention. That accused was only a good
was only a good samaritan shownsamaritan shown "Tearful reunion doctrine""Tearful reunion doctrine"
People
People v. v. Padica Padica 19931993
Victim killed prior to the making of any Victim killed prior to the making of any demand for ransom. TC found him guilty of demand for ransom. TC found him guilty of kidnapping for ransom with murder. kidnapping for ransom with murder.
NO kidnapping, only murder. The detention of the victim was NO kidnapping, only murder. The detention of the victim was incidental, the intent being only to kill him. That ransom was incidental, the intent being only to kill him. That ransom was demanded does not make the crime one of kidnapping, demanded does not make the crime one of kidnapping, particularly as it was a mere afterthought.
particularly as it was a mere afterthought.
To: kidnapper, don't pick up the To: kidnapper, don't pick up the ransom yourself.
ransom yourself.
People
People v. v. Ramos Ramos 19981998
Victim taken from EDSA to Blueridge to Victim taken from EDSA to Blueridge to Glori's to Bulacan. Ransom was paid. V Glori's to Bulacan. Ransom was paid. V ictimictim eventually shot by accused for her last eventually shot by accused for her last attempt at escape.
attempt at escape.
Prior to RA 7659, complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with Prior to RA 7659, complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder may be charged only if kidnapping was used as a means murder may be charged only if kidnapping was used as a means to commit the murder. If murder only took place on the to commit the murder. If murder only took place on the occasion of kidnapping, they would be charged seprarately. RA occasion of kidnapping, they would be charged seprarately. RA 7659 removed the distinction. Complex crime of kidnapping for 7659 removed the distinction. Complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder could be charged in either situation. ransom with murder could be charged in either situation.
Regardless of purpose, Regardless of purpose, automatically complex crime of automatically complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with kidnapping for ransom with murder
murder
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINORMINOR
People
People v. v. Ty Ty 19961996
Parents left child with clinic. The Parents left child with clinic. The clinicclinic faciliated several adoptions. Child sought to faciliated several adoptions. Child sought to be retrieved in the custody of another. be retrieved in the custody of another. Owner of clinic found guilty under A. 270. Owner of clinic found guilty under A. 270.
For conviction under A. 270, it is required that there is For conviction under A. 270, it is required that there is deliberate refusal to deliver a minor to his guardians. The child deliberate refusal to deliver a minor to his guardians. The child here has not been sufficiently identified as the one which has here has not been sufficiently identified as the one which has been left by the claimants at the clinic. Without being identified, been left by the claimants at the clinic. Without being identified, it cannot be said that claimants had a right to the custody of the it cannot be said that claimants had a right to the custody of the child.
child.
There should be a refusal to There should be a refusal to surrender the RIGHT child. surrender the RIGHT child.
