Crim

CRIMINAL LAW II | CASE DIGESTS
TITLE ONE – CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL effectuate, if possible, the beneficient purpose
SECURITY AND LAW OF NATIONS intended. Certainly a limitation of the words in
question to their literal and technical signification
would utterly defeat the unmistakable general object
November 24, 2017 - Article 114 - TREASON
of the amnesty. Upon such a construction treason, the
BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A.
highest of all political crimes, a crime which may be
punished by death under section 1 of Act No. 292,
US v. ABAD
would be included in the amnesty, while insurrection,
G.R. No. L-976. October 22, 1902
which is a crime of precisely the same nature and
LADD, J.:
differs from it solely in being inferior in degree and
punishable by fine and imprisonment only, would be
ISSUE:
excluded. A construction leading to such manifest
Whether or not the charge of “treason and sedition”
inconsistencies could be accepted only when the
was proper.
language admitted of no other. We think the
construction suggested as the true one though
FACTS:
somewhat less restricted that the precise legal
The offense with which the defendant was charged and
signification of the terms "treason" and "sedition"
of which he has been convicted is that defined in
might warrant, may be adopted without doing violence
section 14 of Act No. 292 of the United States
to the language of the proclamation, and there is no
Philippine Commission, which is as follows: "Any
room for doubt in our minds that by adopting that
person who shall have taken any oath before any
construction we carry out the real intention of the
military officer under the Civil Government of the
President.
Philippine Islands, whether such official so
The Court ruled that the offense of violation of oaths
administering the oath was specially authorized by law
of allegiance, being one of the political offenses
so to do or not, in which oath the affiant is substance
defined in Act No. 292, is included in the general words
engaged to recognize or accept the supreme authority
"treason and sedition," as used in the proclamation.
of the United States of America in these Islands or to
The defendant is entitled to the benefits of the
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto or to obey
proclamation.
the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by its
duly constituted authorities and who shall, after the
LAUREL v. MISA
passage of this act, violate the terms and provisions of
G.R. No. L-409. January 30, 1947
such oath or any of such terms or provisions, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars
ISSUE:
or by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both."
Whether or not respondent should be prosecuted for
the crime of Treason penalized under Art. 114 of the
In the present case the act by which the defendant is
RPC.
found by the court below to have violated the oath was
that of denying to an officer of the United States Army
FACTS:
the existence of certain rifles, which had been
Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus
concealed by his orders at the time of his surrender in
which was based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who
April, 1901, and of the existence and whereabouts of
adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort
which he was cognizant at the time of the denial. If this
during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted
act was a violation of the oath, which upon the
for the crime of treason defined and penalized by
evidence in the case may be doubtful, it was probably
article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason
also an act of treason, as being an act of adhering to
that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in
the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and
the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative
comfort, and if the element of breach of promise is to
allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then
be regarded as merely an incidental circumstance
suspended.
forming no part of the essence of the crime of violation
of oaths of allegiance, the offense in this particular case
HELD:
might, perhaps, be held to be covered by the amnesty
YES. The idea of suspended sovereignty or suspended
as being, in substance, treason though prosecuted
allegiance is incompatible with our Constitution. There
under another name.
is similarity in characteristics between allegiance to the
sovereign and a wife's loyalty to her husband. Because
HELD:
some external and insurmountable force precludes the
YES. Treason, in its more general sense, is the "violation
husband from exercising his marital powers, functions,
by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or liege
and duties and the wife is thereby deprived of the
lord, or to the supreme authority of the state." Sedition,
benefits of his protection, may the wife invoke the
in its more general sense, is "the raising of commotion
theory of suspended loyalty and may she freely share
or disturbances in the state." Technical terms of the law
her bed with the assailant of their home? After giving
when used in a statute are ordinarily to be given their
aid and comfort to the assailant and allowing him to
technical signification. But in construing an executive
enjoy her charms during the former's stay in the
act of the character of this proclamation, as in
invaded home, may the wife allege as defense for her
construing a remedial statute, a court is justified in
adultery the principle of suspended conjugal fidelity?
applying a more liberal rule of construction in order to
1 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

Considering that the crime of treason against the reception organized by the Puppet Governor in honor
government of the Philippines defined and penalized of Colonel Mini and other Japanese high ranking
in article 114 of the Penal Code, though originally officers; that upon being brought the Puppet
intended to be a crime against said government as Governor, they were severely reprimanded by the
then organized by authority of the sovereign people of latter; that on July 8, 1942, against said nurses were
the United States, exercised through their authorized forced to attend another banquet and dance in order
representative, the Congress and the President of the that the Jap officers Mini and Takibayas might make a
United States, was made, upon the establishment of selection which girls would suit best their fancy; that
the Commonwealth Government in 1935, a crime the real purpose behind those forcible invitations was
against the Government of the Philippines established to lure them to the residence of said Japanese Officer
by authority of the people of the Philippines, in whom Mini for immoral purposes.
the sovereignty resides according to section 1, Article
II, of the Constitution of the Philippines, by virtue of the HELD:
provision of section 2, Article XVI thereof, which NO, the charge was not proper. The SC ruled that the
provides that "All laws of the Philippine Islands . . . shall deeds committed by the accused do not constitute
remain operative, unless inconsistent with this treason. If furnishing women for immoral purposes to
Constitution. the enemies was treason because women's company
kept up their morale, so fraternizing with them,
PEOPLE v. PEREZ entertaining them at parties, selling them food and
G.R. No. L-856. April 18, 1949 drinks, and kindred acts, would be treason. For any act
TUASON, J.: of hospitality without doubt produces the same
general result, yet by common agreement those and
ISSUE: similar manifestation of sympathy and attachment are
Whether or not the charge of Treason was proper. not the kind of disloyalty that are punished as treason.
FACTS: In a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe

Susano Perez alias Kid Perez alias Kid Perez was all kinds of social, business and political intercourse
convicted of treason and sentenced to death by between the belligerent occupants of the invaded
electrocution. Seven counts were alleged in the country and its inhabitants. In the nature of things, the
information but the prosecution offered evidence only occupation of a country by the enemy is bound to
on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, all of which, according to the create relations of all sorts between the invaders and
court, were substantiated. the natives. What aid and comfort constitute treason
must depend upon their nature degree and purpose.
Count No. 1 alleges that the accused, together with the To draw a line between treasonable and untreasonable
other Filipinos forced numerous girls and women assistance is not always easy.
against their will for the purpose of satisfying the
immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini. As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid
and comfort given to the enemies must be to render
Count No. 2 of the information substantially alleges: assistance to them as enemies and not merely as
That accused in company with some Japanese and individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance
Filipinos forcefully took some women to attend a of the enemies' hostile designs. To make a simple
banquet and a dance organized in honor of Colonel distinction: To lend or give money to an enemy as a
Mini by the Puppet Governor and thereafter be used as friend or out of charity to the beneficiary so that he
sex slaves by the Colonel. may buy personal necessities is to assist him as
Count No. 4 substantially alleges that on July 16, 1942, individual and is not technically traitorous. On the
that two girls were taken from their homes by the other hand, to lend or give him money to enable him
accused and his companion named Vicente Bullecer, to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war
and delivered to the Japanese Officer, Dr. Takibayas to against the giver's country enhance his strength and by
satisfy his carnal appetite, but these two, the accused same count injures the interest of the government of
Susano Perez and his companion Vicente Bullecer, the giver. That is treason.
raped the girls before delivering them to the Japanese Applying these principles to the case at bar, appellant's
Officer. first assignment of error is correct. His
"commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust of
Count No. 5 alleges: That on or about June 4, 1942, the Japanese officers or men or to enliven the
said accused deceived two women on the pretext that entertainment held in their honor was not treason even
they were to be taken as witnesses before a Japanese though the women and the entertainment helped to
Colonel in the investigation of a case against a certain make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost
Chinese, but upon arriving at the Colonel’s office, their spirit; he was not guilty any more than the women
through force and intimidation, the two women were themselves would have been if they voluntarily and
raped by the accused and some Japanese Officials. willingly had surrendered their bodies or organized the
entertainment. Sexual and social relations with the
Count No. 6, alleges: That the accused, together with Japanese did not directly and materially tend to
his Filipino companion two nurses of the provincial improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of
hospital, for not having attended a dance and the United State. The acts herein charged were not, by

fair implication, calculated to strengthen the Japanese Yes. It is contended that the acceptance or possession
Empire or its army or to cripple the defense and of an appointment as an officer of the military forces
resistance of the other side. Whatever favorable effect of the conspiracy should not be considered as
the defendant's collaboration with the Japanese might evidence against him. But the case at bar is to be
have in their prosecution of the war was trivial, distinguished from these and like cases by the fact that
imperceptible, and unintentional. Intent of disloyalty is the record clearly disclose that the accused actually
a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which, in the and voluntarily accepted the appointment in question
absence of admission, may be gathered from the and in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by
nature and circumstances of each particular case. such acceptance, and that the charge in this case is that
of conspiracy, and the fact that the accused accepted
November 25, 2017 – Article 115 – CONSPIRACY the appointment is taken into consideration merely as
AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON evidence of his criminal relations with the conspirators.
UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
It is quite conceivable that a group of conspirators
US VS. BAUTISTA, ET AL. might appoint a person in no wise connected with
6 PHIL. 581 NOVEMBER 3, 1906 them to some high office in the conspiracy, in the hope
CARSON, J.: that such person would afterwards accept the
commission and thus unite himself with them, and it is
ISSUE: even possible that such an appointment might be
Whether or not there was conspiracy and proposal to forwarded in the mail or otherwise, and thus come into
commit treason. the possession of the person thus nominated, and that
such appointment might be found in his possession,
FACTS: and, notwithstanding all this, the person in whose
During the latter part of 1903, a junta was organized possession the appointment was found might be
and a conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos, entirely innocent of all intention to join the conspiracy,
resident in Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing never having authorized the conspirators to use his
the Government of the United States in the Philippine name in this manner nor to send such a commission to
Islands by force of arms and establishing in its stead a him. Indeed, cases are not unknown in the annals of
government to be known as the Republica Universal criminal prosecutions wherein it has been proven that
Democratica Filipina. Prim Ruiz was recognized as the such appointments have been concealed in the
titular head of this conspiracy and one Artemio Ricarte baggage or among the papers of the accused persons,
as chief of the military forces to the organized in the so that when later discovered by the officers of the law
Philippines in the furtherance of the plans of the they might be used as evidence against the accused.
conspirators. The appellant Francisco Bautistam was an But where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have
intimate friend of the said Ricarte; that Ricarte wrote existed as in this case, and it is proven that the accused
and notified Bautista of his coming to Manila and that, voluntarily accepted an appointment as an officer in
to aid him in his journey, Bautista forwarded to him that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly be
secretly 200 pesos; that after the arrival of Ricarte, taken into consideration as evidence of his relations
Bautista was present, taking part in the meetings with the conspirators.
whereat the plans of the conspirators were discussed
and perfected, and that at one of these meetings JOSE JINGGOY E. ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Bautista, in answer to a question of Ricarte, assured G.R. NO. 148965 FEBRUARY 26, 2002
him that the necessary preparations had been made PUNO, J.:
and that he "held the people in readiness." The
appellant Tomas Puzon united with the conspirators ISSUE:
through the agency of one Jose R. Muñoz, who was Whether or not the charge against petitioner for
proven to have been a prime leader of the movement, alleged offenses, and with alleged conspirators, is
in the intimate confidence of Ricarte, and by him proper.
authorized to distribute bonds and nominate and
appoint certain officials, including a brigadier-general FACTS:
of the signal corps of the proposed revolutionary In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment
forces; that at the time when the conspiracy was being proceedings against Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then
brought to a head in the city of Manila, Puzon held President of the Republic of the Philippines, five
several conferences with the said Muñoz whereat plans criminal complaints against the former President and
were made for the coming insurrection; that at one of members of his family, his associates, friends and
these conferences Muñoz offered Puzon a commission conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of
as brigadier-general of the signal corps and undertook the Ombudsman. The respondent Ombudsman issued
to do his part in organizing the troops; and that at a a Joint Resolution finding probable cause warranting
later conference he assured the said Muñoz that he the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal
had things in readiness, meaning thereby that he had Informations against the former President and the
duly organized in accordance with the terms of his other respondents therein. One of the Informations
commission. was for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No.
7080 and among the respondents was herein
HELD:

petitioner Jose Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor of San penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other
Juan, Metro Manila. accused with the former President as related in the
second paragraph of the Amended Information in
HELD: relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). We hold that
Yes, but only to those acts which were allegedly done petitioner can be held accountable only for the
in conspiracy with the former President Joseph Estrada. predicate acts he allegedly committed as related in
sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information which
The Amended Information, in its first two paragraphs, were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former
charges petitioner and his other co-accused with the President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth
crime of plunder. The first paragraph names all the amounting to more than P4 billion.
accused, while the second paragraph describes in
general how plunder was committed and lays down In the crime of plunder, different parties may be united
most of the elements of the crime itself. Sub- by a common purpose. In the case at bar, the different
paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate accused and their different criminal acts have a
acts that constitute the crime and name in particular commonality to help the former President amass,
the co-conspirators of former President Estrada in each accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-
predicate act. The predicate acts alleged in the said paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information
four sub-paragraphs correspond to the items alleged the different participation of each accused in
enumerated in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub- the conspiracy. The gravamen of the conspiracy
paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on charge, therefore, is not that each accused agreed to
several instances, money from illegal gambling, in receive protection money from illegal gambling, that
consideration of toleration or protection of illegal each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise
gambling, and expressly names petitioner as one of tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to
those who conspired with former President Estrada in purchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive
committing the offense. This predicate act corresponds commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly
with the offense described in item 2 of the enriched himself from commissions, gifts and
enumeration in Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080. Sub- kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their
paragraph (b) alleged the predicate act of diverting, individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or
receiving or misappropriating a portion of the tobacco indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and
excise tax share allocated for the province of Ilocos Sur, acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former
which act is the offense described in item 1 in the President Estrada.
enumeration in Section 1 (d) of the law. This sub-
paragraph does not mention petitioner but instead
names other conspirators of the former President. Sub- November 26, 2017 – Article 116 – MISPRISION OF
paragraph (c) alleged two predicate acts - that of TREASON
ordering the Government Service Insurance System FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
(GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS) to purchase
shares of stock of Belle Corporation, and collecting or US VS CABALLEROS ET AL
receiving commissions from such purchase from the 4 Phil 350 (1905)
Belle Corporation which became part of the deposit in
the Jose Velarde account at the Equitable-PCI Bank. ISSUE:
These two predicate acts fall under items 2 and 3 in the Whether or not there was Misprision of Treason.
enumeration of R.A. No. 7080, and was allegedly
committed by the former President in connivance with FACTS:
John Does and Jane Does. Finally, sub-paragraph (d) Two accused were sentenced to the penalty of seven
alleged the predicate act that the former President years of presidio mayor as accessories to the crime of
unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts, assassination or murder of four American school-
kickbacks, in connivance with John Does and Jane teachers. Without having taken part in the said crime
Does, and deposited the same under his account name as principals or as accomplices but they took part in
Jose Velarde at the Equitable-PCI Bank. This act the burial of the corpses of the victims to conceal the
corresponds to the offense under item 6 in the crime.
enumeration of Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080.
HELD:
From the foregoing allegations of the Amended No, the Supreme Court did not justify the evidence.
Information, it is clear that all the accused named in
sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), thru their individual acts, As regards to accused Baculi, although he confessed to
conspired with former President Estrada to enable the have assisted in the burial of the corpses, it appears
latter to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth that he only did it because he was compelled by the
in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17. As the murderers who called him, striking him with the butts
Amended Information is worded, however, it is not of their guns and forced him to bury the corpses. It was
certain whether the accused in sub-paragraphs (a) to corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime who
(d) conspired with each other to enable the former was present when it was committed. The witness also
President to amass the subject ill-gotten wealth. In stated that Baculi was not a member of the group who
light of this lack of clarity, petitioner cannot be murdered the Americans.

The accused-appellants questioned the jurisdiction of

As regards to the other accused Apolonio Caballeros, the Philippine courts to the case, but the court ruled
there was no proof that he took any part in the that piracy is a crime against all mankind, so every
execution of the crime and did not take any part in the court also has jurisdiction to try these cases.
burial of the aforesaid corpses as to the testimonies of
the witness and the other accused. HELD:
Yes. All the elements of the crime of piracy were
The fact that the two accused did not report to the present. Piracy is robbery in forcible depredation on
authorities about the perpetration of the crime, which the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo
seemed to be one of the motives for the conviction and furandi (intention to steal), and in the spirit and
which the lower court took into consideration in the intention of universal hostility.
judgment, is not punishable by the Penal Code and Philippine courts has jurisdiction to this case because
therefore cannot render the two accused criminally pirates are in law hostes humani generis (enemy of
liable under the law. mankind), a crime against all mankind. Therefore, it can
be punished in any competent tribunal of any country
November 27, 2017– Article 117 – ESPIONAGE where the offender may be found.
[NO CASE FOUND]
The Spanish Penal Code dealing with piracy is still in
November 27, 2017– Article 118 – INCITING TO WAR force in the Philippines.
OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
[NO CASE FOUND] PEOPLE VS. CATANTAN
G.R. No. 11807, September 5, 1997
November 27, 2017 – Article 119 – VIOLATION OF
NEUTRALITY ISSUE:
[NO CASE FOUND] Whether accused-appellant committed grave coercion
or piracy under PD. No. 532.
November 27, 2017 – Article 120 –
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY FACTS:
[NO CASE FOUND] The Pilapil brothers, Eugene and Juan Jr., were fishing
in the sea, 3 kilometers away from the shores of
November 27, 2017 – Article 121 – FLIGHT TO Tabogon, Cebu. In the course of their fishing, accused
ENEMY’S COUNTRY Catantan and Ursal boarded the pumpboat of the
[NO CASE FOUND] Pilapil's at gun point.
The pumpboat of the Pilapil brothers broke down, as a

November 27, 2017 – Article 122 – PIRACY result, they boarded another pumpboat operated by
SANTOALLA, Stephanie M. Juanito. Catantan ordered the latter to take them to
Mungaz, Cebu. However, Juanito's pumpboat ran out
PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO & SARAW of gas and the accused were apprehended by the
G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922 police soon after the Pilapils reported the incident to
the local authorities.
ISSUE:
WON Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime HELD:
of piracy alleged in this case. Yes. The RTC convicted the accused of the crime of
piracy under PD 532, which was affirmed by the
FACTS: Supreme Court. Hence, were sentenced to suffer the
Two boats left Matuta, the boat 1 is of a dutch penalty of reclusion perpetua.
possession and had one dutch subject, while boat 2
had 11 men, women and children, likewise from However, accused-appellant argues that in order that
Holland. piracy may be committed it is essential that there be
an attack on or seizure of a vessel. He claims that he
Boat 2 arrived in Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East and his companion did not attack or seize the fishing
Indies, then suddenly they were surrounded by 6 vintas boat of the Pilapil brothers by using force or
manned by 24 moros who first asked for food. They intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and it was
eventually entered the boat and took all the cargo, only when they were already on board that they used
attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two force to compel the Pilapils to take them to some other
women. place. Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no
intention of permanently taking possession or
They also took the 2 women and left the ship to sink-- depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter of
on board those who were left as they placed holes in fact, when they saw another pumpboat they ordered
it. Two moro marauders in Tawi Tawi were identified as the brothers right away to approach that boat so they
Lol-lo and Saraw, and arrested for piracy. could leave the Pilapils behind in their boat.
Accordingly, appellant claims, he simply committed
grave coercion and not piracy.

the pertinent provision was widened to include

The Court does not agree on the contention of the offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the
appellant that the acts committed only constitute other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued
grave coercion defined in Article 286 of the RPC, and in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces
not piracy under PD No. 532. any person including "a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."
Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement
grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised or not, any person is covered by the law.
Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the purview
of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan Jr. Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor
were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential
of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the
the act of seizing their boat. two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence,
there is no need to construe or interpret the law. All the
PP v. TULIN presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of
G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001 the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the
citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes
ISSUE: against the law of nations. As expressed in one of the
WON the Philippine courts is without jurisdiction to try "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532,
the crime of piracy committed outside Philippine piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness
waters and territory. condemned by the penal statutes of all countries." For
this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended,
FACTS: and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist
A cargo vessel owned by PNOC named MT Tabangao harmoniously as separate laws.
was sailing near the coast of Mindoro loaded with
barrels of Kerosene, gasoline and diesel oil. Suddenly, As regards the contention that the trial court did not
the cargo vessel was boarded by seven (7) fully armed acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-
pirates named Tulin et. al., and took control over the appellant Hiong since the crime was committed
vessel and painted the logo and ship with black, and outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that
then painted with the name Galilee. unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T
Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and
In Singapore, where the ship crew was forced to sail its cargo were committed in Philippine waters,
from Mindoro, a vessel called Navi Pride, anchored although the captive vessel was later brought by the
beside MT Tabangao. One of the accused Hiong, pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded,
supervised the Navi's crew and received the cargo on transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done
board MT Tabangao. under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision.
Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the
The said vessel went back to the Philippines and the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
pirates released the original crew members in batch committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the
after the transfer of goods were completed. The pirates pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part
then ordered the batch not to tell authorities what of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
happened. committed in Philippine waters.
A series of arrests were effected against the accused- November 28, 2017 – Art. 123 – QUALIFIED PIRACY;
appellants, charging them with qualified piracy or AND PD 532
violation of PD. No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters), CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
after the Chief Engineer of the crew reported the
incident to the coast guard. PEOPLE V. SIYOH, KIRAM, INDANAN AND
JAMAHALI
However, one of the accused-appellant Hiong, argues G.R. NO. L-57292, February 18, 1986
that the trial court erred in convicting him as an
accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him ISSUE:
were executed outside the Philippine waters and Whether the guilty of Siyoh et al were proven beyond
territory, therefore stripping the Philippine courts of reasonable doubt granting that the body of Anastacio
jurisdiction to hold him for trial. de Guzman was never found.
HELD: FACTS:
Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try this Antonio de Guzman together with his friends, Rodolfo
case. de Castro, Danilo Hiolen and Anastacio de Guzman,
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its who were also travelling merchants like him, were on
amendment, provided that piracy must be committed their way to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan. The group
on the high seas by any person not a member of its were onboard a pumpboat operated by Kiram with
complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its Siyoh as his help.
amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of

While on their way, 2 men armed with armantes Raymundo y Elausa; and Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay alias
onboard a pumpboat fired at them thereupon Kiram Peter Power were crew members of M/V Noria 767.
turned off the engine and threw a rope towards the
other pumboat. While the group’s boat was towed While within the territorial waters of the Municipality
towards Mataja Island, the armed men took their of Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi, Province of Tawi-Tawi,
money and goods as well as their clothes. After which, armed with bladed weapons and high caliber firearms,
Kiram uttered “It was good to kill all of you” then Siyoh the group robbed the said vessel. In the course of the
hacked de Castro and Hiolen with his “barong.” robbing, several persons were killed and injured.
Antonio de Guzman was able to jump out of the boat Leopoldo Lao, Municipal Health Officer of the said
but Kiram’s group fired at him hitting him at the back. municipality went aboard the vessel M/V Noria when it
Antonio de Guzman was able to survive the attack and arrived at Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi and saw at the wharf
reported it to the Philippine Army. ten dead bodies.
Antonio de Guzman was able to identify the men who
boarded their boat as the men that his group saw Upon their arraignment the accused pleaded guilty of
talking with Kiram and Siyoh in Baluk-Baluk Island the the crime of piracy.
previous night.
The trial court found the defendants to be guilty The trial court imposed the penalty of death upon the
qualified piracy with triple murder and frustrated accused.
murder. It then imposed to Siyoh et al the death
penalty. HELD:
The trial court was correct.
HELD:
The Court upheld the decision of the trial court. Sec. 3 of PD 532 otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy
Law provides that Sec. 3 Penalties.—Any person who
Art.123. of the RPC states that: Qualified piracy. — The commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as
penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent
imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes court be punished by:
referred to in the preceding article, under any of the a) Piracy.—The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
following circumstances: medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If
physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty of
firing upon the same; reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape, murder or
no homocide is committed as a result or on the
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned
without means of saving themselves; or the victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall
homicide, physical injuries or rape. be imposed.
In the case at bar, it was proven that Siyoh et al killed Clearly, the penalty imposable upon persons found
their victims, with the exception of Antonio, after they guilty of the crime of piracy where rape, murder or
stole the personal belongings of their victims. The homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty.
number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is Thus, the lower court committed no error in not
not material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. considering the plea of the three (3) defendants as a
rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or mitigating circumstance.
on the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime
punishable by death regardless of the number of In relation to the above, Art. 63 of the RPC was cited,
victims. Thus, the recovery or non-recovery of the body to wit: ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
of Anastacio is immaterial in the present case. penalties.—In all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the
courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME circumstances that may have attended the commission
RODRIGUEZ alias JIMMY alias WILFRED DE LARA y of the deed.
MEDRANO and RICO LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-60100, L-60768 and L-61069 PEOPLE V. ANG CHO KIO
March 20, 1985 G.R. NOS. L-6687 AND L-6688
JULY 29, 1954
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating ISSUE:
their plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance. Whether the trial court erred in not finding the accused
guilty of the complex crime of grave coercion with
FACTS: murder with the imposable penalty of death.
Jaime Rodriguez alias Jimmy alias Wilfred de Lara y
Medrano; Rico Lopez; Davao Reyes alias Dario Dece FACTS:

Ang Cho Kio was onboard PAL flight heading to Aparri

from Laoag. Somewhere over the airspace of Mt.
Province, he shot and killed the purser of the flight,
Eduardo Diago.
He then ordered the pilot, Pedro Perlas, to change

route towards Amoy. The pilot refused, prompting Kio
to shoot the pilot which caused his instantaneous
death.
For the first charge, he was sentenced to prision mayor

in the minimum and reclusion temporal as maximum.
For the second charge, the court found him guilty of
murder and grave coercion and sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua.
HELD:
The trial court was correct.
The accused committed two separate crimes, murder

and grave coercion. The defendant could have
deprived Pedro Perlas of his life without having to force
him to change the direction of the airplane; Coercion
to commit murder was not indispensable. Nor was it
indispensable to assassinate to commit coercion, quite
the contrary; for having murdered the pilot, the
defendant did not get his wish to reach Amoy: he
committed two acts that consisted of the crimes of
coercion and murder.
Complex crime is defined as a single act constituting

two or more crimes or when one of them is necessary
to commit the other. The penalty corresponding to the
most serious crime shall be imposed, applying it to its
maximum extent.

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FELICIANO GALVANTE VS HON. ORLANDO C.

FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE CASIMIRO
G.R. NO. 162808, April 22, 2008
JUSTICE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
November 29, 2017 – Article 124 – ARBITRARY
DETENTION
ISSUE:
ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
Whether or not the private respondents can be
charged of arbitrary detention.
RAMON MILO VS CFI JUDGE ANGELITO SALANGA
FACTS:
G.R. NO. L-37007, July 20, 1987
On May 14, 2001, private respondents, PO1 Romil
JUSTICE GANCAYCO
Avenido, PO1 Valentino Rufano, PO1 Eddie Degran,
PO1 Federico Balolot and Regional Mobile Group, PNP
ISSUE:
members of Bunawan Brook, Bunawan, Agusan del Sur,
Whether or not Juan Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, can
confiscated from petitioner one colt pistol super .38
be charged of arbitrary detention.
automatic with serial no. 67973, one short magazine,
and nine super .38 live ammunitions. Consequently,
FACTS:
information filed against the petitioner for Illegal
On April 21, 1973 at around 10:00 o’clock in the
Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation to
evening, in barrio Baguinay, Manaoag, Pangasinan,
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No.
Philippines, the accused with the aid of some other
3258.
private persons, conspiring, maltreated Armando
Valdez by hitting with butts of their guns and fists.
Petitioner filed against private respondents an
Immediately thereafter, willfully, unlawfully and
administrative case and criminal case for Arbitrary
feloniously, lodge and lock said Armando Valdez inside
Detention. Petitioner states that private respondents
the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about
aimed their long firearms at him, arbitrarily searched
eleven (11) hours.
his vehicle and put him in detention. Prosecutor II
On April 4, 1973, Tuvera filed a motion to quash the
Eliseo Diaz, Jr. filed a "Reinvestigation with Motion to
information on the ground that the facts charged
Dismiss," which was granted by Officer-in-Charge
against him do not constitute an offense of arbitrary
Prosecutor II Victoriano Pag-ong, on the ground that
detention and that the proofs adduced at the
"the action of the policemen who conducted the
investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of
warrantless search in spite of the absence of any
the information. Respondent judge quashed the
circumstances justifying the same intruded into the
motion on the ground that Tuvera Sr. was not a public
privacy of the accused and the security of his property."
officer who can be charged with arbitrary detention.
Petitioner Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ramon S. Milo
HELD:
filed an opposition thereto.
The criminal complaint for arbitrary detention was
properly dismissed by public respondents. To sustain a
HELD:
criminal charge for arbitrary detention, it must be
Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public officer
shown that (a) the offender is a public officer or
who, without legal grounds, detains a person.1 The
employee, (b) the offender detained the complainant,
elements of this crime are the following:
and (c) the detention is without legal grounds. The
second element was not alleged by petitioner in his
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
Affidavit-Complaint. As pointed out by private
respondent Conde in his Comment and Memorandum,
2. That he detains a person.
petitioner himself identified in his Affidavit-Complaint
that it was Police Chief Rocacorba who caused his
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.
detention. Nowhere in said affidavit did petitioner
allege that private respondents effected his detention,
Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into
or were in any other way involved in it. There was,
law, barrio lieutenants (who were later named barrio
therefore, no factual or legal basis to sustain the
captains and now barangay captains) were recognized
criminal charge for arbitrary detention against private
as persons in authority. In various cases, this Court
respondents.
deemed them as persons in authority, and convicted
them of Arbitrary Detention.
November 30, 2017 – Art. 125 – DELAY IN THE

Thus, it was erroneously reasoned that captain did not
DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER
detained Valdez, being merely a captain, no authority,
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.
and that barrio captain was not a public official, not
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl
considered persons in authority, only upon PD 299.
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that a barrio
LINO V. FUGOSA, ET. AL
captain, like private respondent Tuvera, Sr., can be held
G.R. NO. L-1159
liable for Arbitrary Detention.
JANUARY 30, 1947

ISSUE: Whether or not the officers of the Office of the

Whether or not Montaniel and Deoduco were detained Ombudsman gravely abused their discretion in
illegally. dismissing the complaint for violation of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code.
FACTS:
A petition for habeas corpus was filed against FACTS:
Valeriano Fugoso, Lamberto Javaler and John Doe in Petitioners Rodolfo Soria and Edimar Bista were
their capacity as Mayor, police and officer in charge of arrested on May 13, 2001, a Sunday and the day before
the municipal jail of the City of Manila, respectively for May 14 elections, without a warrant by respondents for
unlawfully detaining twelve (12) persons. Ten of the alleged illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
petitioners were released. However, the other two One police identified Bista to have a standing warrant
remained and were confined for three days and four of arrest for violation of BP Blg. 6. From the time of
days respectively without warrants and charges Soria’s detention up to the time of his release, 22 hours
formally filed in court. The papers of their cases were had already elapsed and Bista was detained for 26
not transmitted to the City Fiscal’s office until late in days. The crimes for which Soria was arrested without
the afternoon of November 11, 1946. Montaniel and warrant are punishable by correctional penalties or
Deoduco remained in custody because they were their equivalent, thus, criminal complaints or
charged with unjust vexation and disobedience to an information should be filed with the proper judicial
agent of a person in authority. The informations were authorities within 18 hours of his arrest. The crimes for
filed the same day. However, no warrants of arrests or which Bista was arrested are punishable by afflictive or
orders of commitment were issued by the municipal capital penalties, or their equivalent, thus, he could
court. only be detained for 36 hours without criminal
complaints or information having been filed with the
HELD: proper judicial authorities.
Yes. The detention of Deoduco and Montaniel was
illegal upon the exploration of six hours without them Petitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for
having been delivered to the corresponding judicial Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit for violation of Art.
authorities. Their cases were referred to the City Fiscal 125 of the Revised Penal Code against herein private
four and three days, respectively, after they were respondents. The office dismissed the complaint for
arrested. The illegally of their detention was not cured lack of merit. Petitioners then filed their motion for
by the filing of information against them, since no reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit in
warrants of arrest or orders of commitment were the second assailed Resolution.
issued by the municipal court. The two petitioners are
charged with light offenses. The general rule is that HELD:
when the offense charged is light the accused should No. Respondents did not abuse their discretion in
not be arrested, except in particular instances when the dismissing the case. Their disposition of petitioners'
court expressly orders. In the instant case, the complaint for violation of Article 125 of the Revised
municipal court has not yet acted on the informations. Penal Code cannot be said to have been conjured out
While an arrest may be made without warrant there are of thin air as it was properly backed up by law and
reasonable grounds the prisoner cannot be retained jurisprudence. Grave abuse of discretion is such
beyond the period provided by law, unless a warrant is capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the
procured from a competent court. The City Fiscal had part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent
no authority to issue warrants of arrest and was to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
powerless to validate such illegal detention by merely discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount
filing informations or by any order of his own, either to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
express or implied. It is not necessary to determine perform a duty enjoined by law.
whether the City Fiscal is a judicial authority within the
purview of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code since Regarding the complaint of Soria, based on applicable
the petitioners’ case was referred to him long after the laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a special
expiration of the six hours provided by law. These holiday, should not be included in the computation of
prisoners should have been out of prison long before the period prescribed by law for the filing of
the informations were filed with the municipal court, complaint/information in courts in cases of warrantless
and they should not be retained therein merely arrests, it being a 'no-office day. Hence, there could be
because of the filing of such informations since that the no arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125 of the
offenses charged are light. Under such circumstances, Revised Penal Code.
only an order of commitment could legalize the
prisoner’s continued confinement, and no such order In the same vein, the complaint of Bista against the
has ever been issued. respondents for Violation of Article 125, will not
prosper because the running of the thirty-six (36)-hour
SORIA V DESIERTO period prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint
G.R. NOS. 153524-25, JANUARY 31, 2005 against him from the time of his arrest was tolled by
one day (election day). Moreover, he has a standing
ISSUE: warrant of arrest for Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 and he

could only be released if he has no other pending WON the accused are guilty of violating art. 128?
criminal case requiring his continuous detention. The crime of violation against domicile
December 1, 2017- Article 127- EXPULSION FACTS:

FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z. On May 14, 1989 in the Evening. Acccused Gerochie,
then Barangay Captain and 2 CAFGU members, hence
VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. V. LUKBAN, ET AL. persons in authority who feloniously and without
G.R. NO. L-14639, MARCH 25, 1919 judicial order entered the house of victim Mallo by
breaking the door against the will of the occupants and
ISSUE: injuring one of them
Whether or not Mayor Lukban was authorized to send
those women in transferring their residence from During Trial, the Accused were named as barangay
Manila to Davao captain and Civilian Volunteer, which the accused later
admitted and confirmed
FACTS:
The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, for the RTC: Found the accused guilty of slight Physical Injuries
best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered the under Art. 265
segregated district for women of ill repute, which had
been permitted for a number of years in the city of They also stated that accused should not be guilty of
Manila, closed. Between October 16 and October 25, violating Art. 128 for lack of proving the essential
1918, the women were kept confined to their houses in requisite that the accused were Public Officials and that
the district by the police. Presumably, during this such admission is not enough to prove that they were
period, the city authorities quietly perfected public officers. It is required that clear and convincing
arrangements with the Bureau of Labor for sending the evidence other than the the testimony of the witnesses
women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers. At any rate, that accused were in fact public officers. and when in
about midnight of October 25, the police, acting doubt on whether the accused were public officers,
pursuant to orders from the chief of police, Anton then it should be ruled in favor of the accused
Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo
Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled some Petitioners appealed to the CA to contest the decision
170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them on Slight Physical Injuries
aboard the steamers that awaited their arrival. The
women were given no opportunity to collect their CA: Upon appeal the RTC decision, the CA set aside the
belongings, and apparently were under the impression ruling of the RTC on Slight Physical Injuries but ruled
that they were being taken to a police station for an that accused were guilty of Violating of Domicile
investigation. They had no knowledge that they were considering that the accused admitted to be the
destined for a life in Mindanao. They had not been Barangay Captain and part of the Citizen Armed Forces
asked if they wished to depart from that region and
had neither directly nor indirectly given their consent HELD:
to the deportation. YES, The Court adopts the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the CA. In their testimony before
HELD: the open court as well as in the pleadings they filed,
NO. Only the court by a final judgment can order a neither Geroche denied that he was a barangay captain
person to change his residence. This is illustrated in nor Garde and Marfil refuted that they were CAFGU
ejectment proceedings, expropriation proceedings and members. In holding such positions, they are
in the penalty of destierro. Hence, the Mayor and the considered as public officers/employees.
Chief of Police of Manila cannot force the prostitutes
residing in that City to go and live in Davao against December 3, 2017 - Art. 129 - SEARCH WARRANTS
their will, there being no law that authorizes them to MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE
do so. These women, despite their being in a sense, SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
lepers of society, are nevertheless not chattels, but SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
Philippine citizens, protected by the same
constitutional guarantees as are other citizens. AURELIO S. ALVERO vs. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL
G.R. No. L-342 May 4, 1946
December 2, 2017 - Art. 128 - VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE
ISSUE:
LAZO, Joseph Artfel T.
Is a search and seizure without warrant but an incident
of a lawful arrest legal?
EDIGARDO GEROCHE, ROBERTO GARDE and
GENEROSO MARFIL alias "TAPOL" vs. PEOPLE OF
FACTS:
THE PHILIPPINES
While the battle for Manila was raging, soldiers of the
G.R. No. 179080 November 26, 2014
United States Army, accompanied by men of Filipino
Guerrilla Forces arrested Aurelio Alvero for treason and
ISSUE:
seized and took certain papers from his house. He filed
a petition, in which he protested against the procedure

of the government in the seizure of said documents, Unaware of the RTC decision, Ombudsman dismissed
and asked for the documents to be returned to him but the criminal complaint for illegal search. It found that
was denied. the allegations of the complainant failed to establish
the factual basis of the complaint, it appearing that the
Alvero asked for the reconsideration of said order but incident stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest.
was gain denied. Herein petitioner now claims that the
respondent judges, in denying the petition for the HELD:
return of said documents, acted without jurisdiction NO. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a
and committed a grave abuse in the exercise of their criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised
discretion, alleging that even the seizure of documents Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the
by means of a search warrant legally issued which RPC punishes are only two forms of searches: Art. 129.
constitutes a violation of his rights under the Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the
Constitution. service of those legally obtained, and Art. 130.
Searching domicile without witnesses.
HELD:
The court ruled YES and cited the ruling in Agnello vs Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the
United States: "The most important exception to the foregoing felonies; rather, he accused private
necessity for a search warrant is the right of search and respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle
seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest without being armed with a valid warrant. This
may be made either while a crime is being committed situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles
or after its commission. The right to search includes in 129 and 130 of the RPC.
both instances that of searching the person of him who
is arrested, in order to find and seize things connected The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless
with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it search conducted on his vehicle is civil, under Article
was committed." 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil
Code.
The purpose of the constitutional provisions against
unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations Ombudsman properly dismissed the complaint for
of private security in person and property, and unlawful illegal search, although the reason for dismissing (valid
invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the warrantless arrest) the same is rather off the mark. The
law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to same should have been dismissed by the reason that it
give remedy against such usurpations when is not cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal search
attempted. But it does not prohibit the Federal is not a criminal offense.
Government from taking advantage of unlawful
searches made by a private person or under authority December 4, 2017 - Article 130 - SEARCHING
of state law. DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESS
OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
FELICIANO GALVANTE vs. HON. ORLANDO C. PAPA VS MAGO

CASIMIRO G.R. NO. L-27360, FEBRUARY 28, 1968
G.R. No. 162808 April 22, 2008
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of the goods were valid.
Can the respondents be criminally liable under article
129 of the revised penal code? FACTS:
Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of
FACTS: the Manila Police Department, acting upon a reliable
Respondents pointed their firearms to petitioner; went information that a certain shipment of personal effects,
near the owner type jeep owned by petitioner and allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be
conducted a search. Respondents saw a .38 pistol released the following day from the customs zone of
under the floormat of the jeep and asked petitioner of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon
the MR of the firearm. Due to fear that respondents' orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of
long arms were still pointed to them, petitioner Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of
searched his wallet and gave the asked document. Customs, conducted surveillance at gate No. 1 of the
Immediately, the policemen (respondents) left them customs zone. When the trucks left gate No. 1 the
without saying anything bringing with them the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and
firearm. intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila.
The RTC found that "the action of the policemen who The load of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of
conducted the warrantless search in spite of the goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions
absence of any circumstances justifying the same of the Chief of Police.
intruded into the privacy of the accused and the
security of his property. Remedios Mago was the owner of the goods seized.
She hired the trucks owned by Valentin Lanopa to
transport, the goods from said place to her residence.

She claims that the goods were seized without search G.R. NO. L-35149 JUNE 23, 1988
warrant issued by a competent court. Further, the Chief
of Police Ricardo Papa denied the request of counsel ISSUE:
for Remedios Mago that the bales be not opened and Whether or not the evidence being seized were
the goods contained therein be not examined and that admissible.
then Customs Commissioner Jacinto Gavino had
illegally assigned appraisers to examine the goods FACTS:
because the goods were no longer under the control Petitioner Eduardo Quintero disclosed that certain
and supervision of the Commissioner of Customs. persons had distributed money to some delegates of
the Con-Con to influence the delegates in the
HELD: discharge of their functions. As an offshoot of this
Yes. It is the settled rule that the Bureau of Customs disclosure, Delegate Quintero delivered to the Con-
acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods, Con the aggregate amount of the "payola" he himself
for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, had received the amount of P11, 150.00 in cash.
from the moment the goods are actually in its Quintero, however, did not reveal the names of the
possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or persons who gave him the money; and he begged at
detention had previously been issued by the Collector that time not to be made to name names. However,
of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture pressure mounted on Delegate Quintero to reveal the
proceedings. The Chief of the Manila Police identities of the people behind the "payola" scheme.
Department, Ricardo G. Papa, having been deputized Hence, Quintero released from his hospital bed in San
in writing by the Commissioner of Customs, could, for Juan de Dios Hospital a sworn statement addressed to
the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and the Committee on Privileges of the Con-Con,
tariff laws, effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and it mentioning the names of the persons who gave him
was his duty to make seizure, among others, of any the "payola." Also, In his privilege speech, he said that
cargo, articles or other movable property when the "in that same evening of January 6,1972, after the
same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine dinner was over, when we were still inside the
imposed under customs and tariff laws. He could Malacañang grounds on our way to our cars, one of
lawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or the delegates made this announcement: "The
other container wherever found when he had envelopes are ready. They will be distributed in a
reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of couple of days." Hours after Delegate Quintero's
dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines statement was made public, then President Ferdinand
contrary to law; and likewise to stop, search and E. Marcos went on the air as well as on TV to denounce
examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably Mr. Quintero, and he averred that he "shall not rest
suspected of holding or conveying such article as until I have unmasked this pretender, his master-minds
aforesaid. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that and accomplices." In the evening of the same day that
petitioner Ricardo could lawfully effect the search and Mr. Marcos issued the afore-quoted statement, the
seizure of the goods in question. The Tariff and agents of the respondent National Bureau of
Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of Investigation (NBI, for short) raided the house of
any police officer to effect said search and seizure, and Delegate Quintero, on the basis of Search Warrant No.
the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. 7 issued also on 31 May 1972 by respondent Judge
Elias Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Petitioner his companion policemen had authority to NBI agents seized bundles of money amounting to
effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by P379, 000.00. On 1 June 1972, the NBI filed with the
a competent court. The Tariff and Customs Code does City Fiscal of Pasay a criminal complaint for direct
not require said warrant in the instant case. The Code bribery against Delegate Quintero.
authorizes persons having police authority under
Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, HELD:
pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, No. Disregarding for a moment the absence of
store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also "probable cause," the search itself that was conducted
to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft by the NBI agents who raided the house of petitioner,
and any trunk, package, or envelope or any person on pursuant to the questioned search warrant, was highly
board, or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, irregular. The two (2) occupants of the house who
beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any witnessed the search conducted, Generoso Quintero
dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the and Pfc. Alvaro Valentin, were closeted in a room where
Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the a search was being made by a member of the raiding
need of a search warrant in said cases. 16 But in the party, while the other NBI agents were left to
search of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said themselves in the other parts of the house, where no
"dwelling house may be entered and searched only members of the household were in a position to watch
upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. them, and thus they conducted a search on their own.
. . ." Hence, the seizure of the goods were valid. Such a procedure, wherein members of a raiding party
can roam around the raided premises unaccompanied
by any witness, as the only witnesses available as
EDUARDO QUINTERO VS. NATIONAL BUREAU OF prescribed by law are made to witness a search
INVESTIGATION conducted by the other members of the raiding party

in another part of the house, is held to be violative of the house. While inside the house Yte showed the
both the spirit and the letter of the law, which provides accused something he claimed as a search warrant,
that "no search of a house, room, or any other premises when someone coming from the kitchen uttered “eto
shall be made except in the presence of at least one na” They proceeded to the kitchen and saw Luciano
competent witness, resident of the neighborhood." holding a plastic bag with four other companions. They
Another irregularity committed by the agents of confronted the accused and insisted that the bags
respondent NBI was their failure to comply with the belonged to her. Accused denied the accusation and
requirement of Sec. 10, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court told them that she doesn’t know anything about it. She
which provides that "The officer seizing property under was made to sign a prepared document. She was
the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same brought to the police station and was detained.
to the person on whom or in whose possession it was
found, or in the absence of any person, must, in the HELD:
presence of at least one-witness, leave a receipt in the No. The claim that the marijuana was planted was
place in which he found the seized property." The strengthened as the police violated sec 7, rule 126 rules
receipt issued by the seizing party in the case at bar, of the court provides no search of a house, room or
showed that it was signed by a witness, Sgt. Ignacio any other premise shall be made except in the
Veracruz. This person was a policeman from the Manila presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
Metropolitan Police (MMP), who accompanied the member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in
agents of respondent NBI during the conduct of the the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
search, The requirement under the aforequoted Rule discretion residing in the same locality. This
that a witness should attest to the making of the requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the
receipt, was not complied with. This requirement of the execution of the search warrant. Violation of said rule
Rules was rendered nugatory, when the one who is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised
attested to the receipt from the raiding party was Penal Code.
himself a member of the raiding party. The The document (PAGPAPATUNAY) was inadmissible to
circumstances prevailing before the issuance of the the court as the accused was not informed of her right
questioned search warrant, and the actual manner in not to sign the document neither was she informed
which the search was conducted in the house of the that she has the right to the assistance of a counsel and
petitioner, all but imperfectly, and yet, strongly suggest the fact that it may be used as evidence against her. It
that the entire procedure, from beginning to end, was was not proved that the marijuana belonged to her.
an orchestrated movement designed for just one Not only does the law require the presence of
purpose — to destroy petitioner Quintero's public witnesses when the search is conducted, but it also
image with "incriminating evidence," and, as a corollary imposes upon the person making the search the duty
to this, that the evidence allegedly seized from his to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized. He
residence was "planted" by the very raiding party that is likewise required to deliver the property seized to the
was commanded to "seize" such incriminating judge who issued the warrant, together with a true and
evidence. accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
Again, these duties are mandatory and are required to
preclude substitution of the items seized by interested
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. YOLANDA parties. Hence, the guilt of the accused was has not
G.R. NO. 89373. MARCH 9, 1993. been established she is acquitted from the crimes
charged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence was properly obtained by
the police. December 5, 2017 - Article 131 - PROHIBITION,
INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL
FACTS: MEETINGS
A police raiding team armed with a search warrant ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M.
went to the brgy. captain for them to be accompanied
in serving the said warrant at the residence of the
accused, Yolanda Gesmundo. The police was allowed FERNANDO IGNACIO and SIMEON DE LA CRUZ, VS
to enter the house upon the strength of the warrant THE HONORABLE NORBERTO ELA
shown to the accused. The accused begged the police [G.R. No. L-6858. May 31, 1956.]
not to search and to leave the house. However, the
police still searched the house and was led to the ISSUE:
kitchen. She pointed a metal basin on top of a table as Whether or not respondent mayor violated Article 131
the hiding place of died marijuana flowering tops by not granting the petition to hold the public meeting
contained in a plastic bag marked ISETANN. The police in the part of the public plaza as was requested.
also recovered from a native “uway” cabinet dried
marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces of FACTS:
komiks paper. According to the accused, when the A permit to hold a public meeting at the public plaza
police arrived at her house, she saw Sgt. Yte and PFC of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, together with the kiosk, was
Jose Luciano. She invited Sgt. Yte to enter her house sought on behalf of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract
while Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near Society (commonly known as Jehovah’s Witnesses).

The respondent mayor gave them permission to use

the northwestern part of the plaza, instead of the HELD:
section of the plaza near the kiosk. It appears that the The right of peaceable assemble is subject to
public plaza, particularly the kiosk, is located at a short regulation under the police power of the state. The
distance from the Roman Catholic Church. The right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly,
proximity of said church to the kiosk has caused some though granted by the Constitution, is not absolute for
concern on the part of the authorities regarding peace it may be regulated in order that it may not be injurious
and order. This is especially so considering that the to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right
tenets of petitioners’ congregation are derogatory to of community and society, This power may be
those of the Roman Catholic Church. exercised under the police power of the state, which is
the power of the state, which is the power to prescribe
HELD: regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
The right to freedom of speech and to peacefully education, and good order, safety and general welfare
assemble, though guaranteed by our Constitution, is of the people. While the privilege of the citizen to use
not absolute, for it may be regulated in order that it streets and parks for communication may be regulated
may not be “injurious to the equal enjoyment of others in the interest of all, said privilege is not absolute. It
having equal rights, nor injurious to the right of the must be exercised insubordination to the general
community or society,” and this power may be comfort and convenience and in consonance with
exercised under the “police power” of the state, which peace and good order, but it must not guise of
is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the regulation be abridged or denied.
good order or safety and general welfare of the people.
Thus, the action taken by the respondent who refused PRIMICIAS VS. FUGOSO
to allow the use of the kiosk, part of the public plaza, L-18000. JAN 27, 1948
by the members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract
Society, whose tenets and principles are derogatory to ISSUE:
those professed by the Catholics, is not Whether or not the Mayor Violated Article 131 of the
unconstitutional as an abridgement of the freedom of RPC in refusing to issue permit hence violating
speech, assembly, and worship, considering that in freedom of assembly.
view of the proximity of the kiosk to the Catholic
church, such meeting, if allowed, might result in the FACTS:
happening of untoward incidents and disturbance of This case is an action of mandamus instituted by
peace and order. petitioner Cipriano Primicias, manager of the
Coalesced Minority Parties, against respondent Manila
NELSON NAVARRO VS. MAYOR ANTONIO City Mayor, Valeriano Fugoso, to compel the latter to
VILLEGAS issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at
G.R. NO. L-31687 FEBRUARY 26, 1970 the Plaza Miranda on Nov 16, 1947. The petitioner
requested for a permit to hold a “peaceful public
ISSUE: meeting”. However, the respondent refused to issue
Whether or not the respondents act on denying the such permit because he found “that there is a
request of the petitioner violates the petitioners’ Right reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous
to peaceable assembly and right to the equal utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on
protection of the law in violation of Article 131 of the the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high,
Revised Penal Code. that similar speeches will be delivered tending to
undermine the faith and confidence of the people in
FACTS: their government, and in the duly peace and a
On February 24, 1970, the petitioner, acting in behalf disruption of public order.” Respondent based his
of the Movement of a Democratic Philippines, wrote a refusal to the Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting
letter to the respondent, the Mayor of the city of as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a
Manila, applying to hold a rally at Plaza Miranda misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or
February 26, 1970, from 4-11pm.On the same day, the procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a
respondent wrote a reply, denying his request on the riot; or collect with other persons in a body or crowd
grounds that,the have temporarily adopted the policy for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any
of not issuing any permit for the use of Plaza Miranda congregation engaged in any lawful assembly."
for rallies or demonstration during weekdays due to Included herein is Sec. 1119, Freeuse of Public Place.
the events that happened from the past week. On the
same letter, the respondent gave the petitioner an HELD:
option to use the Sunken Garden near Intamuros for Yes. Supreme Court states that the freedom of speech,
its rally, and for it to be held earlier for it to end before and to peacefully assemble and petition the
dark. The petitioner filed suit contesting the Mayor’s government for redress of grievances, are fundamental
action on the ground that it violates the petitioner’s personal rights of the people recognized and
right to peaceable assemble and petition the guaranteed by the constitution. However, these rights
government for redress of grievances (ART. 3, sec 1(8)) are not absolute. They can be regulated under the
and of the petitioner’s right to the equal protection of state’s police power – that they should not be injurious
the law (art. 3, sec. 1). to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights,

nor to the rights of the community or society. The which the Philippines is a signatory. They argue that
Court holds that there can be 2 interpretations of Sec. B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before one can stage a
1119: 1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with public assembly regardless of the presence or absence
unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant of a clear and present danger. It also curtails the choice
permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of
parade, or procession in the streets and other public expression clause as the time and place of a public
places of the City of Manila ;and 2) The right of the assembly form part of the message which the
Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine expression is sought. Furthermore, it is not content-
or specify the streets or public places to be used with neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support
the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to of the government. The words “lawful cause,”
secure convenient use of the streets and public places “opinion,” “protesting or influencing” suggest the
by others, and to provide adequate and proper exposition of some cause not espoused by the
policing to minimize the risk of disorder. The court government. Also, the phrase “maximum tolerance”
favored the second construction since the first shows that the law applies to assemblies against the
construction is tantamount to authorizing the Mayor government because they are being tolerated. As a
to prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic content-based legislation, it cannot pass the strict
system of government no such unlimited power may scrutiny test. This petition and two other petitions were
be validly granted to any officer of the government, ordered to be consolidated on February 14, 2006.
except perhaps in cases of national emergency. It is to During the course of oral arguments, the petitioners, in
be noted that the permit to be issued is for the use of the interest of a speedy resolution of the petitions,
public places and not for the assembly itself. The Court withdrew the portions of their petitions raising factual
holds that the assembly is lawful and thus cannot be issues, particularly those raising the issue of whether
struck down. Any public officer or employee is in B.P. No. 880 and/or CPR is void as applied to the rallies
violation if Article 131 if the RPC if he or she shall of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005.
prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either
alone or together with others, any petition to the HELD:
authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of Section 4 of Article III of the Philippine Constitution
grievances. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify provides that no law shall be passed abridging the
suppression of free speech and assembly. It is the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
function of speech to free men from the bondage of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech petition the government for redress of grievances. The
there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of
evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be grievances, together with freedom of speech, of
reasonable ground to believe that the danger expression, and of the press, is a right that enjoys
apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable dominance in the sphere of constitutional protection.
ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a For this rights represent the very basis of a functional
serious one. The fact that speech is likely to result in democratic polity, without which all the other rights
some violence or in destruction of property is not would be meaningless and unprotected.
enough to justify its suppression. There must be the
probability of serious injury to the state. PETITION IS However, it must be remembered that the right, while
GRANTED. sacrosanct, is not absolute. It may be regulated that it
shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others
BAYAN, ET AL., VS. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the
G.R. NO. 169838, APRIL 25, 2006 community or society. The power to regulate the
exercise of such and other constitutional rights is
ISSUE: termed the sovereign “police power,” which is the
Whether or not policemen violated Article 131 in power to prescribe regulations, to promote the health,
relation to BP 880 by dispersing BAYAN, KARAPATAN, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and
KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS in their rally. general welfare of the people.
FACTS: B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies

The petitioners, Bayan, et al., alleged that they are but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place
citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their and manner of the assemblies. B.P. No. 880 thus readily
right as organizations and individuals were violated shows that it refers to all kinds of public assemblies
when the rally they participated in on October 6, 2005 that would use public places. The reference to “lawful
was violently dispersed by policemen implementing cause” does not make it content-based because
Batas Pambansa No. 880. assemblies really have to be for lawful causes,
otherwise they would not be “peaceable” and entitled
Petitioners contended that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is to protection. Neither the words “opinion,”
clearly a violation of the Constitution, Article 131 of the “protesting,” and “influencing” in of grievances come
RPC: from the wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot
Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of peaceful be avoided. Finally, maximum tolerance is for the
meetings, and the International Covenant on Civil and protection and benefit of all rallyist and is independent
Political Rights and other human rights treaties of of the content of the expression in the rally.

establish the intent of the accused in committing the

Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the act, it was not proven that religious hatred prompted
ground of clear and present danger to public order, the accused to act as he did. He simply threatened to
public safety, public convenience, public morals or assault them with a club if they will not stop the
public health. This is a recognized exception to the religious service. The offense appears to be simply that
exercise of the rights even under the Universal of disturbing the religious service, punishable under
Declaration of Human Rights and The International article 571.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It is further alleged that the people thus dispersed by
December 6, 2017 - Article 132 - INTERRUPTION OF the defendant were not holding religious services, as
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP they were simply reading some verses out of the Bible.
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. We have been unable to find any provision of law
which requires religious services to be conducted in
US VS. BUENAVENTURA BALCORTA approved orthodox style in order to merit its
G.R. NO. 8722, September 10, 1913 protection against interference and disturbances. As
stated in Hull vs. State (120 Ind., 153): It makes no
ISSUE: difference that the method of worship of those
Whether or not the accused is liable for "interruption assembled was singular or uncommon. The protection
of religious worship". of the statute is extended to all, irrespective of creed,
opinion, or mode of worship.
FACTS:
The accused entered a private house, uninvited, where Persons who meet for the purpose of religious worship,
services of the Methodist Episcopal Church were being by any method which is not indecent and unlawful,
conducted between ten and twenty persons, and have a right to do so without being molested or
threatened the group with a club, interrupting or the disturbed.
disturbing the divine service. The Court of First Instance
of Nueva Ecija sentenced the defendant/appellant, to December 7, 2017 – Article 133 – OFFENDING THE
three years six months and twenty-one days of prision RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
correccional, and a fine of 625 pesetas, together with VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
other accessory penalties provided by law.
PEOPLE VS. PROCORPIO REYES, ET AL.
HELD: GR No. L-40577, Aug 23 1934
YES. The Spanish Constitution provided for a state
religion but also guaranteed the privilege of freely ISSUE:
practicing, both in private and public. However, only Whether or not the defendants violated Article 133 of
those followers of the state religion are allowed to the Revised Penal Code.
practice in public. It is under this constitution the Penal
Code of Philippines of 1884 was promulgated, it FACTS:
provided consequences against the violation or crime In the Barrio of Macalang, Tarlac there is a chapel
against the state religion specifically disturbing, by where it is customary to hold a Pabasa. While the
means of violence, threats, etc., their ceremonies when pabasa was going between 11 and 12 o clock midnight,
conducted in cemeteries or other places were such the defendants Procorpio Reyes and company started
ceremonies may be lawfully authorized. (Art. 225.) to construct a barbed wired fence in front of the
chapel. The chairman of the committee in charge of the
The change of sovereignty and the enactment of the pabasa tried to persuade them to refrain from carrying
fourteenth paragraph of section 5 of the Philippine Bill out their plans, because it was already late at night and
caused the complete separation of church and state, it was during the holy week. An altercation ensued
and the abolition of all special privileges and all thus, a complaint was filed against the defendants.
restrictions theretofore conferred or imposed upon
any particular religious sect, looking equally to all HELD:
religious sects. The articles of the Penal Code referring NO. it is noted that Article 133 of the revised penal
equally to all religious sects are of two, article 223 and code punishes acts “notoriously offensive to the
571. feelings of the faithful”. The construction of the fence,
even though irritating and vexatious is not an act
This article recognizes the freedom of religion and designated as “notoriously offensive to the feelings of
worship of all mankind however violations against this the faithful.” It is urged that the act of building a fence
incur subsequent penalties. But like any other was innocent and was simply to protect the property
constitutions no penalty was attached in this article. It rights of the owners. Therefore, appellants are
says that "the penalty . . . shall be imposed upon any acquitted of a violation of Article 133 but was found
person who . . . shall force some other person to guilty of art 287 of the same code.
perform an act of worship . . ."
The offense falls within the provisions of article 223 and

571 of the Penal Code. However records failed to

TITLE THREE – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HELD:

ORDER No. The court held that the presumption of innocence
does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and
political rights.
December 8, 2017 – Article134 – REBELLION OR
Also, since coup d’etat cases are punishable by
INSURRECTION
reclusion perpetua, the rule that no person charged by
ALILIAN, Enna B.
crimes and offenses punishable by such shall be
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong was
POMEROY V DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
applicable in this case. It is uncontroverted that
G.R. Nos. L-14284-14285, February 24, 1960
petitioner’s application for bail and for release was
ISSUE:
denied. The determination that petitioner’s guilt was
Whether or not the CFI erred in ordering the release of
strong justified his detention as a valid curtailment of
the petitioners.
his right to provisional liberty.
FACTS:
Moreover, leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all
William Pomeroy and Celia Mariano were convicted
prisoners, at the discretion of the authorities or upon
with the complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson
court orders. Petitioner failed to establish that the
and robbery committed in pursuance of the rebellion.
discretion was gravely abused.
They entered prison and began serving their sentence.
Thereafter, said convicts filed a petition invoking
December 9, 2017 – Article 135 – PENALTY FOR
subsequent cases wherein the Court declared that the
REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ETAT
acts of violence committed in pursuance of rebellion
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
give rise only to simple rebellion. CFI Court ordered the
release of the petitioners.
G.R. Nos. L-6025-26 July 18, 1956
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMADO V.
HELD:
HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
Yes. The rule adopted by the Court is that judicial
CONCEPCION, J.
doctrines have only prospective operation and do not
apply to cases previously decided. The sentence meted
LEGAL ISSUE:
out was the one provided by law for rebellion which
W/N Rebellion should be complexed with other crimes
herein applicants were indicted, at the time of their
committed on such occasion.
conviction. It was only 4 years after petioners’
conviction that the Court declared that the acts of
FACTS:
violence committed in pursuance of rebellion did not
That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time
give rise to a complex crime in People v Hernandez,
before the said date and continuously thereafter until
May 30 1964.
the present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and
the place which they had chosen as the nerve center of
CFI erred in ordering the release of the petitioners.
all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the
Philippines, HERNANDEZ, conspiring, confederating,
December 8, 2017 – Article134-A – COUP D’ETAT
and cooperating with each other, as well as with the
ALILIAN, Enna B.
thirty-one (31) Defendants charged in criminal cases
and also with others whose whereabouts and identities
TRILLANES IV V PIMENTEL, SR.
are still unknown.
G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008
The HERNANDEZ and their co-conspirators, being then

ISSUE:
officers and/or members of, or otherwise associated
Whether or not the court erred in denying petitioner’s
with the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO)
motion to be allowed to leave from imprisonment.
formerly known as the Committee on Labor
Organization (CLO), an active agency, organ, and
FACTS:
instrumentality of the Communist Party of the
Petitioner was arrested and charged with coup d’etat
Philippines (P.K.P.), with central offices in Manila and
defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code
chapters and affiliated or associated labor unions and
based on his acts of storming into the Oakwood
other ‘mass organizations’ in different places in the
Premier Apartments and publicly demanding the
Philippines, and as such agency, organ, and
resignation of the President and key national officials.
instrumentality, fully cooperates in, and synchronizes
Subsequently, petitioner won a seat in the Senate
its activities with the rebellious activities of the
causing him to file an "Omnibus Motion for Leave of
‘Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, (H.M.B.) and other
Court to be allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and
organs, agencies, and instrumentalities of the
Related Requests" invoking that since he was not
Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) to thereby
convicted yet, he must still be presumed to be
assure, facilitate, and effect the complete and
innocent. Further, he pleaded for the same liberal
permanent success of the armed rebellion against the
treatment accorded other detention prisoners who
Republic of the Philippines.
have also been charged with non-bailable offenses.

‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ or ‘Hukbalahaps’ the purpose of removing from the allegiance “to the
made armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks Government the territory of the Philippines Islands or
against police, constabulary and army detachments as any part thereof,” then said offense becomes stripped
well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to of its “common” complexion, inasmuch as, being part
commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the former
and in furtherance thereof, have then and there acquires the political character of the latter.
committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder,
arson, and planned destruction of private and public
property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. FEDERICO
and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, ET AL.
aforesaid purpose. G.R. No. L-8936 October 23, 1956
REYES, J. B. L., J.
The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged LEGAL ISSUE:
with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed W/N accused Geronimo should only be guilty of simple
with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the rebellion only.
capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed,
although the lower court sentenced him merely to life FACTS:
imprisonment. However, the defense contends, among On or about January 31, 1953, at barrio of Santa Rita,
other things, that rebellion cannot be complexed with Del Gallego, Camarines Sur a group of HMBS with
murder, arson, or robbery. Federico Geronimo alias Commander Oscar ambushed
and fired upon an Army Patrol headed by Cpl.
HELD: Bayrante, resulting in seriously wounding of Pfc.
NO. It is true that treason and rebellion are distinct and Paneracio Torrado and Eusebio Gruta a civilian.
different from each other. This does not detract,
however, from the rule that the ingredients of a crime Also, on or about February 1954 at barrio Cotmo, San
form part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed Fernando, Camarines Sur, a group of four HMBS led by
by the same and cannot be punished either separately accused Commander Oscar with evident
therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
Revised Penal Code. Besides there is more reason to killed one Policarpio Tipay a barrio lieutenant.
apply said rule in the crime of rebellion than in that of
treason, for the law punishing rebellion (Article 135, On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered
Revised Penal Code) specifically mentions the act of judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex
engaging in war and committing serious violence crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
among its essential elements — thus clearly indicating kidnappings; and giving him the benefit of the
that everything done in the prosecution of said war, as mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty,
a means necessary therefor, is embraced therein — sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
unlike the provision on treason (Article 114, Revised perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the
Penal Code) which is less explicit thereon. heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the
information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the
It is urged that, if the crime of assault upon a person in proportionate costs of the proceedings.
authority or an agent of a person in authority may be
committed with physical injuries (U. S. vs. Montiel, 9 From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo
Phil., 162), homicide (People vs. Lojo, 52 Phil., 390) and appealed, raising the sole question of whether the
murder (U. S. vs. Ginosolongo, 23 Phil., 171; U. S. vs. crime committed by him is the complex crime of
Baluyot, 40 Phil., 385), and rape may be perpetrated rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or
with physical injuries (U. S. vs. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690), simple rebellion.
then rebellion may, similarly, be complexed with
murder, arson, or robbery. The conclusion does not HELD:
follow, for engaging in war, serious violence, physical YES. As in treason, where both intent and overt act are
injuries and destruction of life and property are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the
inherent in rebellion, but not in assault upon persons coexistence of both the armed uprising for the
in authority or agents of persons in authority or in rape. purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised Penal
The word “rebellion” evokes, not merely a challenge to Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the
the constituted authorities, but, also, civil war, on a first paragraph of article 135. That both purpose and
bigger or lesser scale, with all the evils that go with it, overt acts are essential components of one crime, and
whereas, neither rape nor assault upon persons in that without either of them the crime of rebellion
authority connotes necessarily, or even generally, legally does not exist, is shown by the absence of any
either physical injuries, or murder. penalty attached to article 134. It follows, therefore
that any or all of the acts described in article 135, when
Political crimes are those directly aimed against the committed as a means to or in furtherance of the
political order, as well as such common crimes as may subversive ends described in article 134, become
be committed to achieve a political purpose. The absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be
decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves.
regarded as common like homicide, is perpetrated for In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself,

and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate

crime that, under article 48 of the Code, would JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. HON. OMAR U. AMIN
constitute a complex one with that of rebellion. G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
The majority of the Court found no cogent reason for ISSUE:
limiting “commission of serious violence” in article 135 W/N the crime of Rebellion can be complexed with the
to hostilities against the Government’s armed forces special penal law
exclusively; for in that case, the former expression
would be redundant and mere duplication of FACTS:
“engaging in combat” with loyal troops, also described On or about the 1st day of December 1989, at
in the same article. If the infliction of “serious violence” Dasmariñas Village, Makati, Metro Manila and within
was separately expressed in the law, it is because the the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, JUAN PONCE
violence referred to is that inflicted upon civilians. ENRILE, having reasonable ground to believe or
Again, to restrict “serious violence” to acts short of suspect that Ex-Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan has
homicide, is to unwarrantedly assume that the broad committed a crime, did then and there unlawfully,
term “violencia grave” is used in the limited sense of feloniously, willfully and knowingly obstruct, impede,
“lesiones graves”, which in our Penal Code has a frustrate or delay the apprehension of said Ex. Lt. Col.
specialized signification. In truth, if physical injuries Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan by harboring or concealing
constitute grave violence, so would killing necessarily him in his house.
be, if not more. Additionally, it may be observed that
rebellion is by nature a crime of masses or multitudes, On March 21, 1990, ENRILE filed a Motion for
involving crowd action that cannot be confined a priori Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss the Information
within predetermined bounds. on the grounds that:
And we have already pointed out in the Hernandez (a) The facts charged do not constitute an offense; and
resolution that to admit the complexing of the crime of
rebellion with the felonies committed in furtherance (b) The pending charge of rebellion complexed with
thereof, would lead to these undesirable results: (1) to murder and frustrated murder against Senator Enrile as
make the punishment for rebellion heavier than that of alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan, on the basis of
treason, since it has been repeatedly held that the their alleged meeting on December 1, 1989 preclude
latter admits no complexing with the overt acts the prosecution of the Senator for harboring or
committed in furtherance of the treasonous intent, concealing the Colonel on the same occasion under PD
and, in addition, requires two witnesses to every overt 1829.
act which is not true in the case of rebellion; (2) to
nullify the policy expressed in article 135 (R.P.C.) of The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that the
imposing lesser penalty upon the rebel followers as petitioner entertained and accommodated Col.
compared to their leaders, because under the Honasan by giving him food and comfort on December
complexing theory every rebel, leader or follower, must 1, 1989 in his house. Knowing that Colonel Honasan is
suffer the heavier penalty in its maximum degree; (3) a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do
to violate the fundamental rule of criminal law that all anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended.
doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused: “in And because of such failure the petitioner prevented
dubiis reus est absolvendus”, “nullum crimen, nulla Col. Honasan's arrest and conviction in violation of
poena, sine lege.” Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829.
Of course, not every act of violence is to be deemed Judge Amin sustained the charge of violation of PD No.
absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against
happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the the petitioner on the theory that the former involves a
course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were special law while the latter is based on the Revised
done for private purposes or profit, without any Penal Code or a general law.
political motivation, the crime would be separately
punishable and would not be absorbed by the HELD:
rebellion. But ever then, the individual misdeed could NO. The doctrine of absorption is applicable in the case
not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex at bar. If a person cannot be charged with the complex
crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied,
unrelated to each other; the individual crime would not neither can he be charged separately for two (2)
be a means necessary for committing the rebellion as different offenses where one is a constitutive or
it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance component element or committed in furtherance of
of the latter. This appears with utmost clarity in the rebellion.
case where an individual rebel should commit rape;
certainly the latter felony could not be said to have The petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in
been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated conspiracy with the fugitive Col. Gringo Honasan.
its commission in any way. The ravisher would then be Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan,
liable for two separate crimes, rebellion and rape, and petitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing was
the two could not be merged into a juridical whole. for no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of
rebellion thus constitute a component thereof. it was

motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit There were three witnesses: Paulino Legaspi, Laureano
the crime of rebellion. Martinez, and Petronilo Portugal.
As held in People v. Hernandez, supra: Petronilo Portugal’s testimony was disregarded. He

In short, political crimes are those directly aimed testifies that he was invited by Paulino Legaspi to rebel
against the political order, as well as such common against the Government, and that he was given to
crimes as may be committed to achieve a political understand by Legaspi that there were many persons
purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. who intended to conspire, but the witness did not
know whether the accused were implicated in this
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is conspiracy.
described as a vast movement of men and a complex
net of intrigues and plots. (People v. Almasan [CA] O.G. Paulino Legaspi testifies that various persons, some
1932). Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in forty more or less in number, were conspiring to
furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in overthrow the constituted Government, and states that
themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single he knows that the defendants were engaged in this
crime of rebellion. (People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 conspiracy because he heard them say so in their
[1956]; People v. Santos, 104 Phil. 551 [1958]; People v. conversations. Called upon to repeat the words which
Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 [1960]; People v. Lava, 28 he heard them say, he stated the following: "What a life
SCRA 72 [1969]). In this case, the act of harboring or this is, so full of misery, constantly increasing. When
concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component will our wretchedness end? When will the authorities
or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance remedy it? What shall we do?" He does not state that
of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be made the basis he heard anything beyond this, and it appears that he
of a separate charge. The case of People v. Prieto 2 (80 relies solely upon these words, used by the defendants,
Phil., 138 [1948]) is instructive: as a basis for his assertion that they were conspiring.
In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort As to other matters this witness testifies solely from
can only be accomplished by some kind of action. Its hearsay.
very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as
opposed to a mental operation. (Cramer v. U.S., ante) The second witness, Laurenao Martinez, the owner of
This deed or physical activity may be, and often is, in the said house where the meeting was held, averred
itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or that it is improbable that the defendants should select
provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an his house, for the purpose of meeting together to
element of treason it becomes identified with the latter conspire, to read and comment upon correspondence
crime and cannot be the subject of a separate relating to the conspiracy, and to consider the matter
punishment, or used in combination with treason to of contributions and arms collected for the purposes
increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised Penal thereof, as this witness testifies, doing all this in his
Code provides. Just as one cannot be punished for presence, without the slightest caution or care, when it
possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the appears from the testimony of the witness himself that
Identical drug, and a robber cannot be held guilty of not only was he not a party to the conspiracy but that
coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for he had not even been requested to join it. From this it
robbery, because possession of opium and force and follows necessarily that the conspirators could not
trespass are inherent in smoking and in robbery know whether they could count upon his consent and
respectively, so may not a defendant be made liable for adhesion or not, and it is incredible that the defendants
murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with should discuss so grave and delicate a matter with such
another offense whereas in this case, it is averred as a an absolute disregard of the most rudimentary
constitutive ingredient of treason. precautions — precautions which the most ordinary
prudence would counsel in such cases — as would
December 11, 2017 – Article 136 – CONSPIRACY appear to be the case from the testimony of the
AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D'ETAT, witness Martinez. Martinez further said that it is also
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION improbable that Martinez, who had no interest in the
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. conspiracy, he being, according to his own testimony,
an entire outsider, would have permitted such criminal
THE UNITED STATES v. SIMEON FIGUERAS ET AL meetings to be held in his house, thus exposing himself
G.R. No. 1282. September 10, 1903. to disagreeable consequences.
MAPA, J.
A letter which Martinez states that he abstracted from
ISSUE: the pocket of the defendant Bermudes, was attached
Whether or not the defendants are guilty of the crime to the record as evidence for the prosecution.
of conspiracy
HELD:
FACTS: No. The insufficiency of the evidence for the
The judgment of the Court of First Instance from which prosecution it is unnecessary to consider the weight to
the defendants appealed finds them guilty of the crime be attributed to the testimony of the witnesses for the
of conspiracy under section 1 of Act No. 292. defense, which, however, tends to demonstrate the
innocence of the defendants.

The letter submitted might perhaps have some value Does his or anyone's membership in the Communist
as evidence if it were shown: Party per se render Hernandez or any Communist
guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under the
(1)That the words and phrases used in the letter have provisions of Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code?
a conventional meaning; and if so, then the ordinary
meaning of the words and phrases employed; FACTS:
On or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before
(2)The authenticity of this letter. the said date and continuously thereafter, the said
accused, conspiring, confederating and cooperating
Nothing in this connection has been proven, nor was with each other, as well as with the thirty-one (31)
any attempt made to introduce such evidence at the defendants charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 19071,
trial and in the absence of such important data the 14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344, the said accused and
value of this letter as evidence must depend exclusively their other co-conspirators, being then high ranking
upon the testimony of Laureano Martinez, whose officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with
credibility, as we have already stated, appears the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), which
exceedingly doubtful. The terms of the letter itself are is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion against
such that, given their natural and ordinary meaning, the Government of the Philippines thru act theretofore
they do not even remotely show the existence of any committed and planned to be further committed in
conspiracy. Manila and other places in the Philippines, and of
which party the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng
The court finds that it is at least strange that Martinez, Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as the
although he succeeded in getting possession of the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and did then and
letter on the night of Monday, March 9, did not deliver there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support,
it to the governor of the province until the night of promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the
Wednesday, the 11th, if, as he testifies, his sole purpose "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the
in stealing it was to discover and denounce the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms
conspiracy. There is nothing in the case, supposing that against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise
such was his purpose, to satisfactorily explain such a participate in such armed public uprising, for the
delay, and it is even more strange that it should not purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines
have occurred to the witness to read the letter. He had from the allegiance to the government and laws
it in his possession for a considerable length of time, thereof as in fact that to attain the said purpose by then
and it would have been natural for him to be interested and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes,
in reading it, either for the purpose of assuring himself attacks against police, constabulary and army
that it was the same letter he proposed to purloin and detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a
not some other, or else for the purpose of determining, necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in
by acquainting himself with its contents, of which he connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have
had no knowledge, whether or not it was sufficient to then and there committed acts of murder, pillage,
support the very grave charge which he proposed to looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of
lodge with the Government authorities of the province. private and public property to create and spread chaos,
disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the
Above all, the fact that the other witness for the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.
prosecution, Paulino Legaspi, who, according to the
testimony of Martinez, is the one who delivered this The said accused conspiring among themselves and
letter to the defendant Bermudes, not only fails to say with several others as aforesaid, willfully, unlawfully
a single word about it but testifies in such a way that it and feloniously organized, established, led and/or
may reasonably be inferred from his testimony as a maintained the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO),
whole that he was wholly ignorant of the existence of formerly known as the Committee on Labor
the letter, his statements thus being an implicit denial Organizations (CLO), with central offices in Manila and
of the assertions of Martinez in this regard. chapters and affiliated or associated labor unions and
other "mass organizations" in different places in the
The court finds that the guilt of the defendants not Philippines, as an active agency, organ, and
having been established by the evidence, they are instrumentality of the Communist Party of the
entitled to an acquittal. Philippines (P.K.P.) and as such agency, organ, and
instrumentality, to fully cooperate in, and synchronize
its activities — as the CLO thus organized, established,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMADO V. led and/or maintained by the herein accused and their
HERNANDEZ, ET AL. co-conspirators, has in fact fully cooperated in and
G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964 synchronized its activities with the activities of the
----------------------------- "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) and other
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BAYANI organs, agencies, and instrumentalities of the
ESPIRITU, ET AL Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), to thereby
G.R. No. L-6026 May 30, 1964 assure, facilitate, and effect the complete and
permanent success of the above-mentioned armed
ISSUE: rebellion against the Government of the Philippines.

was not a Communist conspiring to commit the actual

HELD: rebellion by the mere fact of his presidency of the CLO.
No. The advocacy of Communism or Communistic
theory and principle is not to be considered as a December 12, 2017 – Article 137 – DISLOYALTY OF
criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES
converted into an advocacy of action. [NO CASE FOUND]
ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion December 12, 2017 – Article 138 – INCITING TO
or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, [NO CASE FOUND]
respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos, December 12, 2017 – Article 139 – SEDITION
and by prision correccional in its medium period and a DUQUE, Francis Lester
fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory PEOPLE vs. GRACIANO L. CABRERA, ET AL.
or principle is insufficient unless the communist G.R. No. 17748 - March 4, 1922
advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual
agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an ISSUE:
agreement forged to use force and violence in an WON it is necessary that the offender should be a
uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted private citizen in the crime of sedition.
authority and seize the reins of Government itself.
Unless action is actually advocated or intended or FACTS:
contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, Policemen of city Manila arrested a woman who was a
merely holding belief in the supremacy of the member of the household of a Constabulary soldier
proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the stationed at Santa Lucia Barracks. The next day,
seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a theorist Artemio Mojica, police officer posted in the street of
the Communist is not yet actually considered as Calle Real had an encounter with various Constabulary
engaging in the criminal field subject to punishment. soldiers which resulted in the shooting of private
Only when the Communist advocates action and actual Macasinag, constabulary who was mortally wounded
uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of and eventually died. The next day in, a rumor spread
conspiracy to commit rebellion. among the soldiers in Santa Lucia Barracks that
policeman Mojica was allowed to continue on duty
Mere membership in the Communist Party or in the
CLO renders the member liable, either of rebellion or These incidents was considered by some of the
of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere Constabulary soldiers as an outrage committed by the
membership and nothing more merely implies policemen, and it instantly gave rise to friction between
advocacy of abstract theory or principle without any members of Manila police department and member of
action being induced thereby; and that such advocacy the Philippine Constabulary. Constabulary soldier
becomes criminal only if it is coupled with action or endangered a deep feeling of resentment which was
advocacy of action, namely, actual rebellion or soon converted into a desire for revenge against the
conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive police force of the city of Manila. At about 7 o'clock in
thereto or evincing the same. On the other hand, the evening of the same day, corporal Ingles
membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies approached private Nicolas Torio who was then the
participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to man in charge of quarters, and asked him to let the
secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of the soldiers out through the window. Private Torio was
peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By easily was persuaded. Some 70 armed soldier went out.
membership in the HMB, one already advocates They divided into two groups. One platoon of
uprising and the use of force, and by such membership Constabulary Soldier fired in the direction of the
he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the intersection of Calles Real where an American
ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, even if policeman Driskill was stationed with his friend
there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of Jacumin. A street car happened to stop. Without
conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law. considering that the passengers in the car were
innocent passersby, the Constabulary squad fired a
The leader of the CLO therefore, namely Hernandez, volley into the car, killing one passenger wounding
cannot be considered as a leader in actual rebellion or three civilian. Some minutes later, Captain William E.
of the actual uprising subject of the accusation. Wichman, assistant chief of police, riding in a
Hernandez, as President of the CLO therefore, by his motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala, arrived and a
presidency and leadership of the CLO cannot be volley of shorts by Constabulary soldiers were fired
considered as having actually risen up in arms in resulted in the instantaneous death of Wichman and
rebellion against the Government of the Philippines, or Saplala. About the same time, a police patrol came, the
taken part in the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as Constabulary soldiers fired at them which resulted in
charged against him in the present case; he was merely the death of patrolmen Trogue and Sison. Another
a propagandist and indoctrinator of Communism, he platoon arranged themselves in a firing line on the east
side of Calle General Luna and fired upon the

motorcycle occupied by Sergeant Armada and driven Pasumbal report to Umali about his conference with
by policeman Policarpio who were just passing. As a Commander Abeng, saying that the latter was
result the two policemen was mortally wounded. The agreeable to the proposition and had even outlined
same platoon fired several volleys indiscriminately into the manner of attack.
the Luneta police station, and the office of the secret Day following the election, Punzalan win over
service. The next day Colonel Lucien R. Sweet of the Pasumbal. He was told by Umali to come with him, and
Constabulary officers, and the fiscals of the city of Pasumbal and the three boarded a jeep toward the
Manila, commenced an investigation. Sergeant Tiaong Elementary School and once there he
Graciano L. Cabrera admitted to have participated in (Mendoza) was left at the school premises with
the shooting. The defendants were charged with the instructions by Umali to wait for Commander Abeng
crime of sedition and found guilty by the court. Hence and the Huks and point to them the house of Punzalan.
this petition. Counsel contend that it is necessary that After waiting for sometime, Abeng and his troops
the offender should be a private citizen and the numbering about fifty, armed with garands and
offended party a public functionary, and that what carbines, arrived and after explaining his identity and
really happened in this instance was a fight between his mission to Abeng, Mendoza had led them
two armed bodies of the Philippine Government. Punzalan's house and then walked toward his home,
leaving the Huks who proceeded to lie flat in a canal.
HELD: Before reaching his house, he already heard shots, so,
No. Act No 292 - Sedition Law makes no distinction he evacuated his family. His wife Catalina incidentally
between the persons to which it applies when the saw Congressman Umali holding a revolver, in the
wording of said law states that "it makes all persons company of Huk Commander Torio and about 20
guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in armed men. Afterwards they saw Umali and his
order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods companions leave.
any one of vie objects, including that of inflicting any
act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of HELD:
any official or agent of the Insular Government or of No. The crime committed was not rebellion but rather
Provincial or Municipal Government." that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of
the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was
not exactly against the Government as defined in
PEOPLE vs. NARCISO UMALI, ET AL Article 134 of the RPC but rather, the object was to
G.R. No. L-5803 - November 29, 1954 attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. to inflict an
act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of
ISSUE: a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of
WON the trial court is correct in finding Narciso Umali Tiaong punishable uder Article 139 of the RPC.
guilty of complex crime of rebellion.
December 13, 2017 – Article 140 – PENALTY FOR
FACTS: SEDITION
Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time [NO CASE FOUND]
friends belonged to the same political faction and even
campaigning for each other. Umali was then a December 13, 2017 – Article 140 – CONSPIRACY TO
congressman while Punzalan was a Mayor. Narciso COMMIT SEDITION
Umali regarded himself as the political head and leader DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna
in Tiaong, became jealous because of his (Punzalan's)
fast growing popularity among the people of Tiaong
who looked to him instead of Umali for political THE UNITED STATES vs. MAXIMINO PLANAS
guidance, leadership, and favors. G.R. No. 6867 December 23, 1911
On 1951 election, Punzalan ran for reelection. To ISSUE:

oppose him, and to clip his political wings and Whether or not the defendant is liable for the crime of
definitely blast his ambition for continued power and conspiracy to commit sedition.
influence in Tiaong, Umali picked Epifanio Pasumbal,
his trusted leader. Amado Mendoza, star witness for FACTS:
the prosecution, testified that on the eve of the On the 1st day of September, 1910, an uprising in the
election, at the house of Pasumbal's father, then being Philippine Islands, and having for its object the
used as his electoral headquarters, he heard Umali overthrow of the Government of the Philippine Islands,
instruct Pasumbal to contact the Huks through and provincial and municipal governments of the
Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be killed, Province of Nueva Vizcaya and other provinces in the
Pasumbal complying with the order of his Chief (Umali) Philippine Islands, took place in and about the
went to the mountains and held a conference with township of Solano in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya.
Commander Abeng. It would seem that Umali and
Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going to win Defendant, Maximino Planas, was the president of the
in the elections the next day, and that his death was town of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On the 3rd day of
the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight. September, 1910, the said Maximino Planas called
In the evening of the same day, Mendoza heard together the policemen of the said town of Bambang

and said them, "The insurrectos have entered Solano then told them to deliver their arms to his house as he,
and seized money from the treasury, burned the the defendant, was a captain of the insurrectos and
papers, and made prisoners of the padres. Now you that he (the defendant) would deliver said arms to the
must bring your arms to my house so that I can deliver insurrectos when they entered the town of Bambang.
them to the issurrectos when they reach here and you The defendant also told the four policemen that the
must all be ready to join the insurrectos when they insurrectos had already entered Solano, seized the
bring because I am captain of insurrectos, and when municipal funds and burned the papers, and that when
they come we will kill the Americans Bennett and Scott they (the insurrectos) reached Bambang to be ready to
and the Romanista padre, and burn the convent. Do join them and that they would then kill the two
not tell anything of this to the Americans or the Americans, Bennett and Scott, and the Romanpadre
insurrectos will kill you when they come," or words to and burn the convent. On the next day, the 4th of
that effect. September, when six councilmen assembled in
thepresidencia of Bambang in obedience to his order
On the 4th day of September, 1910, between 9 and 10 the defendant repeated substantially the same
o'clock, the councilmen of Bambang assembled at the conversation as he had with the policemen. He told the
presedencia of said town in obedience to the call or councilmen to prepare their people with arms of all
bandillo which had been published the previous kinds, bolos, lances, and arrows, and be ready to join
evening in said town by the defendant. At this meeting the insurrectos when they reached Bambang, after
there were present the councilmen: Proceso Sierra, which they (the insurrectos) would kill the Americans
Martin Apno, Marcelino Alvarez, Angel Malonoy, Scott and Bennett, and the Romanista padre, and burn
Santiago Corales, and Francisco Pugayan, and the convent. He also told the councilmen that the
President Planas, the accused. And that the accused insurrectos had already entered Solano, seized the
then told the assembled councilmen that the municipal funds and burned the papers, and that when
insurrectos had entered Solano, seized the municipal they (the insurrectos) entered Bambang, they, the
funds, burned the papers, and made prisoners of the councilmen and their people, would hear the salvos of
Romanista padres. "Prepare your people with arms, the police at the presidencia and this would be the
bolos, spears, and arrows, and when the insurrectos signal to join forces with the insurrectos.
arrive in this town be ready to join them, then we will
kill the Americans Bennett and Scott and the From the foregoing, the Court held that the findings of
Romanista padre," or words to that effect. fact made by the lower court are in accordance with
Also, in the house of the councilman Martin Apno, of such evidence, and show that the defendant was guilty
the town of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, the accused had of the crime charged beyond peradventure of doubt,
a conversation with the aforementioned Councilman and that the sentence imposed by the lower court is in
Martin Apno in which the accused said "Do you know accordance with the law.
what has happened in Solano? The insurrectos have
entered there and taken the money and burned the December 14, 2017 - Article 142 – INCITING TO
papers," and that said councilman Apno must prepare
SEDITION
bolos, lances, and other arms and when the insurrectos
entered be prepared to join them and that after they PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D.
would kill Mr. Bennett and Mr. Scott and the Roman
padre of the town of Bambang, Nueva Viscaya.
PEOPLE vs. ISAAC PEREZ
G.R. No. L-21049 December 22, 1923
HELD:
MALCOLM, J.:
Yes.
ISSUE:
Many witnesses were presented both by the
Whether or not Perez has uttered seditious words
government and the defendant. The facts in the
which tend to incite others.
present case bear a very close relation to the facts in
the cases of U. S. vs. Mandac (No. 6763), and U.S. vs.
FACTS:
Isidro Olaño (No. 6882).
Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon,
and one Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen of that
The Court found that the facts were conclusively and
municipality, happened to meet in the presidencia of
overwhelmingly proven by the testimony of the
Pilar, they became engaged in a discussion regarding
prosecution which consisted of the evidence of four
the administration of Governor-General Wood, which
policemen of the town of Bambang, Pantaleon
resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The
Pugayan, Pedro Sierra, Santiago Angela, and Emeterio
Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off
Marquez; three councilmen of said town whose names
Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for
were Proceso Sierra, Martin Apno, and Angel Malanoy,
the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence."
and the municipal treasurer of Bambang, Ventura
Bernal, and his clerk Martiniano Mirralles. The
HELD:
policemen testified that they assembled, four in
Yes. In the words of law, Perez has uttered seditious
number, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon in the
words. He has made a statement and done an act
presidencia of Bambang by order of the defendant on
which tended to instigate others to cabal or meet
the 3d of September, 1910, and that the defendant
together for unlawful purposes. He has made a

statement and done an act which suggested and

incited rebellious conspiracies. He has made a ESPUELAS VS PEOPLE
statement and done an act which tended to stir up the G.R. NO. L-2990, DECEMBER 17, 1951
people against the lawful authorities. He has made a BENGZON, J:
statement and done an act which tended to disturb the
peace of the community and the safety or order of the ISSUE:
Government. Since, the Governor-General is an Whether or not Espuelas was liable of scurrilous libel
executive official appointed by the President of the under Art. 142 of the RPC against the Government of
United States and holds in his office at the pleasure of the Philippines.
the President, a seditious attack on the Governor-
General is an attack on the rights of the Filipino people FACTS:
and on American sovereignty. In the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas had
his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were
hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope
PEOPLE VS. NABONG suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and
G. R. No. 36426, November 03, 1932 in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After
STREET, J. securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent
copies of the same to Free Press, the Evening News, the
ISSUE: Bisayas, Lamdang of general circulation and other local
Whether or not Nabong’s speech tended to instigate periodicals in the Province of Bohol but also
others to cabal and meet together for unlawful throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their
purposes. publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he
made to appear that it was written by a fictitious
FACTS: suicide, stating his dismay in the administration of
Antonio D. Ora, the head of the communists in the President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central
Philippine Islands, died and a necrological service in his Luzon and Leyte, and directing his dear wife to write to
memory was held. Nabong, an attorney, delivered a President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them
speech in such service criticizing the members of the that in the Philippines the government is infested with
Constabulary, using words substantially to the many Hitlers and Mussolinis and for this reason he is
following effect: ashamed that he cannot hold high brows to the world
with such dirty government.
"They committed a real abuse in seizing the flag. The
members of the Constabulary are bad because they HELD:
shoot even innocent women, as it happened in Tayug. Yes. A published writing which calls our government
In view of this, we ought to be united to suppress that one of crooks and dishonest persons ("dirty") infested
abuse. Overthrow the present government and with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators, and which reveals
establish our own government, the government of the a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling
poor. Use your whip so that there may be marks on incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to
their sides." the government, is a scurrilous libel against the
Government. The violent and provocative statements
HELD: made by Espuelas against the state was neither
Yes. The language used by Nabong clearly imported an constructive nor with reason. It, instead, went beyond
overthrow of the Government by violence, and it the ambit of criticism legally permitted since it had the
should be interpreted in the plain and obvious sense in dangerous tendency of appealing to the common
which it was evidently intended to be understood. The mind and suggesting or inciting rebellious conspiracies
word "overthrow" could not have been intended as and riots against the duly constituted government.
referring to an ordinary change by the exercise of the
elective franchise. It was the purpose of Nabong,
beyond a doubt, to incite his hearers to the overthrow December 15, 2017 – Article 143 – ACTS TENDING
of organized government by unlawful means. The TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY
words used by Nabong manifestly tended to induce AND SIMILAR BODIES
the people to resist and use violence against the ALAMEDA, Manuel
agents of the Constabulary and to instigate the poor
to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes. PEOPLE VS ALIPIT
They also suggested and incited rebellious 55 Phil 170- August 22, 1922
conspiracies, thereby tending to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace ISSUE:
of the community. It is not necessary, in order to be Whether or not the chief of police and municipal
seditious, that the words used should in fact result in a president are liable under Article 143 for preventing
rising of the people against the constituted the meeting of the municipal council.
authorities. The law is not aimed merely at actual
disturbance, and its purpose is also to punish FACTS:
utterances which may endanger public order. The municipal council held an extraordinary meeting
which was presided over by vice-president Basa

because the hour fixed had come without the president act could be made the basis for contempt proceedings
being present. While the meeting was being held, the and for criminal prosecution.
accused Victorio Alemus, then the chief of police of
that municipality, entered the room, saying that he had December 17, 2017 – Article 145 – VIOLATION OF
an order from the president to arrest vice-president PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Basa. Basa answered that he had not committed any TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
crime. Dominador Delfino, one of the councilors
present, succeeded in persuading the chief of police to
wait until the meeting was over. A few minutes MANUEL MARTINEZ Y FESTIN vs. THE
thereafter president Alipit arrived at the municipal HONORABLE JESUS P. MORFE OF THE COURT OF
building and after taking one of the revolvers in the FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, and THE CITY
police office, fired a shot in the air, entered WARDEN OF MANILA
immediately the room where the meeting was being G.R. No. L-34022, March 24, 1972
held and said in a loud voice to the chief of police who ISSUE:
was there: "Arrest him, arrest him," pointing out the Whether Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code applies
vice-president. The chief of police obeyed the order, in this case
holding the vice-president by the arm and taking him
to the jail, president Alipit following them with the FACTS:
revolver in his hand. Shortly afterwards, councilor Petitioner Martinez y Festin alleged that on June 10,
Delfino asked president Alipit if they could continue 1971, an information against him for falsification a
the meeting to the end, to which Alipit answered: public document was filed. Its basis was his stating
"Whoever dare continue holding the meeting will be under oath in his certificate of candidacy for delegate
arrested." the councilors then dispersed, leaving the to that Constitutional Convention that he was born on
premises. June 20, 1945, when in truth and in fact he knew that
he was born on June 20, 1946.
HELD:
Any stranger, even if he be the municipal president He was arrested by the City Sheriff in the afternoon of
himself or the chief of the municipal police, must September 6, 1971. At the time of the filing of the
respect the meeting of the municipal council which for petition he was confined at the City Jail in the custody
the time being, at least, raises the presumption that no of respondent City Warden of Manila. He was on his
defect exists to render it illegal. That meeting of the way to attend the plenary session of the Constitutional
municipal council was entitled too this respect on the Convention. Such arrest was against his will and over
part of the defendants and the aforesaid presumption his protest.
was effective as to them.
As for petitioner Fernando Bautista, Sr., 10 it was
December 16, 2017 – Article 144 – DISTURBANCE OF alleged that he is a duly elected and proclaimed
PROCEEDINGS delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. Two
RIVERA, Marynit P. criminal complaints was filed by a defeated delegate-
aspirant for alleged violation of Section 51 of the
LOPEZ V. DE LOS REYES Revised Penal Code in that they gave and distributed
G.R. No L-3436, November 5, 1930 free of charge food, drinks and cigarettes at two public
ISSUE: meetings, one held in Sablan and the other in Tuba,
Whether or not the act of Candido Lopez could be both towns being in Province of Benguet.
made the basis for contempt proceedings and for
criminal prosecution Before a warrant of arrest in said criminal cases could
be issued, petitioner in a motion of August 14, 1971
FACTS: invoked the privilege of immunity from arrest and
On October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez attacked and search, pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No.
assaulted, without any justification, the Honorable Jose 6132, otherwise known as the 1971 Constitutional
D. Dimayuga, who was then and is now a member of Convention Act, in relation to Sec. 15, Article VI of the
the House of Representatives of the Philippine Islands Constitution and Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code.
while said Representative was going to the hall of the
House of Representative to attend to the sessions. As HELD:
a result of the attack and assault, Representative NO. Their reliance on the constitutional provision
Dimayuga was unable to attend the sessions on that which for them should be supplemented by what was
day and those of the two days next following by reason provided for in the Revised Penal Code is futile. There
of the threats which Mr. Candido Lopez made against is no justification then for granting their respective
the said Representative. pleas.
HELD: As is made clear in Section 15 of Article VI, the

Yes. The implied power to punish for contempt of the immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution
National Assembly is coercive in nature. The power to for treason, felony and breach of the peace.
punish crime is punitive in character. Thus, the same

