Criminal Law II Digests

8/17/2019 Criminal Law II Digests

1/74

ARTICLE 115

US v. Bautista6 Phil 581

FACTS: In 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos inHongkong, for t e purpose of o!ert rowing t e go!ernment of t e "nited #tates in t e$ ilippine Islands by force of arms and establis ing a new go!ernment%

Francisco &autista '1(, a close friend of t e c ief of military forces 'of t e conspirators( took partof se!eral meetings% )omas $uzon '*( eld se!eral conferences w ereat plans are made for t ecoming insurrection+ e was appointed &rigadier -eneral of t e #ignal .orps of t e

re!olutionary forces% /niceto de -uzman '3( accepted some bonds from one of t e conspirators%

) e lower court con!icted t e t ree men of conspiracy% &autista was sentenced to yearsimprisonment and a $3,000 fine+ $uzon and e -uzman to 3 years imprisonment and $1,000%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e accused are guilty of conspiracy%

HELD: udgment for &autista and $uzon .45FI678 % udgment for de -uzman68 86#8 % :es, &autista and $uzon are guilty of conspiracy% &autista was fully aware of t e

purposes of t e meetings e participated in, and e!en ga!e an assurance to t e c ief of militaryforces t at e is making t e necessary preparations% $uzon !oluntarily accepted is appointmentand in doing so assumed all t e obligations implied by suc acceptance% ) is may be consideredas an e!idence of t e criminal connection of t e accused wit t e conspiracy%

Howe!er, de -uzman is not guilty of conspiracy% He mig t a!e been elping t e conspirators byaccepting bonds in t e bundles, but e as not been aware of t e contents nor does e was, in anyoccasion, assumed any obligation wit respect to t ose bonds%

4


2/74

ARTICLE 117

Lily Ra ui!a" #t al. v. Lt. C$l. L.%. B&a'($&'" #t al).R. *$. L+,,S#-t# /#& 10" 1 ,5

FACTS: $etioners file for a writ of Habeas .orpus as t ey were eld by "s military for acts of espionage claiming t at t ey were ;confined, restrained and depri!ed< of t eir liberty in t e.orrectional Institution for 2omen, petitioners, =ily 6a>uiza, Haydee )ee Han ?ee and 8mma=ink Infante%

&ot respondents made returns of ser!ice attac ing commitment emanating from t e

Head>uarters and .ounter Intelligence .orps etac ment, and t e second from t at of t e"nited #tates /rmy Forces in t e Far 8ast, .ounter Intelligence .orps etac ment% ) e returns,as well as from t e arguments of counsel, was due to proclamation issued by -eneral of t e/rmy 7ac/rt ur regarding t e arrest of petitioner =ily 6a>uiza w o was arrested by t e.ounter Intelligence .orps etac ment "%#% #i@t /rmy, and detained under #ecurity.ommitment 4rder 5o% being c arged as followsA

Commitment Order % B ) e person named and described abo!e is deemed a risk to t esecurity of t e "%#% Forces for t e reasons set fort abo!e% ) e commanding officer of anymilitary stockade, jail, or comparable installation in w ic t is person may be confined isaut orized and directed to detain im in custody until released by competent military aut ority%

In said #c edule / t e specific complaint or c arge against complaint or c arge against petitioner =ily 6a>uiza is ;8spionage acti!ity for apanese%<

/s to petitioner Haydee )ee Han ?ee, was arrested by t e same for ;/cti!e collaboration witt e enemy%


3/74

2H868/# military necessity re>uires t at suc persons be enemy in !iolation of allegiance due t e -o!ernments of t e "nited #tates and t e .ommonwealt of t e $ ilippines+and

542, )H868F468, I, ouglas 7ac/rt ur, -eneral of t e /rmy, "nited #tates /rmy,as .ommander in . ief #out west $acific /rea, ereby do publis and declare it to be my

purpose to remo!e suc persons, w en appre ended, from any position of political and economicinfluence in t e $ ilippines and to old t em in restraint for t e duration of t e war+ w ereafter Is all release t em to t e $ ilippine -o!ernment for its judgment upon t eir respecti!e cases%

one at -eneral Head>uarters, #out west $acific /rea, in t e field, t is twenty nint dayof ecember, 19 %

4"-=/# 7/./6)H"6 -eneral of t e /rmy"nited #tates /rmy

.ommander in . ief

ISSUE: 2 et er or not olding of t e petitioners by reason of "# /rmy, and its Intelligence

epartment in!estigation t at petitioners are in!ol!ed in espionage during occupation is !alidnotwit standing t at some of t e petitioners are Filipino .itizens%

HELD: #. Held , t ere is no >uestion t at t e power of t e power of t e .ommander in . ief of t e "nited #tates /rmy to issue t e foregoing proclamation cannot be seriously >uestionedeffects% 6eason of t e restraint of petitioners were upon two gra!e reasons, to wit, '1( t ate!idence was before im ;t at certain citizens of t e $ ilippines !oluntarily a!e gi!en aid,comfort and sustenance to t e enemy in !iolation of allegiance due t e -o!ernment of t e"nited #tates and t e .ommonwealt of t e $ ilippines+< and '*( t at ;military necessityre>uires t at suc persons be remo!ed from any opportunity to t reaten t e security of our military forces or t e success of our military operations%< ) e e@igencies of t e militaryoperations for t e destruction or defeat t e enemy did not permit of any ot er procedure% )o denysuc power or competency to determine t e strengt and sufficiency of suc e!idence would

a!e been destructi!e of t at military efficiency wit w ic , in t e interest of all t e citizens of t e $ ilippines t emsel!es, not e@cluding t e erein petitioners, t e operations for t eir liberation ad to be conducted% Has t e war terminated wit in t e meaning of t at part of is

proclamation w erein t e .ommander in . ief declared is purpose to old suc persons inrestraint ;for t e duration of t e war


4/74

ARTICLE 120

P#$-l# v. L$l+L$ A3' Sa&a4

,0 Phil. 1

FACTS: 4n une 30, 19*0, si@er !intas intercepted two utc boats w ic were on its way int e midst of t e islands of &uang and &ukid in t e utc 8ast Indies% ) e si@ !intas weremanned by * armed 7oros% ) e said utc boats were carrying men, women and c ildren% /t

first, t e 7oros asked for food% &ut w en t ey got on t e utc boats, t ey asked for t emsel!esall t e !essel s cargo, attacked nearly all of t e men and brutally !iolated two of t e women bymet ods too tremendous to be described% /ll of t e persons on t e utc boat, e@cept t e twoyoung women, were again placed on it and oles were made in it, t e idea t at it wouldsubmerge% ) e 7oros finally arri!ed at 7aruro, a utc possession% )wo of t e 7oro marauderswere =ol lo, w o also raped one of t e women, and #araw% /t 7aruro, t e two women were ableto escape%

=ol lo and #araw later returned to t eir ome in #out "bian, )awi )awi, #ulu% ) ey werearrested t ere and were c arged in t e .ourt of First Instance of #ulu wit t e crime of piracy%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not $ ilippine courts a!e jurisdiction o!er t e crime of piracy alleged int is case%

