Compiled Cases in Criminal Law 2

8/19/2019 Compiled Cases in Criminal Law 2

1/41

90 Ong Chuin Kwan vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

After ling against the petitioner Ong Chuin Kwan on January 31,

1991 by assistant city prosecutor Andres Bayona before the unicipal trial

court of Bacolod city, charging the accused un!ust "e#ation for cutting the

electric wires, water pipes, and telephone lines of $crazy feet” % A business

establish&ent owned and operated by the co&plainant ildred Ong% 'he

accused did not deny the allegations and rendering such actions not ha"ing

ac(uired a per&it fro& proper authorities while such electric wires, water

pipes, and telephone line crossed his property lines% After due trial, the 'C

of Bacolod city, found the accused guilty of un!ust "e#ation, rendering hi& of

)* days of i&prison&ent and to pay pri"ate co&plainant &oral da&es,

e#e&plary da&ages, and attorney+s fee% On appeal to the 'C of Bacolod

city, a-r&ed the decision of the lower court, without stating the reason for

doing so% .ence, the accused appealed on CA, where a-r&ed the decision of

the lower court despite of the nullity of the decision of 'C, where it "iolated

the constitutional pro"ision in rendering a decision%

Issue: /hether or not the court erred in rendering the penalties for the

accused%

Held:

'he accused ad&itted the allegations and failed to show the he had

ac(uired the authority to relocate the lines, where it happened a0ects the

business operation of the co&plainant% 'he petitioner un!ustly annoyed or

"e#ed the co&plainant% Conse(uently, the petitioner is liable for un!ust

"e#ation as dened under Art%)2 par%) of C% .owe"er, the court foundthat the award for &oral, e#e&plary da&ages and attorney+s fee has no

basis in law, hereby it was deleted% 'he decision of the lower courts is

re"ersed and set aside% 'he accused was sentenced to pay )**%**ph and the

costs%


2/41

91 eople vs. !e"es

Facts:

On October 1), 1992, O1 olato caught the accused 4anilo eyesand his co5perpetrator at about )a& forcibly too6 the wristwatch and

stabbed fro& behind by one of the assailants the "icti& 4onaldo 7al&orin Jr%

O1 olato has been the star witness for the prosecution, it happened when

he had witnessed the actual co&&ission of the cri&e by the accused

together with his conspirator% /here the egional 'rial Court of alabonrendered its decision after trial, con"icted 4anilo eyes y Batac beyond

reasonable doubt, guilty of the cri&e robbery with ho&icide, sentenced to

reclusion perpetua and to pay the father of the "icti& the su& of 8*,***%**

for the "icti&+s life, and another 8*,***%** for &oral da&ages for the pain

su0ered by the "icti& and his fa&ily, and 2,***%** for the actual da&ages

such as the burial of the "icti&% .ence, the accused appealed after his

con"iction, contending that the lower court erred in pro"ing his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt, and gi"ing, credence to the testi&ony of O1 olato%

Issue: /hether or not the lower court erred in con"icting the accused:

Held:

;o, the lower court did not erred in con"icting the accused% 4espite

the contention of the accused as to who& the wristwatch belong, the

contention of the accused has no &erit that he argues that the intention of

the perpetrators is to retrie"e the watch, hence, the actual ta6ing of the

property which its possession belongs to another by using force and "iolence

produce a felony which is robbery% 'he alibi by the accused was not able to

con"ince court, but the testi&ony of O1 olato is &ore con"incing to pro"ethe guilt of the accused, a single witness &ay held the guilt of the accused%

.owe"er, where the accused con"icted as co5principal of the cri&e

contented that they+re not conspiracy in co&&itting the cri&e, in the case at

bar, perpetrators perfor&s di0erent parts in perfor&ing the e#ecution of the

cri&e, e"en if there+s an absence of for&al conspiracy, it is su-cient that

they had perfor&ed concerted e0orts in e#ecuting the cri&e% .ence, the


3/41

court a-r&s the decision of the lower court, wherefore 4anilo 7al&orin Jr% y

Batac found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri&e robbery with

ho&icide%

9# eople vs. $uela

Facts:

Brothers sol"e therobbery and the slaying of =abilo where in fact


4/41

of the pri"ate co&plainant to gi"e the &oney to the latter in e#change for

infor&ation% .ence,


5/41

9' eople vs. Hipona

Facts:

At so&e ti&e on June 1), )*** in Cagayan 4e Oro, ichael .ipona

together with o&ulo 7e"a Jr% and John 4oe, his co5accused, conspired and

feloniously had a carnal 6nowledge to the o0ended party AAA, who& was the

aunt of ichael .ipona% /hile on the occasion, the accused, with e"ident

pre&editation, treachery and abuse of superior strength and dwelling,

cho6ed and strangulated the "icti&% 'he accused5appellant stole the"aluable ite&s of the "icti& but was conscated when he was apprehended%

Issue:

/hether accused5appellant is liable of the cri&e of robbery with

ho&icide

Held:

Des% obbery was the &ain intent of the latter as shown on the case at

bar, rape should ha"e been appreciated as aggra"ating circu&stanceinstead% 'he decision of CA wherefore, is a-r&ed with &odication% ichael

.ipona was guilty of robbery with ho&icide% 7o ordered%


6/41


7/41


8/41

prepare dinner, she heard gunre and saw Alfredo fall to the ground% 7he

rushed to e&brace the bleeding Alfredo who then told her that he had been

shot% elicidad shouted for her children, and then fainted% Alar&ed by the

bursts of gunre, the children rushed downstairs and saw their bloodied

father lying on the Ioor beside their unconscious &other% 7econds later,

elicidad regained consciousness and told the children that their father was

already dead% Appellant eyes pointed his gun to elicidad and ;estor

pointed his gun to eynaldo who is about &eters away fro& hi&, the two

unidentied &alefactor as6ed for the chainsaw, and one of the 8 accused

enter the house of the "icti&, where they found the chainsaw and the palay

which they unlawfully too6 fro& the "icti&% After see6ing for help and by the

state&ents of the "icti&s who identied appellant onnie eyes and ;estor

agal and despite of the denial of the culprits, the Court nds the accused

onnie eyes and ;estor agal =?@'D beyond reasonable doubt of the cri&e

of robbery in band with ho&icide and hereby sentences each of the& to thepenalty of reclusion perpetua% 'hey are also ordered to pay, !ointly and

se"erally, to the heirs of Alfredo acadaeg representing death inde&nity,

actual da&ages and co&pensatory da&ages%

Issue: /hether or not '.< '@A CO?'