Certainly then from the explicit language of the substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.
Constitution, even without its controlling The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost,
interpretation as shown by the debates of the however, by an advocacy or disorder. If assembly is to
Constitutional Convention to be hereinafter discussed, be held in school premises, permit must be sought
petitioners cannot justify their claim to immunity. Nor from its school authorities who are devoid to deny such
does Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code come to request. In granting such permit, there may be
their rescue. Such a provision that took effect in 1932 conditions as to the time and place of an assembly to
could not survive after the Constitution became avoid disruption of classes or stoppage of work of non-
operative on November 15, 1935. academic personnel. However, in violation of terms,
penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the
The repugnancy between such an expansion of the offense.
congressional immunity and the plain command of the
Constitution is too great to be overcome, even on the December 19, 2017 – Article 147 – ILLEGAL
assumption that the penalty to which a public officer ASSOCIATION
will be subjected in the event that he did arrest one NASH, Regina Mercado
entitled thereto for an offense punishable by less than
reclusion temporal suffices to widen its scope.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS OF SERAFIN G. CRUZ. SERAFIN
There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the necessity
G. CRUZ vs. GEN. ROMEO GATAN of the
to have members of Congress, and likewise delegates
Philippine Constabulary (PC) Camp Olivas, San
to the Constitutional Convention, entitled to the
Fernando, Pampanga
utmost freedom to enable them to discharge their vital
G.R. No. L-44910 November 29, 1976
responsibilities, bowing to no other force except the
dictates of their conscience. Necessarily the utmost
ISSUE:
latitude in free speech should be accorded them. When
Whether or not the detention of Serafin Cruz was legal
it comes to freedom from arrest, however, it would
under Art. 147 RPC.
amount to the creation of a privileged class, without
justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability
FACTS:
for a criminal offense, they would be considered
Serafin G. Cruz was arrested by PC agents on August
immune during their attendance in Congress and in
30, 1976, at the Baguio Checkpoint along Kennon
going to and returning from the same.
Road, Baguio City, and brought to Camp Olivas, San
Fernando, Pampanga, under the command of
respondent Gen. Romeo Gatan, for custodial
DECEMBER 18, 2017 – Article 146 – ILLEGAL
interrogation. On October 22, 1976, a petition for the
ASSEMBLIES
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed in his
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
behalf wherein it was claimed that the said Serafin Cruz
is held incommunicado; that he is restrained of his
MALABANAN VS. RAMENTO
liberty without due process of law and is in the custody
G.R. NO. L-62270 MAY 21, 1984
of the respondent not by virtue of a judgment or court
ISSUE:
order; that he is not a member of any subversive
Whether Article 146 of the Revised Penal Code applies
organization covered by Proclamation No. 1081 and
in this case
falls within the class of persons to whom the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended.
FACTS:
Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student
The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus returnable
Council of the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation.
to the Court on Friday, November 12, 1976 at 3:00 p.m.
They were granted a permit to hold a meeting to
and required the respondent to make a return of the
protest the merger of two units of the university. On
writ not later than Wednesday, November 10, 1976.
the scheduled date, the students continued their
meeting beyond the scheduled time and held it in a
Admitting that the petitioner has been arrested and
different place from that indicated in the permit. They
detained, the respondent justifies such arrest and
expressed in a vehement language their opposition to
detention as having been legally ordered by the
the merger and as a result, classes and office work was
President of the Philippines in the exercise of his
disturbed. Petitioners were placed under preventive
powers under martial law claiming that Serafin G. Cruz
suspension. On appeal, they were found guilty of
was arrested by virtue of Arrest, Search, and Seizure
holding an illegal assembly and oral defamation.
Order No. 4122, dated August 28, 1976, issued by the
Secretary of National Defense, for violation of Art. 147
HELD:
of the Revised Penal Code (Illegal Associations), Serafin
NO. Petitioners only invoke their rights to peaceable
G. Cruz being the "Over-all Commander and
assembly and free speech which they are entitled to do
Contractor General of the Bataan Defenders
so. Their exercise to discuss matters affecting their
Command," an unregistered veterans outfit, at the time
welfare or involving public interest is not subjected to
of his arrest. It is further claimed that his continued
previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless
detention is the free will and volition of the petitioner
there be a showing of clear and present danger to a
who expressed fears that he might be harmed or

injured by some members of the "Bataan Defenders Rivera asked the driver to drive back to Shilan, Benguet
Command" if he were free from custody while the and unload the sacks of chicken dung and not follow
mastermind and legal counsel of the association, one the police’s orders. The driver followed Rivera’s order
Atty. Cecilio Baylon Buenafe, has not yet been arrested. and drove back to Shilan Benguet while Rivera was
On November 17, 1976, counsel, who filed the petition following closely behind in his own car. Inspector
in behalf of Serafin G. Cruz, filed a comment on the Leygo gave chase to the truck. Leygo was able to
return saying, among others, that after November 12, intercept the truck and force it to stop. Leygo inquired
1976, he talked with Serafin G. Cruz and the latter why they insisted on defying the ban on the loading
avowed his preference to stay within the confines of and unloading of manure. Rivera then alighted from his
Camp Olivas, notwithstanding the subsequent arrest of vehicle and uttered insulting words such as: “babalian
the said Atty. Cecilio Baylon Buenafe, thus rendering kita ng buto”, “Ilalampaso kita”, and “Pulis lang kayo”.
the issues raised in the petition unnecessary and/or Leygo then approached Rivera and said that he was
irrelevant. Then, at the hearing of the case, Serafin G. going to arrest him for violating the Municipal
Cruz manifested to the Court that he prefers to stay Ordinance. Rivera then assumed fighting stance and
under protective custody. Under the circumstances, punched Leygo in his lower lip. They grappled for a
there is no other recourse but to dismiss the case. while and with the help of fellow police officers, Rivera
was finally arrested.
But, be that as it may, under General Order No. 2-A, as
amended, the President of the Philippines, pursuant to HELD:
Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972, YES. Direct assault may be committed by two ways:
ordered the Secretary of National Defense "to arrest or first, by any person or persons who, without a public
cause the arrest and take into custody and to hold uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the
them until otherwise ordered released by me or by my attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in
duly designated representative: 1. Such persons as may defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; second,
have committed crimes and offenses in furtherance or by any person or persons who, without a public
on the occasion of or incident to or in connection with uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously
the crimes of insurrection or rebellion as defined in intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his
Articles 134 to 138 of the Revised Penal Code, and agents, while engaged in the performance of official
other crimes against public order as defined in Articles duties, or on occasion of such performance.
146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, and 156 of the
same Code; ... It is evident that this case falls under the second mode.
It is evident that the assault happened when Leygo was
HELD: engaged in the actual performance of his official
Yes it was legal when they arrested and detained Cruz duties. He was wearing the designated police uniform
by virtue of an Arrest, Search, and Seizure Order issued and was on board a police car conducting a routinary
by the Secretary of National Defense for violation of patrol when he first came upon the truck unloading
Article 147 of the Revised Penal Code pursuant General chicken manure. Since the loading and unloading of
Order No. 2-A, as amended. The declaration of martial chicken manure is prohibited by an ordinance, Leygo
law and the consequent suspension of the privilege of has every right to order the accused to stop. When
the writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons accused defied such a lawful order, it is only natural
reasonably believed or charged to be engaged in the that Leygo would stop them from doing so. Under the
disorder. circumstances, it simply defies reason to argue that
Leygo was not in the performance of his lawful duties
as a police officer when the assault upon him was
December 20, 2017 – Article 148 – DIRECT ASSAULT perpetrated by the petitioner.
DAHIROC, Janice L.
Aggravating circumstances
RIVERA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 138553, JUN 30, 2005 1. The assault is committed with a weapon
ISSUE: 2. When the offender is a public officer or employee

Whether or Not Rivera is guilty of the crime of direct
assault? 3. When the offender lays hand upon a person in
authority
FACTS:
Police Inspector Edward M. Leygo and SPO1 Joseph
Basquial were conducting patrols on board in Shilan, GELIG V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Benguet. They came upon a truck which was unloading G.R. NO. 173150/ JUL 28, 2010
sacks of chicken dung at the stall of Enrique Totoy
Rivera along the highway since Municipal Ordinance ISSUE:
No. I-91 prohibits the unloading of chicken dung along Whether or Not Lydia C. Gelig is liable for the crime of
the highway, Inspector Leygo asked the driver to stop Direct Assault.
unloading the manure and return the truck from where
it came. The driver complied. After a while, Enrique FACTS:

Lydia C. Gelig and Gemma B. Micarsos were public On April 30th, respondent and accompanied by some
school teachers at the Nailo Elementary School. Lydia’s of his subordinates, searched the house of petitioner
son, Roseller, was a student of Gemma. Lydia Uy and found 60 small cans of opium. They wanted to
confronted Gemma during class after learning that search the bodega but Uy denied that it was his.
Gemma called Roseller "sissy". Gemma tried to calm Wanting to be sure, Torralba placed a guard in the
Lydia down but failed to do so. As Gemma tried to go premises to ensure nothing was removed from the
the Principal office, Lydia pushed Gemma causing her premises. Later, they found out thru one Segovia that
to fall and hit a wall divider. Gemma experienced Uy was renting the bodega. There, Torralba resumed
abdominal pain and after 42 days she suffered the search and found and seized other articles such as
incomplete abortion. Lydia was convicted in the RTC opium pipes, containers, books and papers.
for the crime of direct assault with unintentional
abortion. Lydia was then acquitted before the CA for Uy then filed a criminal complaint for violation of the
the crime of direct assault but was held liable for slight Opium law and filed a petition in the Court of First
physical injuries. Unsatisfied with the ruling, Lydia Instance, for the return of the private papers, books
brought he case before the SC. and other property which the Constabulary seized
illegally and in violation of the constitutional rights of
HELD: the defendants.
Yes. This case falls under the second mode of Direct
Assault which has the following elements: 1. that the HELD:
offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) Yes. Although in the issuance of the search warrant, the
makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious Judge did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 98
resistance. 2. That the person assaulted is a person in of General Orders No. 58, the petitioners are not
authority or his agent. 3. That at the time of the assault entitled to the return of the opium and its
the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged i the paraphernalia which was found under said warrant.
actual performance of official duties, or (b) that he is
assaulted by reason of the past performance of official However, the seizure of the petitioner’s books, letters,
duties. 4. That the offender knows that the one he is telegrams, and other articles which have no inherent
assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the relation with opium and the possession of which is not
exercise of his duties. 5. That there is no public uprising. forbidden by law, was illegal and in violation of the
Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the petitioner’s constitutional rights.
class of persons in authority expressly mentioned in
Article 152 of the RPC. Since the assault happened Hence, Art. 150 may not apply when the papers or
while Gemma was overseeing the class, she is in the documents may be used in evidence against the
actual performance of her official duties. That being owner, because it would be equivalent to compelling
the case, all of the requisites of the crime of Direct him to be a witness against himself.
Assault are present. As such, Lydia is guilty of Direct
Assault. However, Lydia is not guilty of indirect
abortion since the prosecution failed to prove that the JEAN ARNAULT VS. LEON NAZARENO
act of pushing is the proximate cause of the abortion. G.R. NO. L-3820, JULY 18, 1950
The interval of time 42 days, is too lengthy to prove
that the discharge of the fetus from the womb of ISSUE:
Gemma was a direct outcome of the assault. Whether the senate can impose penalty against those
who refuse to answer its questions in a congressional
December 21, 2017 – Article 149 – INDIRECT hearing in aid of legislation.
ASSAULT
[NO CASE FOUND] FACTS:
The Philippine Government, through the Rural
December 21, 2017 – Article150 – DISOBEDIENCE TO Progress Administration, bought two estates known as
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Buenavista and Tambobong for the sums of P4,500,000
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. and P500,000, respectively. Of the first sum, P1,000,000
was paid to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American,
UY KHEYTIN ET. AL., VS ANTONIO VILLAREAL thru his attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, the
GR NO. 16009, SEP 21, 1920 Associated Estates, Inc., represented by Jean L. Arnault.
ISSUE:
Whether the Books, Papers, and other properties A Special Committee, be, as it hereby is, created,
seized may be returned. composed of five members to be appointed by the
President of the Senate to investigate the Buenavista
FACTS: and Tambobong Estate deals. It shall be the duty of the
Ramon Gayanilo, a constabulary, applied for a search said Committee to determine whether the said
warrant, stating in his application; “That in the house of purchase was honest, valid, and proper and whether
Chino Uy Kheytin, under the writing desk in his store, the price involved in the deal was fair and just, the
there is kept a certain amount of opium.” Upon that parties responsible therefor, and any other facts the
application, a search warrant was issued. Committee may deem proper in the premises. Said
Committee shall have the power to conduct public

hearings; issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum to accused his police badge, the accused still resisted and
compel the attendance of witnesses or the production struck the agent on the stomach. The agent then struck
of documents before it; and may require any official or the accused on the neck and Agent Jacinto intervened
employee of any bureau, office, branch, subdivision, and explained that the inspector was a custom agent
agency, or instrumentality of the Government to assist searching for contraband, and appellant resisted no
or otherwise cooperate with the Special Committee in further and allowed him to be searched.
the performance of its functions and duties. Said
Committee shall submit its report of findings and Chan Fook was then prosecuted for the crime of
recommendations within two weeks from the adoption resistance and disobedience to the public authority,
of this Resolution. and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila
to two months and one day of arresto mayor and to
Jean L. Arnault, a lawyer who delivered a partial of the pay a fine of 1,301 pesetas and the costs of the action,
purchase price to a representative of the vendor. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
During the Senate investigation, Arnault refused to
reveal the identity of said representative, at the same HELD:
time invoking his constitutional right against self- No, that the right to be secured against unreasonable
incrimination. The Senate adopted a resolution searches and seizures shall not be violated. It is urged
committing Arnault to the custody of the Sergeant-at- that the object of searching the person of the accused
Arms and imprisoned “until he shall have purged the was to find whether he had with him any contraband.
contempt by revealing to the Senate the name of the It was too late to look for any contraband. He had
person to whom he gave the P440,000, as well as already been searched when he left the boat. The
answer other pertinent questions in connection accused had reached his destination, spending the
therewith.” Arnault petitioned for a writ of Habeas night in the house where he had taken lodging. It is
Corpus not, therefore, reasonable to believe that when he
returned to pier No. 1 the next day, he had about his
HELD: body any contraband. Thus the search made by the
When Arnault refused to divulge the identity of the agent Cruz appears to be unreasonable.
person to whom he gave an amount of P440.000,
whose identity the Senate investigating committee A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who
believed him to know, the Senate pronounced him exceeds his power cannot be said to be in the exercise
guilty of contempt and ordered his imprisonment until of the functions of his office. The law that defines and
he would be willing to identify such person. establishes his powers does not protect him for
anything that has not been provided for.
It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose penalty
in carrying out their duty to conduct inquiry in aid of "The scope of the respective powers of public officers
legislation. But it must be herein established that a and their agents is fixed. If they go beyond it and they
witness who refuses to answer a query by the violate any recognized rights of the citizens, then the
Committee may be detained during the term of the latter may resist the invasion, specially when it is clear
members imposing said penalty, but the detention and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive with
should not be too long as to violate the witness’ right the excess, and should not be greater than what is
to due process of law. necessary to repel the aggression.
December 22, 2017 – Article 151 - DISOBEDIENCE TO EDMUNDO SIONZON V. PEOPLE

THE PERSON IN AUTHORITY G.R. NO. 202692, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. ISSUE:
Whether petitioner violated Article 151 of the Revised
PEOPLE VS CHAN FOOK Penal Code when he resisted the officer placing him
G.R. NO. 16968, OCTOBER 6, 1921 under arrest.
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether accused is guilty for the crime of resistance A checkpoint was established along Roxas Boulevard
and disobedience to the public authority. in Malate on June 11, 2006. P/Insp. Aguilar et. al., where
manning the checkpoint when they saw a red Ford
FACTS: Ranger with plate number XAE 988 driven by petitioner
Accused is a Chinese subject and a passenger of a US Sydeco. They then proceeded to flagged the swerving
military transport South Bend which arrived in Manila pick up and asked the petitioner to alight from the
on April 6, 1920. The immigration authorities has vehicle. Petitioner, who the police claimed was smelling
allowed the appellant to land, he left the boat on the liquor, denied of being drunk, shouted and talked
same day. Appellant then went back to the pier No. 1 rudely to the Policemen. Petitioner blurted out “Putang
to get his baggage the following day, Customs agent Ina Mo, bakit mo ako hinuhuli.” Respondents, proceed
Cruz searched the baggage of the accused and found to subdue the petitioner and was arrested and brought
postcards of indecent characters. He later then tried to to Manila Hospital to be examined for liquor. Petitioner
search the body of the accused, which the accused on the other hand, claimed to be a victim of physical
objected. A disputed took place, after showing the

injuries, robbery and arbitrary detention against P/Insp. occurrence of a crime that would allow what
Aguilar. jurisprudence refers to as a "stop and frisk" action.
The MTC and the RTC, rendered judgment finding December 23, 2017 – Article 152 – PERSONS IN
petitioner guilty of violation of RA 4136 and violation AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF PERSONS IN
of Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code of resisting AUTHORITY
arrest. IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
HELD: PEOPLE VS FELIX BENITEZ

No. Swerving is not necessarily indicative of imprudent G.R. NO. 48396, SEPTEMBER 11, 1942
behavior as defined in Sec. 48 of RA 4136 – No person
shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway recklessly ISSUE:
or without reasonable caution or so as to endanger the Whether or not a division superintendent of schools is
property or the safety or rights of any person or so as a person in authority.
to cause excessive or unreasonable damage to the
highway. FACTS:
Felix Benitez, a special agent in the office of the
Nothing in the records indicate that the area was a "no Provincial Governor punched D’Artagnan Williams, a
swerving or overtaking zone." Moreover, the swerving Division Superintendent of School in Negros
incident, if this be the case, occurred at around 3:00 Occidental for his supposed acts or remarks that
a.m. when the streets are usually clear of moving caused an outrage or offense to the Provincial
vehicles and human traffic, and the danger to life, limb Governor in connection with the appointment of
and property to third persons is minimal. The men teachers.
manning the checkpoint in the subject area and during
the period material appeared not to have performed On an indictment for assault upon a person in
their duties as required by law, or at least fell short of authority, defendant was found guilty and sentenced
the norm expected of peace officers. They spotted the to from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years, 2 months and
petitioner’s purported swerving vehicle. They then 1 day of prision correccional and to pay a fine of P500
signaled him to stop which he obeyed. But they did not with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
demand the presentation of the driver’s license or issue
any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation HELD:
as required under the particular premises by Sec. 29 of Under the law (section 917 of the Revised
RA 4136, which specifically provides: Administrative Code), a division superintendent of
schools is given the power of general superintendence
SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver’s License. – Law over schools and school interests in his division, with
enforcement and peace officers of other agencies duly the right to appoint municipal school teachers and to
deputized by the Director shall, in apprehending a fix their salaries, and further, since education is a state
driver for any violation of this Act or any regulations function and public policy demands an adequate
issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and protection of those engaged in the performance of this
regulations x x x confiscate the license of the driver commission, we believe and so hold that a division
concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by superintendent of schools should be regarded as a
the Bureau therefor which shall authorize the driver to person in authority.
operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding
seventy-two hours from the time and date of issue of RUBEN DEL CASTILLO VS PEOPLE
said receipt. G.R. NO. 185128, JANUARY 30, 2012
There can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and his ISSUE:

apprehending team are persons in authority or agents Whether the search warrant issued to conduct search
of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. and the seizure of illegal drugs found by the barangay
But surely petitioner’s act of exercising one’s right tanod in the nipa hut are admissible as evidence.
against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the
middle of the night cannot, in context, be equated to FACTS:
disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in Operatives of the Cebu City Police conducted a
contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. As has often surveillance at the house of the petitioner. After which,
been said, albeit expressed differently and under they secured a search warrant from the RTC and on
dissimilar circumstances, the vitality of democracy lies September 13, 1997, the same police went to Mabolo
not in the rights it guarantees, but in the courage of Cebu City to serve the search warrant.
the people to assert and use them whenever they are
ignored or worse infringed. Moreover, there is, to The residence were the petitioner resided was a two-
stress, nothing in RA 4136 that authorized the storey
checkpoint-manning policemen to order petitioner house. The police officers went upstairs where they met
and his companions to get out of the vehicle for a the wife of the accused and told her that they will
vehicle and body search. And it bears to emphasize implement the search. But as soon as they can search
that there was no reasonable suspicion of the the area, the accused fled the scene to a Nipa House.

ISSUE:
SP03 Masnayon then requested the aid of the Whether the lower court erred in granting the motion
Barangay Tanods to conduct a search. This time, they to quash on the ground of double jeopardy.
conducted the search at the residence of the petitioner
and the nipa hut, where they found several articles of FACTS:
four (4) packs of crystalline substance which was later Ladislao Bacolod, then a member of the PC Patrol in
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or the municipality of Santa Fe, Cebu, fired his sub-
shabu. machine gun thereby hitting Consorcia Pasinio at the
back of the right side of her body. That the same
And information was filed against the petitioner and caused a serious disturbance in a public place by firing
the RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable his sub-machine gun which wounded Pasinio, thereby
charge of violating section 16, Article 3 of R.A. 6425 causing panic among the people present in the town
which the CA affirmed, hence the petition. fiesta.
HELD: Accused Bacolod was charged with two informations;

No. The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant one charging him of the crime of serious physical
are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable injuries thru reckless imprudence and the other is
cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) serious disturbance in a public place by firing a sub-
the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or machine gun.
affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or
she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses His counsel de oficio moved to quash this second
testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) information, invoking double jeopardy by reason of the
the warrant specifically describes the place to be first information which the lower court granted
searched and the things to be seized. prompting the People to appeal.
In the present case, Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197- HELD:

24] specifically designates or describes the residence Yes. It will be observed that both informations have
of the petitioner as the place to be searched. one common element: defendant’s having fired a sub-
Incidentally, the items were seized by a barangay tanod machine gun, however the two informations do not
in a nipa hut, 20 meters away from the residence of the describe the same offense. One is a crime against
petitioner. The confiscated items, having been found in persons; but the other is an offense against public
a place other than the one described in the search peace and order.
warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid
warrantless search, the presentation of which as an The first is punished under article 263 of the Revised
evidence is a violation of petitioner's constitutional Penal Code and the latter under article 153 referring to
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. individuals disturbing public gatherings or peaceful
meetings.
Having been established that the assistance of the
barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities The proof establishing the first would not establish the
who effected the searched warrant, the same barangay second, it being necessary to show, besides the willful
tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in discharge of firearm, that there was a dance in the
authority. Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code defines tennis court in connection with the town fiesta, and
persons in authority and agents of persons in authority that the people in attendance became panicky and
as: terrified.
Therefore, the appealed resolution is reversed and the
x x x any person directly vested with jurisdiction, record is remanded for further proceedings.
whether as an individual or as a member of some court
or governmental corporation, board or commission, December 25, 2017 – Article 154 – UNLAWFUL USE
shall be deemed a person in authority. A barangay OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL
captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed UTTERANCES
a person in authority. The police officers, as well as the [NO CASE FOUND]
barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in
authority during the conduct of the search. Thus, the
search conducted was unreasonable and the December 25, 2017 – Article 155 – ALARMS AND
confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence. SCANDALS
Wherefore, Petitioner is Acquitted. PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
December 24, 2017 – Article 153 – TUMULTS AND PEOPLE V. DORIQUEZ

OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER GR No. L-24444-45, July 29, 1968
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
ISSUE:
PEOPLE VS BACOLOD Whether or not accused Doriquez was placed in double
G.R. No. L-2578, July 31, 1951 jeopardy by charging the offense of discharge of
firearm.

FACTS: ALBERTO AND INTIA VS HON. DELA CRUZ AND

Accused Doriquez was charged with the offense of ORBITA
grave oral defamation before the Court of First G.R. No. L-31839, June 30, 1980
Instance of Iloilo. Six days later, Doriquez was indicted
before the same court for discharge of firearm. Upon ISSUE:
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the two Whether or not Governor Cledera and Esmeralda can
indictments. be held liable under Article 156 of the Revised Penal
Code
Subsequently, he moved to dismiss both information.
One of his contentions is that the institution of criminal FACTS:
action for discharge of firearm places him in double Respondent Judge Dela Cruz directed petitioners
jeopardy for he had already been in jeopardy once in Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of
the municipal court of Batad, Iloilo which dismissed, Camarines Sur to amend the information filed in
without his consent, the information charging him with Criminal Case No. 9414 of the CFI of Camarines Sur
the offense of alarm and scandal based on the same entitled, People of the Philippines versus Eligio Orbita,
facts. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The so as to include as defendants Governor Armando
motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, Cledera and Assistant Provincial Warden Jose
this appeal. Esmeralda of Camarines Sur. In said case, Orbita, a
provincial guard, was prosecuted for infidelity in the
HELD: custody of a prisoner for the escape of detention
No. For double jeopardy to attach in his favor, the prisoner, Pablo Denaque. In the course of the trial, the
accused must prove, among other things, that there is defense alleged that Esmeralda received a written note
"identity of offenses." It is altogether evident, however, from Governor Cledera asking him to send in five
that the offense of discharge of firearm is not the crime prisoners which party included Denaque, who was then
of alarm and scandal, nor is it an attempt or a under the custody of Orbita, to his house in Taculod,
frustration of the latter felony. Neither may it be Canaman, Camarines Sur to work in the construction
asserted that every crime of discharge of firearm which made Denaque's escape possible, and thus,
produces the offense of alarm and scandal. Nor could Esmeralda and Gov. Cledera should be equally guilty of
the reverse situation be true, for the less grave felony the offense with Orbita.
of discharge of firearm does not include or subsume
the offense of alarm and scandal which is a light felony. HELD:
No. The offense of delivering prisoners from jails as
Although the indictment for alarm and scandal filed defined in Article 156 is usually committed by an
under Article 155 of the Revised Penal Code and the outsider who: (1) removes from jail any person therein
information for discharge of firearm instituted under confined or (2) helps him escape. To remove means to
article 258 of the same Code are closely related in fact take away a person from the place of his confinement,
(as the two apparently arose from the same factual with or without the active compensation of the person
setting, the firing of a revolver by the accused being a released. To help in the escape of a person confined in
common element), they are definitely diverse in law. any jail or penal institution means to furnish that
Firstly, the two indictments do not describe the same person with the material means such as a file, ladder,
felony - alarm and scandal is an offense against public rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his escape. If the
order while discharge of firearm is a crime against offender is a public officer who has custody or charge
persons. Secondly, the indispensable element of the of the prisoner, he is liable for infidelity in the custody
former crime is the discharge of a firearm calculated to of prisoners defined and penalized under Article 223 of
cause alarm or danger to the public, while the grava the Revised Penal Code. Since Gov. Cledera as
men of the latter is the discharge of a firearm against governor, is the jailer of the province and Jose
or at a certain person, without intent to kill. Esmeralda is the assistant provincial warden, they
cannot be prosecuted for the escape of Pablo Denaque
The plea of double jeopardy cannot therefore be under Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code.
accorded merit, as the two indictments are perfectly
distinct in point of law howsoever closely they may December 27, 2017 – Article 157 – EVASION OF
appear to be connected in fact. It is a cardinal rule that SERVICE OF SENTENCE
the protection against double jeopardy may be ALAMEDA, Manuel F.
invoked only for the same offense or identical offense.
TANEGA V MASAKAYAN
The instant appeal is premature, and the present GR No. L-27191, February 28, 1967
appeal is dismissed. This case is hereby ordered ISSUE:
remanded to the court of origin for immediate trial on WON Prescription of sentence has commenced
the merits.
FACTS:
December 26, 2017 – Article 156 – DELIVERY OF Petitioner was convicted of slander by the City Court of
PRISONERS FROM JAIL Quezon City. She was found guilty once again by the
DIZON, Roxan Danica G. Court of First Instance where she was sentenced to 20

days of arresto menor, to indemnify the offended later, petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant of
party, Pilar B. Julio, in the sum of P100.00, with the arrest on the ground that the penalty imposed upon
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay him had already prescribed. The motion was denied by
the costs. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City, the trial court.
on January 11, 1965, directed that execution of the
sentence be set for January 27, 1965. On petitioner's HELD:
motion, execution was deferred to February 12, 1965, No. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when
at 8:30 a.m. At the appointed day and hour, petitioner the prescription of penalties shall commence to run.
failed to show up. This prompted the respondent Under said provision, it shall commence to run from
judge, on February 15, 1965, to issue a warrant for her the date the felon evades the service of his sentence.
arrest, and on March 23, 1965 an alias warrant of arrest. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of
Petitioner was never arrested. Petitioner moved to service of sentence can be committed only by those
quash the warrants of arrest of February 15, 1965 and who have been convicted by final judgment by
March 23, 1965. (Ground: Penalty has prescribed. On escaping during the term of his sentence. As correctly
December 19, 1966, the respondent judge ruled that pointed out by the Solicitor General, "escape" in legal
"the penalty imposed upon the accused has to be parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the
served", rejected the plea of prescription of penalty RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the
and, instead, directed the issuance of another alias limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has not been
warrant of arrest. Hence, the present petition. committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped
therefrom. In the instant case, petitioner was never
HELD: brought to prison. In fact, even before the execution of
NO. Arresto menor and a fine of P100.00 constitute a the judgment for his conviction, he was already in
light penalty. By Article 92 of the Revised Penal Code, hiding. Now petitioner begs for the compassion of the
light penalties "imposed by final sentence" prescribe in Court because he has ceased to live a life of peace and
one year. The period of prescription of penalties — so tranquility after he failed to appear in court for the
the succeeding Article 93 provides — "shall commence execution of his sentence. But it was petitioner who
to run from the date when the culprit should evade the chose to become a fugitive. The Court accords
service of his sentence". Elements of evasion of service compassion only to those who are deserving.
of sentence are: the offender is a convict by final Petitioner’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt
judgment; he "is serving his sentence which consists in but he refused to answer for the wrong he committed.
deprivation of liberty"; he evades service of sentence He is therefore not to be rewarded therefor.
by escaping during the term of his sentence.
Article 157: provides for a higher penalty if such PEOPLE VS ABILONG
"evasion or escape shall have taken by means of G.R. NO. L-1960, NOVEMBER 26, 1948
unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates,
walls, roofs, or floors or by using picklocks, false keys, ISSUE:
disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through Whether the lower court erred in imposing a penalty
connivance with other convicts or employees of the on the accused under article 157 of the Revised Penal
penal institution, ... " Code, which does not cover evasion of service of
evasion of sentence is but another expression of the "destierro."
term "jail breaking"
FACTS:
Petitioner was never placed in confinement and the That on or about the 17th day of September, 1947,in
prescription of penalty does not run in her favor. the City of Manila, Philippines, Florentino Abilong, the
accused, being then a convict sentenced and ordered
to serve destierro during which he should not enter any
DEL CASTILLO VS. TORRECAMPO place within the radius of 100 kilometers from the City
GR NO 13903, December 18, 2002 of Manila for attempted robbery, evaded the service of
said sentence by going beyond the limits made against
ISSUE: him and commit vagrancy.
Whether the penalty imposed upon Del Castillo had
prescribed HELD:
It is clear that the word "imprisonment" used in the
FACTS: English text is a wrong or erroneous translation of the
Del Castillo was charged for violation of Section phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad" used in the
178(nn) of the 1978 Election Code. The trial court found Spanish text. It is equally clear that although the
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced Solicitor General impliedly admits destierro as not
him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of constituting imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty,
imprisonment of 1 year as minimum to 3 years as though partial, in the sense that as in the present case,
maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. the appellant by his sentence of destierro was deprived
During the execution of judgment on October 14, of the liberty to enter the City of Manila. Under the case
1987, petitioner was not present. The presiding Judge of People vs. Samonte, as quoted in the brief of the
issued an order of arrest and the confiscation of his Solicitor General that "it is clear that a person under
bond. Petitioner was never apprehended. 10 years sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of his

liberty and escapes from the restrictions of the penalty On June 19, 1987, a decision was promulgated against
when he enters the prohibited area." Basilonia et al in a criminal case for murder of Atty.
Isagani Roblete.
US VS. LOO HOE
G.R. NO. 12473, SEPTEMBER 18, 1917 Almost two decades passed from the entry of
judgment, on May 11, 2009, Roblete, claiming to be the
ISSUE: son of the deceased victim, Atty. Roblete, filed a
WON the penalties for jail breaking under Article 127 Motion for Execution of Judgment alleging, among
is applicable to sentence executed by deportation. others, that despite his request to the City Prosecutor
to file a motion for execution, the judgment has not
FACTS: been enforced because said prosecutor has not acted
Loo Hoe was found guilty of a violation of the Opium upon his request.
Law and was sentenced to be deported. The sentence
was executed. However, he returned to the Philippine The trial court granted the motion for execution and
Islands, in violation of the terms of said sentence. ordered the bondsmen to surrender Basilonia et al.
A complaint was filed by the deputy prosecuting Due to petitioners' failure to appear in court after the
attorney and Loo hoe was brought to trial, and upon expiration of the period granted to their bondsmen,
arraignment plead guilty and was sentenced to be the bail for their provisional liberty was ordered
imprisoned for a period of four months, and at the forfeited and the sheriff issued the writ of execution.
termination of said sentence of imprisonment, to be Basilonia et al contended that trial court has no more
again deported and to pay the costs. jurisdiction to order the execution of judgment since
the penalty has already prescribed.
HELD:
No. HELD:
If the defendant who has been sentenced to Evasion of service of sentence is an essential element
imprisonment breaks jail, the executive departments of of prescription of penalties. The culprit should escape
the Government may do two things: during the term of imprisonment in order for
prescription of penalty imposed by final sentence to
a. It may, in proper cases, proceed against him under commence to run. The period of prescription of
article 127 and other provisions of the Penal Code; and penalties as provided in Article 93 states - "shall
commence to run from the date when the culprit
b. it may simply arrest him and return him to jail. should evade the service of his sentence."
Whether the executive department of the Government Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code explains the
will pursue one or the other of these statutory concept of evasion of service of sentence:
remedies lies within the discretion of that department
of the Government. ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty
The violation of the judgment of deportation by the of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
appellant is not punishable as contempt under section periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall
232. The judgment of deportation was final. The evade service of his sentence by escaping during the
sentence had been duly executed. The court had lost term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment.
all jurisdiction over the defendant in that case. The However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken
judgment was executed by the executive department place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors,
of the Government; and if the defendant has escaped windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using
the penalty imposed by the court, the executive picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or
department of the Government has its remedy by intimidation, or through connivance with other
enforcing the terms of the sentence again. convicts or employees of the penal institution, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum
The SC is also of the opinion that none of the period.
provisions of article 127 of the Penal Code is applicable
to the present case. The penalties for jail breaking Elements of evasion of service of sentence are:
under said article (127) cannot be applied to the acts
of the defendant. 1. the offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. he "is serving his sentence which consists in

BASILONIA v. VILLARUZ deprivation of liberty; and
GR Nos. 191370-71, Aug 10, 2015
3. he evades service of sentence by escaping during the
ISSUE: term of his sentence.
WON the penalty of imprisonment already prescribed
and the civil liability arising from the crime already By the express terms of the statute, a convict evades
extinguished. "service of his sentence" by "escaping during the term
of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment." That
FACTS: escape should take place while serving sentence, is

emphasized by the provisions of the second sentence province where any of the essential ingredients of the
of Article 157 which provides for a higher penalty if crime took place has jurisdiction to try the case. There
such "evasion or escape shall have taken place by are, however, crimes which although all the elements
means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, thereof for its consummation may have occurred in a
gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false single place, yet by reason of the very nature of the
keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or offense committed, the violation of the law is deemed
through connivance with other convicts or employees to be continuing.
of the penal institution.." Indeed, evasion of sentence
is but another expression of the term "jail breaking." When the prisoner in his attempt to evade the service
of the sentence imposed upon him by the courts and
Thus, one who has not been committed to prison thus defeat the purpose of the law, moves from one
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom. "Escape" in place to another; for, in this case, the act of the escaped
legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 prisoner is a continuous or series of acts, set on foot by
of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent
the limits of his custody. It applies only to those who force, however long it may be. It may not be validly said
are convicted by final judgment and are serving that after the convict shall have escaped from the place
sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty, and of his confinement the crime is fully consummated, for,
that the period for prescription of penalties begins only as long as he continues to evade the service of his
when the convict evades service of sentence by sentence, he is deemed to continue committing the
escaping during the term of his sentence. crime, and may be arrested without warrant, at any
place where he may be found. The right of arrest
This is not applicable in the case at bar. For the longest without a warrant is founded on the principle that at
time, they were never brought to prison or placed in the time of the arrest, the escapee is in the continuous
confinement despite being sentenced to imprisonment act of committing a crime — evading the service of his
by final judgment. Prescription of penalty of sentence.
imprisonment does not run in their favor. Thus, the trial
court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in December 28, 2017 – Article 158 – EVASION OF
assuming jurisdiction over the motion for execution SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF
and in eventually granting the same. DISORDER, CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES,
OR OTHER CALAMITIES.
ALILIAN, Enna B.
PARULAN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
G.R. NO. L-28519, FEBRUARY 17, 1968 LOSADA v ACENAS
GR No. L-810, March 31, 1947
ISSUE: ISSUE:
WON the CFI of Manila with jurisdiction to try and WON the said inmates were entitled to the deduction
decide the case and to impose the sentence upon of their sentence provided in Art 98 in accordance with
Parulan for evasion of service of sentence. Art 158 RPC
FACTS: FACTS:
Parulan was serving life imprisonment (commuted to The Justice of Peace ordered the release of the four (4)
20 years by the President) in Muntinlupa. In Oct 1964, inmates who remained in the penal colony and did not
he was transferred to Fort Bonifacio. He escaped in the try to escape during the war.
same month, but was recaptured in Manila.
HELD:
He was prosecuted for the crime of evasion of service No. The special allowance for loyalty authorized by
of sentence, penalized under Art. 157 of the RPC. The articles 98 and 158 of the Revised Penal Code refers to
CFI in Manila found him guilty and sentenced him those convicts who, having evaded the service of their
accordingly. sentences by leaving the penal institution, give
He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directed themselves up within two days. As these petitioners
to the Director of Bureau of Prisons, praying that the were not in that class, because they had not escaped,
latter be ordered “to release immediately and without they had no claim to that allowance.
delay the body of the petitioner from unlawful and
illegal confinement.” Parulan contended that his December 30, 2017 – Article 159 – OTHER CASES OF
confinement illegal because the sentence of conviction EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
imposed upon him for the crime of evasion of service Arances, Javy Ann G.
of sentence was rendered by a court without
jurisdiction over his person and of the offense with PEOPLE VS SANARES
which he was charged. G.R. NO. L-43499, January 11, 1936
Justice Recto
HELD: ISSUE:
Yes. Transitory or continuing offenses are crimes where Whether or not the accused should be acquitted or
some acts material and essential to the crime occur in that the penalty be reduced.
one province and some in another. The court of either

FACTS: Whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment

Isidoro Sanares y Caerne was charged in the Court of of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be
First Instance of Manila. The accused was granted by validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the
His Excellency, the Governor-General, a conditional terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to
pardon remitting the unexecuted portion of the serve the balance of his original sentence.
sentence of imprisonment of six years and one
imposed upon him for the crime of theft. Upon FACTS:
accepting the condition of such pardon, to wit: that he In 1978, Torres was convicted of estafa and in 1979, he
shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the was pardoned by the president with the condition that
Philippine Islands, the said accused willfully, unlawfully he shall not violate any penal laws again and that
and feloniously violated the condition of such pardon should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded
by then and there committing the crime of estafa for against in the manner prescribed by law. Petitioner
which he was finally sentenced to suffer three months accepted the conditional pardon and was
and eleven days of imprisonment. consequently released from confinement. In 1982,
Torres was charged with multiple crimes of estafa. In
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty and the 1986, Gonzales petitioned for the cancellation of
court forthwith ordered his recommitment for the Torres’ pardon. Hence, the president cancelled the
unexpired portion of his former sentence. The accused pardon. Torres appealed the issue before the Supreme
appealed from this judgment and prays that he be Court averring that the Executive Department erred in
acquitted or that the penalty be reduced. convicting him for violating the conditions of his
pardon because the estafa charges against him were
The record shows that the conditional pardon whose not yet final and executory as they were still on appeal.
conditions were violated by the accused referred to a
penalty of six years and one day of prision, of which HELD:
two years, five months and twenty-two days had been In proceeding against a convict who has been
served by the accused. The penalty remitted by the conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have
pardon was, therefore, three years, seven months and breached the conditions of his pardon, the Executive
eight days. Department has two options: (1) Section 64 (i) of the
Revised Administrative Code, a purely executive act,
HELD: not subject to judicial scrutiny, or (2) Article 159 of the
Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the Revised Penal Code, a judicial act consisting of trial for
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon.
shall be imposed upon the convict who, having been
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, Where the President opts to proceed under Section 64
shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial
However, if the Penalty remitted by the granting of pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime is
such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall necessary, much less conviction therefor by final
then suffer the unexpired portion of his original judgment of a court, in order that a convict may be
sentence." recommended for the violation of his conditional
pardon.
The second part of the article just quoted is
inapplicable to the case at bar because the unexpired Under article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, parolee
portion of the penalty remitted by reason of the or convict who is regarded as having violated the
condition pardon granted the accused does not provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted and
exceed six years. The first part thereof, which imposes convicted by final judgment before he can be made to
the penalty or prision correccional in its minimum suffer the penalty prescribed.
period upon the convict who, having been granted
conditional pardon, shall violated any of its conditions, In the case at bar, President has chosen to proceed
is, therefore, applicable. The duration of this penalty is against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the
from six months and one day to two years and four Revised Administrative Code. That choice is an exercise
months. Inasmuch as the mitigating circumstance of of the President’s executive prerogative and is not
having pleaded guilty should be considered in favor of subject to judicial scrutiny.
the accused, and there being no aggravating
circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its December 31, 2017 – Article 160 – COMMISSION OF
minimum period which ranges from six months and ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY
one day to one year, one month and ten days of prision IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
correccional. The benefits afforded by the BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
Indeterminate Sentence Law are not applicable to the
accused, by express provision thereof. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs.
ANTONIO
TORRES VS GONZALES YABUT
G.R. NO. 76872, July 23, 1987 G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933
Justice Feliciano BUTTE, J.
ISSUE:

LEGAL ISSUE: of sections are mere catchwords or reference aids

Whether or not Quasi-Recidivism of Article 160 is not indicating the general nature of the text that follows.
applicable for YABUT.
A mere glance at the titles to the articles of the Revised
FACTS: Penal code will reveal that they were not intended by
On or about the 1st day of August, 1932, in the City of the Legislature to be used as anything more than
Manila, the accused Antonio Yabut, then a prisoner catchwords conveniently suggesting in a general way
serving sentence in the Bilibid Prison, in said city, did the subject matter of each article. Being nothing more
then and there, with intent to kill, wilfully and than a convenient index to the contents of the articles
treacherously, assault and use personal violence upon of the Code, they cannot, in any event have the effect
one Sabas Aseo, another prisoner also serving of modifying or limiting the unambiguous words of the
sentence in Bilibid, by then and there hitting the said text. Secondary aids may be consulted to remove, not
Sabas Aseo suddenly and unexpectedly from behind to create doubt.
with a wooden club, without any just cause, thereby
fracturing the skull of said Sabas Aseo and inflicting
upon him various other physical injuries on different PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BETH
parts of the body which caused the death of the latter TEMPORADA.
about twenty-four (24) hours thereafter. G.R. No. 173473 December 17, 2008
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the time of the commission of this offense, the said
Antonio Yabut was a recidivist, he having previously LEGAL ISSUE:
been convicted twice of the crime of homicide and Whether or not Article 160 should not be considered
once of serious physical injuries, by virtue of final as an “attending circumstances” in relation to the
sentences rendered by competent tribunals. application of Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Upon arraignment, YABUT pleaded not guilty. We FACTS:

reject the testimony of Yabut that it was Prisoner From September 2001 to January 2002, Rosemarie
Villafuerte, the squad leader of their brigade, not "Baby" Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan
YABUT, who gave the fatal blow to the deceased Aseo. and Jojo Resco and Beth Temporada, all employees of
The testimonies of Santiago Estrada, resident physician the Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation (ATTC),
of the Bureau of Prisons and Dr. Pablo Anzures of the recruited and promised overseas employment, for a
Medico Legal Department of the University of the fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as technician
Philippines, clearly establish that the death of Aseo was in Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn
caused by subdural and cerebral hemorrhages Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as factory workers in
following the fracture of the skull resulting from the Hongkong.
blow on the head of Aseo. They further confirm the
testimony of the four eyewitnesses that the deceased The accused and appellant were then holding office at
was struck from behind. Dela Rosa Street, Makati City but eventually transferred
business to Discovery Plaza, Ermita, Manila. After
YABUT places much stress upon the word "another" complainants had submitted all the requirements
appearing in the English translation of the headnote of consisting of their respective application forms,
article 160 and would have us accept his deduction passports, NBI clearances and medical certificates, the
from the headnote that article 160 is applicable only accused and appellant, on different dates, collected
when the new crime which is committed by a person and received from them placement fees in various
already serving sentence is different from the crime for amounts, viz: a) from Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. – 57,600.00;
which he is serving sentence. Inasmuch as the b) from Dennis Dimaano – P66,520.00; c) from Evelyn
appellant was serving sentence for the crime of Estacio – P88,520.00; d) from Soledad Atle – P69,520.00
homicide, the appellant contends the court below and e) from Luz Minkay – P69,520.00.
erred in applying article 160 in the present case which As none of them was able to leave nor recover the
was a prosecution for murder (involving homicide). amounts they had paid, complainant lodged separate
criminal complaints against accused and appellant
HELD: before the City Prosecutor of Manila. On November 29,
Yes, Article 160 still applies. The language is plain and 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Restituto Mangalindan,
unambiguous. There is not the slightest intimation in Jr. filed six (6) Informations against the accused and
the text of article 160 that said article applies only in appellant, one for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
cases where the new offense is different in character under Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code as amended, and
from the former offense for which the defendant is the rest for five (5) counts of estafa under Article 315
serving the penalty. paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
It is familiar law that when the text itself of a statute or
a treaty is clear and unambiguous, there is neither There is an argument that the incremental penalty rule
necessity nor propriety in resorting to the preamble or should not be considered as analogous to a modifying
headings or epigraphs of a section of interpretation of circumstance stems from the erroneous interpretation
the text, especially where such epigraphs or headings that the "attending circumstances" mentioned in
Section 1 of the ISL are limited to those modifying

circumstances falling within the scope of Articles 13

and 14 of the RPC. ARTICLE 315. Swindling (Estafa). – Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned
HELD: hereinbelow shall be punished by:
YES. While we affirm the conviction for the five (5)
counts of estafa, we find, however, that the CA 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum
erroneously computed the indeterminate penalties period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the
therefor. The CA deviated from the doctrine laid down amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
in People v. Gabres; hence its decision should be exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
reversed with respect to the indeterminate penalties it latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
imposed. The reversal of the appellate court’s Decision be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
on this point does not, however, wholly reinstate the for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
indeterminate penalties imposed by the trial court which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
because the maximum terms, as determined by the In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
latter, were erroneously computed and must penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose
necessarily be rectified. of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall
be termed prisión mayor or reclusión temporal, as the
Section 1 of the ISL is again quoted below – case may be. x x x
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence Under Gabres, prisión correccional maximum to prisión
for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or mayor minimum is the prescribed penalty55 for estafa
its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00. An
to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of amount defrauded in excess of P22,000.00 is effectively
which shall be that which, in view of the attending considered as a special aggravating circumstance in
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the the sense that the penalty actually imposed shall be
rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be taken from the prescribed penalty in its maximum
within the range of the penalty next lower to that period without regard to any generic mitigating
prescribed by the Code for the offense; x x x circumstances. Consequently, the penalty next lower in
The plain terms of the ISL show that the legislature did degree is still based on the prescribed penalty without
not intend to limit "attending circumstances" as in the meantime considering the effect of the amount
referring to Articles 13 and 14 of the RPC. If the defrauded in excess of P22,000.00.
legislature intended that the "attending
circumstances" under the ISL be limited to Articles 13 What is unique, however, with the afore-quoted
and 14, then it could have simply so stated. The provision is that when the amount defrauded is
wording of the law clearly permits other modifying P32,000.00 or more, the prescribed penalty is not only
circumstances outside of Articles 13 and 14 of the RPC imposed in its maximum period but there is imposed
to be treated as "attending circumstances" for an incremental penalty of 1 year imprisonment for
purposes of the application of the ISL, such as quasi- every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided that
recidivism under Article 16051 of the RPC. Under this the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
provision, "any person who shall commit a felony after exceed 20 years. This incremental penalty rule is a
having been convicted by final judgment, before special rule applicable to estafa and theft. In the case
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the of estafa, the incremental penalty is added to the
same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the maximum period of the prescribed penalty (or to
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony." anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
This circumstance has been interpreted by the Court as years) at the discretion of the court, in order to arrive
a special aggravating circumstance where the penalty at the penalty actually imposed (i.e., the maximum
actually imposed is taken from the prescribed penalty term, within the context of the ISL).
in its maximum period without regard to any generic
mitigating circumstances. Since quasi-recidivism is This unique characteristic of the incremental penalty
considered as merely a special aggravating rule does not pose any obstacle to interpreting it as
circumstance, the penalty next lower in degree is analogous to a modifying circumstance, and, hence,
computed based on the prescribed penalty without falling within the letter and spirit of "attending
first considering said special aggravating circumstance circumstances" for purposes of the application of the
as exemplified in People v. Manalo and People v. ISL. Under the wording of the ISL, "attending
Balictar. circumstances" may be reasonably interpreted as
referring to such circumstances that are applied in
The question whether the incremental penalty rule is conjunction with certain rules in the Code in order to
covered within the letter and spirit of "attending determine the penalty to be actually imposed based on
circumstances" under the ISL was answered in the the prescribed penalty of the Code for the offense. The
affirmative by the Court in Gabres when it ruled therein incremental penalty rule substantially meets this
that the incremental penalty rule is analogous to a standard. The circumstance is the amount defrauded in
modifying circumstance. excess of P22,0000.00 and the incremental penalty rule
is utilized to fix the penalty actually imposed. At its
Article 315 of the RPC pertinently provides – core, the incremental penalty rule is merely a

mathematical formula for computing the penalty to be

actually imposed using the prescribed penalty as
starting point.
Thus, it serves the same function of determining the

penalty actually imposed as the modifying
circumstances under Articles 13, 14, and 160 of the
RPC, although the manner by which the former
accomplishes this function differs with the latter. For
this reason, the incremental penalty rule may be
considered as merely analogous to modifying
circumstances.
Besides, in case of doubt as to whether the incremental
penalty rule falls within the scope of "attending
circumstances" under the ISL, the doubt should be
resolved in favor of inclusion because this
interpretation is more favorable to the accused
following the time-honored principle that penal
statutes are construed strictly against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused.56 Thus, even if the
Dissenting Opinion’s interpretation is gratuitously
conceded as plausible, as between Gabres and the
dissent’s interpretation, Gabres should be sustained
since it is the interpretation more favorable to the
accused.

TITLE FOUR – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC Regional Assistant Monitoring Services as nonexistent
INTEREST and its alleged Executive Director, herein petitioner, as
not in any capacity connected with the Office of the
President. From these premises it is rational to
January 1, 2018 – Article 161 – COUNTERFEITING
conclude that the documents in question, which
THE GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
purport to have been signed by then President Marcos,
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE
are bogus documents. The trial court and Court of
OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Appeals correctly found petitioner to be the author of
the forgery. The presumption is that the possessor and
user of a falsified document is the forger thereof.
GAMIDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 111962-72 December 8, 1995
Petitioner also argues that he should have been
MENDOZA, J.:
charged under only one information because there was
only one intent "to discharge the imagined functions
ISSUE:
of a non-existent office." The argument has no merit.
Whether or not the charge of violation of Art. 161 of
The documents in this case were forged on different
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was proper.
dates. One act was not done to commit another. There
is therefore no basis for considering the various acts as
FACTS:
constituting only one crime of forgery.
On March 25, 1985, then Executive Assistant Juan C.
Tuvera issued Memorandum Circular No. 1281.
January 2, 2018 – Article 162 – USING FORGED
Following the issuance of this memorandum, the
SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
Presidential Security Command and the Office of the
[NO CASE FOUND]
President, through the Malacañang Complaints and
Investigation Office (CIO), investigated petitioner. On
January 2, 2018 – Article 163 – MAKING AND
September 27, 1985, upon the invitation of Atty.
IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS
Quirino Sagario, CIO Hearing Officer, petitioner
DAHIROC, Janice L.
appeared and presented the 11 documents, claiming
that President Ferdinand E. Marcos had signed them in
THE UNITED STATES VS. AGUSTIN BASCO
his (petitioner's) presence. The lone witness for the
G.R. NO. L-2747 APRIL 11, 1906
prosecution, Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Presidential
Staff Director of the Malacañang Records Office (MRO),
ISSUE:
testified that there were no copies of the documents
Whether or not the case constitutes the crime of
on file in his office and that the signatures thereon did
counterfeiting money.
not appear to be those of the former President. For his
part, petitioner said that he was the Executive Director
FACTS:
of the Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring
It was proved at the trial of this case that the defendant
Services, or PRAMS, having been appointed by then
attempted to pay for a package of cigarettes which he
President Marcos and that his appointment and the
bought at a certain store with what appeared to be
related documents, subject of the prosecution, had
silver coin, but which, as a matter of fact, was a
been signed by the former President in petitioner's
Philippine copper cent. He insisted that the owner of
presence.
the store should accept the same as a peseta, that is to
say, a twenty cent piece. The latter refused to accept it
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila found him
upon noticing what the real value and denomination of
guilty and charged him with 11 counts of violation of
the coin was. The defendant again insisted that the
Art. 161 of the RPC by forging the signature of the
money be accepted and the owner of the store refused
President of the Philippines on 11 different documents
to do so. As a result of such refusal a quarrel ensued
and making it appear that the documents were
between them. A policeman then interfered, and upon
genuine official documents of the Republic of the
being informed of what had happened, placed the
Philippines. He was sentenced to suffer the
defendant under arrest and took him to the police
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1)
station, where several Mexican and Japanese coins
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
were found in his possession together with a roll of
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
Philippine copper cents, the latter being silver plated,
maximum, in each of these eleven (11) criminal cases,
and identical with the coin which he had attempted to
or a total of eighty (80) years up to one hundred fifty-
pass at the store as a twenty-cent piece. Upon an
four (154) years. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
examination of these plated coins it was found that
affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
they were genuine Philippine copper cents, which
apparently and been whitened with quicksilver to give
HELD:
them the color and brightness of silver. The defendant
YES, the petition has no merit.
having been asked as to where he had obtained the
said coins, first answered that he had received them as
Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Director of the Malacañang
change, but later admitted that he had silvered them
Records Office, testified that his office did not have a
himself.
record of the documents. For his part Executive
Secretary Juan C. Tuvera declared the Presidential

HELD:
No. The Attorney-General, in his brief filed in this court, PEOPLE V GO PO
contends that these facts do not constitute the crime GR. NO. 42697, VL.J. 393, AUGUST 1985
of counterfeiting money, but that of estafa, and for this
reason asks that the defendant be acquitted of the ISSUE:
crime charged in the complaint without prejudice to Whether or not the Chinaman may be convicted of
the filing of another complaint against him for estafa. illegal possession of false coin?
There can be no counterfeiting of money when, as in FACTS:

this case, no spurious or clipped coin was used. The A Chinese merchant was paid by purchaser of goods in
coins in question were genuine copper cents and bore the former’s store a false 50-centavo coin. He placed it
their original designs and inscriptions. The defendant in his drawer. During a search by some constabulary
did not make or attempt to make any alteration in the officers, the false coin was found in the drawer.
designs and inscriptions of the said coins. All that he
did was to give them the appearance of silver pieces HELD:
for the purpose of passing them as twenty-cent coins. No. Article 165 requires three things as regards
He did not, however, attempt to imitate the peculiar possession of false coins, namely: (1) possession ; (2)
design of such coins. The acts committed by the intent to utter; and (2) knowledge that the coin is false.
defendant for the purpose of defrauding third persons The fact that the Chairman received it in payment of
by deceiving them us to the real value of the coins in his goods and placed it in his drawer shows that he did
question constitute the crime of estafa and not of not know that such coin was false.
counterfeiting money. There were not legal grounds
upon which a charge for this latter offense could be January 5, 2018 – Article 166 – FORGING TREASURY
based. The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed OR BANK NOTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS
and the defendant acquitted of the charge of PAYABLE TO BEARER; IMPORTING, AND UTTERING
counterfeiting money contained in the complaint, and SUCH FALSE OR FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
the Attorney-General is directed to present another DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
complaint against him for the crime of estafa. It is
ordered that the Mexican and Japanese coins found in US VS GARDNER
the possession of the defendant be returned to him. G.R. No. 1468, March 14, 1904
The costs of both instances are declared de oficio. After
the expiration of ten days from the date of final ISSUE:
judgment, let the case be remanded to the Court of Whether or not the defendant can be held liable for
First Instance from whence it came for proper falsification of notes or documents equivalent to
procedure. current money payable to bearer
January 3, 2018 – Article 164 – MUTILATION OF FACTS:

COINS - IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE OF Gardner ordered Jameson to buy a bottle of mucilage
MUTILATED COINS and blue pencil. That night, while passing by a tailor
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J. shop, Gardner handed Jameson a bill asking him to
change it for silver and promised to give him half its
PEOPLE V TIN CHING TING value. Jameson cashed the bill and received 25 pesos.
GR L-4620 JANUARY 30,1952 Gardner also had another bill on which he had pasted
a number "10". Gardner tried to pass Confederate $10
ISSUE: in a Filipino drug store. The Chinaman Ah Fun had
Whether or not the coins in this case are mutilated. given 25 pesos in exchange for an American bill upon
which the number 10 had been pasted. He did not
HELD: observe the defect in the bill at first, but observed it
Mutilation is to diminish by ingenuous means the afterwards and immediately went to the people station
metal in the coin. One who mutilates a coin does not to file a complaint. Some other night, Gardner through
do so for the sake of mutilating, but to take advantage the witness Klip also attempted to pass a one-dollar bill
of the metal abstracted; he appropriates a part of the raised to a ten in a house of prostitution. It was shortly
metal of the coin. Hence, the coin diminishes in after returned to him saying that it was bad.
intrinsic value. One who utters said mutilated coin
receives its legal value, much more than its intrinsic HELD:
value. It is indispensable that the mutilated coin be of Yes. The falsification of bank notes and of documents
legal tender. of credit payable to bearer and issued by the State, to
which class the two certificates in question belong, is
(Note: The copy of the full text of the case cannot be an act severely punished by the law as tending to bring
found; only the ruling) such documents into discredit and because such
offenses produce a lack of confidence on the part of
January 4, 2018 – Article 165 – SELLING OF FALSE OR the holders of said documents to the prejudice of the
MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE interest of society and of the State, and for this reason
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G. the law punishes this crime more severely than it does

the counterfeiting of money, in consideration of the Bank operatives and apprehended Tecson. The trial
fact that it is easier to counterfeit such certificates, court found Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
notes, and documents of credit payable to bearer than the offense as defined in Art. 168 and penalized in Art.
to make counterfeit coin, and that the profit which is 166 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court
derived therefrom by the forger of such documents is of Appeals affirmed the decision. Hence this petition.
greater and the incentive for the commission of such a
crime more powerful. HELD:
Yes. The prosecution established, through the
DEL ROSARIO VS PEOPLE testimonies of Pedro Labita and Johnny Marqueta, that
G.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961 a buy-bust operation was conducted by the combined
agents of the Central Bank of the Philippines and the
ISSUE: US Secret Service, and that the petitioner was therein
Whether or not said act constitutes a violation of caught in flagrante delicto in the possession of and in
Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code the act of offering to sell counterfeit US dollar notes.
The testimony of Pedro Labita which was corroborated
FACTS: by Johnny Marqueta and the presentation during the
Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del trial of the ten counterfeit US $100 dollar notes, which
Pilar were accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury were confiscated from the petitioner when he was
notes. They have shown to Apolinario del Rosario arrested, proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
Philippine one-peso and two-peso bills and induced the petitioner for the crime of illegal possession and
him to believe that the same were counterfeit paper use of fake US dollar notes under Article 168 of the
money manufactured by them, although in fact they Revised Penal Code. The decision of the Court of
were genuine treasury notes of the Philippine Appeals was affirmed.
Government one of the digits of each of which had
been altered and changed. They obtained P1,700.00 January 7, 2018 – Article 167 – COUNTERFEITING,
from said complainant for the purpose of financing the IMPORTING, AND UTTERING INSTRUMENT NOT
manufacture of more counterfeit treasury notes of the PAYABLE TO BEARER
Philippines. [NO CASE FOUND]
HELD: January 7, 2018 – Article 168 – ILLEGAL POSSESION

Yes. It is not disputed that a portion of the last digit 9 AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES
of Serial No. F-79692619, had been erased and AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
changed so as to read 0 and that similar erasures and DUQUE, Francis Lester M
changes had been made in the penultimate digit 9 in
Serial No. F-79692691, in the last digit in Serial No. D- THE UNITED STATES vs. JUAN DE LEON, ET AL.
716326, and in the last digit 9 of Serial No. D-716329. G.R. No. 1934, April 29, 1905
The possession of genuine treasury notes of the
Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or signs ISSUE:
contained" in which had been erased and or altered, WON it is necessary to convict the accused that the
with knowledge of such notes, as they were used by latter know the bill was a counterfeit at the time it was
petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner uttered.
adverted to above, is punishable under Article 168, in
relation to Article 166 (1), of the Revised Penal Code. FACTS:
Juan de Leon and Albino de Leon, the accused in this
case, were found guilty in the CFI of the crime of
TECSON VS CA uttering a counterfeit bank note under Art 292 of the
G.R. No. 113218, November 22, 2001 Penal Code.
It appears that the accused were brothers, and that
ISSUE: Juan de Leon having paid a debt with a counterfeit 50-
Whether or not Tecson can be held liable for the illegal peso note of the Spanish-Filipino Bank, and the
possession and use of counterfeit US dollar notes creditor having expressed some doubt as to the
genuineness of the note, the said Albino de Leon
FACTS: assured him that the said note was good, and
On April 26, 1990 a test-buy operation was ordered by promised that if it should prove to be counterfeit he
Atty. Pio Chan, Jr., Chief of the Investigation Staff of the himself would make good the loss. It was further
Central Bank, which resulted in the purchase from shown that the note was in fact counterfeit and that
Tecson of one US dollar note for Two Hundred Pesos the said Albino de Leon refused to make good the
that was found to be counterfeit. Consequently, a team amount as he had promised.
to conduct a buy-bust operation was formed. During
such occasion, Tecson was introduced to Pedro Labita HELD:
and Johnny Marqueta as persons interested in buying Yes. Under Article 292 of the Penal Code, to sustain a
US dollar notes. Apparently convinced, the man drew conviction of the crime of uttering a counterfeit bank
ten pieces of US $100 dollar notes from his wallet. note it must affirmatively appear that the accused
Upon such, the two introduced themselves as Central knew that the note was counterfeit at the time it was

uttered. was not prove that appellant had knowledge of the fact
Here, It was not proven that Albino was aware that the before the postmaster of Calamba called a policeman.
note in question was counterfeit when he aided his
brother in uttering it, and guilty knowledge of this fact
being an essential element of the crime, Albino should PEOPLE VS. CAMOLO DIGORO ALIAS
not have been convicted either as principal or PANONDIONGAN.
accomplice. G.R. NO. L-22032, MARCH 4, 1966
PEOPLE VS. NICASIO BARRAQUIA ISSUE:

C.A. NO. 50, APRIL 13, 1946 WON the RTC is correct in finding accused guilty under
Article 168 of the RPC.
ISSUE:
WON the evidence is sufficient to find accused FACTS:
convicted for the crime charged. On 1961, Camolo Digoro was charged with Article 168
of the RPC. The information was read as follows: That
FACTS: said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
The witness for the prosecution Maximo Pascasio and feloniously, with intent to possess, have in his
testified that: Nicasio went to his office to change a possession, custody and control, 100-peso bill, 20-
bank note of ten-peso denomination; he did not peso bill, 10-peso bill, 5-peso bill, 2-peso bill and 1-
change it because he saw that it was not genuine; he Peso bill denominations in resemblance or similitude
ordered that a policeman be called; when he told to a genuine treasury or bank notes issued by the
accused that the bank note was a counterfeit, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
accused kept silent; accused had occasion to go away A decision was rendered finding accused guilty by the
before the arrival of the policeman, but he preferred to trial court. The accused appealed his case., on the
remain and waited for the policeman; accused ground that the information does not charge an
admitted to the policeman that he is the owner of the offense.
bank note, and the policeman brought him for
investigation to the municipal building without HELD:
offering any resistance. No. Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone
without anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it
Other witness Vicente C. Reventar, cashier of the to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the
provincial treasury of Laguna, testified that: he can Revised Penal Code the possession must be with intent
distinguish a counterfeit from a genuine one; in his to use said false treasury or bank notes. The subject law
opinion, ten peso bill is a counterfeit because the is clear: Under ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of
printing is somewhat blurred and the paper is very false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
oily. credit.— …any person who shall knowingly use or have
in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or
At the investigation, accused explained that the bank falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall
note was passed to him in a game of cara y cruz. Upon suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
his own testimony accused appears to be an illiterate prescribed in said articles.
laborer, who does not know how to read or write. He
testified that he happened to know that the bill a It follows that an information, as in this case, alleging
counterfeit only when the postmaster of Calamba possession of false treasury and bank notes without
informed him so, but for himself he cannot distinguish alleging intent to use the same but only "intent to
a counterfeit note from a genuine one. possess" them, charges no offense. Wherefore, the
case is remanded for new prosecution under an
HELD: appropriate and valid information.
No. The only evidence presented by the prosecution to
the effect that the bank note in question was a January 8, 2018 – Article 169 – HOW FORGERY IS
counterfeit is the testimony of Reventar who stated COMMITTED
that the printing of the bill is somewhat blurred and FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
the paper is very oily. The SC do not believe that these
two circumstances may be considered as enough basis THE UNITED STATES VS ALONSO P. GARDNER
for declaring the bill in question as falsified. The fact G.R. NO. 1468, MARCH 14, 1904
that the printing is somewhat blurred may be
attributed to the overuse of an old printed matter, or ISSUE:
that the bank bill is oily is not an evidence of a Whether or not forgery was committed.
counterfeit bill, because any bank note may become
oily by impregnation with an oily liquid. According to FACTS:
the decision of the lower court, the subject bill bears Accused was charged with falsification of silver
No. D462691D. No evidence has been presented that certificates by pasting little pieces of paper, on each
this number does not check with the genuine one one of which the figure “10” appears, over the figure
issued with the same number. Furthermore, even if the “1’, which showed the true value of the certificate and
subject ten peso bill was counterfeited bank note, it by obliterating with a pencil the number “1” whenever

it appeared on the corners or sides of the certificates

for the purpose appear that each one of them was
worth $10 instead of $1, and by this means the sum of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RAFAEL
25 Mexican pesos was fraudulently obtained in BALMORES
exchange for one of the said bills or certificates. 85 Phil. 493 FEBRUARY 16, 1950
HELD: ISSUE:
Yes. Article 289 of the Penal Code provides that those Whether or not accused committed forgery under
who falsify bank notes or other instruments or Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code.
documents payable to bearer, or coupons thereof, the
issue of which has been authorized by law, or those FACTS:
who introduce such in the Philippine Islands, shall be Accused was charged for attempted estafa through
punished. falsification of security by tearing off at the bottom in
a cross-wise direction a portion of a genuine 1/8 unit
The silver certificates in the record are documents Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket thereby
payable to bearer or documents of credit duly issued removing the true and real unidentified number of
by virtue of the Federal laws in force in the United same and substituting and writing in ink at the bottom
States, and are included as instruments payable to on the left side of said ticket the figure or number
bearer. 074000 thus making the said ticket bear the said
number 074000, which is a prize-winning number in
the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw last June 29,
THE UNITED STATES vs MARIANO SOLITO 1947, and presenting the said ticket so falsified on said
GR. NO. L-12546 August 25, 1917 date, September 22, 1947, in the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office for the purpose of exchanging the
ISSUE: same for the corresponding cash that said number had
Whether or not accused is guilty of forging, uttering won, fraudulently pretending in said Office that the
and passing an altered obligation of the Government said 1/8 unit of a Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket
of the Philippine Islands. is genuine and that he is entitled to the corresponding
amount of P359.55 so won by said ticket in the
FACTS: Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw on said date, June
Accused was the correspondence clerk and acting chief 29, 1947, but the said accused failed to perform all the
clerk in the office of the division superintendent of acts of execution which would have produced the
schools in the municipality of Dumaguete. With that he crime of estafa thru falsification of a security as a
was intrusted and authorized to open letters of an consequence by reason of some causes other than his
official character addressed to the office. It was the spontaneous desistance.
custom of the director of Education to forward to
division superintendents of schools checks for the HELD:
reimbursement for travel expenses and for the Yes. The alteration, or even destruction, of a losing
payment of the salary of employees. On April 19, 1915 sweepstakes ticket could cause no harm to anyone and
a Treasury Warrant was issued to Alvah D. Riley for the would not constitute a crime were it not for the
sum of P657.53 from the Auditor of the Philippine attempt to cash the ticket so altered as a prize-winning
Islands for payment. Accused then presented the said number. The penalty imposed by article 166 for the
warrant to the municipal treasurer for payment, forging or falsification of "treasury or bank notes or
bearing the indorsement of Alvah D. Riley and received certificates or other obligations arid securities" is
the amount stated therein. Alvah D. Riley contended reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine
that he never had in his possession the said warrant, not to exceed P10,000, if the document which has been
nor had ever seen the same, that he did not indorse the falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or
same by writing his name at the back, that his signature security of the United States or of the Philippine
which appears at the back of the said warrant was not Islands. In this case the ticket in question was owned
his. by the government of the Philippine Islands.
HELD: January 9, 2018 – Article 170 – FALSIFICATION OF

Yes. The said warrant was a check issued by the LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
Government of the Philippine Islands and, an [NO CASE FOUND]
obligation of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
It was originally made payable to Alvah D. Riley, or to January 9, 2018 – Article 171 – FALSIFICATION OF
his order. When it was indorsed as above indicated, it PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR
became a check or warrant payable to “bearer”. The NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER
indorsement made a material alteration in said warrant. IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
The indorsement changed said check from one
payable to Alvah D. Riley, or to one to whom he
ordered it paid, to one payable to bearer. The PEOPLE V. PO GIOK TO
indorsement of the accused had the effect of erasing G.R. NO L-7236, April 30, 1955
the phrase “or order” upon the face of the warrant.

They registered the deed of sale in the Office of the

ISSUE: Provincial Assessor of Lingayen which was signed and
Whether Defendant violated Article 171 by forging a notarized which was dated Nov. 23, 1989. In the deed
public document. it was made to appear that all of Elena’s children signed
it. The signatures of Modesta and Felipe were forged.
FACTS:
Defendant forge a public document namely the On Sept. 7, 2000, an information was filed charging
residence certificate No. A-1618529 and petitioner with falsification of public documents.
misrepresenting to the said representative of the City Petitioner maintained that they could not be guilty
Treasurer that his name is Antonio Perez along with his since it was not them who prepared the document. It
birth place and citizenship when in fact he is a Chinese was left in the assessors office which they were told to
national. come back and once they came back it was already
signed. They contended that they did not act with
The CFI of Cebu charged defendant with the crime of intent to falsify and that they acted in good faith.
falsification of a public document. Accused then filed a
motion to quash on the grounds that the information HELD:
did not allege that the document allegedly falsified and Yes. Petitioners were the authors and mastermind since
that he had the wrongful intent to injure a third person. falsification is presumed from the fact that they actually
The lower court then dismissed the case on the benefited from it. In Maliwat v. CA, the Supreme Court
grounds that the information filed did not alleged the held that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the
intent and disclosure of the facts in the documents one found in possession of and who used a forged
allegedly falsified. document and made use of it, taking advantage and
profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is
Defendant also contended that he cannot be charged the material author of the falsification.
with violation of Article 171 since the falsified
document was committed by a public employee who January 10, 2018 – Article 172 – FALSIFICATION BY
wrote the untrue facts. PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS
HELD: LAZO, Joseph Artfel T. II
Yes, although it is true that it was the employee who
wrote the untrue facts, it was the defendant who
induced him to do so by supplying the facts making THE UNITED STATES, v. DAMIAN OVERA (alias
him the principal of the crime by inducement. KIM CUAN),
11 Phil 596
The court also held that the obligation on the part of
the accused to disclose the truth as to the facts that ISSUE:
should appear in a residence certificate to be issued to WON a counterfeiting a ticket is considered a
him, is inherent in the very nature and purpose of said falsification of a private document.
document. Hence, defendants falsification of the
information need not be alleged in the information for FACTS:
him to be convicted of the crime. Since under Damian Orera (alias Kim Cuan) was convicted by the
Commonwealth Act No. 465, for the purpose of Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, of the crime
establishing his true and correct identity, he thereby of having falsified a Chinese theater ticket which
committed falsification as principal by induction in entitled the bearer thereof to admission to a
making false statement in the narration of fact. performance held in the theater by counterfeiting and
simulating the signature and rubric of Eng Ning on the
Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the case said ticket,
back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The accused was sentenced to be imprisoned at the
Insular Prison of Bilibid for the period of six months and
SPS. REVELO AND CORAZON VILLAMAR V. one day, to pay a fine of 625 pesetas, Philippine
PEOPLE currency, and the costs of the suit, from which
G.R. NO. 178652, 12/8/10 judgment the accused appealed.
ISSUE: HELD:
Whether accused falsified a public document. YES
FACTS: That the court below did not err in qualifying such
On April 20, 1967, Elena Mananton sold a parcel of land ticket as a document in order to prosecute and punish
to her 9 children. On June 6, 1983, some of her children the crime of falsification, the subject-matter of the
sold Land to Simplicio. However, Modesta and Felipe complaint, because if, according to the authority cited
did not participate in the sale. Simplicio then sold the by the appellant, a document is "a deed, instrument or
parcel of land to his daughter Corazon who is married other duly authorized paper by which something is
to Petitioner Revelo. proved, evidenced or set forth," and a private

document is, according to another authority cited by documents after they had defrauded a Moises Bunzon
the same appellant, "every deed or instrument for an amount of P5,000.
executed by a private person, without the intervention The property (fishpond) in question is under the
of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, administration of Josefa de Leon. Accused Benita
by which document some disposition or agreement is Domingo approached the administrator (representing
proved, evidenced or set forth," it follows that the herself as a Realty broker) after learning that de Leon
ticket in question, being an authorized document was looking for a buyer of the property. Domingo later
evidencing an agreement for the rent of a place in a stated that she had found a buyer and asked if she
theater to enable the possessor to witness a theatrical could have temporary possession of the Title deed and
performance, is a private document. other related documents to the property.The
documents were later handed to Domingo on the
PEOPLE VS MANANSALA promise that it would be returned later in the
105 Phil 1253 afternoon. However, that promise was broken.
ISSUE: Shortly, Sanchez learned his property was being

WON the person being in possession of the tvr is mortgaged by accused Modesto and company
presumed to be the author of the falsification (comrades of Domingo) but upon confrontation he
was merely told that he did not have possession of the
FACTS: documents Modesto and Company later approached a
Felix Manansala, Accused was apprehended by del certain Moises Bunzon and pretended to be Josefa de
Rosario of Manila Police Department (MPD) for driving Leon and representing the owner of the property.
outside of his authorized route. Upon presenting the
Traffic Violations Report (TVR) del Rosario noticed that They sold the subject property for P5000 to Bunzon
the TVR was altered.It was later found that the with the option of buying back the property.
alterations consisted of erasing the number “III” and
the word “three” after the word Pending cases and This transaction criminally defrauded and injured
replacing the figures with “I” and “one”this changed Moises Buzon
the original meaning of the TVR which previously
stated 3 pending cases to only 1 pending case. HELD:
YES
At the investigation, the accused admitted having
made the alterations in question, in order to hide his The crime charged in the information and conclusively
previous pending traffic violation cases and thereby established by the evidence. The crime could hot have
avoid immediate arrest should he be caught been committed if its perpetrators had not been in
committing a fourth traffic violation possession of the certificate of title is obvious and it
has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the
HELD: appellant was the person who obtained the certificate
YES. from Sanchez. It is true that there is no direct evidence
that she delivered it to the two women who signed the
The falsified Traffic Violations Report(TVR) in question deed, but in view of the fact that she offered no
was issued to the accused and the records show that it explanation as to what she did with the certificate and
was in his possession and had been used as a even denied that she received it, there is no escape
temporary drivers permit from its issuance to the time from the inference that she placed the certificate in the
he was caught by del Rosario upon commission of his hands of her confederates. If she had not been a co-
4th violation. It is an established rule that when a conspirator, she would have revealed the name of the
person has in his possession a falsified document and party to whom the certificate was delivered. Her
makes use of the same, the presumption is that such position is analogous to that of a person who
person is the forger. The accused also had sufficient immediately after a larceny has been committed is
motive to commit the falsification as MPD policy is to found in possession of the stolen goods and offers no
arrest a person upon the 4th traffic violation. Hence, he explanation
had the strongest temptation to make in his TVR
appear that he had only committed 1 infraction. SIQUIAN VS PEOPLE
171 SCRA 223
PEOPLE VS DOMINGO
49 PHIL 28 ISSUE:
WON Siquian was guilty of falsification of public
ISSUE: documents
WON the acts of the accused constitute a falsification
of public documents FACTS:
Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel Siquian,
FACTS: the municipal mayor of Isabela, to apply for a job in the
Benita Domingo and company were accused of the office of the mayor. Siquian later appointed her as a
crime of estafa through falsification of public clerk in the office of the municipal secretary and even
said that her salary would be included in the budget.

MESSAGES, AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED

Accompanying her appointment is the certification, MESSAGES
among others, of the availability of funds through a MERCADO-NASH, Regina
form issued by Siquian and addressed to the CSC,
pursuant to the requirements of the latter. US V. ROMERO
It should be noted that the Municipal council of 17 Phil. 76
Isabela, failed to enact the annual budget for the
municipality for the Fiscal Year 1975-76. As such, the ISSUE:
annual budget for the previous Fiscal Year 1974-75, Whether or not Romero was guilty of falsifying
was deemed re-enacted. telegraph message.
No such position (that assigned to Carreon) existed
then. Carreon worked for five months and was FACTS:
supposed to receive her salary of P120. She On April 24, 1908, the accused Joaquin Romero who
approached the municipal treasurer to ask for the was a postmaster and telegraph operator send two
money but the latter said that there was no money yet. telegrams for transmission. He reduced the words of
She then sued Siquian for falsification of a public the telegraph messages by twelve and eight words,
document. respectively. He was not authorized to do so by the
senders. Romero pocketed the differences in the prices
HELD: charged in the sums of P0.72 and P.48, respectively.
YES.
On August 24, 1908, the provincial fiscal filed a
He was found guilty under par 4 of art 171,“making complaint with the Court of First Instance in Tarlac,
untruthful statements in a narration of facts”; the charging Romero with the crime of falsification of
elements of which are: telegrams. This crime is punishable under Article 300
of the Penal Code (now Art. 173 of the Revised Penal
(a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful Code). He was a government employee and engaged
statements in a narration of facts; in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable,
telegraph or telephone messages.
(b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth
of the facts narrated by him; and The defendant Joaquin Romero admitted that he
changed the wording of the telegrams which he
(c) That the facts narrated by the offender are received by omitting several words in each of them;
absolutely false. and the record of the cause shows no proof of his
allegation that he made an error in recounting the
In this case, all the elements for falsification were met amount received for each telegram, owing to the
especially when Siquian stated that funds were number of words they contained, and that he was
available for the position to which Jesusa Carreon was obliged to diminish the number of words of each of
appointed when he knew that, in reality, the position them.
itself did not even exist and no funds had been
appropriated. It is further bolstered by the fact that HELD:
when the budget was deemed re-enacted, there is no Yes, Romero had violated the crime of falsification of
such position as Clerk to the Municipal Secretary, the telegrams. The crime is provided for and punished by
position to which Carreon was appointed. And there is Article 303 in connection with Article 300 of the Penal
also no appropriation made in the Annual Budget for Code, which article 303 reads: “A public official in
the Fiscal Year 1974-75 for such position, thus charge of the telegraph services who shall originate or
rendering Siquian's statement in his certification utterly falsify a telegraphic message shall incur the penalty of
false. Siquian also had the legal obligation to disclose prision correctional in its medium and maximum
the truth of such facts. degrees.”
He also took advantage of his official position in
falsifying the document. Abuse of public office is January 13, 2018 – Article 174 – FALSE MEDICAL
considered present when the offender falsifies a CERTIFICATES, FALSE CERTIFICATES OF MERITS OR
document in connection with the duties of his office SERVICE, ETC.
which consist of either making or preparing or OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
otherwise intervening in the preparation of a
document. In this case, Siquian was charged with the UNITED STATES VS. JUAN ANGEL MICHELENA
duty of issuing the certification necessary for the (4 Phil 492)
appointment of Carreon. Lastly, the existence of a
wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary ISSUE:
when the falsified document is a public document. Whether or not the crime of falsification of certification
of merit was committed.
January 11, 2018 – Article 173 – FALSIFICATION OF FACTS:

WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE In an application to the Civil Service Board for
examination, a document printed in accordance with

the form prescribed by said Board, and in that part document or certificate was used with the knowledge
thereof which contains recommendations of the that its contents were false, in that Deloso was not a
applicant. The certificate No. 3 appears to be resident of Jimenez. The falsity of the statement made
subscribed by Frank N. West, the latter having neither by him to the municipal secretary of said pueblo, was
subscribed it nor written the contents thereof, the proven by another notarial document executed by the
same not being correct in some respects, as regards said Deloso who also stated under oath, that he was a
the age of the party certifying and the length of time resident of Oroquieta both before and after the year
which he knew the candidate recommended. The 1904; it is therefore unquestionable that the accused
candidate, now the defendant, failed to present himself was liable.
for examination, notwithstanding having in his
possession the ticket of admission. DANILO CALIVO CARIAGA vs. EMMANUEL D.
SAPIGAO and GINALYN C. ACOSTA
HELD: G.R. No. 223844, June 28, 2017
YES. The crime was fully proven. The act done by the
defendant is simply the falsification of a certificate of ISSUE:
merit. The court sentenced Juan Angel Michelena to Whether or not the crime of falsification of certification
two months and one day of arresto mayor, crediting of merit was committed.
him with one-half of the time of his detention already
suffered, and the costs in both instances. FACTS:
A Complaint Affidavit filed by Cariaga before the Office
THE UNITED STATES vs. RUFINO DELOSO of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) accusing
(11 Phil 180) respondents Emmanuel D. Sapigao (Sapigao) and
Ginalyn C. Acosta of the crimes of Falsification of Public
ISSUE: Documents, False Certification, and Slander by Deed,
Whether or not the crime of falsification of certification defined and penalized under Articles 171, 174, and 359
of merit was committed. of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In the said complaint,
Cariaga alleged that respondents, in their respective
FACTS: capacities as Barangay Chairman and Secretary of Brgy.
Rufino Deloso, in order to take part in the municipal Carosucan Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan, made two (2)
elections that were to be held about the first (1st) of spurious entries in the barangay blotter: (1) stating that
December, 1904. in the town of Jimenez, called at that an unnamed resident reported that someone was firing
municipal building and stated under oath to the a gun inside Cariaga's compound, and that when
municipal secretary, that he was a resident of the said Sapigao went thereat, he was able to confirm that the
town, and that at the date of the next municipal gunfire came from inside the compound and was
election, he would have resided therein for a period of directed towards the adjacent ricefields and (2) stating
six months; and that he was in every way entitled to that a concerned but unnamed resident reported to
vote. Subsequently, At the municipal elections held at Sapigao that Cariaga and his companions attended the
the town of Oroquieta, in the same province, on the funeral march of former Kagawad Rodrigo Calivo, Sr.
fifth (5th) of December 1905, the said Deloso was (Calivo, Sr.) with firearms visibly tucked in their waists.
elected by a majority vote to the office of municipal Accordingly, the police authorities used the blotter
president. The election was protested by several entries to obtain a warrant for the search and seizure
residents of the town on the ground that the successful operation made inside Cariaga's residence and cattle
candidate had no legal residence therein. In his farm which resulted in the confiscation of a firearm and
defense, Deloso stated under oath on the 4th of several ammunitions, the criminal case for illegal
January, 1906, before Vicente Fortich, notary public of possession of firearms consequently filed against him
Oroquieta, that he had been, and was at the time a but was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court claiming
resident of the said town, and that he had resided that the statements in the blotter entries were
therein from the month of April, 1902, until the above- completely false and were made to dishonor and
mentioned date; that he was a candidate for the discredit him. Sagipao and Acosta raised their
municipal presidency of Oroquieta at the elections of defenses, Sapigao denied the accusations against him,
December, 1903, that, although he paid frequent visits maintaining that the blotter entries were true, as he
to the pueblo of Jimenez, he always returned to personally witnessed their details whereas Acosta
Oroquieta, the place where he resided; that he never averred that she was merely performing her duties as
vote for municipal officers in the pueblo of Jimenez. A Barangay Secretary when she certified as true copies
complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal charging the photocopies of the aforesaid blotter entries
Rufino Deloso with the crime of falsification of official requested by the police authorities. The OPP dismissed
documents. the complaint for lack of probable cause. It found that
the questioned blotter entries were all made in good
HELD: faith and merely for recording purposes; done in the
YES. The document offered in evidence issued by the performance of respondents' official duties; and based
municipal secretary of Jimenez is not, strictly speaking, on personal knowledge of what actually transpired.
a public document, but it belongs to the class of Cariaga filed a petition for review before the Office of
documents that the falsification of which is covered the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) but affirmed the
under the falsification of a certificate of merit. The said OPP's ruling. The ORSP pointed out that Acosta's mere

authentication of the photocopies of the blotter entries Yes. In the instant case, Lizares was not authorized to
cannot be equated to issuing a false certification so as file the complaint for and in behalf of petitioner
to indict her of such crime. corporation. Thus, the complaint is not deemed filed
by the proper party in interest and should be
HELD: dismissed. There was no allegation that petitioner
NO. The court affirmed the ORSP ruling that the mere NMEI, through a board resolution, authorized Lizares
act of authenticating photocopies of the blotter entries to execute the verification and certification of non-
cannot be equated to committing the crime of False forum shopping. Moreover, no such board resolution
Certification under the law. Hence, the ORSP correctly was appended to the complaint or amended
found no probable cause to indict respondents of the complaint.
said crimes.
In Tamondong v. CA, it was held that if a complaint is
January 14, 2018 – Article 175 – USING FALSE filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not
CERTIFICATES authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed.
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal
effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint
NEGROS MERCHANTS ENTERPRISES INC. VS. on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION complaint and the plaintiff.
GR NO. 150918 (AUGUST 17, 2007)
ISSUE: January 15, 2018 – Article 176 – MANUFACTURING
Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed AND POSSESSION OF INSTRUMENTS OR
because of using a false and unauthorized certificate IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
FACTS:
Petitioner NMEI, through its President and General US VS. ANGELES
Manager, Jacinto Tan Jr., applied for an P8 million 6 PHIL. 435 (SEPTEMBER 11, 1906)
Credit Accommodation with respondent CBC. The loan
was secured by a real estate mortgage over its ISSUE:
properties. Subsequently, NMEI, through Tan, applied Whether or not Angeles is liable under Article 176 of
for an additional Case-to-Case Loan. Both loans were the Revised Penal Code
respectively paid in 1996.
FACTS:
Petitioner NMEI re-availed the P8M credit line and The evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant
failed to settle the obligation. The latter, through its Modesto Angeles, manufactured a seal in imitation of
counsel Atty. Diaz, sent two letters to respondent the seal of the municipality of Lipa, in the Province of
requesting a detailed statement of account and to hold Batangas, for the purpose of using it in the making of
in abeyance any legal action. The latter replied that said false certificates of the transfer by him of live stock.
statement could not be released without proper board
resolution or authorization. The petitioner’s properties HELD:
were extrajudicially foreclosed and sold in public YES. A person who manufactured a seal in imitation of
auction, with respondent as the highest bidder. the seal of Lipa, Batangas, for making false certificates
for the transfer of livestock, is guilty of making
Petitioner filed a Complaint for Annulment of instrument for falsification of certificates. The
Foreclosure Sale with Damages and Preliminary falsification of one of these documents is punished, as
Injunction. Respondent CBC moved to dismiss the we have just held in the case of the United States v.
same on the ground that petitioner failed to show by Florentino Sayson 1 (4 Off. Gaz., 572).
clear and convincing evidence that it is entitled to the
relief sought in the complaint. The RTC of Bacolod
denied respondents Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner later PEOPLE VS. MAGPALE
filed an Amended Complaint impleading Tan and his G.R. NO. L-46656 (JUNE 26, 1940)
spouse, Corazon Tan, as well as respondents Bacolod
Branch Manager Ainalea Cortez. Respondent again ISSUE:
sought to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to Whether or not the court erred in applying article 176
state cause of action and for failure to comply with the of RPC
rules on non-forum shopping.
In the CA, it held that the Amended Complaint should FACTS:
have been dismissed because the accompanying A criminal complaint was lodged against Felipe
certification against forum shopping which was signed Magpale in the justice of the peace court of San Jose,
by petitioner's corporate secretary, Amelito Lizares, Province of Nueva Ecija, charging him with a violation
was defective, for lack of authorization from the board of Article 176. That, on or about the 25th day of March,
of directors. 1938, in the municipality of San Jose, Nueva Ecija,
Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this
HELD: court, the above-named accused did then and there
willfully, feloniously, knowingly and without lawful

purpose, have in his possession, custody and control these official pronouncements, Hilvano still refused to
one brand of the municipal government of San Jose, surrender the position and held it for about a month;
Nueva Ecija, to wit: ,with the intent of using it for appointed some policemen, solemnized marriages,
falsifying the official brand of the said municipality of and received the salary for mayor.
San Jose, Nueva Ecija, in public documents, to wit:
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle. All contrary to
Hilvano was charged with usurpation of authority and
law.
official functions under Article 177 of the R.P.C. On his
appeal, Hilvano contended that he committed no
HELD:
NO. Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code provides as usurpation of authority because he was a public officer
follows: and that such crime may only be committed by private
individuals.
ART. 176. Manufacturing and possession of
instruments or implements for falsification. — The HELD:
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and Yes, Hilvano, a public officer, was liable for the crime of
maximum periods and a fine not to exceed 10,000 usurpation of authority and official functions.
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall
make or introduce into the Philippine Islands any There was actually no reason to restrict the operation
stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or of Article 177 to private individuals. For one thing it
implemented intended to be used in the commission
applies to “any person”; and where the law does not
of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification
distinguish, the court should not distinguish.
mentioned in the preceding sections of this chapter.
Furthermore, contrary to Hilvano’s assumption that
Appellant himself admits that the ordered the Articles 238-241 of the Revised Penal Code penalize all
questioned iron brand to be made, wherefore, he is kinds of usurpation of official functions by public
criminally liable for the making thereof. (Article 176, officers, said articles merely punish interference by
Revised Penal Code.) It also appears that the said brand officers of one of the three departments of
is an exact imitation of that owned and used by the government (legislative, executive and judicial) with
municipality of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, to brand its own the functions of officials of another department. Said
large cattle and to counterbrand large cattle belonging articles do not cover usurpation of one officer or
to its inhabitants. employee of a given department of the powers of
another officer in the same department.
January 16, 2018 – Article 177 – USURPATION OF
AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS There was no excuse for Hilvano. In the beginning he
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D. might have pleaded good faith, invoking the
designation by the Mayor; but after he had been
PEOPLE VS. HILVANO shown the letter of the Executive Secretary and the
G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956 opinion of the provincial fiscal, he had no right
BENGZON, J.: thereafter stubbornly to stick to the position.
ISSUE:
PEOPLE VS. LIDRES
Whether or not Hilvano, a public officer, be held liable
G.R. No. L-12495, July 26, 1960
for the crime of usurpation of authority or official BARRERA, J.:
functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not Lidres was guilty of Usurpation of
Francisco Hilvano, the councilor of the municipality of Official Functions under Republic Act No. 10.
Villareal, Samar, acted in place of the Mayor of said
municipality as he was designated by the latter when FACTS:
the latter departed for Manila on official business. Vice- Joseta Diotay and Dionisio Lidres filed an application
Mayor Juan Latorre then served written notices to the as a substitute teacher of the second grade class of
Biasong Elementary School when Echavez, the original
Municipal Councilors, including Hilvano, that he was
teacher of said class, filed and granted a maternity
assuming the duties of the absent Mayor. When
leave.
Hilvano refused invoking that he was designated by
the Mayor, Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the Diotay was appointed as a substitute teacher and
Executive Secretary informing such controversy. The began teaching. However, before the said
latter replied by letter, that under sec. 2195 of the appointment, Diotay was requested by the supervising
Revised Administrative Code it was the Vice-Mayor teacher to sign an agreement to take over Echavez'
who should discharge the duties of the Mayor during position on a "50-50" basis, that is, the period from
the latter’s temporary absence. Vice-Mayor also January to March, 1954 would be equally divided
sought the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal who also between her and Lidres.
had the same view with the Executive Secretary. Shown

On the strength of the agreement, Lidres, armed with Leovegildo R. Ruzol, the Municipal Mayor of General
a prepared letter of resignation for the signature of Nakar, Quezon, was accused of usurpation of official
Diotay, appeared at the school and asked Diotay to functions for issuing 221 Permits to Transport salvaged
sign it but the former refused. Despite the refusal of forest products under the alleged “pretense of official
Diotay, Lidres took over her class. position and without being lawfully entitled to do so”,
since such authority, as ruled by the Sandiganbayan,
Accordingly, Lidres was charged with the crime of
belonged solely to the Department of Environment
usurpation of official function with deliberate intent
and Natural Resources.
and without pretense of official position under
Republic Act No. 10
HELD:
HELD: No. The DENR is not the sole government agency
No. Republic Act 10 was intended as an emergency vested with the authority to issue permits relevant to
measure, to cope with the abnormal situation created the transportation of salvaged forest products,
by the subversive activities of seditious organizations considering that, pursuant to the general welfare
at the time of its passage in September, 1946. Hence, clause, LGUs may also exercise such authority. Also, as
the elimination of the element of pretense of official can be gleaned from the records, the permits to
position required under Article 177 of the Revised transport were meant to complement and not to
Penal Code, and the elevation of the penalty replace the Wood Recovery Permit issued by the DENR.
from prision correccional in its minimum and medium
In effect, Ruzol required the issuance of the subject
periods to not less 2 years nor more than 10 years. And
permits under his authority as municipal mayor and
since it was neither alleged in the information nor
independently of the official functions granted to the
proved during the trial that Lidres was a member of
said seditious organizations engaged in subversive DENR. The records were likewise bereft of any showing
activities, he could not be held liable or found guilty that Ruzol made representations or false pretenses
under Republic Act. No. 10. that said permits could be used in lieu of, or at the least
as an excuse not to obtain, the Wood Recovery Permit
Granting, arguendo, that Republic Act No. 10 was an from the DENR.
amendment to Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code
and not merely an implementation thereof or an January 17, 2018 – Article 178 – USING FICTITIOUS
emergency measure as stated, the subsequent NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME
enactment of Republic Act No. 379 effective June 14, RIVERA, Marynit P.
1949, would constitute an amendment thereof by
restoring the element of pretense of official position in US v. TO LEE PIU
the offense of usurpation of official functions, originally G.R. No. 11522, September 26, 1916
required by Article 177 prior to its amendment by the
latter Act. Under Republic Act No. 379 then, the law in ISSUE:
force at the time of the commission of the alleged Whether or not the accused should be convicted of the
offense by Lidres, pretense of official position was an crime of using a false name
essential element of the crime of usurpation of official
functions. But the information specifically charges that FACTS:
Lidres committed the offense "without pretense of The appellant To Lee Piu was charged with using a false
official position". Under circumstances, the facts name. He came to the Philippine Islands in 1911 and
alleged in the information failed to constitute an presented a section six certificate wherein his name
offense. Neither can defendant be convicted of appears to be To Lee Piu. Thereafter, he attached to an
usurpation of authority, as distinguished from application for a passport the name Toribio Jalijali. Said
usurpation of official functions, under the first application was accompanied by the affidavits of two
paragraph of Article 177, as amended by said Republic witnesses and by a baptismal certificate showing that a
Act No. 379, namely, that of representing to be an person by that name was born in the Philippine Islands
officer, agent, or representative of any department or in 1878. On the trial there was no denial of the fact that
agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign appellant signed the name Toribio Jalijali to the
government, inasmuch as the information does not application for a passport. According to the defendant,
charged the same. he was born in the Philippine Islands as Toribio Jalijali.
He went to China at an early age. Feeling doubtful as
to his ability to prove his right to reenter, he applied to
RUZOL vs. SANDIGANBAYAN the American consul at Canton for a section six
G.R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013 certificate. On such application, he stated that his name
VELASCO, JR., J.: was Toribio Jalijali. Upon being told by the clerk of the
consulate that it was not necessary to put his surname
ISSUE: in such application, he wrote therein the Christian
Whether Ruzol was guilty of Usurpation of Official name Toribio alone. The charge is prosecuted on the
Functions. theory that To Lee Piu is the appellant's correct name
and that the name Toribio Jalijali is false.
FACTS:

HELD:
Yes. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that the January 18, 2018 – Article 180 – FALSE TESTIMONY
appellant used the name of another person for the AGAINST A DEFENDANT
purpose of deceiving Government and, by that SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
deception, to obtain a passport. He came to the
Philippine Islands as a Chinese person traveling for PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIONISIO
curiosity and pleasure. He so represented himself to MANEJA
the American consul at Canton and, by that G.R. NO. L-47684, JUNE 10, 1941
representation, obtained a section six certificate. In his
application for that certificate he stated that he was a ISSUE:
Chinese person, and that his name was To Lee Piu .He From what date should the period of prescription be
came to the Philippine Islands upon those computed for the crime of false testimony under article
representations; and, by virtue of the certificate 180 of the Revised Penal Code?
obtained thereby, was permitted to enter the country.
Desiring to return to China, or travel in other parts of FACTS:
the world and, at the same time, be permitted to return This case was an appeal by Dionisio Maneja who was
to the Philippine Islands at will, he sought to obtain a accused of giving a false testimony in a criminal case
passport as a citizen of the Philippine Islands under the no. 1872 on December 16, 1933 as the lower court
sovereignty of the United States. In order to held, or from the time the decision of the Court of
accomplish his purpose it was necessary for him to Appeals in the aforesaid case became final in
show to the authorities of the Philippine Islands issuing December 1938.
passport that he was in fact a citizen of the Philippine
Islands and as such entitled to a passport. He HELD:
thereupon took unto himself a Filipino name, one not The period of prescription shall commence to run from
his own, and made his application for a passport the day on which final judgment is served in the
attaching to his application the name Toribio Jalijali. principal case. Considering that the penalties provided
therefor in article 180 of the Revised Penal Code are, in
ONG HOCK LIAN alias JULIAN ONG v. REPUBLIC every case, made to depend upon the conviction or
OF THE PHILIPPINES acquittal of the defendant in the principal case, the act
G.R. No. L-21197, May 19, 1966 of testifying falsely does not therefore constitute an
actionable offense until the principal case is finally
ISSUE: decided. And before an act becomes a punishable
Whether or not Ong Hock Lian is guilty of violating the offense, it cannot possibly be discovered as such by the
Anti-Alias Law offended party, the authorities or their agents.
FACTS: January 19, 2018 – Article 181 – FALSE TESTIMONY