HELD: :es, t e $ ilippine courts a!e jurisdiction on t e case% $iracy is a !illainy not againstany particular state but against all mankind% It s ould be tried and punis ed in t e sufficienttribunal of any country w ere t e offender may be found or into w ic e may be carried% ) e

jurisdiction of piracy, unlike all ot er crimes, as no territorial limits%

7


5/74

ARTICLE 125

Say$ v. Chi#( ( P$li # ( a3ila).R. *$. L+2128" ay 12" 1 ,8

FACTS: "pon complaint of &ernardino 7alinao, c arging 7elencio #ayo ' ( and oa>uin7ostero ' ( wit a!ing committed t e crime of robbery, &enjamin umlao, a policeman of t e.ity of 7anila, arrested t e #ayo ' ( and 7ostero ' (, and presented a complaint against t emwit t e fiscal s office of 7anila% 2 en t e petition for abeas corpus was eard, t e #ayo ' (and 7ostero ' ( were still detained or under arrest, and t e city fiscal ad not yet released or filed c arges against t em wit t e proper courts justice%

ISSUE A Is t e warrantless arrest !alidE

HELD: 5o% "nder t e constitution, no person may be depri!ed of is liberty e@cept by warrant

of arrest or commitment issued upon probable cause by a judge after e@amination of t ecomplainant and is witness%

/ peace officer as no power or aut ority to arrest a person wit out a warrant upon complaint of t e offended party or any ot er person, e@cept in t ose cases e@pressly aut orized by law% 2 at

e or t e complainant may do in suc case is to file a complaint wit t e city fiscal or directlywit t e justice of t e peace courts in municipalities and ot er political subdi!isions% / fortiori a

police officer as no aut ority to arrest and detain a person c arged wit an offense uponcomplaint of t e offended party or ot er persons e!en t oug , after in!estigation, e becomescon!inced t at t e accused is guilty of t e offense c arged%

8


6/74

ARTICLE 127

illavi #3 i$" #t. al v. Lu9/a3" #t. al).R. *$. L+1,60

a& h 25" 1 1

FACTS: 7ayor =ukban, for t e best of all reasons, to e@terminate !ice, ordered t e segregateddistrict for women of ill repute, w ic ad been permitted for a number of years in t e city of 7anila, closed% ) e city aut orities >uietly perfected arrangements wit t e &ureau of =abor for sending t e women to a!ao, 7indanao, as laborers+ wit some go!ernment office for t e use of t e coastguard cutters .orregidor and 5egros, and wit t e .onstabulary for a guard of soldiers%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e person be actually confined for writ of Habeas .orpus to issue%

HELD: 5o, t ere is no need for actual confinement% /ny restraint w ic precludes freedom of

action is sufficient% ) e forcible taking of women of ill repute from 7anila to be broug t toa!ao, depri!ed t em of t eir freedom of locomotion just as effecti!ely as if t ey wereimprisoned%

9


7/74

ARTICLE 12

Bu& $s" S&. v. Chi#( ( Sta(( ).R. L+6,261

D# # /#& 26" 1 8,

FACTS: /rmed wit a searc warrant issued by t e .ourt of First Instance of 6izal, lawenforcement officers searc ed t e offices of t e ;2e forum< and ;7etropolitan 7ail<newspapers% uring t e course of t e searc , t e law enforcement officers seized office and

printing mac ines, e>uipment, parap ernalia and se!eral ot er materials used in t e distributionof newspapers% $etitioner a!ers, among ot ers, t at t e seizure of t e properties mentioned abo!eamounts to seizure of real properties, w ic cannot be !alidly conducted under t e strengt of asearc warrant% It must be noted t at real properties are not susceptible of confiscation under asearc warrant% Hence t is appeal w ic assails t e !alidity of t e searc and t e seizure of t e

properties of t e petitioner%

ISSUE: 2 et er t ere is merit in t e petitioner s assertion t at real property were in!alidlyseized under t e disputed warrants%

HELD: 5o% ) e petitioner s assertion does not old water% "nder /rticle 1 ' ( of t e ci!ilcode, ;mac inery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by t e owner of t e tenementfor an industry or works w ic may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and w ictend directly to meet t e needs of t e said industry or works< are considered immo!able

property% In anot er case decided by t e .ourt, in w ic t e abo!ementioned legal pro!ision wasin!oked, it was ruled t at mac inery w ic is mo!able by nature becomes immobilized w en

placed by t e owner of t e tenement, property or plant, but not so w en placed by a tenant,usufructuary, or any ot er person a!ing only temporary rig t, unless suc person acted as t eagent of t e owner% In t e case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be t e owners of t e land andJor

building on w ic t e mac ineries were placed% ) is being t e case, t e mac ineries in >uestion,w ile in fact bolted to t e ground remains mo!able property susceptible to seizure under a searcwarrant%

10


8/74

ARTICLE 101

*ava&&$ v. ill# as01 SCRA 071

FACTS: ) e .ity 7ayor offered t e #unken -ardens, instead of $laza 7iranda, as !enue for anassembly% ) e 7ayor of t e .ity of 7anila ' illegas( e@pressly stated is willingness to grant

permits for peaceful assemblies at $laza 7iranda during #aturdays, #undays and olidays w ent ey would not cause unnecessarily great disruption of t e normal acti!ities of t e communityand as furt er offered #unken -ardens as an alternati!e to $laza 7iranda as t e site of demonstration soug t to be eld t at afternoon%

) e 7ayor belie!es t at a public rally at $laza 7iranda, as to compared to one at t e #unken-ardens as e suggested, poses a clearer and more imminent danger of public disorders, breac esof t e peace, criminal acts, and e!en bloods ed as an aftermat of suc assemblies, and

petitioner as manifested t at it as no means of pre!enting suc disorders%ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e mayor s decision is tenable%

HELD: :8#% 8!ery time t at suc assemblies are announced, t e community is placed in suc astate of fear and tension t at offices are closed early and employees dismissed, storefronts

boarded up, classes suspended, and transportation disrupted, to t e general detriment of t e public%

$etitioner as failed to s ow a clear specific legal duty on t e part of 7ayor to grant petitionersapplication for permit unconditionally% ) us, t e .ourt denied t e writ prayed for by 5a!arroand dismissed t eir petition%

11


9/74

A&ti l# 100

P#$-l# $( th# Phili--i3#s v. ;il('$ Ba#! y Ca/a#l" alias ;illy).R. *$. 1258, . %a3ua&y 2