9/41

concerted &anner by which appellants and their co&panions perpetrated the

cri&e showed beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy% /here

conspiracy is established, it &atters not who a&ong the accused actually

shot and 6illed the "icti&% 'he consistent doctrinal rule is that when a

ho&icide ta6es place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those

who too6 part shall be guilty of the special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with

ho&icide whether or not they actually participated in the 6illing, unless there

is proof that they had endea"oured to pre"ent the 6illing%

/.


10/41

An infor&ation for robbery with ho&icide was led in the 'C of Cebu

City against anuel and Jose that the said accused, conni"ing and

confederating together and &utually helping each other, ar&ed with bladed

weapons and handguns, with deliberate intent to 6ill, then and there attac6,

assault and use personal "iolence upon one enito


11/41

Facts:

'he @nfor&ation charges accused5appellant with robbery in band with

ho&icide dened and penalied under Article )9 Gas a&ended by %A% 2F89Hand Article )9F of the e"ised enal Code%

Accused5appellant argues ne"ertheless that assu&ing that he had

indeed participated in the incident, he should only be held liable for robbery

and not for the special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with ho&icide% or so he

clai&s, the shooting of =o&e by his co&panions was beyond his

conte&plation and he ne"er intended to perpetrate any 6illing, hence, only

the actual perpetuators of the 6illing should be held liable therefore and the

6illing should not be appreciated to increase his liability% .e further adds that

his carrying pf a rear& was only for the purpose of threatening the "icti&sso that they would not o0er any resistance to hi& and his co&panions%

Issue: /hether or not accused shall be held liable for robbery and not forthe special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with ho&icide%

Held: 'hat accused5appellant did not shoot =o&e is i&&aterial% Article)9 G1H of the e"ised enal Code is clear and lea"es no roo& for any other

interpretation% or, for robbery with ho&icide to e#ist, it is su-cient that a

ho&icide results by reason or on the occasion of robbery% 'he law of course

e#culpates a person who ta6es part in the robbery fro& the special co&ple#

cri&e of robbery with ho&icide and punishes hi& only for si&ple robbery

when there is proof that he tried to pre"ent the ho&icide% ;o such proof,

howe"er, was o0ered%

/hene"er ho&icide is co&&itted as a conse(uence or on the occasion

of the robbery, all those who too6 part as principals in the robbery will also

be held guilty as principals in the special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with

ho&icide although they did not ta6e part in the ho&icide, unless it is clearly

shown that they endea"oured to pre"ent the ho&icide%


12/41

99 eople vs. Capos

Facts: On or about the 12th day of August 199, in Caloo6an City, etro5anila and within the !urisdiction of this .onorable Court, the abo"e5na&ed

accused, conspiring together and &utually helping one another, with intent

to gain and by &eans of force, "iolence and inti&idation e&ployed on the

person of one


13/41

ti&e, he was at ho&e in alaria, @lang5@lang 7treet, 'ala, Caloocan City% ?pon

further (uestioning, accused Ale!andro Ca&pos ad&itted that he went to the

&ini5&art on the e"ening of August 1F, 199, at the call of accused enato

dela Cru% Accused Ca&pos clai&ed that he stayed outside the store when

accused dela Cru entered the &ini&art% o&ents later, accused Ca&pos

heard shouts of wo&en inside and saw accused dela Cru e&erge fro& the

store% Accused dela Cru entrusted a 6nife into the hands of accused

Ca&pos and told hi& to 6eep it% Accused Ca&pos wal6ed away fro& the

store, holding the 6nife% .e failed to notice that the 6nife was bloodied%

Accused enato dela Cru, dri"er and careta6er of the hardware store owned

by elipa Jacobe, denied any in"ol"e&ent in the cri&e% .e alleged that

Ale!andro Ca&pos i&plicated hi& in this serious cri&e because the latter

was en"ious that he was recei"ing a higher salary than the other e&ployees

of elipa Jacobe%.e clai&ed that at around 9N** in the e"ening of August 1F,

199, he was at his residence, * &eters away fro& the &ini&art, on thenight in (uestion%.e played se"eral ga&es of ussian po6er or pusoy with his

friends until 11N** in the e"ening when his wife told hi& to go to sleep% At

around 1N** in the &orning, his wife wo6e hi& up because so&ebody was

calling hi& outside their house% /hen accused dela Cru opened the door,

he saw se"eral police&en who told hi& that rs% elipa Jacobe wanted to see

hi&% .e went with the police&en but later realied that he was being ta6en

to the police station% 'here, the police&en infor&ed hi& that so&ething

happened to ercelina and elicidad Alfaro% Accused dela Cru stated that

he 6new nothing about the incident% ater, police&en too6 hi& to the

hospital where elicidad Alfaro was lying unconscious% Accused dela Cru

saw atrol&an Antonio aras atte&pting to tal6 to elicidad% ater, accused

dela Cru and the police&en left the hospital% Accused dela Cru did not see

elicidad point to hi& as one of the suspects% @t was only at% Antonio aras

who told hi& that elicidad identied hi& as one of the suspects% On October

), 199*, the trial court rendered a decision, the Court nds the accused

Ale!andro Ca&pos y Ar&ado and enato dela Cru y Borac guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of obbery with .o&icide with rustrated .o&icide as

charged and hereby sentences each accused to su0er i&prison&ent of


14/41

credited with the full period of their pre"enti"e i&prison&ent pursuant to Art%

)9 of the e"ised enal Code pro"ided the re(uire&ents listed therein ha"e

been co&plied with%

Issue: /hether or not the trial court erred in con"icting accused5appellant4ela Cru in his participation in the cri&e%