Ong Hock Lian alias Julian Ong, a citizen of the FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED
Republic of China filed a petition for naturalization SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
pursuant to the Naturalization Law. The Solicitor
General appealed from the decision of the Court of PEOPLE V. REYES
First Instance of which it granted the petition for (C.A., 48 O.G. 1837)
naturalization. Moreover, appellant contends that the
lower court erred in in not holding that appellee uses ISSUE:
an alias without court authority and in violation of the Whether or not the false testimony in favor of
Anti-Alias Law. defendant need not directly influence the decision of
acquittal.
HELD:
Yes. Under the law, except as a pseudonym for literary FACTS:
purposes, no person shall use any name different from The accused was the star witness in a prosecution for
the one with which he was christened or by which he robbery against Jemenia. Before the trial, the accused
has been known since childhood, or such substitute executed an affidavit in which he manifested that he
name as may have been authorized by a competent was not interested in the prosecution of the case and
court (Section 1, Commonwealth Act 142). Aside from that he wanted to give the accused “a chance to earn
the name "Ong Hock Lian," appellee is using the alias his living wisely and in the honest way.” The fiscal
"Julian Ong." There is no evidence that appellee has refused to ask for the dismissal of the case. When the
been baptized with the latter name or that he has been case was called for trial, the accused who was asked to
known by it since childhood, or that the court has identify Jemenia, testified that he could not remember
authorized the use thereof. Appellee has therefore anymore the face of Jemenia. After further questions
committed a violation of the Anti-Alias Law. failed to elicit other data, the case against Jemenia was
dismissed by the court, resulting in his acquittal.
January 18, 2017 – Article 179 – ILLEGAL USE OF
UNIFORMS OR INSIGNIA HELD:
The contention of the defense that the acquittal of
[NO CASE FOUND] Jemenia was due to the failure if the fiscal to call other

witnesses who could have properly identified Jemenia, the CFI asking for a list of forcible entry and detainer
is irrelevant. It is not necessary that the testimony given actions and the accused himself signed three lists
by the witness should directly influence the decision of which was forwarded to the CFI, among other orders
acquittal, it being sufficient that it was given with the of the CFI to the accused.
intent to favor the accused.
HELD:
U.S. V. SOLIMAN During the examination of the defendant as a witness
36 PHIL. 5 in the cause in which it is alleged he gave false
testimony he was asked certain questions with
ISSUE: reference to the existence of certain facts. His answers
Whether or not Soliman is guilty of violating Article 181 invariably were that he did not remember, or that he
of the Revised Penal Code. had no recollection concerning those facts. His answers
FACTS: invariably were that he did not remember, or that he
Soliman, testifying in his own behalf in the course of had no recollection concerning those facts. The
another criminal case in which he, with several others, prosecuting attorney proved the existence of the facts
was charged with estafa, swore falsely to certain with reference to which the defendant was questioned,
material allegations of fact. He testified falsely that a but failed to prove that the statements of the
sworn statement offered in evidence in support of the defendant with reference to those facts were false. The
charge of estafa, which was in effect an extrajudicial mere fact that the defendant had had to do in the year
confession of his guilt, had not been executed 1896 with certain facts and relations was not sufficient
voluntarily, and that its execution had not been to prove that he stated a falsehood when he stated in
procured by the police by the use of force, intimidation December, 1904, that he had "no recollection with
and prolonged torture. reference to such facts or relations." The evidence
adduced during the trial fails, in our judgment, to show
HELD: that the defendant testified falsely or gave false
It must not be forgotten that the right of an accused testimony as was charged in the complaint.
person to testify in his own behalf is secured to him,
not that he may be enabled to introduce false In order that a defendant may be convicted under
testimony into the record, but to enable him to spread article 321 of the Penal Code for giving false testimony,
upon the record the truth as to any matter within his the following facts must be shown:
knowledge which will tend to establish his innocence.
First. The testimony must be given in a civil cause.
January 21, 2018 – Article 182 – GIVING FALSE Second. The testimony must relate to the issues
TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES presented in said cause.
TADO, Diann Kathelline A. Third. The testimony must be false.
Fourth. The false testimony must be given by the
THE UNITED STATES vs. ISIDORO ARAGON defendant knowing the same to be false.
G.R. No. L-2709 December 28, 1905 Fifth. Such testimony must be malicious and given with
an intent to affect the issues presented in said cause.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused is guilty of giving false testimony The evidence adduced during the trial of this case is
in a civil case not sufficient to show that the defendant committed
the crime charged in the complaint. The judgment of
FACTS: the inferior court is therefore reversed and the said
This was an action for the crime of giving false cause is hereby ordered to be dismissed.
testimony. Isidoro Aragon is accused of the crime of
false testimony in a civil case. ARK TRAVEL EXPRESS, INC. vs. The Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
On February 23 1904, E.H Warner filed a complaint for Branch 150, HON. ZEUS ABROGAR, VIOLETA
forcible entry and unlawful detainer against the tenants BAGUIO and LORELEI IRA
of his estate. The accused was summoned as witness [G.R. No. 137010. August 29, 2003]
to appear before the justice of the peace court of
manila, and after having been duly sworn, testified that ISSUE:
he does not remember or have no recollection of Whether Article 182 is violated
forcible entry or detainer suits on the Pasay or Pineda
Estate prior to the four last years. FACTS:
Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Travel for brevity) filed with
It was alleged that all his statements are absolutely the City Prosecutor of Makati a criminal complaint for
false, and are essential to the case at issue as they were False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the
made. He well knew that at that time there were Revised Penal Code against herein private respondents
brought in the justice of the peace court at Pineda Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira.
when he was filing that office many actions for forcible
entry and detainer, instituted by Agustin J. Montilla It was alleged that on or about the 19th day of
against tenants of the estate.He received an order from February, 1996, the accused gave false testimony upon

a material fact in Civil Case No. 95-1542, relative to a

complaint for Collection of sum of money, torts and US V. JURADO
damages filed by Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Inc. for (31 Phil 491)
short) against New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc.
(NFMA, Inc. for short). During the trial of said civil case, ISSUE:
the accused testified under oath that the claims of ARK, Whether or not Jurado committed the crime of perjury.
Inc. supported by a statements of accounts (Exhibit E
to GG) sent to and received by defendant-corporation FACTS:
NFMA, Inc. is baseless and/or been paid, which On July 9, 1913, the acting provincial fiscal of Cebu,
testimony as accused very well knew and ought to Dionisio Jacosalem, proceeded to investigate the
know, by reason of accused's position as cashier, was matter of the robbery of some tins of opium,
false inasmuch as the claim based on the statement of committed in the house of Francisco Jurado by
accounts of ARK, Inc. are, in truth and in fact, valid, legal Alejandro Albao, a municipal policeman, through
and unpaid accounts of NFMA, Inc. with ARK Travel threats and intimidation and by availing himself of his
Inc., herein represented by private complainant MA. office. This opium belonged to Vicente Lizarraga who
PAZ ALBERTO, to the damage and prejudice of the had taken it to the said house to sell it to some
latter. residents of the town. Lizarraga, the owner of the drug,
stated that Francisco Jurado was present, among
HELD: others, at the time of the robbery; but when Jurado was
To constitute the crime of False Testimony in a Civil called to testify as an eyewitness to the crime he denied
Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code, the that he was at home on the night of the robbery, as he
following requisites must concur: was then in a cinematograph with his family. He further
testified that he did not know either Vicente Lizarraga
1. The testimony must be given in a civil case; or Alejandro Albao. Such was his testimony given
2. The testimony must relate to the issues presented in under oath before the provincial fiscal Jacosalem, but
the case; in the proceedings brought against Ciriaco Singson for
3. The testimony is false; robbery, commenced on September 24,1913, Jurado,
4. The false testimony must be given by the defendant testifying as a witness for the defense, stated under
knowing the same to be false; and oath that he had known Vicente Lizarraga since the
5. Such testimony must be malicious and given with month of June, 1913, and that he was already
and intent to affect the issues presented in the case. acquainted with Alejandro Albao on the date of the
crime.
There is no doubt that the first two requisites are extant
in this case. The records show that Ark Travel filed a In order that a witness, in testifying under oath before
complaint for collection of sum of money, torts and a public official authorized to administer same commit
damages against New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. the crime of perjury and incur the penalty prescribed
(NFMAI) and Angelina T. Rivera with the Regional Trial by section 3 of Act No. 1697, it is necessary and
Court of Makati (Branch 137). In said civil case, private indispensable that he testify to and.declare under oath
respondents were presented by NFMAI as witnesses. with regard to some material matter which he does not
They executed their respective sworn statements and believe to be true, or that such false testimony tend to
testified before the trial court that NFMAI has no establish something which conflicts with the truth of an
outstanding obligation with Ark Travel as the same had essential or important fact which has been proven by
been paid in full. the evidence; because, if the false testimony of the
witness is not important, essential, or material to the
The existence of the last three requisites is quite principal matter under investigation, it can not
dubious. The falsity of the subject testimonies of properly be held that the crime of perjury has been
private respondents is yet to be established. It is noted committed.
that at the time of the filing of the criminal complaints,
the civil case filed by Ark Travel is still pending decision. RULING:
Ark Travel has yet to prove the validity of its monetary No. The principal object of the investigation was to find
claims and damages against NFMAI. It is only after trial out whether Alejandro Albao had actually been in
that the RTC can assess the veracity or falsity of the Jurado's house where Lizarraga was that night with
testimony and correspondingly render a decision. several tins of opium for sale, and whether on that
Thus, the civil case is so intimately connected with the occasion Albao, availing himself of his office of
subject crime that it is determinative of the guilt or municipal policeman, by intimidation with a revolver,
innocence of the respondents in the criminal cases. In succeeded in compelling Lizarraga to deliver to him the
other words, whether or not the testimonies of private tins of opium which Lizarraga was carrying and which
respondents in the civil cases are false is a prejudicial Albao seized, took away with him and appropriated to
question. himself, and which have not yet been recovered.
January 22, 2018 – Article 183 – FALSE TESTIMONY Jurado, the owner of the house where the robbery was
IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN committed, testified that he learned from Isabelo
AFFIRMATION Alburo that Lizarraga had in fact been in the house with
UNAS, Nor-Aiza R. tins of opium for sale, but that witness did not see them

because he was that night in the cinematograph with PDIC’s Assisting Deputy Receiver, Mauricia
his family. This testimony is not contradicted by any Manzanares (p. 41).
evidence in the record. For lack of sufficient proof of
the falsity of that statement by the owner of the house, It can be gleaned from the foregoing that the
the defendant Jurado, for it was not proven that it was averments of respondent in her subject Affidavits are
false and, as he certainly was in his own house on the true. Nevertheless, granting for the sake of argument
said night of the robbery, it cannot be held that, in that the statements of respondent in her Affidavits are
testifying as he did, he perjured himself. false, still, there exists no reasonable ground to indict
her under Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal
January 23, 2018 – Article 184 – OFFERING FALSE Code. It bears stressing that one element of perjury is
TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. Such
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. element is absent in the instant case. Respondent’s
contention that said Manager’s Checks were issued
SORIANO VS. CABAIS and paid by RBSM to Forcecollect and Surecollect, are
( GR NO. 157175, June 21, 2007) duly supported by RBSM records which she has
perused and examined in her capacity as duly
ISSUE: designated BSP Comptroller for RBSM. Thus,
Whether or not perjury was committed under article respondent believes in good faith that what she
184? mentioned in her Affidavits are true. It must be noted
that good faith is a defense in perjury (People of the
FACTS: Philippines v. Abaya, 74 Phil. 59). For the same reasons,
Hilario P. Soriano, petitioner, is the President of the respondent cannot likewise be prosecuted under
Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM). On the other Article 184 of the Revised Penal Code.
hand, Zenaida A. Cabais, respondent, is the comptroller
designated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to January 24, 2018 – Article 185 – MACHINATION IN
oversee the bank’s operations. PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Eventually, the RBSM was closed and placed under VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
receivership by the BSP. Thereupon, petitioner filed
with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. In the VICENTE DIAZ VS. RUPERTO KAPUNAN
course of the proceedings, respondent executed two DECEMBER 8, 1923
affidavits stating that:
ISSUE:
13. About a week before RBSM declared a "bank Whether or not attorney Kapunan Violate Article 542
holiday" on January 4, 2000, RBSM on December 27, of the Penal Code(Now Article 185 of the Revised Penal
1999 and December 29, 1999, paid Forcecollect Code).
Professional Solution, Inc. and Surecollect Professional
Solution, Inc., entities owned/controlled by Mr. Soriano FACTS:
and other RBSM officers (Annexes "14" and "15") Vicente Diaz and Secundino de Mendezona formed a
P5.300 million and P5.750 million (Annexes "16" and partnership and entered into extensive business
"17"), respectively, without any supporting documents, transactions in the Province of Leyte. The capital of the
as payment of 25% collection fee;2 x x x (Affidavit partnership was P380,000. Unfortunately, however, the
dated February 17, 2000) business failed to prosper, with the result that on
liquidation, it was found to have suffered a loss of
8. RBSM paid Manager Check Nos. 0000040071 and P67,000. When Diaz and Mendezona came to settle up
0000040079 in cash on December 27 and 29, 1999, their affairs, they eventually formulated a document of
respectively, as evidenced by the attached Debit sale and mortgage in which Mendezona recognized a
Advances of even dates (Annexes "1-B" and "2-B" debt in favor of Diaz in the sum of P80,000 and an
respectively).3 x x x (Affidavit dated March 22, 2000) additional sum of P10,000 owing to Diaz, laid upon the
hacienda "Mapuyo," and to be paid within the term of
On April 6, 2000, petitioner filed with the Office of the one year. When the year had expired Mendezona was
City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for perjury not to be found and his family was unable to meet the
defined and penalized by Articles 183 and 184 of the payment. There followed the usual proceedings for
Revised Penal Code against respondent. Petitioner foreclosure and sale, which, after considerable delay,
alleged that respondent committed perjury by resulted in the hacienda's being offered for sale at
narrating false statements in her affidavits. public auction.
At the time fixed for the sale, December 23, 1922, there
HELD: appeared Vicente Diaz, accompanied by his lawyer
The petition lacks merit. Emilio Benitez, and Attorney Ruperto Kapunan. Luis
The fact of issuance and payment by RBSM of said Velarde, the deputy sheriff of Leyte, is authority for the
checks to Forcecollect and Surecollect is furthermore statement that Kapunan told him that he, Kapunan,
bolstered by the Certifications issued by RBSM was ready to bid on the property up to P16,000 in order
Accountant, Narciso Adriano (p. 39), RBSM Branch to assist the Mendezona family which was in financial
Accountant for Plaridel, Carmina Capule (p. 40), and straits. At any rate, the bidding was opened by

Kapunan offering P12,000 for the property and with

Diaz and Kapunan raising the bids until finally Diaz FACTS:
offered P12,500. There the bids stopped on account of The appellate proceedings at bar treat of a parcel of
Diaz and Kapunan entering into the agreement, of land registered under RFC (DBP). Said property was
decisive importance, which we next quote in full: offered for bidding for the second time because the
We, Vicente Diaz and Ruperto Kapunan, both being the first bidding was nullified due to Ouano’s protest. It
bidders at the auction held for the sale of the appears that prior to the second bidding, Ouano and
properties of Secundino Mendezona, do hereby Echavez orally agreed that only Echavez would make a
agreed that Don Ruperto Kapunan should withdraw his bid, and that if it was accepted, they would divide the
bid and refrain from bidding at the said auction as he property in proportion to their adjoining properties. To
does hereby withdraw his bid, and in consideration ensure success of their enterprise, they also agreed to
thereof, the said Mr. Diaz offers him a premium of one induce the only other party known to be interested in
thousand pesos (P1,000) which, out of consideration to the property-a group headed by a Mrs. Bonsucan to
said Don Vicente Diaz, Mr. Kapunan accepts and has, desist from presenting a bid. They broached the matter
for this reason, refrained from bidding in competition to Mrs. Bonsucan's group. The latter agreed to
with said Mr. Diaz. withdraw, as it did in fact withdraw from the sale; and
Ouano's wife paid it P2,000 as reimbursement for its
Following the termination of the sheriff's sale, Diaz on expenses.
December 26, 1922, gave Kapunan P500 of the P1,000
mentioned in the above quoted document. Diaz RULING:
further followed the usual procedure to take over the YES. These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial Court
property of Mendezona pursuant to his bid of P12,500, has stressed. Ouano and Echavez had promised to
which covered the amount of the mortgage with its share in the property in question as a consideration for
accumulated interest and with the judicial expenses. Ouano's refraining from taking part in the public
auction, and they had attempted to cause and in fact
RULING: succeeded in causing another bidder to stay away from
YES. Article 542 punishes "any person who shall solicit the auction. in order to cause reduction of the price of
any gift or promise as a consideration for agreeing to the property auctioned In so doing, they committed
refrain from taking part in any public auction." The the felony of machinations in public auctions defined
crime is consummated by the mere act of soliciting a and penalized in Article 185 of the Revised Penal Code
gift or promise for the purpose of abstaining from
taking part in the auction. Not permitting our minds to That both Ouano and Echavez did these acts is a matter
be confused by the varied explanations of Diaz and of record, as is the fact that thereby only one bid that
Kapunan, the document formulated by them and of Echavez was entered for the 'land in consequence of
hereinbefore quoted, demonstrates that Kapunan, on which Echavez eventually acquired it. The agreement
the promise of Diaz to pay P1,000, refrained from therefore being criminal in character, the parties not
further participation in the sale of the property of only have no action against each other but are both
Mendezona, which is exactly the situation covered by liable to prosecution and the things and price of their
article 542 of the Penal Code. agreement subject to disposal according to the
provisions of the criminal code. This, in accordance
Public policy discountenances combinations or with the so-called pari delicto principle set out in the
agreements on the part of bidders at execution sales, Civil Code.
the objects and effects of which are to stifle
competition. The courts will consider an agreement January 25, 2018 – Article 186 – MONOPOLIES AND
between a judgment creditor and one claiming an COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
interest in the thing about to be sold under an VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B.
execution, that neither shall bid against the other, as
void, unless all parties concerned know of the THE UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO FULGUERAS
arrangement and consent thereto. Execution sales G.R. No. 2176
should be open to free and full competition, in order April 18, 1905
to secure the maximum benefit for the debtor. Article
542 of the Penal Code is, therefore, a wise provision ISSUE:
even though rarely invoked, and should be used to Whether or not Fulgueras committed the acts as
discourage the stifling of bids at judicial sales. mentioned under article 186 of the revised penal code
on monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
PATERNO OUANO
VS. FACTS:
COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANCISCO ECHAVEZ In the months of March to July, 1904, Fulgueras
GR No. L-40203 August 21, 1990 attributed to himself a supernatural power pretending
to hold a commission from a powerful chief in Manila.
ISSUE: He went about distributing papers and proclamations
Whether Ouano committed machinations in public to the people of Oroquieta, Province of Cagayan de
auction punishable under the Article 185 of the Revised Misamis, spreading subversive and fanatical ideas, and
Penal Code. with orders from his alleged chief to lower the prices

of needful commodities and to reform the customs against all mere formal alterations and against the
otherwise they would be under the penalty of being substitution of mere mechanical equivalents. It
visited with flood and calamities. protects the patentee from colorable invasions of his
patent under the guise of substitution of some part of
By these machinations and deceits the defendant his invention by some well-known mechanical
succeeded in deceiving ignorant people and causing equivalent.
them to provide themselves with instruments of
measure larger than they formerly had and different Human ingenuity would be taxed beyond its powers in
from the regular size and also succeeded in making preparing a grant of a patent so comprehensive in its
them lower the prices of commodities of everyday life, terms, "as to include within the express terms of its
all with violation of law. detailed description every possible alternative of form,
size, shape, material, location, color, weight, etc., of
HELD: every wheel, rod, bolt, nut, screw, plate, and other
Yes. The court held in this case that this spreading of component parts of an invention."
false rumors or making use of any other artifice to
restrain free competition in the market constitutes the ASIA BREWERY, INC. V. CA AND SAN MIGUEL
acts as mentioned under Article 186 of the Revised CORP
Penal Code. GR NO. 104533 JULY 5, 1993
The court found all these charges well proven and
sentenced the defendant to the penalty of six months’ FIRST ISSUE:
arresto mayor and to pay a fine of 5,000 pesetas, in Does ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN label or "design" infringe
accordance with the provisions of article 544 of the upon SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN WITH
Penal Code (now Article 186 of the RPC). RECTANGULAR MALT AND HOPS DESIGN?
January 26, 2018 – Article 187– IMPORTATION AND HELD:

DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR NO. On the other hand, the dominant feature of ABI's
MECHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OTHER trademark is the name: BEER PALE PILSEN, with the
PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS word "Beer" written in large amber letters, larger than
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P. any of the letters found in the SMC label.
[NO CASE FOUND] The trial court perceptively observed that the word
"BEER" does not appear in SMC's trademark, just as the
January 26, 2018 – Article 188 – INFRINGEMENT - RA words "SAN MIGUEL" do not appear in ABI's
8293 (SUBSTITUTED FOR ART. 188 OF THE RPC) trademark. Hence, there is absolutely no similarity in
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. the dominant features of both trademarks.
GSELL v. YAP-JUE Neither in sound, spelling or appearance can BEER

G.R. No. 4720, Jan. 19, 1909 PALE PILSEN be said to be confusingly similar to SAN
MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No one who purchases BEER
ISSUE: PALE PILSEN can possibly be deceived that it is SAN
Whether or not Yap-Jue infringed on the patent of MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No evidence whatsoever was
Gsell. presented by SMC proving otherwise
FACTS: Besides the dissimilarity in their names, the following

Gsell obtained a patent for manufacturing canes and other dissimilarities in the trade dress or appearance of
umbrellas with a curved handle by means of a lamp or the competing products abound:
blowpipe fed with mineral oil or petroleum. Yap-Jue
made similar products using the same process but (1) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle has a slender
instead of using “a lamp or blowpipe fed with mineral tapered neck. The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle has a fat,
oil or petroleum,” he used a lamp fed with alcohol. bulging neck.
HELD: (2) The words "pale pilsen" on SMC's label are printed
Yes, he did. The Court held that alcohol is an equivalent in bold and laced letters along a diagonal band,
or substitute for mineral oil or petroleum, in whereas the words "pale pilsen" on ABI's bottle are half
connection with blast lamps or blowpipes. It is a well- the size and printed in slender block letters on a
known fact at the time when the patent was issued to straight horizontal band. (See Exhibit "8-a".).
Gsell. The use of a blast lamp or blowpipe fed with
petroleum or mineral oil, rather than one fed with (3) The names of the manufacturers are prominently
alcohol, is an unessential part of the patented process printed on their respective bottles. SAN MIGUEL PALE
the use of which was prohibited by the court in a prior PILSEN is "Bottled by the San Miguel Brewery,
proceeding. Philippines," whereas BEER PALE PILSEN is "Especially
brewed and bottled by Asia Brewery Incorporated,
The Doctrine of “Mechanical Equivalents” provides that Philippines."
the inventor of an ordinary machine is protected

(4) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle cap is ISSUE:

stamped with a coat of arms and the words "San Whether or not the subject marks should be allowed
Miguel Brewery Philippines" encircling the same. registration in the name of Birkenstock.
The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with the
name "BEER" in the center, surrounded by the words FACTS:
"Asia Brewery Incorporated Philippines." Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corp. (PSEMC) was the
registered owner of the trademark “Birkenstock and
(5) On the back of ABI's bottle is printed in big, bold Device” since October 21, 1993 in the Philippines.
letters, under a row of flower buds and leaves, its
copyrighted slogan: Birkenstock Orthopeadie GMBH and Co.
"BEER NA BEER!" KG(Birkenstock), a German company, and has been
using “Birkenstock” since 1774 by its inventor, Johan
Whereas SMC's bottle carries no slogan. Birkenstock. In 1994, Birkenstock applied for trademark
registration of “Birkenstock” before the Intellectual
(6) The back of the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle Property Office (IPO) in the Philippines. This was
carries the SMC logo, whereas the BEER PALE PILSEN opposed by PSEMC. During the pendency of the
bottle has no logo. registration proceedings, PSEMC failed to file the
(7) Finally, there is a substantial price difference required 10th Year Declaration of Actual Use (10th Year
between BEER PALE PILSEN (currently at P4.25 per DAU) for “Birkenstock and Device” on or before
bottle) and SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (currently at October 21, 2004. Failure to file the 10th Year DAU
P7.00 per bottle). One who pays only P4.25 for a bottle constitutes abandonment of the trademark and will
of beer cannot expect to receive San Miguel Pale Pilsen result in the automatic cancellation of the certificate of
from the storekeeper or bartender. registration.
Second Issue: whether ABI is passing off its BEER PALE
PILSEN as SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) found that the mark,
“Birkenstock”, of Birkenstock was not popular in the
HELD: Philippines and that PSEMC did not lose their right over
NO. The amber color is a functional feature of the beer the mark for non-filing of the 10th Year DAU due to
bottle. As pointed out by ABI, all bottled beer produced their continued use of the product. The decision of the
in the Philippines is contained and sold in amber- BLA was reversed by the Director General of the IPO
colored bottles because amber is the most effective (DG-IPO) citing that PSEMC’s failure to file the DAU.
color in preventing transmission of light and provides The CA reversed the decision of the DG-IPO and
the maximum protection to beer. adopted the BLA’s ruling.
As was ruled in California Crushed Fruit Corporation vs. HELD:

Taylor B. and Candy Co., 38 F2d 885, a merchant cannot The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. It affirmed
be enjoined from using a type or color of bottle where the decision of DG-IPO that non-filing of the DAU is an
the same has the useful purpose of protecting the automatic cancellation of the registration and
contents from the deleterious effects of light rays. That constitutes abandonment of the mark.
the ABI bottle has a 320 ml. capacity is not due to a
desire to imitate SMC's bottle because that bottle The SC also appreciated the evidence provided by
capacity is the standard prescribed under Metrication Birkenstock, though photocopies , that “Birkenstock” is
Circular No. 778, dated 4 December 1979, of the a popular mark in the world and thus entitled to
Department of Trade, Metric System Board. With protection under Philippine Laws. It emphasized that
regard to the white label of both beer bottles, ABI registration of a trademark, by itself, is not a mode of
explained that it used the color white for its label acquiring ownership.1âwphi1 If the applicant is not the
because white presents the strongest contrast to the owner of the trademark, he has no right to apply for its
amber color of ABI's bottle; it is also the most registration. Registration merely creates a prima facie
economical to use on labels, and the easiest to "bake" presumption of the validity of the registration, of the
in the furnace. registrant’s ownership of the trademark, and of the
exclusive right to the use thereof. Such presumptionis
No one can have a monopoly of the color amber for rebuttable and must give way to evidence to the
bottles, nor of white for labels, nor of the rectangular contrary. It is not the application or registration of a
shape which is the usual configuration of labels. trademark that vests ownership, but it is the ownership
Needless to say, the shape of the bottle and of the label of a trademark that confers the right to register the
is unimportant. What is all important is the name of the same. A trademark is an industrial property over which
product written on the label of the bottle for that is its owner is entitled to property rights which cannot be
how one beer may be distinguished form the others. appropriated by unscrupulous entities that, in one way
or another, happen to register such trademark ahead
BIRKENSTOCK ORTHOPEADIE GMBH AND CO. KG of its true and lawful owner. The presumption of
V. PHILIPPINE SHOE EXPO MARKETING CORP. ownership accorded to a registrant must then
GR. NO. 194307 NOV. 20, 2013 necessarily yield to superior evidence of actual and real
ownership of a trademark.
The Court also finds that the registration of PSEMC of

the mark was in bad faith since it is very remote that HELD:
two persons did coin the same or identical marks. To Yes. Petitioners SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE trademark is
come up with a highly distinct and uncommon mark clear infringement of respondent’s SAN FRANCISCO
previously appropriated by another, for use in the COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC. trade name. The descriptive
same line of business, and without any plausible words San Francisco Coffee are precisely the dominant
explanation, is incredible. The field from which a features of respondent’s trade name. Petitioner and
person may select a trademark is practically unlimited. respondent are engaged in the same business of
As in all other cases of colorable imitations, the selling coffee. Whether wholesale or retail. The
unanswered riddle is why, of the millions of terms and likelihood of confusion is higher in cases where the
combinations of letters and designs available, business of one corporation is the same or
[respondent] had to come up with a mark identical or substantially the same as that of another corporation.
so closely similar to the [petitioner’s] if there was no In this case, the consuming public will likely be
intent to take advantage of the goodwill generated by confused as to the source of the coffee being sold at
the Birkenstock mark. Being on the same line of petitioner’s coffee shops. Respondent has acquired an
business, it is highly probable that the PSEMC knew of exclusive right to use of the trade name SAN
the existence of “BIRKENSTOCK” and its use by the FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC. since the
Birkenstock, before PSEMC appropriated the same registration of the business name with the DTI in 1995.
mark and had it registered in its name. Thus, respondent’s use of its trade name from then on
must be free from any infringement by similarity. Of
January 27, 2018 – Article 189 – INFRINGEMENT, course, this does not mean that respondent has
UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT exclusive use of the geographic word SAN FRANCISCO
DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTION, or generic word COFFEE. Geographic or generic words
FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION. are not, per se, subject to exclusive appropriation. It is
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z. only the combination of the words SAN FRANCISCO
COFFEE, which is respondent’s trade name in its coffee
COFFEE PARTNERS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO business, that is protected against infringement on
COFFEE ROASTERY, INC. matters related to the coffee business to avoid
G.R. NO. 169504 MARCH 3, 2010 confusing or deceiving the public.
ISSUE: DIAZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LEVI

Whether petitioners use of the trademark SAN STRAUSS INC.
FRANCISCO COFFEE constitutes infringement of G.R. NO. 180677 FEBRUARY 18, 2013
respondent’s trade name SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE &
ROASTERY, INC. ISSUE:
WON there was infringement of trademarks
FACTS: committed by Diaz in this case.
Respondent San Francisco Coffee Roastery, Inc. is a
local corporation engaged in wholesale and retail sale FACTS:
of coffee. It registered its business name SAN Levi Strauss and Company (Levi’s), a foreign
FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC. with the corporation had been engaged in the apparel business.
Department of Trade and Industry in June 1995. On the It is the owner of trademarks and designs of Levi’s jeans
other hand, petitioner Coffee Partners, Inc. is a local like LEVI’S 501, the arcuate design, the two-horse
corporation engaged in the business of establishing brand, the two-horse patch, the two-horse patch with
and maintaining coffee shops in the country. It pattern arcuate, and the composite tab arcuate. After
registered its name on January 2001 under a franchise receiving information that Diaz was selling counterfeit
agreement with Coffee Partners Ltd., a business entity LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring shops in Almanza and
established under British Virgin Islands to use CPL’s Talon, Las Piñas City, Levi’s Philippines hired a private
designed trademarks like SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE. In investigation group to verify the information.
1998, respondent formed a joint venture agreement Surveillance and the purchase of jeans from the
with Boyd Coffee USA and later on embarked in setting tailoring shops of Diaz established that the jeans
up coffee shops in malls and commercial bought from the tailoring shops of Diaz were
establishments around Metro Manila. In June 2001, counterfeit or imitations of LEVI’S 501. Levi’s
respondent discovered that petitioner was about to Philippines then sought the assistance of the NBI for
open a coffee shop under the name SAN FRANCISCO purposes of applying for a search warrant against Diaz
COFFEE in Libis, Quezon City. According to respondent, to be served at his tailoring shops. NBI agents searched
petitioners shop caused confusion in the minds of the the tailoring shops of Diaz and seized several fake
public as it bore a similar name and it also engaged in LEVI’S 501 jeans from them. Levi’s Philippines claimed
the business of selling coffee. Respondent sent a letter that it did not authorize the making and selling of the
to petitioner demanding that the latter stop using the seized jeans; that each of the jeans were mere
name SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE. Respondent also filed imitations of genuine LEVI’S 501 jeans by each of them
a complaint with the Bureau of Legal Affairs- bearing the registered trademarks, like the arcuate
Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO) for infringement design, the tab, and the leather patch; and that the
and/or unfair competition with claims for damages. seized jeans could be mistaken for original LEVI’S 501

jeans due to the placement of the arcuate, tab, and alleging that the registration of such will cause to
two-horse leather patch. mislead the public as to the origin, nature, quality, and
In his defense, the accused interposed that he did not characteristic of the goods on which it is affixed and it
manufacture Levi’s jeans, and that he used the label "LS is tantamount to fraud as it seeks to register and obtain
Jeans Tailoring" in the jeans that he made and sold; legal protection for an identical or confusingly similar
that the label "LS Jeans Tailoring" was registered with mark that clearly infringes upon the established rights
the Intellectual Property Office; that his shops received of PHILIPS over its registered and internationally well-
clothes for sewing or repair; that his shops offered known mark.
made-to-order jeans, whose styles or designs were
done in accordance with instructions of the customers; HELD:
that since the time his shops began operating in 1992, Yes. Applying the dominancy test in the instant case, it
he had received no notice or warning regarding his shows the uncanny resemblance or confusing similarity
operations; that the jeans he produced were easily between the trademark applied for by respondent with
recognizable because the label "LS Jeans Tailoring," that of petitioner's registered trademark. An
and the names of the customers were placed inside the examination of the trademarks shows that their
pockets, and each of the jeans had an "LSJT" red tab; dominant or prevalent feature is the five-letter "PHILI",
that "LS" stood for "Latest Style;" and that the leather "PHILIPS" for petitioner, and "PHILITES" for
patch on his jeans had two buffaloes, not two horses. respondent. The marks are confusingly similar with
The RTC found him guilty of the said crime. each other such that an ordinary purchaser can
conclude an association or relation between the marks.
HELD: The consuming public does not have the luxury of time
No. Diaz used the trademark "LS JEANS TAILORING" to ruminate the phonetic sounds of the trademarks, to
for the jeans he produced and sold in his tailoring find out which one has a short or long vowel sound. At
shops. His trademark was visually and aurally different bottom, the letters "PHILI'' visually catch the attention
from the trademark "LEVI STRAUSS & CO" appearing of the consuming public and the use of respondent's
on the patch of original jeans under the trademark trademark will likely deceive or cause confusion. Most
LEVI’S 501. The word "LS" could not be confused as a importantly, both trademarks are used in the sale of
derivative from "LEVI STRAUSS" by virtue of the "LS" the same goods, which are light bulbs.
being connected to the word "TAILORING", thereby
openly suggesting that the jeans bearing the Applying the holistic test, entails a consideration of the
trademark "LS JEANS TAILORING" came or were entirety of the marks as applied to the products,
bought from the tailoring shops of Diaz, not from the including the labels and packaging, in determining
malls or boutiques selling original LEVI’S 501 jeans to confusing similarity. A comparison between
the consuming public. petitioner's registered trademark "PHILIPS'' as used in
the wrapper or packaging of its light bulbs and that of
The prosecution also alleged that the accused copied respondent's applied for trademark "PHILITES" as
the "two horse design" of the petitioner-private depicted in the container or actual wrapper/packaging
complainant but the evidence will show that there was of the latter's light bulbs will readily show that there is
no such design in the seized jeans. Instead, what is a strong similitude and likeness between the two
shown is "buffalo design." Again, a horse and a buffalo trademarks that will likely cause deception or
are two different animals which an ordinary customer confusion to the purchasing public. The fact that the
can easily distinguish. parties' wrapper or packaging reflects negligible
differences considering the use of a slightly different
The prosecution further alleged that the red tab was font and hue of the yellow is of no moment because
copied by the accused. However, evidence will show taken in their entirety, respondent's trademark
that the red tab used by the private complainant "PHILITES" will likely cause confusion or deception to
indicates the word "LEVI’S" while that of the accused the ordinary purchaser with a modicum of intelligence.
indicates the letters "LSJT" which means LS JEANS
TAILORING. Again, even an ordinary customer can
distinguish the word LEVI’S from the letters LSJT.
DY V. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
G.R. NO. 186088 MARCH 22, 2017
ISSUE:
Whether the registration of the trademark of PHILITES
will defraud and cause unfair competition and
infringement of trademark to PHILIPS.
FACTS:
On 12 April 2000, petitioner PHILITES filed a trademark
application covering its fluorescent bulb, incandescent
light, starter and ballast. After publication, respondent
Philips Electronics filed a Verified Notice of Opposition

TITLE FIVE – CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM Simon denied the accusation against him, claiming that
AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS on the day of question, he was picked up by the police
at their house while watching TV. He was told that he
was a pusher so he attempted to alight from the jeep
January 28, 2018 – RA 6425 – CRIMES RELATED TO
but he was handcuffed instead. When they finally
OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
reached the camp, he was ordered to sign some papers
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
and, when he refused, he was boxed in the stomach
eight or nine times by Sgt. Pejoro. He was then
compelled to affix his signature and fingerprints on the
US VS AH SING
documents presented to him. He denied knowledge of
36 PHIL 978
the marked money or the 4 teabags of dried marijuana
leaves, and insisted that the marked money came from
ISSUE:
the pocket of Pejoro. Moreover, the reason why he
Whether or not accused Ah Sing is liable to illegal
vomited blood was because of the blows he suffered
importation of Opium.
at the hands of Pejoro.
FACTS:
Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of
Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamship Shun Chang, a
Romana Pangan District Hospital, declared that she
foreign vessel which arrived in the port of Cebu from
treated appellant for three days due to abdominal pain,
Saigon. He bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought
but her examination revealed that the cause for this
them on board and had them in his possession during
ailment was appellant’s peptic ulcer. She did not see
the said trip. The 8 cans of opium were found in the
any sign of slight or serious external injury, abrasion or
ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine by
contusion on his body.
authorities who made a search upon anchoring on the
port of Cebu. The defendant confessed that he was the
Simon was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in
imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos
Saigon. He dis not confess, however, as to his purpose
and to pay the costs.
in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his
intention to import the prohibited drug.
Simon then seek the reversal of the judgement
RULING:
RULING:
Yes. As stated in the Opium Law, we expressly hold that
No. To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs,
any person who unlawfully imports or brings any
the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established.
prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the
To sell means to give, whether for money or any other
prohibited drug is found under this person's control on
material consideration. It must, therefore, be
a vessel which has come direct from a foreign country
established beyond doubt that appellant actually sold
and is within the jurisdiction limits of the Philippines, is
and delivered two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves
guilty of the crime of illegal importation of opium,
to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in
unless contrary circumstances exist or the defense
exchange for two twenty-peso bills.
proves otherwise.
After careful review, the Court held that there were 2
tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2
note:
other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon
Possession of Opium on board a vessel is punishable
should be charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of
when Philippine port is its destination.
marijuana only.
When a foreign steamer anchored in any of our ports
However, there is an overlapping error in the
after arriving direct from a foreign country, mere
provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by
possession of Opium therein is punishable.
reason of its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum
of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750
PEOPLE VS. MARTIN SIMON
grams, and also as the minimum of the penalty where
the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more. The same
ISSUE:
error has been committed with respect to the other
Whether or not the conviction of accused Simon for
prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said
the violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No.
Section 20. To harmonize such conflicting provisions in
6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 was proper.
order to give effect to the whole law, the court hereby
hold that the penalty to be imposed where the quantity
FACTS:
of the drugs involved is less than the quantities stated
Accused Martin Simon was charged with a violation of
in the first paragraph shall range from prision
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or the
correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He sold tea bags of
perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental
marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
rule in criminal law that all doubts should be construed
poseur-buyer. The confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a
in a manner favorable to the accused.
total of 3.8 grams, when subjected to laboratory
The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now
examination, were found positive for marijuana.
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly
adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in

their technical terms, hence with their technical PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit saw petitioner seated
signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of on top of the bed sniffing shabu while Joseph Canlas
determining the maximum of said sentence, the court was on the floor assisting petitioner sniffing shabu. At
have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 this juncture, PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit arrested
of said law to arrive at prision correccional and Article petitioner and Joseph and confiscated from them the
64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium drug paraphernalia, glass tooter, scissors, lighters and
period. Such offense, although provided for in a special plastic sachets. PO2 Mangapit frisked petitioner and
law, is now in effect punished by and under the Revised recovered from him one plastic sachet containing
Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, shabu.
the court applied first part of the aforesaid Section 1
which directs that “in imposing a prison sentence for After informing petitioner and Joseph of their
an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its constitutional rights, PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to brought them to the Laoag City Police Station and
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of turned them over to the police officer on duty while
which shall be that which, in view of the attending the confiscated items were turned over to SPO3 Loreto
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Ancheta.
rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that The Philippine National Police (PNP) laboratory
prescribed by the Code for the offense.” conducted an examination on the specimen recovered
Thus, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged from appellant and his companion which tested
the benefit of a minimum sentence within the range of positive for shabu.
arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision On October 15, 2004, two separate informations were
correccional which is the maximum range have fixed filed against Joseph Canlas y Naguit and Cacao
through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the indicting them for violation of Section 11, Article II of
Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law, the RA 9165 before the RTC of Laoag City.
court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of
arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision Both RTC and CA convicted petitioner.
correccional.
RULING:
JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO VS. PEOPLE OF THE No. As a general rule, factual findings and conclusions
PHILIPPINES of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight
[G.R. NO. 180870, 610 SCRA 636, JANUARY 22, and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.
2010] However, if there is any indication that the trial court
overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would
ISSUE: substantially affect the disposition of the case, the
Whether or not there was a proper chain of custody in Supreme Court will not hesitate to review the same. In
the instant case. this case, the Court finds it imperative to review the
factual findings of the trial court because of certain
FACTS: inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
On October 14, 2004, at around 7:45 in the evening, witnesses on material points.
Police Officer 3 (PO3) Celso Pang-ag of the Intelligence
and Operation Section of the Laoag City Police Station A. The testimonies of the prosecutions principal
received a telephone call from an informant about a witnesses are inconsistent as to who delivered the
drug session being held inside Room 5 of the Starlight prohibited drug to the evidence custodian.
Hotel located at Barangay 5, Ablan Avenue, Laoag City.
In this case, PO3 Celso Pang-ag (Pang-ag) and PO2
Acting on the information, PO3 Pang-ag, together with Jonel Mangapit (Mangapit) both testified that it was
PO2 Jonel Mangapit, went immediately to the Starlight the latter who brought the item confiscated from
Hotel to determine the veracity of the report. Upon petitioner to the evidence custodian, SPO3 Loreto
arrival at the target area, PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 Ancheta (Ancheta). However, the foregoing assertions
Mangapit approached the lady clerk manning the are totally at odds with the testimony of Ancheta, the
information counter of Starlight Hotel and inquired evidence custodian. The latter denied that it was
about the alleged drug session at Room 5 of the hotel. Mangapit who delivered the item allegedly recovered
from Cacao. Instead, he repeatedly and categorically
The lady clerk informed PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 declared that it was SP03 Balolong (Balolong) from
Mangapit that the roomboy of the hotel was about to whom he received the plastic sachet of shabu.
deliver a softdrink to Room 5 and they could follow him Contrary to the findings of the appellate court, The
if they [so wish]. Thus, PO3 Pang-ag and PO2 Mangapit Court is of the considered view that this contradiction
followed the roomboy to Room 5. Upon arrival, the is not so inconsequential or minor but a discrepancy
roomboy knocked at the door and a woman, later touching on substantial and significant matter which
identified as Mylene, opened the door wide enough to could well affect the credibility of the witnesses.
enable the police officers to look inside.

B. The prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish that

the item presented in court was the same item FACTS:
confiscated from Cacao. Buy-bust operation was conducted by PO3 Almarez,
SPO1 Balido and Captain de Vera. Ruper Pagaduan was
The patent inconsistency between the testimonies of arrested and plastic sachet of what appears to be
Mangapit and Pang-ag, on one hand, and the shabu was marked, request for laboratory examination
testimony of Ancheta on the other hand, necessarily was done the same day. The plastic sachet was turned
leads us to doubt that the plastic sachet of shabu over to PNP Crime Laboratory two days after. He was
identified in court is the same item that was allegedly found guilty by the court and the same was affirmed
seized and confiscated from petitioner. If the version of by CA
Mangapit is to be believed, then the most lamentable
aspect pertains to his failure to identify the seized item Pagaduan contents among others that the prosecution
with certainty. For sure Mangapit, who is the most failed to show an unbroken chain of custody in the
competent person to make the proper identification handling of the seized drug. He claims that there was
being the officer who confiscated the item from Cacao, no evidence to show when the marking were done.
never actually identified the same.
RULING:
The only other person who could have identified the No. The Supreme Court acquitted Pagaduan. The
subject drug is Pang-ag. However, the Court cannot prosecution failed to show that the illegal drug
lend credence to his supposed identification, the same presented in the court is the same illegal drug actually
not being also positive, certain and unequivocal. recovered from the Pagaduan. Strict compliance with
Besides, there is no showing that this witness actually the prescribed procedure is required because of the
saw the shabu at the time it was allegedly seized from illegal drug’s unique characteristic rendering it
petitioner. In fact, Pang-ag is even incompetent to indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
make the identification since from all indications, he tampering alteration or substitution either by accident
has never been in possession of it. or otherwise.
Moreover, considering the testimony of Ancheta, it was Resolution:

Balolong who forwarded the seized item. It must be We recognize that the strict compliance with the
noted that Balolong was never presented to testify in requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not
this case. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that what always be possible under field conditions; the police
was turned over to the evidence custodian by Balolong operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all
and later presented in court was the same substance times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
recovered from petitioner. The failure to establish the handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason, the
chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s case. last sentence of the implementing rules provides that
non-compliance with these requirements under
Note: justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
Essential in a drug-related case is that the identity of evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
doubt Since the dangerous drug constitutes the corpus render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital over said items[.] Thus, noncompliance with the strict
to a judgment of conviction, it behooves upon the directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not
prosecution to establish and prove with certainty that necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case; police
the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence
against the accused is the same item recovered from may still have some lapses, as in the present case.
his possession. These lapses, however, must be recognized and
explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the
The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized
the prosecution’s case. There can be no crime of illegal must be shown to have been preserved
possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts
persist on whether the item confiscated was the same In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to
specimen examined and established to be the offer any explanation to justify the failure of the police
prohibited drug. to conduct the required physical inventory and
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official photograph of the seized drugs. The apprehending
duty cannot by itself override the constitutional right team failed to show why an inventory and photograph
of the accused to be presumed innocent unless of the seized evidence had not been made either in the
overcome by strong, clear and compelling evidence. place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police
station (as required by the Implementing Rules in case
PEOPLE VS PAGADUAN of warrantless arrests). We emphasize that for the
(GR NO 179029, 12 AUGUST 2010) saving clause to apply, it is important that the
prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural
ISSUE: lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized
Whether or not the integrity of the evidence was evidence had been preserved. In other words, the
preserved. justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven

as a fact. The court cannot presume what these

grounds are or that they even exist.
The second link in the chain of custody is its turnover

from the apprehending team to the police station. PO3
Almarez testified that the appellant was brought to the
Diadi Police Station after his arrest. However, he failed
to identify the person who had control and possession
of the seized drug at the time of its transportation to
the police station. In the absence of clear evidence, we
cannot presume that PO3 Almarez, as the poseur
buyer, handled the seized sachet to the exclusion of
others – during its transfer from the place of arrest and
confiscation to the police station. The prosecution
likewise failed to present evidence pertaining to the
identity of the duty desk officer who received the
plastic sachet containing shabu from the buy-bust
team. This is particularly significant since the seized
specimen was turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory only after two days. It was not, therefore,
clear who had temporary custody of the seized items
during this significant intervening period of time.
Although the records show that the request for
laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet was
prepared by Captain de Vera, the evidence does not
show that he was the official who received the marked
plastic sachet from the buy-bust team.
As for the subsequent links in the chain of custody, the

records show that the seized specimen was forwarded
by PO3 Almarez to the PNP Crime Laboratory on
December 29, 2003, where it was received by PO2
Dulnuan, and later examined by PSI Quintero.
However, the person from whom PO3 Almarez
received the seized illegal drug for transfer to the crime
laboratory was not identified. As earlier discussed, the
identity of the duty desk officer who received the
shabu, as well as the person who had temporary
custody of the seized items for two days, had not been
established.
The procedural lapses mentioned above show the
glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a
reasonable doubt whether the drugs confiscated from
the appellant were the same drugs that were brought
to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and
eventually offered in court as evidence. In the absence
of concrete evidence on the illegal drugs bought and
sold, the body of the crime the corpus delicti has not
been adequately proven. In effect, the prosecution
failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged,
creating reasonable doubt on the appellants criminal
liability.

TITLE SIX – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC to obtain a prize. Its elements are: (1) a consideration;
MORALS (2) chance: (3) a prize, or some advantage or inequality
in amount or value which is in the nature of prize.
January 30, 2018 – Article 195 – ACTS PUNISHABLE
MARTIN VILLAMOR and VICTOR BONAOBRA VS
IN GAMBLING AND BETTING
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M
G.R. No. 200396 MARCH 22, 2017
U.S. v. JAIME FILART AND HILARIO SINGSON
ISSUE:
G.R. No. L-10263 March 13, 1915
Whether or not the petitioners’ conviction for violation
Moreland, J.
of RA 9287 as collector or agent under Section 3(c) for
Villamor, and as coordinator, controller, or supervisor
ISSUE:
under Section 3(d) for Bonaobra, should be upheld.
Whether or not the defendants conducted lottery
FACTS:
FACTS:
Villamor was charged as a collectior with violation of
Filart and Singson took part in a lottery or raffle of an
Section 3(c) of RA 9287 for collecting and soliciting
automobile, which was the property of Filart. The
bets for an illegal numbers game locally known as
winner was determined in the following manner: The
"lotteng” and possessing a list of various numbers, a
numbers composing the 450, each written on a
calculator, a cellphone, and cash.Another Information
separate piece of paper, were placed together in a box
was filed in the same court charging Bonaobra as an
and thoroughly mixed. A boy was selected who placed
operator or manager with violation of the same law on
his hand in the box and drew out a number. This he
the same day and place. The prosecution testified that
delivered to a person who unfolded the paper and read
PD Penaflor received a call from an informant
the number in a loud voice while Filart, with a list of the
regarding an ongoing illegal numbers game at
450 numbers referred to, struck from the list the
Barangay Francia, Virac, Catanduanes, specifically at
number corresponding to that drawn from the box.
the residence of Bonaobra. They proceeded to the
This was repeated until all of the numbers were drawn
latter's residence and upon arrival, they saw petitioners
from the box and stricken from the list. It was agreed
in the act of counting bets, described by the Bicol term
that the last number drawn from the box should be the
“revisar,” which means collating and examining
winning number and that the owner of that number
numbers placed in “papelitos,” which are slips of paper
should win the automobile.
containing bet numbers, and counting money
bets.When they entered the gate of fee compound,
Both defendants were charged for violating the
they introduced themselves as police officers and
following provisions of the law:
confiscated the items found on the table consisting of
cash amounting to P1,500.00 in different
Section 7 of Act No. 1757 provides, as follows:
denominations, the “papelitos,” a calculator, a cellular
The playing at and the conducting of any game of
phone, and a pen. Petitioners were then brought to
monte, jueteng, or any form of lottery or policy . . . is
Camp Francisco Camacho where they were
hereby prohibited, and any person taking any part
investigated for illegal gambling. Subsequently, a case
therein . . . shall be punished as provided in section 3
was filed against the petitioners before the Office of
hereof. . . . .
the Provincial Prosecutor. The version of the defense
This section also provides that:
asserted that the evidence were inadmissible because
the police officers had no search warrant when they
It shall be no defense to any criminal action under this
barged into Barnoabra's compound and therefore the
section that the defendant acted as the agent of
conviction should not be upheld.The RTC gave
another or that he had no interest in the result.
credence to the testimonies of the arresting officers
and held that petitioners were caught in flagrante
HELD:
delicto committing an illegal numbers game locally
Yes. The facts of record place this case within the
known as “lotteng” a variant of Last Two. CA affirmed
definition generally given of a lottery. A lottery is said
the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
to be “a species of gaming, which may be defined as a
scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among
RULING:
persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable
No. The Court finds that the right of the petitioners
consideration for the chance to obtain a prize.” It was
against unreasonable searches and seizures was
held in the case of Equitable Loan Co. vs. Waring, 117
violated by the arresting officers when they barged
Ga., 599, that three elements enter into a lottery
into Bonaobra’s compound without a valid warrant of
scheme: (1) A consideration; (2) chance: (3) a prize, or
arrest or a search warrant. While there are exceptions
some advantage or inequality in amount or value
to the rule requiring a warrant for a valid search and
which is in the nature of prize.
seizure, none applies in the case at bar. Consequently,
the evidence obtained by the police officers is
Doctrine:
inadmissible against the petitioners, the same having
A lottery is defined as a scheme for the distribution of
been obtained in violation of the said right.After a
prizes by chance among persons who have paid, or
judicious review of the records of the case, the Court
agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the chance

finds that there was no valid warrantless arrest on contests'. The Meeting, therefore, the issues in the
petitioners. It was not properly established that case, we rule that the Director of Posts acted advisedly
petitioners had just committed, or were actually in refusing the use of the mails for the issue of El
committing, or attempting to commit a crime and that Debate which contained the announcement of its
said act or acts were done in the presence of the guessing contest, and that said contests is a lottery, or
arresting officers. In this case, the prosecution failed to gift enterprise depending in part upon lot or chance,
clearly establish the acts that constitute the offense of within the meaning of the Postal Law.The general rule
illegal gambling as a collector or an agent.The is that guessing competitions or contests are lotteries
prosecution merely relied on the alleged illegal within the statutes prohibiting lotteries. Indeed, it is
gambling paraphernalia found and confiscated inside very difficult, if not impossible, for the most ingenious
the house of Bonaobra and not on the specific overt and subtle mind to devise any scheme or plan short of
acts that constitute the offense.All told, the evidence a gratuitous distribution of property, which will not be
purportedly seized from the Bonaobra compound is held to be in violation of the Gambling Law, and
inadmissible in evidence since it was obtained in repugnant to the Postal law. It is for the courts to look
violation of Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 beyond the fair exterior, to the substance, in order to
Constitution, Since the alleged illegal gambling unmask the real element and the pernicious tendencies
paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime which the law is seeking to prevent.The purpose of El
charged, the Court acquits petitioners. Debate in devising its advertising scheme was to
augment its circulation and thus to increase the
"EL DEBATE," INC., VS number of newspaper readers in the Philippines —
JOSE TOPACIO, Director of Posts which is commendable. But the advertisement carries
G.R. No. L-19982 December 29, 1922 along with it a lottery scheme — which is not
commendable.Open the door of chance but a little, for
ISSUE: one scheme, however ingeniously and meritoriously
Whether or not the guessing contest of El Debate a conceived, to pass through, and soon the whole
"lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme depending in country will be flooded with lotteries.
whole or in part upon lot or chance" within the
meaning of the law. January 31, 2018 – Article 196 – IMPORTATION, SALE
AND POSSESSION OF LOTTERY TICKETS OR
FACTS: ADVERTISEMENTS
El Debate, a newspaper of the City of Manila, published ALAMEDA, Manuel F.
a full page announcement regarding two contests.The
first contest is for the award of prizes for the nearest THE UNITED STATES vs. EMILIO SANTOS REYES,
approximate guesses as to the total number of votes ET AL.,
that will be cast for any of the winning candidates for G.R. No. L-7260 August 21, 1912
Carnival Queen either in the provinces or in Manila. The
second contest is for the award for the nearest ISSUE:
approximate guesses as to the total number of votes Whether or not the defendant violated Sec.3, Act No.
that the Queen elect will receive for the Carnival 1523.
queenship. Any subscriber to El Debate may participate FACTS:
in these two contests by paying in advance at least the These defendants were charged with a violation of an
amount of the subscription of a quarter.But payment is Section 3, Act No. 1523, to prohibit the importation,
to be strictly in advance and the estimate or guess sale, giving away, use and possession of lottery tickets
must be explained.The Director of Posts, following the and lottery advertising matter. The defendant, Emilio S.
advice of the Attorney-General, refused to admit the Reyes, was by occupation a printer; that during the
issues of El Debate, containing the advertisement, to months of March, April, May and June, 1911, he printed
the mails, for the reason that it fell within the provisions a large number of lottery tickets, alleged to be lottery
of the Administrative Code concerning non-mailable tickets of the Royal Lottery of Colombo; that a number
matter. Not satisfied with the ruling of the Director of of said lottery tickets were found in his private
Posts, the publishers of El Debate have had recourse to residence and others in his place of business; that the
these original proceedings in mandamus to settle the tickets which the defendant Reyes had delivered to the
controversy between the newspaper and the defendant Dominga Trinidad were later found in the
Government. El Debate argued that it was a guessing possession of the said Dominga Trinidad and the other
game and not lottery thus Director of Posts must grant codefendant, Teodoro Fidel. The attorney for the
the issues containing such advertisements. appellant maintains in his brief that said Act No. 1523
did not provide a punishment for the possession of
RULING: lottery tickets of the Philippine Islands or of lottery
Yes. It is similar. "Neither of these contests is a tickets made in the Philippine Islands. He further
"legitimate business enterprise." In each thousands argues that the tickets were printed by the defendant
invest small sums in the hope and expectation that luck Reyes for one Miguel Soler and that he had nothing to
will enable them to win large returns. A comparatively do with said lottery tickets, except to print them under
small percentage of the participants will realize their his contract with Soler. Soler was not called as a witness
expectations, and thousands will get nothing. They are, during the trial of the cause. The defendant Reyes
in effect, lotteries, under the guise of 'guessing admitted that he had printed the tickets; that he was in

possession of the same; that a part of them were found presence of a prohibited drug on the premises at the
hidden in his house and that he had given to his time of the seizure is given, which is entirely consistent
codefendant, Dominga Trinidad, a number of said with the allegation of the defendant to the effect that
tickets for a certain sum of money. he did not have the same in his possession, there can
be no conviction and the accused must be acquitted.
HELD: The testimony of both this appellant and Tan Bo stands
In view of the fact that the defendant, Emilio Santos uncontradicted and the Government did not attempt
Reyes, gave to his co-defendant, Dominga Trinidad, to impeach the credibility of these witnesses.
certain of said lottery tickets, and in view of the fact
that he had hidden away in his private residence February 1, 2018 – Article 197 – BETTING IN SPORTS
certain of said lottery tickets, we are of the opinion that CONTESTS
his possession of the same has not been satisfactorily ALILIAN, Enna B.
explained, and that his possession of said lottery tickets
is in violation of said section 3. [NO CASES FOUND]
U.S. VS MARCELO JOSE February 1, 2018 – Article 198 – ILLEGAL BETTING

GR NO. 11566 AUG 10, 1916 ON HORSE RACES
ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
ISSUE:
Did the defendants violate Section 3 of Act No. 1523? [NO CASES FOUND]
FACTS: February 2, 2018 – Article 199 – ILLEGAL

The mercantile firm of Marcelo Jose & Co., composed COCKFIGHTING
of Marcelo Jose and Tan Bo, was located at No. 200 BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
Calle Harris, Olongapo. Both members of this firm were
arrested on the night of May 16, 1915, and placed in THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
confinement. About 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon of MARIANO AYOSO, TEODORICO VALENZUELA,
the following day, May the 17th, the store was ALFONSO DESOYO and FELIPE DE LA CRUZ.
searched by the authorities and a one-tenth part of a G.R. No. L-18762 April 27, 1967
Macao lottery ticket was found therein. At the time this Ponente: MAKALINTAL, J.
search was made neither of the owners of the store was
present. Tan Bo, the managing partner, testified that ISSUE:
this lottery ticket was sent to him by a friend in Amoy Whether or not the ordinance regarding cockfighting
and that when he received it he put it in an envelope is valid.
and placed it in the drawer and that his partner,
Marcelo Jose, had never seen it. The appellant, Marcelo FACTS:
Jose, testified that, although he is a member of the On July 21, 1960, accused-appellants MARIANO
mercantile firm of Marcelo Jose & Co., he knew nothing AYOSO, ET AL., were charged with the crime of ILLEGAL
of the existence of the lottery ticket until he saw it in COCKFIGHTING before the Municipal Court of Bogo.
the court of the justice of the peace, and that he lived That on or about 2:45 o'clock in the afternoon, more or
in Manila and went to Olongapo only when the less of July 21, 1960 at the cockpit of Tan Sim,
business required his presence. Section 3 of Act No. Poblacion Bogo, Cebu, Philippines and within the
1523 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
to sell, give away, use or have possession of, with intent accused, did then and there, willfully, feloniously,
to sell, give away or use, any lottery ticket. unlawfully and knowingly with unlawful purpose,
indulge themselves in illegal cockfighting commonly
HELD: known as "Tari-Tari", wherein money P25 is used as bet
If the defendant can establish that he did not know of on a day, Thursday, which is not permitted by law
the existence of the lottery ticket within his premises, though the place is a licensed cockpit. This act is a
the presumption is destroyed and the defendant must gross violation of Article 199 of the Revised Penal
be acquitted.It is a general rule that, when ay of the Code, Section 1.
prohibited drugs, enumerated in section 31 of the
Opium Law, are found upon the premises occupied by The accused filed a motion to quash, claiming that the
a person accused of using the same, there can be no facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute an
conviction under said section unless it affirmatively offense because cockfighting is authorized in Bogo on
appears that he knowingly had the prohibited article Thursdays under the provisions of Ordinance No. 18,
on the premises, or that the animus possidendi in fact Series of 1960, enacted and approved by the Municipal
existed together with his alleged apparent possession Council of Bogo.
or control of such article. But direct proof of facts of
this nature, in a criminal proceeding, is rarely HELD:
forthcoming, except in cases of confession, and their NO. The municipal ordinance is invalid.
existence may and usually must be inferred from the Thus, the issue boils down to whether Republic Act No.
varying circumstances in each particular case. When a 938, as amended, gives local government, blanket
full, satisfactory, and sufficient explanation of the authority to permit cockfighting at any time and for as

long as said governments may wish it. Upon mature

deliberation, we hold that the answer must be in the In short, we are of the opinion that the city ordinances
negative. relied upon by petitioner herein authorizing
cockfighting on Thursdays, are invalid.
To begin with, repeals and even amendments be
implication are not favored, whereas an affirmative February 3, 2018 – Article 200 – GRAVE SCANDAL
answer would entail a vital amendment, amounting for BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A.
all practical purposes, to a repeal, of sections 2285 and
2286 of the Revised Administrative Code. US vs. SAMANIEGO
G.R. No. 5115. November 29, 1909.
Secondly, grants of power to local governments are to MORELAND, J. :
be constructed strictly, and doubts in the interpretation
thereof should be resolved in favor of the national ISSUE:
government and against the political subdivisions Whether or not the accused committed Grave Scandal.
concerned.
FACTS:
Thirdly, it is a matter of common knowledge that That on and for many weeks prior to the 27th day of
cockfighting is one of the most wide-spread vices of November, 1907, in the city of Manila, Philippine
our population, and that the government has always Islands, the said Juana Benedicto de Perez was a
shown a grave concern over the need of effectively married woman, and that said Manuel Samaniego
curbing its evil effects. The theory of petitioner herein knew that she was married and united in the bonds of
presupposes that the Republic of the Philippines has matrimony with and was the legitimate consort of Jose
completely reversed its position and chosen instead, to Perez Siguenza; that during the period of time above
place the matter entirely at the discretion of local expressed the said Manuel Samaniego and Juana
governments. We should not, and cannot adopt, such Benedicto de Perez, willfully, illegally, and criminally
promise except upon a clear and unequivocal and scandalously, without having any matrimonial tie
expression of the will of Congress, which insofar as said between them, habitually appeared together in public
premise is concerned is not manifest from the places and frequented together places of recreation,
language used in Republic Act No. 938, as amended. suspicious places, vacant houses, and houses of bad
repute, in the daytime as well as in the nighttime; and
Lastly, "cockpits" and "cockfighting" are regulated lewdly and indecently went to bed together in the
separately be our laws. Thus, Section 2243 (i) of the house of the husband of the said Juana Benedicto de
Revised Administrative Code empowers municipal Perez during the late hours of the night, dressed only
councils "to regulate cockpits". Yet, the authority of in their night clothes, and indecorously, indecently, and
said councils over cockfighting, is found in sections immodestly embraced each other and caressed each
2285 and 2286 of said Code, not in said section 2243 other in the presence of the family, children, and
(i). Similarly, Article 199 of the Revised Penal Code servants of the said husband of Juana Benedicto de
punishes, not illegal "cockpits" but "illegal Perez; all with public scandal and with scandal to the
cockfighting." What is more, participation in cockfights community, and with shame and humiliation to the
"on a day other than those permitted by law" is dealt husband and family of the said Juana Benedicto de
with in said article separately from participation in Perez.
cockfights "at a place other than a licensed cockpit".
RULING:
So too, the authority of local governments, under NO. The acts complained of lack many of the elements
Republic Act No. 938, as amended, "to regulate ... the essential to bring them within the purview of the article
establishment, maintenance, and operation of ... of the Penal Code invoked by the prosecution. Every
cockpits" does not necessarily connote the power to act that was in anywise public fails entirely of those
regulate "cockfighting", except insofar as the same qualities which offend modesty and good morals by
must take place in a duly licensed "cockpit". Again, the "grievous scandal or enormity." The occurrence at the
first and second proviso in Section 1 of said Act, residence on the night of the 6th of November did not
regulating the distance of cockpits and places of have that publicity which is required by the article of
amusements therein mentioned from 'any public the Penal Code referred to. (U.S. v. Catajay, 6 Phil. Rep.,
building, schools, hospitals and churches' and the third 398; supreme court of Spain, April 13, 1885, December
proviso of the same section, prohibiting the admission 14, 1903, and January 27, 1908; Viada, vol. 3, p. 130.)
of minors to some of those places of amusement,
suggest that the authority conferred in said provision The evidence introduced on the reopening adds
may include the power to determine the location of nothing to the case already made by the prosecution.
cockpits, conditions to be observed for the protection The case was reopened for a particular purpose and
of persons therein, the number of cockpits that may be the evidence to be introduced, if any, was restricted to
established in each municipality and or by each a particular condition, viz, the "publicity or nonpublicity
operator, the minimum age of the individual who may of the acts charged in the complaint." On the
be admitted therein, and other matters of similar reopening, evidence was presented by the prosecution
nature — as distinguished from the days on which in relation to the alleged occurrence between the
cockfighting shall be held and the frequency thereof. defendants in Plaza Palacio. Concerning this incident

testimony had already been given on the trial by the then, offensive to modesty is publicly committed,
witness Rafael Perez. Testimony was also given on the should be assessed as a crime, since this same publicity
reopening by the same witness as to an occurrence is what produces the serious scandal that is punished:
between the defendants one morning in the Botanical in another case, the provision cited Article 586 is the
Garden. In relation to this same event he had already one that should apply." (Viada comments to the Penal
given his testimony on the trial. His evidence as to Code of 1870, fourth edition, volume 3, page 130.)
these two events given on the reopening of the case is *translated via translate.google.com
wholly inconsistent with, if not absolutely contradictory
of, his testimony in relation to the same events given RULING:
on the trial. Such testimony can have no weight. YES. There can be no doubt that the accused
committed the offense defined and penalized in No. 2
The other testimony given on the reopening by this of the article 571 of the Penal Code, which corresponds
witness and the testimony of the witness Amadeo with the above-mentioned number 2 of article 586 of
Pacheco can have no bearing or weight in the decision the Penal Code of Spain, and provides that a penalty of
of this case because such testimony relates to acts and from one of ten days’ arrest and a fine of from 15 to
relations between the defendants which are not 125 pesetas shall be imposed upon those who, by
"charged in the complaint" and concerning which no exhibiting prints or engravings, or by means of other
evidence whatever had been offered on the trial. acts, shall offend against good morals and custom
without committing a crime.
In the judgment of this court the evidence fails to show
the defendants guilty of the crime charged. Since this is a lesser offense that the one charged in the
complaint, and is included therein, we find him guilt of
US vs. CATAJAY a violation of the provisions of the said article and,
G.R. No. 2785. August 23, 1906. reversing the sentence of the trial court, we impose
CARSON, J. : upon the accused, Jose Catajay, the penalty of the ten
days’ imprisonment (arresto), and the payment of a
ISSUE: fine of 125 pesetas, and the costs of the trial in both
WON the accused committed Grave Scandal. instances. After the expiration of ten days from the
date of final judgment let the cause be remanded to
FACTS: the lower court for proper procedure. So ordered.
The trial court found be accused guilty of the crime of
public scandal in violation of the provisions of article February 4, 2018 – Article 201 – IMMORAL
441 of Penal Code. PUBLIC SANDAL. — Article 441 of DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND
the Penal Code construed. Held, That it is an essential EXHIBITIONS, AND INDECENT SHOWS
element of the crime defined and penalized therein CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
that the acts complained of resulted in a grave public FERNANDO V. CA
scandal. It appears, however, that the acts complained G.R. NO. 159751 DEC. 6, 2006
of were committed at night, in a private house, and at
a time when no one was present except the accused, ISSUE:
the mistress of the house, and one servant, and we are Whether or not Fernando was guilty of selling and
of opinion that these circumstances do not constitute distributing obscene materials.
that degree of publicity which is an essential element
of the crime defined and penalized in article 441 of the FACTS:
Penal Code. The correct construction of this article well Gaudencio E. Fernando owned Gaudencio E. Fernando
stated by Viada in his commentary on article 457 of the Music Fair and Rudy Estorninos was its attendant.
Penal Code of Spain, which exactly corresponds with Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and
the article in question: Detection Group in the National Capital Region (PNP-
CIDG NCR), acting on reports that the store sold and
"Constitute the crime provided all those acts contrary distributed pornographic materials, raided the store by
to decency and good manners that, for their publicity, virtue of a search warrant. The raid yielded twenty five
have been subject to public scandal for people who (25) VHS tapes and ten (10) different magazines.
have accidentally witnessed. Although the article does
not say it, it is evident that it is a precise condition for Fernando contends that his Mayor’s permit was
this crime to exist that offense to modesty and good expired and thus not the lawful owner of the store.
habits is public: if the offense did not have this
character, it is clear that it would not produce the HELD:
serious scandal nor the transcendence required by the Yes, he is guilty of Art. 201.
article, and therefore, no longer subject to the sanction In order to be liable under Art. 201, it must be proven
of the same, but the most benign of No. 2 of Article that (a) the materials, publication, picture or literature
586, which punishes as inmates a simple offense are obscene; and (b) the offender sold, exhibited,
against public order, with the arrest penalty of one to published or gave away such materials. Necessarily,
ten days and a fine of 5 to 50 pesetas, to those who that the confiscated materials are obscene must be
with any kind of acts offended the moral and good proved.
custom without committing a crime. When the act,

The following guidelines as to what is obscene was DAHIROC, Janice L.

adopted by the Court:
PEOPLE VS. SITON, ET AL.,
(1) whether to the average person, applying GR 169364, 18 SEPT. 2009
contemporary standards would find the work, taken as
a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; ISSUE:
Does Article 202 (2), RPC on vagrancy violate the equal
(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently protection clause?
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law; and FACTS:
Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate
(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious Sagarano were charged with vagrancy pursuant to Art.
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. 202 (2) of the RPC in two separate Informations.
Accused were found wandering and loitering around
The Supreme Court noted the reasoning of the trial San Pedro and Legaspi Streets of Davao City, without
court as to the obscene nature of one of the VHS tapes any visible means to support herself nor lawful and
confiscated: “The tape exhibited indecent and immoral justifiable purpose. Respondents filed separate
scenes and acts. Her dancing movements excited the Motions to Quash on the ground that Art. 202 (2) is
sexual instinct of her male audience. The motive may unconstitutional for being vague and overboard. The
be innocent, but the performance was revolting and municipal trial court denied the motions, directed
shocking to good minds.” respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits,
Furthermore, Art. 201 does not require that a person and declared that the law on vagrancy was enacted
be caught in the act of selling, giving away or pursuant to the State’s police power (or the power of
exhibiting obscene materials to be liable, for as long as promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating
the said materials are offered for sale, displayed or the use of liberty and property) and justified by the
exhibited to the public. Latin maxim “salus populi est suprema lex” (which calls
for the subordination of individual benefit to the
PEOPLE V. KOTTINGER interest of the greater number). Respondents filed a
G.R. NO. L-20569 OCTOBER 29, 1923 petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC
challenging the constitutionality of the anti-vagrancy
ISSUE: law and claiming that Art 202 (2) violated the equal
Whether or not the photos of naked native women in protection clause. The RTC granted the petition of the
the post cards were obscene. herein respondents and declared Art. 202 (2)
unconstitutional.
FACTS:
Kottinger was manager of Camera Supply Co where HELD:
several post cards were confiscated due to their No. Article 202 (2) of the RPC does not violate the equal
alleged obscenity. The post cards showed photos of protection clause; neither does it discriminate against
naked native women from non-Christian areas in the the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of public
Philippines. order laws are punished not for their status, as for
being poor or unemployed, but for conducting
HELD: themselves under such circumstances as to endanger
No, they do not. The tests used by the Court as to the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in
whether a material is considered obscene were the the community. Being poor or unemployed is not a
following: 1) whether the tendency of the matter license or a justification to act indecently or to engage
charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those in immoral conduct.
whose minds are open to such immoral influences and
into whose hands a publication or other article charged
as being obscene may fall; and 2) Whether it shocks the U.S. VS HART, ET AL.,
ordinary and common sense of men. G.R. NO. 8848 NOVEMBER 21, 1913
The Court ruled that the pictures merely depict persons
as they actually live, without attempted presentation of ISSUE:
persons in unusual postures or dress. That pictures Whether or not Hart, Miller and Natividad have
portraying the inhabitants of the country in native committed the act of Vagrancy.
dress and as they appear and can be seen in the FACTS:
regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent. Hart, Miller and Natividad were accused of Gambling
Dr. Beyer, a professor from University of the Philippines and Vagrancy where they all appealed.
also testified that that none of the pictures represented
poses which he had not observed on various occasions, Hart had ran gambling games in his saloon ever night
and that the costumes worn by the people in the one in Angeles and one in the Bario of Tacondo. He
pictures are the true costumes regularly worn by them. also operated a hotel Angeles in which he did a
business. He was also a proprietor He raised hogs
February 5, 2018 – Article 202 – VAGRANCY AND which he sold to the Army garrison at Camp
PROSTITUTES Stotsenberg. He was also authorized to sell several

hundered hectarcs of land owned by one Carrillo in For these reasons, the defendants are ACQUITTED, with
Tacondo. With the power of an attorney, he furnished the costs de oficio.
the same property and paid for the 1st public school in
Tacondo.
Miller had the reputation of being a gambler and that

he was fined for gambling and was seen in houses of
prostitution. Miller was discharged from the Army last
year. He had the position of Sergeant and received a
rating as "excellent" on being discharged. He had a
partnership with one Buckered and invested P1000.
The business netted him P300 per month.
Natividad was also a gambler. During his visits to

saloons, he sometimes acted as a banker. His
occupancy is that of a tailor which was sufficient
enough to support his family.
HELD:
Defendants are AQUITTED
Act No. 519 states that:
"(1) Every person having no apparent means of
subsistence, who had the physical ability to work, and
who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful
calling; (2) every person found loitering about saloons
or dram shops or gambling housed, or tramping or
straying through the country without visible means of
support; (3) every person known to be a pickpocket,
thief, burglar, ladrone, either by his own confession or
by his having been convicted of either said offenses,
and having no visible or lawful means of support when
found loitering about any gambling house, cockpit, or
in any outlying barrio of a pueblo; (4) every idle or
dissolute person of associate of known thieves or
ladrones who wanders about the country at unusual
hours of the night; (5) every idle person who lodges in
any barn, shed, outhouse, vessel, or place other than
such as is kept for lodging purposed, without the
permission of the owner or a person entitled to the
possession thereof; (6) every lewd or dissolute person
who lives in and about houses of ill fame; every
common prostitute and common drunkard, is a
vagrant."
It is insisted by the Attorney General (AG) that visible

means of support, which are evident in the occupations
of the accused, would not be a bar to the conviction
under any one of the last four (4) clauses of the said
act. The AG contends that "visible means of support"
only applies to those "staying through the country".
The courts decided that the mere missing of the
punctuation cannot hold bar the argument of the AG,
since the intention of the legislators was to prevent
"loitering". It was stated that loitering was idling or
wasting one's time. The time spent in saloons drum
shops, and gambling houses is anything but that.
The three defendants were earning a living by

legitimate means in a degree of comfort higher than
the average. Their sole offense was gambling, which
the legislature has yet to make a subject of penal law.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

TITLE SEVEN – CRIMES COMMITTED BY A functions when he was permitted to draft motions. And
PUBLIC OFFICERS as in the performance thereof he accepted, even
solicited, monetary reward, he certainly guilty as
charged. The receipt of bribe money is just as
February 6, 2018 – Article 203 – WHO ARE
pernicious when committed by temporary employees
PUBLIC OFFICERS
as when committed by permanent officials.
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J
FELICIANO MANIEGO y CATU, petitioner, vs. THE

AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO ZOLETA,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Petitioner,
G.R. No. L-2971 April 20, 1951
vs.THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH
DIVISION] and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
ISSUE:
Respondents.
Whether or not Maniego is considered a public officer.
G.R. No. 185224 July 29, 2015
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Feliciano Maniego was employed as a laborer to work
Whether or not the petitioners, as public officers, were
as the person in charge of delivering summons and
correctly charged with the crime of malversation.
subpoenas in the Municipal Court of Manila.
Nevertheless, Maniego was permitted to write motions
FACTS:
for dismissal of prescribed traffic cases against
The case stemmed from an anonymous complaint filed
offenders without counsel, and to submit them to the
against the petitioner, Mary Ann Gadian, and Sheryll
court for action, without passing through the regular
Desiree Tangan before the Office of the Ombudsman-
clerk.
Mindanao (Ombudsman) for participating in the
scheme of questionable grants and donations to
Sometime in 1947, a certain Felix Rabia was
fictitious entities using provincial funds. As a result of
subpoenaed in connection with a traffic violation. The
this complaint, the Commission on Audit (COA)
said crime has prescribed without Rabia being
conducted a special audit in Sarangani Province.
prosecuted but then Maniego informed Rabia that he
Among the irregularities discovered by the Special
is penalized with a P15 fine; that Maniego can fix this if
Audit Team was a ₱20,000.00 financial assistance given
Rabia can pay him P10. Maniego pocketed the P10.00
to Women in Progress (WIP), a cooperative whose
and for this he was later charged for violating Article
members were mostly government personnel or
210 of the Revised Penal Code which provides in part:
relatives of the officials of Sarangani Province.
Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act
The COA Special Audit Team submitted its report to
constituting a crime, in connection with the
the Ombudsman which, in turn, conducted a
performance of his official duties, in consideration of
preliminary investigation. Thereafter, the Ombudsman,
any offer, promise, gift or present received by such
through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, charged
officer, personally or through the mediation of another,
the petitioner, Vice-Governor Felipe Constantino,
shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
Violeta Bahilidad, Maria Camanay, and Teodorico Diaz
minimum and medium periods and fine of not less
with malversation of public funds by falsification of
than the value to the penalty corresponding to the
public documents defined and penalized under Article
crime agreed upon if the same shall have been
217 in relation to Article 171(2) and Article48 of the
committed.
Revised Penal Code, as amended, before the
Maniego assails the charge. He avers, among others,
Sandiganbayan in an Information which reads:
that he is not a public officer as he was merely hired as
an ordinary government employee.
That on January 24, 2002 or prior or subsequent
thereto in Sarangani, Philippines, and within the
HELD:
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Felipe
Yes. Maniego is considered a public officer under
Katu Constantino, a high-ranking public officer, being
Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code which includes
the Vice-Governor of the Province of Sarangani, Maria
all persons “who, by direct provision of law, popular
D. Camanay, Provincial Accountant, Teodorico F. Diaz,
election or appointment by competent authority, shall
Provincial Board Member, Amelia Carmela C. Zoleta,
take part in the performance of public functions in the
Executive Assistant III, all accountable public officials of
Philippine Government, or shall perform in said
the Provincial Government of Sarangani, by reason of
government or any of its branches, public duties as an
the duties of their office, conspiring and confederating
employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or
with Violita Bahilidad, private individual, the public
class.” That definition is quite comprehensive,
officers, while committing the offense in relation to
embracing as it does, every public servant from the
office, taking advantage of their respective positions,
highest to the lowest. For the purposes of the Penal
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
Code, it obliterates the standard distinction in the law
take, convert and misappropriate the amount of
of public officers between “officer” and “employee”.
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱20,000.00), Philippine
Further, even assuming that Article 203 can’t be
Currency, in public funds under their custody, and for
applied, although Maniego was originally engaged as
which they are accountable, by falsifying or causing to
a laborer, he was temporarily performing public

be falsified the corresponding Disbursement Voucher public officer is a public officer who, by reason of his
No. 101-2002-01-822 and its supporting documents, office, is accountable for public funds or property. The
making it appear that financial assistance had been Local Government Code expanded this definition with
sought by Women In Progress, Malungon, Sarangani, regard to local government officials.
represented by its President, Amelia Carmela C. Zoleta,
when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well Finally, Vice-Governor Constantino and Camanay
that no financial assistance had been requested by the appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or
said group and her association, nor did Amelia Carmela through abandonment or negligence, permitted
C. Zoleta and her association receive the another person to take the public funds when they
aforementioned amount, thereby facilitating the signed Disbursement Voucher No. 101-2002-01-822.
release of the above-mentioned public funds in the The term voucher, when used in connection with
amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS disbursement of money, implies some instrument that
(₱20,000.00)through encashment by the accused at shows on what account or by what authority a
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) Check No. 36481 particular payment has been made, or that services
dated January 24, 2002 issued in the name of the have been performed which entitle the party to whom
Violeta Bahilidad, which amount they subsequently it is issued to payment. Corollarily, when an authorized
misappropriated to their personal use and benefit and person approves a disbursement voucher, he certifies
despite demand, the said accused failed to return the to the correctness of the entries therein, among others:
said amount to the damage and prejudice of the that the expenses incurred were necessary and lawful,
government and the public interest of the aforesaid the supporting documents are complete, and the
sum. availability of cash therefor. He also attests that the
person who performed the services or delivered the
HELD: supplies, materials, or equipment is entitled to
Malversation may be committed by appropriating payment.
public funds or property; by taking or misappropriating
the same; by consenting, or through abandonment or February 7, 2018 – Article 204 – KNOWINGLY
negligence, by permitting any other person to take RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT
such public funds or property; or by being otherwise DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G.
guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property. QUINTIN STA. MARIA vs. HON. ALBERTO UBAY
The elements common to all acts of malversation A.M. No. 595-CFI December 11, 1978
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, are the following: (a) that the offender be a
public officer; (b) that he had custody or control of ISSUE:
funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; Whether or not respondent judge may be held liable
(c) that those funds or property were public funds or under Art 204 of the Revised Penal Code.
property for which he was accountable; and (d) that he
appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or FACTS:
through abandonment or negligence, permitted Quintin R. Sta Maria, attorney-in-fact of Valeriana Sta
another person to take them. All these elements have Maria, filed with the Supreme Court a letter-complaint
been established by the prosecution. against Judge Q. Ubay for violating the provisions of
Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code when he
First, it is undisputed that all the accused, except knowingly rendered an unjust judgment by
Bahilidad, are all public officers. A public officer is promulgating a decision contrary to the decisions of
defined in the Revised Penal Code as "any person who, the Supreme Court in previous related proceedings,
by direct provision of the law, popular election, or violating section 11 of Article X of the 1973
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in Constitution, falsifying his decision in order to make it
the performance of public functions in the Government appear that he rendered the same within the statutory
of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said three-month period and putting ever obstacle to the
Government or in any of its branches public duties as approval of their Record on appeal in spite of lack of
an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank opposition duly filed on time. The letter-complaints
or class. Constantino was the Vice-Governor of were indorsed by the Assistant to the Judicial
Sarangani Province, while the petitioner, Camanay, and Consultant to the respondent Judge for comment. In
Diaz were occupying the positions of Executive another letter complaint, Atty. Paz Palanca, branch
Assistant (at the Office of the Vice-Governor), clerk of Clerk of respondent judge in his sala, was also
Provincial Accountant, and Provincial Board Member, charged with infidelity in the custody of judicial records
respectively. and, with putting all obstacles to the approval of their
Record on Appeal. Sta. Maria states that the
Second, the funds misappropriated are public in respondent Judge in awarding to the plaintiffs (in Civil
character, as they were funds belonging to the Case C-2052) in toto what they prayed for in their
Province of Sarangani. complaint and amended complaint did so in bad faith
Third, Vice-Governor Constantino and Camanay were and with full knowledge that said plaintiffs are not
accountable public officers. Under the Government entitled thereto.
Auditing Code of the Philippines, an accountable

HELD: and company then appealed to the SEC en banc which

No. the Court reiterates the ruled that in order that a reversed the decision except the order of accounting.
judge may be held liable for knowingly rendering an A criminal complaint was then filed by the petitioner
unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond doubt that alleging that Hearing Officer Enrique Flores rendered
the judgment is unjust in the sense that it is contrary an unjust judgment under Art. 204 of the RPC and
to law or is not supported by the evidence and the violating Sec. 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
same was made with conscious and deliberate intent Practices Act) which was dismissed by the Office of
to do an injustice. The rule requires that the judgment Ombudsman for insufficiency of evidence ratiocinating
should be unjust for being contrary to law and for not that there was no showing that the decision was
being supported by the evidence. In the case at bar, to rendered maliciously and deliberately to do an injustice
determine whether or not the decision of the to the complainant and that the error was committed
respondent Judge in Civil Case C-2052 constitutes an in good faith pursuant to the principle of regularity in
unjust judgment would involve more than a mere the performance of official functions. It was well settled
cursory reading of the decision itself or its comparison that a judicial officer, when required to exercise his
with this Court's decisions invoked by the complainant. judgment or discretion is not criminally liable for any
To delve into the different factors bearing on the issues error which he commits provided he acts in good faith.
raised in Civil Case C-2052 considered by the Even though the complainant had been
respondent Judge in arriving at his conclusions set inconvenienced because of the decision of the
forth in the decision in question for purposes of respondent, such inconvenience did not amount to
ascertaining the factual, legal and jurisprudential bases causing undue injury under Sec. 3 of RA 3019, not only
of the said decision, would be tantamount to pre- because there is no showing of evident bad faith or
empting the Court of Appeals of its appellate inexcusable negligence but because the decision
jurisdiction over the case, considering that the same is appealed to the SEC en banc was immediately
pending before it. Indeed, this Court stated in Gahol vs. corrected, hence said decision did not become final
Hon. Riodique that "only after the appellate court and executory. Petitioner moved for the
holds in a final judgment that a trial judge's alleged reconsideration which was likewise denied. Hence this
errors were committed deliberately and in bad faith petition where petitioner contends that public
may a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
decision be levelled against a trial judge." For, through dismissing the complaint, alleging that the decision
an appeal, an aggrieved party can always point out, for was not made in good faith since the case did not
rectification by the appellate court, the errors in the involve a complex question of law but was a plain
alleged unjust judgment affecting him. The rule also violation of simple rules of procedure and that
requires that the judgment should be rendered by the petitioner and her family suffered undue injury as
judge with conscious and deliberate intent to do an result of the decision, making respondent liable under
injustice. In the case at bar, the complainant failed to Sec. 3 of RA 3019.
show any unmistakable indication that bad faith
motivated the alleged unjust actuations of the HELD:
respondent judge in Civil Case C-2052. Absent, thus, No. There is grave abuse of discretion where the
any positive evidence on record that the respondent respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or
Judge rendered the judgment in question with despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment,13 as
conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice, the when the assailed order is bereft of any factual and
compliant must fall. legal justifications. In this case, the Court found that the
assailed resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
BAN HUA U. FLORES V OFFICE OF THE dismissing the complaint against private respondent
OMBUDSMAN AND ATTY. ENRIQUE L. FLORES, JR. was legally justified. This is so because before one can
GR NO. 136769, SEPT. 17, 2002 be held liable under Article 204 of the Revised Penal
Code and Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the person subject
ISSUE: of the complaint must be shown to have committed
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed the act in bad faith. It was held in Guerrero vs. Villamor,
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint 296 SCRA 88, 98 (1998), that a judge will be held liable
against private respondent for violation of Article 204 for rendering an unjust judgment where he acts in bad
of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive. In
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Ingco vs. Sandiganbayan, 272 SCRA 563, 574 (1997),
Practices Act. the Court clearly indicated, as one of the elements of
the offense under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, that the
FACTS: public officer complained of should have acted with
A complaint against the Ban Hua Flores for accounting manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
and turnover of corporate funds of UBS Marketing was inexcusable negligence. In this case, the Office of the
instituted by Johnny K. H. Uy with the Securities and Ombudsman did not find private respondent in bad
Exchange Commission. Petitioner moved for the faith, hence, the important element for the above
dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of offenses is wanting. Notice should also be made of the
jurisdiction which was denied. Likewise denied was the fact that under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code,
appeal filed with the SEC en banc. A judgment was the offender must be a judge. In this case, the alleged
rendered in favor of the complainant. Petitioner Flores offender is a hearing officer of the SEC. Neither does

the assailed resolution lack factual justification because

petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proof to ISSUE:
show private respondent’s bad faith. Whether or not Judge Rubio can be held liable for an
error in judgment
February 8, 2018 – Article 205 – JUDGMENT
RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE FACTS:
DIZON, Roxan Danica G. This is an administrative complaint against respondent
Judge Antonio Rubio of the Municipality of Inopacan
EVANGELISTA VS BAES Leyte for alleged (1) incompetence and/or ignorance
61 SCRA 475 DECEMBER 26, 1974 of the law and (2) delaying justice. Complainant, Atty.
Yaranon filed a charge of estafa with respondent's
ISSUE: court against the spouses Puzon, his tenants or
Whether or not a judge may be held liable for abuse of overseers who had earlier filed a case against him and
discretion his wife for reinstatement, which said complainant
eventually lost. Complainant accused said tenants with
FACTS: having failed to account for agricultural items given to
Judge Baes is charged with knowingly, or by reason of them in trust. After due trial wherein the only witness
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, rendering unjust of complainant was himself, respondent acquitted the
orders. accused. Complainant charges that said decision of
acquittal constitutes knowingly rendering an unjust
In CAR Case No. 959 Judge De Guzman authorized and/or unfair decision.
landholder Jose Tan Kapoe to eject his tenant Silvestre
Masa. On May 8, 1963 Masa's counsel moved to HELD:
reconsider; Judge Macalino, then the presiding judge, The Court was satisfied that absent any evidence of ill-
ordered the clerk of court to furnish a copy of the motive or improper consideration, the same cannot by
motion to Tan Kapoe's counsel. As no opposition to the itself prove the charge laid against respondent. The
motion was interposed, Judge Macalino reconsidered decision discusses creditably the evidence of the
Judge De Guzman's decision, and rendered on parties and the Court see no indication therein of any
February 20, 1964 a decision denying the petition for untoward factor that could have induced respondent
ejectment of Masa and adjudging a leasehold system to be unfair to complainant. The latter may have a
of tenancy between Tan Kapoe and Masa. Three and a different view of his case, but mere error of judgment,
half years later, Judge Macalino, on petition of Masa, assuming its existence, and the Court hold that here
rendered a supplemental decision fixing the rental on there was none, cannot serve as basis for a charge of
the holding. On April 2, 1968 Tan Kapoe moved for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, there being
reconsideration of not only the supplemental decision no proof or even allegation of bad faith.
but also the decision of February 20, 1964. Judge Baes
granted Tan Kapoe's motion for reconsideration, with TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC. vs
the justification that Judge De Guzman's prior decision COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO NATIVIDAD
had become final and executory allegedly because the G.R. No. 152568 February 16, 2004
motion for its reconsideration that was granted by
Judge Macalino was fatally defective for lack of proof ISSUE:
of service. Whether the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it
Judge Baes' justification for his orders of June 11, 1968 modified the decision of the NLRC and ordered the
and October 8, 1969 was rejected in Masa vs. Baes, et petitioner to pay backwages to the private respondent.
al., L-29784, May 21, 1969, 28 SCRA 263, where this
Court held, inter alia, that the alleged non-service upon FACTS:
Tan Kapoe of a copy of Masa's motion to reconsider Private respondent Pedro Natividad was working with
Judge De Guzman's decision "is belied by the record" petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College (TCMC) as
and that Tan Kapoe was in estoppel to deny his receipt "Liason Officer" of the school. On June 10, 1996, the
of a copy of the motion for reconsideration. private respondent was arrested by the Morong police
authorities, without any warrant therefore, for violation
HELD: of the Dangerous Drugs Act. A criminal complaint was
While Judge Baes acted in abuse of discretion in later filed against him. A preliminary investigation was
issuing the orders complained of, it does not conducted which found probable cause to hold him for
necessarily follow that he acted in bad faith or that his trial. The court, on the said date, issued a warrant for
abuse of discretion signifies ignorance of the law in his the private respondent’s arrest. The records were
part. Abuse of discretion signifies ignorance of the law elevated to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
on his part. Abuse of discretion by a trial court does Rizal. In the interim, the petitioner sent a Memorandum
not necessarily mean ulterior motive, arbitrary conduct to the private respondent informing him that his
or willful disregard of a litigant's rights. employment was already terminated.
YARANON VS JUDGE RUBIO On July 5, 1996, the private respondent posted a bail
66 SCRA 67 August 7, 1975 bond. He did not, however, file any complaint against

the petitioner with the NLRC on account of his same employee to recover from the employer that
dismissal. which he had lost by way of wages as a result of his
On October 2, 1996, the State Prosecutor issued a dismissal. The two forms of relief are distinct and
Resolution dismissing the criminal complaint filed separate, one from the other.
against the private respondent for lack of merit. The payment of backwages is generally granted on the
ground of equity. It is a form of relief that restores the
On November 21, 1996, the private respondent was income that was lost by reason of the unlawful
arrested anew by police authorities. The Morong Chief dismissal; the grant thereof is intended to restore the
of Police filed a criminal complaint for violation of earnings that would have accrued to the dismissed
Section 27, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425. On February employee during the period of dismissal until it is
17, 1997, an Information therefore was filed with the determined that the termination of employment is for
RTC. On said date, the private respondent posted a bail a just cause. The award of backwages is not
bond and was released from detention. conditioned on the employee’s ability or inability to, in
On June 11, 1997, the private respondent filed a the interim, earn any income. While it may be true that
complaint with the NLRC against the petitioner for on June 11, 1996, the private respondent was detained
illegal dismissal. , the State Prosecutor found no probable cause for the
On November 10, 1998, Acting Executive Labor Arbiter detention of the private respondent and resolved to
Ramos, rendered a decision dismissing the complaint dismiss the case. The private respondent has not yet
for lack of legal basis. been convicted by final judgment. Indeed, he is
presumed innocent until his guilt is proved beyond
The private respondent appealed the decision to the reasonable doubt.
NLRC which affirmed the same. However, on certiorari
with the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed, In fine, the Court found and held that the Decision of
with modification, the decision of the NLRC, holding the CA is in accord with law.
that although there was a valid cause for the private
respondent’s dismissal, the petitioner did not follow February 9, 2018 – Article 207 – MALICIOUS DELAY
the procedure for the termination of his employment. IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
The CA ordered the petitioner to pay backwages to the Duque, Francis Lester M
private respondent from June 13, 1996 up to the
finality of the said decision. RENATO ALVARO RUPERTO vs. JUDGE TIRSO F.
The petitioner assails the decision of the CA in this BANQUERIGO, respondent.
Court. Among his contentions was that: A.M. No. MTJ-98-1154. August 26, 1998
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and ISSUE:

authority when it knowingly rendered a decision which WON Judge Banquerigo can be held liable under Art
is bias, unfair & unjust, a violation of Art. 205 of the 207.
Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec (2) (e) of RA 3019
(anti-graft law), hence the decision is void. FACTS:
Complainant alleges that this administrative case
HELD: stems from respondent Judge ruling in a case he filed
No. against the spouses Anselmo and Pacita Mojillo, for
The public respondent acts without jurisdiction if he ejectment with damages, The Mojillo spouses failed to
does not have the legal power to determine the case. file their answer to the complaint within the
There is excess of jurisdiction when the public reglementary period. Since the case falls under the
respondent, being clothed with the power to Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, herein
determine the case, oversteps his authority as complainant filed a motion with the trial court to
determined by law. There is a grave abuse of discretion summarily decide the case in accordance with the
where the public respondent acts in a capricious, aforesaid Rule. Respondent judge, however, failed to
whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise act on the motion and, worse, he further granted
of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of therein defendant spouses an additional ten days
jurisdiction. within which to file their answer. The case was set for
hearing on December 14, 1995, and, thereafter, it was
In Santos v. NLRC, the Court explained that: again reset to March 14, 1996.
The normal consequences of a finding that an
employee has been illegally dismissed are, firstly, that Respondent Judge in his comment stressed that he was
the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his only an acting judge of the MCTC which had
former position without loss of seniority rights and jurisdiction over the cases in question and that he was
secondly, the payment of backwages corresponding to reporting to that court which had 226 pending cases,
the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual only twice a week. The subject ejectment case was filed
reinstatement. The statutory intent on this matter is in August, 1995. Considering that there were several
clearly discernible. Reinstatement restores the cases filed with said MCTC, the case was set for hearing
employee who was unjustly dismissed to the position on March 14, 1996 allegedly as agreed upon by the
from which he was removed, that is, to his status quo parties and their counsel. He claims that his failure to
ante dismissal, while the grant of backwages allows the act on the motion of complainant to decide the case in

accordance with Section 6 of the Revised Rule on words, after he had knowledge of the apprehension of
Summary Procedure was because, in the interest of the accused or his being detained, on the first
justice and equity, he believed that said motion should opportunity he immediately released him. There was
be set for hearing. no motive why respondent Judge could be accused of
having wantonly prejudiced the right of the
HELD: complainant, he recommended the dismissal of the
No. The Court held that although Judge Banquerigo charges.
failed to comply with what is specifically required as a
judicial duty. The ejectment case filed by complainant JOHAN L.H. WINGARTS and OFELIA A. WINGARTS
against the defendant spouses therein clearly falls vs. JUDGE SERVILLANO M. MEJIA
under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. SEC. 6. A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012 March 20, 1995
(Effect of failure to answer) hereof provides-- Should
the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the ISSUE:
period, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the WON respondent judge can be held liable for Article
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by 207 of the RPC "Malicious Delay in the Administration
the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what of Justice
is prayed for therein...
FACTS:
The court however, believe that respondent judge Complainant Johan L.H. Wingarts was the accused in
should be merely reprimanded, in view of the fact that MTC for malicious mischief. Respondent judge is
he was not only detailed to the court where the cases charged with malicious delay in the administration of
herein involved were pending, but also to other courts. justice because the case Malicious Mischief allegedly
Such multiple assignments, in one way or another, dragged for one year and four months.
affected his efficient handling of cases. In addition,
there was no showing of malice, corrupt motives or HELD:
improper considerations on the part of respondent No. A perusal of the records reveal that while there was
judge which would justify the imposition of a more a delay in hearing the case, such a delay does not
severe penalty, or that he has heretofore been found appear to be malicious nor deliberate. Firstly, while the
guilty of any administrative offense. case appears to have been filed only on February 1,
1993, it was remanded back to respondent's sala
RAFAEL SALCEDO vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE DAVID sometime in June 1993 and was set for hearing on July
ALFECHE, JR., respondent. 9, 1993. Secondly, the postponements were all on
A.M. No. 267-MJ June 30, 1975 account of the absence or unavailability of the fiscal
and/or the defense counsel and not of the Judge's own
ISSUE: making. While Judges should not allow the parties to
WON Respondent Judge can be held liable as charged. control the proceedings in their Court, in the case of
respondent, he had no alternative but to grant the
FACTS: postponements if only to better serve the ends of
An administrative complaint of malicious delay in the justice. On January 10, 1994, he had to reset the
administration of justice filed by Rafael Salcedo against hearing as the assigned fiscal was still in the USA. On
Judge Alfeche, Jr. due to his absence from his official April 21, 1994, respondent Judge issued an Order
position on March 5, 1971, as a consequence of which giving the prosecution fifteen days within which to file
a cash bond posted by complainant, then accused in a its position paper and thereafter, the case is deemed
pending criminal case, could not be accepted, with the submitted for decision. Counting fifteen (15) days from
result that he was detained overnight. Respondent in April 21, 1994, the case was deemed submitted for
his answer claim that his absence on March 5, 1971 was decision last May 6, 1994. It was decided on June 8,
due to his having taken a vacation leave and he did not 1994 or barely a month after it was deemed submitted
have to report until March 6, 1971. for decision. Obviously, therefore there was no delay in
deciding the case. If at all, the delay was in the hearing
HELD: of the case and for apparently excusable grounds.
No. The matter was referred to the then Executive
Judge Emigdio V. Nietes, who in his report and February 10, 2018 – Article 207 – PROSECUTION OF
recommendation stated the following: "Respondent OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
judge had noted in his daily time record his absence FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
from his station. In the absence of the municipal judge,
it is a provision in the rules of Court that the accused PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS NICOLAS L. MINA
may put up his bond before the municipal mayor who G.R. NO. L-45312 JUNE 13, 1938
is authorized to order his release in case of such bond,
reporting to the municipal judge on his return to the ISSUE:
office the release made. It is clear though that Whether accused violated Article 208 of the Revised
immediately after he took cognizance of the fact that Penal Code.
the accused was apprehended and ready to put up his
bail, he immediately ordered his release on March 6 FACTS:
when he reported to the office the next day. In other