10/74

ARTICLE 105+ P#3alty ($& th# &i # $( A&t 10,

Lt. =S > Eu #3# )$3!al#s" Lt. =S > A3'y T$&&at$" Lt. =S > A3t$3i$ T&illa3#s Iv" C-t. )a&yAl#?a3$" Lt. =S > %a #s Layu " C-t. )#&a&'$ )a /ala" C-t. *i a3$& Fa#l'$3" Lt. =S >

a3u#l Ca/$ ha3" E3s. A& a3' P$3t#?$s" Lt. =% > A&tu&$ Pas ua" A3' 1lt. %$33#l

Sa3 ala3

s.)#3. *a& is$ A/aya" I3 His Ca-a ity As Chi#( ( Sta(( ( Th# A& #' F$& #s ( Th#Phili--i3#s" A3' B. )#3. a&ia3$ . Sa& i#3t$" %&." I3 His Ca-a ity As Th# %u' #

A'v$ at# )#3#&al ( Th# %u' # A'v$ at# )#3#&al@s ((i # =%a $>

).R. *$. 16,


11/74

ISSUE: 2 et er t e petitioners 'rebels( are entitled to t e writ of pro ibition%

HELD: 54% ) ere is no dispute t at -onzales et al, being officers of t e /F$, are subject to

military law according to .ommonwealt /ct 0K '/?/ /rticles of 2ar(% #ection 1 of 6%/%G0 pro!ides t at as a general rule, members of t e /F$ and ot er persons subject to militarylaw, including members of t e .itizens /rmed Forces -eograp ical "nits, w o commit crimesor offenses penalized under t e 6e!ised $enal .ode 'like coup d etat(, ot er special penal laws,or local ordinances s all be tried by t e proper ci!il court% It also pro!ides t e e@ception to t egeneral rule, i%e%, w ere t e ci!il court, before arraignment, as determined t e offense to beser!ice connected, t en t e offending soldier s all be tried by a court martial% =astly, t e lawstates an e@ception to t e e@ception, i%e%, w ere t e $resident of t e $ ilippines, in t e interest of

justice, directs before arraignment t at any suc crimes or offenses be tried by t e proper ci!ilcourt% ) e same pro!ision also identifies Nser!iceconnected crimes or offensesN as Nlimited to

t ose defined in /rticles to G0, /rticles G* to 9*, and /rticles 9 to 9GN of t e /rticles of 2ar%iolations of t ese /rticles are wit in t e jurisdiction of t e court martial% #. eld t at t e

offense for !iolation of /rticle 9L of t e /rticles of 2ar is ser!ice connected% ) is is e@pressly pro!ided in #ection 1 'second paragrap ( of 6%/% 5o% G0 % ) e c arge against -onzales et alconcerns t e alleged !iolation of t eir solemn oat as officers to defend t e .onstitution and t eduly constituted aut orities% #uc !iolation allegedly caused dis onor and disrespect to t emilitary profession% In s ort, t e c arge as a bearing on t eir professional conduct or be a!ior as military officers% 8>ually indicati!e of t e Nser!iceconnectedN nature of t e offense is t e

penalty prescribed for t e same P dismissal from t e ser!ice P imposable only by t e militarycourt% #uc penalty is purely disciplinary in c aracter, e!idently intended to cleanse t e military

profession of misfits and to preser!e t e stringent standard of military discipline% ) ere is nomerit in -onzales et al s argument t at t ey can no longer be c arged before t e court martial

because t e same as been declared by t e 6). as Nnot ser!ice connected, but rat er absorbedand in furt erance of t e alleged crime of coup d etat,N ence, triable by said court '6).(% ) e6)., in making suc declaration, practically amended t e law w ic e@pressly !ests in t e courtmartial t e jurisdiction o!er Nser!iceconnected crimes or offenses%N 2 at t e law as conferredt e court s ould not take away% 8!idently, suc declaration by t e 6). constitutes gra!e abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or e@cess of jurisdiction and is, t erefore, !oid% ) e trial courtaggra!ated its error w en it justified its ruling by olding t at t e c arge of .onduct

"nbecoming an 4fficer and a -entleman is Qabsorbed and in furt erance to t e alleged crime of coup d etat% Firstly, t e doctrine of Qabsorption of crimes is peculiar to criminal law andgenerally applies to crimes punis ed by t e same statute, unlike ere w ere different statutes arein!ol!ed% #econdly, t e doctrine applies only if t e trial court as jurisdiction o!er bot offenses%Here, #ection 1 of 6%/% G0 depri!es ci!il courts of jurisdiction o!er ser!iceconnected offenses,including /rticle 9L of t e /rticles of 2ar% ) us, t e doctrine of absorption of crimes is notapplicable to t is case% 7ilitary law is sui generis, applicable only to military personnel because

14


12/74

t e military constitutes an armed organization re>uiring a system of discipline separate from t atof ci!ilians% .learly, t e instant petition for pro ibition must fail% ) e office of pro ibition is to

pre!ent t e unlawful and oppressi!e e@ercise of aut ority and is directed against proceedings t atare done wit out or in e@cess of jurisdiction, or wit gra!e abuse of discretion, t ere being noappeal or ot er plain, speedy, and ade>uate remedy in t e ordinary course of law% #tateddifferently, pro ibition is t e remedy to pre!ent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or personsfrom usurping or e@ercising a jurisdiction or power wit w ic t ey a!e not been !ested by law%In fine, #. olds t at erein respondents a!e t e aut ority in con!ening a court martial and inc arging petitioners wit !iolation of /rticle 9L of t e /rticles of 2ar%

15


13/74

A&ti l# 10

Th# P#$-l# $( th# Phili--i3# Isla3's v. )&a ia3$ L. Ca/&a" #t al.)R *$. 177,8" , a& h 1 22

FACTS: 4n ecember 13, 19*0, policemen of t e city of 7anila arrested a woman w o was amember of t e ouse old of a .onstabulary soldier stationed at t e #anta =ucia &arracks in t iscity% ) e arrest of t e woman was considered by some of t e .onstabulary soldiers as an outragecommitted by t e policemen, and it instantly ga!e rise to friction between members of 7anila

police department and member of t e $ ilippine .onstabulary%

) e ne@t day, ecember 1 , at about sunset, a policeman named /rtemio 7ojica, posted on.alle 6eal, in t e istrict of Intramuros , ciy of 7anila, ad an encounter wit !arious.onstabulary soldiers w ic resulted in t e s ooting of pri!ate 7acasinag of t e .onstabulary%

$ri!ate 7acasinag was seriously, and as afterwards appeard, mortally wounded%

) e encounter between policemen 7ojica and ot er companions of t e 7anila force and ot er companions of t e 7anila force and pri!ate 7acasinag and ot er companions of t e.onstabulary, wit its gra!e conse>uences for a .onstabulary soldier endangered a deep feelingof resentment on t e part of t e soldiers at #anta =ucia &arracks% ) is resentment was sooncon!erted into a desire for re!enge against t e police force of t e city of 7anila% ) e officers of t e .onstabulary appear to a!e been aware of t e state of e@citement among t e soldiers t es ooting of pri!ate 7acasinag, .aptain $age, t e commanding officer of t e &arracks, increasedt e number of guards, and confined all e soldiers in t e&arracks%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e court erred in con!icting t e accused of sedition