Held: /e nd insu-cient e"idence to show that accused5appellant delaCru was guilty of the rst three ele&ents of robbery with ho&icide% @n

robbery with ho&icide cases, the robbery itself &ust be pro"ed as

conclusi"ely as any other essential ele&ent of the cri&e% obbery is the

ta6ing of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by

&eans of "iolence against or inti&idation of any person or by using force

upon things% @n this case, all that the witness elicidad saw that night was the

stabbing of her sister, not the ta6ing of personal property% 'he ta6ing cannotbe assu&ed fro& the actions of accused5appellant as seen by elicidad% 7he

saw hi& at the doorway and then noticed hi& running out the store after the

stabbing occurred% elicidad clai&ed that the bag purportedly containing

&oney was reco"ered e&pty the ne#t day% .owe"er, it was undisputed that

"arious persons had entered the store of the "icti&s after the incident,

including in"estigators and onloo6ers% 'he bag was not conclusi"ely shown

to contain &oney nor was the &oney e"er reco"ered% urther, there was no

substantial lin6 fro& the loss of the contents of the bag to the accused, for

the &oney was ne"er seen in the possession of the accused% In this case, there

was no clear indication of the existence of conspiracy. irst, eyewitnessM identication of

accused5appellant at the scene of the cri&e was not clear% Although the

witness was fa&iliar with the accused5appellant, the lac6 of lighting in the

store at the ti&e left doubt as to her proper identication of accused5

appellant, who was se"eral &eters away fro& her% 7econd, elicidad &erely

stated that she saw hi& standing by the door of the store% ere presence at

the scene of the cri&e is insu-cient to pro"e conspiracy, a conspirator &ust

perfor& an o"ert act in furtherance of the plan to co&&it a felony &ere

presence at the scene of the incident, 6nowledge of the plan or ac(uiescence

thereto is not su-cient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator% erepresence, 6nowledge, ac(uiescence to or agree&ent to cooperate, is not

enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any acti"e

participation in the co&&ission of the cri&e, with a "iew to the furtherance

of the co&&on design and purpose% 'he Court


15/41

enato dela Cru is hereby ACL?@''


16/41

once inside, did, then and there, wilfully and unlawfully cart away the

following personal propertiesN 1 colored 'E, 1 E.7, assorted !ewelleries, 1

alar& cloc6 and 1 radio cassette, all "alued at F*,***%**, and that on the

sa&e occasion, the said accused feloniously ha"e se#ual intercourse with

aribeth Bolito against her will to the da&age of the said "icti&s%

Issue: /hether accused5appellants are guilty of the cri&e of obbery withape%

Held:

On the &atter of whether rape was co&&itted, the 7C agreed with

the trial court+s ruling that the healed lacerations on the "agina of the "icti&

nor the absence of sper&atooa negates rape% 'he "icti&+s declaration of

her se#ual ordeal gi"en in a con"incing &anner shows no other intent than to

obtain !ustice for the wrong done to her% /herefore, the court nds the

accused5appellants guilty of the cri&e of obbery with ape%

101 eople vs. aa"o

Facts:

On arch )9, 199, ary Ann =uaon, a )5year old sewer, was alone

in her ho&e in 'atalon, Lueon City, her husband at wor6 in Baliwag,

Bulacan, while her children are with her aunt in air"iew, Lueon City% At 1 in


17/41

the &orning, she was suddenly roused fro& her sleep by a &an, who

si&ultaneously co"ered her &outh and po6ed a 6nife to at the side of her

nec6% 7he was told not to &o"e or she would be 6illed% 'he light on her

house has been turned o0, but she recognied the &an as accused5appellant

;elson 'a&ayo, because of the light co&ing fro& the &ar6et outside%

4espite the erce resistance ary Ann showed, the accused succeeded on

raping her% After he had nished, she sensed that the accused was going to

6ill her% 7he thus pretended that she en!oyed the encounter and pleaded

with hi& to spare her% Accused relented and warned her not to report the

incident or else she will be 6illed% .e told her to get dressed and hand o"er

her clothes% @t was then that she disco"ered that the 8**%** she earned

fro& doing laundry that day, which she 6ept in her shorts+ poc6et, was gone%

Issue: /hether the trial court erred in nding accused5appellant guilty of special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with rape, despite his guilt not ha"ing been

pro"en beyond reasonable doubt%

Held: Des% 'he court nds his identication as the perpetrator of the cri&eto be positi"e and certain% @t was su-ciently e#plained that the light co&ing

fro& the &ar6et was bright enough to enable co&plainant to identify hi& as

the one who raped her% 'he o0ended party, after the cri&e, strengthened

her account and fortied her credibility% ;o decent and sensible wo&an willpublicly ad&it being a rape "icti& and thus run the ris6 of public conte&pt

unless she is in fact a rape "icti&%

10# eople vs. &oingo

Facts:


18/41

Around 11N** p%&% of October )3, 1993, pri"ate co&plainant Ealentin=abertan was lounging outside his house while his children lay asleep, when

he heard the incessant bar6ing of dogs in the co&pound% 'he =abertan

co&pound, located at 7itio alasin, Balintocatoc, 7antiago, @sabela, consist

of two &ain houses one, where the children and a young houseboy stay and

sleep and the other, where Ealentin and his wife, Clara retire for the

e"ening% 'here are also se"eral barns to house the cows, goats and

do&estic fowls% Clara, who was then reposed on the bed, heard the bar6ing

at the sa&e ti&e% @nstincti"ely, Clara stood up and too6 out a Iashlight% 7he

i&&ediately ga"e it to her husband, who was then ar&ed with a bolo, to aid

hi& in chec6ing out the disturbance% Ealentin hadP not wal6ed far fro& the

house when three &en suddenly entered the co&pound while two others

stayed outside% 'he &en, initially identifying the&sel"es as &e&bers of the

;ew eople+s Ar&y G;AH, ferociously as6ed Ealentin for &oney% 'urned o0

by the de&and, Ealentin at once retorted that they could not be &e&bers of the ;As as ;As do not as6 for &oney% 'he &en, howe"er, were

un&as6ed% Ealentin instantly recognied their faces as that of appellant and

his co5accused% @t was easy for Ealentin to recognie appellant, ha"ing

6nown hi& for the past ten years, as the latter usually passed by their house

when he went shing% Appellant and his co5accused were each ar&ed with a

piece of wood% ?nruQed by Ealentin+s response, appellant and his co5

accused nonetheless persisted% 'hey de&anded guns and docu&ents or

certicates for the large cattle and as6ed who the owner of the cows was%

Ealentin, howe"er, atte&pted to ward o0 the i&pending danger now reposed

iPn hi&% .e pro&ptly hac6ed one of the &en identied as Joel 'e&poralP on

his right ar&% A struggle ensued% Ealentin, howe"er, was easily outnu&bered

by the intruders as the latter clubbed hi& at the sa&e ti&e% Ealentin soon

let go of his defense when the intruders atte&pted to hurt his son% At this

ti&e, Clara sensed an intense le"el of fear as she stood froen beside a table

where a 6erosene la&p was lighted% @t only too6 a few &inutes when Joel

'e&poral barged in, struc6 the 6erosene la&p and o&inously threatened, R@

will 6ill you if you will not gi"e &e what @ want%+ Joel 'e&poral thereafter

pulled Clara out of the house where she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass%

eanti&e, Ealentin could only watch his wife being pulled away as he wasrendered wea6 and i&&obile at the clubbing he recei"ed at a &o&ent+s

resistance% Jessing Ealde and .eherson i"era stood guard% .is atte&pt to

rescue his wife was o"erta6en by the necessity to protect the son he was

now e&bracing lest the intruders "ent their rage on hi&% Clara+s dress and

panty were torn away% .er hands were held by appellant and her feet also

held by Benedicto edro% Joel 'e&poral put hi&self on top of Clara and went


19/41

inside her% After he consu&&ated his lust, appellant ca&e in ne#t% Benedicto

edro also too6 his turn% or his part, Jessing Ealde left Ealentin and his son

and rushed in to satiate, too, his carnal desire% Once nished, all four &en

chec6ed on Ealentin but ca&e bac6 to see Clara, stepping on her "agina in

the process% Agonied, Clara could only utter, R4on+t you ha"e pity on &e,

you people fro& Bannawag:+ Appellant and his co5accused thereafter left,

bringing with the& two chic6ens and nine tur6eys which were carried around

their nec6s% Ealentin rushed to his wife+s side and could only e&brace her% A

few &inutes, later, neighbors and friends eonardo alafo# and Celestino

Capa ca&e to their succour% At this ti&e, Ealentin had di-culty

breathing% .e could not be rushed to the hospital i&&ediately because

there was no transport a"ailable% Ealentin and Clara had to content

the&sel"es to await the dawn% Bac6 at the house, howe"er, &oney and a

7ei6o gold5plated watch were found &issing fro& Clara+s bag%

Both Ealentin and Clara e#hibited no (ual&s in identifying the perpetrators

of the cri&e pinpointing their neighbors fro& Bannawag ;orte, 7antiago City

555 Joel 'e&poral, Benedicto edro, appellant Boy 4o&ingo, .eherson i"era

and Jessing Ealde%

Appellant, on the other hand, argues that his guilt was not pro"en beyond

reasonable doubt%

$'he defense presented in e"idence the testi&ony of accused Boy

4o&ingo% .e testied that in the &onth of October 1993, he was har"estingpalay so&ewhere in Barangay 7al"ador, 7antiago City% On October )3, 1993,

he started wor6ing at 2N** o+cloc6 in the &orning up to 8N** o+cloc6 in the

afternoon% Afterwards, he proceeded to the house of his sister% /hile in the

house of his sister, he rested for a whileP, ate supper at N** o+cloc6 in the

e"ening and went to sleep% After nishing his wor6 on October 31, 1993, he

went ho&e to the house of his &other in Bannawag, 7antiago City% .e was

apprehended on July )2, 199 while dri"ing a tricycle% 'he ne#t witness

presented was lorentina ingaron, the sister of accused Boy 4o&ingo% 7he

testied that her brother Boy 4o&ingo stayed at her place in 7al"ador,

7antiago City fro& October 3, 1993P in order to do so&e har"esting% .er

brother stayed with her for about a &onth% On October )3, 1993P at around

N** o+cloc6 in the e"ening herP brother was at ho&e sleeping and did not

lea"e the house% 4uring the &onth herP brother stayed with her, he did not

lea"e the place at all e#cept when he wentP to the far& to har"est% 'he ne#t

witness was epito artin who corroborated the testi&ony of accused5


20/41

appellant Boy 4o&ingo that the latter wor6ed in his far& fro& October 8,

1993 up to October 31, 1993% .e clai&ed that the accused wor6ed on his

far& fro& 2N** o+cloc6 up to 11N** o+cloc6 in the &orning and fro& )N**

o+cloc6 up to 8N** o+cloc6 in the afternoon% On October ), 1993, he saw the

accused5appellant har"esting on his far& the whole day% 'he ne#t witness

was 7onny 7olo&on% .e testied that on October )3, 1993 as well as

October ), 1993 he saw the accused5appellant wor6 oPn the far& of r%

artin because they were together at that ti&e% 'he last witness for the

defense was Barangay Captain odante Angel% .e testied that he had

6nown the accused Boy 4o&ingo Jr% since the latter was a child% According to

hi&, the accused hadP no derogatory record at all% .e issued a certication

attesting to this fact% Conse(uently, 'C ruled that appellant was guilty of

the special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with &ultiple raped% @t concluded that