Accused was the chief of police in Asingan, ISSUE:

municipality of Pangasinan. He was charged in Whether Garcia violated Article 208 of the Revised
breached of his official duty by maliciously defaulted in Penal Code.
the prosecution and punishment of the violators of law
prohibiting and penalizing the game of chance called FACTS:
“jueting” in that he failed to file the corresponding Petitioner filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
criminal actions against Juan Lazo as Jueting collector. Manila an affidavit of complaint against Mely Palad a
bank examiner of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for
HELD: falsification of public document and use of falsified
Yes. Under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, any document. Assistant City Prosecutor recommended
public officers or officer of the law, who, in dereliction that Palad be charged in court for falsification of Public
of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from document. First Assistant City Prosecutor
instituting prosecution for the punishment of the recommended the approval of the resolution.
violators of law, or shall tolerate the commission of However, upon the motion of Palad to reconsider, First
offenses shall be punished. Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the reopening
In this case, the accused being the chief of police was of the case. Respondent approved the
proven to have failed to prosecute the jueting collector recommendation to re open the case. However, in an
who was caught possessing jueting lists, was held Indorsement, Garcia forwarded the complete records
liable. of the case to the Chief State Prosecutor of the
Department of Justice. In September 2002, petitioner
BEATRIZ RAMOS VDA DE BAGATUA, ET AL. VS filed an Affidavit- Compalint against Garcia for
PEDRO A. REVILLA AND LEONIAS S. LOMBOS violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code.
G. R. NO. L- 12247 AUGUST 26, 1958
HELD:
ISSUE: No, The court held in citing the case of US vs Mendoza,
Whether the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney 23 PHIL 194 that “ The crime committed by the law
are liable under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code. violator must be proved first. If the guilt of the law
violator is not proved, the person charged with
FACTS: dereliction of duty under Article 208 of the Revised
Upon the death of her husband, Ramos donated a Penal Code is not liable”.
parcel of land to her children. When her children
decided to subdivide the lot among themselves they In taking into the account of the aforementioned
engaged the services of a real estate broker. However, jurisprudence and elements of the offense charged, it
Rodrigo Bagatua accused Pangilinan real estate broker is clear that the filing of the instant suit is still
of estafa before the City Attorney of Quezon city for premature considering the questioned controversy
allegedly inducing them to sign papers supposedly against Palad is still pending. Even the element of
necessary for the subdivision of the lot that turned out malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of law
to be a deed of sale. cannot be entrenched without Palad’s guilt for the
alleged defiance having been pronounced first.
Upon receipt of said complaint, the Assistant City
Attorney, acting for the City Attorney, conducted a February 12, 2018 – Article 209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST
preliminary investigation, during that time both parties BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR- REVELATION OF
were duly represented by counsel. After the SECRETS
presentation of testimonies and documentary FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
evidence the Assistant City Attorney recommended for
the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. MA. LUISA HADJULA V. ATTY. ROCELES F.
Accordingly the complaint was dismissed. MADIANDA
Complainants filed a petition for mandamus seeking to A.C. NO. 6711 (JULY 3,2007)
compel the City Attorney and the Assistant City
Attorney to file an information against Pangilinan for ISSUE:
estafa contending that in dismissing the complaint, WON there was a violation of Article 209 (2) Revealing
respondents committed grave abuse of discretion. any of the secrets of his client learned by his in this
professional capacity.
HELD:
No. The court held that the fiscal as a prosecuting FACTS:
officer, is under no compulsion to file information Hadjula and Atty. Madianda were used to be friends as
based upon complaint, where he is not convinced that they were colleagues at Bureau of Fire Protection
the evidence gathered or presented would warrant the where Atty. Madianda was the Chief Legal Officer and
filing of an action in court. Respondents are not liable. Hadjula was the Chief Nurse. Sometime in 1998,
Hadjula approached respondent for some legal advice.
HILARIO SORIANO VS OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. She alleged that in their discourse, it was supposed to
MARCELINO ET. AL be kept confidential as she disclosed personal secrets
G.R. NO. 163178 JANUARY 30, 2009 and produced copies of a marriage contract, birth
certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be

informed later that respondent will refer the case to her OBC if respondent is qualified to practice law.
another lawyer friend. Hadjula alleged that was Prompted by this letter, OBC recommended the
malicious because after respondent heard her case and disbarment of respondent.
her secrets to she refused to take the case. Eventually,
Hadjula filed for administrative and criminal complaint HELD:
against Atty. Madianda for violation of Article 209 of Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
the RPC because those secrets and information were one of the grounds for the suspension or disbarment
later on used against her in a administrative case at the of a lawyer is his conviction of a crime involving moral
Office of the Ombudsman. turpitude. And with the finality of respondent's
conviction for direct bribery, the next question that
HELD: needs to be answered is whether direct bribery is a
Yes. However, the Supreme Court did not upheld the crime that involves moral turpitude.
case as punishable under the Revised Penal Code even
though Atty. Madianda was found indeed to have The elements of Direct Bribery:
breached his duties of preserving the confidence of a
client. The SC reiterated in this manner: The 1. the offender is a public officer;
seriousness of the respondent’s offense
notwithstanding, the Court feels that there is room for 2. the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives
compassion, absent compelling evidence that the a gift or present by himself or through another;
respondent acted with ill-will. Without meaning to
condone the error of respondent’s ways, what at 3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present
bottom is before the Court is two former friends be received by the public officer with a view to
becoming bitter enemies and filing charges and committing some crime, or in consideration of the
counter-charges against each other using whatever execution of an act which does not constitute a crime
convenient tools and data were readily available. but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing
Unfortunately, the personal information respondent something which it is his official duty to do; and
gathered from her conversation with complainant
became handy in her quest to even the score. At the 4. the act which the offender agrees to perform or
end of the day, it appears clear to us that respondent which he executes is connected with the performance
was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps of his official duties.
realizing that, in the process of giving vent to a
negative sentiment, she was violating the rule on To consider a crime as one involving moral turpitude,
confidentiality. Thus, Atty. Madianda was only the act constituting the same must have been "done
REPRIMANDED by the SC in this case. contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
[It must involve] an act of baseness, vileness, or
February 12, 2018 – Article 210 – DIRECT BRIBERY depravity in the private duties which a man owes his
IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P. fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty
PEOPLE V. JOSELITO C. BARROZO between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
A.C. NO. 10207 (JULY 21, 2015) justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the
ISSUE: integrity and good moral character required of all
Whether the act of the accused constitute direct lawyers, specially one occupying a public office.
bribery.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo is hereby
FACTS: DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from
Disbarment Case against former Assistant Public Pros., the Roll of Attorneys.
Joselito C. Barrozo. Jen Valeriano, was a respondent in
several cases of estafa and was assigned to UNITED STATES V. RUFINO SANCHEZ
respondent. According to Valeriano, Respondent G.R. NO. 9102 (NOVEMBER 5, 1913)
would resolve her cases in her favor in exchange for
P20,000.00. Hence, Valeriano went to the Office of the ISSUE:
State Prosecutor to report the matter. NBI then Whether the crime committed in this case is direct
conducted an entrapment operation where bribery.
respondent was caught red handed receiving the
P20,000.00. Sandiganbayan sentenced respondent to FACTS:
suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months A municipal policeman pretended to arrest a person
and 1 day of prision correccional to 9 years, 4 months who had in his possession a substance which he had
and 1 day prision mayor and a fine of P60,000.00 In purchased as opium but proved to be only molasses.
October 2013 the Office of the Bar Confidant received The policeman knew the character of this substance
a letter from Wat & Co. of Hongkong that their office and, with this knowledge, threatened to have the said
received a letter from respondent asking for long person prosecuted for a violation of the Opium Law
service payment. Wat & Co. found out about unless he paid him P500. P150 was finally agreed upon
respondent’s conviction on the internet and asked the as the price which the policeman would accept to turn

him loose. Sometimes afterward Lua discovered that LEONOR FORMILLEZA,

what he had purchased and had been deprived of by vs.
the two policemen was not opium at all, and the THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
present case is a consequence of his complaint to the
authorities. ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty of indirect bribery under
The appellant, Rufino Sanchez contends that the crime article 211
established by the above facts is not robbery, but
bribery. FACTS:
In United States v. Gimenea (24 Phil. Rep., 464), this Petitioner Formilleza has been with government
court said: "Viada, vol. 2, p. 642, in discussing article service for around 20 years as the personnel supervisor
381, says that to constitute the crime of bribery as of the regional office of the National Irrigation
provided in this article, four things are necessary: Administration. (NIA)
On the other hand, Mrs. Mutia was an employee of NIA
(1) That the defendant be a public officer according to for 7 years. Sometime in December 1983, her
the meaning of this term in article 401; appointment was terminated. Taking steps to either
obtain permanency or at least a renewed appointment
(2) that he has received either personally or through she was told to approach the petitioner who
another gifts or presents or accepted offers or determined if an employee is to be appointed or
promises; promoted. However, petitioner refused to attend to
her papers unless she was given some money.
(3) that such reception of gifts or presents or Mrs. Mutia reported the problem with the Philippine
acceptance of offers or promises has been for the Constabulary, Who later took steps for an entrapment.
purpose of executing a crime; and The entrapment was a success after Mrs. Mutia handed
the marked money under the table to which petitioner
(4) that the act constituting the crime relates to the accepted the money.
exercise of the office which the public officer Petitioner was found positive of ultra-violet powder.
discharges. Powder used in the marked money.
HELD: HELD:
No. The money was not delivered to the two policemen No, The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as
for the purpose of executing a crime. Had Lua been defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that
allowed to retain possession of the molasses no law the public officer concerned must have accepted the
would have been violated, nor would the two gift or material consideration. There must be a clear
policemen have been guilty or a noncompliance with intention on the part of the public officer to take the
their official duties. Several reasons are advanced as to gift so offered and consider the same as his own
why the acts of the policemen did not constitute property from then on, such as putting away the gift
robbery all based upon the misconception of the for safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical
injured person as to the nature of the substance which receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
he had purchased as opium. It is quite true that had the circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not
latter been aware of the true state of affairs he would sufficient to lead the court to conclude that the crime
not have permitted the appellant and his companion of indirect bribery has been committed. To hold
to force him to pay them the P150. But the guilt of the otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals to
appellant is not contingent upon the conception or frame up public officers by simply putting within their
misconception of Lua as to the true state of affairs. physical custody some gift, money or other property.
Moral certainty, not absolute certainty, is needed to
In the case of United States v. Flores (19 Phil. Rep., 178), support a judgment of conviction, Moral certainty is a
the court laid down the following doctrine: "A certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and
policeman who, knowing that a person has committed conscience of those who are to act upon a given
no crime for which he could be lawfully arrested and matter. 14 Without this standard of certainty, it may
tried, nevertheless arrests such person, falsely accusing not be said that the guilt of the accused in a criminal
him of a crime, and then by means of threats of proceeding has been proved beyond reasonable
presentation and imprisonment, thus playing upon his doubt.
ignorance and fear, obtains money from the said
person, secures such money by force and intimidation GREGORY JAMES POZAR, petitioner,
and commits the crime of robbery as defined by the vs.
Penal Code. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
respondent.
FEBUARY 13, 2018 – ARTICLE 211 – INDIRECT
BRIBERY ISSUE:
LAZO, Joseph Artfel T. WON the money given was a bribe to corrupt the city
probation officer
FACTS:

Petitioner Pozar, is an American Citizen and Permanent with the money, the respondent judge did not really try
resident of the Philippines, Charged with the crime of to return it to Cabrera, as he claims he did, but that
corruption of a public official. After he feloniously gave instead he placed it between the pages of his diary
to the city probation officer 100pesos upon his Second, the plan to entrap the respondent appears to
application for probation. have been cleared with the Executive Judge, Hon. Juan
B. Llaguno, before whom the complainant swore to his
RULING: statement and It is not likely that Judge Llaguno would
The court deduce that the procedure for processing approve the 'frame-up' of a colleague
petitioner's application for probation in the Probation Investigating Justice Mendoza's above statement and
Office at Angeles City was not precise, explicit and clear analysis of the evidence and a review of the records
cut And since the accused petitioner is a foreigner and fully support the finding that "respondent Judge
quite unfamiliar with probation rules and procedures, accepted the money and that he knew it was being
there is reason to conclude that petitioner was given to him by reason of his office." The Court has
befuddled, if not confused so that his act of providing time and again stressed that members of the judiciary
and advancing the expenses for whatever should display not only the highest integrity but must
documentation was needed further to complete and at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to
thus hasten his probation application, was be beyond reproach and suspicion.
understandably innocent and not criminal. But the Court is constrained to disapprove his
The facts and circumstances on record amply justify recommendation as to the first charge of indirect
and support the claim of the defense as against the bribery which is fully supported by the evidence that
conjectures, speculation and supposition recited in the respondent Judge "be suspended from office for 2
decision of the trial court and quoted with approval in years and 4 months, taking into consideration the
the appealed decision under review. The Government's penalty prescribed in art. 211 of the Revised Penal
own evidence as indicated in the Post-Sentence Code." The penalty of 2 years and 4 months
Investigation Report that the giving of the one imprisonment provided for the criminal offense of
hundred pesos ( P100.00) was done in good faith, is indirect bribery may not be equated with the penalty
vital for it belies petitioner's criminal intent. There of separation from the judicial service which is the
being no criminal intent to corrupt the Probation proper applicable administrative penalty by virtue of
Officer, the accused petitioner is entitled to acquittal of respondent Judge's serious misconduct prejudicial to
the crime charged. We hold and rule that the the judiciary and the public interest.
prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge is hereby dismissed
beyond reasonable doubt. from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and pay and with prejudice to reinstatement
ATTY. ENRICO M. CABRERA in any branch of the government or any of its agencies
vs. or instrumentalities.
JUDGE JAMES B. PAJARES
FEBUARY 14, 2018 – ARTICLE 212 – CORRUPTION OF
ISSUE: PUBLIC OFFICIALS
WON respondent judge accepted the money on NASH, Regina M.
account of his office.
FACTS: MORFE V MUTUC, 22 SCRA 424

On Jan, 1985,Petitioner Enrico Cabrera denounced January 31, 1968
Respondent Judge Pajares for having allegedly asked Fernando, J.
money from him in connection with his case. Plaintiff-appellee: Jesus P. Morfe (Judge of CFI)
Petitioner was advised by his counsel to accommodate Defendants-appellants: Amelito R. Mutuc (Executive
any request for money from the respondent so that he Secretary) et al.
would not be unduly hard on the complainant. And
during the course of the case, The Respondent Judge, ISSUE/S:
told petitioner needed money. To which, petitioner Whether the periodical submission of SAL for public
gave P1000 the next day. However, after two months officers is:
the Respondent Judge told him once again that he 1. An oppressive exercise of police power;
needed money. It was then when the petitioner 2. Violative of due process and an unlawful invasion of
decided to report to the authorities. the right to privacy implicit in the ban against
Acting on the report, NBI staged an entrapment and unreasonable search and seizure construed together
used marked money. The entrapment succeeded when with the prohibition against self-incrimination;
the judge took the marked money from the 3. An insult to the personal integrity and official dignity
complainant. of public officials.
RULING: FACTS:
There is reason to believe that the respondent judge • The Law: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of 1960
accepted the money and that he knew it was being (RA No. 3019)
given to him by reason of his office.
The evidence shows that after receiving the envelope • Every public officer within 30 days after its approval

or after his assumption of office “and within the month

of January of every year thereafter”, as well as upon • Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the
termination of his position, shall prepare and file with extension of police power to regulatory action
the head of the office to which he belongs, “a true affecting persons in public or private life can invoke the
detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, protection of due process.
including a statement of the amounts and sources of
his income, the amounts of his personal and family • It has been held that due process may be relied upon
expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the by public official to protect the security of tenure which
next preceding calendar year”. in a limited sense is analogous to property. Therefore
he could also use due process to strike down what he
• Plaintiff Morfe, a judge of a CFI, contends that the considers as an infringement of his liberty.
periodical submission “within the month of January of
every other year thereafter” of their sworn statement • Under the Constitution, the challenged provision is
of assets and liabilities (SAL) is violative of due process allowable as long as due process is observed.
as an oppressive exercise of police power and as an
unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy • The standard for due process is REASONABLENESS.
implicit on the ban against unreasonable search and Test: Official action must not outrun the bounds of
seizure construed together with the prohibition against reason and result in sheer oppression.
self-incrimination.
• “It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and
• Executive Secretary and DOJ Sec: to ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public
• Acceptance of public position = voluntary service with its ever-present temptation to heed the
assumption of obligation call of greed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and
oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon public
• Merely seeks to adopt a reasonable measure of officials and employees to file such sworn statement of
insuring the interest of general welfare in honest and assets and liabilities every two years after having done
clean public service and is therefore a legitimate so upon assuming office…There was therefore no
exercise of police power. unconstitutional exercise of police power.”
• CFI of Pangasinan held that the requirement exceeds 1. Right to privacy

the permissible limit of the police power and is thus
offensive to the due process clause • Right to be let alone
RULING: • “It cannot be said that the challenged statutory

Decision reversed. provision calls for disclosure of information which
infringes on the right of a person to privacy. It cannot
RATIO: be denied that the rational relationship such a
1. Presumption of validity requirement possesses with the objective of a valid
statute goes very far in precluding assent to an
• Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a objection of such character. This is not to say that a
reasonable requirement for employment so a public public officer, by virtue of position he holds, is bereft
officer can make of record his assets and liabilities of constitutional protection; it is only to emphasize that
upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did not present in subjecting him to such a further compulsory
evidence to rebut the presumption of validity. revelation of his assets and liabilities, including the
statement of the amounts of personal and family
• “If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or expenses, and the amount of income taxes paid for the
the person, the standard for the validity of next preceding calendar year, there is no
governmental acts is much more rigorous and unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise would
exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects the be a private sphere.”
most rights of property, the permissible scope of
regulatory measure is wider.” (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. 1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Mayor of Manila)
• The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
1. Exercise of Police power and the defense provided search and seizure does not give freedom from
by the Due Process Clause testimonial compulsion.
• “inherent and plenary power in the state which 1. Right against self-incrimination
enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort,
safety and welfare of society” (Justice Malcolm) • We are not aware of any constitutional provision
designed to protect a man’s conduct from judicial
• The power of sovereignty, the power to govern men inquiry, or aid him in fleeing from justice.
and things within the limits of its domain (Justice
Taney, going beyond curtailment of rights) 1. Insult to personal integrity and official dignity

standard of behavior and to constitute an

• Only congressional power or competence, not the administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to
wisdom of the action taken, mey be the basis for or be connected with the performance of the official
declaring a statute invalid. functions and duties of a public officer. It is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of
OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. Rainier Espina action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
GR No. 213500, Mar 15, 2017 negligence by a public officer.
ISSUE: RULED:
Whether or not Espina should be held administratively Rainier A. Espina is GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF
liable for the charges imputed against him? Was he DUTY. Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from government
guilty of graft and corruption due to gross negligence service with all the accessory penalties.
in signing procurement documents without proper
inspection. FEBUARY 15, 2018 – ARTICLE 213 – FRAUDS AGAINST
THE PUBLIC TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
FACTS: OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
On July 11 and 17, 2012, petitioner the Fact-Finding
Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Deputy SOLEDAD V. GANADEN VS. GREGORIO N.
Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law BOLASCO
Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) filed before the Adm. Matter No. P-124, May 16, 1975
Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint and a
supplemental complaint, respectively, charging Espina ISSUE:
and several other PNP officers and private individuals Whether or not the Bolasco is liable under Article 213
for: (a) violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 7080 Anti - of the RPC.
Graft and Corruption Practices Act, RA 3019, RA 9184
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and FACTS:
Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Gregorio N. Bolasco, who was Deputy Provincial Sheriff
Public Documents under Article 217 in relation to of the Court of First Instance of Zambales is charged by
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (b) complainant, Soledad V. Ganaden, a stenographer of
Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty; arising from the same court, with dishonesty by demanding P13.00
alleged anomalies that attended the Philippine as sheriff's fee in civil case, entitled "Carmen Flores vs.
National Police's (PNP) procurement of 40 tires, and Leonardo Frondarina," but issuing therefor a receipt for
repair, refurbishment, repowering, and maintenance a lesser amount and by issuing a private receipt for
services of a total of 28 units of V-150 Light Armored P50.00 to plaintiff Paulino Padua in a civil case for the
Vehicles (LAVs), and the related transportation and service of a writ of execution but failed to make a
delivery expenses of 18 units of LAYs between August return of said writ. Bolasco was also charged with
and December 2007.It averred that the PNP did not misconduct by delaying the service of summons upon
comply with the bidding procedure prescribed under Paulita Esteban and entrusting its service to her
RA 9184 and its IRR, in that: (a) copies of the bid nephew, Atty. Eduardo Balaoing, Jr..
documents were not furnished to possible bidders; (b)
no pre-procurement and pre-bid conferences were HELD:
held; (c) the invitation to bid was not published in a YES. Bolasco committed illegal exaction penalized by
newspaper of general circulation; (d) the procuring paragraph 2(b) of Article 213 of the RPC for failure to
agency did not require the submission of eligibility issue receipts for money collected by him officially.
requirements as well as the technical and financial In this case, on two occasions, Bolasco received certain
documents from the bidders; and (e) no post amounts in connection with the performance of his
qualification was conducted. Further, it claimed that duties as deputy sheriff without issuing the
there were "ghost deliveries," i.e., the tires were never corresponding official receipts. First, was on February
delivered to the PNP and no repair and refurbishment 3, 1971, counsel for plaintiff in a civil case gave
works were actually performed on the LAVs. respondent P12.60 for sheriff’s fee for service of the
In a Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012, the complaint and summons thereof upon the defendants.
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Espina Bolasco received said amount before the summons to
and several other PNP officers for violation of Section be served were delivered to him for service, in spite of
3 (e) of RA 3019, Section 65 (b) (4) of RA 9184, and for the standing instruction from the clerk of court and the
Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification provincial sheriff not to accept any payment if no
under Article 217 in relation to Article 171 of the RPC. official receipts are available. Bolasco did not issue the
The Ombudsman also found them guilty of Grave official receipt even after he had received the booklet
Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty and, accordingly, of official receipts February 5 or 6, 1971. Lastly,
recommended their dismissal from government respondent also received, again without issuing the
services. corresponding official receipt, P50.00 from plaintiff for
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or service of a writ of execution issued in connection in
unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, another civil case. Proof of receipt of said amount is
obstinate or intentional purpose. It is intentional respondent's private receipt. Hence, a collecting officer
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or

should issue official receipts and not mere private

receipts. ISSUE:
Whether or not accused Francisco and Lenlie Lecaroz
ARIEL C. VALLEJO vs HONORABLE COURT OF are guilty of Estafa through falsification of public
APPEALS documents, and thereby convicting them also under
G.R. No. 156413 April 14, 2004 Article 214 of the Revised Penal Code
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not Vallejo is liable Francisco Lecaroz is the Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz,
Marinduque. Lenlie Lecaroz, the former’s son, was the
FACTS: outgoing chairman of Kabataang Barangay (KB) of
Ariel Vallejo is a lawyer in the Register of Deeds of the Santa Cruz and member of Sangguniang Bayan (SB)
province of Isabela. Franklin M. Javier, a National representing the federation of KBs. Jowil Red won as
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, filed a sworn Chairman of Barangay Santa Cruz in the 1985 KB
application for search warrant before the Regional Trial elections. Lenlie did not run as candidate as he was no
Court of Iligan which briefly requests that a Search longer qualified, having passed the age limit.
Warrant be issued on the Office of the Registry of Jowil Red was appointed by President Marcos as
Deeds, Provincial Capitol, Alibaga, Iligan for the member of SB of Santa Cruz, representing the
purpose of seizing the following documents: federation of KBs. He received his appointment powers
when President Aquino was already in power. However,
01. Undetermined number of FAKE LAND TITLES, he was not allowed by Mayor Lecaroz to sit as sectoral
Official Receipts in the Cashier's Office, Judicial Form representative in the SB. Subsequently, Mayor Lecaroz
No. 39 known as Our Primary Entry Book under no. 496 prepared and approved on different dates the
and other pertinent documents related therewith; payment to Lenlie Lecaroz of payrolls covering period
of January 1987 to January 1987.
02. Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the drawers Red assumed position of KB presidency upon
of every table of employees of the Registry of Deeds; expiration of term of Lenlie Lecaroz. It was alleged that
Lenlie continued to receive salary even after his term
03. Undetermined number of Land Transfer has expired. The Sandiganbayan convicted the
transactions without the corresponding payment of accused, on 13 Information for Estafa through
Documentary Stamps and Capital Gains Tax. Falsification of Public Documents, and perpetual
special disqualification from public office in
That all of the said documents are being used or accordance with Article 214 of the Revised Penal Code.
intended to be used in the commission of a felony that
is FALSIFICATION OF LAND TITLES under Article 171 HELD
RPC, Article 213 RPC and R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft) and are No. The offenses of which petitioners were convicted
hidden or being kept in the said office. under Article 171, paragraph 4, of The Revised Penal
Code, are intentional felonies for which liability
HELD: attaches only when it is shown that the malefactors
NO. The charged imputed upon Vallejo should be acted with criminal intent or malice. If what is proven is
dismissed and the seized items be returned. mere judgmental error on the part of the person
The questioned warrant in this case is a scatter-shot committing the act, no malice or criminal intent can be
warrant for having been issued for more than one rightfully imputed to him. There was no criminal intent
offense - Falsification of Land Titles under Article 171 demonstrated to justify petitioner’s conviction.
and Article 213 of the RPC, and violation of Rep. Act Moreover, the decision of the Sandiganbayan of the
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and accused’s perpetual special disqualification from public
Corrupt Practices Act. A warrant must be issued upon office in accordance with Article 214 of the Revised
probable cause in connection with one specific offense. Penal Code, does not stand.
In fact, a careful perusal of the application for the Petitioners have been convicted for falsification of
warrant shows that the applicant did not allege any public documents through an untruthful narration of
specific act performed by the petitioner constituting a facts under Article 171, paragraph 4, of The Revised
violation of any of the aforementioned offenses. Thus, Penal Code. For the offense to be established, the
the questioned warrant must be struck down for following elements must concur: (a) the offender
having been issued in contravention of the 1987 makes in a document statements in a narration of facts;
Constitution, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the
existing jurisprudence consequently the charged truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the
against Vallejo must be dismissed. offender are absolutely false; and, (d) the perversion of
truth in the narration of facts was made with the
FEBUARY 16, 2018 – ARTICLE 214 – OTHER FRAUDS wrongful intent of injuring a third person. The first and
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P. third elements of the offense have not been
established in this case.
FRANCISCO AND LENLIE LECAROZ V.
SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE UNITED STATES V. FLORENCIO TORRIDA
G.R. NO. 130872 (MARCH 25, 1999)

G.R. NO. 7450, 7451 AND 7452 (SEPTEMBER 18, the sum of P39 from the residents of his district, for the
1912) purpose of investing the money in cedulas, and failed
to invest said sum in cedulas or return the same to the
ISSUE owners thereof, and misapplied it and converted it to
Whether or not the penalty under Article 214 is his own use to the prejudice of the several residents.
applicable to accused Torrida. The court sentenced Dacuycuy to the penalty of two
months and one day of arresto mayor, to suffer the
FACTS accessory penalties, to indemnify the individuals
Torrida, as part of his councilman duties in the town of residing in the barrio of Oangagan, town of Bacarra of
Aparri, Cagayan Province, gave directions to his said province. From this sentence the accused has
subordinates that the death of all large animals must appealed.
be reported by the owners to him as councilman. These In his testimony, the accused Dacuycuy confessed to
orders were conveyed to the people as directed. having received from several residents of the barrio,
Several individuals lost their carabaos. Upon the the said sum of P39 to purchase an equal number of
receipt of this information, appellant Torrida informed cedulas, but denied that he had gone over to the said
these owners that they must pay a fine of P5 for each barrio in order to collect taxes, and further stated that
animal, these fees to be turned into the municipality by he was there enjoying a vacation when the residents
him. The owners, believing that the municipality had handed him the money for the purchase of their
provided for the payment of such fines, turned over to respective cedulas, but that he was unable to get the
the appellant five pesos for each animal that died. cedulas because at the municipal treasury one person
There was no provision whatever made by the was not permitted to take out a cedula for another.
municipality or any other entity for the imposition of
such fines. These facts clearly constitute the crime of HELD
Estafa as defined and penalized in paragraph 1, article No. Since the councilor committed the crime of Estafa
535, in relation with paragraphs 1, article 534, Penal as a private individual, it is not proper to impose on
Code. Torrida was charged with three separates crimes him the penalty provided by Article 399 (now Article
of Estafa in three separate actions, tried and found 214) of the Revised Penal Code for public officers,
guilty in each case. because he received the money not on the exercise of
his functions as a councilor.
HELD When a public officer commits a common crime
Yes. When the councilor, Torrida in this case, takes independent of his official functions and does acts that
advantage of his official position in committing Estafa, are not connected with the duties of his office, he
the disqualification mentioned in Article 399 (now should be punished with the penalty which the law
Article 214 of the Revised Penal Code) is a part of the imposes on the private individual who violates its
penalty to be imposed. provisions, without taking into account the official
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time character with which the guilty party is invested.
placed him in a position to commit these crimes. If he
had not been councilman, he could not have induced February 17, 2018 – Article 215 – PROHIBITED
the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on TRANSACTIONS
account of his being councilman that the parties [NO CASE FOUND]
believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was
for this reason that they made the payments. It is true February 17, 2018 – Article 216 – POSSESSION OF
that he had no right to either impose or collect any PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
fines whatsoever. It is also true that a municipal PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D.
councilman is not an official designated by law to
collect public fines. But these facts do not destroy or THE UNITED STATES v. CLEMENTE UDARBE
disprove the important fact that the accused did by G.R. No. 9945. November 12, 1914
taking advantage of his public position, deceive and ARAULLO, J.
defraud the injured parties out of the money which
they paid him. ISSUE:
UNITED STATES V. JUSTO DACUYCUY Whether or not Municipal President Urdabe became
G.R. NO. L-3873 (OCTOBER 18, 1907) interested in any business in which it was his official
duty to intervene.
ISSUE
Whether or not accused Dacuycuy is liable under FACTS:
Article 214 of the Revised Penal Code. Urdabe was appointed as the Municipal President of
the Municipality of Magsingal and while on duty as
FACTS said president, the Municipal Council on and under his
On December 1906, the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte presidency, approved and passed Regulation No. 7 for
filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of said the leasing of fishponds in the said municipality.
province accusing Justo Dacuycuy of the crime of
Estafa, stating that the said accused, being a public When the auction for the different sections of said
official and taking advantage of his office of councilor fishponds was held in the town hall of the municipality,
for the municipality of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, received it was recorded that Urdabe, who presided over the

auction, took part in the bidding for one particular contracts or transactions which have no relation to his
section of the fishponds and that section was office cannot commit this crime."
adjudicated to him as the highest bidder for the sum
of two pesos a year. February 18, 2018 – Article 217 – MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF
HELD: MALVERSATION
Yes. Municipal President Urdabe became interested RIVERA, Marynit P.
and took direct part in the leasing of property of the
Municipality of Magsingal, wherein he had to intervene
by reason of his office as president of said Municipality, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LICERION P.
and he has therefore openly violated the provisions of SENDAYDIEGO, JUAN SAMSON AND ANASTACIO
Section 28 of the Municipal Code which states that: QUIRIMIT
"No municipal officer shall be directly or indirectly G.R. NO. L-33254 JANUARY 20, 1978
interested in any contract work, or cockpits, or any
other permitted games and amusements, or business ISSUE:
of the municipality, or in the purchase of any real estate Whether or not Samson is guilty of malversation under
or any other property belonging to the corporation.” Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
FACTS:
MACARIOLA v. ASUNCION In 1969, Sendaydiego, the provincial treasurer of
Adm. Case No. 133-J. May 31, 1982 Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Samson, an employee
MAKASIAR, J.: of a lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, used
6 forged provincial vouchers to evidence fictitious sales
ISSUE: of construction materials in order to embezzle from the
Whether or not Judge Asuncion intervened in his road and bridge fund the total sum of P57,048.23.
official capacity in the transactions of Traders Samson hand-carried the vouchers and followed-up
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. their processing in the offices of the provincial
government and received the cash payments.
FACTS:
Judge Asuncion rendered a decision pertaining to a HELD:
partition of the estate of Francisco Diaz. One of the lots Yes. Samson is a co-principal in the six crimes of
of the said estate was sold to the spouses Galapon. A malversation because he conspired with the provincial
year after, spouses Galapon sold such lot to Traders treasurer in committing those offenses. The trial court
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. wherein, at correctly ruled that a private person conspiring with an
the time of the sale, Judge Asuncion was the accountable public officer in committing malversation
stockholder’s president of the corporation. is also guilty of malversation.
Consequently, Bernardita Macariola, one of the heirs of CECILIA U. LEGRAMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN and
Diaz and who was against of the partition of the estate, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
contended that Judge Asuncion intervened in his G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012
official capacity in the business or transactions of
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. ISSUE:
when he rendered the decision concerning the Whether or not petitioner Cecilia Legrama is guilty of
partition of the estate. the crime of malversation under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code
HELD:
No. There was no showing that Judge Asuncion FACTS:
participated or intervened in his official capacity in the The Office of the Provincial Auditor of the Commission
business or transactions of the Traders Manufacturing on Audit (COA) for the Province of Zambales issued
and Fishing Industries, Inc. PAO Office No. 96-09 directing an Audit to conduct an
The business of the corporation in which Judge examination of the cash and account of petitioner
Asuncion participated has obviously no relation or Cecilia Legrama, the Municipal Treasurer of the
connection with his judicial office. The business of said Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales. After the audit,
corporation is not that kind where Judge Asuncion the COA prepared a Special Cash Examination Report
intervenes or takes part in his capacity as Judge of the on the Cash and Accounts of Ms. Cecilia U. Legrama.
Court of First Instance. As was held in one case The report contained the findings that petitioners cash
involving the application of Article 216 of the Revised accountability was short of P289,022.75 and that there
Penal Code which is a prohibition on public officers was an unaccounted Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)
against directly or indirectly becoming interested in in the amount of P863,878.00, thereby showing a total
any contract or business in which it is his official duty shortage in the amount of P1,152,900.75. Included in
to intervene," (I)t is not enough to be a public official the shortage is the amount of P709,462.80,
to be subject to this crime: it is necessary that by reason representing the total amount of various sales invoices,
of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or chits, vales, and disbursement vouchers, which were
transactions; and, hence, the official who intervenes in disallowed in the audit for lack of supporting
documents. From the total amount of the shortage,

petitioner was able to restitute the initial amount of FACTS:

P60,000.00. Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan During the period material to the Information of this
failed to consider the testimonial and documentary case, accused Cecilio G. Hechanova was the Chairman
exhibits presented to support her claim that she did of the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) and
not appropriate or misappropriate for her use and Florencio B. Campomanes was the President of the
benefit the subject fund nor did she allow her co- Federation International Des Echecs (FIDE), a private
accused to use the said fund without the proper international organization with offices at Lausanne,
acknowledgment such as receipts, vales or sign chits. Switzerland. On 6 March 1991,the Philippine Sports
Petitioner maintains that she has satisfactorily Commission submitted to FIDE a bid offer to host the
explained the shortage on the basis of the 30th Chess Olympiad of 1992 in Manila.The PSC’s bid
documentary evidence submitted. offer was accepted by FIDE, and accordingly the
Philippine government thru the PSC was granted the
HELD: right to organize and host the 30th World Chess
Malversation may be committed by appropriating Olympiad in Manila from June 6-25, 1992. From
public funds or property; by taking or misappropriating October 1990 to June 1992 the PSC, also complying
the same; by consenting, or through abandonment or with its obligations under the bid offer, remitted to
negligence, by permitting any other person to take FIDE – received in FIDE’s behalf by its President,
such public funds or property; or by being otherwise Florencio Campomanes – the total amount of
guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such P12,876,008.00 in connection with the 30th World
funds or property. The essential elements common to Chess Olympiad in Manila. The amount of
all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised P12,876,008.00 was acknowledged as having been
Penal Code are: received by FIDE as shown by a letter dated December
(a) That the offender be a public officer; 22, 1995 of Willy Iclicki, FIDE Treasurer. The
Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit of the
(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or PSC’s transactions from March 1990 up to June 1992.
property by reason of the duties of his office; The COA team noticed irregularities in the claims
payable to the FIDE. The irregularities consisted of the
(c) That those funds or property were public funds or lack of acknowledgment receipts and of accounting
property for which he was accountable; and liquidation attached to the disbursement vouchers.
The COA defined an acknowledgment receipt as an
(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or official receipt evidencing that the FIDE received the
consented, or through abandonment or negligence, funds from the PSC. The COA invited the PSC officials
permitted another person to take them. to an exit conference on 27 October 1993. During the
conference, the COA submitted its team’s findings to
In the case at bar, after the government auditors the PSC and requested for the PSC’s comment on the
discovered the shortage and informed petitioner of the matter. In the absence of the PSC’s comment, the COA
same, petitioner failed to properly explain or justify the prepared SAO Report No. 93-27. The report stated that
shortage that was subject to her accountability. the FIDE, through Campomanes, received P12,876,008
Petitioner denied that she put the amount involved to without acknowledgment and without liquidation.
personal use and presented various sales invoice, chits, Hechanova and Campomanes were charged as of fail
vale forms, and disbursement voucher to prove her to render account on the disbursement thereof, within
claim. Petitioner even went further by testifying that the period provided for by law and the rules and
the total amount of P681,000.00 appearing in a regulations of the Commission on Audit. The
disbursement voucher were cash advances given to the Sandiganbayan acquitted Hechanova on the basis of
mayor during the height of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. proof beyond reasonable doubt while convicted
However, the date when the eruption occurred was Campomanes of the crime of failure to render accounts
way before the period subject of the audit. as defined in Article 218 in relation to Article 222 of the
Undoubtedly, all the elements of the crime are present Revised Penal Code.
in the case at bar. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of the
crime of malversation under Article 217 of the RPC. RULING:
NO. There are four elements of the crime under Article
February 21, 2018 – Article 218 – FAILURE OF 218. First, the offender is a public officer. Second, he
ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS must be an accountable officer for public funds or
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M. property. Third, the offender is required by law or
regulation to render accounts to the COA, or to a
FLORENCIO B. CAMPOMANES vs. provincial auditor. Fourth, he fails to render an account
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES for a period of two months after such accounts should
DECEMBER 19,2006 be rendered. Campomanes is clearly not a public
ISSUE: officer. He is the president of the FIDE, a private foreign
Whether or not Campomanes is guilty of failure to corporation with whom the PSC, through Hechanova,
render accounts as defined in Article 218 of the Revised negotiated to conduct the 1992 Chess Olympiad and
Penal Code. Congress in Manila. The Sandiganbayan acknowledged
that Campomanes is not a public officer. So the
Sandiganbayan applied Article 222 of the Revised

Penal Code in relation to Article 218. The

Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, failed to specify (2) NO, demand is not element of the offense and that
any law or regulation requiring Campomanes to render it is sufficient that there is a law or regulation requiring
accounts to the COA. Therefore Campomanes was the public officer to render an account.
acquitted because of the failure of the prosecution to
prove all the elements of Article 218, in relation to Since Lumauig received the subject cash advance
Article 222, of the Revised Penal Code. Because of this sometime in 1994, he was, thus, required to liquidate
failure, The Supreme Court deem it unnecessary to rule the same on or before January 20, 1995. Further, to
on the other issues raised by both parties. avoid liability under Article 218, he should have
liquidated the cash advance two months from the time
ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG vs. PEOPLE OF THE it was due, or on before March 20, 1995. In the case at
PHILIPPINES bar, Lumauig liquidated the subject cash advance only
G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014, 729 SCRA 191 on June 4, 2001. Hence, as correctly found by the
Sandiganbayan, he was liable for violation of Article
ISSUES: 218 because it took him over six years before settling
(1) Whether or not the acquittal under RA 3019(Anti- his accounts.
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is a bar to his Considering the two mitigating circumstances of
conviction under Art. 218 of Revised Penal Code. voluntary surrender and return or full restitution of the
(2) Whether prior demand is a requisite for conviction funds, Lumauig is sentenced to a straight penalty of
under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. four months and one day of arresto mayor.
FACTS: HERMES E. FRIAS, SR.

In 1994, Mayor Lumauig of Alfonso Lista obtained a VS.
cash advance of P101,736.00 intended for the payment PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
of freight and insurance coverage of 12 units of G.R. NO. 171437 OCTOBER 4, 2007
motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the
City of Manila. However, instead of motorcycles, he was ISSUE:
able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. It never Whether or not Frias is guilty with violation of Art.218
came to his mind to settle or liquidate the amount of the Revised Penal Code despite the fact that he did
advanced since the vehicles were already turned over not benefited from the disallowed cash advances.
to the municipality. He claimed that he was neither
informed or did he receive any demand from COA to FACTS:
liquidate his cash advances. It was in 2001 while he was Frias, on behalf of the Municipality of Capas, made cash
claiming for separation pay when he came to know he advances amounting to P50,000 and P950,000 (or a
still has an unliquidated cash advance. And so as not total of P1,000,000). These cash advances were
to prolong the issue, he paid the amount of allocated for the maintenance of economic enterprises
P101,736.00 to the municipal treasurer, for which and the augmentation of the general fund.
reason, the incumbent Mayor Prudenciano executed
an Affidavit of Desistance. The Sandiganbayan The Commission on Audit found these purposes too
acquitted Lumauig for the violation of RA 3019(Anti- vague. Thus, they disallowed the cash advances due to
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) but convicted him for petitioner's failure to indicate a specific legal purpose.
the felony of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts COA notified Frias, municipal treasurer Panganiban
under Art. 218 of the Revised Penal Code. and municipal accountant Domingo of the
disallowance of the municipality's cash advances and
HELD: directed them to settle the P1,000,000. Neither
(1) NO, acquittal from violation of RA 3019 is not a bar Panganiban nor Domingo returned the amount.
against conviction for Article 218 of the RPC. It is Hence, Abesamis requested petitioner to settle the
undisputed that the two charges stemmed from the disallowed cash advances. Petitioner, however, refused
same incident. However, the Supreme Court has for the reason that he gave the proceeds of the cash
consistently held that the same act may give rise to two advances to Panganiban. COA, mindful of petitioner's
or more separate and distinct charges. The elements of predicament, pointed out that the cash advances were
the felony punishable under Article 218 of the RPC are: made under his authority. Moreover, the checks were
payable to him (as payee) and he admitted receipt
(1) that the offender is a public officer whether in the thereof. For this reason, even if he gave the proceeds
service or separated therefrom. to Panganiban, he was still required to return the
P1,000,000.
(2) that he must be an accountable officer for public Notwithstanding COA's demand, petitioner did not
funds or property. account for the cash advance. Thus, COA
recommended the filing of this criminal complaint
(3) that he is required by law or regulation to render against petitioner.In his defense, petitioner argued that
accounts to the COA or to a provincial auditor; and he was not liable for the cash advances because he did
not derive any benefit from them. Panganiban alone
(4) that he fails to do so for a period of two months benefited from the cash advances as she used the
after such account should be rendered. P1,000,000 to settle her existing deficiencies with the

Commission on Audit (COA). Petitioner pointed out appropriated by Resolution No. 18 of the Board of
that the COA, upon Abesamis' recommendation, also Trustees of said college namely, for the payment of the
filed a criminal complaint against Panganiban. losses and breakages of college instrument and
equipment incurred by students.
RULING: HELD:
YES. The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty as No crime committed if amounts received are applied
charged due to the concurrence of the following to a public use.
elements: To constitute the crime of illegal use of public funds,
there must be a diversion of the funds from the
1. petitioner was a public officer; purpose for which they had been originally
appropriated by law or ordinance (Revised Penal Code,
2. he was an officer accountable for public funds or Article 220).
property; In the case at bar the students' payments had not been
so appropriated, because the resolution of the college
3. he was required by law or regulation to render authorities that the amounts paid by the students
accounts to the COA or provincial auditor and should be later refunded nowhere implied that the
repayment was to be made precisely out of the moneys
4. he failed to render an account for the period of two received, and as the refund could be made out of any
months after such accounts should have been available funds of the College, there was no
rendered. appropriation for a particular purpose that was
violated by the accused.
According to the Sandiganbayan, in spite of the fact
that Panganiban alone benefited from the disallowed PARUNGAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,
cash advances, petitioner, as municipal mayor, was 197 SCRA 173, May 15, 1991
responsible and accountable for it.Moreover,
petitioner was liable to return the proceeds to the Considering that the evidence presented in the
Government in view of his failure to account for the malversation case is the same evidence that will be
cash advances. Therefore Hermes E. Frias Sr. is guilty presented in the event that a technical malversation
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 218 of charge is later filed, the Court deems it best to pass upon
the Revised Penal Code. the issue of whether or not petitioner is indeed guilty of
illegal use of public funds.
February 22, 2018 – Article 219 – FAILURE OF A
RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER ISSUE:
ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY Is Parungao guilty of Illegal use of public funds?
[NO CASE FOUND] FACTS:

OSCAR PARUNGAO, Municipal Treasurer of Porac, was
February 22, 2018 – Article 220 – ILLEGAL USE OF charged with malversation for appropriating and
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY converting to his own personal use and benefit the
SANTOALLA, Stephanie M. amount of P185,250.00.
Parungao entered a plea of not guilty. During the
PEOPLE VS MONTEMAYOR pretrial conference, he admitted that he received from
5 SCRA 929, AUGUST 30, 1962 the Ministry of Public Works and Highways the amount
of P185,250 known as the fund for construction,
ISSUE: rehabilitation, betterment and improvement (CRBI) for
WON there is a diversion of the funds from the the concreting of Barangay Jalung Road located in
purpose for which they had been originally Porac, Pampanga. In his defense, he accounted for the
appropriated by law or ordinance. P185,250 fund, and after hearing, the respondent
Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting the
FACTS: petitioner of the crime of malversation of public funds
Zosimo Montemayor then, and until now, President of but convicting him of the crime of illegal use of public
the Mindanao Agricultural College, a government funds.
institution established and existing under the But while the accused could be deemed to have fully
provisions of law, order the accused Ciriaco Ducusin to accounted for the amount in question, the fact sticks
use the students' property deposits for the purchase of out from the evidence that he allowed the use of part
supplies and materials needed by the college, and the of the funds for a purpose other than what it was
latter, then the property custodian of said college and intended. The said amount of P185,250.00 was
who had been keeping said fund under his specifically allotted for the concreting of the barangay
administration, by virtue of said instruction and order, Jalung road in Porac, Pampanga. Instead of applying it
spend and apply the amount of P1,911.64 out of said fully to that particular project, he gave P59,154.41 of it
fund for the purchase of 9991.8 gallons of gasoline, to the municipal mayor of Porac to pay the labor
965.1 gallons of crude oil and 131.5 gallons of SAE 30 payrolls of the different barangays of the municipality,
for the use of said college, thereby applying said resulting in the non-completion of the project. He
amount to a public use other than that for which it was

thereby violated the following provision of Article 220 leave benefits of employees of the Sulu State College
of the Revised Penal Code. was done with criminal intent rests upon the
prosecution.
HELD:
A comparison of the two articles reveals that their Appellant herein, who used the remainder of the forty
elements are entirely distinct and different from the thousand pesos (P40,000.00) released by the DBM for
other. In malversation of public funds, the offender salary differentials, for the payment of the terminal
misappropriates public funds for his own personal use leave benefits of other school teachers of the Sulu
or allows any other person to take such public funds State College, cannot be held guilty of technical
for the latter’s personal use. In technical malversation, malversation in the absence, as here, of any provision
the public officer applies public funds under his in RA 6688 specifically appropriating said amount for
administration not for his or another’s personal use, payment of salary differentials only. In fine, the third
but to a public use other than that for which the fund and fourth elements of the crime defined in Article 220
was appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical of the Revised Penal Code are lacking in this case.
malversation is, therefore, not included in nor does it Acquittal is thus in order.
necessarily include the crime of malversation of public
funds charged in the information. Since the acts
constituting the crime of technical malversation were YSIDORO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
not alleged in the information, and since technical GR 192330, November 14, 2012
malversation does not include, or is not included in the
crime of malversation of public funds, he cannot ISSUE:
resultantly be convicted of technical malversation. Whether or not he approved the diversion of the
The Court has unequivocably ruled that in the absence subject goods to a public purpose different from their
of law or ordinance appropriating the CRBI fund for the originally intended purpose
concreting of the Barangay Jalung Road, the petitioner
cannot be declared guilty of the crime of illegal use of FACTS:
public funds.—the use thereof for another public This case is about a municipal mayor charged with
purpose (there, for the payment of wages of laborers illegal diversion of food intended for those suffering
working on projects other than the Barangay Jalung from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of
Road) will not make Parungao guilty of violation of reconsideration projects affecting the homes of victims
Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. of calamities.
Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of rice
ABDULLA vs. PEOPLE and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she
G.R. NO. 150129, April 6, 2005 had already distributed food to the mother volunteers,
what remained could be given to the CSAP
ISSUE: beneficiaries.
Is there a presumption of criminal intent in illegal use Garcia and Polinio went to petitioner Arnold James M.
of funds or property cases? Ysidoro, the Leyte Municipal Mayor, to seek his
approval. After explaining the situation to him, Ysidoro
FACTS: approved the release and signed the withdrawal slip
Convicted by the Sandiganbayan of the crime of illegal for four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines worth
use of public funds, Abdulla is before the Court on P3,396.00 to CSAP.
petition for review under Rule 45. Appellant’s co- She also pointed out that the Supplemental Feeding
accused, Aguil and Darkis, were both acquitted. Only Implementation Guidelines for Local Government Units
appellant was found guilty and sentenced by the governed the distribution of SFP goods. Thus, Ysidoro
Sandiganbayan. Upon motion for reconsideration, the committed technical malversation when he approved
Sandiganbayan amended Abdulla’s sentence by the distribution of SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries.
deleting the temporary special disqualification The evidence shows that on November 8, 2000 the
imposed upon her. Still dissatisfied, appellant, now Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte enacted Resolution 00-
before this Court, persistently pleas innocence of the 133 appropriating the annual general fund for 2001.
crime charged. This appropriation was based on the executive budget
which allocated P100,000.00 for the SFP and
RULING: P113,957.64 for the Comprehensive and Integrated
No. The presumption of criminal intent will not Delivery of Social Services which covers the CSAP
automatically apply to all charges of technical housing projects.
malversation because disbursement of public funds for The Sandiganbayan held that Ysidoro applied public
public use is per se not an unlawful act. Here, appellant property to a pubic purpose other than that for which
cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act it has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
when she paid the obligation of the Sulu State College
to its employees in the form of terminal leave benefits RULING :
such employees were entitled to under existing civil The crime of technical malversation as penalized under
service laws. In the absence of any presumption of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code has three
unlawful intent, the burden of proving by competent elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public
evidence that appellant’s act of paying the terminal officer; b) that he applies public funds or property

under his administration to some public use; and c) ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or
that the public use for which such funds or property remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by
were applied is different from the purpose for which taxpayer Ancla.
they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. Along with his co-accused Jaime Ancla, Petitioner
The creation of the two items shows the Sanggunian’s Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with
intention to appropriate separate funds for SFP and the the crime of malversation of public funds or property
CSAP in the annual budget. under Article 217 in relation to Article 222 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Since the municipality bought the subject goods using
SFP funds, then those goods should be used for SFP’s HELD:
needs, observing the rules prescribed for identifying No. The Solicitor General contends that the BIR, in
the qualified beneficiaries of its feeding programs. The effecting constructive distraint over the truck allegedly
target clientele of the SFP according to its manual are: owned by Jaime Ancla, and in requiring the petitioner
1) the moderately and severely underweight pre- Alfredo Azarcon who was in possession thereof to sign
school children aged 36 months to 72 months; and 2) a pro forma receipt for it, effectively designated
the families of six members whose total monthly petitioner a depositary and, hence, citing U.S. vs.
income is P3,675.00 and below. Rastrollo, a public officer. This is based on the theory
that
Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines when he approved (t)he power to designate a private person who has
the distribution of the goods to those providing free actual possession of a distrained property as a
labor for the rebuilding of their own homes. This is depository of distrained property is necessarily implied
technical malversation. If Ysidoro could not legally in the BIRs power to place the property of a delinquent
distribute the construction materials appropriated for tax payer (sic) in distraint as provided for under
the CSAP housing beneficiaries to the SFP Sections 206, 207 and 208 (formerly Sections 303, 304
malnourished clients neither could he distribute the and 305) of the National Internal Revenue Code, (NIRC)
food intended for the latter to CSAP beneficiaries. x x x.
We disagree. The case of U.S. vs. Rastrollo is not
February 24, 2018 – Article 221 – FAILURE TO MAKE applicable to the case before us simply because the
DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY facts therein are not identical, similar or analogous to
those obtaining here. While the cited case involved a
[NO CASE FOUND] judicial deposit of the proceeds of the sale of attached
property in the hands of the debtor, the case at bench
February 24, 2018 – Article 222 – OFFICERS INCLUDED dealt with the BIRs administrative act of effecting
IN THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer
UNAS, Nor-Aiza R. Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which was
received by petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was
ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, clearly within the scope of that courts jurisdiction and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE C. judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and
BATAUSA give the depositary a character equivalent to that of a
G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997 public official. However, in the instant case, while the
BIR had authority to require petitioner Azarcon to sign
ISSUE: a receipt for the distrained truck, the NIRC did not
Whether or not Azarcon is considered a public officer grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer.
by reason of his designation by the BIR as a depositary
of distrained property. FLORENCIO B. CAMPOMANES v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
FACTS: G.R. No. 161950 December 19, 2006
Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an
earth-moving business, hauling "dirt and ore." His ISSUE:
services were contracted by the Paper Industries Whether or not Campomanes is guilty of failure to
Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP). Occasionally, render accounts as defined in Article 218 in relation to
he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ancla whose trucks were left at the former's premises.
From this set of circumstances arose the present FACTS:
controversy. It appears that on May 25, 1983, a Warrant Florencio B. Campomanes was the President of the
of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the Federation International Des Echecs (FIDE), a private
Main Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) international organization with offices at Lausanne,
addressed to the Regional Director (Jose Batausa) or Switzerland. The Philippine Sports Commission
his authorized representative of Revenue Region 10, submitted to FIDE a bid offer to host the 30th Chess
Butuan City commanding the latter to distraint the Olympiad of 1992 in Manila. The PSC’s bid offer was
goods, chattels or effects and other personal property accepted by FIDE. The PSC, also complying with its
of Jaime Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon obligations under the bid offer, remitted to FIDE –
and, a delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of received in FIDE’s behalf by its President, Florencio
Garnishment was issued to accused Alfredo Azarcon Campomanes – the total amount of P12,876,008.00 in

connection with the 30th World Chess Olympiad in the FIDE, are not obliged to render an accounting to
Manila. the COA if no law or contract requires them to do so.
The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit of
the PSC’s transactions from March 1990 up to June In the present case, the absence of the conditions
1992. During the audit, the COA team requested for the contained in Section 2(1)(d) of Article IX-D of the 1987
journal and checks and disbursements issued by the Constitution prevents the creation of an obligation on
PSC pertaining to the P12 million appropriated to the FIDE’s part to render an accounting to the PSC or
defray the organization, administration, and hosting of the COA. Consequently, Campomanes, as
the Chess Olympiad and Congress. The COA team representative of the FIDE which has no legal
noticed irregularities in the claims payable to the FIDE. obligation to render an accounting, cannot be liable
The irregularities consisted of the lack of under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.
acknowledgment receipts and of accounting
liquidation attached to the disbursement vouchers. February 26, 2018 – Article 223 – CONNIVING WITH
OR CONSENTING TO EVASION
HELD: VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.
No. Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. He is
the president of the FIDE, a private foreign corporation US vs. LEON BANDINO
with whom the PSC, through Hechanova, negotiated to G.R. No. L-9964 February 11, 1915
conduct the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress in
Manila. The Sandiganbayan acknowledged that ISSUE:
Campomanes is not a public officer and applied Article Whether or not Accused Leon Bandino was guilty of
222 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 218. 'connivance or consenting to evasion'?
The Sandiganbayan enumerated the elements of the
crime as applied to Campomanes thus: FACTS:
On December 4, 1912, the municipal president of
1. That the offender is [a] private individual. Antipolo, Province of Rizal, filed a written complaint in
2. That he has charge of any insular (now national), the justice of the peace court of the said pueblo,
provincial, or municipal funds, revenues, or property or charging Leon Bandino with the crime of faithlessness
[is an] administrator or depository of funds, property in the custody of prisoners committed with reckless
attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even negligence. Said Leon Bandino, accused, a municipal
if such property belongs to a private individual. policeman having under his care and guard one Juan
3. That he is required by law or regulation to render Lescano, who was serving a sentence in the municipal
accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a jail of the said pueblo, did, with great carelessness and
provincial auditor. unjustified negligence, grant him permission to go and
4. That he fails to do so for a period of two months buy some cigarettes near the place where he was held
after such accounts should be rendered. in custody. The prisoner, taking advantage of the
confusion in the crowd there, fled from the custody of
Campomanes admitted that he received funds from the accused.
the PSC, through Hechanova. The exhibits show
Campomanes’ signatures in the respective HELD:
disbursement vouchers issued by the PSC and FIDE’s Article 358 of the Penal Code prescribes that "any
letters to PSC acknowledging receipt of the funds. public officer guilty of connivance in the escape of a
Moreover, Campomanes has not rendered an prisoner in his custody shall be punished," etc. In the
accounting of the funds even after he received a letter existence and commission of the crime of faithlessness
dated 19 January 1994 from COA Chairman Pascasio S. in the custody of prisoners, it is essential that there
Banaria demanding that Campomanes refund or should have been, on the part of the custodian,
submit a detailed accounting to the COA covering the connivance in the escape of the prisoner. If the public
liquidation of the funds that the FIDE received. officer charged with guarding the fugitive did not
connive with him, then he did not violate the law and
The Sandiganbayan’s decision, however, failed to is not guilty of the crime of faithlessness in the
specify any law or regulation requiring Campomanes discharge of his duty to guard the prisoner.
to render accounts to the COA. It may perhaps be true that the accused had no
knowledge that the prisoner Lescano would escape,
The COA has the authority to demand an accounting and that he did not permit him to do so, but it is
from the FIDE if there is a law which requires the PSC unquestionable that he did permit him to go out of the
to ask the FIDE to render an accounting, or if the PSC municipal jail, thus affording him an opportunity to get
expressly required the FIDE to render an accounting as away with ease. Therefore the prisoner's escape was
a condition for funding the Chess Olympiad and effected through the tolerance of his custodian, and is
Congress. Absent such law or contractual obligation, deemed also to have been by connivance with the
the COA does not have the authority to audit the latter.
accounts of non-governmental entities receiving According to the rules established by the courts, there
subsidy or equity from the government, like the FIDE. is real and actual evasion of service of a sentence when
In the same manner, non-governmental entities the custodian, failing intentionally or maliciously to
receiving subsidy or equity from the government, like perform the duties of his office, and conniving with the

prisoners, permits him to obtain a relaxation of his ATTY MANZANARIS V PEOPLE

imprisonment and to escape the punishment of being G.R. NO. L-64750 JANUARY 30, 1984
deprived of his liberty, thus making the penalty
ineffectual, although the convict may not have fled, ISSUE:
and where the prisoner's leaving the jail and his WoN Sandiganbayan was right in finding accused
evasion of service of the sentence were effected with guilty even though the latter did not act in bad faith
the consent and tolerance of the custodian, or rather
in agreement and connivance with him. FACTS:
Even though the accused committed the crime of Atty Manzanaris as the Clerk of Court was found by the
faithlessness with carelessness, in violation of Sandiganbayan to be guilty of Violation of Art 226 of
regulations or with culpable negligence, the case RPC for giving the certificate of title to one accused in
should not be dismissed nor should the crime go the Court where he was working. Atty Manzanaris
unpunished. argued that he did it with a lawful and commendable
motive.
March 8, 2018 – Article 226 – REMOVAL,
CONCEALMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF RULING:
DOCUMENTS No. To warrant a finding of guilt of the crime of
ALILIAN, Enna B. infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of
removal as a mode of committing the offense, should
be coupled with criminal intent or illicit purpose. This
ZAPANTA V PEOPLE calls to mind the oft-repeated maxim "Actus non facit,
G.R. NOS. 192698-99 APRIL 22, 2015 nisi mens sit rea”.
ISSUE: February 28, 2018 – Article 231 – OPEN

WoN accused was guilty of violating Art 226 RPC DISOBEDIENCE
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B.
FACTS:
Accused, as employees of Registry of deeds, caused THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND
the disappearance and re-issuance of TCT NO. T- ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING
285369, and deleting the encumbrance annotated in PARTNER, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, vs. ATTY.
TCT No. T-256662, thereby affording unwarranted JOSEJINA C. FRIA
benefits to one First Oriental Ventures, Inc., the owner G.R. No. 183014 August 7, 2013
of TCT No. T-285369, to the damage and prejudice of
Manuel Ang, Sr., the mortgagee in TCT No. 256662. ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Fria is guilty of acts violating
RULING: article 231 Open Disobedience of the RPC.
Yes. An accused may be held criminally liable of
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents under Article FACTS:
226 of the RPC, provided that the following elements Atty. Josejina C. Fria (Atty. Fria), Branch Clerk of Court
are present: of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, was charged
1. The offender must be a public officer for the crime of Open Disobedience under Article 231
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
2. There must be a document abstracted, destroyed or The Law Firm was engaged as counsel by the plaintiff
concealed in Civil Case No. 03-110 instituted before Branch 203.
On July 29, 2005, judgment was rendered in favor of
3. Such documents are entrusted to the public officer the plaintiff (July 29, 2005 judgment), prompting the
by reason of his office defendant in the same case to appeal. However, Branch
203 disallowed the appeal and consequently ordered
4. There was a damage to public interest or a third that a writ of execution be issued to enforce the
person foregoing judgment. Due to the denial of the
Said elements are present in the case at bar. defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the July 29,
2005 judgment became final and executory.
The act of the said public officers of the Registry of In its Complaint-Affidavit dated February 12, 2006, The
deeds caused damage to Dr. Ang and eroded public Law Firm alleged that as early as April 4, 2006, it had
trust and confidence in the Register of Deeds. been following up on the issuance of a writ of
execution to implement the July 29, 2005 judgment.
Further, citing the case of Kataniag v. People,25 the However, Atty. Fria vehemently refused to perform her
Sandiganbayan wrote that damage under Art. 226 of ministerial duty of issuing said writ.
the RPC may also consist in mere alarm to the public In her Counter-Affidavit dated June 13, 2006, Atty. Fria
or in the alienation of its confidence in any government posited that the draft writ of execution (draft writ) was
agency. The Sandiganbayan added that Atty. Gadia's not addressed to her but to Branch Sheriff Jaime
act of concealing TCT No. T-256662 constituted a Felicen (Felicen), who was then on leave. Neither did
breach of trust in the official care of the said certificate she know who the presiding judge would appoint as
of title. special sheriff on Felicen’s behalf. Nevertheless, she

maintained that she need not sign the draft writ since should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the
on April 18, 2006, the presiding judge issued an Order parties to proceed to trial. In doubtful cases, however,
stating that he himself shall sign and issue the same. the appropriate course of action would be to order the
On July 31, 2006, the prosecutor issued a presentation of additional evidence.
Memorandum recommending, inter alia, that Atty. Fria Applying these principles to the case at bar would lead
be indicted for the crime of Open Disobedience. The to the conclusion that the MTC did not gravely abuse
corresponding Information was thereafter filed before its discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 46400 for
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch lack of probable cause. The dismissal ought to be
80 (MTC. sustained since the records clearly disclose the
The MTC ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. unmistakable absence of the integral elements of the
46400 for lack of probable cause. It found that aside crime of Open Disobedience. While the first element,
from the fact that Atty. Fria is a judicial officer, The Law i.e., that the offender is a judicial or executive officer,
Firm failed to prove the existence of the other elements concurs in view of Atty. Fria’s position as Branch Clerk
of the crime of Open Disobedience. In particular, the of Court, the second and third elements of the crime
second element of the crime, i.e., that there is a evidently remain wanting.
judgment, decision, or order of a superior authority
made within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued
with all legal formalities, unlikely existed since the March 2, 2018 – Article 234 – REFUSAL TO
Court already declared as null and void the entire DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-110 due to lack of
jurisdiction. In this regard, the MTC opined that such [NO CASE FOUND]
nullification worked retroactively to warrant the
dismissal of the case and/or acquittal of the accused at March 4, 2018 – Article 238 – ABANDONMENT OF
any stage of the proceedings. OFFICE OR POSITION
ALAMEDA, Manuel
HELD:
No. The criminal case is dismissed for lack of probable SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES v CA
cause. GR No. 118883 January 16, 1998
Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, a trial court judge may immediately dismiss ISSUE
a criminal case if the evidence on record clearly fails to 1. Whether Antonio’s resignation was complete.
establish probable cause, viz: 2. W/N respondent abandoned his membership in the
Sec. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the SB.
Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the
filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall FACTS:
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor Antonio, priate respondent, was elected barangay
and its supporting evidence. He may immediately captain of Sapang Palay Catanduanes on March 1989.
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails He was later elected president of the Association of
to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, Barangay Council(ABC) for the Municiplity of San
he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment Andres Catanduanes. Pursuant to the Local
order if the accused has already been arrested Government Code of 1983, he was appointed by the
pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who President as Member of the Sanguniang Bayan of the
conducted preliminary investigation or when the sid municipality. Meanwhile, DILG Sec. declared the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section election for the president of the Federation of the
6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of Association of Barangay Council(FABC) void for lack of
probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to quorum. As a result, the provincial council was
present additional evidence within five (5) days from reorganized. DILG Sec then designated private
notice and the issue must be resolved by the court respondent as a temporary member of the Sanguniang
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint Panlalawigan of Catanduanes effective on 15 June
of information. 1990. Because of his designation, private respondent
It must, however, be observed that the judge’s power tendered his resignation as a member of the
to immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be Sanguniang Bayan dated 14 June 1990 to the Mayor of
warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear. San Andres Catanduanes. Copies of his letters were
In this regard, so as not to transgress the public also forwarded to the provincial governor, DILG and
prosecutor’s authority, it must be stressed that the the municipal treasurer. Subsequently, Aquino then the
judge’s dismissal of a case must be done only in clear- Vice President of ABC was appointed by the provincial
cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to governor as member of the Sanguniang Bayan in place
establish probable cause – that is when the records of private respondent. Aquino assumed office on 18
readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established July 1980 after taking his oath. Subsequently, the ruling
facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the of the DILG annulling the election of the FABC
elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if the president was reversed by the Supreme Court and
evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, declared the appointment of private respondent void
the crime charged has been committed and that for lacking the essential qualification of being the
respondent is probably guilty of the same, the judge president of FABC. On 31 March 1992, private

respondent wrote to the Sanguniang Bayan(SB) of San FACTS:

Andres regarding his re-assumption of his original The controversy originated from the indefinite sick
position. SB refused. leave that the incumbent Governor of Nueva Ecija,
Eduardo L. Joson, had to take on December 7, 1989,
HELD thus creating a temporary vacancy in his Office. As Vice
The resignation was not complete for lack of Governor, Nario took over as Acting Governor
acceptance thereof of the proper authority however, an pursuant to the Local Government Code l. 1 But as fate
office may still be deemed relinquished through would have it, Nario himself fell ill shortly afterwards,
voluntary abandonment which needs no acceptance. In and so executed a "waiver" of his "right" to the office
Ortiz vs Comelec, resignation is defined as the “act of of Governor. Joson forthwith took his oath as Acting
giving up of an ifficer by which he declines his office Governor, on December 19, 1989. Four (4) days later,
andrenounces the further right to use it”. It can be apparently feeling that his illness had worsened, Nario
express or implied. To constitute a complete and sent a letter to the Secretary of local Governments
operative resignation the folloving must be present. (1) tendering his resignation as Vice- Governor of Nueva
an intention to relinquish a part of the term; (b) an act Ecija
of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the proper
authority. In the case at bar, there was no evidence that RULING:
the private respondent’s resignation was accepted by The decided weight of authority is that "apart from
the proper authority. Although the Local Government legal provision, . . . mere presentation of resignation
Code of 1983 was silent as to who specifically should does not work a vacancy, and a resignation is not
accept the resignation it provides that the position complete until accepted by proper authority;" Clearly,
shall be deemed vacated only upon acceptance of a public officer cannot abandon his office or position
resignation and should be acted upon by the before his resignation is accepted, but the incumbent
Sangunian concerned. The resignation letter was official would not be in a position to determine the
tendered to the mayor and copies were sent to the acceptance of his resignation unless he has been duly
governor, DILG and the municipal treasurer but none notified therefor. This is not to say that a public officer
of them expressly acted on it. Furthermore, under may not resign. Mechem says that he "'may certainly
established jurisprudence, resignations, in the absence resign, but without acceptance his resignation is
of statutory provisions as to whom it should be nothing, and he remains in office.' He is, therefore, so
submitted, should be submitted to the appointing far as the rights of third persons are concerned, not
power. Therefore, the resignation should have been only still clothed with authority, but is subject to the
submitted to the president or to the DILG as the burdens of the office, and he may be compelled to
president’s alter ego. Tackling the second issue, perform the duties, and is liable for their non-
abandonment has been defined as the voluntary performance, as before. In our jurisprudence," this
relinquishment of an office by the holder, with the Court has held, "acceptance is necessary for
intention of terminating his possession and contro resignation of a public officer to be operative and
thereof. It is a species of resignation. While resignation effective, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal
is the formal relinquishment, abandonment is the provisions of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code
voluntary relinquishment by non-user. There are 2
essential elements of abandonment : (1) an intention REPUBLIC vs. WINSTON T. SINGUN
to abandon and (2) an overt act by which intention is G.R. No. 149356 March 14, 2008
carried on. In the case at bar, the first element was
manifested on the following instances: (1) private ISSUE:
respondent’s failure to perform his function as SB; (2) WON Singuin is considered as resigned in his post.
his failure to collect the corresponding renumeration
for the position, (3)his failure to object to the FACTS:
appointment of Aquino as his replacement to SB and Singuin was the former Chief Trade and Industry
(4) his prolonged failure to initiate any act to reassume Development Specialist of DTI-RO2, Cagayan Province.
his post in the SB after SC had nullified his designation In a letter dated 20 October 1999, he wrote Regional
as member of Sanguniang Panlalawigan. The second Director Hipolito signifying his intention to apply for an
element was demonstrated by the following: (1) his 8 month leave of absence starting 16 November 1999
letter of resignation, (2) his assumption of office as until 31 July 2000 and to retire from the service on 1
member of the Sanguniang Panlalawigan, (3) his August 2000. On 4 November 1999, respondent filed
faithful discharge of his duties and functions of SP and his application for leave of absence and early
(4) his recept of renumeration for such post. retirement. Director Hipolito denied the request.
Director Hipolito endorsed the application to Assistant
JOSON III VS SANTOS Secretary Maglaya for comment. But without waiting
G.R. NO. 91548 JULY 13, 1990 for Assistant Secretary Maglaya’s comment, he again
filed an application for leave of absence but for a
ISSUE: shorter period (16 November 1999 to 14 January 2000)
Whether or not the office of Vice-Governor of Nueva and signified his intention to resign effective at the
Ecija was rendered vacant by the voluntary resignation. close of office hours on 14 January 2000.
According to Director Hipolito, he immediately
approved respondents application for leave of absence

and resignation and he reiterated said approval in a respondent was duly informed of the acceptance of his
memorandum dated the same day. Director Hipolito resignation. There was no indication that respondent
also notified Regional Director Soria of the CSC of his received a copy of his 12 November 1999 application
acceptance of respondents resignation. for leave of absence and resignation as accepted by
Undersecretary Ordoez detailed respondent to the Director Hipolito. Neither was there any indication that
Office of the Undersecretary for Regional Operations respondent received Director Hipolitos 12 November
effective 17 January 2000. 1999 Memorandum informing him of the acceptance
On January 14, 2000, respondent informed Director of his resignation. Therefore, we affirm the ruling of the
Hipolito that he was reconsidering his earlier letter of Court of Appeals that respondents resignation was
resignation and that he decided to wait until he could incomplete and inoperative because respondent was
qualify for early retirement. not notified of the acceptance of his resignation.
But according to Atty. Soria, respondent was Until the resignation is accepted, the tender or offer to
considered resigned effective 14 January 2000 because resign is revocable.[36] And the resignation is not
(1) of respondents voluntary written notice informing effective where it was withdrawn before it was
Director Hipolito that he was relinquishing his position accepted.[37]
and the effectivity date of said resignation and (2) In this case, since respondents resignation was not
Director Hipolitos acceptance of respondents finally and conclusively accepted as he was not duly
resignation in writing which indicated the date of notified of its acceptance, respondent could validly
effectivityof the resignation. His letter withdrawing his withdraw his resignation. There was no need for
resignation did not automatically restore him to his Director Hipolito to accept the withdrawal of
position because Director Hipolito should first approve resignation since there was no valid acceptance of the
the withdrawal before it becomes effective. application of resignation in the first place.
Singuin informed Undersecretary Ordoez that his Undersecretary Ordoez also validly issued the detail
application for resignation was made under duress order as respondent had not effectively resigned from
because it was imposed by Director Hipolito as a DTI-RO2.
condition for the approval of his application for leave
of absence. His original intention was to resign on 1 March 4, 2018 – Article 240 – USURPATION OF
August 2000 after completing 15 years of service in the EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
government it was also ineffective because he was not ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
notified of its acceptance for he did not receive a copy
of his approved resignation letter and Director PEOPLE VS HILVANO
Hipolitos memorandum accepting his application for GR NO. L-8583, JUL 31, 1956
resignation. PONENTE: JUSTICE BENGZON
Singuin demanded from Director Hipolito the payment
of his salaries and other benefits from 1 December ISSUE:
1999 to 31 March 2000. Whether or not defendant Francisco Hilvano, can be
Director Hipolito answered that he was considered charged of usurpation of executive functions.
resigned as of 14 January 2000 because the detail
order made no mention that its issuance meant that FACTS:
the acceptance of the resignation was revoked. On September 22, 1952, When Mayor Fidencio Latorre
of Villareal, Samar, departed for Manila on official
HELD: business, designated the herein defendant Francisco
To constitute a complete and operative resignation Hilvano, councilor, to discharge the duties of his office.
from public office, there must be: (a) an intention to Later, Vice-Mayor Juan Latorre found Hilvano acting in
relinquish a part of the term; (b) an act of the place of the Mayor; he served written notices to the
relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the proper corresponding municipal officers, including Hilvano,
authority.[29] that he (Juan Latorre) as Vice-Mayor was assuming the
In our jurisdiction, acceptance is necessary for duties of the absent mayor. However, Hilvano refused
resignation of a public officer to be operative and to yield, arguing that the Mayor had designated him.
effective. Without acceptance, resignation is nothing Whereupon the Vice-Mayor sent a telegram to the
and the officer remains in office.[30] Resignation to be Executive Secretary informing the latter of the
effective must be accepted by competent authority, controversy. Also, sought the opinion of the Provincial
either in terms or by something tantamount to an Fiscal, who by letter (Exhibit D), replied that the Vice-
acceptance, such as the appointment of the Mayor had the right to the office. Wherefore Francisco
successor.[31] A public officer cannot abandon his Hilvano was prosecuted and after trial was convicted of
office before his resignation is accepted, otherwise the usurpation of public authority under Republic Act No.
officer is subject to the penal provisions of Article 10. He appealed in due time.
238[32] of the Revised Penal Code.[33] The final or
conclusive act of a resignations acceptance is the HELD:
notice of acceptance.[34] The incumbent official would Article 240 of the Revised Penal Code to read as
not be in a position to determine the acceptance of his follows:
resignation unless he had been duly notified therefor. “Usurpation of executive functions. — Any judge who
In this case, the Court of Appeals and the CSC declared shall assume any power pertaining to the executive
that there was nothing in the records to show that authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful

exercise of their powers, shall suffer the penalty of thereafter stubbornly to stick to the position. He was
arresto mayor in its medium period to prision rightfully convicted.
correccional in its minimum period.”
Thus, a councilor who assumes a power pertaining to
the mayor or obstructs him in the lawful exercise of his JOSE REYES y VACIO, vs.
power is not liable under Article 240, because only a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
judge can commit usurpation of executive functions. G.R. Nos. 177105-06 August 12, 2010
The councilor is liable under Article 177 of the Code, if
he assumes the power of the mayor. ISSUE:
Whether or not Reyes is guilty of usurping the judicial
March 5 2018 – Article 241 – USURPATION OF functions as provided by Art. 241.
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L. FACTS:
On February 20, 1986, the IAC promulgated its decision
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883, granting Belen’s appeal:
HILVANO declaring as null and void and without any effect
G.R. No. L-8583 JULY 31, 1956 whatsoever the deed of sale executed by and between
appellant Belen Lopez vda. De Guia and defendant
ISSUE: Carlos de Guia.
Whether or not Francisco Hilvano is guilty of
usurpation. On November 8, 1988, Belen, through her daughter
and attorney-in-fact, Melba G. Valenzuela (Melba),
FACTS: filed in the Department of Agrarian Reform
On September 22, 1952, When Mayor Fidencio Latorre Adjudication Board (DARAB) a complaint for ejectment
of Villareal, Samar, departed for Manila on official and collection of rents against the tenants, entitled
business, designated the herein defendant Francisco Belen Lopez Vda. De Guia thru her Attorney-in-Fact,
Hilvano, councilor, to discharge the duties of his office. Melba G. Valenzuela vs. Paulino Sacdalan, Romeo
Later, Vice-Mayor Juan Latorre found Hilvano acting in Garcia, Numeriano Bautista, Leonardo Sacdalan and
the place of the Mayor; he served written notices to the Santiago Sacdalan and docketed as DARAB Case No.
corresponding municipal officers, including Hilvano, 034-BUL’88.
that he (Juan Latorre) as Vice-Mayor was assuming the
duties of the absent mayor. On March 16, 1993, the JOSE REYES, as Provincial
However, Hilvano refused to yield, arguing that the Adjudicator, rendered a decision in DARAB Case No.
Mayor had designated him. Whereupon the Vice- 034-BUL’88 entitled Belen Lopez vda. De Guia thru her
Mayor sent a telegram to the Executive Secretary Attorney-in-Fact, Melba G. Valenzuela v. Paulino
informing the latter of the controversy. Also, sought Sacdalan, Romeo Garcia, Numeriano Bautista,
the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal, who by letter Leonardo Sacdalan and Santiago Sacdalan,11
(Exhibit D), replied that the Vice-Mayor had the right to dismissing Belen’s complaint for ejectment and
the office. Wherefore Francisco Hilvano was collection of rents and affirming the respective TCTs of
prosecuted and after trial was convicted of usurpation the tenants.
of public authority under Republic Act No. 10. He
appealed in due time. On May 13, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman filed
Hilvano contented that Articles 238-241 of the Revised two informations in the Sandiganbayan, one charging
Penal Code penalize all kinds of usurpation of official the petitioner with a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA
functions by public officers. 3019, and the other with usurpation of judicial
functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD: Criminal Case No. 24656
Yes. But in violation of Article 177 not Article 238 to That on or about 16 March 1993, or immediately prior
241. or subsequent thereto, in Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines,
Hilvano’s contention is untenable. above-named accused Jose V. Reyes, a public officer
Said articles (Article 238-241) merely punish being then employed as Provincial Adjudicator of the
interference by officers of one of the three Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
departments of government (legislative, executive and (DARAB) in Malolos, Bulacan, while in the performance
judicial) with the functions of officials of another of his official function as such and taking advantage
department Said articles (Articles 238-241) do not thereof, with full knowledge of a Decision in AC-GR CV-
cover usurpation of one officer or employee of a given 02883 of the Court of Appeals, which declared Belen
department of the powers of another officer in the de Guia as the true owner of the lands litigated in said
same department. For instance, the exercise by a case, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
bureau employee of the powers of his director. feloniously disregard, obstruct and ignore the said final
There is no excuse for Defendant-Appellant. In the and executory decision of the Court of Appeals, by
beginning he might have pleaded good faith, invoking rendering a decision in DARAB Case No. 034-Bul-88
the designation by the Mayor; but after he had been thereby favoring and emboldening the tenants-
shown the letter of the Executive Secretary and the respondents in said DARAB case to unlawfully continue
opinion of the provincial fiscal, he had no right occupying the lands of Belen de Guia, the complainant,

to her damage and prejudice, as well as to the public Governor-General with the consent of the Philippine
interest. Senate to serve until they reach the age of 65 years.
Arraigned on August 8, 2000, the petitioner, assisted
by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to each HELD:
information. No, it was not.
After trial, on January 15, 2007, the Sandiganbayan Under the Administrative Code, ”a Judge of First
rendered its assailed decision,22 finding the petitioner Instance can be removed from office by the Governor-
guilty of both charges; and sentencing him to suffer: General only if in the judgment of the Supreme Court
(a) in Criminal Case No. 24655 (for violation of Section sufficient cause shall exist involving serious misconduct
3 (e) of RA 3019), an indeterminate sentence of or inefficiency in office..”
imprisonment from six years and one month, as Relatedly, Art. 243 of the Revised Penal Code states
minimum, to 10 years as maximum, with perpetual that “Orders or request by executive officers to any
disqualification from holding public office; and (b) in judicial authority. – Any executive officer who shall
Criminal Case No. 24656 (for usurpation of judicial address any order or suggestion to any judicial
functions under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code), authority with respect to any case or business coming
imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor. within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice
The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner’s motion for shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
reconsideration on March 15, 2007. exceeding 500 pesos.”
On appeal, the petitioner insists that his rendition of It was noted that although the appointment of a judge
the decision did not amount to the felony of lies with the Executive Department (by the Governor-
usurpation of judicial functions. General with the consent of the Senate), the power to
remove, transfer or discipline the judges lies with the
HELD: Judiciary. The power of the Executive ceases upon the
NO. Reyes did not commit any usurpation. Hence, not consent of the judge to the position, to allow such
guilty. action by the Executive could be used to discipline the
Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code states: judge or as an indirect means of removal thus would
xxx The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period violate the separation of powers between a coordinate
to prision correcional in its minimum period shall be and equal branch of the government.
imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of
the government who shall assume judicial powers or March 7, 2018 – Article 245 – ABUSES AGAINST
shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision CHASTITY
rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J
In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is
not a judge, attempts to perform an act the authority G.R. NO. L-9768 FEBRUARY 20, 1915
for which the law has vested only in a judge.44 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
However, the petitioner’s task as Provincial Adjudicator VS.
when he rendered judgment in DARAB Case No. 034 EULALIO MORELOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
BUL’88 was to adjudicate the claims of the opposing
parties. As such, he performed a quasi-judicial function, ISSUE:
closely akin to the function of a judge of a court of law. Whether or not proof of solicitation is necessary when
He could not be held liable under Article 241 of the the illicit relations were consummated.
Revised Penal Code, therefore, considering that the
acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were FACTS:
lacking herein. The appellant, as acting warden, was in charge of the
prisoners in the Tondo police station. Among them was
March 6, 2018 – Article 243 – ORDERS OR REQUEST a woman named Tomasa Clemente. On the night of
BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL 18th of September 1913, he entered the cell of the
AUTHORITY woman and had illicit relations with her.
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. The appellant argues that the proof fails to show that
he solicited a woman in his custody. It was proven,
BORRROMEO V. MARIANO however, that his illicit relations were consummated.
G.R. NO. 16808 JANUARY 3, 1921
ISSUE: HELD:
WON the transfer of Judge Borromeo by the Governor- No. It would be a strange interpretation to place upon
General was valid. said law, that a failure in the proof to show a
"solicitation" was sufficient to relieve the defendant
FACTS: from responsibility, when the act solicited was
Andres Borromeo was appointed as judge of the 24th consummated.
Judicial District (JD) on July 1, 1914. Said appointment
was accepted by Borromeo on the same date. On
February 25, 1920, he was transferred to the 21st JD G.R. No. L-28144 August 26, 1927
without his consent. Under the Administrative Code, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Judges of First Instance are appointed by the plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
VICENTE MARIANO, defendants-appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of abuse against chastity is
included in those cases in which criminal liability is
extinguished by the marriage of the accused with the
offended party.
FACTS:
The accused was charged with the crime of abuse
against chastity, and after trial the Court of First
Instance of Manila convicted him of said crime,
sentencing him to three years, six months and twenty-
one days prision correccional with the accessories of
the law and the costs of the action.
The accused appealed to this court from said
judgment. On August 3, 1927, he filed a motion
praying for the dismissal of the case as he had married
the offended party, according to the marriage
certificate attached to said motion.
HELD:
Yes. The intention of our Legistature in enacting said
Act No. 1773 was that the married of the accused or
convict with the offended party should extinguish the
criminal liability in the cases of seduction, abduction
and rape and those involving offenses included in said
crimes, such as frustrated or attempted seduction,
abduction or rape. This is clear and logical. If the
liability for a crime is extinguished in the graver cases,
it must be extinguished, and for a stronger reason, in
the lesser crimes.
Now then, if the crime of abuse against chastity is not
denominated rape, it is only for lack of the intention to
lie, both crimes being identical in every other respect,
though of different degrees of gravity. For this reason,
in regard to the kind of crimes for which the Legislature
wished to provide extinction liability by reason of
marriage, abuse against chastity cannot but be held
included to the crime of rape without misinterpreting
the intention of the law, or thwarting its lofty and
wholesome purposes.
We therefore conclude that the crime of abuse against
chastity is included in the crime of rape mentioned in
section 2 of Act No. 1773 and, consequently, to
marriage of the accused with the offended party in the
present case has extinguished his criminal liability.

TITLE EIGHT – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS saw a bloodied Auria on one side of the room. Next to
her was Manuel, who was trying to stab himself with
March 8, 2018 – Article 246 – PARRICIDE the use of an improvised weapon. Auria was
DELFIN, JENNICA GYRL G. immediately taken to the hospital but was pronounced
dead on arrival. On the other hand, Manuel, managed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PILUS SUBANO to escape before the police could reach the crime
GR. NO L-48143, SEPTEMBER 30, 1942 scene. In his defense, Manuel claimed that he did
stabbed his wife but it was not intentional. He only did
ISSUE: that out of anger because he saw his wife conversing
Whether or not Pilus Subano is guilty of parricide. with a man inside their bedroom. The Regional Trial
Court convicted Manuel of the crime of Parricide and
FACTS: held that they were not convinced that the stabbing
Pilus Subano had a quarrel with his wife, Bankalot, incident was purely accidental. On appeal, the Court of
when the latter refused to work in their kaingin. Their Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
quarrel resumed the following day when Bankalot
refused to accompany Pilus to Macasin River to catch HELD:
fish. Bankalot’s father, Ebol and father of Pilus’ other 1. No. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is
wife, Biwang, noticed that he went home alone that day killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
and that there were bloodstains on his bolo and on its deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
scabbard. Pilus explained that the bloodstains were legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
from the fish he had just cut. Ebol asked Pilus where his ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate
daughter was but the latter disclaimed any knowledge spouse of the accused. Among the three requisites, the
of her. Four days later, Bankalot’s body was found in relationship between the offender and the victim is the
the middle of Macasin River. The incident was reported most crucial. This relationship is what actually
to Lieutenant Olivares to whom the case was reported. distinguishes the crime of parricide from homicide. In
During trial, Pilus denied killing his wife. parricide involving spouses, the best proof of the
relationship between the offender and victim is their
HELD: marriage certificate. Oral evidence may also be
No. The facts duly established that Pilus is the author considered in proving the relationship between the
of the crime but what he committed was homicide and two as long as such proof is not contested. In this case,
not parricide. From the testimony of Ebol, father of the the spousal relationship between Auria and the
deceased, it appears that the defendant has three accused-appellant is beyond dispute. As previously
wives and that the deceased was the last in point of stated, the defense already admitted that Auria was the
time. Although the practice of polygamy is approved legitimate wife of the accused-appellant during the
by custom among these non-Christians, polygamy, pre-trial conference. Such admission was even
however, is not sactioned by the Marriage Law which reiterated by the accused-appellant in the course of
merely recognizes tribal marriage rituals. The trial of the case. Nevertheless, the prosecution
deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful wife of produced a copy of the couple's marriage certificate
the defendant and this precludes conviction for the which the defense admitted to be a genuine and
crime of parricide. faithful reproduction of the original.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MANUEL MACAL 2. Yes. Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code provides
Y BOLASCO that the imposable penalty for parricide is reclusion
G.R. NO. 211062, JANUARY 13, 2016 perpetua to death. With the enactment of Republic Act
No. 9346 (RA 9346), the imposition of the penalty of
ISSUE/S: death is prohibited. Likewise significant is the provision
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding found in Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code stating
the accused guilty of the crime of parricide. that in the absence of mitigating and aggravating
2. Whether or not the proper penalty is reclusion circumstances in the commission of the crime, the
perpetua. lesser penalty shall be imposed. Applying these to the
case at bar and considering that there are no
FACTS: mitigating and aggravating circumstances present, the
Manuel and Auria Macal are married and begot 2 penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed by
children. Auria’s mother, Angeles, claimed that they the RTC and CA.
were all living together in Tacloban. Angeles testified March 9, 2018 – Article 247 – DEATH OR PHYSICAL
that she was walking home with her children, including INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
Auria after playing bingo at a local peryahan. Along the CIRCUMSTANCES
way, with some of their friends, their group met Manuel DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
who joined them in walking back in their house. When
they arrived, the group proceeded to the living room PEOPLE VS BITUANAN
except for Auria and Manuel who went straight to their G.R. No. 34510 August 31, 1931
bedroom. Shortly thereafter, Angeles heard her
daughter screaming for help. They immediately tried ISSUE:
opening the locked door. When it was opened, they

Whether or not the accused is entitled to the privilege

under Art 423 of of the Penal Code (source of Art . 247 The accused contends that he was entitled to the
of the RPC) privilege afforded by article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code.
FACTS:
Moro Bituanan and Mora Sabay were married by Datu HELD:
Alon according to Moro customs and usages. The accused cannot avail himself of the aforesaid
According to the same customs and usages, the Datu article, because the privilege there granted is
divorced the couple. Twenty days afterwards, Bituanan conditioned on the requirement that the spouse
caught Sabay and Ali Sabpa sleeping on the same bed. surprise the husband or the wife in the act of
Thereupon, Bituanan attacked Ali Sabpa and Sabay, committing sexual intercourse with another person;
killing the former and wounding the latter. the accused did not surprise his wife in the very act or
carnal intercourse, but after the act, if any such there
In the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Judge was, because from the fact that she was rising up and
Natividad found Bituanan guilty of the crime of the man was buttoning his drawers, it does not
murder. It is the sole contention of counsel for the necessarily follow that a man and a woman had
accused, on appeal, that the decision of the lower court committed the carnal act.
should be modified by applying article 423 of the Penal
Code to the admitted facts. Said article provides that PEOPLE VS ABARCA
"Any husband who, having surprised his wife in the act G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987
of adultery, shall kill her or her paramour in the act, or
shall inflict any serious physical injuries upon either, ISSUE:
shall suffer the penalty of destierro." Whether or not Abarca is entitled to the provisions of
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code
HELD:
The marriage of Bituanan and Sabay, performed FACTS:
according to the rites of the Mohammedan religion, One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a
was valid. Granting, without necessarily having to peephole, caught his wife having sexual intercourse
decide, that Bituanan and Sabay were, accordingly, not with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside the Abarca
legally divorced, it only need be said that there is no residence. The two also caught Abarca looking at them
evidence in the record showing that Bituanan surprised and so Koh grabbed his pistol and thereafter Abarca
Sabay and Ali Sabpa in the act of adultery when he fled. One hour later, Abarca, armed with an armalite,
killed the latter. The privilege given in article 423 of the went to the gambling place where Koh usually stays
Penal Code extends solely to the case of a husband and then and there shot Koh multiple times. Koh died
who surprises his wife in the act of actual adultery, that instantaneously. However, two more persons were shot
is, actual carnal knowledge with her paramour. The in the adjacent room. These two other persons survived
article does not apply to a husband who catches his due to timely medical intervention.
wife sleeping with another man on the same bed.
Eventually after trial, Abarca was convicted of the
PEOPLE VS GONZALES complex crime of murder with frustrated double
G.R. No. 46310 October 31, 1939 murder.
ISSUE: HELD:
Whether or not Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code Yes. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 247
is applicable in this case of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Any legally married person who, having surprised his
FACTS: spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
Marciano Gonzales , on returning to his house from the another person, shall kill any of them or both of them
woods, surprised his wife, Sixta Quilason, and Isabelo in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict
Evangelio in the act, told her that the man was the very upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the
one who used to ask rice and food from them, and penalty of destierro.
counseled her not to repeat the same faithlessness. His Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that
wife, promised him not to do the act again. The a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act
accused left the house and went to see his carabaos. of committing sexual intercourse with another person;
Upon returning to his house in the afternoon, and not and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the
finding his wife there, he looked for her and found her act or immediately thereafter. These elements are
with Isabelo near the toilet of his house in a place present in this case.
covered with underbush, who was standing and
buttoning his drawers, immediately took to his heels. Even though one hour had already lapsed from the
The accused went after him, but unable to overtake time Abarca caught his wife with Koh and the time he
him, he returned to where his wife was and, completely killed Koh, the killing was still the direct by-product of
obfuscated, attacked her with a knife without intending Abarca’s rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable for the
to kill her. Thereafter, he took pity on her and took her death of Koh.
dead body to his house. However, Abarca is still liable for the injuries he caused

to the two other persons he shot in the adjacent room (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act
but his liability shall not be for frustrated murder. In the or immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not
first place, Abarca has no intent to kill the other two promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or
persons injured. He was not also committing a crime daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the
when he was firing his gun at Koh – it being under Art. infidelity of the other spouse.
247. Abarca was however negligent because he did not The Court found the accused to have acted within the
exercise all precaution to make sure no one else will be circumstances contemplated in Article 247 of the
hurt. As such, he shall be liable for less serious physical Revised Penal Code. Admittedly, accused-appellant
injuries through simple negligence for the injuries surprised his wife and her lover in the act of sexual
suffered by the two other persons who were in the intercourse.
adjacent room when the incident happened. To the mind of the court, what actually happened was
that accused chanced upon Jesus at the place of his
PEOPLE VS OYANIB wife. He saw his wife and Jesus in the act of having
G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 sexual intercourse. Blinded by jealousy and outrage,
accused stabbed Jesus who fought off and kicked the
ISSUE: accused. He vented his anger on his wife when she
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the privilege reacted, not in defense of him, but in support of Jesus.
under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code Hence, he stabbed his wife as well several times.
Accused Manolito Oyanib y Mendoza surrendered to
FACTS: the police when a call for him to surrender was made.
Manolito and Tita were married and had two children.
Due to marital differences, they separated with March 9, 2018 – Article 248 – MURDER
Manolito keeping custody of their children. Tita lived DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
nearby, renting a room at the second floor of Edgardo
Lladas' house. Manolito exerted efforts towards G.R. No. L-4116 February 25, 1982
reconciliation for the sake of their children, but to no PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EPIFANIO O.
avail. Tita was very reluctant to reconcile instead, she VALERIO, JR., and DOMINGO ELEPAÑO
was open about her relationship with other men and
would flaunt it in front of Manolito. One instance, FACTS:
Manolito chanced upon Tita and Jesus in a very The case revolves around a plot of murder of an eight-
intimate situation by a hanging bridge. He confronted year old boy for insurance. The persistence in the
them and reminded Tita that she was still his wife. They criminal design was evident from the fact that when the
ignored him and threatened to kill him. On September insured eight-year-old waif disappeared, another
4, 1995, Manolito went to the house where Tita was hapless substitute, whose name is unknown to this day,
staying to inform the latter of the meeting at the school was taken... to replace the first intended victim.
about the failing grades of their child. Upon reaching Sometime in August 1972, Amador Castro brought
the house, he heard "sounds of romance" (kissing) home a boy whom he met in a Pantranco bus during a
coming from the inside. He opened the door lock using flood. "I will live with you to take care of the cows" said
a hunting knife and caught Tita and Jesus having sexual the boy.
intercourse, Jesus on top of Tita, with his pants on his On November 8, 1972, accused VALERIO, one Celestino
knees. Jesus kicked Manolito in the cheek but the latter de la Cruz and Amador Castro, while at the latter's yard
immediately stabbed the former. Lladas, upon hearing at Bo. Tamayo, San Carlos City, conferred about
a commotion on the second floor of his house, went to obtaining life insurance on the boy living with Castro,
check and found Manolito stabbing Jesus while sitting who would be subsequently killed so that the policy
on the latter's stomach. Tita was sprawled on the floor proceeds could be "divided 50-50"
with her duster smeared with blood.She died on the
way to the hospital. Jesus and Tita died of multiple stab In accordance with the aforementioned plan, and upon
wounds. Accused surrendered and admitted killing his instructions of VALERIO, Castro had the boy baptized
wife and her paramour but invoked the exceptional as "Amador Castro, Jr." at the San Carlos City Roman
circumstance under Article 247 of RPC. The trial court Catholic Church with Celestino de la Cruz as "ninong".
convicted him of homicide and parricide with 2 VALERIO waited outside the church during the
mitigating circumstances: passion/obfuscation and ceremony.
voluntary surrender. On January 16, 1973, the insured boy left the Castro
household after losing money, through gambling,
HELD: given to him by Castro's wife to buy something. Castro
Yes. He invoked Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code then informed De la Cruz and VALERIO about the de-
as an absolutory and an exempting cause. "An parture of the boy but the latter told him "easy ka lang,
absolutory cause is present 'where the act committed steady... ka lang, we will substitute a boy for him".
is a crime but for reasons of public policy and VALERIO then gave Amador Castro a boy, who began
sentiment there is no penalty imposed.” staying with the Castros beginning March 6, 1973.
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the Thereafter, VALERIO, Castro and De la Cruz planned
following essential elements for such a defense: (1) that the killing of the new boy at Lido Beach, Cavite.
a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act VALERIO and de la Cruz told Castro that if the plan
of committing sexual intercourse with another person;

were to be executed in Pangasinan, they would be Evident premeditation is satisfactorily established if it

"mabubuko". is proved that the accused had deliberately planned to
commit the crime and had persistently and...
On March 13, 1973, Castro, his wife, their three continuously followed it notwithstanding that he had
children, the new boy, VALERIO, De la Cruz and ample and sufficient time to allow his conscience to
accused Domingo ELEPAÑO, as driver of the jeep, went overcome the determination of his will, if he had
to Lido Beach in Cavite. According to Castro's desired it, after meditation and reflection. It con-
testimony on the witness stand, he, VALERIO, and De templates cold and deep meditation and tenacious
la Cruz together with the... new boy went swimming. persistence in the... accomplishment of the criminal
When they reached a depth of four feet, Celestino de act.[65] In the case at bar, from the time the insurance
la Cruz who was at the back of the boy hit the latter's was taken in November, 1972, and even after the boy
head with a piece of iron. Castro was at the left side of insured got lost, the culprits did not relent in the
the boy while VALERIO was at the boy's right side. De pursuit of their scheme for money culminating in the...
la Cruz then held the boy by the... neck and submerged killing of the substitute boy and the filing of a death
him in water. VALERIO and Castro left De la Cruz and claim with the Cardinal Life Insurance Corporation.
the boy in the water. Upon instructions of De la Cruz,
Castro reported the new boy's "loss" to the life saver in In deciding every criminal case, the civil responsibility
Lido Beach. Later, the life saver found the new boy, who incurred by the accused, consequent upon his criminal
was brought to the Bautista Hospital... at Cavite City. liability, must be declared because every person
The boy was pronounced lifeless and was not criminally liable is also civilly liable.
examined anymore. The cadaver was thereafter
brought to Funeraria Popular, Manila, where it was March 9, 2018 – Article 249 – HOMICIDE
examined by NBI agents. Thereafter, Castro filed a DUQUE, Francis Lester M
death claim on the insurance of "Amador Castro, Jr.",
which was denied because the fingerprints of the boy [G.R. No. CA-263. August 19, 1948.]
insured were different from the boy who was killed. People v. TIMOTEO PENESA, Defendant-Appellant.
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not the accused Valerio and Elepano are Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived, as husband
liable for murder. and wife, Their daughter and five children of Rosario
by her late husband lived with them. Due to continuous
RULING: wrangles between Timoteo and Rosario’s children by
Yes, both are liable. her late husband, both agreed to part. Timoteo left the
From inception to execution, Valerio’s active house. The following day, Timoteo returned to the
participation was evident. He authored the idea of house and asked Rosario to live with him in another
securing insurance on the boy's life, killing him and place. The request was refused. Santiago Cerrado, a
thereafter collecting the insurance proceeds. cousin of Rosario, came to the house and, upon seeing
Timoteo, asked the latter why he was there after they
VALERIO was with Castro and the boy when the latter had agreed to live apart. Angered by this remark,
was taken swimming to deeper waters. Those were the Timoteo unsheated his bolo and assaulted Santiago.
categorical testimonies of Castro and ELEPAÑO. Crescencio Doro, the eldest son of Rosario, who tried
According to ELEPAÑO, VALERIO also assisted in to prevent another blow upon Santiago and had made
funeral arrangements. VALERIO was at the vigil of the a remark similar to that of Santiago before the latter
boy until the latter was... buried. VALERIO contributed came to the house, was also assaulted by Timoteo. At
P100.00 for burial expenses. this juncture, Rosario went down through the stairway,
But in so far as ELEPAÑO is concerned, we find the preceded by Santiago. Crescencio and Timoteo
evidence of the prosecution insufficient to establish his grappled for the possession of the bolo and both fell
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence to the floor. A brother of Rosario appeared upon the
linking him to the crime is found in Castro's Statement scene and snatched the bolo and a dagger from the
given to the NBI on April 25, 1973, Exhibit "1". Castro,... hands of Timoteo. As a result of the assault upon
however, repudiated under oath and in open Court his Santiago Cerrado, three wounds were inflicted upon
said Statement in so far as ELEPAÑO is concerned and him, one on the left forearm and another under the left
stressed that ELEPAÑO had nothing to do with the axilla. They were not serious but the one in the left
killing. palm was serious and, if the hemorrhage was not
stopped, it would have resulted in Crescencio’s death.
Treachery, as alleged in the Information, must be Trial court found Timoteo Penesa guilty of frustrated
considered qualifying and must be appreciated against homicide.
the accused. The killing of a child is murder even if the
manner of attack was not shown.[63] The qualifying ISSUE:
circumstances of treachery or "alevosia" exists in the WON Timoteo has intent to kill
commission of the crime of murder when an adult
person illegally attacks a child of tender years and HELD:
causes his death. No. The SC ruled that when Timoteo went to the house
of Rosario, it was not with the intention to kill anybody,

for he went there to entreat Rosario Aguillon to live degree of certainty as is required of the other elements
with him in another house. The bolo with which the of the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not
appellant inflicted was one ordinarily used by farm be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to
laborers. The dagger was carried for self-defense. The prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt (People vs.
wounds inflicted upon the offended parties by the Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488).
appellant were caused indiscriminately and not
deliberately. Appellant’s purpose in going to the G.R. No. 1509 February 16, 1904
house, and not the kind of weapons he carried, nor the THE UNITED STATES vs. NICOLAS GLORIA,
parts of the victims’ bodies on which the wounds were defendant-appellant.
inflicted indiscriminately, is indicative and
determinative of his intent. The accused was convicted Intent to kill is a conclusive presumption when death
only of slight physical injuries. resulted.
G.R. No. L-17666 June 30, 1966 FACTS:

ISIDORO MONDRAGON vs. PEOPLE Nicolas Gloria had a quarrel with Tiburcio de la Cruz
which was followed by a fight. In the course of the
FACTS: struggle, Gloria inflicted upon Cruz with a pocketknife
While complainant Serapion Nacionales was opening he was carrying, a wound in the left side of the trunk
the dike of his ricefield, he heard a shout from afar above the abdomen, from which wound the said Dela
telling him not to open the dike, Nacionales continued Cruz died. Romualdo Asuncion testified that the
opening the dike, and the same voice shouted again, deceased himself told him that the wound had been
"Don't you dare open the dike." When he looked up, inflicted by Nicolas Gloria. In view of the evidence for
he saw Isidoro Mondragon coming towards him. the prosecution, the judge decided that the facts
Nacionales informed appellant that he was opening constituted the crime of assault (lesiones) or physical
the dike because he would plant the next morning. injuries.
Without much ado appellant punched the compalinant
but the latter was able to dodge. Petitioner then drew ISSUE:
his bolo and struck complainant on different parts of WON the judge is correct finding the accused guilty of
his body. Complainant backed out, unsheathed his lesiones since there be no clear showing of intent to
own bolo, and hacked appellant on the head and kill.
forearm and between the middle and ring fingers in
order to defend himself. Trial court found the HELD:
petitioner guilty of attempted homicide No. The crime must be classified as homicide and not
as assault (lesiones), notwithstanding the opinion of
ISSUE: the trial judge. All acts punished by the law are
WON the facts established do not show that petitioner presumed to be voluntarily in the absence of proof to
has the intent to kill the contrary. With respect to crimes of personal
violence, the penal law looks particularly to the
HELD: material results following the unlawful act and holds
Yes. SC finds that the intention of the petitioner to kill the aggressor responsible for all the consequences
the offended party has not been conclusively shown. It thereof.
may be assumed that the petitioner drew his bolo and
hit the offended party with it only when the offended G.R. No. L-2095 , January 28, 1950
party had shown a defiant attitude, considering that THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FAUSTO
the complainant himself had a bolo, as in fact the CLAMANIA
offended party had also drawn his bolo and hit the
petitioner with it. FACTS:
Pertinent testimony is as follows (Petitioner was asked): Apolinario Inciso and Modesto Delantar, two witnesses
QUESTION: In other words you want to tell us that you for the prosecution, testified in substance that on the
will do everything you could to stop Nacionales night of September 26, 1942, in barrio Lawaan,
digging the canal, because you need water? ANSWER Balangiga, Samar, they were forced by the accused at
- Yes, sir, because I need the water. the point of a revolver to accompany him to the beach.
At the beach they saw Juan Grafil and Apolinario Gahoy
The answer of the petitioner is not a categorical in a boat with their hands tied behind their backs. With
statement of an intention on his part to kill the Apolinario Inciso at helm, Delantar and the accused
offended party. The term "will do everything" has a rowed the boat with the victims on board to Can-usod
broad meaning and it should be construed in a manner Island. There, Grafil and Gahoy were taken ashore and
as to give the petitioner the benefit of the doubt as to beaten to death by Fausto Clamania with an oar. After
what he really meant to do. 1Petitioner was guilty only Grafil and Gahoy were killed the accused ripped their
of less serious physical injuries. abdomens to let out the bowels, attached stones as
The intent to kill being an essential element of the weights to the bodies, tied the bodies to the craft, and
offense of frustrated or attempted homicide, said then hauled them to deep water where they were
element must be proved by clear and convincing released.
evidence. That element must be proved with the same As above stated, the defendant admitted the above

testimony, except that which says he had a firearm and Odilon.

coerced the prosecution witnesses into following him.
Elisa cross-examination had an inconsistency, she
ISSUES: stated that it was Edmar who struck the victim (before
1. Whether or not the accused is liable for murder. it was Ronnie)
2. Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of RTC: Pilola GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
nighttime, uninhabited place and ensañamiento found Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to
by the trial court were erroneously appreciated. reclusion perpetua
RULING: ISSUE:
Yes, accused Clamania is liable for murder. Whether or not Pilola is guilty of murder.
The Court agree with the Solicitor General that the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited HELD:
place and ensañamiento found by the trial court, have YES. Rene Gayot Pilola GUILTY beyond reasonable
been erroneously appreciated. Nocturnity is absorbed doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED WITH
by treachery by which the killing is qualified; there is no MODIFICATION
proof that Can-usod Island was uninhabited, and the The identity of the person who hit the victim with a
disemboweling of the deceased was not an hollow block is of de minimis importance. Elisa’s
unnecessary mutilation or deliberate and wanton testimony is corroborated by the autopsy report of Dr.
augmentation of the suffering of the offended parties. Bienvenido Muñoz. No showing of any improper
For when the disemboweling was affected, the victims motive on the part of a witness to testify falsely against
were already dead, and the operation was conceived the accused or to falsely implicate the latter in the
solely for the purpose of facilitating the sinking of the commission of the crime. The trial court gave credence
cadavers and preventing their discovery. and full probative weight to Elisa’s testimony.
G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003 There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree
PEOPLE vs, PILOLA to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy
as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proved
FACTS: separately from and with the same quantum of proof
On February 5, 1988 11:30 pm: Elisa Rolan was inside as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be proven by
their store waiting for her husband to arrive. Joselito direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
Capa and Julian Azul, Jr. were drinking beer. Although essential features of a successful conspiracy. It may be
already drunk, Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba inferred from the conduct of the accused before,
joined them. Edmar had a heated argument with Julian. during and after the commission of the crime, showing
Elisa pacified Edmar and advised them to go home as that they had acted with a common purpose and
she was already going to close up. Edmar and Odilon design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that
left then returned to block Joselito and Julian. Edmar two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
took off his eyeglasses and punched Julian in the face. accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
Elisa shouted: “Tama na. Tama na” but she was ignored doing a part so that their combined acts, though
as they continued until they reached the end of the apparently independent of each other, were, in fact,
street. Odilon positioned himself on top of a pile of connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of
hollow blocks and watched as Edmar and Julian personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
swapped punches. As Joselito tried to stop the fight, There may be conspiracy even if an offender does not
Odilon pulled out his knife with his right hand and know the identities of the other offenders, and even
stepped down from his perch. He placed his left arm though he is not aware of all the details of the plan of
around Joselito’s neck, and stabbed him. Ronnie and operation or was not in on the scheme from the
Rene Gayot Pilola, who were across the street, saw their beginning. One need only to knowingly contribute his
gangmate Odilon stabbing the victim and decided to efforts in furtherance of it. One who joins a criminal
join the fray. Ronnie took a knife from the kitchen of conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal
Teresita and rushed together with Pilola to the scene designs of his co-conspirators. If conspiracy is
and stabbed Joselito. As Joeslito was stabbed 11 times established, all the conspirators are liable as co-
(6 fatal stab wounds), he fell in the canal. Odilon and principals regardless of the manner and extent of their
Pilola fled while Ronnie went after Julian who ran dear participation since in contemplation of law, the act of
life. When Julian noticed that Ronnie was no longer one would be the act of all. Each of the conspirators is
running after him, he looked back and saw Ronnie pick the agent of all the others.
up a piece of hollow block and bashed Joselito’s head.
Then, Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle and struck The mere presence of an accused at the situs of the
Joselito once more before fleing from the scene. crime will not suffice. There must be intentional
Joselito died on the spot. Elisa rushed to Joselito’s participation in the transaction with a view to the
house and informed his wife and brother of the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Even
incident. if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit
Agripina Gloria, a female security guard, saw Ronnie homicide or murder, they may be held criminally liable
repeatedly stabbed Joselito and fled towards the as principals by direct participation if they perform
direction of the mental hospital. She did not see overt acts which mediately or immediately cause or

accelerate the death of the victim. Art. 4. Criminal attack on the unarmed victim was sudden. The
liability. – Criminal liability shall be incurred: aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is absorbed by treachery.
o 1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that March 10, 2018 – Article 250 – PENALTY FOR
which he intended. FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR HOMICIDE.
FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
Art. 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the persons
who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the UNITED STATES VS CANDIDO POBLETE
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous GR NO. L-4354. MARCH 25, 1908
acts.
ISSUE:
o To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two Whether the court can imposed penalty lower than
elements must concur: what was being prescribed by law?
1. the community of criminal design; that is, knowing FACTS:

the criminal design of the principal by direct On the morning of May 19, 1907, a 19 year old woman
participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; together with her two companions were walking in the
direction of the church. Unexpectedly they met the
2. the performance of previous or simultaneous acts accused when they are nearing the parish house who
that are not indispensable to the commission of the immediately seized the victim and attacked her chest,
crime back, sides, arms and thighs.Although she fell to the
ground senseless the accused continued attacking her.
Accomplices come to know about the criminal The victim's companions attempted to help but they
resolution of the principal by direct participation after were also attacked by the accused. The victim
the principal has reached the decision to commit the sustained sixteen wounds but through the assistance
felony and only then does the accomplice agree to of a military surgeon in the hospital she was able to
cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide survived. The wounds healed in about three weeks.
whether the crime should be committed; they merely
assent to the plan of the principal by direct HELD:
participation and cooperate in its accomplishment Yes. After taking into consideration the circumstances
However, where one cooperates in the commission of of the deed, and in the present case the trivial nature
the crime by performing overt acts which by of the wounds inflicted upon the injuref party, which
themselves are acts of execution, he is a principal by were cured in less than one month, Article 407 of the
direct participation, and not merely an accomplice. Penal Code (Article 250 RPC) authorizes courts to
Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab the victim. punish, within their rational discretion, the crime of
However, while Odilon was stabbing the victim, the frustrated murder with a penalty lower by one degree,
appellant and Ronnie agreed to join. All the overt acts imposing in its medium grade the penalty of presidio
of Odilon, Ronnie and the Pilola before, during, and correccional in its maximum degree to presidio mayor
after the stabbing incident indubitably show that they in its medium grade, which is the penalty next lower to
conspired to kill the victim. Since the victim is not yet that imposed by Article 65 of the Penal Code ( Article
dead, the crime is not yet consummated so Pilola is a 50 RPC).
principal by direct participation.
March 10, 2018 – Article 251 – DEATH CAUSED IN A
Alibi is a weak, if not the weakest of defenses in a TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
criminal prosecution, because it is easy to concoct but FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
hard to disprove. To serve as basis for acquittal, it must
be established by clear and convincing evidence. For it [NO CASE FOUND]
to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he
was absent from the scene of the crime at the time of
its commission, but also that it was physically March 10, 2018 – Article 252 – PHYSICAL INJURIES
impossible for him to have been present then. Pilola INFLICTED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
knew that he was charged for the stabbing but instead IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
of surrendering to the police authorities, he evaded
arrest and this flight is evidence of his guilt. [NO CASE FOUND]
There is treachery when the offender commits any of March 10, 2018 – Article 253 – GIVING ASSISTANCE
the crimes against persons, employing means, TO SUICIDE
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend LAZO, Joseph Artfel T.
directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the [NO CASE FOUND]
offended party might make. The essence of treachery
is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed March 15, 2018 – Article 254 – DISCHARGE OF
victim without the slightest provocation on his part - FIREARMS

NASH, Regina Mercado pistol fired by petitioner. Hence, the Supreme Court set
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
GERONIMO DADO vs. PEOPLE (G.R. NO. 131421) conviction of petitioner for the crime of homicide and
November 18, 2002 acquitted the petitioner of the crime charged on the
ground of reasonable doubt. A new decision was
ISSUE: entered finding petitioner Geronimo Dado guilty of the
Whether accused is guilty of homicide instead of illegal crime of illegal discharge of firearm and sentenced him
discharge of firearm only. to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven
FACTS: (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum
The present case is a petition for review under Rule 45 penalty.
of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court
of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional March 11, 2018 – Article 255 – INFANTICIDE
Trial Court of Kudarat finding the Geronimo Dado and OLACO, Jan- Lawrence P.
Francisc o Eraso guilty of the crime of homicide. The
information charged both Dado and Eraso with murder PEOPLE VS. JOSEFINA BANDIAN
allegedly committed by said the accused armed with G.R. NO. 45186 SEPTEMBER 30, 1936
firearms, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation
and treachery, and shot Silvestre Balinas thereby in FACTS:
flicting gunshot wounds upon the latter which caused One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor,
his instant death.The antecedent facts as narrated by Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket apparently to
prosecution witnesses Alfredo Balinas and Rufo Alga respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later,
wereas follows: Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes
On the night of May 25, 1992, the Esperanza, Sultan stained with blood both in the front and back,
Kudarat Police Station formed three teams to intercept staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able
some cattle rustlers. The Team composed of the to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her
petitioner SPO4Geronimo Dado and CAFGU members to her house and placed her on the bed. He called on
Francisco Eraso, AflredoBalinas and Rufo Alga Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he body
waitedbehind a large dike. Alfredo Balinas and Rufo of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket
Alga, who were both armed with M14 armalite rifles, where the appellant had gone a few moments before.
were positioned between the petitioner, who was She claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno
armed with a caliber .45 pistol, andaccused Francisco declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house
Eraso, who was carrying an M16 armalite rifle. At and three her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial
around 11:00 of that sameevening, the team saw court gave credit to this opinion.
somebody approaching at a distance of 50 meters.
When he was about 5 meters away from the team, ISSUE:
Alfredo Balinas noticed that Francisco Eraso was Whether or not Bandian is guilty of infanticide
making some movements. Balinas told Eraso to wait,
but before Balinas could beam his flashlight, Eraso HELD:
firedhis M16 armalite rifle at the approaching man. No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be
Immediately thereafter, petitioner fired a singleshot punishable, must be committed willfully or consciously,
from his .45 caliber pistol. The victim turned out to be or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious
Silvestre ―Butsoy‖ Balinas, thenephew of Alfredo and free act or omission. The evidence does not show
Balinas. Eraso embraced Alfredo Balinas to show his that the appellant, in causing her child’s death in one
repentance for his deed. way or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did
so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no
HELD: cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to death,
In convicting the petitioner, both the trial court and the because her affair with a former lover, which was not
Court of Appeals found that conspirac yattended the unknown to her second lover, Kirol, took place three
commission of the crime. The Court of Appeals ruled years before the incident; her married life with Kirol—
that petitioner Dado and accused Eraso conspired in she considers him her husband as he considers him his
killing the deceased, thus, it is no longer necessary to wife—began a year ago; as he so testified at the trial,
establish who caused the fatal wound in as much as he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and that
conspiracy makes the act of one conspirator the act of they’ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. The
all. Although the agreement need not be directly appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed of her
proven, circumstantial evidence of such agreement pregnancy to Kirol.
must nonetheless be convincingly shown. In the case
at bar, petitioner and accused Eraso’s seemingly Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if
concerted and almost simultaneous acts were more of she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable, due
a spontaneous reaction rather than the result of a to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be
common plan to ki ll the victim. Evidently, the considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the
prosecution failed to prove that the metallic fragments seventh exempting circumstance, to take her child
found in the fatal wound of the victim were particles of from the thicket where she had given it birth, so as not
a .45 caliber bullet that emanated from the .45 caliber to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of

losing its life. If by going into the thicket to pee, she PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in
that same place and later abandoning it, not because UNITED STATES V. MARIANO BOSTON
of imprudence or any other reason than that she was G.R. NO. L-4795 (NOVEMBER 23, 1908)
overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she
could not be blamed because it all happened by mere ISSUE:
accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law Whether or not accused Boston should be liable of
exempts from liability any person who so acts and Intentional Abortion
behaves under such circumstances (Art. 12(4), RPC).
Thus, having the fourth and seventh exempting FACTS:
circumstances in her favor, she is acquitted of the crime In this case, the child was born three months in
that she had been accused of. advance of the full period of gestation. The accused
Boston, believing that the child in the womb of the
PEOPLE VS SEVERA JACA AND PROCESO woman was a sort of a fish-demon (which he called a
RASALAN balat), gave to her a portion composed of herbs, for
G.R. NO. L-34866 AUGUST 18, 1931 the purpose of relieving her of this alleged fish-demon.
Two hours after, she gave premature birth to a child.
FACTS:
On November 1930, the above-named accused, Severa After the birth of the child, Boston, with the permission
Jaca and Proceso Rasalan, aiding and abetting each and aid of the husband and the brother of the infant
other for the purpose of concealing the dishonor of child, destroyed it by fire in order to prevent its doing,
said Severa Jaca, did willfully, unlawfully and which the Boston believed it was capable of doing.
feloniously put to death the child which she had given
birth to, before it was 3 days old. Having heard the HELD:
case, the Court of First Instance (CFI) acquitted Severa Yes. The guilt of appellant is conclusively established
Jaca, but convicted Proceso Rasalan of the crime by the evidence of record, the testimony of the
charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. witnesses for the prosecution leaving no room for
Proceso Rasalan appealed from this sentence. reasonable doubt. These facts constitute, in our
opinion, prima facie proof of the intent of the accused
ISSUE: in giving the herb potion to the mother of the child,
Whether or not the penalty imputed upon Rasalan was and also of the further fact that the herb potion so
correct. administered to her was the cause of its premature
birth. The defense wholly failed to rebut this testimony
HELD: of this prosecution and we are of opinion, therefore,
YES. There is no dispute about the fact that Severa that the trial court with which he was charged beyond
Jaca's new-born baby die a violent death; this has been a reasonable doubt.
sufficiently proved. The evidence for the prosecution
points to Proceso Rasalan as the offender, that two PEOPLE V. FILOMENO SALUFRANIA
eyewitnesses, both of them related to the appellant, G.R. NO. L-50884 (MARCH 30, 1988)
the first by consaguinity and the second by affinity,
testified that Rasalan wrapped up the baby in a cloth ISSUE
which asphyxiated it — resulting in its death. Tomas Whether or not Salufrania should be liable with the
Jaca, the appellant's father-in-law, testified that when complex crime of Parricide with Intentional Abortion
the latter handed to him the corpse of the newly-born
child in order that he might secretly throw it into the FACTS
river, the accused revealed to him that he, Rasalan, had The accused Salufrania was found guilty by the trial
killed it in order to conceal the dishonor of Severa Jaca. court of the complex crime of Parricide with Intentional
The defendant questions the veracity of these three Abortion. Several witnesses were presented by the
witnesses, alleging that they had a grievance against prosecution and the defense throughout the trial.
him and his family. The grievance mentioned was not Pedro Salufrania, son of the accused, was one of the
sufficient to make the witnesses tell a falsehood in witnesses of the prosecution which stated that he saw
accusing their own relative of so serious crime. his father box his pregnant mother on the stomach
and, once fallen on the floor, his father strangled her
Moreover, as it has been established in the record that to death; that he saw blood ooze from the eyes and
the crime charged was committed, and that the nose of his mother and that she died right on the spot
defendant committed it; that, inasmuch as he is not an where she fell.
ascendant of the dead child, he has incurred, according
to the law the penalty for murder and is guilty of this HELD
crime. Hence, the penalty imputed is correct as against No. The accused Salufrania should not be held guilty
to Rasalan. of the complex crime of Parricide with Intentional
Abortion but of the complex crime of Parricide with
Unintentional Abortion. The elements of Unintentional
March 12, 2018 – Article 256 – INTENTIONAL Abortion are as follows:
ABORTION 1. That there is a pregnant woman.

is a habitual drunkard. The penalty of prision

2. That violence is used upon such pregnant correccional as fixed by the aforesaid article should be
woman without intending an abortion. imposed upon him in the minimum degree, there
being no aggravating circumstance to counteract its
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted. effect.
4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been expelled
therefrom. PEOPLE VS. GENOVES
G.R. NO. L-42819, APRIL 15, 1935
The Solicitor General's brief makes it appear that
appellant intended to cause an abortion because he ISSUE:
boxed his pregnant wife on the stomach which caused W/N there can be a complex crime of homicide with
her to fall and then strangled her. We find that abortion
appellant's intent to cause an abortion has not been
sufficiently established. FACTS:
In the morning of the 28th of May, 1934, appellant and
Mere boxing on the stomach, taken together with the deceased Soledad Rivera were laborers in adjoining
immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not cane fields. Soledad claimed that the yoke of the plow
sufficient proof to show an intent to cause an abortion. which appellant was repairing belonged to her and
In fact, appellant must have merely intended to kill the tried to take it by force. Appellant struck her with his
victim but not necessarily to cause an abortion. fist, causing her to fall to the ground. She got up and
returned to the fray, whereupon she received another
The evidence on record, therefore, establishes beyond blow with the fist on the left cheek which caused her
reasonable doubt that accused Filomeno Salufrania again to fall to the ground. Immediately after the
committed and should be held liable for the complex incident deceased proceeded to the municipal
crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. building, a distance of about four kilometers, and
complained to the chief of police about the
March 12, 2018 – Article 257 – UNINTENTIONAL maltreatment. At the time Soledad was heavy with
ABORTION child, and as she complained to the chief of police of
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P. pain in the abdomen, she was seen by the president of
the sanitary district. According to testimony deceased
U.S VS. JEFFREY was in good health the day before.
15 PHIL 394 MARCH 5, 1910
From the time of the incident there was hemorrhage
ISSUE: and pain which were symptoms of premature delivery.
W/N Jeffrey was liable under Art. 257 of the RPC Deceased remained in this condition until June 10,
1934. On that date the condition culminated in the
FACTS: painful and difficult premature delivery of one of the
On the evening of March 1, 1909, while Teodorica twin babies that she way carrying, but the other baby
Saguinsin was in a Chinese shop situated in Guadalupe, could be delivered. Both babies were dead.
municipality of San Pedro Macati, Rizal Province, a man
named D. B. Jeffrey appeared therein, and, without any HELD:
apparent reason whatever, struck the woman three Yes. Appellant was convicted in the Court of First
times on the hip with a bottle that he was carrying, in Instance of Occidental Negros of the complex crime of
consequence of which the woman fell to the ground homicide with abortion.
with an abundant hemorrhage from the womb; she
was immediately taken to her home in a carretela, and The first assignment of error is the contention of
being three months pregnant she had a miscarriage on appellant that the death of the offended party was not
the following day, according to the examination made the direct result of the assault upon her by the
by the president of the municipal board of health. The defendant. It is generally known that a fall is liable to
woman was ill and unable to attend to her usual duties cause premature delivery, and the evidence shows a
for forty-five days. complete sequel of events from the assault to her
HELD: death. The accused must be held responsible for the
Yes. Even though it was not the criminal intent of the natural consequences of his act.
defendant to cause the abortion, the fact that, without
any apparent reason whatever, he maltreated The other defense is that the accused did not strike the
Teodorica Saguinsin, presumably not knowing that she deceased, but this fact is clearly established by the
was pregnant, as author of the abuse which caused the prosecution. We find the mitigating circumstances of
miscarriage, he is liable not only for such maltreatment lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
but also for the consequences thereof, to wit, for the inflicted and provocation, as the offended party by
abortion; and it was also proven that on the said force induced the appellant to use force on his part.
occasion the defendant was drunk, which circumstance
explains how he came to strike the woman with a bottle The abortion in this case is unintentional abortion
without any known motive. It does not appear that he denounced by article 257 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the whole case, the period of confinement is fixed [NO CASE FOUND]
at twelve years and one day to fourteen years, eight
months and one day of reclusion temporal. March 13, 2018 – Article 259 – ABORTION
PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND
DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
GELIG VS. PEOPLE RIVERA, Marynit P.
G.R. NO. 173150, JULY 28, 2010
[NO CASE FOUND]
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner can be convicted of Unintentional March 14, 2018 – Article 260 – RESPONSIBILITY OF
Abortion. PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M
FACTS:
On July 17, 1981, at around 10:00 oclock in the [NO CASE FOUND]
morning, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning from
Roseller that Gemma called him a sissy while in class. March 13, 2018 – Article 261 – CHALLENGING TO A
Lydia slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, DUEL
thereby causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. As a SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
result of Lydias violent assault, Gemma suffered a
contusion in her maxillary area, as shown by a medical PEOPLE VS RAMY VALLES
certificate issued by a doctor in the Bogo General G.R. NO. 110564. JANUARY 28, 1997
Hospital. However, Gemma continued to experience
abdominal pains and started bleeding two days after ISSUE:
the incident. On August 28, 1981, she was admitted in Is the crime of challenging to a duel committed?
the Southern Islands Hospital and was diagnosed, to
her surprise, to have suffered incomplete abortion. FACTS:
Accordingly, a medical certificate was issued. The victim, Elmer Porcullo, [4]who was a worker of Sta.
Monica Canning Corporation went there to collect his
HELD: salary with two of his co-employees, Rizza Pelegrino
No. The prosecutions success in proving that Lydia and Paulita Palencia. Upon reaching the gate of Sta.
committed the crime of direct assault does not Monica. Rizza and Paulita were allowed by the security
necessarily mean that the same physical force she guards to enter the compound of the company, but
employed on Gemma also resulted in the crime of not Porcullo who was prohibited by the accused Ramy
unintentional abortion. There is no evidence on record Valles, a security guard of the company, since the
to prove that the slapping and pushing of Gemma by former was only wearing "sando" and pants and had
Lydia that occurred on July 17, 1981 was the proximate no identification card to present which was in violation
cause of the abortion. While the medical certificate of of the company rules requiring employees to enter the
Gemmas attending physician, Dr. Susan Jaca (Dr. Jaca), company's premises in proper uniform. Porcullo then
was presented to the court to prove that she suffered approached Valles not only once but four times
an abortion, there is no data in the document to prove insisting to get inside the compound of the company,
that her medical condition was a direct consequence it was at the third and fourth time that Porcullo got
of the July 17, 1981 incident. It was therefore vital for mad and started insulting Valles. Porcullo berated
the prosecution to present Dr. Jaca since she was Valles and challenged him to go out of the compound
competent to establish a link, if any, between Lydias and have a fist fight with him. Porcullo then pointed his
assault and Gemmas abortion. Without her testimony, finger at Valles and said “Putang ina mo, akala mo sino
there is no way to ascertain the exact effect of the ka, hindi mo ba alam na ex-army ako?”
assault on Gemmas abortion.
When Porcullo turned and walked away from Valles,
It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted and the latter without warning shot Porcullo. He turned
confined in a hospital for incomplete abortion on sideways to look at his wound but, again, he was shot
August 28, 1981, which was 42 days after the July 17, by the accused. The victim sustained two (2) gunshot
1981 incident. This interval of time is too lengthy to wounds, one on the left buttock and the other was
prove that the discharge of the fetus from the womb below the right armpit.
of Gemma was a direct outcome of the assault. Her
bleeding and abdominal pain two days after the said HELD:
incident were not substantiated by proof other than NO. The act of berating and challenging Valles to a
her testimony. Thus, it is not unlikely that the abortion fistfight apparently incited the fury of the accused-
may have been the result of other factors. appellant, and, at this instance, Porcullo should
naturally expect and anticipate the possible
March 12, 2018 – Article 258 – ABORTION consequences of his rebellious acts like the consequent
PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN HERSELF OR BY HER retaliation by the accused-appellant against his life. He
PARENTS. courted obvious danger, and when it came, it can not
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D be defined as sudden, unexpected and unforeseen. It

entitled Valles to the mitigating circumstance of premised on the infliction of three scars on the victim's
obfuscation. face.
March 14, 2018 – Article 262 – MUTILATION The phrase "permanent physical mutilation" has not
SANTOALLA, Stephanie M. been defined in the law. Neither Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as so amended by Republic Act
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SAMUEL BORCE No. 7659, nor any of the chapters in Title Eleven,
G.R. No. 124131 April 22, 1998 entitled "Crimes against Chastity," provides any further
clue on the meaning that should be given to the term.
FACTS: In Title Eight on "Crimes against Persons,"14 the Code
Samuel Borce was convicted for Rape and Frustrated simply states in Article 262 thereof that —
Murder. Art. 262. Mutilation. — The penalty of from reclusion
temporal
For Rape: to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another by
That on April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o'clock in the depriving him, either totally or partially, of some
morning, at the hill of the western part of Bariquir, essential organ for reproduction.
Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Bangued, Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by
Province of Abra, Philippines with lewd design and with prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
the use of deadly weapon, raped REGINA BAGA against No specific ascription having been given by the law to
her will and consent and this was repeated for the the word, "mutilation" must perforce be understood in
second time around, to the great damage and its generic sense and ordinary usage. Webster15
prejudice. defines mutilation as cutting off or permanently
destroying a limb or an essential part thereof. Black16
For Frustrated Murder: defines the term, in its criminal law concept, as one that
would deprive a person of the use of any of those limbs
That on April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o'clock in the which may be useful to him in fight, the loss of which
morning, at the hill of the western part of Barangay San amounts to mayhem.
Antonio, Municipality of Bangued, Province of Abra,
Philippines SAMUEL BORCE, hack the face of one A thorough reading of the records of the case would
REGINA BAGA, inflicting multiple hack wounds on her fail to disclose that accused-appellant inflicted the
face, by reason of the timely medical attendance wounds on the victim deliberately to maim her. It
rendered to said victim which prevented her death. would, in fact, appear that the victim sustained the
wounds only as a result of a clear attempt by appellant
ISSUE: to kill her and cover-up his misdeeds. The injury thus
WON the crime of Mutilation under Article 262 is borne by private complainant should not be taken as a
committed? circumstance which would raise the penalty to death
for the crime of rape but should instead rightly be
HELD: taken up and absorbed in the crime of frustrated
No. Crime of Rape was committed. murder.
In fine, relevant to the case at bar, when the crime of
rape is committed "with the use of a deadly weapon," March 14, 2018 – Article 263 – SERIOUS PHYSICAL
the penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua to death. INJURIES
The death penalty is imposed when by reason or on TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
the occasion of rape, the victim has suffered
"permanent physical mutilation." US VS ANDRES VILLANUEVA GR. NO. 10606, SEP
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by 11, 1915. 31 PHIL. 412
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 reads:
ISSUE:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Whether or not the accused is guilty
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use
of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the FACTS:
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Villanueva is charged "while quarreling with his
opponent, Isidoro Benter, with having suddenly
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the snatched the bolo which the latter was carrying at his
victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. belt and with it inflicting upon him a wound in the palm
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of of the right hand that incapacitated the aggrieved
rape is committed with any of the following attendant party from performing work for more than thirty days
circumstances: and which rendered the said principal member entirely
useless."
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the
victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.The But it turns out that Villanueva was not Benter's
imposition of the death penalty on accused-appellant opponent nor was there any quarrel between the two.
by the trial court on each count of rape has been Neither did Villanueva inflict any wound upon Benter.

The latter injured himself by an accident arising out of Roxas and Broca Streets in Pagadian City, a multicab
his own act. driven by S/Sgt. Cornelio Paman (Paman), a military
Benter testified that he agreed to take Villanueva to the personnel, crossed his path and collided with his
town of Pola in his boat. At the landing, Villanueva took motorcycle. Arambala was thrown from his motorcycle
hold of the bolo which complainant carried at his belt. thus hitting his head on the road pavement. Emilda
The complainant tried to retain it and that in doing so Salabit, who was then standing beside the road, saw
he caught it by the blade and cut himself in the palm Arambala being thrown away after the collision; she
of the right hand; that without a word being said the went to Arambala and hailed a tricycle and rushed him
complainant left. to the hospital.
Benter was able to testify that the wound delayed in A Computed Tomography Scan report shows that
healing for more than forty days. Arambala suffered hematoma at the cerebral portion
of his brain. After his confinement at the Mercy
The trial court opined that the act constitutes lesiones Community Hospital on October 15, 2004, Arambala
graves by reckless negligence under Article 568 of the was again admitted on October 24, 2004 at the
Penal Code. Zamboanga del Sur Provincial Hospital due to erratic
blood pressure and slurring speech caused by the
RULING: hematoma.
NO.
The law speaks of a person who by reckless On February 21, 2005, an Information for the crime of
imprudence commits an act which, if maliciously reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
performed, would constitute a grave felony. (Art. 568, injuries was filed.
Penal Code.) But the act of the accused in the case at
bar does not constitute a felony, grave, or menos The MTCC found Paman guilty.
grave, nor is it a misdemeanor. The only act which he
performed was to take, or attempt to take, from its The RTC reversed MTCC decision. RTC pointed out that
sheath the bolo which Benter was carrying at his belt, Arambala was the cause of the collision since he
and that was an act which is not defined in any law as already saw the multicab driven by Paman ahead of
being a crime ov misdemeanor. time; that he had the opportunity to take precaution to
avoid the accident, but he failed to do so.
The defendant did not wound Benter. It was the latter
who, by his own act in catching hold of the edge of the The CA reversed RTC decision.
blade of the bolo, wounded himself, or as is said in the
judgment appealed from, the bolo, by its edge or by RULING:
its own weight, in slipping from Benteu's hand into the YES.
scabbard because he did not grasp it firmly, wounded A perusal of the records of this case clearly shows that
Benter; the bolo did this, not the defendant. it was Paman who was at fault since he was driving at
the wrong side of the road when the collision
The crime of lesiones graves (physical injuries) which happened. The CA observed that the evidence
the trial court understands to be committed without indubitably shows that before the collision, Arambala's
malice or with reckless imprudence is thus classified in motorcycle was cruising along its rightful lane when
article 416 of the Penal Code: "Any person who shall S/Sgt. Paman's multicab suddenly crossed his
wound, beat, or assault another * * * shall suffer: 1. * * (Arambala) path coming from his left side using the
*. 2. The penalty of prision etc., if in consequence of the wrong lane to cross the said intersection. The accident
physical injuries inflicted the injured person shall have would not have happened had S/Sgt. Paman, the
lost an eye or any principal member, etc." multicab driver, stayed on his lane and did not overtake
The defendant did not wound, beat, or assault Benter; the vehicle of the private complainant Ararnbala.
consequently he cannot be guilty of the crime of
inflicting serious physical injuries, not even by reckless Paman's act of driving on the wrong side of the road,
imprudence. in an attempt to overtake the motorcycle driven by
Arambala, and suddenly crossing the path which is
S/SGT. CORNELIO PAMAN, PETITIONER, V. being traversed by the latter, is sheer negligence. It is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. a settled rule that a driver abandoning his proper lane
G.R. NO. 210129, JULY 05, 2017 for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an
ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road
ISSUE: is clear and he should not proceed if he cannot do so
Whether or not Paman is guilty in safety. If, after attempting to pass, the driver of the
overtaking vehicle finds that he cannot make the
FACTS: passage in safety, the latter must slacken his speed so
On October 14, 2004, at about 1:20 p.m., Ursicio as to avoid the danger of a collision, even bringing his
Arambala (Arambala) was on board a motorcycle car to a stop if necessary.20 This rule is consistent with
traversing Roxas Street, Pagadian City towards the Section 4l(a) of the Land Transportation and Traffic
direction of the Southern Mindanao Colleges Main Code.
Campus. When he was nearing the intersection of

Here, Paman was violating a traffic regulation, i.e., nocturnity, and sentenced him to imprisonment for 1
driving on the wrong side of the road, at the time of year and 1 day. But the commission of the crime having
the collision. He is thus presumed to be negligent at been marked with the qualifying circumstance of
the time of the incident, which presumption he failed treachery, the special penalty prescribed in the last
to overcome. For failing to observe the duty of paragraph of article 416 should have been inflicted,
diligence and care imposed on drivers of vehicles that is to say, the penalty of prision correccional in its
abandoning their lane, Paman, as correctly held by the minimum and medium degree. The penalty should
CA, must be held liable. have been imposed in its medium degree, the
Nevertheless, there is a need to modify the penalty commission of the offense not having been marked by
imposed by the CA. aggravating or extenuating circumstances, the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity as found by
Under Article 263(4) of the RPC, the penalty for serious the trial court being taken into consideration in the
physical injuries, when the injuries inflicted caused finding of the existence of the qualifying circumstance
incapacity for more than 30 days, is arresto mayor in its of alevosia.
maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period; the maximum period of the We should add that the crime as committed is not in
foregoing penalty - prision correccional in its minimum any wise related to the offices defined and penalized in
period - is merely a correctional penalty and, thus, article 417 of the code, as found by the trial court, the
should be considered a less grave felony. provisions of which clearly relate to the use of poisons
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 365 of the RPC, Paman and the like in an entirely different manner.
should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of arresto The sentence imposed by the trial court is therefore
mayor in its minimum and medium periods or from reversed, and instead thereof, we sentence the
one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Since defendant and appellant to two years of prision
the maximum term of imprisonment in this case, i.e., correccional, together with the accessory penalties
four (4) months, does not exceed one (1) year, the prescribed by law, and to the payment of the cost of
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law find no both instances.
application and Paman should be meted a straight
penalty taken from arresto mayor in its minimum and March 14, 2018 – Article 265 – LESS SERIOUS
medium periods. In view of the lack of any mitigating PHYSICAL INJURIES
or aggravating circumstances in this case, Paman VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.
should be made to suffer the straight penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE
arresto mayor. PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 167766 APRIL 7, 2010
March 14, 2018 – Article 264 – ADMINISTERING
INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES ISSUE:
UNAS, Nor-Aiza R. Whether or not the crime of “Less Serious Physical
Injuries” was committed in this case
US V. CHIONG SONGCO
G.R. NO. L-6503 FEBRUARY 27, 1911 FACTS:
On September 2, 1998, Rudy Baclig was drinking with
ISSUE: his brother-in-law. After consuming ½ bottle of gin, he
Whether or not Songco is guilty of administering left and went to the house of a certain Siababa to buy
injurious substance or beverage as contemplated in coffee and sugar. He was accompanied by his four-
Article 264 of the Revised Penal Code. year-old son. On their way there, a gray automobile
coming from the opposite direction passed by them.
FACTS: After a while, he noticed that the vehicle was moving
The defendant and appellant threw the contents of a backward towards them. When the car was about two
bottle of sulphuric acid into the face and on the body arms’ length from where they were, it stopped and he
of the complaining witness, inflicting wounds which heard the driver of the vehicle call him by his nickname
resulted in the illness of the injured man for more than Parrod. Rudy came closer, but after taking one step, the
thirty days. It was further proven that the attack was driver, which he identified as the petitioner, opened the
made treacherously, as that circumstance is defined in door and while still in the car drew a gun and shot him
article 10 of the Penal Code, it having been made at once, hitting him just below the left armpit. Rudy
night, from behind the shelter of a sheet of zinc, and at immediately ran at the back of the car, while petitioner
a time when the victim was wholly unprepared to make sped away. After petitioner left, Rudy and his son
any defense, he not having any reason to anticipate an headed to the seashore. Rudy later went back to the
assault so unexpected and unusual. place where he was shot and shouted for help. The
people who assisted him initially brought him to the
HELD: Municipal Hall of Gonzaga, Cagayan, where he was
No. The trial court found the defendant guilty of the interrogated by a policeman who asked him to identify
crime of lesiones defined in subsection 4 of article 416 his assailant. He informed the policeman that
read together with article 417 of the Penal Code, petitioner was the one who shot him. After he was
marked with the aggravating circumstance of the interrogated, he was later brought to the Don Alfonso

Ponce Memorial Hospital at Gonzaga, Cagayan. The Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called
following day, he was discharged from the hospital. him "sissy"; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and
Roldan and called them names like "strangers" and
On June 1, 1999, an Information was filed by the "animals"; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back
Provincial Prosecutor of Aparri, Cagayan, charging the with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face; that the
petitioner of frustrated murder. Duly arraigned, petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and
petitioner pleaded Not Guilty to the crime as charged. challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight,
The RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on
of the crime of Attempted Murder. The CA found him the petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the
only guilty of less serious physical injuries. Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident;
that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the
HELD: Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital; that the
This Court also concurs with the conclusion of the CA doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical
that petitioner is guilty of the crime of less serious certificates attesting that Jayson suffered contusions.
physical injuries, not attempted murder.
On his part, the petitioner denied having physically
The principal and essential element of attempted or abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only
frustrated murder is the intent on the part of the talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose
assailant to take the life of the person attacked. Such and Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about
intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and
to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied
intent of the aggressor. In the present case, intent to shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a
kill the victim could not be inferred from the fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his
surrounding circumstances. Petitioner only shot the sons from harming his daughters.
victim once and did not hit any vital part of the latter’s
body. If he intended to kill him, petitioner could have To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann
shot the victim multiple times or even ran him over Rose testified that her father did not hit or slap but only
with the car. Favorably to petitioner, the inference that confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her
intent to kill existed should not be drawn in the daughters "Kimi" and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s
absence of circumstances sufficient to prove this fact hair. Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson
beyond reasonable doubt. and calling him a "sissy." She insisted that it was instead
Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the
When such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted procession. She described the petitioner as a loving
upon the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but and protective father.
physical injuries only. Since the Medico-Legal
Certificate issued by the doctor who attended Rudy ISSUE:
stated that the wound would only require ten (10) days Whether or not the Petitioner is guilty of Child Abuse
of medical attendance, and he was, in fact, discharged or Slight Physical Injuries.
the following day, the crime committed is less serious
physical injuries only. The less serious physical injury RULING:
suffered by Rudy is defined under Article 265 of the The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner is guilty of
Revised Penal Code, which provides that "Any person Slight Physical Injuries under Article 266 of the Revised
who inflicts upon another physical injuries not Penal Code. The Court disagreed that the petitioner in
described as serious physical injuries but which shall striking the back of Jayson with his hands constituted
incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10) child abuse. he records did not establish beyond
days or more, or shall require medical attendance for reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson
the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and
injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had
thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson.
March 15, 2018 – Article 266 – SLIGHT PHYSICAL The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to
INJURIES AND MALTREATMENT have been done at the spur of the moment and in
VILLARIN, Paulo Jose anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his
fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own
GEORGE BONGALON vs PEOPLE OF THE minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the
PHILIPPINES hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-
G.R. No. 169533 control, he lacked that specific intent to debase,
March 20, 2013 degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being that was so essential in the
FACTS: crime of child abuse.
May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan,
his older brother, both minors, joined the evening Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five
procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi to seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was
City; that when the procession passed in front of the liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the
petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Revised Penal Code

head on the wall. With one hand holding the knife, he

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RUSTICO TILOS undressed himself. He then ordered her to take off her
clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt, bra, pants and
FACTS: panty. He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then
Geralyn Narciso, the 12-year old daughter of the mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it
victim, was on her way to a neighbors house to watch in her vagina. Still poked with a knife, she did as told
a betamax movie when she came upon accused- but since she kept moving, only a portion of his penis
appellant inflicting fist blows on her father. From a entered her. He then laid down on his back and
distance of about 15 meters, she saw accused- commanded her to mount him. Still only a small part
appellant holding the victim by the nape with his right of his penis was inserted into her vagina. When he had
hand, and boxing him on the abdomen with his left both his hands flat on the floor. She dashed out to the
hand. Geralyn called to her mother, Florida Narciso, for next room and locked herself in. When he pursued her
help and the latter arrived and pulled the victim away and climbed the partition, she ran to another room
from accused-appellant. While Florida was hugging the then another then she jumped out through a window.
victim, accused-at-large Mateo Mahinay came from Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, 18
behind them and struck the victim three times: on the meters in front of the boarding house and knocked on
left eye, the right eye, and the nape. The victim fell to the door. When there was no answer, she ran around
the ground. Florida sought the help of two bystanders, the building and knocked on the back door. When the
Mercy Siquijod and Paniong Agustino, in bringing the policemen who were inside the building opened the
victim home. Teotimo Narciso died two days later. door, they found her naked sitting on the stairs crying.
Pat. Donceras, took off his jacket and wrapped it
ISSUE: around her. Pat. Donceras and two other policemen
Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of rushed to the boarding house where they heard and
conspiracy to murder. saw somebody running away but failed to apprehend
him due to darkness. She was taken to Eastern Samar
RULING: Provincial Hospital where she was physically examined.
The Supreme Court held that accused-appellant is Her vulva had no abrasions or discharges.
guilty of slight physical injuries only. In People vs.
Laurio, 200 SCRA 465 (1991), the Court held that where • RTC: frustrated rape
conspiracy to murder is not proved, and the gravity or
duration of the physical injury resulting from the ISSUE:
fistblows by the accused on the victim was not Whether or not there was frustrated rape.
established by the evidence, the accused is presumed,
and is held, liable for slight physical injuries under HELD:
Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code NO. RTC MODIFIED. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion
ARTICLE 266-A TO 266-D AS AMENDED BY RA 8353 perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the
amount of P30,000
Republic Act No. 8353 (ANTI-RAPE LAW) - AN ACT
EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, • Correlating Art. 335 and Art. 6, there is no debate that
RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST the attempted and consummated stages apply to the
PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. crime of rape.
3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES • Requisites of a frustrated felony are:
PEOPLE VS ORITA (1) that the offender has performed all the acts of
GR no. 88724, April 3, 1990 execution which would produce the felony
FACTS: (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes

March 20, 1983 Early Morning: Cristina S. Abayan, 19- independent of the perpetrator's will
year old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College,
arrived at her boarding house after her classmates • attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be
brought her home from a party. She knocked at the thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes
door of her boarding house when a frequent visitor of and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he
another boarder held her and poked a knife to her has performed all of the acts which should produce the
neck. Despite pleading for her release, he ordered her crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to
to go upstairs with him. Since the door which led to the perform
1st floor was locked from the inside, they used the back o If he has performed all of the acts which should result
door to the second floor. With his left arm wrapped in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily
around her neck and his right hand poking a "balisong" desists from proceeding further, it can not be an
to her neck, he dragged her up the stairs. When they attempt.
reached the second floor, he commanded herwith the
knife poked at her neck, to look for a room. They • in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender
entered Abayan's room. He then pushed her hitting her has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains

his purpose and, from that moment also all the the victim was a very young and fragile 11-year-old,
essential elements of the offense have been who was easy to be subdued by an abuser who was
accomplished. Any penetration of the female organ by used to manual labor and was already 18 or 19 years
the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of old.
the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or In his last-ditch effort to be exculpated, BENJIE calls
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant this Court’s attention to the medical findings that no
conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no sperm cells were present in the victim’s vagina just two
penetration of the female organ days following the rape. He intimates that no rape
occurred because of the absence of the sperm cells.
• The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused This contention is not well-taken. The absence of
may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's spermatozoa in the victim’s genitalia does not negate
testimony if credible. Dr. Zamora did not rule out rape, the slightest penetration even without emission
penetration of the genital organ of the victim. being sufficient to constitute and consummate the
offense. The mere touching of the labia of the woman’s
PEOPLE VS BENJIE RESURRECCION pudendum or lips of the female organ by the male
GR no. 185389 sexual organ consummates the act.
FACTS: PEOPLE VS. GACUSAN

On 20 June 2001, BENJIE was charged before the RTC G.R. NO. 207776, APRIL 26, 2017
with Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. He FACTS:
allegedly raped AAA, an 11 year-old girl. An information for rape was filed before the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 43 of Dagupan City against
Dr. Marlyn Valdez-Agbayani examined AAA and found Gacusan.
that the victim had no laceration in her external organ The information provided:
or her hymen. The former also testified that there were
no spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina. Despite these That at around 11 [0]’clock in the evening of October
findings, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani clarified that if the 14, 2009 in Brgy. [Inmalog], San Fabian, Pangasinan,
hymen of a woman is elastic and so thin, as in AAA’s Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
case, laceration may not be present. As to the absence Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then
of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina, Dr. Valdez- and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
Agbayani said that it was possible that the victim carnal knowledge [of AAA], a 15 year old minor, by
washed her genitalia, especially since she was having sexual intercourse with her, against her will and
examined only after two days following the alleged consent, to her damage and prejudice.
rape incident.
CONTRARY to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
BENJIE was convicted by the RTC, which was as amended by [Republic Act No.] 8353.
subsequently affirmed by the CA. Upon appeal to the
SC, BENJIE points out that 1) the testimony of AAA on Upon arraignment, Gacusan pleaded not guilty to the
how he allegedly raped her was highly improbable, and charge. Gacusan is the common-law partner of the
2) the negative findings of spermatozoa and laceration mother of the victim. The mother of the victim moved
must acquit him. in with Gacusan, however, the victim’s mother died
within 8 months of their common-law relationship.
ISSUE:
Whether or not BENJIE guilty of rape? When BBB was still alive, AAA slept in a separate room
in Gacusan’s house. When BBB died, AAA began
HELD: sleeping beside Gacusan because of her fear of ghosts.
Yes. This Court itself, in its desire to unveil the truth as
borne out by the records, has painstakingly pored over At around 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. of October 14, 2009,
the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case, and “AAA was trying to sleep beside [Gacusan] when” she
like the RTC, finds the victim’s testimony of the incident felt Gacusan’s hand touching her private parts inside
candid and straightforward, indicative of an untainted her shorts. DDD, Gacusan’s 19-year old son, was
and realistic narration of what transpired on that fateful sleeping on a folding bed in the same room. AAA said
day. that she did not attempt to remove Gacusan’s hand
BENJIE tries to discredit the victim's testimony by because she was already used to it.1 Gacusan “brought
questioning the odd position at which the rape was out his penis and inserted it through the leg opening
done. While BENJIE’s position, i.e., covering AAA’s of [AAA]’s shorts. During this time, AAA was on her
mouth with his left hand and pinning her down with back while [Gacusan] was on his side, facing her and
the right hand, may be considered difficult, such does trying to lift her leg. Gacusan was able to penetrate
not exclude the possibility that rape can be AAA’s vagina then proceeded to do a ‘“push and pull’
consummated under said situation. Depraved movement”. When AAA felt Gacusan’s penis inside her,
individuals stop at nothing in order to accomplish their she got up to go to the bathroom to urinate.
purpose. Perverts are not used to the easy way of Thereafter, “AAA went back to sleep beside [Gacusan].
satisfying their wicked cravings. It should be noted that

According to AAA, although she felt pain when The testimony of AAA reveals that the reason she did
Gacusan raped her, “she did not shout [because] she not shout during the alleged rape was that she was
was . . . afraid of him . . . [S]he was afraid to lose [a] afraid of losing a family. It is reasonable to assume that
family and she depended on [Gacusan for] support[.] she was terrified of losing someone who provided her
She also claimed that she “was already 15 years old [on support after losing her biological mother. She testified
the date of the alleged rape] and had been living with that she could not find comfort from her grandmother.
[Gacusan] for five years. AAA confessed that Gacusan
was already molesting her two (2) years after BBB’s “[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type of
death. situation, and there is no standard form of human
behavioral response when one is confronted with a
The Regional Trial Court convicted Gacusan of simple strange, startling or frightful experience.” One person
rape. may react aggressively, while another may show cold
The trial court also ruled that in rape committed by a indifference. Also, it is improper to judge the actions of
father to his daughter, it is the father’s moral children who are victims of traumatic experiences “by
ascendancy that replaces violation and intimidation. the norms of behavior expected under the
Thus, this principle “applies in the case of a sexual circumstances from mature people.” From AAA’s view,
abuse of a stepdaughter by her stepfather and of a it appeared that the danger of losing a family was more
goddaughter by a godfather in the sacrament of excruciating than physical pain.
confirmation.” Furthermore, the medico-legal findings
were consistent with AAA’s testimony that she was Furthermore, a victim should never be blemished for
raped. Hence, there is a sufficient basis to conclude her lack of resistance to any crime especially as heinous
that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have as rape. Neither the failure to shout nor the failure to
been established. resist the act equate to a victim’s voluntary submission
to the appellant’s lust.
The Court of Appeals ruled that “in incestuous rape or
those committed by the common law spouse of the Recent cases reiterating that moral ascendancy
victim’s parent, evidence of force and intimidation is replaces violence or intimidation in rape committed by
not necessary to secure a conviction.” “[I]n rape a close-kin cited People v. Corpuz. In Corpuz, the
committed by an ascendant, close kin, a step parent or accused was the live-in partner of the victim’s mother.
a common law spouse of a parent, moral ascendancy The victim, AAA, was 13 years old when accused
takes the place of force and intimidation.”Furthermore, Corpuz started raping her. The repeated rape incidents
AAA’s testimony and positive identification of Gacusan made AAA pregnant.
as the person who raped her, as well as the medical
findings confirming the rape, prevail over the bare In People v. Fraga, accused Fraga raped the daughters
denials of Gacusan. of his common-law partner. Fraga tried evading his
conviction by shifting from his defense of alibi to lack
Gacusan filed an appeal alleging failure of the of force or intimidation. While this Court affirmed
prosecution to prove that he employed force, threat, or Fraga’s conviction since force and intimidation was
intimidation in raping AAA. sufficiently proven, it also emphasized that:
ISSUE: [A]ccused-appellant started cohabiting with

Whether or not Gacusan is guilty of rape complainants’ mother in 1987. As the common-law
husband of their mother, he gained such moral
HELD: ascendancy over complainants that any more
Yes. Sections 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal resistance than had been shown by complainants
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the cannot reasonably be expected. (Emphasis provided)
Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provide that:
In People v. Robles,accused Robles raped his common-
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. – law wife’s daughter. This Court affirmed his conviction
Rape is Committed- and likened Robles’ moral ascendancy over the victim
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of to that of a biological father; thus:
a woman under any of the following
circumstances: Moral ascendancy and influence by the accused,
stepfather of the 12 year-old complainant, and threat
Through force, threat, or intimidation; of bodily harm rendered complainant subservient to
… appellant’s lustful desires… Actual force or intimidation
need not even be employed for rape to be committed
Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of where the over powering influence of a father over his
the next preceding article shall be punished by daughter suffices. (Emphasis provided, citation
reclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied) omitted)
Gacusan had moral ascendancy over AAA.
AAA admitted that despite the pain she felt, she neither
protested nor shouted at the time of the rape incident

TITLE NINE – CRIME AGAINST PERSONAL other crimes committed in the course of the victim’s
LIBERTY AND SECURITY confinement is immaterial to the case. The kidnapping
became consummated when the victim as actually
deprived of her freedom which makes it proper to
March 15, 2018 – Article 267 – SERIOUS ILLEGAL
prosecute the accused under Article 267 of the RPC.
DETENTION
The surrounding circumstance make it clear that the
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B.
main purpose of Ablaza in detaining Huggins was to
coerce her to withdraw her previous charges against
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RUBEN ABLAZA
him.
G.R. NO. L-27352 OCTOBER 31, 1969
The Court also finds no reason not to believe the

ISSUE:
judgment of the trial judge giving credence to
a. Whether or not Ablaza committed kidnapping with
Huggins’ declaration. The records of the case are
serious illegal detention.
convincing that the complainant’s testimony on the
facts of the kidnapping rang of truth. Not only that her
b. Whether or not there was an error of considering
narration was coherent, plausible and unshattered by
motor vehicle as aggravating circumstance attending
the defense counsel’s cross examination, but also no
the commission of the crime.
motive has been adduced by Huggins, who, since the
first incident in 1962, had got married and, therefore,
FACTS:
would have wanted least public exposure of her
Accused Ruben Ablaza forcibly took her from her
harrowing experiences, would come out and undergo
aunt's place in Caloocan City and brought her to a
another legal scrutiny of her unfortunate encounters
house in a barrio in Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she was
with the accused, other than her desire to tell the truth.
criminally abused by her abductor. After her rescue by
the Philippine Constabulary men, a criminal case for
b. No. The said contention is untenable. Contrary to the
forcible abduction with rape was filed against Ablaza.
protestation of the accused, the fact of use of motor
vehicle which facilitated the taking away of the
While that case in Bulacan was still pending, Annabelle
complainant and her consequent detention was
Huggins, who was sweeping the front of her aunt's
established not only by her declaration in court but
house in Makati, Rizal, was again grabbed by two men
also by the accused’s own admission that he took away
and forcibly taken to a taxicab where a third man, who
Huggins from her Aunt’s residence in Makati by taxi
turned out to be Ablaza, was waiting. Then the vehicle
cab.
sped away before anybody could come to the aid of
the struggling girl. Inside the cab, Annabelle was
Considering the extant evidence on record, the Court
seated at the rear between Ablaza and a companion;
fully agree with the decision of the trial court’s decision
her head was pressed down to the floor of the taxi, with
that the accused Reuben Ablaza committed the crime
Ablaza covering her mouth with his hand to prevent
of kidnapping with serious illegal detention attended
her from crying out for help. She was first brought to
by aggravating circumstance of the use of motor
the house of Ablaza's compadre in Caloocan, but then,
vehicle. The Court thus confirms the death penalty
informed that the police were already in their pursuit,
imposed by the lower court.
she was moved to the house of another compadre,
where she was kept for a week. Later, at the instance of
Ablaza, Annabelle was taken to Bulacan to ask for the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIMA
complaint against him be dropped. This did not MONTANIR, RONALD NORVA AND EDUARDO
materialize, because when they were inside the CHUA
Malolos municipal building Annabelle's uncle, in G.R. NO. 187534 APRIL 4, 2011
company of Constabulary men, came and took her. She
also testified that for the duration of her detention the ISSUE:
accused and his compadres were always guarding her Whether or not herein appellants are guilty for
to prevent her escape. violating Article 267 on Serious Illegal Detention.
The CFI of Rizal, in its decision dated March 7, 1967, FACTS:

found the accused guilty of kidnapping with serious Josie Herrera, Robert Uy, Alicia a.k.a. Alice Buenaflor,
illegal detention, attended by the aggravating together with appellants Ronald Norva and Eduardo
circumstance of use of motor vehicle, and was Chua, concocted a plan to kidnap Rafael Mendoza, and
sentenced to death. Hence, this automatic review of after several days of conducting surveillance on their
the decision of the CFI of Rizal. intended victim, on January 5, 1998, they decided to
kidnap Rafael in Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City.
HELD: However, the intended kidnapping failed, because
a. Yes. Ablaza’s contention that he should be adjudged Rafael did not show up at the said place. On February
of abduction with rape rather than kidnapping with 5, 1998, a second attempt was made, but they
serious illegal detention bears no merit. He stood trial encountered an accident before they could even
for kidnapping with serious illegal detention, and the execute their original plan.
deprivation of the complainant’s liberty, which is the
essential element of the offense was duly proved and

Around 5:30 a.m. of February 17, 1998, Alicia called up agreed to help her. During their conversation, Jonard
Rosalina Reyes, a partner of Rafael, to tell her that she told Rosalina that two women had tipped them off as
wanted to meet her and Rafael at Jollibee, BBB, the kidnap victims. When asked who they were, Jonard
Valenzuela City to settle the former's loan of refused to reveal their identities.
P350,000.00. She requested Rosalina to bring the land
title which she was given as collateral for the said loan. Rosalina was transferred to the master's bedroom
around 12:00 noon because certain female visitors
Rosalina and Rafael arrived at Jollibee ahead of Alicia. arrived. After the visitors left, Rosalina was returned to
Eventually, around 9:15 a.m. of the same date, Alicia the room where she was previously taken. Rosalina
showed up outside the store aboard a car. She was with asked Jonard about Rafael's condition, to which he
appellant Ronald Norva. Alicia motioned Rosalina and replied that Rafael would be brought to the hospital. A
Rafael to approach the car, which the two did as little later, at around 1 p.m., Jonard went to check on
requested. While inside the vehicle, Alicia introduced Rafael and confirmed that he was still alive.
appellant Ronald as her cousin. Later on, Alicia
informed Rosalina and Rafael that she would pay them Around 2:00 p.m., Rosalina heard the sound of
at her place. someone being pummelled. Feeling nervous, she
asked Jonard the whereabouts of Rafael and was told
When the car passed by the street where Alicia's house that he was brought to the hospital. But unknown to
was located, Rosalina asked the former where they Rosalina, Rafael had just died and his body was placed
were going. Alicia answered that they had to drop by inside the trunk of a car.
the house of her financier who agreed to redeem her
title and substitute as her creditor. Trusting Alicia, Around 6:30 p.m., Rosalina was informed that she will
Rosalina and Rafael did not protest. They finally be brought to another safe house. She was taken to a
reached a house in Ciudad Grande, Valenzuela City. car and placed at the back seat, together with Jonard
and three other men, later identified as Larry, Jack and
Thereafter, appellant Ronald alighted from the vehicle Boy. The driver of the car was appellant Ronald.
and talked to a man inside a store, later identified as Appellant Ronald instructed Jonard to cover Rosalina's
Jonard Mangelin. The gate of the house was then head with a jacket which Jonard did. As they were
opened by appellant Dima. The car proceeded to the about to leave, the man seated beside Ronald started
garage and Rosalina and Rafael were asked to go to talk. Rosalina recognized the voice of Robert. She
inside the house. Rosalina followed Alicia, while Rafael then lifted the jacket covering her head and was able
trailed Rosalina as they entered through a kitchen to confirm that the one talking was Robert. Rosalina
door. They passed by a man (Jessie Doe) who was cried, Robert, Robert, why did you do this, we did not
washing his hands in the sink. While Rosalina was do anything to you and Robert responded,
walking behind Alicia, she suddenly heard a dull moan Pasensiyahan na lang tayo.
coupled with the sound of stomping feet. She looked
back at the direction where the sounds came from and By 10:00 p.m., they arrived at a certain house in Pandi,
saw Rafael being forcibly dragged inside a room. She Bulacan where there was no electricity. Thus, they lit
decided to look for Rafael and on her way, she saw candles for illumination. Rosalina found the house
Jessie Doe place his hand on Rafael's mouth and poke familiar and concluded that it was Alicia's. Rosalina was
a gun at him. Rafael struggled to get free. Rosalina brought to a room on the second floor and while inside
pleaded with Jessie Doe to have pity on Rafael because the room, she was told by one of the men guarding her
of his existing heart ailment. that one of the leaders wanted to talk to her. Per the
leader's instruction, the guard put out the candle light.
Appellant Ronald rushed towards her, poked a gun at The man then seated himself beside Rosalina and
her mouth, tied her to a bed and warned her not to warned her against escaping as they were a large and
make any noise. He told her that all they want is her armed group. Rosalina recognized the voice as that of
money, upon which, Rosalina said that if they really Robert's. Before he left the room, Robert gave
wanted money, they should untie Rafael, who then instructions to Jonard and the other men inside.
appeared to be on the verge of having a heart attack. Meanwhile, the group started digging a pit at the back
Rosalina was untied and she immediately rushed to of the same house near the swimming pool.
Rafael and began pumping his chest. She asked Jonard,
who had just entered the room, to help her pump Around 3:00 a.m. of the following day (February 18),
Rafael's chest while she applied CPR on the latter. the group buried Rafael's body in the pit. Thereafter,
Jonard did as told. While CPR was being administered, Robert instructed appellant Ronald to tell Jonard that
appellant Dima started removing all of Rafael's the latter should kill Rosalina, which Jonard refused to
personal belongings, which include his ring, wallet, do. Nonetheless, Robert instructed Jonard and the
watch and other items inside his pocket, and passed others to guard Rosalina well, as he himself would deal
them on to appellant Ronald. with her upon his return.
Afterwards, appellant Ronald instructed Jonard to take Rosalina heard the car leave around 5:00 a.m. of the
Rosalina to another room. While inside the room where same day. Sensing that Jonard was sympathetic to her,
she was brought, Rosalina begged Jonard to help her Rosalina begged him again to help her escape for the
escape. Jonard was moved by Rosalina's plea and sake of her children.

Yes. First of all, it must be emphasized that the crime

When electricity was restored around 8 p.m., one of the committed by the appellants, as ruled by the trial court
men guarding Rosalina turned off the light inside the and affirmed by the CA, is the special complex crime of
room. The room was only illuminated by a light coming Kidnapping with Homicide.
from the hallway. Rosalina saw a person wearing a wig
and sunglasses enter the room. Rosalina recognized Republic Act No. 7659, Article 267 of the Revised Penal
him as Robert. Trying to mimic a woman by Code, now provides:
modulating his voice, Robert told her that Rafael was
in the hospital and that he could still sign a check. He Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private
asked Rosalina the whereabouts of the other land titles individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any
and the identities of the other financiers whom she other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the
knew. Rosalina replied in the negative. Robert angrily penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
poked a gun at her and shouted, That's impossible, and
then left the room. He gave instructions to his 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more
members and left. than three days.
At 9:00 p.m., Jonard went to Rosalina and told her 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
about Robert's order to kill her, which caused the latter authority.
to panic and cry. She then implored the help of Jonard
for her escape. Afterwards, Jonard went to his 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
companions Larry, Jack and Boy and told them that he inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if
would help Rosalina escape. His companions threats to kill him shall have been made.
immediately cocked their guns and an argument
ensued. Rosalina talked to them and begged them all 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
to spare her life. One of Jonard's companions told except when the accused is any of the parents, female
Rosalina that if they would allow her to escape, they or a public officer;
too would get into trouble. Taking advantage of the
situation, Rosalina suggested that all of them should In People v. Ramos, the court held that Where the
escape. They all agreed to escape in the early morning. person kidnapped is killed in the course of the
Around 5:00 a.m., Rosalina, Jonard, Larry, Jack and Boy detention, regardless of whether the killing was
left the safe house. They walked through a rice field for purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the
about 30 minutes and then boarded a jeepney bound kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be
for Balagtas, Bulacan. From Balagtas, they took a bus complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate
going to Cubao and arrived at 7:30 a.m. Rosalina crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex
pawned her pieces of jewelry for P1,500.00 and gave crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended
the P1,000.00 to Larry, Jack and Boy. The three told by RA No. 7659.
Jonard to stay with Rosalina so that she would have a
witness and, in case Rosalina would further need their In a special complex crime, the prosecution must
help, left their address with Jonard. necessarily prove each of the component offenses with
the same precision that would be necessary if they
When the three left, Rosalina immediately called were made the subject of separate complaints. As
Rafael's brother Tito, and related what happened to her earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 267
and his brother. When Tito asked Jonard which hospital of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this
Rafael was brought to, Jonard revealed to Rosalina that provision: "When the victim is killed or dies as a
Rafael died at the safe house in Ciudad Grande, consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is
Valenzuela City. Rosalina called her lawyer, Atty. subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
Teresita Agbi and asked her to meet them at Farmer's, maximum penalty shall be imposed; and that this
Cubao. When Atty. Agbi arrived, she accompanied provision gives rise to a special complex crime.
them to the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) where an investigation was In the cases at bar, it specifically alleges that the victim
conducted. Marijoy was raped "on the occasion and in connection"
The following day, at 4:00 a.m., two groups from the with her detention and was killed "subsequent thereto
DILG were formed to arrest Alicia, Josie, the appellants, and on the occasion thereof. "Considering that the
and Robert. Alicia and Josie were not at their homes, prosecution was able to prove each of the component
while appellants Ronald and Dima were arrested at the offenses, appellants should be convicted of the special
residence of Robert. While at the DILG office, Rosalina complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
positively identified appellants Ronald and Dima as her detention with homicide and rape. It appearing from
kidnappers. Meanwhile, Jonard accompanied the the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that
police authorities to the safe house in Pandi, Bulacan there is a "direct relation, and intimate connection"
and showed them where the body of Rafael was buried. between the kidnapping, killing and raping of Marijoy,
The remains of Rafael was later on exhumed. rape cannot be considered merely as an aggravating
circumstance but as a component offense forming part
HELD: of the herein special complex crime.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS FELIPE

MIRANDILLA JR. The following evening, Mirandilla and his gang
G.R. NO. 186417 JULY 27, 2011 brought AAA to Guinobatan, where she suffered the
same fate. They repeatedly detained her at daytime,
ISSUE: moved her back and forth from one place to another
Whether or not Mirandilla is guilty of the special on the following nights, first to Bonga, then back to
complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with Guinobatan, where she was locked up in a cell-type
rape. house and was raped repeatedly on the grassy field
right outside her cell, then to Camalig, where they
FACTS: caged her in a small house in the middle of a rice field.
AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a She was allegedly raped 27 times.
nearby store. While making her way back through the
crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his arm wrapped her One afternoon, in Guinobatan, AAA succeeded in
shoulders, with a knifes point thrust at her right side. opening the door of her cell. Seeing that Mirandilla and
She will come to know the mans name at the police his companions were busy playing cards, she rushed
station, after her escape, to be Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. He outside and ran, crossed a river, got drenched, and
told her not to move or ask for help. Another man continued running. She rested for awhile, hiding
joined and went beside her, while two others stayed at behind a rock; she walked through the fields and
her back, one of whom had a gun. stayed out of peoples sight for two nights. Finally, she
They slipped through the unsuspecting crowd, walked found a road and followed its path, leading her to the
farther as the deafening music faded into soft sounds. house of Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the
After a four-hour walk through the grassy fields, they police station. It was 11 January 2001.
reached the Mayon International Hotel, where they AAA was in foul smell, starving and sleepless. Evelyn
boarded a waiting tricycle. Upon passing the Albay Guevarra gave her a bath and the police gave her food.
Cathedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA alone with When the police presented to her pictures of
Mirandilla who after receiving a gun from a suspected criminals, she recognized the mans face she
companion, drove the tricycle farther away and into the was certain it was him. He was Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., the
darkness. Minutes later, they reached the Gallera de police told her.
Legazpi in Rawis.
HELD:
Mirandilla dragged AAA out of the tricycle and pushed Yes. Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime of
her inside a concrete house. At gunpoint he ordered kidnapping and illegal detention with rape.
her to remove her pants.[6] When she defied him, he Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual
slapped her and hit her arms with a gun, forced his intercourse with AAA, which happened almost nightly
hands inside her pants, into her panty, and reaching during their cohabitation. He contended that they were
her vagina, slipped his three fingers and rotated them live-in partners, entangled in a whirlwind romance,
inside. The pain weakened her. He forcibly pulled her which intimacy they expressed in countless passionate
pants down and lifting her legs, pushed and pulled his sex, which headed ironically to separation mainly
penis inside.[7] Sayang ka, she heard him whisper at because of AAAs intentional abortion of their first child
her,[8] as she succumbed to pain and exhaustion. to be a betrayal in its gravest form which he found hard
to forgive.
When AAA woke up the following morning, she found
herself alone. She cried for help, shouting until her In stark contrast to Mirandillas tale of a love affair, is
throat dried. But no one heard her. No rescue came. AAAs claim of her horrific ordeal and her flight to
freedom after 39 days in captivity during which
At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived together with Mirandilla raped her 27 times.
his gang. Pointing a gun at AAA, he ordered her to
open her mouth; she sheepishly obeyed. He forced his The accused bare invocation of sweetheart theory
penis inside her mouth, pulling through her hair with cannot alone, stand. To be credible, it must be
his left hand and slapping her with his right. After corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other
satisfying his lust, he dragged her into the tricycle and evidence. Usually, these are letters, notes, photos,
drove to Bogtong, Legazpi. At the roads side, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know
Mirandilla pushed her against a reclining tree, gagged the lovers.
her mouth with cloth, punched her arm, thigh, and lap,
and pulled up her over-sized shirt. Her underwear was The sweetheart theory as a defense, however,
gone. Then she felt Mirandillas penis inside her vagina. necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element
A little while, a companion warned Mirandilla to move of rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the
out. And they drove away. burden to prove only force or intimidation, the
coupling element of rape. Love, is not a license for lust.
They reached a nipa hut and AAA was thrown inside.
Her mouth was again covered with cloth. Mirandilla, This admission makes the sweetheart theory more
with a gun aimed at her point blank, grabbed her shirt, difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative
forced her legs open, and again inserted his penis into defense that needs convincing proof; after the
her vagina. prosecution has successfully established a prima facie

case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, was able to shield herself with a plastic container. AAA
who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was was crying while she held her aunt's hand. Sajiron then
consensual. drew his gun, which was tucked in his waist, pointed it
at Inon Dama and said, If you will not go, I will shoot
A prima facie case arises when the party having the you. Inon Dama went home and reported the incident
burden of proof has produced evidence sufficient to to AAA's mother.
support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue When Inon Dama left the place, Maron, Sajiron's father,
in litigation. suddenly appeared with a gun and told AAA to come
Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests with them. When AAA refused, Sajiron and Maron tied
on a party at any particular time during the trial to her hands behind her back, covered her mouth with a
create a prima facie case in his favour or to overthrow piece of cloth, and brought her to the forest. There,
one when created against him. AAA was untied and undressed, leaving only her bra
on. While Sajiron was undressing AAA, she pleaded
AAA was able to prove each element of rape with him not to abuse her, but Sajiron told her that if
committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised she would submit to his desire, her life would be
Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had carnal knowledge spared. Sajiron held her breast, touched her private
of her; (2) through force, threat, or intimidation. She parts and inserted his sex organ inside her vagina. AAA
was also able to prove each element of rape by sexual resisted, but to no avail. She felt pain and she noticed
assault under Article 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal blood on her private parts. She was sexually abused
Code: (1) Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouth; three times on the ground, where she was made to lie
(2) through force, threat, or intimidation. down on a bed of leaves.
Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention is During the entire time that AAA was being abused by
provided for under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Sajiron, Maron stood guard and watched them. They
Code: left the forest at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. of the following day and brought AAA to the house of
Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain Egap, where she was detained in a room. Sajiron
another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, instructed Egap to guard AAA and to shoot her if she
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death; would attempt to escape.
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more On July 2, 1994, AAAs mother came to get AAA, but
than three days. xxx Egap refused and threatened to kill her daughter if she
would report the matter to the authorities. Out of fear
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had of losing her daughter, she went home and did not
been committed in the special complex crime of report the incident to the police authorities.[6] Egap
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one asked AAA if she wanted to marry Sajiron, but she
kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite refused. AAA was then forced to sign an unknown
acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in document, which she was not able to read.
fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one
single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the Nine days after the abduction, or on July 11, 1994,
seriousness of rape because no matter how many upon instruction of Egap, AAA and Sajiron were
times the victim was raped, like in the present case, married by Imam Musli Muhammad. The marriage was
there is only one crime committed the special complex solemnized against AAA's will and without the
crime of kidnapping with rape. presence of her parents. After the marriage, AAA and
Sajiron lived in the house of Egap, together with the
EGAP MADSALI, SAJIRON LAJIM AND MARON latter's wife, children and mother-in-law.
LAJIM VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AAA stayed in one room with Sajiron. While detained,
G.R. NO. 179570 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 AAA did not try to escape, because her house was very
far from the place where she was held captive, and her
ISSUE: captors threatened to kill her and her family if she
Whether or not herein appellants committed acts would attempt to escape. During her detention, Sajiron
constituting serious illegal detention as enshrined in abused her twice every night. She was free to roam
Article 267 of the RPC within the vicinity of the house but she was usually
accompanied by Egap's wife who served as her guard.
FACTS: She was also guarded and threatened by Egap's sons.
On July 1, 1994, around 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, She got pregnant after some time.
fifteen-year-old AAA and her aunt Inon Dama were
fetching water in a cave in Barangay (Brgy.) Malitub, HELD:
Bataraza, Palawan. Suddenly, Sajiron arrived, running Yes. Herein appellants are guilty of violating Article 267
towards them and carrying a badong (bolo). They tried pertaining to serious illegal detention.
to run away, but Sajiron overtook them. He held the
hair of AAA and told her, Sara, you go with me. If you In the case at bar, the trial court found AAA's testimony
will not go with me, I will kill you. Inon Dama came to credible. The trial court held that AAA's testimony was
AAA's rescue, but Sajiron tried to hack her. Luckily, she clear, categorical and consistent. She remained

steadfast in her assertions and unfaltering in her (a)the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3
testimony given in court on the unfortunate incident. days; or
The trial court found that AAA positively identified
Sajiron and Maron as her abductors and narrated how (b)it is committed by simulating public authority; or
she was taken and thrice raped by Sajiron in the forest.
(c)any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the
Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to death person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
threats does not affect the credibility of the made; or
complainant, nor can it be taken against her. The
charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay (d)the person kidnapped or detained is a minor,
was unreasonable and unexplained. BBB explained that female, or a public officer.
she did not immediately report the abduction, rape
and detention of her daughter to the authorities, In the case at bar, Sajiron and Maron, who are private
because Egap threatened to kill AAA, who was then in individuals, forcibly took and dragged AAA, a minor, to
his custody. the forest and held her captive against her will. The
crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of
Further, BBB testified that, on another occasion, Egap placing a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining
threatened to kill her if she dared to report the matter him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. For
to the authorities. True enough, when Egap learned there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is
that she did what he forbade her to do, he made good restrained from going home. Its essence is the actual
his threat and shot her at the back.Thus, BBB's delay in deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with
reporting the incident for five months should not be indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect
taken against her. such deprivation.
It is highly improbable that a young girl, such as AAA, In the present case, although AAA was not actually
would concoct a horrid story and impute to the confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly
accused a crime so grave and subject herself and her restrained and deprived of her liberty, because she was
family to the humiliation and invasive ordeal of a public tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of cloth,
trial just to avenge the alleged non-payment of the thus, making it very easy to physically drag her to the
dowry, unless she be impelled by a genuine desire to forest away from her home.
expose the truth, vindicate her honor and seek justice
she so greatly deserves. March 15, 2018 – Article 268 – SLIGHT ILLEGAL
DETENTION
Neither is the Court convinced of the sweetheart ALAMEDA Jr., Manuel F.
theory, the defense of the accused, by alleging that
AAA and Sajiron were engaged for three years prior to PEOPLE VS SALIENTE, ET AL.
their elopement and marriage. If there were indeed G.R. NO. L-2427 JUNE 28, 1949
romantic relationship between AAA and Sajiron, as the
latter claims, her normal reaction would have been to FACTS:
cover up for the man she supposedly loved. On the at about 9 o'clock in the evening , the defendants came
contrary, AAA lost no time in reporting the incident to to the house of Telesfora Alentejo where Telesfora's
the National Bureau of Investigation, right after she niece, Juana Briones, was then staying. Telling Juana
was rescued by the authorities. that they had come for by her by order of their "chief,"
The accusatory portion of the information alleges that they asked her to go along with them and when she
AAA was taken and carried away by Sajiron and Maron refused she was threatened by defendant Montilla with
against her will and brought to the forest; and, on the a bolo and by defendant Saliente with a pistol and then
occasion thereof, Sajiron -- by means of force, threat, taken against her will to the latter's house in the barrio
violence and intimidation -- had carnal knowledge of of Tambis, about two kilometers away. It would appear
AAA. that the defendants were accompanied by some
soldiers, although these were neither named nor
The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal identified. Once in Saliente's house, defendants let
detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code Juana know that what they had told her in private so
are: that he could persuade her into marrying him. Juana
retorted that she did not want to marry anybody. Juana
(1) the offender is a private individual; was kept in Saliente's house for two nights and one
day. On the third day, Juana was able to persuade the
(2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other defendants to take her to the house of her brother,
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; Brigido Enclona, so that they could talk the matter over
with him. There they were joined by Montilla's father
(3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and who, in behalf of his son, asked for Juana's hand in
marriage. As Juana turned a deaf ear to the proposal,
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the the trio took their departure, leaving her in the house
following circumstances are present: of her brother.c In the evening of that same day,
however, the defendants came back and, complaining

that Juana had fooled them, they forcibly took her not only to slight illegal detention but also to
downstairs. Montilla then led her away, while Saliente kidnapping and serious illegal detention penalized by
stayed behind to wait for Enclona, who, was then Article 267.
absent. Meeting Enclona on the road, Juana warned
him that Saliente was lying in wait for him with the HELD:
intention of doing him harm. On hearing this, Enclona That kidnapping under Article 267 depended solely on
ran away, while Montilla, on his part, left Juana to the circumstances in which the kidnapping took place,
herself and went back to rejoin Saliente. The irrespective of the end sought by the kidnapper; That
defendants Montilla admitted having taken Juana from the third paragraph of Article 268 already existed in the
the house of her aunt, but put up the defense that this original version, and plainly was not intended to apply
was done with her consent, since they had long been to crimes under Article 267; Article 268 then described
sweethearts and had, on the day in question, two variants of dig illegal detention;
exchanged notes regarding their elopement.
(a) Slight detention where none of the circumstances
ISSUE: specified in Article 267 was present (Article 268, par.
Whether or not the crime of slight illegal detention is 142), penalized by prision mayor;
tenable in the case at bar.
(b) Slight detention where, in addition to the absence
HELD: of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267,
Yes. The crime committed is that of slight illegal there were, besides three other circumstances, the
detention under the third paragraph of article 268 of voluntary release of the kidnappee within 3 days from
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act seizure, plus the fact that the purpose intended
No. 18, approved on September 25, 1946, it appearing (whatever it should be, ransom, marriage, disclosure of
that the defendants voluntarily released Juana Briones secrets, etc.) was not attained, plus the third fact that
within three days from the commencement of her the release was effected before the institution of
detention without having attained the purpose criminal proceedings against the culprit or culprits.
intended and before the institution of the criminal Clearly, therefore, Articles 267 and 268 were originally
action against them. The penalty prescribed is prision mutually exclusive.
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine Thus, the last paragraph of article 268 applies to slight
not exceeding P700. As the crime was committed with illegal detention only not to Article 267. Articles 267
the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and and 268 are independent of each other.
dwelling, not compensated by any mitigating
circumstances, the said penalty should be imposed in March 16, 2018 – Article 269 – UNLAWFUL ARREST
its maximum period. ALILIAN, Enna B.
LUIS ASISTIO v. LOURDES P. SAN Diego G.R. NO. 138859-60

GR No. L-21991 FEBRUARY 22, 2001
Mar 31, 1964 ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP VS. THE HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
That on or about the 26th day of December, 1962, FACTS:
Luisito Asistio et, al., being private individuals with the Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the cases against
exception of the accused VICTORINO ARANDA and him - violation of RA 3019, and unlawful arrest of the
LORENZO MENESES who are public officers, conspiring RPC, grounded on the lack of preliminary investigation.
together, confederating with and mutually helping and Ombudsman denied the motion.
aiding one another, with threats to kill the person of
CHUA PAO alias "SO NA", and for the purpose of ISSUE:
extorting ransom in the amount of TWENTY WoN preliminary injunction was required in cases of
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) from the said CHUA unlawful arrests
PAO alias "SO NA" or from his wife did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, detain and HELD:
deprive the person of the said CHUA PAO alias "SO No. A preliminary investigation was not required
NA" of his liberty, to his damage and because unlawful arrest under Article 269 of the
prejudice.Petitioners applied for bail on the ground Revised Penal Code was punishable by arresto mayor -
that the record of the ex parte investigation conducted imprisonment of one month and one day to six
by the fiscal showed, from the testimony of the months. The Rules of Court requires only such
offended party himself, Chua Pao alias So Na, that the investigation before an information for an offense
latter was (a) voluntarily released by his captors (b) punishable by at least four years, two months and one
within 24 hours from seizure and (c) without any day may be filed in court.
ransom being, in fact, paid. But the respondent judge
denied the application for bail. G.R. No. L-44335
July 30, 1936
ISSUE: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs.
whether or not the last paragraph of Article 268 applies KAGUI MALASUGUI

On September 6, 1998, after a trip to a beach in Laguna,

FACTS: Marquez allegedly borrowed Meranos then three-
The accused was charged with the crime of robbery month old daughter Justine Bernadette C. Merano
and homicide after the victim, while still sprawled on (Justine) to buy her some clothes, milk and food.
the ground with blood all around, dying, said the name Merano said she agreed because it was not unusual for
of the accused as the one who attacked him, thus Marquez to bring Justine some things whenever she
prompting the officials to immediately search the came to the parlor. When Marquez failed to return
accused. With the accused was found the victim’s Justine in the afternoon as promised, Merano went to
identification card and pocketbook containing P92 in her employer’s house to ask them for Marquez’s
bills. The accused was thereafter arrested. address. However, Merano said that her employers just
assured her that Justine will be returned to her soon.
ISSUE:
WoN the arresting officer violated Art 269 RPC But a few months have passed and Merano discovered
unlawful arrest through Modesto Castillos that Marquez sold Justine
to him and his wife and that they gave Marquez Sixty
HELD: Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) supposedly for Merano
No. The right to be secure from unreasonable search who was asking for money. Castillo even gave Merano
may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may a photocopy of the handwritten Kasunduan dated May
be made either expressly or impliedly. The appellant 17, 1998, wherein Merano purportedly gave Justine to
was then charged with the crime, imputed to him by the Castillo spouses.
Tan Why before the latter's death, of having assaulted
the "deceased; that he was then also known to be HELD:
carrying much money; and that a few moments before A reading of the charge in the information shows that
he was brought to Lieutenant Jacaria, and shortly after the act imputed to Marquez was not the illegal
the assault on Tan Why, he was able to redeem two detention of a person, but involves her deliberate
pairs of bracelets from two persons to whom he had failure to restore a minor baby girl to her parent after
pledge them several months before. These are being entrusted with said baby’s custody. Contrary to
circumstances which undoubtedly warranted his arrest Marquez’s assertions, therefore, she was charged with
without a previous judicial warrant. This is so because violation of Article 270, and not Article 267, of the
under the law, members of Insular Police or Revised Penal Code. The Revised Penal Code considers
Constabulary as well as those of the municipal police it a crime when a person who has been entrusted with
and of chartered cities like Manila and Baguio, and the custody of a minor later on deliberately fails to
even of townships (secs. 848, 2463, 2564, 2165 and return said minor to his parent or guardian. This may
2383 of the Revised Administrative Code) may make be found in Article 270, which reads:
arrests without judicial warrant, not only when a crime Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The
is committed or about to be committed in their penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
presence but also when there is reason to believe or any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a
sufficient ground to suspect that one has been minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter
committed and that it was committed by the person to his parents or guardians.
arrested by them. An arrest made under said
circumstances is not unlawful but perfectly justified; This crime has two essential elements:
and the agent of authority who makes the arrest does
not violate the provisions of article 269 of the Revised 1. The offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor
Penal Code which defines and punishes unlawful arrest. person; and
March 16, 2018 – Article 270 – KIDNAPPING AND 2. The offender deliberately fails to restore the said
FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR minor to his parents or guardians.
ARANCES, Javy Ann
This Court, in elucidating on the elements of Article
270, stated that while one of the essential elements of
PEOPLE VS AIDA MARQUEZ
this crime is that the offender was entrusted with the
GR NO. 181440, APRIL 13, 2011
custody of the minor, what is actually being punished
PONENTE: JUSTICE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
is not the kidnapping but the deliberate failure of that
person to restore the minor to his parents or guardians.
ISSUE:
As the penalty for such an offense is so severe, the
Whether or not defendant Aida Marquez should be
Court further explained what deliberate as used in
charged of Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
Article 270 means: “Indeed, the word deliberate as
used in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code must
FACTS:
imply something more than mere negligence - it must
According to the complainant, Carolina Cunanan
be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
Merano (Merano), she met Marquez at the beauty
intentionally and maliciously wrong.” (Emphasis ours.)
parlor where she was working as a beautician, whom
she easily trusted because Marquez was close to her
PEOPLE VS GENEROSO JO, ET AL.
employers and was nice to her and her co-employees.

GR NO. L-69236, AUGUST 19, 1986 ISSUE:

PONENTE: JUSTICE MELENCIO-HERRERA Whether defendant Bernardo should be charged of
Article 270 - Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in charging Roca, one of the FACTS:
defendants, with Kidnapping and failure to return a On May 13, 1999, 12-year old Maria Roselle Tolibas y
minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code but Aguada and her 15-day old sister, Rosalyn Tolibas,
convicted him of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal were with their mother, Rosita Tolibas y Aguada, at the
Detention under Article 267 (4) [supra] of the same Fabella Memorial Hospital for medical check up. While
Code. Rosita was undergoing medical checkup inside the
hospital, her two daughters waited at the lobby.
FACTS: Roselle was seating on a bench with her 15-day old
Complainant Elisa Casal Jo was married to accused sister on her lap when the appellant sat beside her.
Generoso Jo on July 27, 1969. They begot three Appellant befriended Roselle. After a while, the
children, namely, Eligen, Allan and Riza, whose ages at appellant gave P3.00 to Roselle and asked her to buy
the time of the subject incident were 9 years old, 7 ice water. The appellant took the 15-day old baby from
years old and 6 years old, respectively. Roselle and assured her that she (accused) would take
care of her (Roselles) sister, while she was buying ice
Sometime in December 1975, the couple separated. On water. Roselle was not able to find ice water for sale
July 27, 1980, Elisa met Felipe Lapitan, a witch-doctor. and on her way back to the hospital, she saw the
Lapitan told Elisa that Generoso had hired him to kill accused running away with her baby sister. She chased
her, that he had already set in motion the evil spirit the appellant and when she caught up with her, the
which would put an end to her life in a few days; and appellant told her that she was running after her
that the effect of the evil spirit would be averted if she (Roselle’s) mother. Roselle did not believe the
would submit herself for treatment. Helpless and not appellant and she held and pulled the appellants skirt
knowing what to do, Elisa believed the witch-doctor to prevent her from getting away with her (Roselles)
and consented to submit for treatment. Lapitan baby sister, but the appellant persisted in running with
conducted an 'oracion' or strange prayer on her and Roselle holding on to the appellants skirt. Roselle
then let her drink a glass of water concoction. Accused shouted for help, thereby attracting the attention of
Felipe Lapitan and Virgilio Roca took her three children Emerento Torres, a Barangay Kagawad.
on a jeep to the Tacloban Wharf. Lapitan made them
board a motorboat with him while Virgilio Roca sent Appellant contends that there was no deliberate failure
them off. The boat left for Samar before noon. on her part to restore the minor Rosalyn Tolibas to her
parents or guardians, stating that the charge filed
On August 9, 1980, Capt. Angelo Marcos, Station against her was a mere overreaction on the part of the
Commander of the La Paz Police Station filed a criminal prosecution witnesses to her act of going out of the
complaint for kidnapping of minors against Felipe hospital to look for the mother of the child.
Lapitan, Virgilio Roca and Ceferino Lopez.
HELD:
HELD: Yes. The essential element of the crime of kidnapping
The offense as charged, which is Kidnapping and and failure to return a minor is that the offender is
Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the entrusted with the custody of the minor, but what is
Revised Penal Code, is necessarily included in the actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the
offense proved, which is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian
Detention of a minor under Article 267 (4) of the same of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or
code, inasmuch as the essential ingredients of the guardians. Indeed, the word deliberate as used in
offense charged constitute or form a part of those Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code must imply
constituting the offense proved. Thus, deliberate something more than mere negligence - it must be
failure to restore a minor under one's custody and premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
kidnapping of a minor who is not in custody both intentionally and maliciously wrong.
constitute deprivation of liberty. Consequently, ROCA
can be convicted of the offense proved included in that When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant before
which is charged. Besides, there is authority to the setting out on an errand for appellant to look for ice
effect that paragraph 1 of Article 270 might have been water, the first element was accomplished and when
superseded by Article 267, as amended, which appellant refused to return the baby to Roselle despite
punishes as serious illegal detention the kidnapping of her continuous pleas, the crime was effectively
a minor, regardless of the purpose of the detention. accomplished. In fine, we agree with the trial courts
finding that appellant is guilty of the crime of
PEOPLE VS BERNARDO kidnapping and failure to return a minor.
GR NO. 144316, MARCH 11, 2002
PONENTE: JUSTICE MELO March 17, 2018 – Article 272 – SLAVERY

US VS. CABANAG RULING:

G.R. NO. 3241 MARCH 16, 1907 No. The judge below quotes the Bill of Rights of the
TRACEY, J.: Philippines contained in the act of Congress of July 1,
1902, declaring that "neither slavery nor involuntary
ISSUE: servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof
Whether or not Cabanag committed slavery. the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in
said Islands." This constitutional provision is self-acting
FACTS: whenever the nature of a case permits and any law or
An Igorot orphan girl called Gamaya, 13 years of age contract providing for servitude of a person against his
was taken from the possession of her grandmother by will is forbidden and is void. For two obvious reasons,
one Buyag, also an Igorot; whether this was done with however, it fails to reach the facts before us:
or against the will of the grandmother is not altogether
clear in the evidence. It was testified by a witness that First. The employment or custody of a minor with the
Buyag came to the house and took her away, although consent or sufferance of the parents or guardian,
the grandmother objected, saying "Do not take off that although against the child's own will, cannot be
little girl," but not speaking when she went away. The considered involuntary servitude. Second. We are
man brought her to his house, about a half mile distant, dealing not with a civil remedy but with a criminal
where she was not confined, but on the contrary was charge, in relation to which the Bill of Rights defines no
allowed to go back alone to her grandmother, with crime and provides no punishment. Its effects cannot
whom she would spend a little while, returning the be carried into the realm of criminal law without an act
same day. She testified that on last evening, the of the legislature.
grandmother was angry and did not wish her to go, but
did not prevent her. According to her recollection she To sum up this case, there is no proof of slaver or even
remained with Buyag, in the vicinity of her of involuntary servitude, inasmuch as it has not been
grandmother's residence, some two or three months. clearly shown that the child has been disposed of
Buyag testified that more than two years before, in against the will of her grandmother or has been taken
order to help the family after the father's death and for altogether out of her control. If the facts in this respect
the purpose of keeping the child at home, he had be interpreted otherwise, there is no law applicable
bought her for three pigs, twenty-five hens, two here, either of the United States or of the Archipelago,
measures of rice, and a cloak worth two pigs, from her punishing slavery as a crime. The child was not
mother, with whom she remained until the third year, physically confined or restrained so as to sustain a
when (her mother presumably having died) she was conviction for illegal detention, nor are the acts of the
brought away by one Eusebio, at the instance of accused brought within any of the provisions of the law
himself and another Igorot named YogYog, who had for the punishment of offenses against minors;
furnished part of the purchase price. Together they consequently the conviction in this case must be
instructed Eusebio to sell her for a carabao and 50 reversed, in accordance with the recommendation of
pesos. Eusebio, in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, and the Attorney-General, with costs de oficio, and the
sold her to the accused, Tomas Cabanag, for 100 pesos. prisoner is acquitted.
Cabanag had previously been instructed to buy a girl
by one Mariano Lopez to whom after a few days REYES VS. ALOJADO
Gamaya was delivered in return for the price, which G.R. NO. L-5671 AUGUST 24, 1910
appears to have been 200 pesos. In his hands she TORRES, J.:
remained for about two months until she was taken
away by an officer of Constabulary. Afterwards this ISSUE:
prosecution was instituted. Although Gamaya made Whether or not slavery was committed by Reyes.
objection to leaving the house of Cabanag she appears
to have gone without actual constraint and at no time FACTS:
in any of these places was she physically restrained of On or about January 22, 1905, Veronica Alojado
her liberty; she was not under lock or key or guard, received, as a loan, from Benito de los Reyes that the
went into the street to play, returned at will, and was sum P67 .60, for the purpose of paying a debt she
not punished or ill used in any way, but was employed owed to Olimpia Zaballa. It was agreed between
about the household tasks; in short, she appears to Alojado and Reyes that the debtor should remain as a
have been treated by Mariano Lopez as a household servant in the house and in the service of her creditor,
servant and to have been well earned for while in the without any renumeration whatever, until she should
custody of the accused. find some one who would furnish her with the said sum
where with to repeat the loan. The defendant, Veronica
It is proved in the case that it is an Igorot custom to Alojado, afterwards left the house of the plaintiff, on
dispose of children to pay the debts of their fathers, March 12, 1906, without having paid him her debt, nor
the transaction in the native language being termed a did she do so at any subsequent date, notwithstanding
sale, and the defendant appears to have engaged in his demands. The plaintiff, therefore, on the 15th of
the business of buying in Nueva Vizcaya children to sell march, 1906, filed suit in the court of the justice of the
in the lowlands of Isabela. peace of Santa Rosa, La Laguna, against Veronica
Alojado to recover the said sum or, in a contrary case,
to compel her to return to his service. The trial having

been had, the justice of the peace, on April 14, 1906, March 18, 2018 – Article 274 – SERVICES RENDERED
rendered judgment whereby he sentenced the UNDER COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum claimed and DAHIROC, Janice L.
declared that, in case the debtor should be insolvent,
she should be obliged to fulfill the agreement between [NO CASE FOUND]
her and the plaintiff. The costs of the trial were
assessed against the defendant. March 18, 2018 – Article 275 – ABANDONMENT OF
PERSONS IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF
The defendant appealed from the said judgment. The ONE'S OWN VICTIM
defendant, in her written answer of August 15, 1906, to DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J
the aforesaid complaint, denied the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint and G.R. NO. 93475 JUNE 5, 1991
alleged that, although she had left the plaintiff's ANTONIO A. LAMERA, PETITIONER,
service, it was because the latter had paid her no sum VS.
whatever for the services she had rendered in his THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE
house. The defendant likewise denied the conditions PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
expressed in paragraph 4 of the complaint, averring
that the effects purchased, to the amount of P11.97, ISSUE:
were in the possession of the plaintiff, who refused to Whether or not prosecution for negligence under
deliver them to her. She therefore asked that she be Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to
absolved from the complaint and that the plaintiff be prosecution for abandonment under Article 275 of the
absolved from the complaint the wages due her for the same Code.
services she had rendered.
FACTS:
RULING: At around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of 14 March
YES. The duty to pay the said sum, as well as that of 1985, along Urbano Street, Pasig, Metro Manila, an
P11.97 delivered to the defendant in small amounts owner-type jeep, then driven by petitioner, allegedly
during the time that she was in the plaintiff's house, is "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto
unquestionable, inasmuch as it is a positive debt Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries
demandable of the defendant by her creditor. (Arts. to Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal. The petitioner
1754, 1170, Civil Code.) However, the reason alleged by abandoned them and failed to help or render
the plaintiff as a basis for the loan is untenable, to wit, assistance to them, without justifiable reason.
that the defendant was obliged to render service in his
house as a servant without remuneration whatever and As a consequence thereof, two informations were filed
to remain therein so long as she had not paid her debt, against petitioner: (a) an Information for reckless
inasmuch as this condition is contrary to law and imprudence resulting in damage to property with
morality. (Art. 1255, Civil Code.) multiple physical injuries under Article 365 and; b) an
Information for violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275
Domestic services are always to be remunerated, and of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of one's
no agreement may subsist in law in which it is victim.
stipulated that any domestic service shall be absolutely
gratuitous, unless it be admitted that slavery may be On June 1987 the MTC of Pasig rendered its decision
established in this country through a covenant entered in finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of
into between the interested parties. Abandonment of one's victim as defined and penalized
under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal
When legal regulations prohibit even a usurious Code. Petitioner appealed from said Decision to the
contract and all abuses prejudicial to subordinates and RTC of Pasig. In the meantime, on 27 April 1989,
servant, in connection with their salaries and wages, it petitioner was arraigned for violation of Article 365. He
will be understood at once that the compact whereby entered a plea of not guilty.
service rendered by a domestic servant in the house of
any inhabitant of this country is to be gratuitous, is in He filed a petition for review in the CA but which was
all respects reprehensible and censurable; and denied. He raised before the SC that that he cannot be
consequently, the contention of the plaintiff, that until penalized twice for an “accident” and another for
the defendant shall have paid him her debt she must “recklessness.” He maintained that since he is facing a
serve him in his house gratuitously is absolutely criminal charge for reckless imprudence, which offense
inadmissible. carries heavier penalties under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code, he could no longer be charged
March 17, 2018 – Article 273 – EXPLOITATION OF under Article 275, par. 2, for abandonment for failing
CHILD LABOR to render to the persons whom he has accidentally
CEBALLOS, Jesus C. injured.
[NO CASE FOUND] HELD:

No, because said Articles penalize different and distinct
offenses. The protection against double jeopardy is

only for the same offense. A simple act may be an took place three years before the incident. Kirol
offense against two different provisions of law and if testified at the trial that he knew that Bandian was
one provision requires proof of an additional fact pregnant, he believed from the beginning that the
which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction child carried by Bandian in her womb was his, and that
under one does not bar prosecution under the other. he and she had been eagerly waiting for the birth of
the child. Therefore, Bandian had no cause to be
Since the informations were for separate offenses — ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol.
the first against a person and the second against public
peace and order — one cannot be pleaded as a bar to March 18, 2018 – Article 277 – ABANDONMENT OF
the other under the rule on double jeopardy. MINOR BY PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH HIS
CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
The rule on double jeopardy, which petitioner has, in DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
effect, invoked, does not, therefore, apply pursuant to
existing jurisprudence. Hence, the petition should be DE GUZMAN VS PEREZ
dismissed for lack of merit. G.R. NO. 156013
JULY 25, 2006
March 18, 2018 – Article 276 – ABANDONING A
MINOR FACTS:
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G. Petitioner Roberto De Guzman and private respondent
Shirley Aberde became sweethearts while studying law
PEOPLE VS. BANDIAN in the University of Sto. Tomas. Their studies were
G.R. NO. 45186, SEPTEMBER 30, 1936 interrupted when Shirley became pregnant. She gave
birth to Robby Aberde de Guzman. Shirley and Roberto
FACTS: never got married. In 1991, Roberto married another
One morning, Josefina Bandian went to a thicket to woman with whom he begot two children.
respond to the call of nature. After a while, Bandian
went out of the thicket with her clothes stained with Roberto sent money for Robby’s schooling only twice
blood. She showed signs of not being able to support — the first in 1992 and the second in 1993. In 1994,
herself. She was seen by her neighbor Valentin Aguilar when Robby fell seriously ill, Roberto gave Shirley
who asked the help of Adriano Comcom to bring her P7,000. Other than these instances, Roberto never
to her house. When Comcom rushed to aid Bandian, provided any other financial support for his son.
he saw a newborn baby near a path adjoining the
thicket where Bandian was seen moments before. Shirley worked in Taiwan for two years. However, she
When asked if the baby was hers, she responded in the reached the point where she had just about spent all
affirmative. Dr. Emilio Nepomoceno testified that her savings to provide for her and Robby’s needs. The
Bandian gave birth in her house and thereafter threw child’s continued education thus became uncertain.
the baby to kill it. The Solicitor-General maintains that
Bandian may be guilty only of abandoning a minor Despite his fabulous wealth, however, Roberto failed to
under Article 276 of the Revised Penal Code, the provide support to Robby. On June 15, 2000, Shirley
abandonment having resulted in the death of the filed a criminal complaint for abandonment and
minor allegedly abandoned. The trial court gave credit neglect of child under Article 59(2) and (4) of PD 603 .
to the opinion of Dr. Nepomoceno.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not Roberto alone may be charged for
Was the crime infanticide or abandonment of minor? abandonment and neglect of child under Article 59 (2)
and (4) of PD 603
HELD:
No crime was committed since the fourth and seventh HELD:
exempting circumstance are present in this case. Dr. Yes. Article 59(4) of PD 603 provides that:
Nepomuceno himself affirmed that the wounds found Art. 59 .Crimes. – Criminal liability shall attach to any
in the body of the child were not caused by the hand parent who:
of man but by bites animals, the pigs that usually
roamed through the thicket where it was found. (4) Neglects the child by not giving him the education
Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be which the family’s station in life and financial
punishable, must be committed willfully or consciously, conditions permit.
or at least it must be result of a voluntary, conscious
and free act or omission. Even in cases where said The crime has the following elements:
crimes are committed through mere imprudence, the (1) the offender is a parent;
person who commits them, under said circumstances, (2) he or she neglects his or her own child;
must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties, or (3) the neglect consists in not giving education to the
must be conscious of his acts, in order that he may be child and
held liable. In this case, she had no cause to kill or (4 the offender’s station in life and financial condition
abandon it, because her affair with a former lover, permit him to give an appropriate education to the
which was not unknown to her second lover, Luis Kirol,

child. essentially normal gross findings." He observed that

AAA's hymen was annular, thin with central orifice and
There is a prima facie showing from the evidence that no abnormality noted. There was no evidence of any
Roberto is in fact financially capable of supporting sexual abuse because of his findings that AAA's genital
Robby’s education. The notarized GIS of the RNCD organ is normal.
Development Corporation indicates that petitioner
owns P750,000 worth of paid-up shares in the As mentioned, the RTC found the petitioner guilty of
company. acts of lasciviousness as defined in Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code and penalized pursuant to Section
The crime may be committed by any parent. Liability 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.
for the crime does not depend on whether the other
parent is also guilty of neglect. The law intends to ISSUE:
punish the neglect of any parent, which neglect Whether or not the acts committed by the accused are
corresponds to the failure to give the child the considered as an lascivious acts which is penalized
education which the family’s station in life and financial under section 5, Republic Act 7610.
condition permit. The irresponsible parent cannot
exculpate himself from the consequences of his RULING:
neglect by invoking the other parent’s faithful YES.
compliance with his or her own parental duties. The acts committed by the petitioner against AAA
constituted acts of lasciviousness. The elements of acts
The "neglect of child" punished under Article 59(4) of of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
PD 603 is also a crime (known as "indifference of Code are, to wit: (1) the offender commits any act of
parents") penalized under the second paragraph of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) the act is done under
Article 277 of the Revised Penal Code. any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force
or intimidation, or (b) when the offended party is
March 19, 2018 – Article 278 – EXPLOITATION OF deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c)
MINORS/ REPUBLIC ACT 7610 (Special Protection when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.
Discrimination Act) Such acts are punished as sexual abuse under Republic
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P. Act No. No. 7 610, whose elements under Section 5 of
the law are namely: (1) the accused commits the acts
G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017 of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act
VIRGILIO LABANDRIA AWAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE is performed with· a child exploited in prostitution or
PHILIPPINES subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child,
whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
FACTS:
AAA, a Grade III pupil declared that [petitioner] is the Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and
boyfriend of her sister. Sometime in January 2010, Regulations of Republic Act No. No. 7610 defines
[petitioner] was in their house in Valenzuela City. lascivious conduct as:
[Petitioner] called her and brought her inside the room. The intentional touching, either directly or through
[Petitioner] touched her vagina. [Petitioner] made her clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
lie down beside him and again touched her vagina. thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object
Thereafter, [petitioner] put on his shoes and warned into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
her not to tell her mother and father about the whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to
incident. abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
AAA was wearing leggings and panty at the time of the masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
incident. Petitioner never removed anything from her pubic area of a person.
when he touched her. At the time of the incident, they
were the only person (sic) inside the room. Her father
and other siblings were then asleep in another room G.R. NO. 198732 , JUNE 10, 2013
while his brother was downstairs. CHRISTIAN CABALLO VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
AAA's brother came to know about the incident when
he saw her crying in a corner of their house. Her FACTS:
brother told her mother about the incident. Her AAA, then 17 years old, met Caballo, then 23 years old,
mother called a police and petitioner was later in her uncle’s place in Surigao City. Her uncle was a
apprehended. Her mother gave her statements at the choreographer and Caballo was one of his dancers.
police station. During that time, AAA was a sophomore college
student at the University of San Carlos and resided at
On January 25, 2010, Ortiz, a medico-legal officer of a boarding house in Cebu City. On January 17, 1998,
the PNP Crime Laboratory, received a request for Caballo went to Cebu City to attend the Sinulog
Physical/Genital Examination on the person of AAA. His Festival and there, visited AAA. After spending time
examination states: "ano-genital examination reveals together, they eventually became sweethearts.