HELD: #edition, in its more genereal sense, is t e reaising of commotions or disturbances in t e#tate% ) e $ ilippine law on t e subject '/ct 5o% *9*( makes all persons guilty of sedition w orise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal met ods any one of !ie objects, including t at of inflicting any act of ate or re!enge upon t e person or property of any official or agent of t e Insular -o!ernment or of $ro!incial or 7inucipal -o!ernment% ) erial court found t at t e crime of sedition, as defined and punis ed by t e law, ad beencommitted, and we belie!e t at suc finding is correct% .ounsels s contention t at in order for t ere to be a !iolation of subdi!ision 3 of section of /ct 5o% *9*, it is necessary t at t eoffender s ould be a pri!ate citizen and t e offended party a public functionary, and t at w atreally appened in t is instance was a fig t between two armed bodies of t e $ ilippine-o!ernment, is absolutely wit out foundation% #ubdi!ision 3 of section of t e )reason and#edition =aw makes no distinction between t e persons to w ic it applies% In an une>ual fig t

broug t on by t e actions of t e accusedA&ti l# 1,0

16


14/74

P#$-l# v. Ali-i #t al)& * . L+18850" 22 Au ust 1 22

FACTS: ) e election of t e municipal president was contested on t e ground of minority% Heyielded t e c air to t e !ice president% ) e meeting of t e municipal council presided o!er by t e!ice president was stopped by t e c ief of police and t e municipal president by arresting t e!ice president and t reatening t e councillors wit arrest if t ey would continue olding t emeeting% ) e councillors t en dispersed, lea!ing t e premises%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e c ief of police and municipal president imself are liable under /rticle 1 3 for pre!enting t e meeting of t e municipal council%

HELD: /ny stranger,, e!en if e be t e municipal president imself or t e c ief of t e municipal

police, must respect t e meeting council presided o!er by t e !ice president and e as no rig tto dissol!e it t roug !iolence under t e prete@t of lack of notice to some members of t ecouncil, w ic was not apparent, but re>uired an in!estigation before it could be determined%

A&ti l# 1,5

17


15/74

S#& i$ s #3a %&. v. Sali-a'# P#3'atu3)R *$. L+171,," 28 t$/#& 1 6<

FACTS: In une 19L0, .ongressman #ergio 4smena, r% eli!ered a speec entitled ;/ 7essageto -arciauently, House 6esolution 5o% L9 was passed by t e lower ouse in order to in!estigate t ec arges made by 4smena during is speec and t at if is allegations were found to be baselessand malicious, e may be subjected to disciplinary actions by t e lower ouse%

4smena t en >uestioned t e !alidity of t e said resolution before t e #upreme .ourt% 4smenaa!ers t at t e resolution !iolates is parliamentary immunity for speec es deli!ered in .ongress%.ongressman #alipada filed an answer w ere e a!erred t at t e #upreme .ourt as no

jurisdiction o!er t e matter and .ongress as t e power to discipline its members%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not 4smena s immunity as been !iolatedE

HELD: 5o% #ection , /rticle I of t e 193 .onstitution ens rines parliamentary immunityupon members of t e legislature w ic is a fundamenta pri!ilege c eris ed in e!ery parliamentin a democratic world% It guarantees t e legislator complete freedom of e@pression wit out fear of being made responsible in criminal or ci!il actions before t e courts or any ot er forumoutside t e Hall of .ongress% Howe!er, it does not protect im from responsibility before t elegislati!e body w ene!er is words and conduct are considered disorderly or unbecoming of amember t erein% ) erefore, 4smena s petition is dismissed%

A&ti l# 1,7

S#&a(i3 ). C&u! v. )#3 R$ #$ )ata3)R *$. L+,, 1


16/74

FACTS: #erafin -% .ruz was arrested by $. agents on /ugust 30, 19GL, at t e &aguio. eckpoint along ?ennon 6oad, &aguio .ity, and broug t to .amp 4li!as, #an Fernando,$ampanga, under t e command of respondent -en% 6omeo -atan for custodial interrogationw ere e is presently detained% 4n 4ctober **, 19GL, a petition for t e issuance of a writ of

abeas corpus was filed in restrain of is liberty wit out due process of law and is in t e custodyof t e respondent not by !irtue of a judgment or court order+ t at e is not a member of anysub!ersi!e organization co!ered by $roclamation 5o% 10K1 and falls wit in t e class ofpersonsto w om t e pri!ilege of t e writ of abes corpus as not been suspended%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not arrest or detention made was legal

HELD: $etition is dismissed% ) e petitioner in t e instant case was arrested and detained by!irtue of /rrest, #earc , and #eizue issued by t e #ecretary of 5ational efense for !iolation of

/rticle 1 G of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode pursuant to t e afore>uoted -eneral 4rder 5o% * /, asamended+ ence, is arrest and continued detention is legal% ) e declaration of martial law andt e conse>uent suspension of t e pri!ilege of t e writ of abes corpus wit respect to personreasonably belie!ed or c arged to be engaged in t e disorder or in fomenting it a!e been settledin t e case of/>uino, r% s $once 8nrile et%c%, et al%, any in>uiry by t is .ourt into t e continueddetention of t e petitioner would be purposeless%

ARTICLE 157+ Evasi$3 $( s#&vi # $( s#3t#3 #

19


17/74

B#3?a i3 Pa3 a3 Riv#&a v. H$3. L$u&'#s F. )at/alit#" As Th# Psi'i3 %u' #" R# i$3alT&ial C$u&t ( A3 #l#s City" B&a3 h 56" A3' C$l. %a #s D. La/$&'$" As Th# City %ail

;a&'#3 ( A3 #l#s City

).R. *$. 1,1718. %a3ua&y 21" 2


18/74

) at escape s ould take place w ile ser!ing sentence, is emp asized by t e second sentence of /rticle 1 G% It pro!ides for a ig er penalty if suc Ne!asion or escape s all a!e taken place bymeans of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using

picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, !iolence or intimidation, or t roug conni!ance wit ot er con!icts or employees of t e penal institution, % % %N Indeed, e!asion of sentence is but anot er e@pression of t e term Njail breaking%N

/s pointed out by t e #olicitor -eneral, NescapeN in legal parlance and for purposes of /rticles93 and 1 G of t e 6$. means t e unlawful departure of prisoner from t e limits of is custody%.learly, one w o as not been committed to prison cannot be said to a!e escaped t erefrom% In t is case, t e petitioner was ne!er broug t to prison% /s t e record would s ow, e!en beforet e e@ecution of t e judgment for is con!iction, e was already in iding% He now begs for t e

compassion of t e .ourt because e as ceased to li!e a life of peace and tran>uility after efailed to appear in court for t e e@ecution of is sentence% &ut it was petitioner w o c ose to become a fugiti!e% ) e .ourt accords compassion only to t ose w o are deser!ing% $etitioner sguilt was pro!en beyond reasonable doubt but e refused to answer for t e wrong e committed%He is t erefore not to be rewarded t erefor%