the principal intention of appellant and his co5accused was to rob

co&plainants and that the rape was a &ere afterthought%

Issue: /hether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the defense of alibi interposed by accused5appellant Boy 4o&ingo%

Held: A wo&an will not e#pose herself to the hu&iliation of a trial, with itsattendant publicity and the &orbid curiosity it would arouse, unless she has

been truly wronged and see6s atone&ent for her abuse% /e are not

con"inced% /ell5settled is the rule that alibi is always "iewed with suspicion,

because it is inherently wea6 and unreliable% 'he defense of alibi assu&es

signicance or strength when it is a&ply corroborated by a credible witness%

or alibi to prosper, the accused &ust be able to pro"e his presence at

another place at the ti&e of the perpetration of the o0ense and de&onstrate

that it was physically i&possible for hi& at that ti&e to ha"e been at the

scene of the cri&e% Based on the foregoing, the alibi of appellant cannot

pre"ail o"er the positi"e identication &ade by credible witnesses% Absent

any plausible i&putation of ill &oti"e on their part to falsely accuse or

i&plicate hi&, their candid and consistent testi&onies should be gi"en full

faith and credit% .ence, the appeal is DENIED, and the 'C 4ecision

is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is con"icted of robberywith rape and shall pay actual da&ages, inde&nity e# delicto, another &oral

da&ages and e#e&plary da&ages%


21/41

10% eople vs. ago

Facts:

'he accused eyderic6 ago, ar&ed with a bladed weapon,

conspiring and confederating together and &utually helping orP aiding each

other, with intent to gain, by &eans of force upon things, did, then and there

wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Ben!a&in ay&undo y

7ta% 'eresa, by then and there re&o"ing one blade of the glass window

!alousie near the door, and once inside the house, ta6e, steal and carry awaycash, &oney and !ewelries belonging to said Ben!a&in ay&undo y 7ta%

'eresa, to the da&age and pre!udice of the latter that on the occasion of the

said robbery and for the purpose of enabling the& to ta6e, steal and carry

away the said cash, &oney and !ewelries, in pursuance of their conspiracy

and to insure the success of their cri&inal act, with intent to 6ill, did, then

and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab said Ben!a&in ay&undo y


22/41


23/41

City when she passed the dar6 alley in her cousinMs co&pound she was

accosted by so&eone, later identied as accused5appellant ernando %

7ultan, who pointed a sharp instru&ent at her nec6 and announcing it was a

Shold5up%S .e grabbed her and brought her to a house along the alley which

turned out to be his% Once inside the house, he &ade her sit down% .e

o0ered her a drin6 she refused it% 'hen he started di"esting her of her

watch, ring, earrings, and nec6lace, and her cash% After ta6ing her "aluables,

he started 6issing her on the lips and chee6s% As if to discourage hi& fro&

&a6ing further se#ual ad"ances, she told hi& that she was &arried with two

children but accused5appellant was not dissuaded fro& pursuing his

intentions% /hile pointing an ice pic6 at her he ordered her to undress% 7he

acceded for fear that he would 6ill her as she was under constant threat%

After she had co&pletely undressed, accused5appellant ordered her to lie

down on the Ioor% .e then 6issed her again fro& head down% 7till she could

not resist hi& because of fear% .e went on top of her, held her two hands onthe le"el of her head, spread her thighs and inserted his penis into her

"agina% 'he coital encounter lasted for ten to fteen &inutes% After satisfying

his lust, he ordered her to put on her bra and panty, tied her hands and went

out of the roo& to s&o6e% After ten to fteen &inutes, he ca&e bac6, untied

her, and once again with threat and inti&idation se#ually abused her%

'hereafter, he tied her hands to a protruding piece of wood in the roo& and

held her in his ar&s% 7he cried% .e told her that he lo"ed her and that he

would answer for what he had done to her% 'hey tal6ed until noon the

following day without sleeping% @n her e0ort to release herself fro& his

clutches she SagreedS to elope with hi&% erhaps con"inced that she was

going to run away with hi&, he allowed her to go ho&e at noon to get her

things% 7he was then staying with her cousin ;ita 4el osario% .e e"en

acco&panied her to the highway to get a ride ho&e% Juditha lost no ti&e in

narrating her harrowing e#perience to her sister% @&&ediately Antonette

called her brother 7O1 ernando % Bautista who resides in Bulacan 7O1

Bautista arri"ed at around 3N** or N** o+cloc6 in the afternoon and was told

about what happened% .e then ad"ised Juditha to go bac6 to the house of

accused5appellant for the Splanned elope&entS so that he and his two

co&panions could stage an arrest% On their way to the house of accused5appellant, Juditha rode in a passenger !eep with her sister Antonette and