Sometime during the third week of March 1998, AAA cruelty, exploitation and discrimination against
went home to Surigao City and stayed with her uncle. children, prejudicial as they are to their development.
In the last week of March of the same year, Caballo
persuaded AAA to have sexual intercourse with him. In this relation, case law further clarifies that sexual
This was followed by several more of the same in April intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or
1998, in the first and second weeks of May 1998, on influence of any adult exists when there is some form
August 31, 1998 and in November 1998, all of which of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which
happened in Surigao City, except the one in August subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s free
which occurred in Cebu. In June 1998, AAA became will. Corollary thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on
pregnant and later gave birth on March 8, 1999. Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves
the element of influence which manifests in a variety of
During the trial, the prosecution asserted that Caballo forms. It is defined as:
was only able to induce AAA to lose her virginity due The employment, use, persuasion, inducement,
to promises of marriage and his assurance that he enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist
would not get her pregnant due to the use of the another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or
"withdrawal method." Moreover, it claimed that lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or
Caballo was shocked upon hearing the news of AAA’s incest with children.
pregnancy and consequently, advised her to have an To note, the term "influence" means the "improper use
abortion. She heeded Caballo’s advice; however, her of power or trust in any way that deprives a person of
efforts were unsuccessful. Further, the prosecution free will and substitutes another’s objective."
averred that when AAA’s mother confronted Caballo to Meanwhile, "coercion" is the "improper use of x x x
find out what his plans were for AAA, he assured her power to compel another to submit to the wishes of
that he would marry her daughter. one who wields it."
Opposed to the foregoing, Caballo claimed that during In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that
their first sexual intercourse, AAA was no longer a Caballo’s actuations may be classified as "coercion"
virgin as he found it easy to penetrate her and that and "influence" within the purview of Section 5, Article
there was no bleeding. He also maintained that AAA III of RA 7610:
had (3) three boyfriends prior to him. Further, he First, the most crucial element is AAA’s minority. It is
posited that he and AAA were sweethearts who lived- undisputed that AAA was only 17 years old at the time
in together, for one (1) week in a certain Litang Hotel of the commission of the crime and is hence,
and another week in the residence of AAA’s uncle. considered a child under the law. In this respect, AAA
Eventually, they broke up due to the intervention of was not capable of fully understanding or knowing the
AAA’s parents. At a certain time, AAA’s mother even import of her actions and in consequence, remained
told Caballo that he was not deserving of AAA because vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of adults, as
he was poor. Lastly, he alleged that he repeatedly in this case.
proposed marriage to AAA but was always rejected Based on this premise, jurisprudence settles that
because she was still studying. consent is immaterial in cases involving a violation of
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; as such, the argument
In a Decision dated April 1, 2003, the RTC found that AAA and Caballo were sweethearts remains
Caballo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of irrelevant. The Malto ruling is largely instructive on this
Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610, in relation to point:
Section 2 of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases.
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious
On January 28, 2011, the CA dismissed the appeal and conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the
affirmed with modification the RTC’s ruling, finding sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited
Caballo guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
7610. Caballo filed a motion for reconsideration which cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
was, however, denied on September 26, 2011. Hence, another person.
the instant petition. The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish
"those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
ISSUE: lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
Whether or not the accused is guilty under Section 5, or subjected to other sexual abuse."
Article III of RA 7610.
Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases
RULING: involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.
Yes. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or
As it is presently worded, Section 5, Article III of RA committing lascivious conduct with a child who is
7610 provides that when a child indulges in sexual exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse
intercourse or any lascivious conduct due to the constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an
coercion or influence of any adult, the child is deemed evil that is proscribed.
to be a "child exploited in prostitution and other sexual A child cannot give consent to a contract under our
abuse." In this manner, the law is able to act as an civil laws. This is on the rationale that she can easily be
effective deterrent to quell all forms of abuse, neglect, the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully
understanding or knowing the nature or import of her

actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the

obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, G.R. NO. 173988, OCTOBER 8, 2014
because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care FELINA ROSALDES VS. PEOPLE OF THE
of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve its PHILIPPINES
protection.
FACTS:
The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a On February 13, 1996, seven year old Michael Ryan
sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan
her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should Elementary School located in the Municipality of
protect her from the harmful consequences of her Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly entering his classroom
attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a when he accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher,
child should not be deemed to have validly consented petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a
to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the bamboo sofa. Roused from sleep, petitioner asked
act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which Michael Ryan to apologize to her. When Michael did
seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, not obey but instead proceeded to his seat, petitioner
exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual went to Michael and pinched him on his thigh. Then,
predators like petitioner will be justified, or even she held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the
unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair floor. As he fell, Michael Ryan’s body hit a desk. As a
game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child is result, he lost consciousness. Petitioner proceeded to
presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational pick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. slammed him down on the floor. Michael Ryan cried.
Second, coupled with AAA’s minority is Caballo’s
seniority. Records indicate that Caballo was 23 years After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach her
old at the time of the commission of the offense and class. During lunch break, Michael Ryan, accompanied
therefore, 6 years older than AAA, more or less. The by two of his classmates, Louella Loredo and Jonalyn
age disparity between an adult and a minor placed Gonzales, went home crying and told his mother about
Caballo in a stronger position over AAA so as to enable the incident. His mother and his Aunt Evangeline
him to force his will upon the latter. Third, Caballo's Gonzales reported the incident to their Barangay
actions effectively constitute overt acts of coercion and Captain, Gonzalo Larroza who advised them to have
influence.1âwphi1 Records reveal that Caballo Michael Ryan examined by a doctor. Michael Ryan’s
repeatedly assured AAA of his love for her, and even, aunt and Barangay Councilman Ernesto Ligante
promised to marry her. In addition, he also guaranteed brought him to the Dr. Ricardo Y. Ladrido Hospital
that she would not get pregnant since he would be where he was examined by Dr. Teresita Castigador.
using the "withdrawal method" for safety. Irrefragably, They, likewise, reported the incident to the Police
these were meant to influence AAA to set aside her Station. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Teresita
reservations and eventually give into having sex with Castigador reads, in part:
him, with which he succeeded.
Fourth, at least, with respect to the parties' first sexual 1. Petechiae and tenderness of both external ears 1x2
encounter, it is observed that the brash and cm. and 1x1 cm.;
unexpected manner in which Caballo pursued AAA to 2. Lumbar pains and tenderness at area of L3-L4;
her room and pressed on her to have sex with him, 3. Contusions at left inner thigh 1x1 and 1x1 cm.;
effectively placed her in, to a certain extent, a position 4. Tenderness and painful on walking especially at the
of duress .. An important factor is that AAA refused area of femoral head.
Caballo's incipient advances and in fact, asked him to
leave. However, AAA eventually yielded. Thus, it stands The petitioner was criminally charged with child abuse
to reason that she was put in a situation deprived of in the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City (RTC), and the
the benefit of clear thought and choice. In any case, the case was assigned to Branch 27 of that court. The
Court observes that any other choice would, information alleged as follows: The Provincial
nonetheless, remain tarnished due to AAA's minority Prosecutor of Iloilo, upon approval and Directive of the
as above-discussed. Deputy OMBUDSMAN for the Visayas accuses FELINA
ROSALDES of the crime of VIOLATION OF CHILD
Hence, considering that Caballo's acts constitute ABUSE LAW (Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610), committed as
"coercion" and "influence" within the context of the follows:
law, and that AAA indulged in sexual intercourse
and/or lascivious conduct with Caballo due to the That on or about the 13th day of February 1996, in the
same, she is deemed as a "child exploited in Municipality of Lambunao, Province of Iloilo,
prostitution and other sexual abuse"; as such, the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
second element of the subject offense exists. Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a
public school teacher in Grade 1 of Pughanan
In fine, finding all elements to be present, the Court Elementary School, with a Salary Grade below 26,
hereby sustains Caballo's conviction for violation of under the DECS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. and feloniously maltreat her pupil Michael Ryan
Gonzales, a seven year old child, by pinching him on
different parts of his body, and thereafter slumping

him to the ground, thereby causing Michael Ryan only maltreatment of a child. Prosecution witness
Gonzales to lose his consciousness and has suffered Louella Loredo revealed on cross examination that she
injuries on different parts of his body. CONTRARY TO had also experienced the petitioner’s cruelty.The
LAW. petitioner was also convicted by the RTC in Iloilo City
On June 26, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment (Branch 39) in Criminal Case No. 348921 for
convicting the petitioner of child abuse. maltreatment of another child named Dariel Legayada.
Such previous incidents manifested that the petitioner
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of the had "a propensity for violence," as the trial judge stated
petitioner through its assailed decision promulgated in her decision of June 26, 2003.
on May 11, 2005, with a modification of the penalty. Thirdly, the petitioner submits that the information
charging her with child abuse was insufficient in form
ISSUE: and substance, in that the essential elements of the
Whether or not the acts of the petitioner constitute crime charged were not properly alleged therein; and
child abuse penalized under Section 10 (a) of Republic that her constitutional and statutory right to due
Act No. 7610[,] and not under the Revised Penal Code. process of law was consequently violated.
RULING: The penalty for the child abusecommitted by the

YES. petitioner is that prescribed in Section 10(a) of
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7610 defines child abuse Republic Act No. 7610, viz:
thusly:
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
following: Child's Development. –
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades including those covered by Atiicle 59 of Presidential
or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the
a human being; Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for
survival, such as food and shelter; or “The CA revised the penalty fixed by the R TC by
imposing the indeterminate penalty of four years, two
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an months and one day of prision correccional, as
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his minimum, to 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as
growth and development or in his permanent the maximum, on the ground that the offense was
incapacity or death. aggravated by the petitioner being a public
schoolteacher. It cited Section 3 l(e) of Republic Act No.
In the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore, 7610, which commands that the penalty provided in
the maltreatment may consist of an act by deedsor by the Act "shall be imposed in its maximum period if the
words that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic offender is a public officer or employee." Her being a
worth and dignity of a child as a human being. The act public schoolteacher was alleged in the information
need not be habitual. The CA concluded that the and established by evidence as well as admitted by her.
petitioner "went overboard in disciplining Michael The revised penalty was erroneous, however, because
Ryan, a helpless and weak 7-year old boy, when she Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 punishes the
pinched hard Michael Ryan on the left thigh and when crime committed by the petitioner with prision mayor
she held him in the armpits and threw him on the in its minimum period, whose three periods are six
floor[; and as] the boy fell down, his body hit the desk years and one day to six years and eight months, for
causing him to lose consciousness [but instead] of the minimum period; six years, eight months and one
feeling a sense of remorse, the accused-appellant day to seven years and four months, for the medium
further held the boy up by his ears and pushed him period; and seven years, four months and one day to
down on the floor." On her part, the trial judge said eight years, for the maximum period. The maximum of
that the physical pain experienced by the victim had the indeterminate sentence should come from the
been aggravated by an emotional trauma that caused maximum period, therefore, and the Court fixes it at
him to stop going to school altogether out of fear of seven years, four months and one day of prision mayor.
the petitioner, compelling his parents to transfer him The minimum of the indeterminate sentence should
to another school where he had to adjust again. Such come from prision correccional in the maximum
established circumstances proved beyond reasonable period, the penalty next lower than prision mayor in its
doubt that the petitioner was guilty of child abuse by minimum period, whose range is from four years, two
deeds that degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth months and one day to six years.1âwphi1 Accordingly,
and dignity of Michael Ryan as a human being. the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is four
It was also shown that Michael Ryan’s physical years, nine months and 11 days, and the maximum is
maltreatment by the petitioner was neither her first or

seven years, four months and one day of prision Upon discovery of what AAA underwent, AAA’s mother
mayor.” lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Pasay City. Assistant City Prosecutor charged the
G.R. NO. 193854 ; 24 SEPTEMBER 2012 petitioner in an Information a violation of Section 5(a),
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DINA DULAY Article III, RA 7610. During the month of November
1997 up to 1998, in Pasay City, Michael John. Z. Malto,
a professor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
FACTS: feloniously take advantage and exert influence,
On 3 July 2005, AAA was introduced to the accused relationship and moral ascendancy and induce and/or
during the wake of a relative of AAA. Thereafter, the seduce his student at Assumption College,
accused convinced AAA to accompany her at a wake at complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years old, to indulge
GI San Dionisio, Paranaque City. However, before they in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct for several
went to the wake, they went to look for the boyfriend times with him as in fact said accused has carnal
of the accused. They went to Bulungan Fish Port were knowledge.
they found the boyfriend of the accused. They The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution
proceeded to the kubuhan, located at the back of the sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction and
Bulungan Fish Port. Upon arrival, the accused suddenly rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty beyond
pulled AAA inside a room where a man known only as reasonable doubt for violation of Article III, Section
“Speed” was waiting. AAA saw “Speed” give the 5(a), par. 3 of RA 7610, as amended and sentenced him
accused some money, then the latter left. “Speed” to reclusion temporal.
wielded a knife and tied AAA’s hands to the papag and In a decision, the appellate court affirmed his
raped her. AAA asked for appellant’s help when she conviction even if it found that his acts were not
saw the latter peeping into the room while she was covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of
being raped, but appellant did not do so. After the Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; and thereby sentenced
rape, “Speed” and appellant told AAA not to tell to an indeterminate penalty prision mayor.
anyone what had happened or else they would get
back at her. AAA, accompanied by her sister and ISSUE:
mother filed a complaint for Rape. The RTC rendered a Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining petitioner’s
decision finding the accused guilty as a co-principal by conviction on the grounds that there was no rape
indispensable cooperation for the crime of Rape. committed since their sexual intercourse was
consensual by reason of their “sweetheart” relationship
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused should be held liable as a RULING:
co-principal for the crime of Rape NEGATIVE. Petitioner is wrong. Petitioner violated
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as amended. The
HELD: first element of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610
No, in order to be considered as a principal by pertains to the act or acts committed by the accused.
indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the The second element refers to the state or condition of
criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal the offended party. The third element corresponds to
purpose and cooperation in the commission of the the minority or age of the offended party. Since all
offense by performing another act without which it three elements of the crime were present, the
would not have been accomplished. The Supreme conviction of petitioner was proper.
Court held that the accused did not participate in the Consent of the child is immaterial in criminal cases
criminal resolution of the crime of Rape but merely involving violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of RA 7610.
delivered AAA to “Speed”. Petitioner claims that AAA welcomed his kisses and
However, the accused is still liable for violation of touches and consented to have sexual intercourse with
Section 5 (a), Article III of R.A. 7610 or a) Those who him. They engaged in these acts out of mutual love and
engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child affection. The sweetheart theory applies in acts of
prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or
following: (1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute. without the consent of the victim. It operates on the
theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires
MALTO V. PEOPLE proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and
GR 16473 , SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 that she consented to the sexual relations.
FACTS: For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious

Sometime during the month of November 1997 to conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the
1998, Malto seduced his student, AAA, a minor, to sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited
indulge in sexual intercourse several times with him. in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
Prior to the incident, petitioner and AAA had a “mutual cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
understanding” and became sweethearts. Pressured another person. A child cannot give consent to a
and afraid of the petitioner’s threat to end their contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale
relationship, AAA succumbed and both had sexual that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not
intercourse. capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature
or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is

under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to gallon of gasoline, headed to their house. Appellant
those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable warned VVV then to better pack up her family’s things
to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years because he would burn their house.
deserve its protection.
Upon reaching their house, VVV saw her brother, BBB,
The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a get a piece of wood to defend themselves and their
sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to house from appellant. However, appellant approached
her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should BBB, grabbed the piece of wood and started beating
protect her from the harmful consequences of her him with it. At the sight, VVV approached appellant and
attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a pushed him. Irked by what she did, appellant turned to
child should not be deemed to have validly consented her and struck her with the piece of wood three (3)
to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the times. As a result, the wood broke into several pieces.
act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which MMM restrained BBB, telling him not to fight back.
seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, After which, appellant left, bringing with him the gallon
exploitation and discrimination. In other words, a child of gasoline. The RTC finds the accused guilty of R.A.
is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational 7610.
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
ISSUE:
To provide special protection to children from all forms WON appellant can be charged with additional
of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and penalties for other offenses violated which is PD 603.
discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development; provide sanctions for their commission HELD:
and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence Yes. Here, the applicable laws are Par 09, Article 59 of
of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, P.D. No. 603 (Inflicts cruel and unusual punishment
exploitation, and discrimination. As well as to intervene upon the child or deliberately subjects him to
on behalf of the child when the parents, guardian, indignation and other excessive chastisement that
teacher or person having care or custody of the child embarrass or humiliate him) and Section 10(a) of R.A.
fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse, No. 7610 which provides: SECTION 10. Other Acts of
exploitation, and discrimination or when such acts Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
against the child are committed by the said parent, Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. —
guardian, teacher or person having care and custody (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
of the same. abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
The best interest of children shall be the paramount including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential
consideration in all actions concerning them, whether Decree No. 603...
undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, In the case of Araneta v. People, SC held that the
and legislative bodies, consistent with the principles of provision punishes not only those enumerated under
First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c)
effort shall be exerted to promote the welfare of child exploitation and (d) being responsible for
children and enhance their opportunities for a useful conditions prejudicial to the child’s development. The
and happy life. prosecution need not prove that the acts of child
abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have
March 19, 2018 – Article 279 – ADDITIONAL resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act
PENALTIES FOR OTHER OFFENSES prejudicial to the development of the child is different
DUQUE, Francis Lester M. from the former acts. Moreover, it is a rule in statutory
construction that the word "or" in Section 10 of R.a
G.R. NO. 179090 JUNE 5, 2009 7610 is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and
LEONILO SANCHEZ ALIAS NILO VS. PEOPLE independence of one thing from other things
enumerated.
FACTS:
Private complainant is VVV, a minor. FFF, VVV's father, March 19, 2018 – Article 280 – QUALIFIED TRESPASS
was leasing a portion of the fishpond owned by TO DWELLING
Escolastico. Appellant, one of the heirs of escolastico FLORENTINO, Kimberly A.
went to FFF’s house to inquire about the whereabouts
of the latter’s, MMM, FFF's wife told appellant that FFF PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
was not around. Right then and there, appellant told VS
them to leave the place and started destroying the AURELIO LAMAHANG
house. MMM got angry and told appellant that he G.R. NO. L-43530
could not just drive them away since the contract for AUGUST 3, 1935
the use of the fishpond was not yet terminated. VVV
left to fetch a barangay tanod but failed to do so. On ISSUE:
her way back to their house, she saw appellant with a What was the crime committed by the accused?

IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.

FACTS:
At early dawn of March 2, 1935,a policeman was RONNIE CALUAG V. PEOPLE
patrolling along the streets of the city of Iloilo caught G.R. NO.: 171511, MARCH 4, 2009
the accused in the act of making an opening with an
iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods. At the ISSUE:
time the owner of the store was sleeping inside. The Whether petitioner’s action constitutes to grave
accused had only succeeded in breaking one board threats.
and in unfastening another from the wall when the
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and FACTS:
placed him under custody. Complainants Nestor and his wife Julia Denido
inquired to Caluag and Sentillas why their guests were
HELD: mauled during their earlier drinking spree. Caluag
The court was of the opinion and held that under butted in and said, “bakit kasama ka ba doon?” And
consideration the crime committed was attempted boxed and mauled Nestor. The victims quickly went
trespass to dwelling. Under Article 280 of the Revised back to their house. Julia, on her way to the baranggay
Penal Code, this offense is committed when a private hall to report the incident, was confronted by Caluag
person shall enter the dwelling of another against the and poked and threatened her with a gun to her
latter's will. The accused armed with an iron bar forced forehead and said, “saan ka pupunta? Gusto mo ito?”
the wall of the said store by breaking a board and Despite the threats, she was able to report the crime.
unfastening another for the purpose of entering the Soon after, 2 informations was filed against petitioner;
store and the accused did not succeed due to the 1) for grave threats, and 2) for light physical injuries.
presence of the policeman. Under the circumstances of The MTC, RTC found the petitioner guilty of the crime
this case the prohibition of the owner or inmate is grave threats and slight physical injuries. Hence the
presumed. appeal.
SALVADOR MARZALADO VS PEOPLE HELD:

G.R. NO. 152997, NOVEMBER 10,2004 Yes, the SC uniformly found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of grave threats and slight physical
ISSUE: injury. Under article 282 of the Revised Penal Code –
Whether the accused violated article 280 of the Revised any person who shall threaten another with the
Penal Code? infliction upon the person, honor or property of the
latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a
FACTS: crime, shall suffer;
Accused was charged with violation of article 280 of
the Revised Penal Code when he forcibly entered the (2) the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
leased unit of Cristina Albano. Accused claimed that exceeding 500 pesos if the threat shall not have been
when he was on his way home he saw water in a made under subject to a condition.
continuous stream flowing out of Albano's unit. He
searched for Albano but he did not find her so he asked In this case, the act of pointing a gun to her forehead
for the assistance of the Barangay Tanods and went clearly enounces a threat to kill. Thus, action speaks
inside the unit and found an open faucet, with water louder than words considering it be taken in to context
flooding on the floor. the earlier surrounding circumstances.
HELD: March 23, 2018 – Article 284 – BOND FOR GOOD

No. The Court ruled that as certified by Barangay BEHAVIOR
Lupon secretary, the unit rented by Albano was forcibly NASH, Regina Mercado
opened by the owner because of the strong water
pressure coming out of the faucet. Since Albano and [NO CASE FOUND]
her children already left, nobody was left to attend the
unit. Clearly accused acted for the justified purpose of March 23, 2018 – Article 285 – OTHER LIGHT
avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother's THREATS
property. No criminal intent could be clearly imputed OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
to accused for the remedial action he had taken. There
was an exigency that had to be addressed to avoid US V. ANDRES V. ESTRADA
damage to the leased unit. GR NO. 4418, MAR 26, 1908
March 20, 2018 – Article 281 – OTHER FORMS OF FACTS:

TRESPASS. Cecilia went inside a billiard room, seeing this,
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z. Anastasio Delgado, who was also present inside the
billiard room said to his friend, who was by his side "
[NO CASES FOUND] Are women allowed to come into billiard rooms?
Cecilia took offense on the remark made and hot
March 20, 2018 – Article 282 – GRAVE THREATS words passed between her and the said Delgado.

Thereafter, Andres V. Estrada, the woman's husband, NO. The court stated that Under the Revised Penal
took part in the quarrel and notwithstanding the fact Code, there are three kinds of threats: grave threats
that Delgado had left the place, hiding himself in the (Article 282), light threats (Article 283) and other light
next house, the accused also went out and returned threats (Article 285). In grave threats, the wrong
shortly thereafter provided with a revolver and threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not
commenced to look for Delgado who, fearing injury, be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the
returned to his home. Moreover, his friends told him to wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is
stay hidden because the accused was looking for him always accompanied by a condition. In other light
in order to kill him. The court sentenced Estrada for a threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a
higher penalty and he appealed for a lower one. crime and there is no condition. In the instant case,
Julia Denido left her house to go to the barangay hall
ISSUE: to report the mauling of her husband which she
Whether or not the accused Estrada liable for other witnessed earlier in the afternoon. On her way there,
light threats and be awarded with a lower penalty. Caluag confronted her and pointed a gun to her
forehead, while at the same time saying “Saan ka
HELD: pupunta, gusto mo ito?” Considering what transpired
YES. The court stated that the act complained do not earlier between petitioner and Julia’s husband,
constitute a crime but simply a misdemeanor for Caluag’s act of pointing a gun at Julia’s forehead clearly
uttering threats. A person who, in the heat of anger, announces a threat to kill or to inflict serious physical
threatened to kill another without persisting in the idea injury on her person. Taken in the context of the
involved in his threat is liable only under the paragraph surrounding circumstances, the uttered words do not
2 of Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code. go against the threat to kill or to inflict serious injury
Furthermore, Flaviano Delgado, testifies that the evinced by petitioners accompanying act. Article 285,
accused and his wife, after the information had been par. 1 (other light threats) is inapplicable since it
filed, called at the house of the witness to implore presupposes that the threat to commit a wrong will not
pardon, Estrada alleging that the threat was uttered constitute a crime. That the threat to commit a wrong
without premeditation, and that it was done will constitute or not constitute a crime is the
unintentionally. Hence, the accused Estrada is only distinguishing factor between grave threats on one
liable for other light threats and consequently his hand, and light and other light threats on the other.
penalty must be lowered. Given the surrounding circumstances, the offense
committed falls under Article 282, par. 2 (grave threats)
RONNIE CALUAG VS PEOPLE since: (1) killing or shooting someone amounts to a
G.R. NO. 171511, MARCH 4, 2009 crime, and (2) the threat to kill was not subject to a
condition.
FACTS:
Nestor learned that two of his guests from an earlier
drinking spree were mauled. At that time, Caluag and March 21, 2018 – Article 286 – GRAVE COERCIONS
Sentillas were drinking at the store owned by the son PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
of Sentillas. When Nestor inquired from several people
what happened, Caluag butted in and replied “Bakit ALEJANDRO V. BERNAS
kasama ka ba roon?”and immediately boxed him GR NO. 179243 (SEPTEMBER 7, 2011)
without warning. Nestor retaliated but he was
overpowered by Caluag and Sentillas. Julia, wife of ISSUE
Nestor, saw Caluag and Sentillas box her husband. Whether or not grave coercion can be committed
Although she tried to pacify them, they did not listen through intimidation alone without violence
to her. To avoid his assailants, Nestor ran to his house.
Julia followed him. In the evening, same day, Nestor FACTS
told his wife to report the boxing incident to the Petitioner Alejandro is a lessee-purchaser of a
barangay authorities. Thereafter, Julia and her son condominium unit in Pasig City, under the Contract of
Rotsen were on their way to their barangay hall, she Lease with Option to purchase with lessor-seller
encountered Caluag, who blocked her way at the alley Oakridge Properties, Inc. (OPI). Alejandro sub-leased
near her house. Caluag confronted Julia with a gun, the unit to other petitioners (Firdausi, Abbas and
poked it at her forehead, and said “Saan ka pupunta, Francisco) to be used as a law office. However, a defect
gusto mo ito?” Despite this fearful encounter, she was in the air-conditioning unit prompted petitioners to
still able to proceed to the barangay hall where she suspend payments until the problem is fixed by the
reported the gun-poking incident to the barangay management. Instead of addressing the defect, OPI
authorities. instituted an action for ejectment before the MTC.
ISSUE: During the pendency of the case, respondent Atty.

Whether or not Caluag is liable for other light threats Bernas ordered the unit to be padlock. Subsequently,
under Article 285 of the RPC. petitioners filed a complaint for grave coercion against
respondents Atty. Bernas, Atty SIa-Bernas, Amor and
HELD: Aguilar. Petitioners claimed that the padlocking of the
unit was illegal, felonious and unlawful which

prevented them from entering the premises. FACTS

Petitioners also alleged that said padlocking and the Three carabaos of defendant Mena trespassed upon
cutting off of facilities had unduly prejudiced them and the rice paddies of complainant Flora, doing
thus constituted grave coercion. Moreover, there was considerable damage thereto. The latter took
sufficient intimidation by the mere presence of the possession of the animals and refused to return them
security guards. to Mena without compensation for the damage done.
Mena was still unable to pay. Flora and his son set out
HELD to take the carabaos to the justice of the peace, for the
No. The second element of grave coercion is absent in purpose of depositing them in his care until the
this case. question of damages could be settled in his court. On
the road to the justice of the peace, they met
For grave coercion to lie, the following elements must defendant Mena in company with some other persons.
be present: By refusal to surrender them to the defendant or his
1. That a person is prevented by another from doing friends, defendant Mena drew his bolo, rushed at
something not prohibited by law, or compelled to Flora’s, cut the mecate by which the son was leading
do something against his will, be it right or wrong; the carabao, and with threats of bodily injury,
compelled him to turn the other loose; and then with
2. That the prevention or compulsion is effected by further threats of bodily injury, compelled Flora himself
violence, threats or intimidation; and to turn loose the carabao which he was riding.
3. That the person who restrains the will and liberty of HELD
another has no right to do so, or in other words, that Yes. The acts committed by the defendant clearly fall
the restraint is not made under authority of law or in within the foregoing definition of the crime of grave
the exercise of any lawful right. coercion. With violence he compelled the complaining
witness to do that which he did not desire to do — that
In this case, the mere presence of the security guards is to say, to turn over the possession of the carabaos.
is insufficient to cause intimidation to the petitioners.
It is a maxim of the law that no man is authorized to
There is intimidation when one of the parties is take the law into his own hands and enforce his rights
compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of with threats of violence, except in certain well-defined
an imminent and grave evil upon his person or cases, where one acts in the necessary defense of one’s
property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, life, liberty, or property, against unlawful aggression,
descendants or ascendants, to give his consent. and manifestly the defendant can not successfully
Material violence is not indispensable for there to be maintain that his action was taken in defense of life,
intimidation. Intense fear produced in the mind of the liberty, or property.
victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the will The defendant was guilty of the crime of grave
is sufficient. coercion unless he was lawfully authorized to enforce
his demand when the complaining witness refused
In the crime of grave coercion, violence through compliance therewith.
material force or such a display of it as would produce
intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of March 22, 2018 – Article 287 – LIGHT COERCIONS
the offended party is an essential ingredient. PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
Moreover, it was not alleged that the security guards ONG CHIU KWAN VS. PEOPLE
committed anything to intimidate petitioners, nor was GR NO. 113006
it alleged that the guards were not customarily November 23, 2000
stationed there and that they produced fear on the part
of petitioners. To determine the degree of the ISSUE:
intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person W/N the court was proper in finding petitioner guilty
shall be borne in mind. Here, the petitioners who were for violating Art. 287 par. 2 or unjust vexation of the
allegedly intimidated by the guards are all lawyers who RPC
presumably know their rights.
FACTS:
In this case, the crime of unjust vexation is the proper Assistant City Prosecutor Andres M. Bayona of Bacolod
complaint filed instead of the grave coercion against filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Bacolod City an
respondents. information charging petitioner with unjust vexation
for cutting the electric wires, water pipes and
UNITED STATES V. MENA telephone lines of "Crazy Feet," a business
GR NO. 4812 (OCTOBER 30, 1908) establishment owned and operated by Mildred Ong.
ISSUE That on April 24, 1990, at around 10:00 in the morning,

Whether or not defendant Mena is liable for grave Ong Chiu Kwan ordered Wilfredo Infante to "relocate"
coercion the telephone, electric and water lines of "Crazy Feet,"
because said lines posed as a disturbance. However,

Ong Chiu Kwan failed to present a permit from vacate the stall within twenty-four (24) hours because
appropriate authorities allowing him to cut the electric of her failure to pay the rentals for the stall and the
wires, water pipe and telephone lines of the business cancellation of the lease contract.
establishment.
Mayor Maderazo padlocked the leased premises. The
After due trial, on September 1, 1992, the Municipal locks were opened on the authority of the Mayor. The
Trial Court found Ong Chiu Kwan guilty of unjust contents of the market stall were inventoried by Victor
vexation, and sentenced him to "imprisonment for Maderazo and taken to the police station for
twenty days." On appeal, both the RTC and CA affirmed safekeeping
such decision by the MTC. Hence, this petition.
HELD:
HELD: Yes. In unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo, malice
Yes. Unjust Vexation is any conduct which annoys, is an inherent element of the crime. Good faith is a
vexes, disturbs or irritates another, provided there was good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because
no force, threat, violence or intimidation. good faith negates malice. The paramount question to
be considered is whether the offender’s act caused
In the present case, petitioner admitted having ordered annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance
the cutting of the electric, water and telephone lines of to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. The
complainant’s business establishment because these main purpose of the law penalizing coercion and unjust
lines crossed his property line. He failed, however, to vexation is precisely to enforce the principle that no
show evidence that he had the necessary permit or person may take the law into his hands and that our
authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the government is one of law, not of men. It is unlawful for
interruption of electric, water and telephone services any person to take into his own hands the
during peak hours of the operation of business of the administration of justice.
complainant. Thus, petitioner’s act unjustly annoyed or
vexed the complainant. Consequently, petitioner Ong In the present case, the overt acts of petitioners Mayor
Chiu Kwan is liable for unjust vexation. Melchor Maderazo and Victor Maderazo, Jr., on
January 27, 1997, annoyed, irritated and caused
MADERAZO VS. PEOPLE embarrassment to her. It was petitioner Melchor
GR NO. 165065 Maderazo who ordered petitioner Victor Maderazo, Jr.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 to have the stall reopened, to conduct an inventory of
the contents thereof, and to effect the transportation
ISSUE: of the goods to the police station. Petitioner Victor
W/N Maderazo is guilty of unjust vexation under art. Maderazo, who was a Sangguniang Bayan member,
287 of the RPC obeyed the order of the Mayor.
FACTS: Although Verutiao was not at her stall when it was

Verutiao (offended party) had been the lessee of a stall unlocked, and the contents thereof taken from the stall
in the Biliran public market and paid a monthly rental and brought to the police station, the crime of unjust
of P200.00. She was allowed to finish the construction vexation was nevertheless committed. For the crime to
of the market stall with the permission of the Municipal exist, it is not necessary that the offended party be
Mayor and the Municipal Treasurer. present when the crime was committed by said
petitioners. It is enough that the private complainant
She spent P24, 267.00 for the construction of the was embarrassed, annoyed, irritated or disturbed when
market stall but was not reimbursed by the she learned of the overt acts of the petitioners. Indeed,
Municipality of her expenses. by their collective acts, petitioners evicted Verutiao
from her stall and prevented her from selling therein,
Verutiao and the Municipality entered into a one-year hence, losing income from the business.
lease contract, renewable every year with a monthly
rental of P400.00. It is also provided that, any violation March 22, 2018 – Article 288 – OTHER SIMILAR
of the conditions therein agreed shall be sufficient COERCIONS
cause for its cancellation, notwithstanding the fact that PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D
the contract has not yet expired.
[NO CASE FOUND]
The Municipality partially paid her P10, 000.00 of her
total expenses in the construction of the market stall. March 22, 2018 – Article 289 – FORMATION,
However, considering that she had not been fully MAINTENANCE, AND PROHIBITION OF
reimbursed of her expenses for the construction of the COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR THROUGH
stall, she did not pay her rent. VIOLENCE OR THREATS
RIVERA, Marynit P.
Verutiao closed her stall and proceeded to Mindanao
where she spent the Christmas holidays and returned G.R. No. L-1340
a month after. She and her husband received a letter- October 13, 1947
order from Mayor Melchor Maderazo, directing her to HERMOGENES MORTERA and CANLUBANG

WORKERS' UNION (CLO) motion to compel Pennswell to give a detailed list of

vs. the chemical components and the ingredients used for
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, the products that were sold. Pennswell opposed the
CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE and BISIG NG motion for production, contending that the requested
CANLUBANG (NLU) information was a trade secret that it could not be
forced to disclose.
ISSUE:
Whether or not peaceful picketing is prohibited ISSUE:
Whether the court of appeals ruled in accordance with
FACTS: prevailing laws and jurisprudence when it upheld the
The Bisig ng Canlubang Union (BCU) demanded from ruling of the trial court that the chemical components
the Canlubang Sugar Estate (CSE) the salary increase of or ingredients of respondents products are trade
its employees and other benefits. CSE refused and so secrets or industrial secrets that are not subject to
BCU staged a strike. A case was filed which the Court compulsory disclosure.
of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered the striking union
to return to work and that any employee who shall fail HELD:
to return to their post shall be substituted by CSE with Yes
a new employee. The CIR also prohibited any form of A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool,
picketing while the case is pending. CSE was ordered mechanism or compound known only to its owner and
to accept the returning employees and to maintain those of his employees to whom it is necessary to
status quo. Both parties complied. confide it. The definition also extends to a secret
formula or process not patented, but known only to
RULING: certain individuals using it in compounding some
NO. Peaceful picketing is part of freedom of speech article of trade having a commercial value.
and, therefore, cannot be prohibited. Picketing in a
peaceful and and orderly manner is absolutely legal. It A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern,
cannot be prohibited for it is part and parcel of the device, or compilation of information that:
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. (1) is used in one's business; and
March 23, 2018 – Article 290 – DISCOVERING (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an
SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE OF advantage over competitors who do not possess the
CORRESPONDENCE information.
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M.
Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended
[NO CASE FOUND] for continuous use in the operation of the business, for
example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list
March 23, 2018 – Article 291 – REVEALING SECRETS or catalogue or specialized customer list.
WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE
SALVERON, Jan Ione R. It is indubitable that trade secrets constitute
proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or
[NO CASE FOUND] possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation has
rights therein which may be treated as property, and
March 24, 2018 – Article 292 – REVELATION OF ordinarily an injunction will be granted to prevent the
INDUSTRIAL SECRETS disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the
SANTOALLA, Stephanie M. information "in confidence" or through a "confidential
relationship." American jurisprudence has utilized the
AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Vs. PENNSWELL, following factors to determine if an information is a
INC. trade secret, to wit:
G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007
(1) the extent to which the information is known
FACTS: outside of the employer's business;
Pennswell sold and delivered to Air Philippines
Corporation industrial chemicals, solvents, and special (2) the extent to which the information is known by
lubricants amounting to P450,000.00. When Air employees and others involved in the business;
Philippines refused to pay the obligation, Pensswell
filed a collection case before RTC Makati. In its Answer, (3) the extent of measures taken by the employer to
Air Philippines alleged that: it refused to pay because guard the secrecy of the information;
it was defrauded in the amount of P600,000.00 by
Pennswell for its previous sale of 4 items; said items (4) the value of the information to the employer and to
were misrepresented by Pennswell as belonging to a competitors;
new line, but were in truth and in fact, identical with
products it had previously purchased from Pennswell; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the
and, Pennswell merely altered the names and labels of company in developing the information; and
such goods. During the trial, Air Philippines filed a

(6) the extent to which the information could be easily other confidential programs and information from
or readily obtained through an independent source. competitors. Notably, it was in a labor-related case that
this Court made a stark ruling on the proper
The chemical composition, formulation, and determination of trade secrets.
ingredients of respondents special lubricants are trade
secrets within the contemplation of the law. In the case at bar, petitioner cannot rely on Section 77
of Republic Act 7394, or the Consumer Act of the
That trade secrets are of a privileged nature is beyond Philippines, in order to compel respondent to reveal
quibble. The protection that this jurisdiction affords to the chemical components of its products. While it is
trade secrets is evident in our laws. The Securities true that all consumer products domestically sold,
Regulation Code, expressly provides that the court may whether manufactured locally or imported, shall
issue an order to protect trade secrets or other indicate their general make or active ingredients in
confidential research, development, or commercial their respective labels of packaging, the law does not
information belonging to the debtor. Moreover, the apply to respondent. Respondents specialized
Securities Regulation Code is explicit that the Securities lubricants -- namely, Contact Grease, Connector
and Exchange Commission is not required or Grease, Thixohtropic Grease, Di-Electric Strength
authorized to require the revelation of trade secrets or Protective Coating, Dry Lubricant and Anti-Seize
processes in any application, report or document filed Compound -- are not consumer products. Consumer
with the Commission. This confidentiality is made products, as it is defined in Article 4(q),[ refers to
paramount as a limitation to the right of any member goods, services and credits, debts or obligations which
of the general public, upon request, to have access to are primarily for personal, family, household or
all information filed with the Commission. agricultural purposes, which shall include, but not be
limited to, food, drugs, cosmetics, and devices. This is
Revised Penal Code endows a cloak of protection to not the nature of respondents products. Its products
trade secrets under the following articles: are not intended for personal, family, household or
agricultural purposes. Rather, they are for industrial
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. The use, specifically for the use of aircraft propellers and
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 engines.
pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee
or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC and
of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets. the Court of Appeals is that the chemical formulation
of respondents products is not known to the general
art. 292. revelation of industrial secrets. the penalty of public and is unique only to it. Both courts uniformly
prision correccional in its minimum and medium ruled that these ingredients are not within the
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be knowledge of the public.
imposed upon the person in charge, employee or
workman of any manufacturing or industrial
establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner
thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of
the latter.
Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the

private character of trade secrets. There is a privilege
not to disclose ones trade secrets. Foremost, this Court
has declared that trade secrets and banking
transactions are among the recognized restrictions to
the right of the people to information as embodied in
the Constitution. We said that the drafters of the
Constitution also unequivocally affirmed that, aside
from national security matters and intelligence
information, trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to the
Intellectual Property Code and other related laws) as
well as banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy
of Bank Deposits Act), are also exempted from
compulsory disclosure.
Significantly, our cases on labor are replete with

examples of a protectionist stance towards the trade
secrets of employers. For instance, this Court upheld
the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company
prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of
any competitor company, on the rationalization that
the company has a right to guard its trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and

TITLE TEN – CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY 6 of General Orders No. 58 declares that a complaint
or information shall show, among others things, the
March 25, 2018 – Article 293 – WHO ARE GUILTY OF names of the persons against whom, or against whose
ROBBERY property, the offense was committed, if known. The
TADO, Diann Kathelline A. complaint in this case therefore properly contained an
averment as to the ownership of the property; and
G.R. No. L-12453 July 15, 1918 upon principle, in charging the crime of robbery
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, committed upon the person, the allegation of the
vs. owner's name is essential.
PEDRO LAHOYLAHOY and MARCOS MADANLOG,
defendants-appellants. It is elementary that in crimes against property,
ownership must be alleged as matter essential to the
ISSUE: proper description of the offense.
Whether or not the accused committed Robbery with To constitute larceny, robbery, embezzlement,
Multiple Homicide obtaining money by false pretenses, malicious
mischief, etc., the property obtained must be that of
FACTS: another, and indictments for such offenses must name
In 1912, the complaint the two children were staying the owner; and a variance in this respect between the
with Juana, their grandmother, in a house some indictment and the proof will be fatal. It is also
distance removed from that occupied by Roman and necessary in order to identify the offense. Xxx
Rosa and located farther back from the shore. The
grandfather, Francisco, had gone to the beach. After Now a complaint charging the commission of the
the grandmother and the children had gone to rest on complex offense of robbery with homicide must
a mat where they slept together, the two accused necessarily charge each of the component offenses
appeared and demanded money of Juana. She gave with the same precision that would be necessary if they
them P100 in money in response to this demand, and were made the subject of separate complaints.
the accused then required the three to leave the house
and go in the direction of the sea. A further demand To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a charge
was made upon the old woman for money, which of robbing one person when the proof shows that he
demand she was unable to comply with. Lahoylahoy robbed an entirely different person, when the first was
then struck her with a bolo just below her breast, killing not present, is violative of the rudimentary principles
her instantly. The two children, being greatly of pleading; and in addition, is subject to the criticism
frightened, they ran away separately for some distance that the defendant is thereby placed in a position
and remained hidden during the night in the bushes. where he could not be protected from a future
prosecution by a plea of former conviction or acquittal.
The next morning the children made their way to the If we should convict or acquit these defendants today
house where the old couple had lived, which was of the robbery which is alleged to have been
vacant. Going in that direction they stopped at the committed upon the property of Roman Estriba, it is
house of their sister, the wife of the defendant perfectly clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow
Madanlog. When they went a little later to the house for robbery committed upon the property of Juana;
where their parents had lived, the fact was revealed and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail.
that Francisco, Roman, and Rosa had also been killed.
All the bodies were collected and buried early in the It is evident that, by reason of the lack of conformity
morning by the two accused, assisted by Eugenio between the allegation and the proof respecting the
Tenedero, son-in-law of Lahoylahoy. The two children ownership of the property, it is impossible to convict
Miguela and Bartolome say that they were threatened the two accused of the offense of robbery committed
with death if they should make complaint. by them in this case; and therefore they cannot be
convicted of the complex offense of robbery with
At the trial the two children gave a very consistent homicide, penalized in subsection (1) of article 503 of
account of the robbery and of the murder of their the Penal Code. No such difficulty exists, however, with
grandmother. respect to the quadruple homicide committed upon
They were charged crime of robbery with multiple the persons named in the complaint; and in conformity
homicide with the provisions of article 87 of the Penal Code, the
penalties corresponding to all these crimes must be
HELD: No. severely imposed. This court has already held in United
An important question arises upon the matter of the States vs. Balaba (37 Phil. Rep., 260), that where more
complaint in connection with the proof as to the than one offense (not complex offenses) are charged
ownership of the property which was taken by the in the complaint, and the accused fails to demur or ask
accused. The part of the complaint here material to be for a severance, the penalties corresponding to all of
considered reads as follows: the offenses which are charged and proved may be
imposed. The doctrine announced in that case applies
Xxx According to the proof the person robbed was with even greater propriety offenses in one complaint.
Juana; while the complaint charges that the property (See sec. 11, General Orders No. 58.)
taken belong to Roman Estriba. Subsection 5 of section

The acts causing the violent death of the four deceased (b) intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon
must be qualified as homicide, as the record does not anything. Robbery by use of force upon things is
satisfactorily show how and in what manner they were provided under Articles 299 to 305 of the RPC.
executed.
The prosecution failed to establish that Concepcion
G.R. NO. 200922 JULY 18, 2012 used violence, intimidation or force in snatching
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, Acampado’s shoulder bag. Acampado herself merely
VS. testified that Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag
CESAR CONCEPCION Y BULANIO, APPELLANT, which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did
not say that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or
ISSUE: force in snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts,
Whether the crime committed was Theft or Robbery Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado’s shoulder bag
constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.
FACTS: Concepcion’s crime of theft was aggravated by his use
The crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of a motorcycle in committing the crime.
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against Cesar
Concepcion y Bulanio (Concepcion). March 24, 2018 – Article 294 – ROBBERY WITH
VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF
At around 11:00 o’clock a.m. of May 25, 2004, while PERSONS – PENALTIES
private complainant Jennifer Acampado was at the UNAS, Nor-Aiza R.
corner of Mother Ignacia Street, Quezon City and at
another street which she could not remember and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CESAR
seemed to be deserted at that time, a male person CONCEPCION Y BULANIO
riding at the back of the driver of a motorcycle whom G.R. NO. 200922
she later identified in open court as accused Cesar JULY 18, 2012
Concepcion, snatched her brown Avon bag with black
strap which at that time, was placed on her left ISSUES:
shoulder. The black motorcycle with white covering at Whether or not the snatching of the shoulder bag in
the back side and with plate number which is not this case is robbery as contemplated in Article 294 of
visible to the eye, came from behind her. As the the Revised Penal Code.
motorcycle sped away, the accused even raised and
waved the bag that he snatched from Jennifer who was Whether or not Concepcion employ violence or
unable to do anything but just cry and look at the intimidation upon persons, or force upon things, as
snatcher so much so that she recognized him in the contemplated under Article 294, when he snatched
process. Acampado’s shoulder bag.
Meanwhile, while prosecution witness Joemar de FACTS:

Felipe was driving his R & E Taxi, in the same vicinity, At around 11:00 o’clock a.m. of May 25, 2004, while
he witnessed the subject snatching incident. As the Jennifer Acampado was at the corner of Mother Ignacia
accused was waving the bag at Jennifer, he blew his Street, Quezon City and at another street which she
horn. Ogardo drove faster so that de Felipe gave a could not remember and seemed to be deserted at
chase and kept on blowing his horn. Eventually, that time, a male person riding at the back of the driver
Ogardo lost control of the motorcycle and it crashed in of a motorcycle whom she later identified in open court
front of his taxi, sending its two occupants to the as accused Cesar Concepcion, snatched her brown
pavement. De Felipe immediately alighted from the Avon bag with black strap which at that time, was
taxi with the intention to arrest the snatchers. At that placed on her left shoulder. The black motorcycle with
juncture, some policemen from the Kamuning Police white covering at the back side and with plate number
Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, arrived. which is not visible to the eye, came from behind her.
As the motorcycle sped away, the Concepcion even
HELD: Theft raised and waved the bag that he snatched from
Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime Jennifer who was unable to do anything but just cry
committed by "any person who, with intent to gain, and look at the snatcher so much so that she
shall take any personal property belonging to another, recognized him in the process.
by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything." HELD:
NO. The prosecution failed to establish that
Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in
who, with intent to gain but without violence against snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag. Acampado
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall herself merely testified that Concepcion snatched her
take the personal property of another without the shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder.
latter’s consent. Acampado did not say that Concepcion used violence,
intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder bag.
By definition in the RPC, robbery can be committed in Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado’s
three ways, by using: (a) violence against any person; shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not

robbery. Concepcion’s crime of theft was aggravated companions was holding the flashlight "beamed to the
by his use of a motorcycle in committing the crime. money" and there was "some reflection" on the face of
Under Article 14(20) of the RPC, the use of a motor Regala. She remembered the face of Regala because of
vehicle as a means of committing a crime is a generic an earring on his left ear which he was wearing when
aggravating circumstance. Thus, the maximum period presented at the police line-up.
of the penalty for the crime of theft shall be imposed
upon Concepcion due to the presence of a generic Consuelo Arevalo testified and corroborated the
aggravating circumstance and the absence of any testimony of her granddaughter. On cross-
mitigating circumstance. examination, Consuelo Arevalo declared that she was
able to see Regala because he used her flashlight, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARMANDO he took off the mask he was wearing; she recognized
REGALA Regala because of his earring and his flat top hair cut.
G.R. NO. 130508
APRIL 5, 2000 The Court gives its approbation to the finding of the
trial court that the evidence was sufficient to clearly
ISSUE: establish the identity of Armando Regala as the person
Whether or not Regala committed the crime of robbery who, with two companions, committed the crime of
with rape as contemplated in Article 294 of the Revised robbery accompanied by rape on the night of
Penal Code. September 11, 1995. Nerissa Tagala positively
identified Armando Regala because at the time he was
FACTS: counting the money on her bed, the other companion
On September 11, 1995, at about 9:00 oclock in the of the accused beamed the flashlight towards the
evening at Barangay Bangon, Aroroy, Masbate, then money and there was a reflection on the face of Regala.
16-year old victim Nerissa Tagala and her grandmother Although the three intruders were wearing masks
(Consuelo Arevalo) were sleeping, when appellant when they entered the house, they removed their
Armando Regala and his two other companions masks later.
entered the formers house. Regala and his companions
entered the house through the kitchen by removing PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NORBERTO
the pieces of wood under the stove. Regala went to the VILLAGRACIA, ELMER PAGLINAWAN, ALFONSO
room of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an PASTORAL, NELSON LEDESMA, NIXON LEDESMA,
8-inch gun on them, one after the other. Nerissa and AND WILFREDO GAMPA
her grandmother were hogtied by Regala and his G.R. NO. 94311
companions. Thereafter, Nerissa was raped by Regala SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
in bed while her grandmother was on the floor. After
the rape, Regala and his two companions counted the ISSUE:
money which they took from the "aparador." Whether or not the accused committed robbery with
rape as contemplated in Article 294 of the Revised
HELD: Penal Code.
YES. There was sufficient evidence to establish the
identity of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the FACTS:
crime. On the 23rd day of September 1987, at Barangay
Pamampangin, Municipality of Lopez, Province of
Nerissa positively recounted the incident on the Quezon, Philippines, the accused, armed with short
witness stand. She was sleeping with her grandmother firearms of unknown caliber and a fan knife and
in the latters house when Regala, together with the forming a band, with intent to gain and with force upon
unidentified companions entered the house. Regala things, by means of force, intimidation and violence
pointed a gun, about 8 inches long, at her and taking advantage of nighttime, conspiring and
grandmother, and then at her, and hogtied both of confederating together and mutually helping one
them. Regala took off her panty and her shorts, and another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
removed his own "porontong" pants, and made sexual feloniously enter the house of spouses Thelma
intercourse ("itot") with her while she was hogtied in Villasanta and Cenon Villasanta, and once inside, take,
bed. Her grandmother was at the floor. She saw the steal and carry away therefrom the latter’s personal
aparador of her grandmother being opened. She could properties. On the occasion thereof said accused,
not shout because the gun was pointed at her, and she conspiring and confederating together and mutually
was afraid. Two companions of Regala entered the helping one another, by means of force, threats,
room as she was being raped. Two rings and money violence and intimidation and with lewd design, did
was taken by Regala and his companions. After raping then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take
her in bed, Nerissa saw Regala counting the money turn in having carnal knowledge of said Thelma
taken from the aparador. Thereafter, she was brought Villasanta, against the latter's will.
to the kitchen, still hogtied, and raped again. On cross-
examination, Nerissa stated that although there was no HELD:
electricity, and the light in the house was already off, YES. The law uses the phrase "when the robbery shall
she was able to see the face of Regala because at the have been accompanied by rape" which means that the
time Regala was counting the money, one of his offender must have the intent to take the personal

property belonging to another with intent to gain, and penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall
such intent must precede the rape. be the maximum of the corresponding penalty
provided by law." Viewed from the contextual relation
In this case, appellants employed violence against and of articles 295 and 296, the word "offense" mentioned
intimidation of persons when they divested the in the above-quoted portion of the latter article
Villasanta spouses of cash and other valuables. Three logically means the crime of robbery committed by a
of the appellants were armed with short firearms and band, as the phrase "all the malefactors" indubitably
the other three carried fan knives. refers to the members of the band and the phrase "the
corresponding penalty provided by law" relates to the
April 3, 2018 – Article 295 – ROBBERY WITH offenses of robbery described in the last three
PHYSICAL INJURIES, COMMITTED IN AN subdivisions of art. 294 which are all encompassed
UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND, OR WITH within the ambit of art. 295. Evidently, therefore, art.
THE USE OF FIREARM ON A STREET, ROAD OR 296 in its entirety is designed to amplify and modify
ALLEY the provision on robbery in band which is nowhere to
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. be found but in art. 295 in relation to subdivisions 3, 4,
and 5 of art. 294. Verily, in order that the aforesaid
PEOPLE vs. APDUHAN JR. ET.AL. special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
G.R. No. L-19491 firearm may be appreciated to justify the imposition of
August 30, 1968 the maximum period of the proper penalty it is a
condition sine qua non that the offense charged be
ISSUE: robbery committed by a band within the
Whether or not the penalties under Article 295 is contemplation of art. 295. To reiterate, since art. 295,
applicable in this case. does not apply to subdivision 1 and 2 of art. 294, then
the special aggravating factor in question, which is
FACTS: solely applicable to robbery in band under art. 295,
On the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 o'clock in cannot be considered in fixing the penalty imposable
the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini, Bohol, the for robbery with homicide under art. 294(1), even if the
accused and five (5) other persons,all of them armed said crime was committed by a band with the use of
with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other unlicensed firearms.
deadly weapons by means of violence, the dwelling
house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia March 26, 2018 – Article 296 – DEFINITION OF A
Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their BAND AND PENALTY INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS
children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and THEREOF
Herminigilda de Miano. Once inside the said dwelling VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
house, the above-named accused with their five (5)
other companions, did attack, hack and shoot PEOPLE VS PANCHO PELAGIO ET AL.
Geronimo Miano and another person by the name of G.R. No. L-16177 May 24 1967
Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said
dwelling house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2) ISSUE:
persons physical injuries which caused their death; they Whether or not the accused are liable under Article 296
took and carried away from said dwelling house cash of the Revised Penal Code.
money amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two
Pesos (P322.00). Act committed was contrary to the FACTS:
provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code Pancho Pelagio came to visit the spouses Jose Guico
with the special aggravating circumstance that the and Evelyn Villanueva asking to borrow money for the
crime was committed by a band with the use of hospital expenses for his wife who has just delivered a
unlicensed firearms (Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code), and child. Upon hearing the conversation between Pelagio
other aggravating circumstances – committed in the and Guico Armando Manalang took advantage of the
dwelling, at nighttime and with abuse of superior situation informed Pelagio of a robbery he was
strength. planning with some other friends who were later
revealed as Jose Guico, Oscar Caymo and Arcadio
RULING: Balmeo.
The disposition of the question at hand necessitates a
discussion of the interrelation among articles 294, 295 Pancho Pelagio, Oscar Caymo, Armando Manalang and
and 296 of the Revised Penal Code. As previously Arcadio Balmeo set out for the execution of their plan.
stated, art. 295 provides that if any of the classes of They all walked together towards Aling Nena's
robbery described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of art. 294 residence although before reaching the place, Caymo
is committed by a band, the offender shall be punished ordered Manalang to hail and hold a taxi which the
by the maximum period of the proper penalty. latter did. Then, too, only Balmeo and Caymo actually
Correspondingly, the immediately following provisions entered the victim's premises because, as was earlier
of art. 296 define the term "band", prescribe the agreed upon, Pancho Pelagio acted as the lookout for
collective liability of the members of the band, and the two and he simply posted himself by the gate of
state that "when any of the arms used in the the said house.
commission of the offense be in unlicensed firearm, the Caymo and Balmeo gained entrance to the house

through its back kitchen door which they found to be them when they plotted the crime. All these warrant
open. Once inside, Caymo drew his gun and sought out the exclusion of Pancho Pelagio from any responsibility
its occupants. Only an old woman, Mrs. Severina de for the said killing. (People vs. Basisten, et al., 47 Phil.
Gloria, however, was in at the time. Caymo then 493) Considering that those who actually participated
pointed the gun at the old lady and intimidated her in the robbery were only three, Pancho Pelagio
into producing all the money and jewelry she could. All included, and only one of them was armed, the same
in all, the pair got about P437 in cash, three pieces of evidently was not "in band." (Art. 296, Revise Penal
jewelry worth about P205.00 and a watch worth about Code) This being the case, then it would indeed be
P300.00. After they had taken the above items, Caymo irregular or questionable to hold Pancho Pelagio
ordered Mrs. de Gloria to lie face downward, covered similarly responsible as Caymo and Balmeo for the
her with a blanket, and cautioned her against moving killing of Pat. Trinidad. Under the code, it is only when
or otherwise sounding out an alarm. The two then went the robbery is in band that all those present in the
down the house and out into the street. At the gate, commission of the robbery may be punished, for any
however, they failed to find Pancho Pelagio. of the assaults which its members might commit. Thus,
From G. Villanueva Street where the victim's house was in People v. Pascual, G.R. No. L-4801, June 30, 1953
located, Caymo and Balmeo walked till they got to the (unreported), we held that where three persons
corner of F. Fernando street where they found committed robbery and two of them committed rape
Armando Manalang waiting for them in a taxi. Caymo upstairs on its occasion, while the third guarded the
and Balmeo then rode on it. owner of the house downstairs, only the two who
committed the assault should be punished for robbery
As the taxi was about to leave, however, a jeep from with rape while the third was liable for robbery only.
the opposite direction blocked its way and as the two
vehicles were thus stopped, a man alighted from the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ALFONSO
jeep and started to walk towards the taxi. When the HAMIANA ET AL.
stranger was very near the taxi already, Manalang G.R. NO. L-3491-93 MAY 30 1951
instructed Caymo to shoot at the man as the latter was MAY 30, 1951
a police officer. Whereupon, Caymo leveled several
shots at the latter, about six in all; and the man, who ISSUE:
was later identified as Patrolman Francisco Trinidad of Whether or not the other members of the band are
the Pasay Police Department, fell dead. also guilty of robbery with rape.
From the scene of the shooting, Manalang, Caymo and FACTS:

Balmeo went direct to a house in Buendia Street owned About ten o’clock in the evening of April 9, 1947, Rosita
by Manalang's sister where they changed clothes and Colantro, residing at the crossing of Atipuluan, Bago,
hid the death weapon and the money and jewelry they Negros Occidental, heard one of the appellants call for
had robbed. Shortly thereafter, Caymo and Balmeo "uncle, uncle." Rosita Colantro did not make any reply,
proceeded to a house in Blumentritt where they met whereupon the appellants hammered at the walls of
Pancho Pelagio whom they called to account for his her house which caused Rosita Colantro to ask what
absence at the gate during the robbery. The latter they wanted. The appellants ordered her to light her
explained that he had to scamper away before Caymo lamp and not to move. Rosita Colantro saw rifles aimed
and Balmeo had gone down because he, Pelagio, saw at her, her house being low. The appellants asked
someone slip out of the house apparently to summon palay, and Rosita Colantro answered that she had a few
the police. seedlings. Rosita Colantro was then ordered to go
down. With lamp in one hand and her small child in the
RULING: NO. other, Rosita Colantro met Alfonso Hamiana (her
When Arcadio Balmeo and Oscar Caymo hurried out of neighbor) with a bolo, Emiliano de la Cruz and Ceferino
the victim's house after the robbery, Pancho Pelagio de la Cruz, armed with rifles, and Silvino Jabin, armed
had evidently fled from his lookout post because the with a bolo. Undaunted by the presence of appellants,
pair, Balmeo and Caymo, failed to locate him at the she attempted to flee but was caught in the arm by
gate where he was supposed to have stationed himself. Anastacio Blancada. The latter ordered Rosita Colantro,
To be sure, the said decision itself renders the account at the point of his gun, to put her child down. She was
that it was only Balmeo and Caymo who walked taken by Anastacio Blancada to a place away from the
together from the said house to the corner of house and, throwing her down, Anastacio Blancada,
Villanueva and F. Fernando Streets where then they also at the point of his gun, raped her. After Anastacio
saw Armando Manalang waiting for them in a taxi and Blancada had raped Rosita Colantro, the latter
that it was only when these three had taken to the said proceeded to the house of Federico Nava wherein she
taxi, and the cab was about to leave, that the shooting stayed during the night. Accompanied by Federico
of Pat. Trinidad happened. When the homicide was Nava, Rosita Colantro returned to her house the next
committed, therefore, Pancho Pelagio could not have morning where she found that the appellants carried
had the least intervention or participation as might away her palay worth P35.
justify penalizing him likewise for the said killing. So far
as the records disclose, the conspirators were agreed RULING: NO.
only on the commission of robbery; there is no The evidence shows that appellant Anastacio Blancada
evidence that homicide besides was determined by caught Rosita Colantro while the latter was trying to

get away and that the rape was committed in a place

away from her house, in which the robbery was In his defense, appellant denied the charges against
committed. There is no positive proof in the record that him. Appellant claimed that he was in Batangas City,
the other appellants were aware of, much less abated, with his brother Benjamin, visiting his sister when he
the criminal act committed by appellant Anastacio was arrested and brought to Camarines Sur and
Blancada against the person of Rosita Colantro. charged with the crime of "robbery with murder."
Therefore, only Anastacio Blancada is guilty of robbery
with rape while the other members of the band are The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
only liable for simple robbery by a band. doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
March 25, 2018 – Article 297 – ATTEMPTED AND The Court of Appeals only found appellant guilty of
FRUSTRATED ROBBERY COMMITTED UNDER attempted robbery with homicide.
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. HELD:
Yes. The accused is guilty of attempted robbery with
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES homicide
VS
JOSEPH BARRA In People v. Quemeggen, this Court gave the requisites
G.R. NO. 198020 JULY 10, 2013 to be proven by the prosecution for appellant to be
convicted of robbery with homicide, to wit:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of attempted 1. The taking of personal property is committed with
robbery with homicide violence or intimidation against persons;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
FACTS: 3. The taking is animo lucrandi; and
That on or about 11:00 P.M. of October 9, 2003, the 4. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
accused, while armed with a firearm, after gaining homicide is committed.
entrance into the residence of his victim, with intent to
gain, by means of force and intimidation, did then and In the case before us, appellant’s intention was to
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and steal extort money from the victim. By reason of the victim’s
money from Elmer Lagdaan y Azur; that on the refusal to give up his personal property - his money -
occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of to appellant, the victim was shot in the head, causing
enabling him to take and steal the money, the herein his death.
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there
feloniously shoot said Elmer Lagdaan, thereby inflicting We, however, agree with the Court of Appeals that the
upon him gunshot wound which caused his death, to element of taking was not complete, making the crime
the prejudice of his heirs. one of attempted robbery with homicide as opposed
to the crime appellant was convicted in the RTC.
Dr. Villanueva testified that the victim sustained a Appellant is, therefore, liable under Article 297 of the
gunshot wound due to the circular and inverted edges Revised Penal Code, not under Article 294 as originally
of the point of entry. She concluded that since there held by the RTC.
was no point of exit, the victim was shot at close range. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code states:
Ricardo de la Peña testified that he knew appellant for Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
a long time. He stated that he was on his way home to committed under certain circumstances. — When by
the neighboring barangay, when, at around 9:00 p.m. reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated
on October 9, 2003, in the light of a bright moon, he robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of
saw appellant enter the house of Lagdaan, which was such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal
lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to the victim’s right in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless
forehead and demanded money. De la Peña hid behind the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty
a tree ten meters away. When the victim stated that the under the provisions of this Code.
money was not in his possession, appellant shot him. The elements to be convicted under Article 297 were
He went home and reported the incident the following discussed in People v. Macabales, to wit:
morning.
The elements of Robbery with Homicide as defined in
Ely Asor testified that on the night of October 9, 2003, Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are:
he was on his way to the victim’s house to collect his
daily wage when he saw appellant in the yard of the (1)There is an attempted or frustrated robbery.
victim’s house. He inquired from appellant if the victim (2)A homicide is committed.
was around. Appellant responded that the victim was
not around. Asor went home. It was while Asor was in In the present case, the crime of robbery remained
his house that he heard a gunshot. It was the following unconsummated because the victim refused to give his
morning that he learned that the victim died. Asor then money to appellant and no personal property was
proceeded to report the incident. shown to have been taken. It was for this reason that

the victim was shot. Appellant can only be found guilty son. Near the house of his mother-in-law he focused
of attempted robbery with homicide, thus punishable his flashlight towards it and was thereby able to
under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the recognize Francisco and Eutiquio Hamtig, Mariano,
RTC and the Court of Appeals found appellant's crime alias Alejandro Osorio and Francisco Gaston who were
to be aggravated by disregard of dwelling, the Court then going down the house.
of Appeals correctly imposed the maximum penalty of
reclusion perpetua. As stated heretofore, Antonio Dandan hid himself
behind several buri bags of rice found in the room
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, where he and his grandmother had slept. From that
vs. place he later saw the four intruders drag a trunk into
FRANCISCO HAMTIG, ET AL., the middle of the room where they forced it open and
FRANCISCO HAMTIG, EUTIQUIO HAMTIG and from which Francisco Hamtig got a bag full of money
MARIANO alias ALEJANDRO OSORIO, while the rest stood by, and afterwards they went
G.R. No. L-27431 August 22, 1969 downstairs together. Antonio then jumped out of the
window and ran to his house.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused committed Robbery with Hilaria and her son were brought to the Rural Health
frustrated homicide Officer of Capoocan, Leyte, upon whose advice they
were taken to the Leyte Provincial Hospital in Tacloban
FACTS: City where the Senior Resident Physician operated
Hilaria Vda. de Hondolero, a widow, lived with her son, upon Hilaria. The latter, however, died on June 24, 1966
Mastito, in Barrio Manloy, Carigara, Leyte. Sometime as a result of Generalized Peritonitis due to her
after 8 o'clock in the evening of June 14, 1966 they wounds, and secondary infection, while Mastito was
went to sleep: Hilaria and her grandson Antonio able to return home the next day.
Dandan — who decided to stay with them that evening
— occupying the only room of the house, while HELD:
Mastito lay down on a table found in the "sala" where Yes. The accused were guilty of the crime charged.
they had a vigil lamp. It was found by the court that the above-named
accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one
At about three o'clock the following morning, they another and all armed with guns and pointed bolos
were suddenly awakened by noise coming from the with intent of gain and by means of violence against
kitchen. Mastito sat down on the table, took hold of his and intimidation upon persons, did then and there
flashlight and focused its light towards the door willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of
leading to the kitchen from which emerged four armed one HILARIA VDA. DE HONDOLERO and MASTITO
persons whom he recognized as his brother-in-law, HONDOLERO and once inside rob, steal, take and carry
Francisco Hamtig, Eutiquio Hamtig, Mariano Osorio away against their will and content the amount of
and Francisco Gaston. As the four intruders were P1,400.00 Philippine Currency to their damage and
advancing towards him, his mother came out of the prejudice in the said mentioned sum and that by
room where she had been sleeping and upon seeing reason and on the occasion of the said robbery the
Francisco Hamtig she exclaimed: "It is you Kikoy." above-mentioned accused in conspiracy did then and
Thereupon Francisco, who was Hilaria's son-in-law, there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Hilaria
fired at her with a rifle hitting her in the abdominal Vda. de Hondolero and Mastito Hondolero with the
region. Mastito immediately went to the aid of his weapons which the accused have provided themselves
mother and pulled her inside the room where the four for the purpose.
armed persons followed them. As they continued firing
they hit Hilaria again on the right and left arms. Mastito Thus the accused performed all the acts of execution
then decided to counter attack, and arming himself which would have produced the crime of Homicide as
with a bolo he found in the room, he hacked the hand a consequence thereof with respect to said Mastito
of Francisco Gaston with it, forcing the latter to go back Hondolero but nevertheless did not produce it by
to the sala. The other intruders, however, continued reason or causes independent of the will of the
firing and hit Mastito on the right forearm. During all accused, that is, the timely and able medical assistance
this time, Antonio Dandan was in hiding among the rendered to said Mastito Hondolero which prevented
buri bags of rice in the room. On the other hand, in his death.
spite of their wounds, Hilaria and Mastito succeeded in
escaping through the window, and went towards the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
house of Gonzalo Dandan — Antonio's father and son- vs.
in-law of Hilaria — located around thirty meters away. ADRIANO DAGUNDONG, FEDERICO BULAON,
MELCHOR LAO and RICARDO SERRANO,
As Gonzalo Dandan was also awakened by successive ADRIANO DAGUNDONG, FEDERICO BULAON and
gunshots coming from the direction of the house of his RICARDO SERRANO,
mother-in-law, he went down his house with a G.R. No. L-10398 June 30, 1960
flashlight. Nearby he met his mother-in-law and
Mastito — both wounded — and helped them go ISSUE:
upstairs. Thereafter, he went down again to look for his Whether or not the accused were guilty of violating

Article 297 on Attempted and frustrated robbery same condition as the policemen had found it, but she
committed under certain circumstances. did not notice anything missing therefrom.
FACTS: The prosecution established by means of the testimony

On October 7, 1950, Alice Lake, more popularly known of Joseph Ebrada, one of the original accused but who
as movie actress Anita Linda, lived at No. 13 Pasong was discharged in order to be a prosecution witness,
Tamo, Makati, Rizal, together with her son, her sister that: On October 5, 1950, Melchor Lao went to see
Mrs. Mamey Lake Hewell, and the latter's children, Ebrada in his place in Cavite, in order to borrow the
Josephine, Patricia, Johnny and Helen. At about 7 p.m. jeep which Ebrada had in turn borrowed from a certain
of said date, Alice, who was then in her bedroom, Terio Manimbao of Malagasang, Imus, Cavite. The jeep
requested her niece Josephine, then 12 years old, to bore a PI plate number. At Lao's invitation, Ebrada went
get her a glass of milk from the kitchen. As Josephine with him. They were then joined by appellants
entered the kitchen, she suddenly came face to face Dagundong and Serrano in going to the New Bilibid
with a man holding a gun. This gunman was small in Prisons in Muntinglupa, Rizal. There, Lao and
stature, fairly built and was wearing a checkered shirt appellants Serrano and Dagundong visited Pablo
with long sleeves, dark colored pants, gloves and army Rabaton, an inmate. After thirty minutes they left and
shoes. On his head had a balangot hat, and over his proceeded to Makati, Rizal. Along the way, appellant
face a black mask with two holes for the eyes. Dagundong stated that they must raise money with
Instinctively, Josephine screamed. The gunman told which to bail out Rabaton, and if necessary to commit
her to keep silent and to return to sala. With the gun robbery in order to do so. Ebrada, Lao and appellant
held against her back, the gunman followed her into Serrano agreed to this proposal.
the sala, where they found Patricia. The gunman
motioned Patricia to come nearer to Josephine. HELD:
Yes. The accused are guilty of the crime charged.
At this time, Alice and her sister, Mrs. Hewell, startled The court ruled that appellants Bulaon and Serrano are
by Josephine's scream, rushed out of the their guilty of the crime of frustrated robbery with homicide,
respective bedrooms. When they reached the sala they under Article 297, Revised Penal Code, in relation with
came upon Josephine and Patricia, and the gunman Article 296, Revised Penal Code, as amended by
who had his gun stuck at Josephine's back. As Mrs. Republic Act No. 12 inasmuch as it has been proven
Hewell knelt before the gunman and pleaded for her beyond reasonable doubt that they actually took part
daughters, saying: "Maawa po kayo, huwag po", in the commission thereof, appellant Serrano by
Patricia and Josephine ran to their aunt Alice. Without standing guard outside the victim's house while
compunction, the gunman levelled his gun straight at appellant Dagundong inside the house and helped him
Mrs. Hewell's face. ransack the victim's room.
The Court believes, however, that the lower court erred
Meanwhile, Alice, together with her nieces, had fled in finding appellant Dagundong guilty of murder. It
into her bedroom. Shortly thereafter, several shots, not was established that it was he who had fired the fatal
less than five, were heard coming from the sala. Alice shots at Mrs. Hewell. But though that slaying was
and the children screamed. Alice wanted to go out to attended by treachery, his crime was not murder. The
help her sister, but the two girls prevented her by term "homicide" in paragraph 1, Article 294, Revised
locking the bedroom door. A moment later, they heard Penal Code, is used in its generic sense and the offense
someone knock on and then kick the door to Alice's defined therein comprehends not only robbery with
bedroom. Then complete silence. After some minutes, homicide in its limited sense, but also robbery with
Alice heard the noise of a jeep moving away and going murder. So, an offense is not taken out of the purview
towards Sta. Ana. Feeling certain that the malefactors of this article merely because the homicide "rises to the
had left for good, Alice shouted for help. Her outcries atrocity of murder" (People vs. Manuel, et al., 44 Phil.,
were heard by the driver of a passing taxicab, who lost 333). And the same definition must be given to the
no time in bringing the Makati police to the scene. term as it is used in Article 297, Revised Penal Code,
which penalizes frustrated robbery with homicide.
Upon entering the sala, the police came upon Mrs.
Hewell's bullet—ridden body lying on the floor. In the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
course of their investigation, the policemen come vs.
across three .45 caliber empty shells about a meter SILVERIO MORADOS, ET AL.,
from where Mrs. Hewell lay, and four other empty G.R. No. L-46973 November 19, 1940
shells outside the premises. They also discovered five
slugs, three of which were extracted from the wall ISSUE:
leading to Alice's bedroom, and about two meters Whether or not Benjamin Mendoza is guilty only of
from Mrs. Hewell's feet, and the remaining two from attempted theft and not under Article 297 of the RPC
the wooden cabinet which stood between the doors
leading to the sala and the kitchen. On entering Mrs. FACTS:
Hewell's bedroom, the police found that it had been On the night of March 15, 1939, while Ceferino
ransacked. After the removal of Mrs. Hewell's corpse, Ricasata, Rufino Aro and Lucio Enriquez were sleeping
Alice went into her sister's bedroom and found it in the in the latter's hut in the sitio of Pasong Tabla, barrio of
Bagbag, municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, a

place where they had been treshing palay, several Article 297 of the Revised Penal code provides that
malefactors suddenly assaulted them. Ricasata who "When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or
was awakened by the blows being inflicted upon his frustrated robbery a homicide is committed the person
companions, tried to flee from the hut, but his dash for guilty is such offenses shall be punished by reclusion
salvage was frustrated when hardly had he gone out temporal in its maximum period of reclusion perpetua,
the hut one of the ruffians shot him hitting him in the unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher
right thigh as a result of which he fell at a certain penalty under the provisions of this Code."
distance from the hut. His companions were beaten to
unconsciousness. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
vs.
The evidence shows that through an agreement made EUGENIO OLAES,
between them, Felipe Moral who had a paltik (a G.R. No. L-11166 April 17, 1959
homemade gun) and a flashlight, together with Silverio
Morados, were to go to the hut to watch the inmate, ISSUE:
while Benjamin Mendoza - who had also a paltik - and Whether or not the accused committed the crime
Florentino de los Reyes were to take away the charged in Article 297 of the RPC
carabaos.
FACTS:
They all did their part of agreement: Morados and Between 4:00 and 4:30 a. m. of November 9, 1954, Bus
Moral effected their entrance into the hut, inflicting No. 64 of the Laguna Transportation Company, driven
injuries upon Aro and killing Enriquez. While De los by one Feliciano Limosnero, with one conductor, left
Reyes and Mendoza were untying the carabaos, the the town plaza of Binan Laguna, bound for Manila.
firmer heard the scream: "Naku agawin and buhay ko!" Among the passengers were Mariano Inobio, a
(Oh! save my life!), which interrupted by a pistol shot. resident of Bo. Almanza, Las Pinas, Rizal, Maria Argame
Fearing that the might summon help, the malefactors and Elena Loyola. When the bus reached the curve in
escape without taking the carabaos, although one of Bo. Almanza, Las Pinas, a man later identified by
them had already been untitled. The motive for killing passenger Inobio as Cosme Isip, holding a rifle or
was robbery of the carabaos which were tied near the carbine, suddenly appeared on the right side of the
hut, three of which belonged to the deceased (Lucio road and signalled the bus to stop. Limosnero, taking
Enriquez), and the fourth, to one Turi. him for a prospective passenger, applied his brakes
and slowed down, but before the vehicle could come
It is argued that Benjamin Mendoza did not enter the to a complete stop, seven other men, also carrying
hut and did not take part in the assault, and he should guns, such as, garands or carbines, emerged from the
only have been found guilty of attempted theft of large left side of the road. Isip shouted, "Para, pasok!" The
cattle. appearance of these armed men on both sides of the
road must have affected the equanimity of Limosnero
HELD: on the wheel, and he must have forgotten to press the
No. This contention is without merit. clutch with his foot, resulting in the engine stalling or
In U.S. vs. Landasan et al. (35 Phil., 359, 369), we stopping. Probably convinced that the eight men were
observed that "neither the divisibility of this crime not passengers but were bent on holding-up the bus
(robbery with homicide) into two crimes, nor the and robbing the passengers, Limosnero started the
divisibility of the liability of the criminals who took part engine and sped away from the place despite the
is allowable." shouts of the men on both sides of the road for him to
stop. Those men immediately commenced firing at the
And in U.S. vs. Macalalad, 9 Phil., 1, and People vs. bus which was riddled with bullets.
Bautista 49 Phil., 389, 396, we held that "whenever a
homicide has been committed as a consequence or on One of the shots grazed the head of Limosnero.
the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as Another shot hit the passenger Maria Argame on the
principals in the commission of the robbery will also be back, the slug penetrating the abdominal wall and
held guilty as principals in the complex crime of entering the abdominal cavity. Still another shot struck
robbery with homicide, although they did not actually passenger Elena Loyola on the shoulder, fracturing her
take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared right clavicle. When the bus was out of range of the
that they endeavored to prevent the homicide." It has guns of the eight men on the road and they had ceased
not been shown that Mendoza endeavored to prevent firing, passenger Inobio on rising from his prone
the homicide. position in the bus, saw driver Limosnero's wound on
the head, which was bleeding profusely, the blood
The Solicitor-General recommends the imposition of dimming his vision, and so he took over the wheel. On
the death penalty in view ;of the fact that the killing of reaching Zapote, an inspector of the Laguna
Lucio Enriquez was qualified by treachery and attended Transportation Company took over the wheel from
by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and Inobio and drove the bus straight to the Las Pinas
dwelling. For lack of humanity, however, the judgment Municipal Building where the incident and shooting
appealed from is affirmed in all respects, with costs. was reported to the police. Thereafter, the same bus,
with a police officer, drove straight to Manila and to
the Philippine General Hospital. Maria Argame was

pronounced dead on arrival. The fracture of the right In front of the Elizalde Building on J.M. Basa Street, he
clavicle of Elena Loyola necessitated an operation, saw defendants Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco
which was performed, and she was confined in the Brillantes. They asked Gorriceta to bring them to
hospital for about twenty days, after which she was Mandurriao, a district in the city, as Jaranilla told
discharged, though she was not completely recovered, Gorriceta that he had to get something from his uncle’s
to continue treatment at home. The expert testimony place. Gorriceta initially demurred but the appellants
on her condition is that if she had not been given eventually prevailed. Upon reaching Mandurriao, they
prompt medical attention, she would have died from parked the pickup truck at a distance 50 – 70 meters
her wound. Driver Limosnero was treated at the same away from the provincial hospital and Gorriceta was
hospital for his head would and was released, but instructed to wait for the defendants as they alighted.
treatment was continued by the bus company for After twenty minutes, the three accused arrived
about a month. carrying two roosters each. They ran to the truck and
instructed Gorriceta to drive immediately as they were
HELD: being chased. Gorriceta then drove the truck to Jaro,
Yes. The accused is guilty of the committing the crime another city district. The four of them were on the front
provided for in Article 297 of the RPC. seat of the truck. Gorriceta, as the driver, was on the
extreme left and to his right was Suyo. Next to Suyo
After a careful study of the case, the court fully agrees was Brillantes and on the extreme right was Jaranilla. In
with the trial court that defendant Eugenio Olaes is the middle of the road, they were intercepted by
guilty. However, it will be remembered that the charge Policemen Ramonito Jabatan and Benjamin Castro.
against him was for attempted robbery with homicide Gorriceta stopped the truck near the policemn after
and frustrated homicide. Under this charge, as the Jabatan fired a warning shot. Jabatan went to the right
Solicitor General well said, he may not convicted of side of the truck near Jaranilla and ordered all of them
consummated robbery with homicide as the trial court to step out which they did not heed. Brillantes pulled
did. Moreover, we agree with the prosecution that his revolver but did not fire it while Suyo did nothing.
inasmuch as no overt acts pointing to robbery or even Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman Jabatan. The
an attempt thereof have been established, the killing shooting frightened Gorriceta who immediately
of one passenger and the wounding of two others started the truck and drove straight home while
should be considered as plain murder, frustrated Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan. Jaranilla, Suyo
murder, and physical injuries respectively. and Brillantes alighted in front of Gorriceta’s house
where the latter was instructed not to tell anybody
The trial court found that the aggravating about the inicident. Gorriceta went to his room and
circumstances of nocturnity and in band, there being after a while, he heard policemen calling his name
more than three armed men in the group of asking him to come down. He initially hid in the ceiling
malefactors, attended the commission of the crimes. of his house and it wasn’t until 8am the following day
The aggravating circumstance of in band may be that he decided to come down and was brought to
considered to qualify the act of killing of Maria as police headquarters.
murder, and the wounding of Elena as frustrated
murder. The evidence for the defense was to the effect ISSUE:.
that appellant surrendered to the authorities when he Whether or not defendants Suyo and Brillantes are
found out that he was wanted by the constabulary. This liable as co principal in the crime of Homicide.
was not refuted by the prosecution and so, it can be Was there violence and intimidation in the taking of
regarded as a fact. This mitigating circumstance will roosters?
compensate the other aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity. The penalty for murder which is reclusion HELD:
temporal in its maximum degree to death, should The killing of the peace officer is characterized as
therefore be imposed in its medium period, namely homicide because the act was made during the spur of
reclusion perpetua, so that in the result, we agree with the moment and the treacherous mode of attack was
the trial court as to the penalty imposed by it. not consciously or deliberately adopted by the
offender. In addition, only persons who perpetrated
the killing is responsible for such action. Furthermore,
March 25, 2018 – Article 298 – EXECUTION OF DEEDS mere presence in the crime scene does not necessarily
BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION make a person co-principal thereof. Hence, only the
ALAMEDA Jr , Manuel F. accused, Elias Jaranilla, who perpetrated the killing is
responsible and liable for robbery and homicide. The
G.R. NO. L-28547 co-accused, Suyo and Brillantes, are convicted of
FEBRUARY 22, 1974 theft.Therefore, the decision of the lower court is
PEOPLE V. JARANILLA reversed and sentenced the accused, Ricardo Suyo and
Franco Brillantes, as co-principals in the crime of theft.
FACTS: The crime was theft and not robbery.There was no
Heman Gorriceta had just come from Ford San Pedro evidence that violence or intimidation was employed
in Iloilo City and was driving a Ford pickup truck in the taking of the roosters hence, Art. 298 of the RPC
belonging to his sister. (Robbery with violence against or intimidation) could
not be invoked. It also could not fall under Art. 299

(which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house, public WoN the Trial Court and CA correctly convicted the
building or edifice devoted to worship) as the chicken appellants for robbery under Art 299 RPC
coop was outside Baylon’s house. Nor was it a
dependency thereof as contemplated under Art. 301. HELD:
No. The records show that the store alleged to have
March 27, 2018 – Article 299 – ROBBERY IN AN been robbed by petitioners is not an inhabited house,
INHABITED HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR public building or building dedicated to religious
EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and
ALILIAN, Enna B. as defined under Article 301. From Valderosa’s
testimony, it can be deduced that the establishment
G.R. No. L-2725 allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In
February 27, 1950 fact, after the robbery took place, there was a need to
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES inform Valderosa of the same as she was obviously not
vs. residing in the store.58 "If the store was not actually
ESTEBAN SEBASTIAN Y PANGILINAN (alias occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used
ERNING) and MAURO PANGILINAN Y SALTA, as a dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house,
MAURO PANGILINAN Y SALTA (appellant) the robbery committed therein is punished under
Article 302, not 299.
FACTS:
The appellant allegedly entered the house no. 179 March 26, 2018 – Article 300 – ROBBERY IN AN
Simon street, City of Manila, and by means of threat UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
and intimidation took, stole, and carried away cash ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
money, and other personal things of the inhabitants.
The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted by the THE UNITED STATES VS JUAN MORADA, ET AL.
lower court of robbery under article 299 of the RPC. G.R. NO. L-8183, NOVEMBER 19, 1912
PONENTE: JUSTICE ARELLANO
ISSUE:
WoN the lower court correctly convicted the appellant ISSUE:
for robbery under Art 299 RPC Whether or not the respondents should be charged of
Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band.
HELD:
No. The fact that the information to which appellant FACTS:
pleaded guilty does not allege that the robbery was On December 24, 1911, Juan Morada entered the shop
committed under any of the circumstances to get, as he did, coin amounting to P20 and various
enumerated in said article, such as entering the house articles such as cans of salmon and sardines, rice,
through an opening not intended for entrance or penknives, a razor and comb, all together worth P31.80
egress, the breaking of doors, etc., it is now settled that and not recovered, excepting some worth P1.17. The
were robbery, though committed in an inhabited owner of the shop, the Chinese Iyong, awoke and
house, is characterized by intimidation, this factor caught up a stick, but as he did, so some things fell and
"supplies the controlling qualification", so that the law made a noise, so Morada fled. The next day a penknife,
to apply is article 294 and not article 299 of the Revised a can of sardines, and another of salmon were found in
Penal Code. This is on the theory that "robbery which the possession of Librado Sugcay, who voluntarily
is characterized by violence or intimidation against the confessed to the municipal police sergeant of
person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery Mambajao, the scene of the occurrence, and through
committed by force upon things, because where him, the other defendants were soon discovered.
violence and intimidation against the person is present
there is a greater disturbance of the order of society Evidence of alibi having been rejected and proof of
and the security of the individual." conviction being well established, the Court of First
Instance of Misamis classified the crime as simple
G.R. No. 181138 robbery, but found against all the defendants the
December 3, 2012 generic aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and a
RICKY "TOTSIE" MARQUEZ, ROY BERNARDO, and gang, and a moreover against Juan Morada, Isidro
JOMER MAGALONG vs. PEOPLE OF THE Babano, and Librado Sugcay that of previous
PHILIPPINES conviction, and against Gil Revilla that of vagrancy.
FACTS: Isidro Babano and Gil Revilla appealed from this

The appellant was found guilty of robbery under Art judgment, while Morada and Sugcay submitted to it.
299 RPC for destroying the door lock of the stall of one Later, Babano withdrew his appeal to this court.
SONIA VALDEROSA and passing/entering thru the
same, once inside, took, robbed and carried away the HELD:
items inside the store. Under the Penal Code of the Philippines, robbery with
force upon things, in order to be qualified, must be
ISSUE: committed in an uninhabited place and in a gang.

It did not think applicable to article 300, because, Yes, the petition of the accused has no merit. ART. 302.
according to its interpretation, the robbery is qualified Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private
when it is committed in an uninhabited place and in a building. - Any robbery committed in an uninhabited
gang, these two qualifications concurring, which does place or in a building other than those mentioned in
not happen in the present case, for it does not appear the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the
that the house wherein the robbery was perpetrated property taken exceeds 250 pesos shall be punished by
was located in an uninhabited place. prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, provided that any of the following
March 26, 2018 – Article 301 – WHAT IS AN circumstances is present:
INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING OR
BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP 1. If the entrance has been effected through any
AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES opening not intended for entrance or egress;
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has
[NO CASE FOUND] been broken;
March 27, 2018 – Article 302 – ROBBERY IN AN 3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of
UNINHABITED PLACE OR IN A PRIVATE BUILDING false keys, picklocks, or other similar tools;
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed
MARQUEZ VS. PEOPLE furniture or receptacle has been broken;
G.R. NO. 181138 DECEMBER 3, 2012
DEL CASTILLO, J.: 5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if
ISSUE: the same be broken open elsewhere.
Whether or not all of the accused are guilty of the
crime of robbery with force upon things. When the value of the property taken does not exceed
250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
FACTS: imposed.
At around 2:30 a.m. of April 6, 2002, Marlon Mallari Under Article 293 of the RPC, robbery is committed by
(Mallari) was with petitioners and Benzon in front of any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
the University of the East (U.E.), Caloocan City. Marquez personal property belonging to another by using force
suggested that the group rob the Rice-in-a-Box store upon anything. When committed in an uninhabited
located at the corner of U.E. Marquez then got a lead place or a private building with the circumstance,
pipe and handed it to Magalong, which he and among others, that any wall, roof, floor, or outside door
Bernardo used to destroy the padlock of the store. or window has been broken, the same is penalized
Mallari was designated as the look-out while under Article 302.
petitioners and Benzon entered the store and carried Article 302 of the RPC provides that when the robbery
away all the items inside it which consisted of rice is committed in an uninhabited place or in a private
cookers, a blender and food items.13 They then building and the value of the property exceeds
brought the stolen items to the house of Benzon’s P250.00, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
uncle. Apprehensive that Mallari might squeal, the medium and maximum periods provided that, among
group promised to give him a share if they could sell other circumstances, any wall, roof, floor, or the outside
the stolen items. door or window has been broken. Considering that
petitioners burglarized the store of Valderosa which
At 9:30 a.m. of the same day, Valderosa received was not used as a dwelling by breaking its door and
information from the daughter of the owner of the stealing property therein with a total value of
premises where her Rice-in-a- Box franchise store was P42,000.00, the penalty that must be imposed is prision
located, that her store had been forcibly opened and correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
its padlock destroyed. Upon her arrival thereat, she
discovered that the contents of her freezer were PEOPLE VS. JARANILLA
missing along with other items inside the store. he total G.R. NO. L-28547 FEBRUARY 22, 1974
value of these stolen items was approximately AQUINO, J.:
P42,000.00. She reported the robbery to the police.
Meanwhile, on April 7, 2002, Mallari informed his older ISSUE:
brother of his involvement in the said robbery. At Whether the taking of the six roosters is covered by
around 4:00 p.m. of the next day, he again confessed article 302 of the Revised Penal Code
but this time to Valderosa.
FACTS:
Both the RTC and CA found them guilty of the crime of On January 9, 1966, Gorriceta was driving a pickup
robbery with force upon things. Hence, this petition. truck and while going home he saw Jaranilla, Suyo, and
Brillantes. They hailed Gorriceta who stopped the truck.
RULING: Jaranilla requested to bring them to Mandurriao, a
district in another part of the city. Gorriceta demurred.