ARTICLE 15

P#$-l# ( Th# Phili--i3#s v. R# i i$ P$3tillas

21


19/74

FACTS: ) at on or about t e * t day of ecember, 193 , in t e .ity of 7anila,.ommonwealt of t e $ ilippines, t e said accused, a!ing been granted on #eptember K, 19**,

by His 8@cellency, t e -o!ernor -eneral, a pardon remitting t e une@ecuted portion of t issentence of si@ years one day of prision correccional imposed upon im in criminal case 5o%*1K*3 of t e .ourt of First instance of 7anila for t e crime of illegal marriage, w ic e beganto ser!e on February 1 , 19*1, subject to t e condition t at e s all not again !iolate any of t e

penal laws of t e $ ilippine Islands, w ic condition was accepted by im on #eptember K,19**, causing t ereby is immediate release on t at date from t e &ilibid $risons, did t en andt ere willfully, unlawfully and feloniously !iolate t e conditions of suc pardon, by t en andt ere committing t e crime of damage to property t ru reckless dri!ing, for w ic e wasrecei!ed again in &ilibid $risons on une *L, 193L, to suffer t irty days subsidiary imprisonmentin lieu of $L1 fine and $L0%30 indemnity imposed upon im by t e 7unicipal .ourt in criminalcase 5o% H G K3, by !irtue of t e judgment rendered by t e said court, w ic judgment as

become final and e@ecutory%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not a person w o as been conditionally pardoned by t e . ief 8@ecuti!efor illegal marriage or bigamy after e as ser!ed nineteen mont s of t e penalty of si@ years andone day of prision correccional imposed upon im be criminally prosecuted for !iolation of aconditional pardon on t e sole ground t at, contrary to t e condition t at N e s all not again!iolate any of t e penal laws of t e $ ilippine IslandsN e as committed t e crime of damage toanot er s property t roug reckless imprudenceE

HELD: In t is jurisdiction a conditional pardon is certainly a contract between two partiesA t e. ief 8@ecuti!e, w o grants t e pardon, and t e con!ict, w o accepts it% It does not become

perfected until t e con!ict is notified of t e same and accepts it wit all its conditions%/ccordingly, if it is a contract, it cannot be doubted t at t e pardoned con!ict is bound to fulfillits conditions and accept all its conse>uences, not as e c ooses, but according to its strict terms%4t erwise, e would find imself in t e same situation as before e was pardoned and e could

be compelled to ser!e t e remainder of is sentenced, w ic e as not yet ser!ed% In t eappealed resolution it is stated t at t e crime of damage to property committed by t e appellee isnot one w ic s ows moral per!ersity on is party, meaning t ereby t at, strictly speaking, edid not infringe any condition of is pardon% ) e abo!e reason as no weig t at all because t econdition of t e pardon did not consist in t at e would not commit any crime, more or lessgra!e, w ic mig t denote per!ersity, but in any !iolation of any penal law of t e $ ilippines%

) e crime of damage to property of anot er, t roug reckless imprudence, is a crime e@pressly punis ed and considered as suc by article 3 L in relation to article 3 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode%#ince t e >uestion and t e facts before us are different, it is not necessary for us to decidew et er an action may be broug t for t e purpose of enforcing t e ser!ice of a part of a sentence,w ic was not e@tinguis ed on account of conditional pardon, after t e usual period of

prescription of t e penalty%

22


20/74

ARTICLE 161

a i i3$ )a i'$ v. C$u&t ( A--#als

23


21/74

FACTS: 7a@imino &% -amido was con!icted by t e 6egional )rial .ourt on ele!en counts of a!ing forged t e signature of t e . ief 8@ecuti!e% #pecifically, petitioner was accused in 11

cases of forging t e signature of t e $resident of t e $ ilippines in documents and making itappear t at t e documents were genuine official documents of t e 6epublic of t e $ ilippines%4n #eptember *G, 19K , upon t e in!itation of /tty% Cuirino #agario, .I4 Hearing 4fficer,

petitioner appeared and presented t e 11 documents, claiming t at $resident Ferdinand 8%7arcos ad signed t em in is 'petitioner s( presence% ) e lone witness for t e prosecution,7el>uiades )% de la .ruz, $residential #taff irector of t e 7alacaTang 6ecords 4ffice '764(,testified t at t ere were no copies of t e documents on file in is office and t at t e signaturest ereon did not appear to be t ose of t e former $resident% ) e 6). eld -amido guilty, tow ic t e ./ affirmed%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e ./ erred in affirming -amido s con!iction%

HELD: ) e petition as no merit% 7el>uiades )% de la .ruz, irector of t e 7alacaTang

6ecords 4ffice, testified t at is office did not a!e a record of t e documents% For is part8@ecuti!e #ecretary uan .% )u!era declared t e $residential 6egional /ssistant 7onitoring#er!ices as none@istent and its alleged 8@ecuti!e irector, erein petitioner, as not in anycapacity connected wit t e 4ffice of t e $resident% From t ese premises it is rational toconclude t at t e documents in >uestion, w ic purport to a!e been signed by t en $resident7arcos, are bogus documents% ) e trial court and .ourt of /ppeals correctly found petitioner to

be t e aut or of t e forgery% ) e presumption is t at t e possessor and user of a falsifieddocument is t e forger t ereof% 2 at dela .ruz said t at is t at e was familiar wit t e signatureof $resident 7arcos and t at t e signatures on t e documents in >uestion were not t ose of $resident 7arcos% ) is is sufficient to establis t e signatures as forgeries% "nder 6ule 13*, U**of t e 6e!ised 6ules on 8!idence, it is not re>uired t at t e person identifying t e andwritingof anot er must a!e seen t e latter write t e document or sign it% It is enoug , if t e witnessN as seen writing purporting to be is Rt e subject sS upon w ic t e witness as acted or beenc arged, and as t us ac>uired knowledge of t e andwriting of suc person%N e la .ruz as

been record custodian at 7alacaTang for so many years+ it is inconcei!able e ad not ac>uiredfamiliarity wit t e signature not only of $resident 7arcos but of ot er $residents under w om

e ad ser!ed% ) ere was t us no necessity for a andwriting e@pert testify on t e genuineness of t e c allenged signatures% /s t is .ourt as once obser!ed, t e aut enticity of signatures Nis nota ig ly tec nical issue in t e same sense t at >uestions concerning, e%g%, >uantum p ysics or

topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a ig ly tec nical nature% ) e opinionof a andwriting e@pert on t e genuineness of a >uestioned signature is certainly muc lesscompelling upon a judge t an an opinion rendered by a specialist on a ig ly tec nical issue% ) esignatures on a >uestioned document can be sig ted by a judge w o can and s ould e@erciseindependent judgment on t e issue of aut enticity of suc signatures%N Here, as t e trial courtobser!ed, Nt e forgeries were not only establis ed by t e e!idence, but t ey are also as clearly

24


22/74

discernible to t e naked eye or mere ocular inspection, as t ey are conspicuously e!ident fromt eir appearance