cousin ;ita while her brother and his two co&panions followed the& on

board an T' Ean% Juditha alighted near the house of accused5appellant while

her co&panions waited for her and accused5appellant along the highway%

/hen she arri"ed at accused5appellant+s place, he was already waiting for

her outside the store nearby% 'hey went inside his house and ca&e out


24/41

twenty &inutes later% 'hey boarded a passenger bus while 7O1 Bautista

and his co&panions trailed the&% /hen the bus reached the corner of orest

.ill 7ubdi"ision, =ulod, ;o"aliches, it slowed down because of the tra-c thus

&a6ing it easier for 7O1 Bautista and his co&panions to board the bus%

?pon seeing her brother and his co&panions, Juditha &otioned to the&%

'hey i&&ediately approached accused5appellant and bo#ed hi& before they

could arrest hi&% 'he other passengers of the bus !oined in hitting accused5

appellant% 'his caused a co&&otion in the bus% 7o&e police&en who were in

the barangay hall across the street saw the disturbance% 'hey boarded the

bus to nd out what happened% 'hen they assisted in facilitating the arrest of

accused5appellant and brought hi& to the barangay hall% On 8 June 1992 An

@nfor&ation for the special co&ple# cri&e of robbery with rape was led

against accused5appellant ernando 7ultan% 'he trial court, on 8 June 199,

found accused5appellant guilty as charged and sentenced hi& to reclusion

perpetua% .e was ordered to return to Juditha Bautista one wrist watch, onering, one pair of earrings, one nec6lace and cash in the a&ount of 13*%**,

or the pay&ent of 8,1*%** if return was not possible% Accused5appellant was

further directed to pay his "icti& 8*,***%** for &oral da&ages%

Issue: /hether or not the accused5appellant is guilty of the cri&e charged%

Held:

'he prosecution has established that he co&&itted both robbery and

rape with the intent to ta6e personal property of another preceding the

rape% Co&plaining witness Juditha Bautista was raped twice on the occasion

of the robbery, wherefore, the 4ecision of the court nding accused5

appellant


25/41


26/41

international long distance calls using respondent 4's facilities constitutes

all three acts of subtraction &entioned abo"e%

10+ ucas vs CA

Facts:

.er&inigildo ucas was charged with theft before the egional 'rial

Court of Binangonan, ial, together with /ilfredo ;a"arro and


27/41

purpose, intent and senti&ent in co&&itting the cri&e% 'hus, it is not

re(uired that the accused were ac(uainted with one another or that there

was an agree&ent for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence%

10, eople vs. 3anero

Facts:

A hapless foreign religious &inister was riddled with bullets, his head

shattered into bits and pieces a&idst the re"elling of his e#ecutioners as

they danced and laughed around their (uarry, chanting the tune Sutya KaBalelengS, a popular regional fol6 song, 6ic6ing and sco-ng at his prostrate,

&iserable, spiritless gure that was gasping its last% 7ee&ingly unsaturated

with the igno&iny of their &anslaughter, their leader pic6ed up pieces of the

splattered brain and &oc6ingly displayed the& before horried spectators%

7o&e accounts swear that acts of cannibalis& ensued, although they were

not su-ciently de&onstrated% .owe"er, for their outrageous feat, the gang

leader already earned the &oni6er Scannibal priest56illerS But, what is

indubitable is that r% 'ulio a"ali was senselessly 6illed for no apparent

reason than that he was one of the @talian Catholic &issionaries labouring intheir "ineyard in the hinterlands of indanao% @n the after&ath of the

&urder, police authorities launched a &assi"e &anhunt which resulted in the

capture of the perpetrators e#cept Arsenio Eilla&or, Jr%, and two unidentied

persons who eluded arrest and still re&ain at large% @nfor&ation for

urder, atte&pted urder and arson were accordingly led against those

responsible for the frenied orgy of "iolence that fateful day of 11 April 198%


28/41

As these cases arose fro& the sa&e occasion, they were all consolidated in

Branch 12 of the egional 'rial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato% 'he Court nds

the accused ;orberto anero, Jr% alias Co&&ander Bucay,


29/41

atte&pted &urder of uno obles by the anero brothers and their

&ilitia&en% or sure, appellants all assu&ed a ghting stance to discourage if

not pre"ent any atte&pt to pro"ide assistance to the fallen priest% 'hey

surrounded the house of 4o&ingo =o&e to stop obles and the other

occupants fro& lea"ing so that the wounded obles &ay die of

hae&orrhage% ?ndoubtedly, these were o"ert acts to ensure success of the

co&&ission of the cri&es and in furtherance of the ai&s of the conspiracy%

'he appellants acted in concert in the &urder of r% a"ali and in the

atte&pted &urder of uno obles% /hile accused5appellants &ay not ha"e

deli"ered the fatal shots the&sel"es, their collecti"e action showed a

co&&on intent to co&&it the cri&inal acts% Conspiracy or action in concert

to achie"e a cri&inal design being su-ciently shown, the act of one is the

act of all the other conspirators, and

the precise e#tent or &odality of participation of each of the& beco&es

secondary%

/.


30/41

O/


31/41

issue% At any rate, the allegation of intent to gain, the party beneted or

pre!udiced by the falsication, or tarnishing of a docu&ent+s integrity, is not

essential to &aintain a charge for falsication of o-cial docu&ents% 7uch

charge stands if the facts alleged in the @nfor&ation fall under any of the

&odes of co&&itting falsication under Article 121 of the C% .ere, the

@nfor&ation alleges that petitioner, a public o-cer, conspiring with a pri"ate

indi"idual feloniously &ade it appear in o-cial docu&ents that &unicipal

funds totalling thirty thousand pesos were e#pended for the purchase of

lu&ber fro&


32/41

110 eople vs. $alvilla

Facts:

April 1), 19F, at about noon ti&e V etitioner, together with eynaldo,onaldo and 7i&plicio Gall surna&ed CanasaresH, staged a robbery at the;ew @loilo u&ber Dard% 'hey were ar&ed with ho&e&ade guns and a handgrenade% On their way inside the establish&ent, they &et odita .abiero, ane&ployee there who was on her way out for her &eal brea6, and infor&edher that it was a hold5up% 'hey went inside the o-ce and the petitionerpointed his gun at 7e"erino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, aryand i&&ie% 'hey infor&ed 7e"erino that all they needed was &oney%7e"erino as6ed ary to get a paper bag wherein he placed )*,*** cash andhanded it to the petitioner% 7i&plicio Canasares too6 the wallet andwristwatch of 7e"erino after which the latter, his ) daughters and oditawere 6ept inside the o-ce% According to the appellant, he stopped 7e"erinofro& getting the wallet and watches% At about )N** of the sa&e day, theappellant told 7e"erino to produce 1**,*** so he and the other hostages canbe released% 7e"erino told hi& it would be hard to do that since ban6s areclosed because it was a 7aturday% 'he police and &ilitary authorities hadsurrounded the lu&ber yard% a!or el(uiades 7e(uio, 7tation Co&&anderof the @; of @loilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to the& tosurrender% 'he accused refused to surrender and release the hostages% osaCara&, O@C ayor of @loilo City, !oined the negotiations% Appellant de&anded1**,***, a coaster, and so&e rain coats% Cara& o0ered 8*,***instead% ater, the accused agreed to recei"e the sa&e and to release oditato be acco&panied by ary in going out of the o-ce% One of the accusedga"e a 6ey to ayor Cara& and with the 6ey ayor Cara& unloc6ed the doorand handed to odita 8*,***, which odita ga"e to one of the accused%

odita was later set free but ary was herded bac6 to the o-ce% 'he policeand &ilitary authorities decided to assault the place when the accused stillwouldn+t budge after &ore ulti&atu&s% 'his resulted to in!uries to the girls,as well as to the accused onaldo and eynaldo Canasares% ary+s right leghad to be a&putated due to her in!uries% 'he appellant &aintained that the&oney, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were ne"ertouched by the&% .e also clai&ed that they ne"er red on the &ilitarybecause they intended to surrender%


33/41

Issue: /hether or not the cri&e of robbery was consu&&ated and therewas a &itigating circu&stance of "oluntary surrender%

Held:

Des, prosecution was able to establish the consu&&ation of thecri&e of robbery%;o% 'he $surrenderW of the appellant and his co5accused cannot beconsidered in their fa"our to &itigate their liability% 'o be &itigating,surrender &ust ha"e the following re(uisitesN that the o0ender had not beenactually arrested, that the o0ender surrendered hi&self to a person inauthority or to his agent, and that the surrender was "oluntary% 'he$surrenderW by the appellant and his co5accused hardly &eets thesere(uire&ents% 'here is no "oluntary surrender to spea6 of% .ence, the !udg&ent is A@


34/41

/hile it is true that the petitioner still doubt ha"e possession of the

thing since, the teller occupies a position of condence, and the ban6 places

&any in the teller+s possession due to the condence reposed on the teller,

the felony of (ualied theft would be co&&itted%

11# eople vs. 7ustinera

Facts:

7o&eti&e in 199F,


35/41

Issue: /hether or not appellant is guilty of the cri&e of (ualied theft%

Held: 'he 7upre&e Court ac(uitted uisito 4% Bustinera for the cri&e of (ualied theft but, con"icted hi& for the cri&e of carnapping under epublic

Act ;o% F839%

Appellant was con"icted of (ualied theft under Article 31* of the

e"ised enal Code, as a&ended for the unlawful ta6ing of a &otor "ehicle%

.owe"er, Article 31* has been &odied, with respect to certain "ehicles, by

epublic Act ;o% F839, as a&ended, otherwise 6nown as $an act pre"enting

and penaliing carnapping%W

@n the case at bar, the infor&ation alleges that appellant, with intent to

gain, too6 the ta#i owned by Cipriano without the latter+s consent% 'hus, the

indict&ent alleges e"ery ele&ent of the cri&e of carnapping, and the

prosecution pro"ed the sa&e%

11% eople vs. $alonga

Facts:

Accused5appellant was e&ployed by etroban6 as an actingassistant cashier% @n such capacity, he was in charge of &anaging &oney

&ar6et place&ents and pay&ents of &aturing &oney place&ent

in"est&ents% Accused5appellant was the custodian of blan6 etroban6

cashier+s chec6 which was processed and enchased% /hen a spot audit was

conducted by Arthur Christy ariano it was disco"ered that there was a

discrepancy in the proof sheet brought by the issuance of a cashier+s chec6

&ade payable to irebra6e sales and 7er"ices in the a&ount of 3F,*%**%

@n order to facilitate the illegal transaction, accused5appellant falsied the

signature of the ban6 &anager%

7alonga was charged of (ualied theft through falsication of co&&ercial

docu&ent% On July 19, 1993, the 'C rendered its decision nding 7alonga

beyond reasonable doubt of Lualied 'heft through alsication of

Co&&ercial 4ocu&ent%


36/41

Issues: /hether or not, Abelardo 7alonga is guilty of the cri&e of Lualied 'heft through alsication of Co&&ercial 4ocu&ent with penalty of reclusion

perpetua%

Held:

'he 7upre&e Court a-r&ed the decision of the Court of Appeals with&odication, reducing the penalty to reclusion te&poral% Considering the

capacity of the accused as a cashier, he co&&itted the cri&e of (ualied

theft through falsication of co&&ercial docu&ent with gra"e abuse of

condence% @n addition, falsication in this case would be absorb as co&ple#

cri&e, under article of the C $!ere an o"ense is a necessary #eansfor co##ittin$ t!e ot!er, t!e penalty for #ore serious cri#e in its #a%i#u#

period s!all &e i#posed”.