He told Jaranilla that he (Gorriceta) was on his way That on or about June 22, 1926, in the muncilipality of
home. Jaranilla prevailed upon Gorriceta to take them Jagna, Province of Bohol, Philippine Islands, and within
to Mandurriao because Jaranilla ostensibly had to get the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named
something from his uncle's place. So, Jaranilla, defendants did willingly and criminally, with intent of
Brillantes and Suyo boarded the pickup truck which gain and through force upon things, conspiring and
Gorriceta drove to Mandurriao. Upon reaching armed with weapons, did take, steal and carry away the
Mandurriao, the three passengers alighted from the iron safe "Safe Thomas Perry & Son, Bilston" containing
truck and instructed Gorriceta to wait for them. 20 the sum of P1,930 and other articles in the store, said
minutes had passed when they reappeared. Each of defendants having broken the lock of one of the doors
them was carrying two fighting cocks. Jaranilla directed of the store and a part of the safe for the purpose of
Gorriceta to start the truck because they were being opening the same, and the defendant Juan Tubog as
chased. accessory after the fact. Upon arraignment, all accused
pleaded guilty and as to the defendant Santiago Rubi
While traversing the detour road, they saw the (alias Santiago Lucero) and the appellant, as principal,
Patrolmen Jabatan and Castro running towards them. each was sentenced to ten years and one day of
Gorriceta slowed down the truck after Patrolman presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties, and to
Jabatan had fired a warning shot and was signalling pay one-fourth of the costs. The defendant Juan Tubog
with his flashlight that the truck should stop. Gorriceta was sentenced to five months and ten days of arresto
stopped the truck near the policeman. Jabatan mayor. From this judgment the defendant Florencio
approached the right side of the truck near Jaranilla Postrero appeals without assigning any error.
and ordered all the occupants of the truck to go down.
They did not heed the injunction of the policeman. The Attorney-General then says that in the instant case,
Jaranilla shot Patrolman Jabatan. He immediately the information does not allege that the store in which
started the motor of the truck and drove straight home. the robbery was committed was inhabited at the time
Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan. After reaching of the commission of the crime, and that for want of
Gorriceta’s home, Jaranilla warned Gorriceta not to tell which, the penalty should be imposed under article 512
anybody about the incident. The next morning, all of (Article 302 of the RPC) of the Penal Code.
them were arrested.
RULING:
RULING: Yes. In the instant case, the appellant is not specifically
No, one essential requisite of robbery with force upon charged with a violation of article 508, and the
things under Articles 299 and 302 is that the malefactor information alleges that the entrance was made by
should enter the building or dependency, where the breaking "the lock of one of the doors of the store."
object to be taken is found. Articles 299 and 302 clearly The fact that entrance was made in that manner clearly
contemplate that the malefactor should enter the implies and carries with it the further fact that there
building (casa habitada o lugar no habitado o edificio). was no person inside the store at the time the lock was
If the culprit did not enter the building, there would be broken, and that the defendants had to break the lock
no robbery with force upon things. The term "building" to get into the store.
in article 302, formerly 512 of the old Penal Code, was
construed as embracing any structure not mentioned For failure of the information to allege that the store
in article 299 (meaning not an "inhabited house or was used occupied as "an unhabitted place" at the time
public building or edifice devoted to worship" or any of the commission of the crime, the contention of the
dependency thereof) used for storage and safekeeping Attorney-General must be sustained.
of personal property. As thus construed, a freight car
used for the shipment of sugar was considered a As the law now exists, the penalty for the commission
private building. The unnailing of a strip of cloth nailed of robbery committed in "an inhabited place" comes
over the door, the customary manner of sealing a under article 508, and the penalty for the commission
freight car, was held to constitute breaking by force of that crime in a store, standing alone and within itself
within the meaning of article 512, now article 302. comes under the provisions of article 512 which
Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop provides:
should be characterized as theft and not robbery. The
assumption is that the accused were animated by Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in
single criminal impulse. The conduct of the accused any building other than those mentioned in paragraph
reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. The one of article five hundred and eight shall be punished
taking is punishable as a single offense of theft. by presidio correccional in its medium and maximum
degrees, etc.
PEOPLE VS. TUBOG
G.R. NO. L-26284 NOVEMBER 17, 1926 For such reasons, the penalty of the lower court is
modified and reduced.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused committed the crime of March 27, 2018 – Article 303 – ROBBERY OF
robbery in an uninhabited place. CEREALS, FRUITS, OR FIREWOOD IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
FACTS: CEBALLOS, Jesus C

person who shall without lawful cause have in his

PEOPLE V. RADA possession picklocks or similar tools specially adapted
GR NO. L-16988 to the commission of the crime of robbery, shall be
DEC. 30, 1991 punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correctional in its minimum period."
ISSUE:
WoN they were properly charged in court. Such crime of illegal possession of picklocks or similar
tools has, accordingly, two elements: (1) possession of
FACTS: picklocks or similar tools specially adapted to the
Rada, Bahenting and Canas were charged with the commission of the crime of robbery; (2) such
crime of robbery in an uninhabited house, under Art. possession is without lawful cause.
302 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The accused
allegedly entered a bodega owned by Bastida and The information alleged that the accused possessed,
stole nine (9) sacks of palay. On arraignment, they "without lawful cause seven (7) false keys, one of which
pleaded not guilty because the crime was supposedly is a picklock or master key".
under Art. 303 of the RPC. Thereupon, they filed a
motion to quash which the court granted. A picklock a tool used in picking locks is in itself
specially adapted to the commission of robbery of the
HELD: kind provided for in Articles 299 (a) 3 and 302, par. 3 of
No, they were not. the Revised Penal Code:
The Court held that the term rice does not only mean
hulled rice but also includes palay, as the seed is locally ART. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
known, as well as the plant itself. If the word rice building or Office devoted to worship. Any armed
includes the grain in its original state without the hull person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited
being taken away, then the conclusion is inevitable that house or public building or edifice devoted to religious
“rice” is included under the term “semilla alimenticia” worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the
or cereal seeds. value of the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and
if the malefactors shall enter the house or building in
March 27, 2018 – Article 304 – POSSESSION OF which the robbery was committed, by using false keys,
PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS picklocks or similar tools."
DAHIROC, Janice L.
Art. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
PEOPLE VS. RAMON LOPEZ private building. - Any robbery committed in an
GR No. L-18766, May 20, 1965 uninhabited place or in a building other than those
mentioned in the first paragraph of article 299, if the
ISSUE: value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be
Whether or not the possession of 7 false keys punished by prision correccional in its medium and
constitute the crime in article 304 of the Revised Penal maximum periods provided that any of the following
Code. circumstances is present:
"3. If the entrance has been effected through the use
FACTS: of keys, picklocks or other similar tools."
At 10:00 A.M. of December 21, 1960, the Chief of Police
of Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, apprehended three Since picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to
suspicious-looking strangers who were loitering in commit robbery, a picklock is per se specially adapted
Pagao, a sitio of Bacuag. A bag which they were to the commission of robbery. The description in the
carrying was confiscated with the following contents: information of a picklock as "specially adapted to the
three carbines, caliber .30 M1; one revolver, caliber .22; commission of robbery" is therefore unnecessary for its
three flashlights with batteries; two carbine sufficiency. Notwithstanding the omission of such
ammunition magazines, fully loaded; twelve rounds of superfluous description, therefore, the charge of the
carbine ammunition; one balisong; a screw driver; offense of illegal possession of a picklock is .valid. We
seven false keys, one of which was a master key; find both elements of the crime clearly alleged in the
trousers; shirts; and a pair of shoes. information in question.
After an investigation the aforesaid persons Ramon It follows that the term "false keys" appearing in the
Lopez, Manuel Buico and Arturo Caniete were charged information sufficiently describes such tools.
in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bacuag with the
crime of illegal possession of firearms and, in a Wherefore, the order quashing the information is
separate complaint, the crime of illegal possession of hereby set aside and the case is remanded for further
false keys. They pleaded guilty to illegal possession of trial, without costs.
firearms, not guilty to illegal, possession of false keys.
March 28, 2018 – Article 305 – FALSE KEYS
HELD: DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J
Article 304 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
"Art. 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. Any G.R. No. L-4429 December 24, 1908

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, Richard Disipulo, who are still at large, robbed
vs. Herminiano Artana of his earnings in an undetermined
SIXTO GALURAN, ET AL., defendants. SY-TOC, amount along F. Concepcion St., Bgy. San Joaquin,
appellant. Pasig, Metro Manila, which is a Philippine Highway. For
insuring success of their criminal act, said accused
ISSUE: strangled the victim with a leather belt and hit him with
Whether or not the crime of robbery with the use false a blunt instrument, causing him to sustain physical
keys was committed? injuries which directly caused his death. SPO1 Crsipin
Pio received a case assignment relative to Herminiano
FACTS: Artana and went to the place of incident. He saw inside
Galuran was a porter in the warehouse of the firm of the taxicab a dead man. He then conducted a crime
Smith, Bell and Co. The appellant, Sy-Yoc, quite scene search inside the taxicab and within the vicinity,
frequently went to the said firm in order to arrange for he found a brown wallet containing a Social Security
the sale of certain boxes that the manufactured. On System (SSS) ID of Larry Laurente and a leather belt
one of these visits he proposed to Galuran that he, supposedly used in strangling the dead man. He
Galuran, should get some of the cases of whiskey that requested the SSS to secure the complete record of
were stored in the warehouse and take them over to Laurente. From the SSS records, the police authorities
the appellant's house, and that he would pay P16 for learned that Laurente lived somewhere in Pasig;
each case. Sy-Yoc suggested that he take an accordingly, a follow-up team was formed to arrest
impression of the key of the warehouse in soap paste him. Several witnesses were presented by the
and have another key made by a locksmith. Galuran prosecution. On the other hand, Laurente interposed
duly obtained an impression of the key and took it to the defense of alibi.
Sy-Yoc; the latter sent for a locksmith, whom he paid
for a key as soon as it was made according to the mold. ISSUE:
Galuran was able to open the warehouse, from which, Whether or not the crime committed was brigandage.
assisted by Dizon, he took two cases of whisky. These
cases they at once took in a carromata to the store or HELD:
establishment of Sy-Yoc, where they were surprised, No. Presidential Decree No. 532 is a modification of
while in the act of depositing the cases in question Articles 306 and 307 on brigandage. This is evident
inside, and arrested by a secret-service agent who had from the fact that the relevant portion thereof which
been watching them from the street and had followed treats of highway robbery invariably uses this term in
them. the alternative and synonymous with brigandage, that
is, as highway robbery/brigandage. This is but in line
HELD: with previous rulings that highway robbers and
Yes. These facts, which we hold to have been proven, brigands are synonymous.
clearly show the guilt of the appellant, Sy-Yoc, as the The main object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent
instigator of the crime herein prosecuted. From him the formation of bands of robbers. The heart of the
came the initiative in the robbery; he was the first to offense consists in the formation of a band by more
conceive the idea of its commission, and, being unable than three armed persons for the purpose indicated in
unwilling to carry it out himself, he employed Galuran, Art. 306. Such formation is sufficient to constitute a
impelling him to the material execution of the crime by violation of Art. 306. It would not be necessary to show,
a promise to pay him P16 for each case of whisky that in a prosecution under it, that a member or members
he was able to steal. The better to induce him to of the band committed robbery or kidnapping or any
commit the offense, he cleverly demonstrated how other purpose attainable by violent means. The crime
easily he could be accomplished, instructed him as to is proven when the organization and purpose of the
the best means of carrying it out, and offered him band are shown to be such as are contemplated by Art.
money to pay for the false key. He thus removed all the 306. On the other hand, if robbery is committed by a
difficulties in the way of determination to execute, and band, whose members were not primarily organized
the actual execution of the robbery in question. These for committing robbery or kidnapping, etc., the crime
acts constitute a real inducement made directly for the would not be brigandage, but only robbery. Simply
commission of the said robbery, and place the because robbery was committed by a band of more
appellant, Sy-Yoc, in the position of principal in than three armed persons, it would not follow that it
accordance with paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Penal was committed by a band of brigands. Therefore, the
Code. coincidental fact that the robbery in the present case
was committed inside a car which, in the natural course
March 28, 2018 – Article 306 – WHO ARE BRIGANDS; of things, was casually operating on a highway, is not
PENALTY within the situation envisaged by Section 2(e) of the
DELFIN, Jennica Gyrl G. decree in its definition of terms. Besides, that particular
provision precisely defines highway
PEOPLE V. LAURANTE, GR NO. 116734, MARCH robbery/brigandage and, as we have amply
29, 1996 demonstrated, the single act of robbery conceived and
committed by appellants in this case does not
FACTS: constitute highway robbery or brigandage. In the
Larry Laurente together with Melvin Dagudog and instant case, there is not a shred of evidence that

Laurente and his co-accused, or their acts, fall within Accused-petitioner Viernes is, on reasonable doubt,
the purview of P.D. No. 532Thus, Laurente cannot be acquitted of the charge of violation of P.D. No. 532.
validly convicted for highway robbery with homicide
under P.D. No 532. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPPINES VS AGOMO-O ET AL
GR NO. 131829
March 28, 2018 – Article 307 – AIDING AND JUNE 23,2000
ABETTING A BAND OF BRIGANDS (PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 532) FACTS:
DIZON, Roxan Danica G. On September 22, 1993, at around 7:30 in the evening,
a passenger jeepney driven by Rodito Lasap was
VIERNES VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES stopped by three men-Eddy Paneza and Oscar
GR No. 161970 Servando, and Ronnie Agomo-o, who, armed with a
June 30, 2006 gun,and bladed weapons announced a hold-up and
ordered the driver to turn off the engine. Ronnie
FACTS: Agomo-o shot the driver Rodito Lasap. He died as a
On November 15, 1992, at around 7:00 in the evening, result of multiple gunshot wounds. They had stolen a
while Josefina and her husband Ronaldo Lopango were wrist watch and cash money for a total value of three
on board a passenger jeepney, four of eight co- thousand three eighty pesos from the driver and
passengers declared a hold-up. Ronaldo resisted the passengers. Freddie Agrabio was also stabbed with a
attempt to hold him up by one of the four by kicking bladed weapon during such event.
him, but another stabbed him three times causing him
to fall from the jeepney. Josefina also fell from the ISSUE:
jeepney upon which she brought Ronaldo to the WON the accused are guilty of highway robbery under
hospital where he died after a few minutes. Josefina PD No. 532
reported the incident to the police station. The trial
court found the accused guilty of highway robbery HELD:
under P.D. No. 532. It was modified on appeal by the Accused-appellants assert that they cannot be
Court of Appeals to simple robbery. convicted of highway robbery as the crime was not
committed by at least four persons, as required in
ISSUE: Article 306 of the Revised Penal Code. However,
WON the accused are guilty for a violation of PD No. highway robbery is now governed by P.D. No. 532,
532 (The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
1974) Robbery Law of 1974. This law provides:
Sec. 2. (e).Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of
HELD: any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful
In crimes of robbery, the offender must be proven to purposes, or the taking away of the property of another
have unlawfully taken personal property belonging to by means of violence against or intimidation of person
another, by means of violence against or intimidation or force upon things or other unlawful means,
of any person, or using force upon anything. committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.
While the general rule is that contradictions and In the case of People v. Puno,it was held that P.D. No.
discrepancies between the testimony of a witness and 532 amended Art. 306 of the Revised Penal Code and
his sworn statement do not necessarily discredit him that it is no longer required that there be at least four
since ex parte statements are generally incomplete, the armed persons forming a band of robbers. The number
rule is not without exception as, e.g., when the of offenders is no longer an essential element of the
omission in the sworn statement refers to a very crime of highway robbery. Hence, the fact that there
important detail of the incident which the one relating were only three identified perpetrators is of no
the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected moment. P.D. No. 532 only requires proof that persons
to fail to mention, or when the narration in the sworn were organized for the purpose of committing
statement substantially contradicts the testimony in highway robbery indiscriminately. The robbery must be
court. directed not only against specific, intended or
preconceived victims, but against any and all
Josefina's assertion that the taking of her bag slipped prospective victims.
from her mind because of her husband taxes credulity
as the hold-up occurred only three hours earlier. To In this case, the accused, intending to commit robbery,
forget to mention the loss of the bag maybe excusable, waited at the Barangay Mapili crossing for any vehicle
but to categorically state that nothing was taken from that would happen to travel along that road. The driver
them when she was asked, infirms Josefina's overall Rodito Lasap and his passengers were not
credibility. predetermined targets. Rather, they became the
Josefina's uncorroborated testimony is tainted with accused's victims because they happened to be
inconsistencies on material points to thus lead the traveling at the time when the accused were there.
Court to discredit it and uphold the constitutional There was, thus, randomness in the selection of the
presumption of innocence of the accused. victims, or the act of committing robbery

indiscriminately, which differentiates this case from In view of the above stated facts, which appear in the
that of a simple robbery with homicide. cause to have been duly proven, the accused was
sentenced by the court a quo to the penalty already
The accused were found guilty beyond reasonable mentioned.
doubt of violating the provisions of Section 3,
Paragraph (b) of Presidential Decree No. 532. ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence does not establish the
March 29, 2018 – Article 308 – THEFT essential elements of theft.
DOSDOS, Xicilli Krishna P.
HELD:
G.R. No. L-16961, September 19, 1921 No.
THE UNITED STATES vs. NIEVES DE VERA Y GAYTE The argument advanced in support of the contention
of the defense is that the goods misappropriated were
FACTS: not taken by the accused without the consent of the
on the 20th of February, 1920, three Igorots named owner who had delivered them to her voluntarily, and
Jose II, Balatan, and Pepe were on the Escolta, of this this element being lacking, it cannot be the crime of
city, trying to dispose of a bar of gold when an Ilocano theft.
invited them to go to his house, stating that there was
a woman there who would buy the precious metal. they It is well to remember the essential elements of the
accompanied the Ilocano to the house indicated by crime of theft, as expounded in the textbooks, which
him where they met a woman, the accused herein, who are as follows: First, the taking of personal property,
apparently, was desirous of buying the gold and second, that the property belongs to another; third,
requested them to hand it to her so that she might take that the taking away be done with intent of gain;
it to a silversmith and have it examined, stating that she fourth, that the taking away be done without consent
would return within a short time to report the result. of the owner; and fifth, that the taking away be
The Igorot Pepe, who was the owner of the bar of gold, accomplished without violence or intimidation against
thereupon handed it to her, together with P200 in bank persons or force upon things.
notes which her requested to her to have changed into
silver coins were more desirable in the Mountain The commentators on the Spanish Penal Code, from
Province. The woman then left the house at about 12 which ours was adopted, lay great stress on the first
o'clock on that day, asking the Igorots to wait there. element which is the taking away, that is, getting
But the woman did not return. They waited in vain for possession, laying hold of the thing, so that, as Viada
hours for her and at nightfall they agreed that one of says if, the things is not taken away, but received and
them should remain on watch while the other two went then appropriated or converted without the consent of
to the Meisic police station to report the matter. The the owner, it may be any other crime, that of estafa for
police acted promptly and effectively. The policeman instance, but in no way that of theft, which consists in
Jose Gonzales, assigned to take charge of the case, the taking away of the thing, that is, in removing it from
soon identified the woman who had taken away the the place where it is kept by the legal owner, without
bar of gold, by the description which the Igorots had the latter's consent, of the legitimate owner.
given him, and at a few minutes after 11 o'clock he
already was in a house on Calle Barcelona, examining The American decisions an textbooks on "larceny," a
the accused as to the whereabout of the bar of gold crime which has the same characteristics as those oaf
and the bank notes of the Igorots. As the woman gave theft under our Penal Code, contain abundant
evasive answers, it became necessary to ask for illustrations of the question raised in the present case.
assistance from the office of the police, and shortly
thereafter, two other policemen, Mr. Abbot and one The intention of the owner to part with his property is
Ronas, arrived, who took the woman to the house at the gist and essence of the offense of theft (larceny),
No. 541 Calle Regidor, followed by Gonzales and the and the vital point on which the crime hinges and is to
three Igorots. There the bar of gold divided into three be determined.
pieces was found wrapped in a handkerchief and
placed inside the water tank of a water-closet. The A felonious taking necessary in the crime of larceny,
accused requested one Mamerta de la Rosa to let her and generally speaking, a taking which is done with the
have P150 which she in turn handed to the policeman. consent or acquiescence of the owner of the property
is not felonious. But is the owner parts with the
According to Exhibit B, which is a certificate issued by possession thereof for a particular purpose, and the
the Bureau of Science, the bar of gold delivered to the person who receives the possession avowedly for that
accused weighed 559.7 grammes and was worth purpose has the fraudulent intention to make use of it
P587.68 at the rate of P1.05 per gramme; whereas, the as the means of converting it to his own use, and does
three bars found by the police weighed only 416 so convert it, this is larceny, for in such case, the fraud
grammes, and were therefore, 143.7 grammes short. Of supplies the place of the trespass in the taking, or, as
the P200 bank notes delivered to the accused, she otherwise stated, the subsequent felonious conversion
returned only P150. of the property by the alleged thief will relate back and
make the taking and conversion larceny. And it has
been said that the act goes farther than the consent,

and may be fairly said to be against it. If money is given that Zabala is a jeepney driver who earns Two Hundred
to a person to be applied to a particular purpose, it is Pesos (₱200) to Four Hundred Pesos (₱400) per day on
larceny for the receiver to appropriate it to his own use an alternate day basis. Complainant Alas, meanwhile,
which was not the purpose contemplated by the works at the Manila City Hall. It is through this job that
owner. Obtaining money under the false pretense that he was able to save the Sixty-Eight Thousand Pesos
it is to be bet on a horse race, and with the intent at (₱68,000) stolen by Zabala. Piñon, on the other hand,
the time to convert it to the bailee's own use, the race had been the girlfriend of Zabalafor about five months
being a mere sham to aid this purpose, is larceny. The when the incident pertinent to this case occurred.
rule has been applied also to cases in which a person
takes a piece of money from another to change, and Alas testified that he and Zabalawere neighbors in San
keeps it with the unlawful intent to convert it and Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan. As neighbors,he had
refuses to deliver the money given to him or the treated Zabala as his kumpare and would often invite
change therefore, on demand; and the fact that the the latter to drinking sessions inside his house. At
taking was open and from the owner is of no times, he would also call Zabala to repair his vehicle,
consequence, if the intent to steal existed. This is so for because Zabala is also a mechanic. He would allow
the reason that the delivery of money to another for Zabala to follow him to his bedroom to get cash
the sole purpose of getting it changed is a parting with whenever spare parts are to be bought for the repair
the custody only and not the amount does not relieve of his vehicle.
him from liability for the larceny of the entire amount
given him. Alas further testified that on June 18, 2007, at about
4:00 in the morning, he left his house to go to work.
Where the parties are engaged in a cash sale the whole When he returned from work, at around 11:00 in the
transaction is incomplete until the payment is evening, he discovered that his money amounting to
completed; and the possession of the goods remains Sixty Eight Thousand Pesos (₱68,000), which he kept in
in the seller and that of the money in the buyer, until an envelope inside his closet, was missing. During that
they are simultaneously exchanged. If, in such case, the time, there were only five (5) persons living in their
buyer gets control of the goods and makes off with house: Alas, his parents, his nine (9) year-old son, and
them without paying for them, he is guilty of larceny. his aunt. He asked his parents and aunt if they knew
And conversely if the seller gets the money and refuses where he kept his money, but they did not know.
to give up the goods, it is larceny. Thus, where one
surrenders up his watch with the understanding that he Witness Piñon, on the other hand, testified that in the
is immediately to receive 50 dollars for it, the keeping early morning of June 18, 2007, she and Zabala, her
of the watch without payment of money is larceny. And boyfriend at the time, were together at a store owned
where a tradesman handed good to a customer to by the latter, which was six to seven steps away from
examine and the latter ran away with them, he was held the complainant’s house. She then saw Zabala climb
guilty of larceny. Similarly, where one unloaded onions the fence and scale the tree in front of the
which he owned on the premises of a prospective complainant’s house, and enter the house. When he
buyer, who thereupon refused to pay for the onions or returned, she noticed that he had a bulge in his pocket,
to allow the seller to remove them, it was held larceny, which she later found to be a plentiful sum of money.
as the owner never intended to part with the Zabala then brought her home, and agreed to meet her
possession of the onions until he received his money again at about 10:00 in the morning. They then went
therefor. One, waiting in crowd to purchase a railway to Greenhills, where Zabala bought two Nokia mobile
ticket, requested another nearer the ticket office to buy phones, which cost about Eight Thousand Five
a ticket for her, handing him the money to pay for it. Hundred Pesos (₱8,500).
He made off with money and was held guilty of larceny.
On July 7, 2011, the RTC rendered its Judgment
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion, and convicting petitioner of the offense charged.
so hold, that the crime proven in the cause to have
been committed by the appellant by appropriating the Aggrieved by the Judgment, petitioner appealed to the
gold bar delivered to her for examination, and by CA, attributing to the lower court the following errors:
converting to her own use, without the consent of the (1) there was a grave error in not giving credence to
owner, the bank notes which had been handed her to petitioner’s version; (2) petitioner was convicted of the
be exchanged for silver coins, is that of theft, defined crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to
and punished in article 518, paragraph 2, of the Penal prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3)
Code. And the appealed judgment being in accordance petitioner cannot be convicted based on circumstantial
with law, it must be, as is hereby, affirmed with costs evidence.
against the appellant. So ordered.
In its presently assailed Decision promulgated on July
G.R. No. 210760 , January 26, 2015 15, 2013, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the
KYLE ANTHONY ZABALA vs. PEOPLE OF THE decision of the trial court, but with modification as to
PHILIPPINES the penalty to be imposed upon petitioner. The CA
ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond
FACTS: reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant through
The evidence for the prosecution tends to establish circumstantial evidence.

The CA then found that the series of circumstances kept and hidden. It is interesting to note that while Alas
present in this case supports a conviction, and testified that there were other persons living in that
constitutes the basis for a reasonable inference of the house, i.e. his family members, the prosecution failed
existence of the facts thereby sought to be proved. to put any of them on the witness stand, to testify that
they saw or heard something out of the ordinary at the
Rejecting the defense of petitioner, the CA ruled that time the incident allegedly took place, or to explain
he offered no evidence other than an alibi to exculpate why nobody else was able to notice that the theft took
him from the crime charged. It then cited the rule that place while Alas was absent. Witness Piñon, meanwhile,
alibi is a weakdefense, and cannot prevail over the merely testified that she saw Zabala scale the fence of
positive testimony of a truthful witness. Alas’ house and enter it. She did not actually see Zabala
enter the room of Alas, where the money was hidden.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty for theft. Second, the evidence presented below is insufficient to
determine without a reasonable doubt that the
HELD: ₱68,000 in cash was lost due to felonious taking, and,
No. The prosecution failed to establish, by more importantly, that it was petitioner who
circumstantial evidence, that petitioner is guilty of committed the felonious taking. Even if believed in its
theft. entirety, the testimony of witness Piñon does not show
that when petitioner left the house of Alas, he was
Unfortunately, in the case at bar, this Court finds that carrying the ₱68,000 incash which was supposedly lost.
the prosecution failed to present sufficient All that Piñon saw was the bulge in petitioner’s pockets.
circumstantial evidence to convict the petitioner of the Piñon’s testimony can considered as evidence to prove
offense charged. We find that the pieces of evidence that when petitioner entered the house of Alas, he did
presented before the trial court fail to provide a so because of his intent to commit asportation.
sufficient combination of circumstances, as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Third, Piñon' s testimony fails to establish that Alas'
pocket indeed contained the stolen money, as she
To recall, the evidence of the prosecution purports to never actually saw what was inside the pocket of
establish the following narrative: first, that the Zabala. While she testified that later that day, they went
complaining witness Alas hides ₱68,000 in cash in his to buy 2 cellphones amounting to ₱8,500, she failed to
closet inside their house; second, that petitioner is testify whether the money that Zabala used in paying
aware that Alas hides money in his bedroom closet; for the cellphone was retrieved from the very same
third, that on the night of the incident, petitioner was bulging pocket which she saw earlier in the day, which
with his then girlfriend, witness Piñon; fourth, that would have led to the conclusion that Zabala's pocket
petitioner climbed through the fence of Alas’s house, contained money. Failing this, what is left is the fact
and was able to successfully gain entrance to his house; that Pifion saw a bulge in Zabala's pocket, and there is
fifth, that petitioner later went out of the house with a no evidence whatsoever to prove that his pocket in fact
bulge in his pockets; and sixth, that later that day, was used to hide the money that he allegedly stole. The
petitioner and Piñon went shopping for a cellphone. trial and appellate courts committed error in accepting
The foregoing narration––based on the testimonies of as fact that Zabala's pocket contained money, when
the two witnesses of the prosecution, even if given full there is a dearth of evidence to support such
faith and credit and considered as established facts–– allegation.
failsto establish that petitioner committed the crime of
theft. If at all, it may possibly constitute evidence that And fourth, the rule in circumstantial evidence cases is
petitioner committed an offense, but not necessarily that the evidence must exclude the possibility that
theft. some other person committed the crime.21 In the case
In the case before the Court,the evidence presented by here, however, the prosecution failed to prove, or even
the prosecution fails to establish the corpus delicti of allege, that it was impossible for some other person to
theft. In Tan v. People, this Court said: have committed the crime of theft against Alas. The
Corpus delicti means the "body or substance of the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the time
crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the theft was committed, there was no other person
the crime has been actually committed." The "essential inside the house of Alas, or that no other person could
elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal have taken the money from the closet of Alas. Alas
property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the himself admitted that there were other residents in the
taking away was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking house, but these persons were never presented to
away was done without the consent of the owner; and prove their whereabouts at the time the incident took
(5) the taking away is accomplished without violence place. This failure of the prosecution leads the Court to
or intimidation against persons or force upon things." no other conclusion but that they failed to establish
In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that culpability could only belong to Zabala, and not to
that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it some other person.
was lost by felonious taking.
Given the foregoing discussion, We find that
First, nobody saw Zabala enter the bedroom of Alas, petit10ner was wrongfully convicted of theft.1âwphi1
where the money amounting to ₱68,000 was allegedly In the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,

the presumption of innocence must be upheld, and 5:30 a.m. to inform his employer of his intended
thus, petitioner should be acquitted. absence. Around midnight of October 20, 2006, Vedua
called Viray’s mother to report the loss of some
G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013 valuables in her house and alleged that Viray is
RYAN VIRAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES responsible for it. Petitioner’s sister and aunt
corroborated his version as regards the fact that he did
FACTS: not go to work on October 19, 2006 and stayed home
Private complainant Vedua maintains seventy-five (75) sick.
dogs at her compound in Caridad, Cavite City. To assist
her in feeding the dogs and cleaning their cages, After the parties rested their respective cases, the trial
private complainant employed the accused who would court rendered a Decision dated December 5, 2009,
report for work from 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. On October holding that the offense charged should have been
19, 2006, at around 6:30 in the morning, accused robbery and not qualified theft as there was an actual
arrived for work. Half an hour later or at 7 o’clock, breaking of the screen door and the main door to gain
private complainant left for Batangas. Before leaving, entry into the house. Similarly, Viray cannot be
she locked the doors of her house, and left the accused properly charged with qualified theft since he was not
to attend to her dogs. Later, at around 7:00 in the a domestic servant but more of a laborer paid on a
evening, private complainant arrived home, entering daily basis for feeding the dogs of the complainant.
through the back door of her house. As private
complainant was about to remove her earrings, she The trial court found that there is sufficient
noticed that her other earrings worth PhP 25,000 were circumstantial evidence to conclude that Viray was the
missing. She then searched for the missing earrings but one responsible for the taking of valuables belonging
could not find them. to Vedua. Hence, the RTC found petitioner Viray guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery and sentenced
Thereafter, private complainant also discovered that him.
her jacket inside her closet and her other pieces of
jewelry (rositas) worth PhP 250,000 were also missing. In the present controversy, while the CA modified the
A Gameboy (portable videogame console), a compact decision of the trial court by convicting petitioner of
disc player, a Nokia cellular phone and a Nike Air Cap qualified theft rather than robbery, the facts as found
were likewise missing. The total value of the missing by the court a quo were the same facts used by the CA
items supposedly amounted to PhP 297,800. Private in holding that all the elements of qualified theft
complainant immediately checked her premises and through grave abuse of confidence were present. It is
discovered that the main doors of her house were not, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to
destroyed. A plastic bag was also found on top of her recalibrate the evidence presented by the parties
stereo, which was located near the bedroom. The during trial.
plastic bag contained a t-shirt and a pair of shorts later
found to belong to accused. Witness Nimfa Sarad, the ISSUE:
laundrywoman of Vedua’s neighbor, testified seeing Whether or not the accused is liable only for simple
Viray at Vedua’s house at 6:00 a.m. By 11:00 a.m., she theft, not robbery nor qualified theft.
went out on an errand and saw Viray with an
unidentified male companion leaving Vedua’s house HELD:
with a big sack. YES.
Art. 308 in relation to Art. 310 of the RPC describes the
Another witness, Leon Young, who prepares felony of qualified theft:
official/business letters for Vedua, testified that he
went to Vedua’s house between 10:00 and 11:00 am of Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. – Theft is committed
October 19, 2006 to retrieve a diskette and saw by any person who, with intent to gain but without
petitioner with a male companion descending the violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force
stairs of Vedua’s house. He alleged that since he knew upon things, shall take personal property of another
Viray as an employee of private complainant, he simply without the latter’s consent.
asked where Vedua was. When he was told that Vedua xxxx
was in Batangas, he left and went back three days after, Art. 310. Qualified Theft. – The crime of theft shall be
only to be told about the robbery. punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
Prosecution witness Beverly Calagos, Vedua’s stay-out than those respectively specified in the next preceding
laundrywoman, testified that on October 19, 2006, she article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
reported for work at 5:00 a.m. Her employer left for grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is
Batangas at 7:00 am leaving her and petitioner Viray to motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of
go about their chores. She went home around 8:30 a.m. coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation,
leaving petitioner alone in Vedua’s house. Meanwhile, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or property is
petitioner never reported for work after that day. taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
For his defense, Viray averred that he did not report for accident or civil disturbance.
work on the alleged date of the incident as he was then The crime charged against petitioner is theft qualified
down with the flu. His mother even called up Vedua at by grave abuse of confidence. In this mode of qualified

theft, this Court has stated that the following elements the breaking of the door, as it was not alleged in the
must be satisfied before the accused may be convicted Information. However, we disagree from its finding
of the crime charged: that the same breaking of the door constitutes the
1. Taking of personal property; qualifying element of grave abuse of confidence to
2. That the said property belongs to another; sentence petitioner Viray to suffer the penalty for
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain; qualified theft. Instead, We are one with the RTC that
4. That it be done without the owner’s consent; private complainant did not repose on Viray
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence "confidence" that the latter could have abused to
or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon commit qualified theft.
things; and
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. The very fact that petitioner "forced open" the main
door and screen because he was denied access to
As pointed out by both the RTC and the CA, the private complainant’s house negates the presence of
prosecution had proved the existence of the first four such confidence in him by private complainant.
elements enumerated above beyond reasonable Without ready access to the interior of the house and
doubt. the properties that were the subject of the taking, it
cannot be said that private complaint had a "firm trust"
First, it was proved that the subjects of the offense were on petitioner or that she "relied on his discretion" and
all personal or movable properties, consisting as they that the same trust reposed on him facilitated Viray’s
were of jewelry, clothing, cellular phone, a media player taking of the personal properties justifying his
and a gaming device. Second, these properties belong conviction of qualified theft.
to private complainant Vedua. Third, circumstantial
evidence places petitioner in the scene of the crime To warrant the conviction and, hence, imposition of the
during the day of the incident, as numerous witnesses penalty for qualified theft, there must be an allegation
saw him in Vedua’s house and his clothes were found in the information and proof that there existed
inside the house. He was thereafter seen carrying a between the offended party and the accused such high
heavy-looking sack as he was leaving private degree of confidence or that the stolen goods have
complainant’s house. All these circumstances portray a been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the
chain of events that leads to a fair and reasonable accused. In other words, where the accused had never
conclusion that petitioner took the personal properties been vested physical access to,or material possession
with intent to gain, especially considering that, fourth, of, the stolen goods, it may not be said that he or she
Vedua had not consented to the removal and/or taking exploited such access or material possession thereby
of these properties. committing such grave abuse of confidence in taking
With regard to the fifth and sixths elements, however, the property. Thus, in People v. Maglaya, this Court
the RTC and the CA diverge in their respective refused to impose the penalty prescribed for qualified
Decisions. theft when the accused was not given material
The RTC found that the taking committed by petitioner possession or access to the property:
was not qualified by grave abuse of confidence, rather Although appellant had taken advantage of his
it was qualified by the use of force upon things. The position in committing the crime aforementioned, We
trial court held that there was no confidence reposed do not believe he had acted with grave abuse of
by the private complainant on Viray that the latter confidence and can be convicted of qualified theft,
could have abused. In fact, Vedua made sure that she because his employer had never given him the
locked the door before leaving. Hence, Viray was possession of the machines involved in the present
compelled to use force to gain entry into Vedua’s case or allowed him to take hold of them, and it does
house thereby committing the crime of robbery, not not appear that the former had any special confidence
theft. in him. Indeed, the delivery of the machines to the
prospective customers was entrusted, not to appellant,
The CA, on the other hand, opined that the breaking of but to another employee.
the screen and the door could not be appreciated to
qualify petitioner’s crime to robbery as such use of Inasmuch as the aggregate value of the machines
force was not alleged in the Information. Rather, this stolen by appellant herein is ₱13,390.00, the crime
breaking of the door, the CA added, is an indication of committed falls under Art. 308, in relation to the first
petitioner’s abuse of the confidence given by private subdivision of Art.309 of the Revised Penal Code, which
complainant. The CA held that "[Viray] enjoyed the prescribes the penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum
confidence of the private complainant, being the and medium periods.1âwphi1 No modifying
caretaker of the latter’s pets. He was given access to circumstance having attended the commission of the
the outside premises of private complainant’s house offense, said penalty should be meted out in its
which he gravely abused when he forced open the medium period, or from 7 years, 4 months and 1 day
doors of the same house and stole the latter’s to 8 years and 8 months of prisión mayor. The penalty
belongings." Committing grave abuse of confidence in imposed in the decision appealed from is below this
the taking of the properties, petitioner was found by range.
the CA to be liable for qualified theft.
This Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the The allegation in the information that the offender is a
taking committed by petitioner cannot be qualified by laborer of the offended party does not by itself,

without more, create the relation of confidence and the property stolen, the order for reparation is hereby
intimacy required by law for the imposition of the DELETED.
penalty prescribed for qualified theft. Hence, the
conclusion reached by the appellate court that March 29, 2018 – Article 309 – PENALTIES FOR
petitioner committed qualified theft because he THEFT
"enjoyed the confidence of the private complainant, DUQUE, Francis Lester M
being the caretaker of the latter’s pets" is without legal
basis. The offended party’s very own admission that G.R. NO. L-30859 NOVEMBER 25, 1929
the accused was never allowed to enter the house PEOPLE VS. JUAN CARPIO
where the stolen properties were kept refutes the
existence of the high degree of confidence that the FACTS:
offender could have allegedly abused by "forcing open Raymundo Silos hired automobile No. 376 known as
the doors of the same house." "Star," and was driven by the chauffeur Resurreccion
Ledesma. In one restaturant, Silos invited Ledesma to
Without the circumstance of a grave abuse of come in with him to eat something and while they were
confidence and considering that the use of force in thus engaged, Ledesma's car No. 376 was stolen and
breaking the door was not alleged in the Information, was not to be found when Silos and Ledesma emerged
petitioner can only be held accountable for the crime from the restaurant. The next day the stolen car was
of simple theft under Art. 308 in relation to Art. 309 of found, stripped of three tires with the rims. A few days
the RPC. thereafter, the three tires taken from car No. 376 were
found on the "Star" car which was being driven by Juan
As for the penalty, We note with approval the Carpio. When the owner of the car No. 376 asked
observation made by the appellate court that the Carpio how his three tires came to be on Carpio's car,
amount of the property taken was not established by the latter admitted that said three tires belonged to the
an independent and reliable estimate. Thus, the Court owner of the car No. 376; and they were in fact readily
may fix the value of the property taken based on the identified by their numbers.
attendant circumstances of the case or impose the
minimum penalty under Art. 309 of the RPC. In this ISSUE:
case, We agree with the observation made by the WON Carpio should be guilty of theft with respect to
appellate court in accordance with the rule that "if the tires only and not to the automobile.
there is no available evidence to prove the value of the
stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove HELD:
it, the corresponding penalty to be imposed on the No. The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the
accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty furtive taking and asportation of property, animo
corresponding to theft involving the value of ₱5.00." lucrandi, and with intent to deprive the true owner of
Accordingly, We impose the prescribed penalty under the possession thereof. The act of asportation in this
Art. 309(6) of the RPC, which is arresto mayor in its case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the
minimum and medium periods. The circumstance of part of the thief to profit by the act, and since he
the breaking of the door, even if proven during trial, effectively deprived the true owner of the possession
cannot be considered as a generic aggravating of the entire automobile, the offense of larceny
circumstance as it was not alleged in the Information. comprised the whole car. The fact that the accused
Thus, the Court finds that the penalty prescribed stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the machine
should be imposed in its medium period, that is to say, in a distant part of the city did not make the appellant
from two (2) months and one (1) day to three (3) any less liable for the larceny of that automobile. The
months of arresto mayor. deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his
right of possession were complete as to the entire car;
Lastly, We delete the order for the reparation of the and the fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly
stolen property. Art. 2199 of the Civil Code is clear that to abandon the machine in no wise limits their criminal
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for responsibility to the particular parts of the car that
such pecuniary loss suffered by him, as he has duly were appropriated and subsequently used by the
proved. Since, as aforesaid, the testimony of the private appellant upon his own car. Since subject car was less
complainant is not sufficient to establish the value of than 1 year after being bought by the owner, it was
the property taken, nor may the courts take judicial practically new. Upon taking judicial notice, the car
notice of such testimony, We cannot award the valued at 250. This put the penalty under par 3 of Art
reparation of the stolen goods. 309 with the penalty of prision correcional in its
medium and minimum period since the value of the
WHEREFORE, the C Decision of August 31, 2012 in CA- property is more than 200 but does not exceed 6,000
G.R. CR No. 33076 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. which runs from one year, eight months and twenty-
Petitioner Ryan Viray is found GUILTY beyond one days to two years, eleven months and ten days.
reasonable doubt of SIMPLE THEFT and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two (2) months G.R. No. 158182 June 12, 2008
and one (1) day to three (3) months of arresto mayor. SESINANDO MERIDA vs. PEOPLE
Further, for want of convincing proof as to the value of
FACTS:

Petitioner was charged in RTC for cutting, gathering, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
collecting and removing a narra tree inside a Mayod VS SYOU HU
Property over which Tansiongco claims ownership. G.R. NO. L- 45765, JANUARY 29, 1938
Tansiongco learned that petitioner cut a narra tree in
the Mayod Property. Tansiongco reported the tree- ISSUE:
cutting to the DENR forester Hernandez who ordered Whether accused violated article 310 of the Revised
petitioner not to convert the felled tree trunk into Penal Code?
lumber. Later, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that
petitioner had converted the narra trunk into lumber. FACTS:
Hernandez went to the Mayod Property and saw that Accused was living in the house of the victim, who had
the narra tree had been cut into six smaller pieces of sheltered him out of charity. In August of 1937, the sum
lumber. Hernandez took custody of the lumber,9 and of P435 in cash was taken from the offended party
issued an apprehension receipt to petitioner. A without his consent.
complaint was filed for violation for violation of Section
68 of PD 705 known as Forestry Reform Code of the HELD:
Philippines. The trial court found petitioner guilty as Yes, article 310 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
charged, sentenced him to fourteen (14) years, eight qualified theft is committed when "grave abuse of
(8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of confidence is present," making it understood thereby
reclusion temporal. Merida appealed before SC that the relation of cause and effect must exist between
contending that the penalty imposed was excessive. the abuse of confidence and the crime. The grave
abuse of confidence does not produce the crime of
ISSUE: theft as effect. It is the asportation, with intent of gain,
WON the penalty imposed by the RTC is correct. of personal property belonging to another without the
owner's knowledge and consent, which produces it.
HELD: The relation of cause and effect, therefore does not
No. RTC is not Correct. Violation of Section 68 of PD exist between the two concepts.The grave abuse of
705 is punishable as Qualified Theft. Under Art. 309. confidence is a mere circumstance which aggravates
Penalties. - 1.) The penalty of prisión mayor in its and qualifies the commission of the crime of theft. It is
minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing not necessary for said circumstance to be
stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed premeditated in order to be taken into consideration
22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen as an aggravating circumstance qualifying said crime.
exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the Its presence in the commission of the crime is
maximum period... 6.) Arresto Mayor in its minimum sufficient. The fact that the accused was living in the
and medium periods, if such value does not exceed five house of the ofended party, who had sheltered him out
pesos. of charity, when he took the money belonging to his
protector, aggravates the crime committed by him,
The Information alleged that the lumber valued in the inasmuch as he gravely abused the confidence which
amount of P20,930.40. To prove this allegation, the the owner of the house reposed inhim upon permitting
prosecution relied on Hernandez's testimony that him, out of charity, to live therein, stiffling the
these amounts, are his "estimates" based on sentiment of gratitude awakended in his bosom by his
"prevailing local price." This evidence does not suffice. benefactor's charitable act. This abuse of confidence
To prove the amount of the property taken for fixing was all the more grave because it happened between
the penalty imposable against the accused under fellow countrymen.
Article 309 of the RPC, the prosecution must present
more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
fact. In the absence of independent and reliable VS EDGARDO T. CRUZ
corroboration of such estimate, courts may either G.R. NO. 200081, JUNE 08, 2016
apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the
value of the property taken based on the attendant ISSUE:
circumstances of the case. In the case of People v. Whether the accused violated Article 310 of the
Dator with the same set of facts, SC imposed the Revised Penal Code?
minimum penalty under Article 309 (6)45 of the RPC.
FACTS:
Applying penalty for qualfied theft (imposed penalty Complainant Eduardo S. Carlos put up a business
higher by two degrees) and taking into account the engaged in the sale of tires, batteries and services for
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the SC imposed penalty wheel alignment, wheel balancing and vulcanizing.
of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as During the infancy of the business,complainant sought
minimum, to three (3) years, four (4) months and the help of the accused to tend the needs of the
twenty-one (21) days of prision correcional, as business including the financial aspect. When the
maximum. business started to gain recognition and despite the
the rise of the number of clients they were serving, its
March 29, 2018 – Article 310 – QUALIFIED THEFT financial capital remained unimpressive. Thus, by
FLORENTINO, Kimberly A. suspicion complainant discovered through the
accused's sister that he was stealing from the company.

When complainant checked the daily sales report to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
containing the list of payments and balances of crime of robbery or theft."
customers he found out that the remaining balances of The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as
their customers and accused's advances totaled to P97, follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been
984.00. At the bottom of the balance sheet was an committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or
acknowledgement of the accused that the amounts on accomplice in the commission of the crime of
declared lost were actually used by him for his personal robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
use. Complainant also discovered other irregularities in acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells,
the business dealings of the accused. or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or
anything of value, which has been derived from the
HELD: proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the
Yes. When theft as defined in article 308 of the Revised accused knew or should have known that the said
Penal Code is committed with grave abuse of article, item, object or anything of value has been
confidence, the crime appreciates into qualified theft derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
punishable under article 310 of the same code. All the theft; and (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent
elements of Qualified Theft are present in this case to gain for oneself or for another.
such as;
March 31, 2018 – Article 311 – THEFT OF THE
1.) Taking of personal property PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND
2.) That the said property belongs to another NATIONAL MUSEUM
3.) That the said taking be done with intent to gain FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z.
4.) That it be done without thebowner's consent [NO CASE FOUND]
5.) That it be done without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things
6.) That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. March 31, 2018 – Article 312 – OCCUPATION OF
REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS
The accused was found guilty and was sentenced to IN PROPERTY
serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and was IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
ordered to pay the amount of the value of the property
stolen which is P97,984.00.
US V. FUSTER
ONG VS PEOPLE G.R. NO. 1366, NOVEMBER 18, 1903
G.R. NO. 190475, APRIL 10, 2013
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether accused violated article 312 of the Revised
Whether accused is guilty of violating P.D. 1612 (Anti- Penal Code.
Fencing Law)?
FACTS:
FACTS: Accused forcibly entered and usurped the land in
Private complainant was the owner of 44 firestone questioned which was in possession of Dofia Carolina
truck tires of which 6 were sold and 38 remained inside Gomez de la Serna. Dofia Carolina herself says that this
the warehouse. Complainant, marked the tires using a land "does not belong to anybody," and that, although
piece of chalk before storing them inside the she is occupying it, it is only because she is in
warehouse. The following day all the 38 tires were possession of it. There is, therefore, no evidence that
stolen, the gate was forcibly opened. Together with his the land is the property of those alleged to have been
caretaker they reported the incident to the police. injured by the offense charged.
While investigation was still pending complainant
upon chance happened to inquire in a store if they
have tires that has same specifications with the ones The defendant offered to prove, by authentic
stolen. Accused answered in affirmative and showed it documents, that he was the lawful owner of the land in
to him. Complainant happened to notice the marking question. This evidence was rejected in the court
he made during inventory. Complainant left the store below. In this the court erred, for it unquestionably is
and reported the matter to the police. A buy bust team an error to exclude proof of the ownership of property
was formed and the accused was arrested and the total in litigation when, as in the case of usurpation, this
of 13 tires were confiscated. ownership constitutes a necessary and indispensable
element for the determination of the defendant's guilt
HELD: or innocence. If the defendant herein had shown that
Yes. Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612 as he was the owner of the land in question, there would
the "act of any person who, with intent to gain for have been no ground on which he could have been
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, convicted of the offense charged, because no one can,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, in a legal sense, be guilty of the usurpation of his own
or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or property.
anything of value which he knows, or should be known
HELD:
The law requires that the real property or the real right

seized be the property of another, in order that the ousted of possession of the property.
crime of usurpation may exist. The error of law into More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, the Court
which the court fell in refusing to admit the evidence stated that the elements of the offense are (1)
of ownership offered by the defendant, and against occupation of anothers real property or usurpation of
which ruling the defendant duly excepted, would be a a real right belonging to another person; (2) violence
sufficient ground for remanding the case for a new or intimidation should be employed in possessing the
trial. We do not, however, consider it necessary to do real property or in usurping the real right, and (3) the
this, in view of the fact that the prosecution has not accused should be animated by the intent to gain.
proven that the land alleged to have been usurped was
not the property of the defendant. The burden lay with In the present case, based on the above findings and
the prosecution to prove this fact, and, having failed to the sketch maps submitted, it is clear that the disputed
do so, we must acquit the defendant, even in the land which is the red shaded area (Exh. "B-2") is within
absence of any evidence in his behalf, because of the the boundary of the land awarded to the complainant
presumption of innocence to which every defendant is in Civil Case No. 3516 [should be 3561]. The issue of
entitled until proven guilty. ownership over the land in question having been
decided in Civil Case No. 3516 [should be 3561] in favor
We therefore reverse the judgment appealed and of the complainant in 1949, the same will not be
acquit the defendant, with the costs of both instances disturbed. The accused has to respect the findings of
de oficio. So ordered. the court., it is indeed very clear that the area claimed
by the accused encroached the area of the plaintiffs.
QUINAO V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 139603, JULY 14, 2000 March 31, 2018 – Article 313 – ALTERING
BOUNDERIES OR LANDMARKS
ISSUE: LAZO II, Joseph Artfel T.
Whether petitioners are guilty of the crime of
Usurpation of Real Property. [NO CASES FOUND]
FACTS: March 31, 2018 – Article 314 – FRAUDULENT

On February 2, 1993 at around 9am in the morning, INSOLVENCY
accused together with their relatives, suddenly NASH, Regina Mercado
appeared in the land in questioned owned by Francisco
Del Monte and used force, violence and intimidation G.R. No. 38618
and took possession of the land claiming that it is their September 15, 1933
inheritance from their ascendants and while there, they PEOPLE VS. SY GESIONG
gathered coconuts and made them copra.
ISSUE:
Accused testified that they are the grandchildren of Whether or not Sy Gesiong is guilty of fraudulent
Lorenzo Cases, and during his lifetime, he acquired the insolvency?
real property in question and declared the same in his
name. FACTS:
RTC rendered judgement finding accused guilty of Sy Gesiong, was convicted by the Court of First
violation of article 312 of the Revised Penal Code. The Instance of Bohol of the crime of estafa for having
accused are further sentenced not to enter or intrude concealed or otherwise disposed of certain personal
upon this property rightfully adjudged to belong to property belonging to him for the purpose of
Francisco Delmonte, private complainant herein and defrauding his creditors, and sentenced to one year of
they are ordered under pain of imprisonment for presidio correccional, to indemnify Ignacio Molina and
Contempt of Court, to Cease and Desist forever from Vicente Gaviola in the sum of P2,997.76 with subsidiary
disturbing or molesting the peaceful and quiet imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
possession and ownership of the herein private costs. From this judgment the present appeal was
offended party over the property subject of litigation, taken. Appellant has assigned five errors as having
hence the appeal. been committed by the trial court. The first error
assigned raises the question of the sufficiency of the
HELD: facts alleged in the information filed against the
The requisites of usurpation are that the accused took appellant.The theory of the prosecution is that the facts
possession of anothers real property or usurped real alleged in the information constitute the crime of
rights in anothers property; that the possession or estafa defined in article 523 of the old Penal Code and
usurpation was committed with violence or in article 314 of the Revised Penal Code. It will be
intimidation and that the accused had animo lucrandi. noticed that one of the essential elements of the crime
In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de thus defined is that the absconding of the property by
derecho reales," the proof must show that the real the defendant must result in prejudice to his creditors.
property occupied or usurped belongs, not to the The information filed in this case contains no such
occupant or usurper, but to some third person, and allegation. It is true that it alleges that the defendant
that the possession of the usurper was obtained by fraudulently concealed his property mentioned in the
means of intimidation or violence done to the person information, but such allegation is not sufficient to

fulfill the requirement of the law. A person may Cebu, and a judgment against him had been rendered
fraudulently dispose of some of his property, and yet in favor of Lim Tian Ting & Co. for more than five
such act may not necessarily result in prejudice to his thousand pesos. Upon this judgment an execution had
creditors; for he may have some other property with been issued, but it realized only the sum of P198.23
which to satisfy his obligations. It is too well-settled to from certain personal property levied upon in Tan
require the citation of authorities that to warrant Diong's, store. Tan Diong and his wife had previously
conviction, every element of the crime must be alleged owned various parcels of real property in the
and proved. The second assignment of error attacks municipality, but investigation showed that prior to the
the findings of fact of the trial court. On this point, the events mentioned they had transferred all to their co-
evidence for the prosecution shows that the goods defendant Eustaquio Baranda.
alleged to have been concealed and otherwise
disposed of by the appellant were shipped from Bohol The proof amply shows that these conveyances were
to Cebu under suspicious circumstances. Appellant made for the purpose of putting the property beyond
admitted having shipped the goods to Cebu, but the reach of Tan Diong's creditor's, and that the
claimed that he did so as a commission or purchasing consideration mentioned in the deeds of conveyance
agent for a firm in that city. Appellant further claimed from Tan Diong and wife to Baranda was fictitious. No
that he had no knowledge of the order of the court of error, in our opinion, was committed in finding the
July 31, 1931, which was notified to him by his attorney appellant Tan Diong guilty of the offense charged.
only on August 15, 1931; and that, besides the goods
alleged to have been fraudulently disposed of or As to Eustaquio Baranda, we note that the conveyances
concealed by him, he still had in his possession by which these properties were conveyed to him were
property valued at P4,600. unilateral character. Baranda did not participate in the
conveyances, and his alleged participation in the fraud
HELD: consisted only of the fact that he has asserted
No, Sy Giong was not guilty of fraudulent insolvency. ownership in the property conveyed. In our opinion,
Upon a careful consideration of the facts and this does not justify his conviction as a participant in
circumstances of the case, the court believe that the the fraud. His resolution to accept the benefit of the
guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond fraudulent conveyances may have been formed only
a reasonable doubt. after the act. His guilt as a co-conspirator in the fraud
In view of the above conclusions, we do not deem it is therefore not proved.
necessary to discuss the other errors assigned by the
appellant. HELD:
The judgment appealed from was reversed, and the The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed as
defendant was acquitted with costs de oficio. to Pastora Padla and Eustaquio Baranda, without
prejudice to the right of the creditors, or any creditor,
G.R. No. L-39177 of Tan Diong to bring a civil action against Baranda. So
February 21, 1934 ordered, with costs de oficio against said appellants. As
PEOPLE vs. TAN DIONG (alias TANGO), PASTORA to Tan Diong, the judgment appealed from is modified
PADLA, and EUSTAQUIO BARANDA by sentencing him to an indeterminate period of from
one year, prision correccional, to eight years and one
ISSUE: day, prision mayor; and as thus modified, the judgment
Whether or not Tan DIong, Pastora Padla and as to him is affirmed, with costs.
Eustaquio Baranda are guilty of fraudulent insolvency?
March 31, 2018 – Article 315 – ESTAFA (SWINDLING)
FACTS: OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P.
As appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of
the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, finding LITO CORPUZ VS PEOPLE
the three appellants, Tan Diong (alias Tango), Pastora G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014
Padla, and Eustaquio Baranda, guilty of the offense of
making way with the property in fraud of creditors, in ISSUE:
violation of article 523 of the old Penal Code (article Whether or not Corpuz is guilty of the crime of Estafa
314, R.P.C.), and sentencing them as follows: Tan Diong under Art. 315 of the RPC.
to imprisonment for six years and one day, presidio
mayor, and Pastora Padla and Eustaquio Baranda to FACTS:
imprisonment for four years, two months and one day, Lito Corpuz received from complainant Tangcoy pieces
presidio correccional, and requiring them to pay of jewelry with an obligation to sell the same and remit
proportional costs. the proceeds of the sale or to return the same if not
sold, after the expiration of 30 days.The period expired
Prior to the acts with which we are here concerned the without Corpuz remitting anything to Tangcoy. When
appellant Tan Diong was a merchant in good standing Corpuz and Tangcoy met, Corpuz promised that he will
in the municipality of Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental. pay, but to no avail. Tangcoy filed a case for estafa with
Pastora Padla is his wife and Eustaquio Baranda is the abuse of confidence against Corpuz. However, Corpuz
husband of the latter's niece. Prior to June, 1931, Tan argued as follows – that the proof submitted by
Diong had become indebted to various merchants of Tangcoy (receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere

photocopy and the fourth element of estafa or demand 2(d) may be committed when: (1) the offender has
is not proved. postdated or issued a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
HELD: issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of
YES. The court agreed that the admissibility of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank, or
evidence, which was only a mere photocopy was valid, the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the
stating that the established doctrine is that when a amount of the check; and (3) the payee has been
party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence defrauded. The deceit should be the efficient cause of
at the time they were offered in evidence, such the defraudation, and should either be prior to, or
objection shall be considered as waived. In the instant, simultaneous with, the act of the fraud. In the present
Corpuz never objected to the admissibility of the said case, all the elements of estafa were present.
evidence at the time it was identified, marked and
testified upon in court by Tangcoy. Corpuz also failed In the instant case, the first element was admitted by
to raise an objection in his comment to the Villanueva, who confirmed that she had issued the
prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even checks to Madarang in exchange for the jewelry she
admitted having signed the said receipt. Moreover, the had purchased. There is no question that Madarang
court pointed out that no specific type of proof is accepted the checks upon the assurance of Villanueva
required to show that there was demand. Demand that they would be funded upon presentment. The
need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific second element was also established because the
word “demand” need not even be used to show that it checks were dishonored upon presentment due to
has indeed been made upon the person charged, since insufficiency of funds or because the account was
even a mere query as to the whereabouts of the already closed. The third element was also proved by
money, in this case, property, would be tantamount to the showing that Madarang suffered prejudice by her
a demand. The court cited the case of Tubb vs. People, failure to collect from Villanueva the balance of P995,
where the complainant merely verbally inquired about 000.00. In her defense, Villanueva adverts to an
the money entrusted to the accused, the query was agreement with Madarang whereby the latter would
tantamount to a demand. Hence, Lito Corpuz is liable deposit or encash the checks only after being informed
for the crime of Estafa. of the sufficiency of funds in Villanueva's account. This
defense, however, was bereft of merit because she did
not present proof of the supposed agreement. Hence,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JULIE GRACE K. Villanueva is guilty of estafa under Article 315
VILLANUEVA paragraph 2(d) of the RPC.
G.R. NO. 163662, FEBRUARY 25, 2015
March 31, 2018 – Article 316 – OTHER FORMS OF
ISSUE: SWINDLING
Whether or not Villanueva commit Estafa under Article PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
315 paragraph 2(d), of the RPC.
ESTRELLADO-MAINAR V PEOPLE
FACTS: GR NO. 184320 ( JULY 29, 2015)
The complainant Madarang went to Villanueva's
residence and was able to sell to Villanueva five sets of ISSUE
jewelry worth P 1,010,000.00. Villanueva made out nine Whether or not accused Mainar is liable under Article
checks drawn against Philippine National Bank (PNB), 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code
eight of which were postdated for the payment of such
jewelries. Madarang received the checks because of FACTS
Villanueva's assurance that they would all be honored Petitioner Mainar offered for sale to Eric Naval,
upon presentment. However, the draweee bank paid portions of land located in Matina Aplaya, Davao City.
only one of the eight postdated checks since the During the negotiations for this sale, the petitioner told
remaining checks were dishonored by reason of Naval that the title to the land she was selling had no
Account Closed or Drawn Against Insufficient Funds. problems. The petitioner also informed Naval that the
Villanueva denies the crime and insists on the absence area subject of the proposed sale would "still be
of fraud when she drew the postdated checks. She segregated from the mother title.”
claims that (a) the checks were issued as replacement;
(b) the checks could only be deposited or encashed Subsequently, representatives from JS Francisco &
after Madarang was notified of the sufficiency of funds; Sons, Inc. (JS Francisco) demolished Naval's house. It
and (c) the receipt presented by the Prosecution failed was only then that Naval discovered that the lot sold
to embody the real intention of the parties. She further to him had been the subject of a dispute between the
contends that the checks were not executed prior to or petitioner's family and JS Francisco. Naval demanded
simultaneous with the alleged fraud and that from the petitioner the return of the amount he paid
Madarang had instigated her to issue the checks, for the land, as well as to pay the value of the house
hence, she cannot be held liable for estafa. demolished, but the latter refused to heed these
demands.
HELD:
YES. The estafa charged under Article 315 paragraph

The prosecution charged petitioner with the crime of PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P.
other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraph
1 of the Revised Penal Code. The MTCC found [NO CASE FOUND]
petitioner guilty of Article 316, paragraph 2 of the RPC,
which the RTC affirmed. The petitioner Mainar April 01, 2018 - Article 318 – OTHER DECEITS
challenged the RTC ruling in the CA, but the latter PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D.
denied it.
PEOPLE VS. GANASI
HELD C.A., 61 O.G 3603
No. The information in the present case, expressly
indicated in its caption that it is charging the petitioner ISSUE:
under Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Whether or not Ganasi was guilty of other deceits
Code. We reiterate that the Information in the present under Article 318 and not under paragraph 1(a) of
case did not allege that the petitioner made an express Article 315.
representation that the property sold is free from any
encumbrance. This Information was crafted in such a FACTS:
way that only one particular crime was charged did not Ganasi incurred a debt from Dacanay in the amount of
constitute ground for conviction under paragraph 2, P3,500. As security for the debt, Ganasi offered to
which may be committed even by the owner of the mortgage Lot No. 1 to Dacanay. Ganasi then showed
property. to Dacanay a plan to the lot, and accompanied him for
Moreover, the petitioner cannot be charged under an ocular inspection of the premises. Finding the land
Article 316 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The suitable for a carpentry shop he intended to build,
presented pieces of evidence do not also warrant a Dacanay consented to the execution of a deed of
conviction for the crime for which the petitioner had mortgage. When said obligation became due, Ganasi,
been charged, that is, Article 316, paragraph 1 of the being unable to raise the amount, decided to sell the
Revised Penal Code. mortgage property to Dacanay, the same to answer for
everything he owed to the latter. Thereafter, Dacanay
PEOPLE V. GALSIM went to the Register of Deeds of Benguet to have his
GR NO. L-14577 ( FEBRUARY 29, 1960) ownership over Lot No. 1 registered. Much to his
surprise, he was informed that what Ganasi sold to him
ISSUE was not Lot No. 1 but Lot No. 2 composed mostly of
Whether or not accused Galsim is liable under Article uneven and hilly terrain and which was worthless for
316 of the Revised Penal Code what he intended to use it.
FACTS HELD:
Accused Galsim obtained a loan from Mauro Magno in Yes, Ganasi was guilty of other deceits under Article
the amount of P2,500.00 payable within a period of five 318 and not under paragraph 1(a) of Article 315.
years, and to secure its payment the former executed
in favor of the latter a deed of chattel mortgage The Solicitor General erred in stating that the offense
assigning and conveying by way of first mortgage a comes within the purview of paragraph 1(a) of Article
two-story house located in the City of Manila. 315. Under such provision, the obligation to deliver
already exists, and the offender on making delivery has
Magno subsequently found out that the house in altered the substance, quantity or quality of the thing
question had already been previously mortgaged by its delivered. The facts of this case were not foursquare
owner to a certain Dela Torre. As a result, the deed of with such provision of law. Here, Ganasi deceitfully
mortgage executed by the accused in favor of Magno pointed to Dacanay one parcel of land, offering it as
was refused registration by the register of deeds. security, on the strength of which deceit, Dacanay
Magno demanded the return of his money from the parted with his money. The deceit practiced by Ganasi
accused but the latter failed to do so. preceded the alienation of substance, quantity or
quality in the sense intended by paragraph 1(a) of
HELD Article 315 in Ganasi’s execution of the mortgage and
Yes. It is evident that the appellant obtained the loan later of the sale.
from complainant through false representation or
deceit which is one of the elements constituting the Thus, the offense committed by Ganasi must perforce
crime of estafa. It is apparent that the complainant had come within the meaning and intendment of the
granted the loan to appellant in the belief that the blanket provisions of Article 318 since it was not
security offered was good and sufficient to guarantee covered by Article 315, 316 and 317.
his investment because it was free from any lien or
encumbrance. Had he known that it was already JOVITA SALES v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
encumbered, the likelihood was that he would not G.R. No. L-47817. August 29, 1988
have granted the loan, which proves the fraud of which GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
he was a victim.
ISSUE:
April 01, 2018 – Article 317 – SWINDLING A MINOR Did the act of Sales in causing the "stop payment"

order of the checks in questions constitute the deceit FACTS:

referred to in Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code? Jaime Guinhawa was engaged in the business of selling
brand new motor vehicles under the business name of
FACTS: Guinrox Motor Sales in Naga City.
Jovita Sales issued two checks, one, for the sum of P2
000.00 and another one, for the sum of P6,000.00, both On March 17, 1995, Guinhawa purchased a brand new
dated January 30, 1971. The said checks were issued in Mitsubishi L-300 Versa Van. When said van was
favor of Renato Magdaluyo. When both checks were transported from Manila to Naga City it suffered an
presented for encashment or deposited for clearance accident. Guinhawa then repaired the van and later
with Magdaluyo’s bank, they were dishonored because offered it for sale in his showroom.
Sales made a communication to her bank to issue a
"stop payment" order regarding the same. On October 1995, spouses Ralph and Josephine Silo
went to Guinhawa’s office to buy a new van and were
Magdaluyo then looked for Sales and the latter shown the L-300 Versa Van which was on display.
promised him the payment of the amount of the Unaware that the van had been damaged and repaired
dishonored checks in cash. However, the promise was on account of the accident, the couple decided to
never fulfilled. A formal demand was subsequently purchase the van.
made, and when no compliance was still made, the
charge of estafa was filed. When the spouses noticed the defects of the van and
were informed that it had been involved in an accident
After trial, instead of convicting Sales of the crime of before, they filed a criminal complaint for violation of
estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code
Code, the City Court of Pasay found her guilty of the against Guinhawa.
crime "Other deceits" under Art. 318 of the same Code.
HELD:
HELD: YES. The false or fraudulent representation by a seller
Yes, the act of Sales in causing the "stop payment" that what he offers for sale is brand new (when, in fact,
order of the checks in questions did constitute the it is not) is one of those deceitful acts envisaged in
deceit referred to in Article 318 of the Revised Penal paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
Code. For one to be liable for other deceits under the law, it
is required that the prosecution must prove the
In estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d), the elements are: following essential elements:
1) Postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an (a) false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; those in the preceding articles;
(2) Lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must
and be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud; and
(3) Damage to the payee thereof (People v. Sabio, 86
SCRA 568). (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or
prejudice.
Sales’ act of causing the "stop payment" order of the
checks in question undoubtedly makes her liable for It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent
the crime of estafa. It was only the failure on the part representation constitutes the very cause or the only
of the prosecution to show that Sales had insufficient motive for the private complainant to part with her
funds in the bank to cover the checks in question at the property.
time she postdated them that prevented Sales’
conviction of the crime as charged. Since, the other The provision includes any kind of conceivable deceit
elements of the crime under Art. 315, paragraph 2(d) other than those enumerated in Articles 315 to 317 of
were proved which included those of deceit and the Revised Penal Code. It is intended as the catchall
damage, it was correct to convict Sales of the crime provision for that purpose with its broad scope and
under Article 318 (Other deceits) of the Revised Penal intendment.
Code.
April 1, 2018 – Article 316 – REMOVAL, SALE OR
GUINHAWA VS. PEOPLE PLEDGE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY
G.R. NO. 162822, AUGUST 25, 2005 RIVERA, Marynit P.
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
G.R. No. L-9892
ISSUE: April 15, 1957
Whether or not Guinhawa was guilty of other deceits THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
under Article 318. vs.
FRANCISCO BASALO

ISSUE: Joshua.Celerina and Alvin sustained third degree burns

What is the proper penalty for the accused? which led to their death. Joshua sustained second
degree burns.
FACTS:
Francisco Basalo was charged with having unlawfully RULING:
and fraudulently sold and disposed of eighty cavans of No. Apellant is only guilty of arson.In cases where both
palay, he had mortgaged to the Philippine National burning and death occur, in order to determine what
Bank, without the knowledge and consent of the crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson,
mortgagee, to the damage and prejudice of the said murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur
bank in the sum of at least P280. Upon arraignment, to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if
the accused interposed the defense of prescription on the main objective is the burning of the building or
the ground that more than five years had elapsed from edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion
the time the offense was allegedly committed to the of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
filing of the information on June 5, 1953. Answering the homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the
defense of prescription, the prosecution claimed that main objective is to kill a particular person who may be
the Bank discovered the offense only in the year 1953. in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the
means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is
HELD: murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill
Under Article 319, the penalty for the offense is arresto a particular person, and in fact the offender has already
mayor or a fine double the value of the property done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up
involved. In other words, the fine is an alternative the killing, then there are two separate and distinct
penalty. In conclusion, to determine the prescriptibility crimes committed homicide/murder and arson.
of an offense penalized with a fine, whether imposed The Court finds that there is no showing that appellants
as a single or as an alternative penalty, such fine should main objective was to kill Celerina and her housemates
not be reduced or converted into a prison term, but and that the fire was resorted to as the means to
rather it should be considered as such fine under accomplish the goal.
Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code; and that for
purposes of prescription of the offense, defined and As reflected above, as it was not shown that the main
penalized in Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code, the motive was to kill the occupants of the house, the crime
fine imposable therein if correctional or afflictive under would only be arson, the homicide being a mere
the terms of Article 26, same Code, should be made the consequence thereof, hence, absorbed by arson.
basis rather than that of arresto mayor, also imposable
in said Article 319. PEOPLE VS. CEDENIO
G.R. NO. 93485 JUNE 27, 1994
April 3, 2018 – Article 320 AMENDED BY PD NO 1613
ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M. ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant should be charged by a
PEOPLE VS BALUNTONG complex crime of arson with murder.
G.R. No. 182061
MARCH 15, 2010 FACTS:
On November 26, 1986, Dorio residence was gutted
ISSUE: with fire. Five members of the family, then occupying
Whether or not Baluntong is guilty of Double murder the house were burned to death. The five bodies
with frustrated murder or the crime of arson. retrieved were those of Mario Hilario Dorio, with
wounds on the head and chest, Flora Dorio with a
FACTS: wound on the leg and head almost severed, Mario
At around 10:30 p.m. while then 12-year old Jovelyn Dorio with wounds on the leg and left nipple, Nicanora
Santos was sleeping in the house of her Tabanao with a wound in the stomach and infant
grandmother,she was awakened by heat emanating Dioscora with no wounds at all but charred to the bone.
from the walls of the house. She thus roused her cousin
Dorecyll and together they went out of the Two witnesses testified that the three appellants
house.Jovelyn saw appellant putting dry hay (dayami) namely, Pedro Cedenio, Jurito Amarga and Felipe
around the house near the terrace where the fire Antipolo were seen running out of the burning house,
started, but appellant ran away when he saw her and holding bolos stained with blood.
Dorecyll.
Another witness testified that Pedro Cedenio borrowed
Appellants neighbor, Felicitas Sarzona,also saw from him a bolo on the night of November 26, and the
appellant near Celerinas house after it caught fire, following morning, the bolo was returned to him with
following which, appellant fled on seeing Jovelyn and a bloodstain on the handle. The accused Pedro
Dorecyll stepping out of the house, as other neighbors Cedinio, also told him “do not worry, if this incident
repaired to the scene to help contain the flames. reaches the court, I will answer (for) everything”
Felicitas also saw Celerina, who was at a neighbors
house before the fire started, enter the burning house
and resurface with her grandsons Alvin and

The trial court found the accused-appelants guilty of By prision correccional in its medium period to prision
Arson with Multiple Murder as defined and penalized mayor in its minimum period, when the damage
under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1613. caused is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000
pesos, and any of the property referred to in
RULINGS: paragraphs (a) and (b) of the next preceding
No. The late Mr. Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino cites subdivision is set on fire; but when the value of such
Groizard- property does not exceed 200 pesos, the penalty next
…when the fire is used with the intent to kill a particular lower in degree than that prescribed in this subdivision
person who may be in the house and that the objective shall be imposed when the property burned is a
is attained by burning the house, the crime is murder building used as a dwelling in an uninhabited place,
only. When the Penal Code declares that killing and the penalty of arresto menor and a fine ranging
committed by means of fire is murder, it intends that from fifty to one hundred per centum of the damage
fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that caused shall be imposed, when the property burned
end. There can be no murder without a design to take consists of grain fields, pasture lands, forests or
life. In other words, if the main object of the offender plantations shall be applied and must be read in
is to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder. But if relation to article 365 of the same code. The issue
the main objective is the burning of a building, the hinges on the penalty for the crime of Arson through
resulting homicide may be absorbed by the crime of Reckless Imprudence which has resulted only in
arson. damage to the property of another.
From the evidence adduced, it is evident that after the
victims were hacked and stabbed to death, appellants The applicability of the third paragraph of said Article
set the house afire to hide their gruesome act. Thus, 365 was not considered in said case. In any event, the
the appellant are guilty of a separate crime of four first paragraph of Article 365, pursuant to which "any
counts of murder and arson. And not the complex person who, by reckless imprudence shall commit any
crime of arson with murder. act which, had it been intentional, would have
constituted a less grave felony," shall suffer the penalty
April 2, 2018 – Article 321 – OTHER FORMS OF of "arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
ARSON periods," merely establishes a general rule. The same is
SALVERON, Jan Ione R. subject to the exception found in the third paragraph
of the same article, namely, when the execution of said
G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 act shall have only resulted in damage to the property
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICTORIANO of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine
BUENO, alias VICTOR ranging from an amount equal to the value of said
damage to three times such value, but which shall in
ISSUE: no case be less than 25 pesos." The present case is
Whether article 321 of the Revised Penal Code is precisely the one contemplated in said exception.
applicable in this case?
Inasmuch as the reckless and imprudent act of herein
FACTS: accused has "only resulted in damage to property,"
Victoriano Bueno was the owner of a parcel of worth, according to the complaint and the information,
agricultural land covered with rice hays set fire to the P500, the maximum penalty imposable is, therefore, a
rice hays on his land in a careless and imprudent fine of P1,500, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the
manner without taking the necessary precautions to Justice of the Peace Court. As a consequence, neither
prevent its spread to the neighbouring properties. was the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its
Pedro Tanap’s hut which was situated on the adjoining appellate jurisdiction, competent to hear and decide
land owned by Victoriano was burned, including all the this case on its merits over defendant's objection. The
farming implements and properties kept in it and decision appealed from is hereby set aside and this
surrounding trees belonging to Pedro. The entire loss case is dismissed.
of said hut and properties in it in the value of five
hundred pesos (P500). April 2, 2018 – Article 322 – CASES OF ARSON NOT
INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING ARTICLES
Victoriano was subsequently convicted with the crime SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
of arson through reckless imprudence.
[NO CASE FOUND]
HELD:
YES. Paragraph 5 of article 321 of the Revised Penal April 3, 2018 – Article 323 – ARSON OF PROPERTY
Code which states: OF SMALL VALUE
TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
When the arson consists in the burning of other
property and under the circurmstances given [NO CASE FOUND]
hereunder, the offender shall be punished:
xxxxxxxxx
April 3, 2018 – Article 324 – CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTION

UNAS, Nor-Aiza R. thereon, without any opposition whatever for about

four months prior to September of said year.
[NO CASE FOUND]
HELD:
April 3, 2018 – Article 325 – BURNING ONE'S OWN Yes. The crime of damage to property is not
PROPERTY AS MEANS TO COMMIT ARSON determined solely by the mere act of inflicting injury
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M. upon the property of a third person, but it must be
shown that the act had for its object the injury of the
[NO CASE FOUND] property merely for the sake of damaging it. Without
this circumstance the essential element of the crime is
April 3, 2018 – Article 326 – SETTING FIRE TO lacking and the criminal intention of the culprit cannot
PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY OWNED BY THE be established.
OFFENDER
VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S. The facts clearly proven in this case is that the two
defendants cut eighty cocoanut shoots, which were
[NO CASE FOUND] producing tuba, without having any right so to do; that
they occasioned thereby serious damage to the
April 4, 2018 – Article 327 – WHO ARE LIABLE FOR interests of those who planted the trees; that the
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF damage caused amounted to 400 pesos. The
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. defendants executed this act, prompted, doubtless, by
grievance, hate, or revenge, because the injured party
THE UNITED STATES and her husband had leased the land from the
v. manager of the hacienda after Catalino Gerale, one of
CATALINO GERALE, ET AL. the defendants and the father of the other defendant,
G.R. No. 1768 February 17, 1905 had been expelled from said land by the attorney of
the owners. When the injured party tried to stop the
ISSUE: damage they were causing to the property, defendants
Whether or not Catalino and Bartolome are guilty of threatened her and followed her as far as the road.
the crime of Malicious Mischief under Article 327 of the
Revised Penal Code. It is clearly proven that the defendants knew very well
that they were not the owners of the property; they had
FACTS: consented to the injured party herein profiting by said
In the early hours of the morning of July 23, 1903, the trees, extracting the tuba by means of her laborers,
defendants, Catalino and Bartolome Gerale, father and mananguetes, and therefore, when the defendants cut
son, proceeded to the property in question, situated in said shoots, they acted with malicious intention of
the barrio of Tanque, town of Talisay, Province of Cebu. injuring the property of the offended party.
The defendants climbed some coconut trees which Therefore,, taking into consideration the provisions of
were growing upon said property and immediately articles 83 and 92 of the Penal Code, the court
proceeded to cut about eighty shoots and forty small sentenced Catalino Gerale and Bartolome Gerale to
trees that were producing tuba; that when Eugenia pay a fine of 400 pesos.
Bacho saw them she scolded them and asked how and
why they cut the coconut shoots on her property and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
warned them not to continue damaging her property. vs.
The defendants then becoming angry, came down out RESTITUTO FALLER (alias R. Aguilar)
of the trees and advanced toward her, raising their G.R. No. L-45964 April 25, 1939
bolos and saying, "Here we shall all die;" that as the
woman started to run, crying for help in order to bring ISSUE:
the neighbors to her assistance, the defendants Whether or not the crime of malicious mischief may be
followed her as far as the road; that each one of the committed through reckless imprudence
shoots was of the value of 5 pesos and that said shoots
produced tuba to the value of 2 reales per day; that the FACTS:
coconut trees which were planted on the land had Restituto Faller was charged with the crime of damage
been planted about twelve years previously by said caused to another's property maliciously and willfully.
Eugenia Bacho and her husband, Luis Abarques; that After hearing the evidence, the Court of First Instance
the land was part of the hacienda of Santo Niño, the of Rizal found that the damage was not cause
property of the friars; that this hacienda was then maliciously of and willfully, but through reckless
transferred to the Compania Agricola de Ultramar; that imprudence, and sentenced Restituto Faller, under
Abarques and Bacho, after leasing the land from the paragraph 3 of article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
manager of said hacienda, planted therein some as principal in the crime of damage through reckless
coconut trees some twelve years ago, by their laborers imprudence, to pay a fine of P38 and to indemnify the
called mananguetes, cleaned off the land and offended party Ramon Diokno in the same amount,
cultivated the same and obtained tuba from the trees with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

HELD: Sometime in April 1997, despite the sign, Mrs. Julita

Yes. There is a crime of malicious mischief through Castillo, believing that the said lot was owned by her
reckless imprudence grandparents, constructed a nipa hut thereon. She
spent P12,350 for the huts construction.
Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself. It is simply
a way of committing it and merely determines a lower On June 5, 1997, the petitioner, together with Jorge
degree of criminal liability. The information alleges that Valeroso, Fernando Operario, Peter Morales and
the appellant acted willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and Rolando de Guzman, tore down and demolished Mrs.
criminally. To this information no objection was Castillos hut.
interposed. Negligence being a punishable criminal act She thus filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
when it results in a crime, the allegation in the Bataan a criminal complaint for malicious mischief
information that the appellant also committed the acts against the petitioner.
charged unlawfully and criminally includes the charge
that he acted with negligence. Valeroso admitted in his counter-affidavit and during
his oral testimony that he indeed demolished the
SEPARATE OPINION: structure of complainant Julita Castillo in his capacity
If malicious mischief (art. 327, Revised Penal Code) is as caretaker of the owner, PNB, Republic Bank, after he
an offense distinct from damage to property by warned her and all illegal occupants to vacate the
reckless imprudence (art. 365, Revised Penal Code) and premises even posting NO TRESPASSING signs to
the latter is not necessarily included in the former or indicate that the place is privately owned; he also
the situation does not call for the application of other absolved all his co-defendants from any liability
exceptions laid down by this court, the conviction of alleging that he acted alone during the demolition of
the accused under article 365 of the Revised Penal said structure.
Code, notwithstanding his prosecution under article
327 thereof, was erroneous. An accused is entitled to Valeroso admits that he deliberately demolished Mrs.
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation Castillos nipa hut. He, however, contends that the third
against him (par. 17, sec. 1, Art. III, Constitution of the element of the crime of malicious mischief, i.e., that the
Philippines, in relation to section 15, par. 2, and section act of damaging anothers property be committed
6, par. 3, of General Orders, No. 58), and for this merely for the sake of damaging it, is not present in
purpose the law requires that a complaint or this case. He maintains that he demolished Mrs.
information must charge but one offense, subject to a Castillos nipa hut to safeguard the interest of his
single exception (sec. II, General Orders, No. 58). There employer, the PNB, and for no other reason. His motive
are two reasons, however, why the decision of the was lawful and that there was no malice in causing the
lower court should be affirmed. First, because the damage to the private complainants property. In other
constitutional and legal purpose has been amply words, he did not act out of hatred, revenge or other
served in this case, it appearing that the accused evil motive.
himself, in the course of the trial, put up the defense
that he was at most responsible for the offense of HELD:
damage to property by reckless imprudence. Yes. All the elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief
Secondly, assuming that the two offenses here are under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are
dinstinct, I think that they are at least akin to each other present.
so as to justify the application of the rule laid down in The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under
United States vs. Solis Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:
MARIO VALEROSO 1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the

vs. property of another;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 2. That such act does not constitute arson or other
G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 crimes involving destruction;
3. That the act of damaging anothers property be
ISSUE: committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
Whether or not Valeroso is guilty of the crime of
malicious mischief under article 327 of the Revised Contrary to the petitioners contention, all the
Penal Code. foregoing elements are present in this case. First, he
admits that he deliberately demolished the nipa hut of
FACTS: Mrs. Castillo. Second, the demolition does not
Valeroso was a former barangay captain of Balon constitute arson or any other crime involving
Anito, Balanga, Bataan. On August 21, 1996, the destruction.
Philippine National Bank (PNB) hired him as caretaker
of its lot situated in Porto del Sol Subdivision, Balon Neither can the petitioner rightfully invoke paragraph
Anito, Balanga, Bataan. Consequently, the petitioner 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code which states:
put up on the said lot a sign which reads “No
Trespassing, PNB Property” to ward off squatters. Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not
incur any criminal liability:

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in

the lawful exercise of a right or office. The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under
Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:
The requisites of the foregoing justifying circumstance
are: (1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to
the property of another;
(1)that the accused acted in the performance of a duty (2) That such act does not constitute arson or other
or in the lawful exercise of a right; and crimes involving destruction;
(2)that the injury caused or the offense committed be (3)That the act of damaging another's property be
the necessary consequence of the due performance of committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
The incident involving the collision of the two side view
In this case, Valeroso deliberately demolished the mirrors is proof enough to establish the existence of
property of Mrs. Castillo without any lawful authority. the element of hate, revenge and other evil motive.
Thus, while the first requisite is present, the second is Here, the accused entertained hate, revenge and other
unavailing. Valeroso was not acting in the fulfillment of evil motive because to his mind, he was wronged by
his duty when he took the law into his own hands and the complainant when the CRV overtook his Vitara
summarily demolished Mrs. Castillos hut. while proceeding toward the booth to pay their
parking fee, as a consequence of which, their side view
ROBERT TAGUINOD, mirrors collided. On the same occasion, the hood of his
-versus- Vitara was also pounded, and he was badmouthed by
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the complainant's wife and daughter when they
G.R. No. 185833 October 12, 2011 alighted from the CRV to confront him for the collision
of the side view mirrors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Taguinod is guilty of the crime of These circumstances motivated the accused to push
Malicious Mischief under article 327 of the Revised upward the ramp complainant's CRV until it reached
Penal Code the steel railing of the exit ramp.
FACTS:
Pedro Ang (private complainant) was driving his Honda First, the hitting of the back portion of the CRV by the
CRV (CRV) from the 3rd basement parking, while petitioner was clearly deliberate as indicated by the
Robert Taguinod (petitioner) was driving his Suzuki evidence on record. The version of the private
Vitara (Vitara) from the 2nd basement parking. When complainant that the petitioner chased him and that
they were about to queue at the corner to pay the the Vitara pushed the CRV until it reached the stairway
parking fees, the respective vehicles were edging each railing was more believable than the petitioner's
other. The CRV was ahead of the queue, but the Vitara version that it was private complainant's CRV which
tried to overtake, which resulted the touching of their moved backward and deliberately hit the Vitara
side view mirrors. The side view mirror of the Vitara was considering the steepness or angle of the elevation of
pushed backward and naturally, the side view mirror of the P2 exit ramp. It would be too risky and dangerous
the CRV was pushed forward. This prompted the for the private complainant and his family to move the
private complainant's wife and daughter, namely, CRV backward when it would be hard for him to see his
Susan and Mary Ann, respectively, to alight from the direction as well as to control his speed in view of the
CRV and confront the petitioner. gravitational pull.
Taguinod appeared to be hostile, hence, the private Second, the act of damaging the rear bumper of the
complainant Ang instructed his wife and daughter to CRV does not constitute arson or other crimes
go back to the CRV. While they were returning to the involving destruction. Lastly, when the Vitara bumped
car, petitioner accelerated the Vitara and moved the CRV, the petitioner was just giving vent to his anger
backward as if to hit them. The CRV, having been and hate as a result of a heated encounter between
overtaken by the Vitara, took another lane. Private him and the private complainant.
complainant was able to pay the parking fee at the
booth ahead of petitioner. When the CRV was at the April 4, 2018 – Article 328 – SPECIAL CASES OF
upward ramp leading to the exit, the Vitara bumped MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
the CRV's rear portion and pushed the CRV until it hit ALAMEDA, Manuel
the stainless steel railing located at the exit portion of
the ramp. [NO CASE FOUND]
As a result of the collision, the CRV sustained damage April 5, 2018 – Article 330 – DAMAGE AND
at the back bumper spare tires and the front bumper, OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
the repair of which amounted to P57,464.66. ARANCES, Javy Ann G.
[NO CASE FOUND]
HELD:
Yes. Taguinod is proven beyond reasonable doubt to
have committed the crime of Malicious Mischief.

April 5, 2018 – Article 331 – DESTROYING OR provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple
DAMAGING STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It
PAINTINGS does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned
BANUELOS, Kelvinn L. under Article 332 is complexed with another crime,
such as theft through falsification or estafa through
[NO CASE FOUND] falsification.
In this case, The Information against Sato charges him

April 5, 2018 – Article 332 – PERSONS EXEMPT FROM with estafa. However, the real nature of the offense is
CRIMINAL LIABILITY determined by the facts alleged in the Information, not
BURGOS, Paul Zandrix A. by the designation of the offense. A reading of the facts
alleged in the Information reveals that Sato is being
charged not with simple estafa but with the complex
INTESTATE ESTATE OF DE CARUNGCONG VS. crime of estafa through falsification of public
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES documents. Since the crime with which respondent was
G.R. NO. 181409. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 charged was not simple estafa but the complex crime
CORONA, J.: of estafa through falsification of public documents,
ISSUE: Sato cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause
Whether or not the accused can apply for the benefits provided under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
under article 322 of the Revised Penal Code. in his favor.
FACTS: DOLORES G. GOMEZ VS. HON. INTERMEDIATE

On November 24, 1992, William Sato induced Manolita APELLATE COURT AND PEOPLE OF THE
Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong, who was already then PHILIPPINES
blind and 79 years old[,] to sign and thumbmark a G.R. NO. L-63202 APRIL 9, 1985
special power of attorney dated November 24, 1992 in GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
favor of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter of said
accused, making her believe that said document ISSUE:
involved only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that Whether or not the accused is exempt from criminal
said document authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, liability under Article 322 of the Revised Penal Code.
then a minor, to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise
dispose of to any person or entity of her properties all FACTS:
located at Tagaytay City. On November 20, 1973, Rodrigo Gomez, husband of
accused, went to the residence of his sister Belen, in
Mediatrix Carungcong, the duly appointed Angeles City because there was somebody in Manila
administratrix of the intestate estate of her deceased interested in buying some pieces of jewelry. Belen,
mother Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong, filed together with Lourdes Balajadia and Rodrigo, went to
a complaint for estafa against her brother-in-law, the residence of accused. At the house of Rodrigo and
William Sato. Dolores Gomez and in the presence of Rodrigo and
Lourdes, Belen delivered to Dolores three pieces of
William Sato filed a motion to quash the information jewelry. On November 21, 1973, Milagros Gomez,
alleging that he is exempt from criminal liability under sister-in-law of Dolores, accompanied by Belen
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code. In an order Tiotuico, brought to her residence a pair of dangling
dated April 17, 2006, the trial court granted Satos earrings. The four pieces of jewelry were left with
motion and ordered the dismissal of the criminal case. Dolores without any acknowledgment receipt as they
Dissatisfied with the trial courts rulings, the intestate were relatives, under the condition that, if after two or
estate of Manolita, represented by Mediatrix, filed a three days, the jewelry would be sold, Milagros would
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which, give Dolores and Rodolfo Punongbayan P2,000.00
however, in a decision dated August 9, 2007, dismissed except for the dominic ring in which she would give
it. Hence, this petition. them P200.00; and if they could sell the jewelry for
more than her price, the difference would belong to
RULING: them (Dolores and Rodolfo) but should they fail to sell
No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the the same, they would return the same.
Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of
theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said A few days after the consignation, Belen kept on
provision, the State condones the criminal reminding Dolores about the jewelries but Dolores
responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, always answered that the jewelries were not yet sold.
swindling and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, Sensing something was wrong after she again talked
the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for with Rodolfo in the evening of the same day, Belen
the said crimes but leaves the private offended party reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary in
with the option to hold the offender civilly liable. San Fernando, Pampanga, and asked them to look for
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited Dolores, Rodrigo, and Wilson. Only the dominic ring
to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain, was returned to Belen. The remaining two were
categorical and unmistakable language of the pledged to Jose Lontok. When Belen tried to redeem

the 7 Karat pink ring, Lontok declined her because the SCRA 330). There is no evidence of such kind of
receipt she handed was not the original receipt. The participation. Without conspiracy, the petitioner
next day, Belen returned to Jose to redeem the jewelry cannot be held liable as she had no direct participation
and told him she had merely asked Dolores to sell it for in the commission of the crime charged. The
her. Jose promised to give her the jewelry if Willie presumption of innocence in favor of the petitioner has
would come with her and bring the original receipt. The not been successfully overcome by evidence beyond
next day when Willie and Belen came, she was able to reasonable doubt.
recover the ring after paying Jose the amount of
P25,000.00. After Wilson had given Belen the receipt of
Antonio Tambunting's Pawnshop, as to the jewelry
Dolores pledged to guarantee payment of P6,000.00,
and after she (Belen) executed an affidavit that she was
the real owner of the jewelry pledged, Belen was able
to redeem it after paying the amount of P6,000-00. As
to the pair of dangling earrings, Belen was not able to
recover the same and so she had to pay on
installments, the value thereof to Belen Tiotuico from
whom she had received the jewelry.
On February 24, 1977, the Court of First Instance of

Manila convicted Dolores Gomez of the crime of estafa
or swindling under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code. A motion for reconsideration filed by Dolores
Gomez was denied by the respondent court in a
resolution dated October 19, 1982.
RULING:
Yes. Both Rodrigo and Wilson were exempt from
criminal liability since they were the brothers of Belen.
In Dolores’ case, the Supreme Court ruled to acquit her
criminal charges. There are other circumstances in the
records strongly suggesting that the transactions were
between Belen and her two brothers and that the
petitioner came into the picture only because she was
the wife of one of the brothers.
In the case at bar, the evidence presented by the

people to establish the presence of conspiracy is even
murkier than the proof on the commission of the crime
itself. The factual findings of the respondent Court of
Appeals and the trial court do not show the
participation of the petitioner in the events that
followed after the pieces of jewelry were delivered to
her and her husband, Rodrigo. The records show that
the only participation of the petitioner in the
transaction was when she and her husband received
the pieces of jewelry from Belen Gomez Espiritu on
November 10 and 21, 1973 at their residence. After the
same were received, Rodrigo and Wilson Gomez took
possession of the said pieces of jewelry and disposed
of them without the knowledge of the petitioner.
Rodrigo and Wilson Gomez alone absconded with the
pieces of jewelry. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did
not even know the whereabouts of Rodrigo and Wilson
who were then in possession of the said pieces of
jewelry. The participation of petitioner Dolores in the
attempts to locate the missing brothers and to compel
them to return the jewelry to their sister is not proof of
conspiracy in a crime. It was understandable why she
was involved in looking for her own husband at the
behest of her sister-in-law. To establish conspiracy,
there must be evidence of intentional participation in
the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose (People v. Agda, 111

TITLE ELEVEN – CRIMES AGAINST Pedro Pitoc, had sustained illicit relations with
CHASTITY Marciana del Basco. In a short time after the marriage,
the defendant, Pedro Pitoc, and his wife left the city of
Manila and went to Calumpit, Bulacan, to reside. Later
April 6, 2018 – Article 333 – WHO ARE GUILTY OF
Pedro Pitoc returned to Manila, leaving his wife at
ADULTERY
Calumpit, promising to return March 15, 1921. For his
CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
failure to return on March 17, 1921, his wife came to
Manila to look for him. March 17, his wife came to
PILAPIL V. IBAY-SOMERA
Manila where she found the defendant living in the
GR NO. 80116
same house and under the same roof with his former
JUNE 30, 1989
paramour, staying around her store and keeping
company with her, under circumstances which strongly
ISSUE:
tend to show that they had resumed their former
WoN Pilapil can be charged by Geiling with adultery.
relations.
FACTS:
HELD:
Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and Erich Geiling, a
Yes. The word cohabit has many different meanings,
German citizen, were married in Germany.
each depending upon the sense in which it is used.
Subsequently, Geiling filed a divorce against Pilapil in
Here, we have a law intended to prohibit a married man
Germany, which the Schoneberg Court granted on
from keeping a mistress in his dwelling or anywhere
January 15, 1986. Geiling then filed a case of adultery
else under "scandalous circumstances." Hence, the
against Pilapil at the RTC of Manila on June of 1986. He
meaning of the word cohabit here must relate and he
alleged that in 1982, Pilapil had an affair with William
confined to the subject matter of the law itself. When
Chia and Jesus Chua in 1983.
used in that sense, it should be construed to mean "to
dwell or live together as husband and wife; to live
HELD:
together as husband and wife although not legally
No, she cannot be charged.
married; to live together in the same house, claiming
Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the
to be married; to live together at bed and board."
crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against
(Corpus Juris, vol., 11, p. 950.)
chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn
written complaint filed by the offended spouse.
Applying the facts to such definition, it is undisputed
Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the
that before his marriage to Petronila Roque, the
offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily
defendant and his coaccused were living together for
follows that such initiator must have the status,
a number of years in illicit relations. The defendants,
capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of
Pedro Pitoc, legally married Petronila Roque in the city
the filing of the criminal action.
of Manila on February 21, 1921, and together they
went to Calumpit, Bulacan, to live. In a short time he
Article 344 of the RPC thus presupposes that the
left his wife there and came to Manila, promising to
marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the
return on March 15, twenty-three days after their
institution of the criminal action for adultery.
marriage. He never did return. March 17, his wife came
to Manila where she found the defendant living in the
In the present case, the fact that Geiling obtained a
same house and under the same roof with his former
valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of
paramour, staying around her store and keeping
Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects
company with her, under circumstances which strongly
may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as Geiling
tend to show that they had resumed their former
is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our
relations. It is, indeed, significant that the defendant
civil law on the matter of status of persons. Thus,
Pitoc would leave his wife whom he married on
Geiling ceased to be the lawful spouse of Pilapil at the
February 21, and return to Manila and go direct to, and
time he initiated the criminal complaint against Pilapil.
obtain a room in, the same house where his former
paramour was living, and violate his promise to return
April 6, 2018 – Article 334 – CONCUBINAGE
tho his newly wedded wife on March 15.
DAHIROC, Janice
Petronila Roque testified that she asked her husband if

PEOPLE VS. PEDRO PITOC AND MARCIANA DEL
that woman, meaning his coaccused, was his
BASCO
paramour, and that he answered yes, and that she
G.R. NO. 18513 SEPTEMBER 18, 1922
asked him what would be her situation and "he
answered me that he could not abandon that woman,
ISSUE:
referring to Marciana del Basco, and that I could do
Whether or not Pedro Pitoc and Marciana del Basco
anything I pleased."
cohabition constitutes the crime of concubinage.
This evidence was not denied by the defendant, Pedro

FACTS:
Pitoc. When this is considered with the defendant's
February 21, 1921, the defendant, Pedro Pitoc, was
conduct and all the other evidence, surrounding facts
legally married to Petronila Roque in the city of Manila.
and circumstances, the proof is conclusive that the
For several years prior to their marriage, the defendant,

defendant, Pedro Pitoc, did cohabit "with a woman of jurisdiction. Courts are not empowered to substitute
who is not his wife," and that he is guilty of the crime their judgment for that of the Ombudsman.
charged.
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious
They were both found guilty as charged. and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack
of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so
BUSUEGO VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
MINDANAO AND ROSA BUSUEGO positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
G.R. NO. 196842 OCTOBER 9, 2013 enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,
as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
ISSUE: despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. In
Whether or not the Ombudsman committed a grave this regard, petitioner failed to demonstrate the
abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Ombudsman's abuse, much less grave abuse, of
Alfredo and Sia for Concubinage. discretion.
FACTS: The Ombudsman merely followed the provisions of its

Private respondent Rosa S. Busuego (Rosa) filed a Rules of Procedure. No information may be filed and
complaint for: (1) Concubinage under Article 334 of the no complaint may be dismissed without the written
Revised Penal Code; (2) violation of Republic Act No. authority or approval of the ombudsman in cases
9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan, or
Children); and (3) Grave Threats under Article 282 of of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases.
the Revised Penal Code, before the Office of the
Ombudsman against her husband, Alfredo. Alfredo is Notably, Rosa's complaint contained not just the
the Chief of Hospital, Davao Regional Hospital. They Concubinage charge, but other charges: violation of
have 2 children. However, their marriage turned sour. Republic Act No. 9262 and Grave Threats. Upon the
Ombudsman's perusal, the complaint was supported
Rosa went to the US and was eventually joined by her by affidavits corroborating Rosa's accusations. Thus, at
2 children, Alfred and Robert. Robert eventually that stage, the Ombudsman properly referred the
returned to Davao City to study medicine. Sometime in complaint to Alfredo for comment. Nonetheless, while
1997, Rosa learned that a certain Emy Sia (Sia) was the Ombudsman found no reason for outright
living at their conjugal home. When Rosa asked dismissal, it deemed it fit to hold a clarificatory hearing
Alfredo, he said that Sia, nurse at the Regional Hospital, to discuss the applicability of Article 344 of the Revised
was just in a sorry plight and was allegedly raped by Penal Code, the issue having been insisted upon by
Rosa's brother-in-law so he allowed her to sleep at the Alfredo.
maids' quarters.
Surely the procedural sequence of referral of the
In October 2005, Rosa finally learned of Alfredo's extra- complaint to respondent for comment and thereafter
marital relationships. Robert and the housekeepers the holding of a clarificatory hearing is provided for in
executed a joint affidavit to support Rosa's allegations. paragraph b, Section 2 and paragraphs d and f, Section
Rosa and the other son Alfred flew to Davao without 4 of Rule II, which the Court have at the outset
informing Alfredo. She gathererd and consolidated underscored. The Ombudsman merely facilitated the
information of her husband's sexual affairs. She also amendment of the complaint to cure the defect
averred that during the course of the marriage, Alfredo pointed out by Alfredo. The Ombudsman's primary
physically and verbally abused her and her family. jurisdiction, albeit concurrent with the DOJ, to conduct
Alfredo denied all accusations. In their subsequent preliminary investigation of crimes involving public
exchange of responsive pleadings, Rosa maintained officers, without regard to its commission in relation to
Alfredo's culpability, and naturally, Alfredo claimed office, had long been settled in Sen. Honasan II v. The
innocence. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of DOJ.
In the course thereof, the procedural issue of Rosa's The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of
failure to implead Sia and de Leon as respondents 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as
cropped up. Alfredo insisted that Rosa's complaint amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive
ought to be dismissed for failure to implead his alleged jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by
concubines as respondents. public officers or employees. The authority of the
Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public
HELD: officers or employees is concurrent with other
No. The Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in government investigating agencies such as provincial,
the determination of probable cause during a city and state prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman,
preliminary investigation. This is the reason why in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases
judicial review of the resolution of the Ombudsman in cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at
the exercise of its power and duty to investigate and any stage, from any investigating agency of the
prosecute felonies and/or offenses of public officers is government, the investigation of such cases.
limited to a determination of whether there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

In other words, respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded essential element of ordinary or simple seduction, does
from conducting any investigation of cases against not need to be proved or established in a charge of
public officers involving violations of penal laws but if qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of
the cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the confidence. When the offender is a public officer, a
Sandiganbayan, the respondent Ombudsman may, in priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or
the exercise of its primary jurisdiction take over at any under any title is in charge of the education or keeping
stage. of the offended woman, as in the present case, the act
is punishable although fraud or deceit may not have
Thus, with the jurisprudential declarations that the been used or, if employed, has not been proved. The
Ombudsman and the DOJ have concurrent jurisdiction seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen
to conduct preliminary investigation, the respective years of age, committed by any of the persons
heads of said offices came up with OMB-DOJ Joint enumerated in art. 337 "is constitutive of the crime of
Circular No. 95-001 for the proper guidelines of their qualified seduction ... even though no deceit intervenes
respective prosecutors in the conduct of their or even when such carnal knowledge were voluntary
investigations. on the part of the virgin, because in such a case, the
law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an
WHEREFORE the petition is DISMISSED. integral element of the said crime and punishes it with
greater severity than it does the simple seduction ...
April 7, 2018 – Article 335 WHEN AND HOW RAPE IS taking into account the abuse of confidence on the
COMMITTED part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of confidence
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J which implies deceit or fraud."
Note: There is no evidence on record that Fe Castro, then a