23/74


24/74

FACTS: ) at t e defendant 7ariano #olito was, at t e time mentioned in t e complaint,correspondence clerk and acting c ief clerk in t e office of t e di!ision superintendent of sc oolsin t e municipality of umaguete+ t at, as suc clerk, e was intrusted wit t e care of t ecorrespondence of said office, and was aut orized to open letters of an official c aracter addressed to t e office+ t at it was t e custom to t e irector of 8ducation to forward to t edi!ision superintendents of sc ools c ecks for t e reimbursement for tra!el e@penses and for t e

payment of t e salary of employees+ t at on t e 19t day of /pril, 191 , said )reasury 2arrant 5o% *K *L was issued to t e said /l!a % 6iley for t e sum of $L G% 3 by t e /uditor of t e$ ilippine Islands directed to t e )reasurer of t e $ ilippine Islands for payment+ t at on t esame day '/pril 19t , 191 ( said warrant was sent to t e irector of 8ducation+ t at said warrantwas sent to /l!a % 6iley, t roug t e di!ision superintendent of sc ools, by t e /cting

irector of 8ducation on /pril *9, 191 + t at t e defendant erein presented said warrant to t emunicipal treasurer for payment, bearing t e indorsement of /l!a % 6iley, early in t e montof 7ay, 191 , and recei!ed t e amount of money called for '$LKG% 3( from said municipal

treasurer+ t at /l!a % 6iley ne!er ad in is possession said warrant, nor ad e e!er seen t esame, until after t e defendant ad presented it for payment to t e said municipal treasurer+ t ate did not indorse t e same by writing is name on t e back t ereof+ t at is signature w ic

appears upon t e back of said warrant was not is signature+ t at e did not write is namet ereon+ t at t e said di!ision superintendent of sc ools did not recei!e said warrant and adne!er seen it until after t e defendant erein ad recei!ed t e money t ereon+ t at t ere is no

proof in t e record s owing t at any person or persons ad in is possession said warrant after itleft t e ands of t e /cting irector of 8ducation until it was presented by t e defendant to t esaid treasurer indorsed as abo!e indicated+ t at, at t e time t e defendant presented said warrantto t e municipal treasurer for payment, e also presented a note purported to a!e been written

and signed by 6iley, in w ic t e latter re>uested t e said treasurer to cas t e warrant% 6ileydenies absolutely t at e ga!e to t e defendant said note%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not #olito committed forgery%

HELD: #aid warrant was a c eck issued by t e -o!ernment of t e $ ilippine Islands and,t erefore, an obligation of t e -o!ernment of t e $ ilippine Islands as defined by section 1 of /ct 5o% 1G % It was originally made payable to /l!a % 6iley, or to is order% 2 en it wasindorsed as abo!e indicated, it became a c eck or warrant payable to bearer% ) e indorsementmade a material alteration in said warrant% ) e indorsement c anged said c eck from one

payable to /l!a % 6iley, or to one to w om e ordered it paid, to one payable to bearer% ) eindorsement by t e defendant ad t e effect of erasing t e p rase Nor orderN upon t e face of t ewarrant% 2 ene!er t e older of a c eck, wit out t e consent of t e maker, c anges its terms soas to make it payable to bearer by erasing or c anging t e words Nor orderN after t e payee sname, e t ereby makes a material c ange in said document% . anging t e p rase Nor orderN toNbearerN is a material alteration% 2 ile t e instrument was payable to /l!a % 6iley, or order, itwas negotiable by t e indorsement of /l!a % 6iley only% ) e c ange made it payable to

27


25/74

NbearerN and it was t ereafter negotiable and transferable by deli!ery simply% In construing t eeffect of t e indorsement we must only look to said indorsement, but to t e face of t e documentalso, for t e purpose of ascertaining w et er or not t e indorsement operated to alter t e terms or conditions of t e original contract% ) e defendant a!ing passed and uttered an altered obligationof t e -o!ernment of t e $ ilippine Islands wit intent to defraud is guilty%

28


26/74

ARTICLE 170

U3it#' Stat#s v. %$a ui3 R$ #&$

FACTS: 4n /pril * , 190K, oa>uin 6omero, as postmaster in c arge of t e post office andtelegrap station in t e pueblo of $ani>ui, $ro!ince of )arlac, recei!ed from one named 8ugeniotwo telegrams for t eir transmission B one to 4longapo, addressed to 7ariano de la .ruz, andt e ot er to =os &anos, addressed to #e!erino 7aguigao% ) e telegram sent to .ruz in 4longapowas drawn up in t e following termsA N$ani>ui, /pril, * 0K% B #r% 7ariano de la .ruz% B 4longapo% B /!er is ay dinero necesita por>ue estoy enfermo manda si puede, 8ugenio%N '#eew et er t ere is money% I need it because I am sick% #end if you can% 8ugenio%( ) is telegramconsists of twenty one words and was transmitted by t e telegrap operator 6omero in t efollowing formA N$ani>ui, /pril, * 0K% B 7ariano de la .ruz% B 4longapo, B 7andamedinero pronto, estoy enfermo 8ugenio%N '#end me money soon, am sick% 8ugenio%( ) e original

telegram was t us reduced to nine words, and twel!e words were omitted% ) e telegrap operator 6omero recei!ed for t e transmission of t e said telegram $1%*L, t e price c arged for t etwenty one words w ic it contained, and by t e reduction gained $0%G*, corresponding to t etwel!e words omitted% ) e second telegram was originally worded as followsA N$ani>ui, /pril,* 0K% B #r% #e!erino 7aguiago% B =os &anos% B Haga el fa!or de remitir lo >ue me debeestoy muy enfermo y necesita el dinero% B 8ugenio%N '$lease remit w at you owe me% I am !erysick and need to money% 8ugenio(% ) e operator omitted eig t words from t is telegram, w icwas reduced to t e followingA N$ani>ui, /pril, * 0K% B #e!erino 7aguigao% B =os &anos% B 6emitame dinero, necesito estoy enfermo% B 8ugenio%N '6emit me money% 5eed% /m sick%8ugenio%( &y t e reduction of words made, t e telegrap operator oa>uin 6omero gained t e

price corresponding to t e difference of eig t words, to wit, $0% K% ) e case a!ing come to trial,t e judge, in !iew of t e e!idence adduced t ereat, sentenced t e accused, on anuary 13, 1909,to t e penalty of t ree years and se!en mont s prision correccional, crediting im wit one alf of t e time e was eld as a detention prisoner, to t e accessory penalties pro!ided by law, and tot e payment of t e costs%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e accused is guilty of falsification of telegrams%

HELD: It is a fact, admitted by t e defendant, t at e c anged t e wording of t e telegramsw ic e recei!ed, by omitting se!eral words in eac of t em+ and t e record of t e cause s ows

no proof of is allegation t at e made an error in recounting t e amount recei!ed for eac oneof t e telegrams, owing to t e number of words t ey contained, and t at e was t erefore obligedto diminis t e number of words of eac of t em% #uc allegation is negati!ed by t e pro!enfacts t at e affi@ed stamps only to t e !alue of $%0 to one of t e telegrams, and of $0%L0 to t eot er, and as e recei!ed $*%3 for t e dispatc of t e two messages, it is e!ident t at t e surplusmoney must a!e remained in is possession, since, on striking a balance, instead of a surplus itwas found t at t ere was a s ortage of $3 in t e postal funds, as t e defendant imself confesses