11' Cariaga vs. CA

Facts:

uis iguel Aboiti, e&ployed as syste& Analyst of the 4a"ao ight

X ower Co&pany, @nc% recei"ed reports that so&e pri"ate electricians were

engaged in the clandestine sale of 4C &aterials and supplies% .e initiated

a co"ert operation and sought the assistance of 7gt er&in Eillasis, Chief

'heft X obbery 7ection, 7an edro atrol 7tation, 4C also hired one

lorencio 7iton, a welder as underco"er agent under the pseudony& RCanuto

4uran+, an Relectrician fro& Kaba6an, Cotabato%

Canuto 4uran struc6 an ac(uaintance with one icardo Cariaga, who o0ered

to supply RCanuto 4uran+ with electrical &aterials, saying that he has a

cousin fro& who& he can procure the sa&e% .is cousin is petitioner Jonathan


37/41

Cariaga% 'he latter is an e&ployee of 4C per&anently assigned as a truc6

dri"er% .e was charge then all of the e(uip&ent and supplies 6ept in his

"ehicle% One night when stoc6roo& was closed that he had access to the

electrical supplies of said co&pany and that with gra"e abuse of condence,

he stole electrical &aterials belonging to 4C%

'he 'C found one Jonathan Cariaga guilty of theft, (ualied by gra"e abuse

of condence, aggra"ated by the use of &otor "ehicle which is not o0set of

by any &itigating circu&stance% On appeal, the CA a-r&ed the decision of

lower court%

Issue: /hether or not Jonathan Cariaga is guilty of the cri&e of (ualiedtheft%

Held:

'he 7C a-r&ed the decision of the lower court% @t has been heldthat access to the place where ta6ing too6 place or access to the stolen

ite&s changes the co&ple#ion of the cri&e co&&itted to that of (ualied

theft% 'hus, theft by a truc6 dri"er who ta6es the load of his truc6 belonging

to his e&ployer is guilty of (ualied theft as was pro"en in this case%

11( 8uianao vs. eople

Facts:

On ebruary ), 1993, at about 9N** in the &orning, at 7itio Bagacay,Brgy% etong, apinig, ;orthern 7a&ar, accused 7al"ador Cases and Conchita

Luianao, together with their other close relati"es suddenly appeared and

with use of force, "iolence and inti&idation, usurped and too6 possession of

real property owned by rancisco % del onte, clai&ing that the sa&e is their

inheritance for their ascendants and while there, dri"en out by the accused


38/41

fro& their landholding and was threatened that if he will try to return to the

land in (uestion, so&ething will happen to hi&% Co&plainant was thus forced

to see6 assistance fro& apinig ;% 'he trial court rendered its decision and

found both of the accused guilty of the cri&e of usurpation of real rights of

property% On appeal, the CA a-r&ed the decision of the trial court%

Issue: /hether or not the accused is guilty of the cri&e of the usurpationof real property%

Held:

'he 7upre&e Court a-r&ed the decision of the lower court nding theaccused guilty of usurpation of real property penalied under the re"isedpenal code article 31)% A7 shown in this case, the accused too6 possession of

the real property by &eans of force, "iolence, and inti&idation which the

property belongs a third person% .owe"er, in order to absol"e the liability of

the o0ender contended that ele&ents of the cri&e are not present and she

owns the said property% .ence, the issue of ownership o"er the land in

(uestion ha"e been decided in Ci"il Case in fa"our of the co&plainant%

urther, as established by the co&&issioner appointed by the court to loo6

into petitioner+s defense, it was found out that the area clai&ed by the

accused encroached the area of the plainti0s%

11* O- vs. eople

Facts:


39/41

Accused =oretti Ong, had for years been buying !ewelry fro& =oldAsia which is owned by the fa&ily of osa Cabuso, pri"ate co&plainant%

/hile she nor&ally bought on cash basis, she was allowed to issue post5

dated chec6s to co"er the !ewelry she bought in 4ece&ber 199 up to

ebruary 1998, upon her issuance that the chec6s would be funded on their

dates% /hen, on &aturity, of chec6s were deposited, they returned with the

sta&p $Account ClosedW% .ence, petitioner was indicted for


40/41

11+ /eloso vs. eople

Facts:

7hangri5la inest Chinese Cuisine, at ;o% 'i&es 7treet, /est 'riangle, Lueon City, is a restaurant owned and operated by the 4e"elopers

=roup of Co&panies, @nc% a&on 7y .unilong was its president and general

&anager% etitioner olando Eeloso, clai&ing to be a consultant of then

Congress&an Antonio E% Cuenco, was an occasional guest at the restaurant%

Before the ay 1998 elections, petitioner and then Congress&an Cuenco,

while at the said restaurant, had a con"ersation with a&on% 'his led to a

friendly bet between petitioner and a&on on whether or not erdinand

arcos, Jr% would win as a senator% a&on assured that arcos, Jr% is a surewinner, but petitioner clai&ed otherwise% 'hey both agreed that the loser will

host a dinner for ten persons% After the elections, o-cial results showed that

arcos, Jr% lost in his senatorial bid% .ence petitioner won in the bet%

On so&eti&e in august, Congress&an Cuenco+s secretary called


41/41

Issue: /hether or not the Court of Appeal erred in a-r&ing the 'Cdecision nding the petitioner guilty of estafa under article 318 of the re"ised

penal code%

Held:

'he 7C a-r&ed the decision of the CA nding the petitioner onaldo

Eeloso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri&e of estafa%

'he court found that petitioner and his guests, occupying four tables, ate the

food he ordered% /hen as6ed to pay, he refused to pay he refused and

insisted he was a &ere guest of a&on% @t &anifest that the understanding

between petitioner and a&on was that the latter would pay for one table

only%

Documents

Compiled Cases in Criminal Law 2