Art. 335 has been repealed by Rep. Act. No. 8353, other- 15-year old single girl, was unchaste prior to her living
wise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997" which took with the Fontanilla spouses. Such being the case, her
effect on October 22, 1997. See page 523 of this Book II. virginity before she was seduced by the appellant must
(Article 266-A) be presumed. Presumption of a woman's virginity
arises whenever it is shown that she is single, and
April 7, 2018 – Article 337 – QUALIFIED SEDUCTION continues until overthrown by proof to the contrary.
DIZON, Roxan Danica G.
G.R. Nos. 104942-43
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIANO November 25, 1993
FONTANILLA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NAPOLEON
G.R. No. L-25354, June 28, 1968 SUBINGSUBING
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is criminally liable under Whether or not the accused is guilty under Article 337
Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code of the Revised Penal Code
FACTS: FACTS:
On September 1960, Fe Castro, a fifteen-year old virgin, Accused Napoleon was charged with the crime of rape
was brought by her mother to the house of Mariano in three separate informations.
Fontanilla and his second wife, Magdalena Copio, a
sister of Fe's mother, to serve as a helper. Fe Castro The complainant Mary Jane in all of these actions is
testified that during her stay in the house of Fontanilla sixteen years old and unmarried. She was living with
for about three months, the accused succeeded in her grandmother and the accused Napoleon who was
having carnal knowledge of her repeatedly, the total her uncle. On November 25 and 28, 1989, the accused
number of times she could not recall. Prior to this poked his garand rifle and then boxed the belly of Mary
incident, the accused had made amorous overtures Jane, which rendered her unconscious. He proceeded
and advances toward her. having carnal knowledge with her against her will and
Fe Castro further testified that she subsequently without her consent. On November 30, 1989, the
repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, accused put over the nose of the victim handkerchief
as she was induced by his promises of marriage and soaked with chemical which rendered her unconscious.
frightened by his acts of intimidation. The accused He then proceeded having carnal knowledge with her.
made love to her during the day when his wife was
away and at night when the latter was already asleep. Mary Jane did not reveal to anybody the things that
Their intimacies lasted for almost three months until happened to her for fear that the accused might really
her aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them in kill her as the accused had threatened to do. Months
flagrante on the kitchen floor. The following day she later, Mary Jane finally divulged everything to her
returned to her parents, and revealed everything to her mother. They reported the incidents to the police
mother two days later. station.Thereafter, she had herself physically examined
and was found pregnant.
HELD: At the trial, the accused Napoleon denied the charge
Yes. It is nevertheless settled that deceit, although an of rape as narrated above and proferred a different

story. He interposed consent on the part of the FRANCISCA ALIMAGNO & JOVITA MELO
complainant as a defense. Three other witnesses for VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
the defense were presented who corroborated the G.R. NO. L-36458, FEBRUARY 21, 1983
story of the accused and testified that indeed, the
complainant and the accused were seen going out ISSUE:
together and sharing happy moments months after Whether Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code was
November 1989. violated by the accused?
HELD: FACTS:
The evidence for the prosecution cannot, on its own, Victim was employed as a domestic helper when she
stand and suffice to establish the guilt of the accused came to know the accused who was then bringing
for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. A money to her employer. One time, accused tried to
perusal of the records and the testimony of the convince her to leave the house of her employer
complainant discloses contradictions and promising her a better job. Accused succeeded in
inconsistencies on vital details which lead one to pursuing the victim to leave. Upon leaving the house
seriously doubt the veracity of her story. of her employer a note was left saying " Ako ho ay
The complainant admitted that she still went out with nagtanan kasama ko ay lalake. Your utusan" which was
the accused to watch betamax movies or get food for admitted to have been written by the accused. After
the pigs in the ricefields. Such behaviour directly abandoning the house of her employer, victim was
contradicts the normal or expected behaviour of a rape brought by the two accused to a hut and there allowed
victim. her to be ravished by a man whom she saw for the first
Appellant's exculpation from the offense of rape does time.
not mean, however, that his responsibility is merely RULING: Yes. Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code
moral and not penal in character. He was found guilty provides that any person who shall promote or
of qualified seduction in one of the informations. facilitate or corruption of persons under age to satisfy
the lust of another shall be punished.
Qualified seduction is the act of having carnal
knowledge of a virgin over 12 years to 18 years of age The Court clearly found through evidence and
and committed by any of the persons enumerated in witnesses presented that the accused violated this
Art. 337 of the Revised Penal Code. Abuse of article. The accused Alimagno was found guilty as
confidence is the qualifying circumstance in the principal to the crime and accused Melo was found
offense. Notably, among the persons who can commit guilty as an accomplice in the the consumated crime.
qualified seduction is a "domestic". And a "domestic,"
for purposes of said legal provision, has been PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
interpreted judicially as — VS SIMPLICIO DELANTAR
G.R. NO. 169143, FEBRUARY 2, 2007
. . . Upon the word domestic being employed in said
legal provision segregating it from that of a servant, ISSUE:
the term is applied to persons usually living under the Was the accused guilty for violation of R.A. No. 7610 in
same roof, pertaining to the same house, and relation to Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code?
constituting, in the sense, a part thereof, distinguishing FACTS: The victim was a minor below 12 years old and
it from the term servant whereby a person serving through her testimony showed that accused procured
another on a salary is designated; in this manner, it has her as a child prostitute for at least two clients: the first,
been properly used. an Arab national named Mr. Hammond and the
The verified complaint for rape contains allegations, second, then Congressman Romeo Jalosjos.Victim
sans averment on the use of force, which impute the testified that she was brought to the first client at least
crime of qualified seduction. Any deficiency in the eleven (11) times. Once left alone with the victim, the
complaint is supplied by the supporting affidavit, client would perform lascivious acts, the recurrent
where complainant averred that the accused Napoleon salient points of her harrowing experience revolved
Subingsubing, her uncle, who was living in the same around the client's kissing her, touching her breasts,
house as the complainant, had sexual intercourse with embracing her, and inserting his finger in her private
her. The accused took advantage of his moral parts. After their first visit to the client, victim told
ascendancy if not dominance over the complainant. accused that she did not want to go back because the
She was presumably a virgin. As already stated, the client was "bastos." Accused promised her that they
accused was a domestic in relation to the complainant would no longer go back but the promise was broken
within the meaning of Art. 337 of the Revised Penal as they went back a few more times.
Code.
As with the first client, accused would tell the victim
April 8, 2018 – Article 340 - CORRUPTION OF that they had to go to the second client because they
MINORS had obligations to pay. During each of these visits, the
FLORENTINO, Kimberly A. client would give the victim money ranging from
P2,000.00 to P10,000.00. The details of what transpired
when victim was left alone with the second client were
vividly recounted in People v. Jalosjos, where the

second client was convicted of two (2) counts of rape And even if there were no proof that he had enlisted
and six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness, all the services of women for the purpose of prostitution,
committed against the victim on various dates. he would still be criminally liable because there is
indubitable proof in this case that he had share in the
HELD: income of the prostitutes.
Yes. There is no doubt, drawing from the evidence, that
the victim was a child who was exploited in prostitution April 10, 2018 – Article 342 – FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
as defined in Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610. The IBABAO, Konrad Stephen P.
law punishes not only the person who commits the acts
of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with the G.R. NO. 131914 APRIL 30, 2001
child but also those who engage in or promote, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JAIME
facilitate or induce child prostitution. Accused is one ABLANEDA
such person. Accused in his brief, does not deny that
he brought the victim to the clients. He, however, FACTS:
attempts to exculpate himself by stating that he did On February 18, 1993, at around 7:00 o’clock in the
not coerce or influence the victim to go to the two morning, 6-year old Magdalena Salas, a Grade I pupil
clients to be exploited in prostitution. Verily, it was at the Baldovino Elementary School, Camambugan,
against the victim's will and consent to see the two Daet, Camarines Norte, was walking to school. Along
clients. But even if the victim had in fact consented, the way, accused-appellant Jaime Ablaneda, also
appellant may still be prosecuted for child prostitution known as Joey Capistrano, approached her and asked
under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 because the if he could share her umbrella, because it was raining.
child's consent or lack of it is not an element of the Suddenly, Ablaneda boarded a tricycle with Magdalena
offense. and brought her to a small hut. While inside, Ablaneda
removed his underwear and the Magdalena’s panties.
April 8, 2018 – Article 341 – WHITE SLAVE TRADE He applied cooking oil, which he had bought earlier,
FUENTES, Arczft Ran Z. on his organ and on’s. Then, he proceeded to have
sexual intercourse with the little girl. Magdalena felt
PEOPLE V. NUEVAS pain but was too terrified to speak or cry out. After
satisfying his lust, Ablaneda ordered Magdalena to go
ISSUE: home. When Magdalena arrived at their house, Ailene
WON accused Nuevas is guilty for violating Article 341 Villaflores, her uncle’s sister-in-law, noticed that she
of the RPC looked pale and weak, and found traces of blood on
her dress. Ailene asked her what happened, but
FACTS: Magdalena merely said that her classmate had pushed
Jesus Nuevas contracted the services of 4 women of ill her. Ailene did not believe this, so she brought her to
repute whom he brought and maintained in a house a quack doctor. The latter told her that Magdalena had
he rented in Batangas to engage in prostitution. He been raped. Ailene then brought Magdalena to the
provided them food and lodging and in return he Daet Police Station and, later, to the Camarines Norte
would receive ½ of the prostitutes’ earnings in their Provincial Hospital to have her medically examined.
illicit traffic with soldiers. It was established that the When Ailene saw Magdalena’s bloodied panties, she
prostitutes would charge the soldiers for 10 pesos each again asked her what happened. This time, Magdalena
sexual intercourse. The accused now contended that confessed that she was raped by a man who had a scar
under article 341 of the Revised Penal Code the on the stomach.
prosecution (a) must identify the alleged house of ill
fame, (b) must proved it to be really a house of ill fame, The lower court found that the Ablaneda guilty beyond
and (c) must further proved that the accused is either reasonable doubt of the complex crime of forcible
the owner or the lessee of the house. abduction with rape.
Held: Yes. The accused is guilty of the said felony. ISSUE:

Under Article 341 penalizes three acts: (a) engaging in Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the
the business of prostitution, (b) profiting by conviction of the accused?
prostitution, or (c) enlisting the service of women for
the purpose of prostitution. Any person committing HELD:
any one of these acts comes within the purview of said The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient
article. The proofs show beyond reasonable doubt that evidence to convict Ablaneda. All elements of the crime
the appellant (a) enlisted the services of the women for of forcible abduction were proven in this case. The
the purpose of prostitution and (b) profited thereby. victim, who is a woman, was taken against her will, as
Even if the appellant were not the lessee of particular shown by the fact that she was intentionally directed
house, he could not escape the penalty imposed by the by accused-appellant to a vacant hut. At her young
law for the immoral and illicit trade in which he age, Magdalena could not be expected to physically
engaged. As a matter of law, once it was proved that resist considering that the lewd designs of Ablaneda
the accused had enlisted the services of women for the could not have been apparent to her at that time.
purpose of prostitution, he was criminally liable even if Physical resistance need not be demonstrated to show
there were no proof that he had shared in the profit. that the taking was against her will. The employment

of deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking, woman by: (1) force or intimidation, or (2) when the
especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or (3)
girl. Considering that it was raining, going to the hut when she is under twelve years of age.
was not unusual to Magdalena, as probably the
purpose was to seek shelter. Barrio girls are particularly The prosecution was able to prove all these elements
prone to deception. It is the taking advantage of their in this case. The victim, AAA was a seven (7) year-old
innocence that makes them easy culprits of deceiving girl who was taken against her will by appellant who
minds. Finally, the evidence shows that the taking of told her that he knew her mother and that he would
the young victim against her will was effected in bring her home. At her tender age, AAA could have
furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. Such lewd easily been deceived by appellant. The employment of
designs in forcible abduction is established by the deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking,
actual rape of the victim especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young
girl. It is the taking advantage of their innocence that
In the case at bar, Magdalena testified in open court makes them easy culprits of deceiving minds. The
that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is
private parts. The fact of sexual intercourse is established by the actual rape of the victim.
corroborated by the medical findings wherein it was
found that the victim suffered from complete hymenal In the prosecution of rape cases, conviction or acquittal
laceration. Whether or not she consented to the sexual depends on the complainant's testimony because of
contact is immaterial considering that at the time the fact that usually only the participants are witnesses
thereof, she was below twelve years of age. Sex with a to their occurrences. The issue therefore boils down to
girl below twelve years, regardless of whether she credibility.
consented thereto or not, constitutes statutory rape. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full
weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she
G.R. NO. 199100 is a minor, saysthat she has been raped, she says in
JULY 18, 2014 effect all that is necessary to show thatrape has in fact
PEOPLE V. ROSENDO AMARO been committed.
Wherefore, the decision was affirmed finding the
FACTS: accused guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape.
26th day of March, 1998, at 5pm in the afternoon, in
front of Boots and Maya, AAA a 7 year old girl was April 10, 2018 – Article 343 – CONSENTED
forcibly abducted by appellant Rosendo Amaro. AAA ABDUCTION
testified that on her way home from school, she met LAZO, Joseph Artfel T.
appellant and asked her to buy him some cigarettes.
Appellant offered her food. As she was finished eating The following cases could not be found:
the food, she felt dizzy and was unconscious. She later PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO, 46 PHIL 775
awoke in the house of appellant and saw the appellant PEOPLE VS AMANTE, 49 PHIL 679
naked and was rape. Victim was raped 5 times and was
detained for 6 days. April 12, 2018 – Article 344 – PROSECUTION OF THE
CRIME OF ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION,
The RTC rendered judgement finding the accused ABDUCTION, RAPE, AND ACTS OF
guilty of violating Art. 342 of Forcible Abduction with LASCIVIOUSNESS.
Rape. NASH, Regina Mercado
In his appeal, appellant contends that there were no
sufficient evidence to convict him. According to him, G.R. No. L-8520. June 29, 1957
he did not rape AAA because she was not in his PEOPLE v. ENGRACIO SANTOS, ET AL.
custody at the time said incident allegedly happened.
Appellant adds that he entrusted AAA to the custody ISSUE:
of Florante Magay’s sister because he was working. Whether or not the “salaysay’ or written statement of
Appellant also insists that AAA voluntarily went with Policarpia Bansuelo, the offended party filed with the
him to his house. Fiscal and not in court is the complaint contemplated
by Art. 344 of RPC?
ISSUE:
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the FACTS:
conviction of the accused? Respondent Engracio Santos was charged in the Court
of First Instance of Rizal with the crime of rape. After
HELD: trial, said respondent was convicted a pd sentenced to
The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as the maximum period of reclusion temporal, from 17
defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, are: years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years, and to pay the
(1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless costs. Appealing to the Court of Appeals, respondent
of her age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that she is filed a motion to quash and for discharge, on the
taken against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction,
lewd designs. On the other hand, rape under Article there having been no valid complaint subscribed and
266-A is committed by having carnal knowledge of a sworn to by the offended party as required by Article

344 of the Revised Penal Code. Said motion was to have prepared an information or complaint. The
granted. Hence this appeal by the petitioners. pertinent portion of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732
It is contended that the "salaysay" executed and signed provides:
by petitioner Policarpia Bansuelo on January 12, 1954,
before and in the presence of Fiscal Nicanor P. Nicolas ‘A provincial fiscal shall have authority to conduct
of Rizal and Capt. Hermogenes Marco of the PCAC, is investigation into the matter of any crime or
sufficient in form and substance to serve as the misdemeanor and have the necessary information or
complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal complaint prepared or made against persons charged
Code. That the law requiring that the crime of rape, with the commission of the same.’
among others, shall be commenced by a complaint
filed by the offended party is merely "designed for the And the complaint mentioned in this provision of law
protection of the offended party and her family who is precisely what is defined and mentioned in the Rules
may prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than of Court and the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, we
go through with the scandal of a public trial" (Samilin hold the view that in the case at bar, after the fiscal has
v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, investigated the case, he should have procured the
304); that when petitioner Bansuelo executed said filing of a complaint by the offended party to properly
"Salaysay", she had manifested her desire to prosecute initiate this case and not file by himself an information
the maniacal abuse committed against her; that said as he did."
"salaysay" has conformed substantially to the
requisites of a, valid complaint; that it cannot be It is also argued that in affixing her signature and
considered as her testimony during the preliminary swearing to the allegations of the information together
investigation because, if it were so, the other witnesses with the fiscal, petitioner Bansuelo had complied with
should have also signed it. the requirement of a valid complaint. Respondent
Santos has answered this argument by saying that such
After a thorough examination of the "salaysay" in fact is not borne out by the records; that such assertion
question, we agree with the appealed decision that it has never been made before the Court of Appeals; that
is a narration of how the crime of rape was committed the opening paragraph of the information clearly and
against petitioner Bansuelo. As correctly pointed out unmistakably shows that the fiscal alone accuses
by the Solicitor General in his comment on the motion respondent Santos of the crime of rape; that the
for reconsideration, such sworn statement "salaysay" is offended party has never been referred to in the body
not the complaint contemplated in and required by of the information as having requested its filing.
sections 1, 2 and 5 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court
and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. We cannot consider the information, although signed
by petitioner Bansuelo together with the fiscal, as
"The complaint is the process which begins the criminal equivalent to the complaint required by law, because
action, and no other pleading on the part of the said information lacks the oath of the complainant; the
government is necessary. So, if a criminal action, had jurat contained therein is the subscribed and sworn
been commenced by complaint in appropriate cases, it certification of the fiscal that he had conducted the
would be error for the court to dismiss it, because it preliminary investigation in which obviously the
was not presented through the mediation of the offended party had taken no participation whatsoever;
prosecution officer. The complaint contemplated by in very unequivocal terms, the information commences
the law and the rules is necessarily that one filed in with the statement that "the undersigned fiscal accuse
court. The "salaysay" was filed with the Fiscal and not Engracio Santos of the crime of rape", the offended
with the court; it did not start the criminal proceedings party not having been mentioned at all as one of the
accusers.
"In front of these provisions of law, it cannot be
certainly pretended that the aforementioned ‘salaysay’ It is not altogether true that to require the offended
or written statement of the offended party, Exhibit 1, party to draft the complaint in legal form and
could be considered as the complaint required by law terminology, — otherwise the complaint will be
for the proper initiation of the present case of rape. insufficient, — would impose a penalty on ignorance,
and that a person with no legal training will not be able
"It is argued, however, that said Exhibit 1 should be to institute a criminal action for private crimes;
considered as the complaint required by law, for on the because, as may be gathered from the provisions of
basis thereof the provincial fiscal of Rizal conducted Section 2 of Republic Act 732, it is the duty of the
the preliminary investigation and then filed the Provincial Fiscal to prepare the necessary complaint
information at bar. It is further argued that since under after having taken down the testimony of the offended
Republic Act No. 732, provincial fiscals have now the party and his witnesses during the preliminary
same authority as the Justice of the Peace to conduct investigation. Indeed, the law required this, since the
preliminary investigation, said Exhibit 1 should be victims of crimes which cannot be prosecuted except
considered as the complaint contemplated in the Rules upon their complaint may be ignorant of the law.
of Court and the Revised Penal Code. We cannot
concur to this theory, for according to Section 2 of This Court has invariably maintained strict compliance
Republic Act No. 732, after the provincial fiscal has with the jurisdictional requirement of a complaint by
conducted an investigation of a case, he has the duty the offered party, as defined in Section 2 of Rule 106

and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case guard. She was also guarded and threatened by Egap's
of People v. Palabao (L-8027, August 31, 1954), we sons. She got pregnant after some time. A crime of
considered insufficient an information filed with the abduction with rape was charged against the
Provincial Fiscal, wherein the offended party signed at appellants.
the bottom thereof and above the signature of the
prosecuting officer, the information even reciting that ISSUE:
the Provincial Fiscal charged defendant with the crime Whether or not the crime imputed and the
of seduction at the "instance of the offended party." In corresponding civil liability under ART. 345 was correct.
the case of People v. Martinez, (76 Phil. 559), this Court
motu proprio dismissed the case for failure of the HELD:
aggrieved party to file the proper complaint for the YES. The court held that Sajiron and Maron, who are
offense of oral defamation, although the accused never private individuals, forcibly took and dragged AAA, a
raised the question on appeal, thereby showing the minor, to the forest and held her captive against her
necessity of strict compliance with the legal will. The crime of serious illegal detention consists not
requirement even at the cost of nullifying all the only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also of
proceedings already had in the lower court. detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his
liberty.For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the
HELD: victim is restrained from going home.Its essence is the
The decision appealed from was affirmed without actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with
costs. indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect
such deprivation. In the present case, although AAA
April 11, 2018 – Article 345 – CIVIL LIABILITY OF was not actually confined in an enclosed place, she was
PERSONS GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty, because
OLACO, Jan-Lawrence P. she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of
EGAP MADSALI, SAJIRON LAJIM AND MARON cloth, thus, making it very easy to physically drag her
LAJIM VS PEOPLE to the forest away from her home. The crime of rape
G.R. NO. 179570 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 was also proven beyond reasonable doubt in this case.
Sajiron succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA
FACTS: through the use of force and intimidation. For fear of
Fifteen-year-old AAA and her aunt Inon Dama were losing her life, AAA had no choice but to give in to
fetching water in a cave in Barangay (Brgy.) Malitub, Sajiron's beastly and lustful assault. Consequently, the
Bataraza, Palawan. Suddenly, Sajiron arrived, running court further stated that, AAA was sexually abused and
towards them and carrying a badong (bolo). They tried gave birth. There was no showing that AAA had
to run away, but Sajiron overtook them. Sajiron then previously been sexually abused or had sexual relations
drew his gun, which was tucked in his waist, pointed it with other men. Therefore, it can be logically deduced
at Inon Dama and said, “If you will not go, I will shoot that Sajiron is the father of the child. Under Art. 345 of
you”. Inon Dama went home and reported the incident the Revised Penal Code, he is civilly liable for the
to AAA's mother. When Inon Dama left the place, support of his offspring. Hence, he is directed to
Maron, Sajiron's father, suddenly appeared with a gun provide support to the victim's child born out of the
and told AAA to come with them. When AAA refused, rape, subject to the amount and conditions to be
Sajiron and Maron tied her hands behind her back, determined by the trial court, after due notice and
covered her mouth with a piece of cloth, and brought hearing, in accordance with Art. 201 of the Family
her to the forest. There, while Sajiron was undressing Code.
AAA, she pleaded with him not to abuse her, but
Sajiron told her that if she would submit to his desire, PEOPLE VS. SGT. MORENO BAYANI
her life would be spared. Sajiron had carnal knowledge G.R. NO. 120894. OCTOBER 3, 1996
with AAA against the latter’s will. During the entire time
that AAA was being abused by Sajiron, Maron stood FACTS:
guard and watched them. Sajiron instructed Egap to Sgt. Moreno Bayani, a member of the Philippine
guard AAA and to shoot her if she would attempt to National Police (PNP), seeks the reversal of finding him
escape. Nine days after the abduction, upon instruction guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
of Egap, AAA and Sajiron were married by an Imam. and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
The marriage was solemnized against AAA's will and perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by
without the presence of her parents. After the law; to indemnify complainant Maria Elena Nieto. On
marriage, AAA and Sajiron lived in the house of Egap, the other hand, the People, through the Appellees Brief
together with the latter's wife, children and mother-in- filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, refuted the
law. AAA stayed in one room with Sajiron. While accuseds arguments, and in closing, recommended
detained, AAA did not try to escape, because her house that apart from the FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.000)
was very far from the place where she was held captive, PESOS as indemnity, appellant should be made to
and her captors threatened to kill her and her family if support his illegitimate child with Maria Elena, in
she would attempt to escape. During her detention, conformity with Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code.
Sajiron abused her twice every night. She was free to
roam within the vicinity of the house but she was ISSUE:
usually accompanied by Egap's wife who served as her

Whether or not Bayani is accountable under ART. 345

of the RPC.
HELD:
No. Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
persons guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction, shall be
sentenced to: (a) indemnify the offended woman; (b)
acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should
prevent him from so doing; and (c) in every case, to
support the offspring. While under Article 283 of the
Civil Code, the father is obliged to recognize the child
as his natural child in cases of rape, abduction, and
seduction when the period of the offense coincides,
more or less, with the period of the conception. It has
been held, however, that acknowledgment is
disallowed if the offender is a married man, with only
support for the offspring as part of the sentence.
Article 176 of the Family Code confers parental
authority over illegitimate children on the mother, and
likewise provides for their entitlement to support in
conformity with the Family Code. As such, there is no
further need for the prohibition against
acknowledgment of the offspring by an offender who
is married which would vest parental authority in him.
Therefore, under article 345 of the Revised Penal Code,
the offender in a rape case who is married can only be
sentenced to indemnify the victim and support the
offspring, if there be any. In the instant case, the
accused should also be ordered to support his
illegitimate offspring, Tracy Jhuen Nieto,with Marie
Elena Nieto, but in light of Article 201 of the Family
Code, the amount and terms thereof to be determined
by the trial court only after due notice and hearing.
April 10, 2018 – Article 346 – LIABILITY OF

ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS, TEACHERS, OR OTHER
PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY.
PACQUIAO, Jose Luis P.
[NO CASE FOUND]

TITLE TWELVE – CRIMES AGAINST THE status, but as an attempt against its life. On the
CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS contrary, he who places at the door of a charitable
person, a new-born child which is in condition to stand
the first inclemencies of the weather, is supposed to do
April 11, 2018 – Article 347 – SIMULATION OF
it in order that it may be taken up and protected, and
BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR
therefore the legal presumption must be that he does
ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR
not act with any other purpose than to cause the loss
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
of any trace as to the filiation of the child. Finally, the
PACQUIAO, Jose Paolo P
same penalty is imposed upon anyone who conceals
or exposes a legitimate child with the intention of
G.R. NO. 9279
making him lose his civil status. It must be remembered
MARCH 25, 1915
that by the word child must be understood a fully
U.S. VS. CAPILLO, ET AL.
developed and living being, as the child born not
capable of living has no status, nor can he transmit any
ISSUE:
rights whatever. It is, therefore, an essential condition
Whether or not Capillo is guilty of concealment or
of this crime, that the child who has been exposed or
abandonment of a legitimate child
concealed shall have been born alive.
FACTS:
April 11, 2018 – Article 348 – USURPATION OF CIVIL
That on or about the 12th day of August, 1913, in the
STATUS
city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said defendants
PANIZA, Lyndzelle Jane D
Saturnino Capillo and Petrona Paduga, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, did
[NO CASE FOUND]
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
expose a child, 1 month old, the legitimate son of the
April 11, 2018 – Article 349 – BIGAMY
accused Saturnino Capillo and his wife Vicenta
RIVERA, Marynit P.
Umanbang to lose his civil status in the following
manner to wit: That the defendant Saturnino Capillo,
G.R. No. 200233
with intent to cause his legitimate child to lose his civil
JULY 15, 2015
status and in cooperation with the defendant Petrona
LEONILA G. SANTIAGO vs. PEOPLEOF THE
Paduga, took the said child without the permission of
PHILIPPINES
his mother Vicenta Umanbang or the authority of the
courts of this city and agreed with one Chua Pue Tee
ISSUE:
to deliver to him the said child and never to claim it
Whether or not the petitioner should be charged with
again, asking the said Chua Pue Tee at the same time
bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC
to lend them the sum of P150 to defray the expenses
incurred by the defendant Saturnino Capillo during the
FACTS:
last sickness and death of his wife Vicenta Umanbang,
The prosecution adduced evidence that Nicanor
and received from said Chua Pue Tee the sum of P106
Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang since 2
of which P50 corresponded to the defendant Saturnino
June 1974, asked petitioner to marry him. Petitioner,
Capillo and P56 to defendant Petrona Paduga. That the
who 'was a 43-year-old widow then, married Santos on
living of said child under such circumstances in the
29 July 1997 despite the advice of her brother-in-law
possession of said Chua Pue Tee and his wife Sio Suat
and parents-in-law that if she wanted to remarry, she
King exposes said child to lose his civil status, to wit,
should choose someone who was "without
that of the legitimate son of the said defendant
responsibility."
Saturnino Capillo and his wife Vicenta Umanbang to
that of an unknown and nameless child or at the most
Petitioner asserted her affirmative defense that she
to that of the child of one Chua Pue Tee and his wife.
could not be included as an accused in the crime of
bigamy, because she had been under the belief that
HELD:
Santos was still single when they got married.
Yes. The exposition which is caused by abandoning a
new-born child in a place where it cannot be easily
Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case,
assisted, intending that it should perish and save the
the first wife, Estela Galang, testified for the
honor of the mother, is a crime against life. The
prosecution. She alleged that she had met petitioner
exposition of a child and the abandonment thereof in
as early as March and April 1997, on which occasions
a place where it may not be in danger may be a crime
the former introduced herself as the legal wife of
against the safety of persons. Only that which has for
Santos. Petitioner denied this allegation and averred
its purpose the deprivation of the new-born child’s civil
that she met Galang only in August and September
status is what constitutes the present crime. In order
1997, or after she had already married Santos.
that it may be so, it is necessary therefore that the acts
committed by the guilty party plainly show his intent.
HELD:
The fact that one abandons, in the midst of a lonely
Yes.
forest, an unfortunate child that needs all kinds of
In Montanez v. Cipriano, this Court enumerated the
assistance during the first moments of coming into the
elements of bigamy as follows:
world cannot be admitted as intent to destroy its civil

The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the During the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy,
offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision dated 4
not been legally dissolved x x x; (c) that he contracts a May 2006 declaring the marriage of petitioner and
second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or Thelma null and void on the ground that Thelma is
subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for physically incapacitated to comply with her essential
validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration marital obligations pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is Code. Refusing to accept such verdict, petitioner
essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals
second marriage, having all the essential requirements, contending that the court a quo erred in not ruling that
would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the his criminal action or liability had already been
first marriage. extinguished. Petitioner claims that since his previous
marriage was declared null and void, "there is in effect
For the second spouse to be indicted as a co-accused no marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to
in the crime, People v. Nepomuceno, Jr. instructs that speak of."
she should have had knowledge of the previous
subsisting marriage. People v. Archilla likewise states HELD:
that the knowledge of the second wife of the fact of Yes.
her spouse's existing prior marriage constitutes an The elements of this crime are as follows:
indispensable cooperation in the commission of 1. That the offender has been legally married;
bigamy, which makes her responsible as an 2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or,
accomplice. in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
In the present case, there was a clear showing that she Code;
knew of the first marriage as shown by the totality of 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
the following circumstances: (1) when Santos was and
courting and visiting petitioner in the house of her in- 4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
laws, they openly showed their disapproval of him; (2) essential requisites for validity.
it was incredible for a learned person like petitioner to
not know of his true civil status; and (3) Galang, who The instant case has all the elements of the crime of
was the more credible witness compared with bigamy. Petitioner was legally married to Thelma. He
petitioner who had various inconsistent testimonies, contracted a second or subsequent marriage with
straightforwardly testified that she had already told Edita. At the time of his second marriage with Edita, his
petitioner on two occasions that the former was the marriage with Thelma was legally subsisting. It is noted
legal wife of Santos. Given that petitioner knew of the that the finality of the decision declaring the nullity of
first marriage, the petitioner was validly charged with his first marriage with Thelma was only about five (5)
bigamy. years after his second marriage to Edita. Finally, the
second or subsequent marriage of petitioner with Edita
G.R. No. 188775 has all the essential requisites for validity. Petitioner
August 24, 2011 has in fact not disputed the validity of such subsequent
CENON R. TEVES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES marriage. Thus, it is evident therefore that petitioner
and DANILO R. BONGALON has committed the crime charged.
ISSUE: April 12, 2018 – Article 350 – MARRIAGE

Whether or not the petitioner should be charged with CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS
bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC ROMBLON, Shirley Kris M.
FACTS: [NO CASE FOUND]

On 26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnized
between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and Thelma Jaime- April 12, 2018 – Article 351 – PREMATURE
Teves (Thelma). After the marriage, Thelma left to work MARRIAGES
abroad. She would only come home to the Philippines SALVERON, Jan Ione R.
for vacations. While on a vacation in 2002, she was
informed that her husband had contracted marriage REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10655 on March 13,
with a certain Edita Calderon (Edita). To verify the 2015
information, she went to the National Statistics Office and DECRIMINILIZED the crime of PREMATURE
and secured a copy of the Certificate of Marriage MARRIAGES
indicating that her husband and Edita contracted
marriage on 10 December 2001. On 13 February 2006, April 12, 2018 – Article 352 – PERFORMANCE OF
Danilo Bongalon, uncle of Thelma, filed a complaint ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY
accusing petitioner of committing bigamy. Petitioner SANTOALLA, Stephanie M.
was charged on 8 June 2006 with bigamy defined and
penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, RENE RONULO, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
as amended. G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014

FACTS: The RTC affirmed the findings of the MTC.

The presented evidence showed that Joey Umadac and On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on
March 29, 2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church ISSUE:
of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of WON Ronulo is guilty of violation of Art, 352 of the RPC
the wedding, the supposed officiating priest, Fr. Mario
Ragaza, refused to solemnize the marriage upon HELD:
learning that the couple failed to secure a marriage Yes
license. As a recourse, Joey, who was then dressed in The elements of the crime punishable under Article 352
barong tagalong,and Claire, clad in a wedding gown, of the RPC, as amended, were proven by the
together with their parents, sponsors and guests, prosecution
proceeded to the Independent Church of Filipino Article 352 of the RPC, penalizes an authorized
Christians, also known as the Aglipayan Church. They solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any
requested the petitioner, an Aglipayan priest, to illegal marriage ceremony.
perform a ceremony to which the latter agreed despite
having been informed by the couple that they had no The elements of this crime are as follows:
marriage certificate.
(1) authority of the solemnizing officer
The petitioner prepared his choir and scheduled a mass (2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
for the couple on the same date. He conducted the
ceremony in the presence of the groom, the bride, their In the present case, the RONULO admitted that he has
parents, the principal and secondary sponsors and the authority to solemnize a marriage. Hence, the only
rest of their invited guests. issue to be resolved is whether the alleged "blessing"
by the petitioner is tantamount to the performance of
An information for violation of Article 352 of the an "illegal marriage ceremony" which is punishable
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, was filed under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly performing While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not
an illegal marriage ceremony. specifically define a "marriage ceremony" and what
constitutes its "illegal" performance, Articles 3(3) and 6
The petitioner entered the plea of "not guilty" to the of the Family Code are clear on these matters. These
crime charged on arraignment. provisions were taken from Article 55 of the New Civil
Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3 of the
The prosecution’s witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne Marriage Law with no substantial amendments.
Yere, testified on the incidents of the ceremony. Joseph
was the veil sponsor while Mary Anne was the cord Article 6 of the Family Code provides that "no
sponsor in the wedding. Mary Anne testified that she prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization
saw the bride walk down the aisle. of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary,
however, for the contracting parties to appear
She also saw the couple exchange their wedding rings, personally before the solemnizing officer and declare
kiss each other, and sign a document. She heard the in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal
petitioner instructing the principal sponsors to sign the age that they take each other as husband and wife."
marriage contract. Thereafter, they went to the
reception, had lunch and took pictures. She saw the Pertinently, Article 3(3) mirrors Article 6 of the Family
petitioner there. She also identified the wedding Code and particularly defines a marriage ceremony as
invitation given to her by Joey. that which takes place with the appearance of the
Florida Umadac, the mother of Joey, testified that she contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and
heard the couple declare during the ceremony that their personal declaration that they take each other as
they take each other as husband and wife.8 Days after husband and wife in the presence of not less than two
the wedding, she went to the municipal local civil witnesses of legal age.
registrar of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte with Atty.
Mariano R. Nalupta Jr. where she was given a certificate On the issue on the penalty for violation of Article 352
that no marriage license was issued to the couple. of the RPC, as amended, this provision clearly provides
that it shall be imposed in accordance with the
The petitioner, while admitting that he conducted a provision of the Marriage Law. The penalty provisions
ceremony, denied that his act of blessing the couple of the Marriage Law are Sections 39 and 44 which
was tantamount to a solemnization of the marriage as provide as follows:
contemplated by law.
Section 39 of the Marriage Law provides that:
The MTC found the petitioner guilty of violation of Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of Marriage – Any
Article 352 of the RPC. priest or minister solemnizing marriage without being
authorized by the Director of the Philippine National
Library or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses to

exhibit the authorization in force when called upon to

do so by the parties or parents, grandparents,
guardians, or persons having charge and any bishop or
officer, priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect
the regulations and practices whereof require banns or
publications previous to the solemnization of a
marriage in accordance with section ten, who
authorized the immediate solemnization of a marriage
that is subsequently declared illegal; or any officer,
priest or minister solemnizing marriage in violation of
this act, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less
than one month nor more than two years, or by a fine
of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than two
thousand pesos.
On the other hand, Section 44 of the Marriage Law

states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any

provision of this Act not specifically penalized, or of the
regulations to be promulgated by the proper
authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more
than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not
more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the
court. From a reading of the provisions cited above, we
find merit in the ruling of the CA and the MTC that the
penalty imposable in the present case is that covered
under Section 44, and not Section 39, of the Marriage
Law.
The penalized acts under Section 39 of Act No. 3613

do not include the present case. As correctly found by
the MTC, the petitioner was not found violating the
provisions of the Marriage Law but Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended. It is only the imposition of the
penalty for the violation of this provision which is
referred to the Marriage Law. On this point, Article 352
falls squarely under the provision of Section 44 of Act
No. 3613 which provides for the penalty for any
violation of the regulations to be promulgated by the
proper authorities; Article 352 of the RPC, as amended,
which was enacted after the Marriage Law, is one of
such regulations.

TITLE THIRTEEN – CRIMES AGAINST letter will show the injurious nature of the imputations
HONOR made to the complainant mayor. The charges in the
disputed letter against the mayor that the latter was
guilty of misconduct in public office, bribery,
April 13, 2018 – Article 353 – DEFINITION OF LIBEL
malversation of public funds, graft and corruption, if
TADO, Diann Kathelline A.
true, would constitute actual crimes punishable under
the Penal Code or special laws. The gravity of the
G.R. No. L-47971 October 31, 1990
imputations are sufficient to impeach the
LOPE O. DAEZ, petitioner,
complainant's honesty, virtue, integrity and reputation
vs.
as a public official.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
The matter of publication was also proven on the basis
of evidence on record as found both by the appellate
ISSUE:
court and the trial court. As indicated in the letter,
Whether or not the accused is guilty of libel under
copies thereof were distributed in the municipal court
Article 353
and municipal council of Meycauayan, Bulacan and
chief of police in that place. Several witnesses testified
FACTS:
as to having read the libelous letter. Further, evidence
Appellant Lope Daez was the chairman of the Liberal
shows that petitioner even read the questioned letter
Party in Meycauayan, Bulacan, and in that capacity
before a gathering at a local party meeting wherein the
helped the complainant Celso Legaspi campaign for
complainant was present.
the position of Mayor of that town. When Legaspi was
Anent the last element of malice, the law presumes that
already serving as Mayor of Meycauayan, he often
every defamatory imputation is malicious, even if it be
received recommendations from appellant regarding
true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for
the employment of certain persons in the police or
making it is shown, except in cases concerning
other departments of the municipality. In 1972,
privileged communications (Article 354, Revised Penal
appellant recommended a certain Villareal for the
Code). Hence, the burden of proving justifiable motive
position of policeman and a certain Rubio for that of
is upon the author of the libel.
performance officer. However, Legaspi failed to
appoint these persons. This omission of Legaspi as well
As a rule, it is the right and duty of a citizen to make a
as the prejudice which his subsequent renovation of
complaint of any misconduct on the part of public
the public market caused appellant's relatives resulted
officials, which comes to his notice, to those charged
in appellant's resentment of him.
with supervision over them. Such a communication is
qualifiedly privileged and the author is not guilty of
On April 19,1972, while Legaspi was on leave as mayor,
libel. The rule on privilege, however, imposes an
appellant wrote the then acting mayor, Vicente
additional requirement. Such complaints should be
Barazon stating:
addressed solely to some official having jurisdiction to
"Sala-ula at bulok ang iyong pangasiwaan, ang iyong
inquire into the charges, or power to redress the
polisia ay tinuruan mong maging collector mo ng tong,
grievance or has some duty to perform or interest in
ang daan libong pisong buwis ay ayaw mong
connection therewith (US v. Galeza, 31 Phil. 365). In the
ipakolekta sa Ingat Yaman Bayan, ang tanong ng
instant case, none of the persons to whom the letter
bayan, kangino napupunta ang daan libong buwis na
was sent, was vested with the power of supervision
ito? At mabuti na lamang kung hindi mahalungkat sa
over the mayor or the authority to investigate the
fael ng army ang Salaysay laban sa iyo nuong ikaw ay
charges made against the latter.
hulihin ng 7th BCT. Kaya mag-ingat ka Alkalde
sapagkat hindi mabilang ang iyong atraso. Ang bahay
OGIE DIAZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
mo ay nakatayo sa buhangin, mabuay at sa bahagyang
NO. 159787, MAY 25, 2007
ihip ng hangin ay babagsak."
ISSUE:
Thus causing to the complaining witness Celso R.
Whether the subject article is libelous.
Legaspi dishonor, discredit and contempt to his
damage and prejudice.
FACTS:
On or about December 28, 1991, the accused being
Trial Court rendered judgment finding the accused
then the Managing Editor and writer, respectively of
guilty. Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision.
Bandera, a newspaper of general circulation written,
published or caused to be published in the movie
RULING:
section of said newspaper an article. In which words
Yes.
and phrases, which were used by many people, the said
The elements of libel are: 1) The imputation of a
accused meant and intended to convey as in fact, they
discreditable act or condition to another; 2) publication
meant and conveyed false and malicious imputations
of the imputation; 3) Identity of the person defamed;
that the said Florinda Bagay is a sexual pervert and
and 4) existence of malice.
possesses lascivious and immoral habits, the accused
well knowing that said imputations are devoid of truth
There is no doubt as to the presence of the first three
and without foundation in fact whatsoever, highly
elements in the instant case. A simple perusal of the

libelous and offensive to the good name, character, "Miss S" by the article in question had besmirched both
and reputation of the said Florinda Bagay. her character and reputation.
Florinda Bagay, complaining witness, testified that she
is a graduate of medical secretarial course. She tried As to the element of malice, we find that since on its
her luck in the movies under the guidance of her face the article is defamatory, there is a presumption
godmother, Mila Parawan, a writer covering the that the offender acted with malice. In Article 354 of
entertainment industry. Florinda adopted and used the same Code, every defamatory imputation is
"Patricia Santillan" as her screen name. presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
Florinda claimed she was the "Miss S" alluded to in There is malice when the author of the imputation is
petitioner’s column "Pakurot" considering that her prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not
screen name is "Patricia Santillan." in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation
Mila Parawan also took the witness stand and of the person who claims to have been defamed.
corroborated Florinda’s testimony. She further testified (Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, supra.). We agree with the
that after Philip and Florinda parted ways, her former Court of Appeals that there was neither good reason
press relations officer, who used the nom de plume nor motive why the subject article was written except
"Isko Peta," wrote an item entitled "Ibinulgar namin to embarrass "Miss S" and injure her reputation.
ang babaeng inanakan ni Philip Henson" which
appeared in the December 2, 1991 issue of Artista On the element of publication, there can be no
Magazine. Philip believed that Florinda released their question that the article appeared in the December 28,
story to the press. He then caused the publication of 1991 issue ofBandera, a local tabloid.
the libelous article against her.
The last element of libel is that the victim is identified
Mila Parawan added that Florinda came from a well or identifiable from the contents of the libelous article.
respected family in their community. Thus, she could In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the
not have done the acts being imputed to her. victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that
the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic
On cross-examination, Mila Parawan stated she was reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication
certain the "Miss S" referred to in the article is Florinda contains matters of description or reference to facts
because petitioner and Pichel, her good friends, told and circumstances from which others reading the
her that "Miss S" is her "alaga" (ward). article may know the person alluded to, or if the latter
is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that
Petitioner Ogie Diaz admitted that while he wrote the those knowing such person could and did understand
column "Pakurot" where the alleged libelous that he was the person referred to.
statements appeared, however, he did not know the Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule
complaining witness or "Miss S." The source of his that this requirement is complied with where a third
article was Philip Henson. person recognized or could identify the party vilified in
the article.
RULING: The libelous article, while referring to "Miss S," does
NO. not give a sufficient description or other indications
For an imputation to be libelous, the following which identify "Miss S." In short, the article fails to show
requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; that "Miss S" and Florinda Bagay are one and the same
(b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; person.
and (d) the victim must be identifiable. Absent one of
these elements, a case for libel will not prosper. Although the article is libelous, we find that Florinda
Bagay could not have been the person defamed
We find the first element present. In determining therein. In Uy Tioco v. Yang Shu Wen,7 we held that
whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are where the requirement for an identified or identifiable
to be construed in their entirety and should be taken victim has not been complied with, the case for libel
in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they must be dismissed.
would naturally be understood by the persons reading
them, unless it appears that they were used and April 13, 2018 – Article 355 – LIBEL MEANS BY
understood in another sense. WRITINGS OR SIMILAR MEANS
VILLAHERMOSA, Alexand Rhea M.
In the instant case, the article in question details the
sexual activities of a certain "Miss S" and one "Philip G.R. No. 159787
Henson" who had a romantic liaison. In their ordinary MAY 25, 2007
sense, the words used cast aspersion upon the OGIE DIAZ VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
character, integrity, and reputation of "Miss S." The
words convey that "Miss S" is a sexual libertine with ISSUE:
unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom. In a Whether or not the subject article is libelous.
society such as ours, where modesty is still highly
prized among young ladies, the behavior attributed to FACTS:

Manny Pichel and Ogie Diaz, Managing Editor and article may know the person alluded to, or if the latter
writer, respectively for Bandera, were accused of is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that
conspiring and confederating together and mutually those knowing such person could and did understand
helping each other, with the malicious purpose of that he was the person referred to.
impeaching the integrity, honor and reputation of one The libelous article, while referring to “Miss S,” does not
Florinda Bagay. The accused were alleged to give a sufficient description or other indications which
feloniously wrote and published an article about the identify “Miss S.” In short, the article fails to show that
sexual activities of certain “Miss S” and Philip Henson, “Miss S” and Florinda Bagay are one and the same
in which through the words and phrases used in the person.
article meant and conveyed malicious imputation that
this “Miss S” is a sexual pervert and possesses Although the article is libelous, Florinda Bagay could
lascivious and immoral habits. Florinda Bagay, who not have been the person defamed therein. In Uy Tioco
happened to use “Patricia Santillan” as her screen v. Yang Shu Wen, where the requirement for an
name, claims that she was this “Miss S” being referred identified or identifiable victim has not been complied
to in the said article. with, the case for libel must be dismissed.
HELD: April 14, 2018 – Article 356 – THREATENING TO

For an imputation to be libelous, the following PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PRESENT SUCH
requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
(b) it must be malicious; © it must be given publicity; VILLARIN, Paulo Jose S.
and (d) the victim must be identifiable. 2 Absent one of
these elements, a case for libel will not prosper. UNITED STATES VS EGUIA
38 PHIL 857
In the case at bar, it may be find that the first element
present. In determining whether a statement is FACTS:
defamatory, the words used are to be construed in Salvador A. Eguia and Sebastian Lozano, conspiring
their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and confederating with each other, willfully, unlawfully,
and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be and criminally threatened one Maria S. Tuason to
understood by the persons reading them, unless it publish in The Independent, a weekly newspaper
appears that they were used and understood in edited and published in the said city of Manila, a libel
another sense. In the instant case, the article in consisting of certain letters which, according to the
question details the sexual activities of a certain “Miss said defendants, would expose the name of said Maria
S” and one “Philip Henson” who had a romantic liaison. S. Tuason to public contempt, the said defendants
In their ordinary sense, the words used cast aspersion promising at the same time, moved by a desire to gain,
upon the character, integrity, and reputation of “Miss to prevent the publication of said letters in the above-
S.” The words convey that “Miss S” is a sexual libertine mentioned newspaper, should the aforementioned
with unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom. In a Maria S. Tuason agree to pay them the sum of P4,000,
society such as ours, where modesty is still highly Philippine currency.
prized among young ladies, the behavior attributed to
“Miss S” by the article in question had besmirched both ISSUE:
her character and reputation. Whether or not the defendant is guilty of threats to
publish libel.
As to the element of malice, since on its face the article
is defamatory, there is a presumption that the offender RULING:
acted with malice. In Article 354 of the same Code, YES.
every defamatory imputation is presumed to be Section 10 of the Libel Law (Act No. 277) is as follows:
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and "Every person who threatens another to publish a libel
justifiable motive for making it is shown. There is concerning him, or any parent, husband, wife, or child
malice when the author of the imputation is prompted of such person, or any member of his family, and every
by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response person who offers to prevent the publication of any
to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the libel upon another person, with intent to extort any
person who claims to have been defamed. There was money or other valuable consideration from any
neither good reason nor motive why the subject article person, shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding
was written except to embarrass “Miss S” and injure her one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not
reputation. exceeding six months, or both."
In common parlance, blackmail and extortion are
The last element of libel is that the victim is identified synonimous, although the latter term may have the
or identifiable from the contents of the libelous article. wider signification. Blackmail, in its metaphorical sense,
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that an appeal to the fears of the victim, especially extortion
the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic of money by threats of accusation or exposure. Two
reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication words are expressive of the crime hush money. The
contains matters of description or reference to facts gravamen of the offense is the intent to extort money
and circumstances from which others reading the or other thing of value. The extortion is committed by

obtaining property from another without his consent, deflecting forces and not to let them loose, either to
induced by wrongful use of fear. The end is the same their own detriment or to that of the public they serve.
as in crimes against property, but the means employed This is the high price they have to pay as occupants of
are different. Indeed, certain classes of threatening their exalted positions.
letters have been held in the United States when On September 12, 1994 around four thirty (4:30 P.M.)
followed by extortion to constitute robbery. in the afternoon, more or less, at the Municipal
The circumstances of this case are such that they lead Building of Concepcion, Tarlac, where public
to the irresistible conclusion that Eguia was the prime authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
mover in this nefarious scheme. The only reasonable and in the presence of several persons, the accused
deduction is that he took the letters from the post Noel L. Villanueva while in the process of hurling verbal
office box of Mrs. Tuason. He was the only person who insults at the complainant, then and there unlawfully,
had possession of the key to the box. He knew that feloniously and contemptuously gave the complainant
Mrs. Tuason was writing to Dr. Harmer. Not all the what is commonly known as "dirty finger" by poking
letters found in the possession of Lozano were from his hand at complainant's face with the middle finger
Mrs. Tuason but all had been addressed to Dr. Harmer. extended and the rest of his fingers half-closed, an act
The post office box used by Mrs. Tuason was in the tending to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt on
name of Dr. Harmer and so if any mail was returned to the complainant and causing her mental anguish,
Manila with his name on it, it would be put in this box. wounded feelings and moral suffering for which she is
The night on which the letters were delivered, Lozano entitled to moral and exemplary damages in an
went in the direction of Eguia's house to get the letters. amount to be determined by the honorable court.
Eguia composed the note that fixed the price for the Contrary to law.
letters at P8,000. He entered into and agreed to the
plot made up by Villaba. He introduced Villaba to ISSUE:
Lozano. Though Eguia never appeared in the open he Whether or not petitioners act of poking a dirty finger
was always lurking in the background. at complainant constitutes grave slander by deed
Defendants attack the evidence from two directions.
They contend, in the first place, that the court erred in HELD:
taking into consideration against each appellant Yes, but only simple slander by deed.
evidence presented at the trial of the other defendant. Slander by deed is a crime against honor, which is
While the court rendered but one judgment, it is committed by performing any act, which casts
nevertheless true that practically the same facts were dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person.
adduced in the two trials. Each defendant, moreover, The elements are (1) that the offender performs any act
endeavors to shield himself behind the acts of his not included in any other crime against honor, (2) that
codefendant. Of course, such a contention cannot be such act is performed in the presence of other person
permitted to avail for a moment, where the proof or persons, and (3) that such act casts dishonor,
shows that both defendants are inculpated. discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by
We hold that Salvador A. Eguia and Sebastian Lozano deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the social
have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standing of the offended party, the circumstances
under which the act was committed, the occasion,
April 14, 2018 – Article 357– PROHIBITED etc.[32] It is libel committed by actions rather than
PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE words. The most common examples are slapping
COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS someone or spitting on his/her face in front of the
VOSOTROS, Jules Andre B. public market, in full view of a crowd, thus casting
dishonor, discredit, and contempt upon the person of
[NO CASE FOUND] another.
Pointing a dirty finger ordinarily connotes the phrase
April 14, 2018 – Article 358 – SLANDER Fuck You, which is similar to the expression Puta or
Alameda Jr., Manuel F. Putang Ina mo, in local parlance. Such expression was
not held to be libelous in Reyes v. People,[38] where
VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE the Court said that: This is a common enough
APRIL 10, 2006 expression in the dialect that is often employed, not
G.R. NO. 160351 really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense
FACTS: by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a
The Councilor and Vice-Mayor of a town, both holders mother. Following Reyes, and in light of the fact that
of exalted government positions, became slaves to there was a perceived provocation coming from
their human limitations and engaged in a verbal scuffle complainant, petitioners act of pointing a dirty finger
at the municipal hall as if they were ordinary men in the at complainant constitutes simple slander by deed, it
streets. A moment of unguarded emotional outburst appearing from the factual milieu of the case that the
lead to the long-drawn out twists and turns of this case, act complained of was employed by petitioner "to
which should have been avoided if only they have express anger or displeasure" at complainant for
imbedded in their complex emotions, habits and procrastinating the approval of his leave monetization.
convictions that consciousness to regulate these While it may have cast dishonor, discredit or contempt

upon complainant, said act is not of a serious nature, PLEB office on the 5th Floor of the Manila City Hall; At
thus, the penalty shall be arresto menor meaning, around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, while waiting
imprisonment from one day to 30 days or a fine not outside the PLEB office on the 5th floor of the Manila
exceeding P200.00. City Hall, SPO3 Leonardo noticed De Leon and several
of his companions approaching. Before entering the
PEOPLE VS PADER PLEB office, De Leon uttered these words to SPO3
G.R. NO. 139157 Leonardo, "Walanghiya kang mangongotong na pulis
8 FEBRUARY 2000 ka, ang yabang yabang mo noon. Patay ka sa akin
ngayon."
FACTS:
Atty. Benjamin Escolango (ESCOLANGO) was a The words uttered by De Leon caused SPO3 Leonardo
candidate for vice mayor of Morong, Bataan in the 8 embarrassment because there were several persons
May 1995 Elections. Escolango and Pader were present at the PLEB premises. He could have arrested
neighbors. On the evening of 20 Apr 1995, Pader was De Leon but he did not want to make a scene.
drunk. Pader was angry at Escolango because of Afterwards, De Leon's wife, Concepcion, emerged from
something that Escolango had done when Pader’s the said office and apologized to Leonardo for her
father had died. On 20 Apr 1995, Escolango was husband's actuations. SPO3 Leonardo calmly
conversing with his political leaders at the terrace of his proceeded to the Special Operations Group of the
house. Rogelio Pader (PADER) a political opponent of Philippine National Police (PNP) located at the Manila
Escolango suddenly appeared at the gate and shouted City Hall to have the incident entered in its blotter. On
“putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya the same day, SPO3 Leonardo filed his complaint at the
mo!” Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) together with
Principe.
ISSUE:
Was Pader guilty of slight oral defamation, or of serious Version of the Defense
oral defamation.
Prior incident,when De Leon, with his son John, while
HELD: having breakfast with their fellow joggers at the
The defamatory words only amounted to SLIGHT ORAL Philippine National Railroad-Tutuban Station, were
DEFAMATION. DOCTRINE: approached by SPO3 Leonardo who arrived on his
Defamatory words will fall under slight or serious oral scooter. With his gun drawn, SPO3 Leonardo walked
defamation, depending not only upon their sense, fast towards the group and at a distance of two meters,
grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary more or less, he said, "Putang ina mo, tapos ka na Ricky
meaning judging them separately, but also upon the Boy, referring to De Leon." He pressed the trigger but
special circumstances of the case, antecedents or the gun did not fire, when he was to strike again, De
relationship between the offended party and the Leon was able to escape with the help of John.
offender, which might tend to prove the intention of
the offender at the time. ISSUE:
“Putang ina mo” is a common enough utterance in the Whether or not the crime of slander tenable in this
dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but case.
rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more
often, it is just an expletive that punctuates one’s HELD:
expression of profanity. The crime committed is only Slight Oral Defamation.
Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral
DE LEON VS PEOPLE (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is defined as
JAN 11, 2016 "the speaking of base and defamatory words which
GR NO. 212623 tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office,
trade, business or means of livelihood."[35] The
FACTS: elements of oral defamation are: (1) there must be an
The said accused, with the deliberate intent to imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
besmirch the honor and reputation of one SPO3 imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
PEDRITO L. LEONARDO, did and there wilfully, circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and
unlawfully, feloniously publicly proffer against the maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person,
latter slanderous words and expressions such as or one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonour,
"WALANGHIYA KANG MANGONGOTONG NA PULIS discredit or contempt of the person defamed. Oral
KA, ANG YABANG YABANG MO NOON. PATAY KA SA defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes
AKIN MAMAYA [,]" and other words and expressions of grave when it is of a serious and insulting nature.An
similar import, thereby bringing the said SPO3 allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a
PEDRITO L. LEONARDO into public contempt, discredit person the commission of a crime, the possession of a
and ridicule. vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission,
condition, status or circumstance which tends to
Version of the Prosecution: dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which
tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. To
The first hearing was scheduled on April 17, 2006 at the determine whether a statement is defamatory, the

words used in the statement must be construed in their SCRA 280 [1966]). The scurrilous words imputed to the
entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and offended party the crime estafa. The language of the
ordinary meaning as they would naturally be indictment strikes deep into the character of the victim;
understood by persons reading them, unless it appears He 'has sold the union; he 'has swindled the money of
that they were used and understood in another sense. the vendees; he 'received bribe money in the amount
It must be stressed that words which are merely of P10,000.00 ... and another P6,000.00'; He 'is engaged
insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, in racketeering and enriching himself with the
and mere words of general abuse however capitalists'; He 'has spent the funds of the union for his
opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written personal use.'
or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for
defamation in the absence of an allegation for special In the instant case, appellant-petitioner imputed the
damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer one-time
plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself. In this Justice of the Peace and member of the Provincial
case, the Court agrees that the words uttered by De Board of Nueva Ecija, a professor of law and for
Leon were defamatory in nature. It is, however, of the sometime a president of the Nueva Ecija Bar
view that the same only constituted simple oral Association. As the scurrilous imputation strikes deep
defamation. Whether the offense committed is serious into the character of the victim, no special
or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the circumstance need be shown for the defamatory words
sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but uttered to be considered grave oral defamation
also upon the special circumstances of the case, like
the social standing or the advanced age of the US vs. TOLOSA
offended party. "The gravity depends upon: (1) the G.R. No. L-12696
expressions used; (2) the personal relations of the November 19, 1917
accused and the offended party; and (3) the special
circumstances of the case, the antecedents or FACTS:
relationship between the offended party and the The two families were living in houses about 15 meters
offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the apart. They had several altercations. The defendant was
offender at the time. In particular, it is a rule that described as having the natural temperament,
uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with vehemence of expression, and other peculiar
some provocation on the part of the offended party characteristics which indicates the kind of a woman
constitutes only a light felony." that would stir up disturbances with the least
provocation or whenever she feels offended.
VICTORIO V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NOS. L-32836-37 As a result, the defendant hurled at the complainant
MAY 3, 1989 offensive and scurrilous epithets, including words
imputing unchastity to the mother and tending to
FACTS: injure the characters of her daughters.
Appellant-petitioner called Atty. Ruiz, "estapador",
which attributes to the latter the crime of estafa, a ISSUE:
serious and insulting imputation. Appellant-petitioner WON the oral words imputing unchastity to a woman
imputed the crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer were actionable without proof of special damage.
one-time Justice of the Peace and member of the
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, a professor of law and HELD:
for sometime a president of the Nueva Ecija Bar Yes. The words of the defendant were uttered with
Association. evident intent to injure complainant, to ruin her
reputation, and to hold her in public contempt, for the
ISSUE: sake of revenge. One who will thus seek to impute vice
whether or not the defamatory words constitute or immorality to another, the consequences of which
serious oral defamation or simply slight oral might gravely prejudice the reputation of the person
defamation. insulted, in this instance, apparently an honorable and
respectable lady and her young daughters, all
HELD: prominent in social circles, deserves little judicial
The term oral defamation or slander as now sympathy. Certainly, it is time for the courts to put the
understood, has been defined as the speaking of base stamp of their disapproval on this practice of the vile
and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another and loud slander, which so debauches and degrades
in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of womanhood. Shrews must be tamed in the modern
livelihood (33 Am. Jur. 39). Article 358, Revised Penal Philippines.
Code, spells out the demarcation line, between serious
and slight oral defamations, as follows: " Oral PEOPLE VS ATIENZA
defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its OCTOBER 26, 1968
maximum period to prision correccional in its G.R. NO. L-19857
minimum period, if it is of a serious and insulting
nature, otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor FACTS:
or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos." (Balite v. People, 18 Damaso Atienza, was charged with grave oral

defamation in the said Court upon a sworn complaint is a common enough expression in the dialect that is
signed by the offended party, Pilar Lee. The defamatory often employed, not really to slander but rather to
word allegedly uttered by the defendant were: "Pauli express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken
na, puta ka. Oo, puta ka puta kat bilaw." The translation in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection
given in the complaint itself is: "Go home, you on the virtues of a mother. In the instant case, it should
prostitute. Yes, you are a prostitute, really a prostitute." be viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant
Damaso Atienza, was charged with grave oral against Agustin Hallare, evidently to make the same
defamation in the said Court upon a sworn complaint more emphatic. On the basis of the foregoing events
signed by the offended party, Pilar Lee. The defamatory Rosauro Reyes was charged on July 24 and 25, 1961
word allegedly uttered by the defendant were: "Pauli with grave threats and grave oral defamation,
na, puta ka. Oo, puta ka puta kat bilaw." The translation respectively
given in the complaint itself is: "Go home, you
prostitute. Yes, you are a prostitute, really a prostitute." BALITE VS. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. L-21475
ISSUE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1966
Whether or not the word "puta" connotes prostitution
thus defamatory. FACTS:
The Democratic Labor Association declared a strike
HELD: against the Cebu Stevedoring Company. A copra
The word "puta" alleged to have been uttered by the exporter affected by the strike offered the union
defendant in referring to the offended party does not president Mercader P10,000 as aid to the union and
necessarily connote the crime of prostitution as presumably to pave the way for the amicable
defined in Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code. settlement. At first, it was decided that the amount be
distributed amongst all the members. However, at a
REYES VS PEOPLE subsequent meeting Balite proposed that the amount
G.R. NOS. L-21528 & L- 21529 should be given solely to the officers. Passions seemed
MARCH 28, 1969 to have run so high that Balite walked out of the
meeting, threatened to destroy the union and to
FACTS: expose president and pursued a smear campaign
Rosauro Reyes, was a former civilian employee of the against Mercader.
Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, Cavite City, whose
services were terminated on May 6, 1961. In the Subsequently, Balite met with the Marine Officers Guild
afternoon of June 6, 1961, he led a group of about 20 and engaged in conversation with Marine Officer
to 30 persons in a demonstration staged in front of the Canlas, while the latter’s companions gathered around
main gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley and within hearing distance of the two. Balite then
Point. They carried placards bearing statements such uttered the words, as already translated –
as, "Agustin, mamatay ka;" "To, alla boss con Nolan;"
"Frank do not be a common funk;" "Agustin, "Mr. Mercader sold the Union. The money of the Union
mamamatay ka rin"; "Agustin, Nolan for you;" "Agustin was swindled in the strike staged by the Democratic
alla bos con Nolan;" "Agustin, dillega, el dia di quida Labor Association against the Cebu Stevedoring
rin bo chiquiting;" and others. The base commander, Company. Atty. Mercader received bribe money in the
Capt. McAllister, called up Col. Patricia Monzon, who as sum of P10,000.00 from the copra exporter Richard
Philippine Military Liaison Officer at Sangley Point was Corominas & Co. and another P6,000.00 from the Cebu
in charge of preserving harmonious relations between Stevedoring Company/ Atty. Mercader is engaged in
personnel of the naval station and the civilian racketeering and that he is enriching himself with the
population of Cavite City. The three jeeps carrying the capitalists. The money of the Union was spent by him
demonstrators parked in front of Hallare's residence to his own personal benefit".
after having gone by it twice Rosauro Reyes got off his
jeep and posted himself at the gate, and with his right At the time of the incident, Mercader was legal counsel
hand inside his pocket and his left holding the gate- of the Marine Officers Guild. The imputation
door, he shouted repeatedly, "Agustin, putang ina mo. apparently affected the guild's feeling and attitude
Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin towards Atty. Mercader. For, subsequently, he was
kita." Thereafter, he boarded his jeep and the eased out as the guild's legal counsel.
motorcade left the premises. Meanwhile, Hallare,
frightened by the demeanor of Reyes and the other Mercader filed a complaint for grave oral defamation
demonstrators, stayed inside the house. against Balite.
ISSUE: Balite pleads prescription as it was merely one for slight

Whether or not the words "putang ina mo constitute oral defamation which lapses in two months.
oral defamation.
ISSUE:
HELD: WON there is slight oral defamation.
The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the
utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang ina mo". This

HELD: ... Judge who is a thief. Santiago is a land usurper. Che.

No. Rather there is grave oral defamation. Punyeta, a lawyer who is a thief. Thunder, if I only know
The scurrilous words impute to the offended party the that to be a lawyer is a good course, I would have taken
crime of estafa. The language of the indictment strikes it. Because if you are an attorney, you just have the land
deep into the character of the victim: of others surveyed, it becomes yours, the genital organ
of Severina is dilated in smile and the penis of Santiago
• He "has sold the union" is in erection in stealing the land of others', and other
• He "has swindled the money of the members" similar words of import.
• He "received bribe money in the amount of
P10,000.00 . . . and another P6,000.00" ISSUE:
• He "is engaged in racketeering and enriching himself whether or not the abusive remarks be considered as
with the capitalists" serious oral defamation.
• He "has spent the funds of the union for his personal
use." HELD:
Although uttered on three different occasions; they
No amount of sophistry will take these statements out originated from the same anticedents, and were
of the compass of grave oral defamation. They are fomonted by the same basic dispute. Fanning fire to
serious and insulting. No circumstances need be the situation was a feeling of desperation and anxiety,
shown to upgrade the slander. And, no circumstances over the final consequences because of the position.
were alleged in the complaint. and alleged influence of complainant Judge
Gayomali..Although the abusive remarks may
Balite wanted the union officers to pocket the amount. ordinarily be considered as serious defamation, under
He was frustrated in his wish. Then he conducted a the environmental circumstances of the case, there
smear campaign against the union president. For having been provocation on complainant's part, and
these, he was expelled from the union. Long after, the utterances complained of having been made in the
came the meeting with the officers of the Marine heat of unrestrained anger and obfuscation, petitioner
Officers Guild. There, in cool and forceful deliberation, is liable only for the crime of Slight Oral Defamation.
he let go the slanderous statements— in the absence Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes Slight
of Mercader. This time, he had his way. Mercader was Oral Defamation with arresto menor or a fine not
eased out as legal counsel of the Marine Officers Guild. exceeding P200.00.
The People has thus clinched a case for grave oral
defamation. April 14, 2018 – Article 359 – SLANDER BY DEED
ALILIAN, Enna B.
CRUZ VS CA
G.R. NOS. L-56224-26 June 28, 2017
NOVEMBER 25, 1982 G.R. No. 223844
DANILO CALIVO CARIAGA vs. EMMANUEL D.
FACTS: SAPIGAO and GINALYN C. ACOSTA
Purisima Gestoso Cruz, and Santiago Gayomali were
next-door neighbors, being residents of houses FACTS:
standing on adjacent lots at Rizal Street, Guimbal, Claiming that the statements in the blotter entries were
Iloilo. At about 9:00 a.m. on August 5, 1976, while completely false and were made to dishonor and
Severina Gayomali, wife of Santiago Gayomali, was at discredit him, Cariaga filed a complaint against
the ground floor of their house at Rizal, Street, respondents for in their respective capacities as
Guimbal, Iloilo (which ground floor was also used as a Barangay Chairman and Secretary of Brgy. Carosucan
store) she saw petitioner and heard her utter the Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan, made two (2) spurious
following words from a distance of about five meters: entries in the barangay blotter.
... Usurper of land. They are shameless. They go to ISSUE:

church but they are shameless; they steal the land of WoN respondents were liable under Art 359 rpc
others. They ride in an automobile and when they walk
on the road they are as if somebody but they are HELD:
shameless. The land in Igcocolo would better be No. The questioned blotter entries were all made in
surveyed and given to Santiago Gayomali'. good faith and merely for recording purposes; done in
the performance of respondents' official duties; and
The next day Santiago Gayomali was at the store at the based on personal knowledge of what actually
ground floor of his residence at Rizal Street, Guimbal, transpired.
Iloilo. With him were his wife, Severina, and their maid.
At that time, petitioner, who stood on the boundary of November 13, 1934
the lot of her mother and that of Santiago Gayomali, G.R. No. L-41757
and while facing the store of the latter from a distance THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs.
of about five meters, uttered the following words: ANTONIO NOSCE
FACTS:

Antonio Nosce slapped the Reverend Father Ulric HELD:

Arcand, a catholic priest, before a large congregation. No. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that
the place where the crime was committed determines
ISSUE: not only the venue of the action but constitutes an
WoN appellant was liable under Art 259 RPC essential element of jurisdiction.
Art. 360 of the RPC provides:
HELD:
Yes. The offended party is invested with sacerdotal “Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the
dignity in his religion and was officiating as such priest publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing
during solemn religious ceremonies before a large or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
congregation. There certainly could have been no xxxx
other circumstances under which greater dishonor,
discredit and contempt could be cast upon him before The criminal action and civil action for damages in
the faithful over whom he held so high a dignity. cases of written defamations, as provided for in this
chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
April 14, 2018 – Article 360 – PERSONS the RTC of the province or city where the libelous
RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL article is printed and first published or where any of the
ARANCES, Javy Ann G. offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense. xxxx”
BONIFACIO ET AL VS RTC OF MAKATI AND JESSIE That venue of libel cases where the complainant is a
JOHN GIMENEZ private individual is limited only to:
G.R. NO. 184800, Marh 5, 2010
Ponente: Justice Carpio Morales 1. Where the complainant actually resides at the time
of the commission of the offense; or
ISSUE:
Whether or not the offended party can file the criminal 2. Where the alleged defamatory article was printed
case for libel in the place where he gained access to and first published.
the libelous article published over the Internet.
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed
FACTS: and first published was used as basis for the venue of
Petitioners Bonifacio et al were charged with the crime the action, the Information must allege with
of libel after private respondent Gimenez, on behalf of particularity where the defamatory article was printed
Yuchengco family and Malayan Insurance Co., filed a and first published. The same measures cannot be
criminal complaint before the Makati City Prosecutor reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory
for libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of material appearing on a website on the internet as
the Revised Penal Code. there would be no way of determining the point of its
printing and first publication. To give credence to
The complaint alleged that petitioners, together with Gimenez’s argument would spawn the very ills that the
several John Does, publicly and maliciously with amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to
intention of attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and discourage and prevent. It would do chaos wherein
integrity, character and reputation of Malayan website author, writer, blogger or anyone who post
Insurance Co. Inc., and Yuchengco family for exposing messages in websites could be sued for libel anywhere
them to public hatred and contempt, and published in in the Philippines.
the said website (http://www.pepcoalition.com) a
defamatory article persuading the public to remove The information is quashed and the case is dismissed.
their investments and policies from the said company.
TULFO VS PEOPLE
Petitioners filed before the respondent RTC of Makati G.R. NO. 161032, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
a Motion to Quash on the grounds that it failed to vest PONENTE: JUSTICE VELASCO, JR.
jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts complained of
in the Information are not punishable by law since ISSUE:
internet libel is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC. Whether or not lack of participation in the preparation
Petitioners maintained that the Information failed to of libelous articles does shield the persons from liability
allege a particular place within the trial courts of libel.
jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and
first published or that the offended parties resided in FACTS:
Makati at the time the alleged defamatory material was Atty. Carlos Ding So of the Bureau of Customs filed and
printed and first published, and the prosecution charged petitioners Erwin Tulfo, as author/writer,
erroneously laid the venue of the case in the place Susan Cambri, as managing editor, Rey Salao, as
where the offended party accessed the internet- national editor, Jocelyn Barlizo, as city editor, and Philip
published article. Since the article was first published Pichay, as president of the Carlo Publishing House, Inc.,
and accessed by Gimenez at Makati City, pursuant to of the daily tabloid Remate, with the crime of libel. That
Art. 360 of the RPC as amended by RA 4363. private respondent was indicated as an extortionist, a

corrupt public official, smuggler and having acquired Under Art. 360 of the RPC, as Tulfo, the author of the
his wealth illegally. subject articles, has been found guilty of libel, so too
must Cambri, Salao, Barlizo, and Pichay.
Petitioner Cambri, managing editor of Remate,
testified that she classifies the news articles written by TIME, INC. VS REYES
the reporters, and that in the Editorial Division, the G.R. NO. L-28882 MAY 31, 1971
officers are herself; Briones, her supervisor; Lydia PONENTE: JUSTICE REYES
Bueno, as news and city editor; and Salao as national
editor. She testified that petitioner Barlizo is her ISSUE:
subordinate, whose duties and responsibilities are the Whether or not, under the provisions of RA 4363 the
typesetting, editing, and layout of the page assigned respondent CFI of Rizal has jurisdiction to take
to her, the Metro page. She further testified that she cognizance of the civil suit for damages arising from an
had no participation in the writing, editing, or allegedly libelous publication, considering that the
publication of the column of Tulfo because the column action was instituted by public officers whose offices
was not edited. She claimed that none among her co- were in the City of Manila at the time of the publication.
accused from the Remate newspaper edited the
columns of Tulfo, that the publication and editing of FACTS:
the subject articles were the responsibility of Tulfo, and The petition alleges that petitioner Time, Inc., is an
that he was given blanket authority to write what he American corporation with principal offices at
wanted to write. She also testified that the page Rocketfeller Center, New York City, N. Y., and is the
wherein Tulfos column appeared was supervised by publisher of "Time", a weekly news magazine; the
Bueno as news editor. petition, however, does not allege the petitioner's legal
capacity to sue in the courts of the Philippine.
HELD:
The Court held that the publisher could not escape In the aforesaid civil case, therein plaintiffs-
liability by claiming lack of participation in the respondents Antonio J. Villegas and Juan Ponce Enrile
preparation and publication of a libelous article. seek to recover from petitioner Time, Inc. damages
upon an alleged libel arising from a publication of Time
The claim that they had no participation does not (Asia Edition) magazine, in its issue of Aug. 18, 1967, of
shield them from liability. The provision in the RPC an essay, entitled "Corruption in Asia", which talks
does not provide absence of participation as a defense, about the investigation of Manila mayor Antonio
but rather plainly and specifically states the Villegas due to the discovery of his excessive and
responsibility of those involved in publishing unreasonable resources. More specifically, the
newspapers and other periodicals. It is not a matter of plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Time magazine
whether or not they conspired in preparing and published a libelous article, publicly, falsely and
publishing the subject articles, because the law simply maliciously imputing to plaintiffs the commission of
so states that they are liable as they were the author. the crimes of graft, corruption and nepotism, that said
Neither the publisher nor the editors can disclaim publication particularly referred to plaintiff Mayor
liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper Antonio J. Villegas as a case in point in connection with
by simply saying they had no participation in the graft, corruption and nepotism in Asia; that said
preparation of the same. They cannot say that Tulfo publication without any doubt referred to co-plaintiff
was all alone in the publication of Remate, on which Juan Ponce Enrile as the high government official who
the subject articles appeared, when they themselves helped under curious circumstances plaintiff Mayor
clearly hold positions of authority in the newspaper, or Villegas in lending the latter approximately P30,000.00
in the case of Pichay, as the president in the publishing without interest because he was the Mayor's
company. compadre; that the purpose of said Publications is to
cause the dishonor, discredit and put in public
As Tulfo cannot simply say that he is not liable because contempt the plaintiffs. At the time of the publication
he did not fulfill his responsibility as a journalist, the of the allegedly offending essay, private respondents
other petitioners cannot simply say that they are not Antonio Villegas and Juan Ponce Enrile were the Mayor
liable because they did not fulfill their responsibilities Of the City of Manila and Undersecretary of Finance
as editors and publishers. An editor or manager of a and concurrently Acting Commissioner of Customs,
newspaper, who has active charge and control of its respectively, with offices in the City of Manila.
management, conduct, and policy, generally is held to
be equally liable with the owner for the publication On February 26, 1968, respondent court deferred the
therein of a libelous article. determination of the motion to dismiss until after trial
of the case on the merits, the court having considered
On the theory that it is the duty of the editor or that the grounds relied upon in the motion do not
manager to know and control the contents of the appear to be indubitable. Petitioner moved for
paper, it is held that said person cannot evade reconsideration of the deferment private respondents
responsibility by abandoning the duties to employees, again opposed. Respondent judge issued an order re-
so that it is immaterial whether or not the editor or affirming the previous order of deferment for the
manager knew the contents of the publication. reason that "the rule laid down under Republic Act. No.
4363, amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code,

is not applicable to actions against non-resident HELD:

defendants, and because questions involving 1. The fourth paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised
harassment and inconvenience, as well as disruption of Penal Code requiring the complaint in an action for
public service do not appear indubitable. ..." defamation imputing a private offense to be expressly
Failing in its efforts to discontinue the taking of the filed by the offended party, applies not only to written
depositions, previously adverted to, and to have action but also to oral defamation. Consequently, a complaint
taken, before trial, on its motion to dismiss, petitioner for oral defamation imputing rape does not confer
filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition. jurisdiction on the lower court where it was not
expressly filed by the offended party but by a
HELD: Constabulary Officer.
The respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal is
without jurisdiction to take cognizance of its Civil Case. 2. A statement in a complaint for defamation that the
Provisions of RA No. 4363 provides that Art. 360 of the accused therein allegedly used the term
of the Revised Penal Code is further amended to read "manggagahasa" in referring to the offended party, is
that any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the held to impute a crime which cannot be prosecuted de
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing oficio because the word "gahasa" does not refer to
or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. force in general but only to force or violence when
applied to a woman for the purpose of satisfying the
The limitation of the choices of venue, as introduced lust of the actor.
into the Penal Code through its amendments by
Republic Act 4363, was intended " to minimize or limit The crimes which may not be prosecuted de oficio are
the filing of out-of-town libel suits" to protect an adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts
alleged offender from "hardships, inconveniences and of lasciviousness (Art. 344, Revised Penal Code).
harassments" and, furthermore, to protect "the interest
of the public service" where one of the offended April 16, 2018 – Article 361 – PROOF OF THE TRUTH
parties is a public officer. But since the offending BANUELOS, Kelvinn L.
publication was not printed in the Philippines, the
alternative venue was not open to respondent Mayor G.R. No. L-48498 September 30, 1942
Villegas of Manila and Undersecretary of Finance SALVADOR G. TUMANG vs.
Enrile, who were the offended parties. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Ponente: YULO, C.J.
CAMPITA VS VILLANUEVA
G.R. NO. L-20228, NOVEMBER 28, 1964 FACTS:
PONENTE: JUSTICE CONCEPCION TUMANG made many imputations against Felix
Manalo. He was then filed with libel and found guilty
ISSUE: on the lower courts.
1. Whether or not a complaint by the offended party
necessary in action for oral defamation. It appears that the libelous article contained
imputations which insinuate the commission of
2. Whether or not an action for defamation imputes a criminal acts as well as of many other acts which do not
crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. constitute a crime.
FACTS: As to those imputations insinuating the commission of

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First a crime, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioner
Instance of Quezon, dismissing the petition in the was allowed to introduce evidence on the truth thereof
above entitled case. but that said evidence was insufficient.
In a complaint filed with the Court of First Instance of CA: The case before us does not fit within the rules just
Quezon, the municipal mayor of Lukban, was charged cited and, therefore, TUMANG cannot seek the
by petitioner Romana Campita with the crime of acts protection of the provisions of said article 361 of the
of lasciviousness. On June 7, 1962, an officer of the Revised Penal Code, in order to justify his criminal
Constabulary, in turn, accused petitioner of serious oral intent and secure his acquittal, it appearing that many
defamation, for having allegedly made on May 27, of the imputations made against Felix Manalo in the
1962, the following defamatory statement: "Yang si libelous article in question do not constitute a crime;
Mayor Dator ay walang hiya, bastos, masamang tao at while in others where an insinuation was made of some
manggagahasa". Petitioner moved to dismiss this criminal, act, the evidence submitted to prove the truth
complaint against her upon the ground that the said has completely failed to support the stand of the
Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the case, accused, and in general the imputations made against
because the aforementioned defamatory statement Manalo are not at all connected with the discharge of
imputes to Dator the crime of either rape or acts of the duties of a Government official or employee, as it
lasciviousness, none of which may be prosecuted is well known that Felix Manalo is not a Government
except upon complaint of the offended party, pursuant employee and proof of the truth of the imputations
to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. would not be admissible.

LEGAL ISSUE: with the City Legal Officer, caused the filing of a
W/N TUMANG should be acquitted based on Article complaint for libel against petitioner. He claimed that
361 of the RPC. the incident resulted in mental anguish and sleepless
nights for him and his family. He thus prayed for
HELD: damages.
NO. Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
Art 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal Petitioner admitted having placed all the billboards
prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in because he is aware of all the things happening around
evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter Cadiz City. He mentioned "BADING" because he was
charged as libelous is true, and moreover, that it was not in conformity with the many things the mayor had
published with good motives and for justifiable ends, done in Cadiz City. He insisted that he has no intention
the defendant shall be acquitted. whatsoever of referring to "Bading" as the "Tuta" of
Sagay. He contended that it was private respondent
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or who referred to Bading as "Tuta" of Sagay. He further
omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted maintained that his personal belief and expression was
unless the imputation shall have been made against that he will never love Bading and Sagay. He concluded
Government employees with respect to facts related to that the message in the billboards is just a wake-up call
the discharge of their official duties. for Cadiz City.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the LEGAL ISSUE:
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. W/N Lopez should be acquitted on the crime of libel
based on Article 361 of the RPC.
In view of the above, we find no merit in petitioner's
contention that he had been unlawfully deprived of his HELD:
right to prove the truth of the libelous imputations. The YES. For that matter, granting that the controversial
Court of Appeals has rightfully held that proof of the phrase is considered defamatory, still, no liability
truth of those acts imputed the offended party which attaches on petitioner. Pursuant to Article 361 of the
do not constitute a crime can be admitted, since he is Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory statement is
not a government employee, and, consequently, none made against a public official with respect to the
of those imputations can have any reference to facts discharge of his official duties and functions and the
related to the discharge by a government employee of truth of the allegations is shown, the accused will be
his official duties. This is in consonance with the second entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove
paragraph of article 361 which limits the scope of the that the imputation was published with good motives
general rule set forth in the first paragraph of the same and for justifiable ends. As the Court held in United
article. States v. Bustos,22 the policy of a public official may be
attacked, rightly or wrongly with every argument which
G.R. No. 172203 February 14, 2011 ability can find or ingenuity invent. The public officer
DIONISIO LOPEZ y ABERASTURI vs. "may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SALVADOR G. the wound can be assuaged by the balm of a clear
ESCALANTE, JR. conscience. A public [official] must not be too thin-
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J. skinned with reference to comments upon his official
acts."
FACTS:
Evidence introduced for the prosecution reveals that in In arriving at an analogous finding of guilt on
the early part of November 2002, while exercising his petitioner, both lower courts heavily relied on the
official duties as Mayor of Cadiz City, private testimony of the petitioner pertaining to the reasons
respondent saw billboards with the printed phrase behind the printing of the phrase "CADIZ FOREVER
"CADIZ FOREVER" with a blank space before the word BADING AND SAGAY NEVER." Our in-depth scrutiny of
"NEVER" directly under said phrase. Those billboards his testimony, however, reveals that the reasons
were posted on the corner of Gustilo and Villena elicited by the prosecution mainly relate to the
streets, in front of Cadiz Hotel and beside the old Coca- discharge of private respondent’s official duties as City
Cola warehouse in Cadiz City. He became intrigued and Mayor of Cadiz City.
wondered on what the message conveyed since it was
incomplete. April 16, 2018 – Article 362 – LIBELOUS REMARKS
Some days later, on November 15, 2002, private
respondent received a phone call relating that the DORR, ET. AL. VS. UNITED STATES
blank space preceding the word "NEVER" was filled up 195 U.S. 138 (1904)
with the added words "BADING AND SAGAY." The next DAY, J.:
day, he saw the billboards with the phrase "CADIZ
FOREVER BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" printed in full. ISSUE:
Reacting and feeling that he was being maligned and Whether or not the accused committed the crime of
dishonored with the printed phrase and of being a Libelous remarks.
"tuta" of Sagay, private respondent, after consultation

FACTS: matter. The draftsman of the law evidently had in mind

The case was a prosecution for libel, brought at the the law of criminal libel in newspaper publications as it
instance of Don Benito Legarda, a member of the exists in this country. The privilege extends to a full and
Philippine Commission, against the plaintiffs in error, correct report of judicial proceedings without
Dorr and O'Brien, who were proprietors and editors of prejudicial comment.
a newspaper published in the city of Manila known as
the 'Manila Freedom.' It appears that Legarda was the These headlines were not privileged matter at the
prosecuting witness against one Valdez, editor of a common law, and were libelous remarks or comments
certain Spanish newspaper called the 'Miau.' At the if the matter could be deemed otherwise privileged,
time of the trial of Valdez, under the Spanish law then within the meaning of 8 of the Philippine libel law. An
in force in the islands, the truth could not be given in inspection of them would seem to be sufficient to
defense in a prosecution for criminal libel. demonstrate this fact. The complainant was held up to
Notwithstanding this fact, counsel for Valdez, in the the public where the paper circulated in striking
form of an offer of proof, read a paper in court, making headlines as 'Traitor, Seducer, Perjurer,' and while these
certain statements with reference to the libel charged, words were quoted, as well as the phrase 'Wife would
tending to show the truth thereof. In what purported have killed him,' their publication in this manner was
to be a report of the proceeding, the Manila Freedom certainly the equivalent to a remark or comment
printed an article containing the matter set forth in the unnecessary to a fair and truthful report of judicial
offer to prove, with headlines in large type, as follows: proceedings, and likely to raise inferences highly
detrimental to the character and standing of the one
'TRAITOR, SEDUCER, AND PERJURER. concerning whom they were printed and published.
SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST
COMMISSIONER LEGARDA. April 16, 2018 – Article 363 – INCRIMINATING
MADE OF RECORD AND READ IN ENGLISH-SPANISH INNOCENT PERSON
READING WAIVED. CEBALLOS, Jesus C.
Wife would have killed him. PEOPLE V. RIVERA

Legarda pale and nervous.' G.R. NOS. 38215 & 38216
The prosecution of the plaintiffs in error was based DECEMBER 22, 1933.
upon the [195 U.S. 138, 150] publication of these
headlines, which were charged to be a false and ISSUE:
malicious libel, printed in the English language, of and WoN Rivera was guilty of Art. 363 of the Revised Penal
concerning Don Benito Legarda. At the time Valdez Code.
was tried, in which case the occurrence undertaken to
be reported took place, the Spanish law was in force, FACTS:
denying the right to put in evidence the truth of the Vito and Moreno were charged with theft by Sgt.
alleged libelous matter. At the time of the trial of the Ranas, Q. with Faustino Rivera as the witness of the
plaintiffs in error the Philippine Commission had crime. The charge against them was dismissed by the
passed act No. 277, known as the libel law. Sec.8 of the Court of First Instance of Lucena. Thereafter, Vito and
said law provides that: Libelous remarks or comments Moreno filed a case against Rivera for violation of Art.
connected with matter privileged by the last section 363, Incriminating innocent person. The case was also
receive no privilege by reason of being so connected. dismissed. The Attorney-General appealed to the
Supreme Court.
RULING:
Yes. The contention is that the publication is privileged HELD:
under 7 and 8, the claim being that the publication was No, he is not guilty of the crime.
a fair and truthful report of judicial proceedings. Art. 363 do not apply to the instant case since it would
Testimony was introduced in the court below tending open the door to a flood of prosecutions in cases
to show malice, and there was no proof to support the where the defendants were acquitted. The gravamen
truth of the charges in the alleged libel, which were of the offense is performing an act which "tends
found to be without basis and wanton, and as the directly" to such an imputation
findings of the two lower courts in a case brought in
review here are not ordinarily disturbed, the case upon It will be observed that under article 326 of the former
this branch might rest upon that proposition. It is Penal Code, the gravamen of the offense is the
evident, however, that the publication in question did imputation itself when made before an administrative
not stop with a simple report of the judicial or judicial officer, whereas in article 363 of the Revised
proceedings. Indeed, the paper offered in evidence Penal Code the gravamen of the offense is performing
could not have been received under the law then in an act which "tends directly" to such an imputation.
force,-a fact concerning which no comment was made Article 326 of the old Penal Code punishes false
in the report of the proceedings. Furthermore, 8 of the prosecutions whereas article 363 of the Revised Penal
law, while permitting, as privileged, a fair and truthful Code punishes any act which may tend directly to
report of judicial proceedings, except upon express cause a false prosecution.
proof of malice, does not make privileged libelous
remarks or comments in connection with the privileged

The subject article punishes the acts of “planting”

evidence and the like, which do not themselves HELD:
constitute false prosecutions but tend directly to cause We believe the appeal if bereft of merit.
false prosecutions.
This Court has already held that the dismissal of a
April 16, 2018 – Article 364 – INTRIGUING AGAINST criminal case on the ground of variance between the
HONOR allegations in the information and the evidence
DAHIROC, Janice L. amounts to an acquittal. (People vs. Opemia, et al., 98
Phil., 698; 52 Off. Gaz., 1951.) And while there appears
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENEDICTO to be merit in the Solicitor General's contention that
BAO the offense of intriguing against honor is necessarily
G.R. No. L-12102 September 25, 1959 included in the crime of serious oral defamation
charged in the information and therefore the accused
ISSUE: could be validly convicted by the trial court of that
Whether or not the evidence adduced by the crime under the same information, the fact remains
prosecution establish the crime of intriguing against that the case was dismissed after the prosecution had
honor penalized by article 364 of the revised Penal rested its case and upon motion by the defendant on
Code and not the oral defamation as appealed. the grounds that the fact remains that the case alleged
in the information did not constitute the crime charged
FACTS: and that, at any rate, the evidence presented was not
This is an appeal by the Government from an order of sufficient to establish his guilt. The dismissal, likewise,
the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, amounts to an acquittal or discharge of the defendant,
dismissing, upon defendant-appellee's motion the from which the prosecution cannot appeal without
case against him for serious oral defamation. doing violence to the constitutional provision on
double jeopardy. (People vs. Cabarles, 54 Off. Gaz.,
On May 13, 1955, Benedicto Bao was charged with oral 7051, and the case cited therein). It goes without
defamation in the justice of the Peace Court of Aloran, saying that such dismissal constitutes a bar to another
Misamis Occidental, in a complaint filed by the prosecution not only for the offense charged, but also
offended party, Maximina Banguis for allegedly "for any offense which necessarily includes or is
speaking publicly and uttering "Si Maximina Banguis, necessarily included" therein.
aking nakuha" (Maximina Banguis was carnally taken
by me) and other words of similar import and meaning Wherefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the
implying that the offended party no longer a virgin Government must be, as it is hereby, dismissed with
despite her being a single woman, thus exposing her costs de oficio.
to public contempt, disrepute and ridicule. The said
complaint was later amended to charge the crime or Article 244. Unlawful Appointments. - Any public
serious defamation. The defendant having waived his officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any
right to the preliminary investigation and the justice of public office any person lacking the legal qualifications
the peace court being of the opinion that the case did therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and
not fall within its jurisdiction, the record of the case was a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
forwarded to the Court of First Instance of the province
for trial on the merits. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.THE
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) and
Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO
guilty and the case was tried. After the prosecution had G.R. No. 164185 July 23, 2008
rested its case, the accused, thru his counsel, filed a
motion to quash on the grounds the facts alleged in ISSUE:
the information did not constitute the crime of serious Whether or not Villapando is guilty of the crime of
oral defamation and that the evidence presented was Unlawful appointment under article 244 of the Revised
insufficient to convict him of any criminal offense. The Penal Code.
prosecution opposed the motion to quash, but the trial
court, in its order of November 3, 1956 - finding that FACTS:
the evidence adduced by the prosecution establish the This is a petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the
crime of intriguing against honor penalized by article Ombudsman towards the decision of the
364 of the revised Penal Code, which is within the Sandiganbayan, granting private respondent Alejandro
exclusive jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court A. Villapando's Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting
to try, and not oral defamation as defined and him of the crime of unlawful appointment under Article
punished under article 358 of the same code - granted 244 of the Revised Penal Code.
the motion and dismissed the case with costs de oficio.
In that the same order the court directed the provincial Mayor Villapando was the duly elected Municipal
fiscal to file the corresponding action before the Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan when the alleged crime
proper justice of the peace court. The prosecution was committed. On July 1998, the accused appointed
moved for reconsideration of the order but the motion Orlando Tiape, who lost in May 1998 election, as
having been denied, it appealed directly to this Court. Municipal Administrator of the said municipality.

However, respondents contend that the appointee

possesses all the qualifications stated in Article 244 of
the Revised Penal Code.
On the other hand, petitioner argues that the

Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction because its interpretation of Article 244 of
the Revised Penal Code does not complement the
provision on the one-year prohibition found in the
1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code.
HELD:
Yes. Villapandos contention and the Sandiganbayan,
Fourth Divisions interpretation of the term legal
disqualification lack cogency. Article 244 of the Revised
Penal Code cannot be circumscribed lexically. Legal
disqualification cannot be read as excluding temporary
disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal
prohibitions under Section 6, Article IX of the 1987
Constitution and Section 94(b) of the Local
Government Code of 1991. Its interpretation of the
term legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised
Penal Code defies legal cogency. Legal disqualification
cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification
in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions
under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government
Code of 1991.
We reiterate the legal maxim ubi lex non distinguit nec

nosdistinguere debemus. Basic is the rule in statutory
construction that where the law does not distinguish,
the courts should not distinguish. There should be no
distinction in the application of a law where none is
indicated.
The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division having acted with

grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the basic
rules of statutory construction resulting in its decision
granting Villapandos Demurrer to Evidence and
acquitting the latter, we can do no less but declare its
decision null and void.
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 20,

2004 of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in
granting private respondent Alejandro A. Villapandos
Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of the crime
of unlawful appointment under Article 244 of the
Revised Penal Code is hereby declared NULL and VOID.
Let the case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan,
Fourth Division, for further proceedings.

towards Brgy. Bocboc of the same municipality, to

TITLE FOURTEEN – QUASI-OFFENSES bring his two (2) minor children, Dionesio Inguito, Jr.
(Dionesio, Jr.) and Cherry Inguito (Cherry), to school.
April 19, 2018 – Article 365 – IMPRUDENCE AND While they were ascending the curving road going to
NEGLIGENCE Bocboc on their proper lane on the right side of the
DELA PEÑA, Clarisse J road, a Toyota Land Cruiser (Land Cruiser)driven by
Rogelio was swiftly descending the same lane from the
G.R. NO. L-24084 NOVEMBER 3, 1925 opposite direction. Dionesio, Sr. blew the horn of his
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, motorcycle to signal the Land Cruiser to return to its
VS. proper lane but the Land Cruiser remained.8 In order
PEDRO RAMIREZ, to avoid collision, Dionesio, Sr. tried to swerve to the
left, but the Land Cruiser suddenly swerved towards
ISSUE: the same direction and collided head-on with the
Is the defendant criminally liable, and if so, did he act motorcycle.
with malice?
As a result of the collision, Dionesio, Sr. and his 2
FACTS: children were thrown off the motorcycle. Dionesio, Sr.
The defendant, along with Victoriano Ranga, the was pinned beneath the Land Cruiser, while Cherry and
deceased, and Agustin Menor, were invited by one Dionesio, Jr. were thrown over the hood of the Land
Bartolome Quiaoit to hunt in the mount Balitok of the Cruiser and fell on the side of the road, causing injuries
municipality of Nueva Era, Province of Ilocos Norte. The to their legs. Siblings Rolf, Cherry, and Jenny Ann
three proceeded to hunt, leaving Quiaoit in a hut Aquino, who were traversing the same road aboard
approximately 1 kilometer from the scene of the crime. their own motorcycle, stopped to help and placed the
Upon arrival on said mount Balitok, defendant, who victims together on the rightmost side of the road
was then carrying the shotgun of Quiaoit and a lantern, facing Brgy. Bocboc, while Rogelio remained inside the
happened to hunt a deer, and thereafter told his Land Cruiser.
companions to stay there, watch over the prey, while
he was going away looking for another; that being far In view of the foregoing mishap, the provincial
away from his companions, he seemed to have seen prosecutor filed an Information charging Rogelio for
with his lantern something like the eyes of a deer about Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with
fifty meters from him and then he shot it. But much to Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to
his surprise, on approaching what he thought was a Property "with the aggravating circumstance that
deer, it proved to be his companion, Victoriano Ranga. accused failed to lend on the spot to the injured party
such help that was in his hands to give" before the RTC.
HELD: Upon arraignment, Rogelio entered a plea of not guilty.
The Supreme Court ruled that although there was no
malice on the part of the defendant, he is still criminally HELD:
liable for homicide through reckless imprudence. The YES.
defendant, knowing that he had two companions, Reckless imprudence, as defined in Article 365 of the
should have exercised all the necessary diligence to RPC, consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing
avoid every undesirable accident. Furthermore, the act or failing to do an act from which material damage
of offering to the mother of the deceased a carabaos results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
and a horse by way of indemnity, indicates on the one the part of the person performing or failing to perform
hand that the defendant admitted the commission of such act, taking into consideration his employment or
the crime, on the other it shows that he performed that occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
act without criminal intent and only through a real and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
imprudence. place.
G.R. NO. 195671 JANUARY 21, 2015 In order to establish a motorist’s liability for the
ROGELIO J. GONZAGA, PETITIONER, negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that
VS. there was a direct causal connection between such
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. negligence and the injuries or damages complained of.
To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act
ISSUE: must be something more than a mere negligence in
Whether or not Rogelio is guilty beyond reasonable the operation of a motor vehicle – a willful and wanton
doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting disregard of the consequences is required. Willful,
to Homicide with MDouble Serious Physical Injuries wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others
and Damage to Property punishable under Article 365 within the meaning of reckless driving statutes has
in relation to Article 263 of the RPC. been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of
action which injures another, either with knowledge
FACTS: fserious danger to others involved, or with knowledge
At around 6 o'clock in the morning of June 25, 1997, of facts which would disclose the danger to any
Dionesio Inguito, Sr. (Dionesio, Sr.) was driving his reasonable person. Verily, it is the inexcusable lack of
motorcycle along Brgy. Kiara, Don Carlos, Bukidnon precaution or conscious indifference to the

consequences of the conduct which supplies the

criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence
and imprudence under the operation of the penal law,
without regard to whether the private offended party
may himself be considered likewise at fault.
In the present case, the RTC and the CA uniformly

found that Rogelio’s act of driving very fast on the
wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of the
collision, resulting to the death of Dionesio, Sr. and
serious physical injuries to Dionesio, Jr. and Cherry.
Notably, the road where the incident occurred was a
curve sloping upwards towards Brgy. Bocboc where the
Inguitos were bound and descending towards the
opposite direction where Rogelio was going. Indeed,
the very fact of speeding, under such circumstances, is
indicative of imprudent behavior. As a motorist,
Rogelio was bound to exercise ordinary care in such
affair by driving at a reasonable rate of speed
commensurate with the conditions encountered, as
this would enable him to keep the vehicle under
control and avoid injury to others using the highway.
Moreover, it is elementary in traffic school that a driver
slows down before negotiating a curve as it may be
reasonably anticipated that another vehicle may
appear from the opposite direction at any moment.
Hence, excessive speed, combined with other
circumstances such as the occurrence of the accident
on or near a curve, as in this case, constitutes
negligence. Consequently, the Court finds that Rogelio
acted recklessly and imprudently in driving at a fast
speed on the wrong side of the road while approaching
the curve where the incident happened, thereby
rendering him criminally liable, as well as civilly
accountable for the material damages resulting
therefrom. Nonetheless, while the CA and the RTC
concurred that the proximate cause of the collision was
Rogelio’s reckless driving, the CA Decision made no
mention as to the presence or absence of the limiting
element in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC,
which imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon
the offender who "fails to lend on the spot to the
injured parties such help as may be in his hands to
give." Based on case law, the obligation under this
paragraph: (a) is dependent on the means in the hands
of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of assistance
that he/she, at the time and place of the incident, is
capable of giving; and (b) requires adequate proof.

Crim

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationnone

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW II | CASE DIGESTS

1 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

FACTS: In a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe

2 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

3 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

4 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

The accused-appellants questioned the jurisdiction of

The pumpboat of the Pilapil brothers broke down, as a

5 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

the pertinent provision was widened to include

6 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

7 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

Ang Cho Kio was onboard PAL flight heading to Aparri

He then ordered the pilot, Pedro Perlas, to change

For the first charge, he was sentenced to prision mayor

The accused committed two separate crimes, murder

Complex crime is defined as a single act constituting

8 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

TITLE TWO – CRIMES AGAINST THE FELICIANO GALVANTE VS HON. ORLANDO C.

November 30, 2017 – Art. 125 – DELAY IN THE

9 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUE: Whether or not the officers of the Office of the

10 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

December 1, 2017- Article 127- EXPULSION FACTS:

11 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

FELICIANO GALVANTE vs. HON. ORLANDO C. PAPA VS MAGO

12 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

13 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

14 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

The respondent mayor gave them permission to use

15 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

FACTS: B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies

16 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

establish the intent of the accused in committing the

The offense falls within the provisions of article 223 and

17 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

TITLE THREE – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HELD:

The HERNANDEZ and their co-conspirators, being then

18 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

19 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate

20 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

As held in People v. Hernandez, supra: Petronilo Portugal’s testimony was disregarded. He

21 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

22 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

was not a Communist conspiring to commit the actual

23 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

On 1951 election, Punzalan ran for reelection. To ISSUE:

24 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

25 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

statement and done an act which suggested and

26 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

HELD: As is made clear in Section 15 of Article VI, the

27 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

28 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUE: 2. When the offender is a public officer or employee

29 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

30 | JMC COLLEGE OF LAW