29


27/74

in is official letter of /pril * , 190K 'p% 39 of trial record(% From all of w ic it is concluded, asaforesaid, t at t e defendant obtained profit from t e remainder of t e sum recei!ed by im,e>ui!alent to t e price of t e words omitted by im from t e two telegrams before mentioned%) e defendant, t erefore, wit manifest !iolation of a pro ibiti!e law perpetrated t e unlawfulact in >uestion and as t ereby incurred t e penalty w ic e merits for is criminal acts% In !iewof t e fact t at no mitigating nor aggra!ating circumstance enters into t e commission of t ecrime, t e punis ment s ould be imposed upon im in t e medium degree of t e penalty of

prision correccional in its medium and ma@imum degrees%

30


28/74

A&ti l# 177

%$s# C. i&a3'a v. Sa3'i a3/aya3)R *$. 15,< 8" %uly 27" 2uestion in a prosecution for unjust !e@ation is w et er t e offender s act causesannoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to t e mind of t e person of w om it isdirected% ) at t e !ictim, after t e incident cried w ile ralting to er classmates w at s e

percei!ed to be a se@ual attack and t e fact t at s e filed a case for attempted rape pro!ed betondca!il t at s e was disturbed, if not distressed, by t e acts of t e &aleros%

31


29/74

ARTICLE 17

P#$-l# ( Th# Phili--i3#s v. R$ #&$

FACTS: In 5o!ember 19 , information reac ed t e 7ot er #uperior of t e religious order of

aug ters of #t% $aul, t at a woman was roaming around alone asking for alms for orp ans int e name of t e said organization% ) e woman was wearing t e organization s abit% ) e

aug ters of #t% $aul ad no orp ans, asking for alms was not its mission% /mong t oseapproac ed by said woman was =eandra #ajagon, mot er of two sisters in t e con!ent of t e

aug ters of #t% $aul% =eandra ga!e er $ 1%00 to w ic no receipt was issued%

HELD: )o bring a culprit wit in t e co!erage of /rticle 1G9 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode on t eillegal use of uniforms and insignia, an e@act imitation of a uniform is unnecessary% / colorableresemblance calculated to decei!e t e common run of people P not t ose t oroug ly familiar wit e!ery detail or accessory t ereof P is sufficient%

32


30/74

ARTICLE 181

P#$-l# v. R#y#s ,8 .). 1807

FACTS: ) e accused was t e star witness in a prosecution for robbery against emenia% &efore

t e trial, t e accused e@ecuted an affida!it in w ic e manifested t at e was not interested int e prosecution of t e case and t at e wanted to gi!e t e accused ;a c ance to earn is li!ingwisely in t e onest way%< ) e fiscal refused to ask for t e dismissal of t e case% 2 en t e casewas called for trial, t e accused, w o was asked to identify emenia, testified t at e could notremember anymore t e face of emenia% /fter furt er >uestions failed to elicit ot er data, t ecase against emenia was dismissed by t e court, resulting in is ac>uittal%

ISSUE: Is it necessary t at t e false testimony directly influence t e decision of ac>uittal to beliable under /rticle 1K1 of t e 6$.E

H LDI*): ) e contention of t e defense t at t e ac>uittal of emenia was due to failure of t efiscal to call ot er witnesses w o could a!e properly identified emenia, is irrele!ant% It is notnecessary t at t e testimony gi!en by t e witness s ould directly influence t e decision of ac>uittal, it being sufficient t at it was gi!en wit t e intent to fa!or t e accused%

33


31/74

ARTICLE 180

illa3u#va v. S# ta&y ( %usti # )R *$. 162187" *$v# /#& 18" 2


32/74

ARTICLE 185

Al('$ . ua3$" -#titi$3#&" v. C$u&t ( A--#als" A3' H#i&s ( %uli#ta .ua3$" s-$3'#3ts. ).R. *$. 12 27 . a& h ," 2


33/74

ARTICLE 18

Sava # v. %u' # Tay-i3 )R *$ 10,217" ay 11" 2uestions+ and 'd( t e warrant did not particularly describe t e t ings to be seized%

HELD: ) e issue in!ol!ing t e e@istence of ;unfair competition< as a felony in!ol!ing design patents, referred to in /rt% 1K9 of t e 6$., as been rendered moot and academic by t e repealof t e article% ) e searc warrant cannot e!en be issued by !irtue of a possible !iolation of t eI$6 .ode% ) e assailed acts specifically alleged were t e manufacture and fabrication of wroug t iron furniture similar to t at patented by 785 .4, wit out securing and license or

patent for t e same, for t e purpose of decei!ing or defrauding 785 .4 and t e buying public%

) ere was no mention of any crime of ;unfair competition< in!ol!ing design patents int e controlling pro!isions on "nfair .ompetition% It is t erefore unclear w et er t e crime e@istsat all, for t e enactment of 6/ K*93 did not result in t e reenactment of /rt% 1K9 of t e 6$.% Int e face of t is ambiguity, t e courts must strictly construe t e statute against t e #tate andliberally in fa!or of t e accused%

36


34/74

ART 1 1 ART 1 0

P#$-l# v. a a' ).R. *$. 17,1 8" %a3ua&y 1 " 2ue .ity found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubtfor !iolation of #ection , /rticle II, of 6/ 91L for t e illegal sale of 0%*0 gram of met amp etamineH.=% 4n appeal, t e ./ affirmed in toto t e decision of t e 6).%

ISSUE: Is accused appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of !iolating #ection , /rticle II of 6/ 91L for t e illegal sale of 0%*0 gram of s abuE

RULI*): 5o, t e .ourt ruled t at in t e prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, t et efollowingelements must must be establis edA '1( proof t at t e transaction took place, '*( corpusdelicti presented as e!idence% 6ecords s owed t at t e prosecution t roug #$4*#anc ez,establis ed t e sale of t e pro ibited drug s abu by accused appellant but t e 6). andt e ./ failed to notice t e defects in t e prosecution s case suc as '1( lapse in implementing#ection *1, /rticle II of 6/ 91L in t e andling of t e seized s abu and '*( failure of police tocomplywit t e c ain of custody rule%For !iolations of #ection *1, /rticle II of 6/ 91L , noin!entory and p otograp ing of seized drugswas done at t e place of arrest as well as t e

presence of t e accused as it was being done nor arepresentati!e of t e media, t e 4 , and any

elected pubic official w o will confirm t ate!idence seized were as t ey were found% 5eit er wasit establis ed by t e prosecution w y suc t ing were not followed by presenting '1( justifiablecause and '*( preser!ing t e integrity ande!identiary !alue of seized e!idence as re>uired by t eI66 of 6/ 91L #ection *1 /%For non compliance of t e c ain of custody rule, w ic re>uirest e documentation anddescription of e!idence as it is being processed along t e system wasneit er complied%.ourt re!erses and sets aside t e decision of t e ./ affirming t e final

judgment of 6). &ranc * 9 of $arana>ue .ity for t e illegal sale of s abu of accused appellant%Daida ?amad is erebyac>uitted and ordered released from detention%

37


35/74

PE PLE v. DI L BARITA ).R. *$. 1205,1. F#/&ua&y 8" 2


36/74

ARTICLE 1 5+1

u3 4a3 Byu3 v. Phili--i3# A us# #3t A3' )a i3 C$&-$&ati$3" ).R. *$. 160550

FACTS: $/-.46 is a go!ernment owned and controlled corporation tasked to establis and

operate gambling clubs and casinos as a means to promote tourism and generate sources of re!enue for t e go!ernment% )o ac ie!e t ese objecti!es, $/-.46 is !ested wit t e power toenter into contracts of e!ery kind and for any lawful purpose t at pertains to its business%$ursuant to t is aut ority, $/-.46 launc ed its Foreign Hig roller 7arketing $rogram'$rogram(% ) e $rogram aims to in!ite patrons from foreign countries to play at t e dollar pit of designated $/-.46 operated casinos under specified terms and conditions and in accordancewit industry practice%

) e ?orean based / .orporation was one of t e international groups t at a!ailed of t e$rogram% In a letter agreement dated * /pril 199L ' unket /greement(, / .orporation

agreed to bring in foreign players to play at t e fi!e designated gaming tables of t e .asinoFilipino #ila is at t e -rand &oule!ard Hotel in 7anila '.asino Filipino(%

$etitioner, a ?orean national, alleges t at from 5o!ember 199L to 7arc 199G, e came to t e$ ilippines four times to play for ig stakes at t e .asino Filipino%$etitioner claims t at in t ecourse of t e games, e was able to accumulate gambling c ips wort "#V*%1 million% $etitioner

presented as e!idence during t e trial gambling c ips wit a face !alue of "#V1%1million% $etitioner contends t at w en e presented t e gambling c ips for encas ment wit$/-.46s employees or agents, $/-.46 refused to redeem t em%

ISSUE: 2 et er $/-.46 can !alidly s are its franc ise wit junket operators to operategambling casinos in t e country%

HELD: $8)I)I45 85I8 % -ambling is pro ibited by t e laws of t e $ ilippines asspecifically pro!ided in /rticles 19 to 199 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode, as amended% -ambling isan act beyond t e pale of good morals, and is t us pro ibited and punis ed to repress an e!il t atundermines t e social, moral, and economic growt of t e nation% $residential ecree 5o% 1L0*'$ 1L0*(, w ic modified /rticles 19 199 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode and repealedinconsistent pro!isions, prescribed stiffer penalties on illegal gambling%

/s a rule, all forms of gambling are illegal% ) e only form of gambling allowed by law is t at

stipulated under $residential ecree 5o% 1KL9, w ic ga!e $/-.46 its franc ise to maintainand operate gambling casinos%

) e issue t en turns on w et er $/-.46 can !alidly s are its franc ise wit junket operators tooperate gambling casinos in t e country% #ection 3' ( of $/-.46s c arter statesA

#ection 3% .orporate $owers% ) e .orporation s all a!e t e following powers and functions,among ot ersA

39


37/74

( to enter into, make, perform, and carry out contracts of e!ery kind and for any lawful purpose pertaining to t e business of t e .orporation, or in any manner incident t ereto, as principal,agent or ot erwise, wit any person, firm, association, or corporation%

) ere can be no apparent aut ority of an agent wit out acts or conduct on t e part of t e

principal and suc acts or conduct of t e principal must a!e been known and relied upon ingood fait and as a result of t e e@ercise of reasonable prudence by a t ird person as claimant,and suc must a!e produced a c ange of position to its detriment% #uc proof is lacking in t iscase%

In t e entire duration t at petitioner played in .asino Filipino, e was dealing only wit /.orporation, and a!ailing of t e pri!ileges e@tended only to players broug t in by /.orporation% ) e facts t at e enjoyed special treatment upon is arri!al in 7anila and specialaccommodations in -rand &oule!ard Hotel, and t at e was playing in special gaming rooms areall indications t at petitioner cannot claim good fait t at e belie!ed e was dealing wit

$/-.46% $etitioner cannot be considered as an innocent t ird party and e cannot claimentitlement to e>uitable relief as well%

For is t ird and final assigned error, petitioner asserts t at $/-.46 ratified t e acts of /.orporation%

) e trial court as declared, and affirm, t at t e unket /greement is !oid% / !oid or ine@istentcontract is one w ic as no force and effect from t e !ery beginning% Hence, it is as if it asne!er been entered into and cannot be !alidated eit er by t e passage of time or by ratification%/rticle 1 09 of t e .i!il .ode pro!ides t at contracts e@pressly pro ibited or declared !oid by

law, suc as gambling contracts, cannot be ratified%

40


38/74

PGC I3s-. #3a3'&$ P. Haya . %u' # Eusta ui$ C. La &i as" u3i i-al Ci& uit T&ialC$u&t" Pala-a " *$&th#&3 Sa a&

/%7% 4./ I$I 5o% 0 1GG 7) A anuary 1 , *00G

FACTS: 4n une , *00 , e led t e operations of t e 5ort ern #amar $olice $ro!incial 4ffice/nti Illegal -ambling #pecial 4peration )ask Force at #itio .ale, &arangay7agsaysay, $alapag, 5ort ern #amar% ) ere ad been a report t at a Ndos manor alforN 'a game similar to cara y cruz(and card games know as monte and illegal cockfig ting were being eld in t e place%.omplainant alleged t at e was surprised to find t at it was respondent udge =agrimas w owas t e Npromoter of said illegal cockfig ting%N He furt er alleged t at Nabout ninety percent'90W( of t e illegal cockfig ts in t e municipality of $alapag and nearby townsduring barangay fiestas are pac>uiao Jmonopoly of udge =agrimas despite is knowledge, as eis a udge, t at cockfig ting outside a licensed cockpit arena is illegal%N

) e same udge and is wife acti!ely finance t e operation of =otto #uertes 'Illegal 5umbers-ame based on t e 6esult of t e =otto( operating in t e municipalities of -amay, =apinig,7apanas and $alapag% In t e recent raid by t is 4ffice last *1 #eptember *00 at more or lessKA00 in t e e!ening in &rgy% )inampo, $oblacion $alapag, 5J#amar, accused an /polonio y=aureano and -abriel )obes y )ubello confessed to t e undersigned t at t eir financier are t e#pouses udge =agrimas and is wife and t at t ey were just fronts of t e two%

ISSUE: 2 et er udge 8usta>uio is guilty of illegal gambling%

HELD: ) e .ourt resol!es to I#7I## t e administrati!e c arges against udge 8usta>uio .%=agrimas for lack of merit% He is reminded, owe!er, to be more mindful of is conduct outside

is sala%

41


39/74

A&t l# 2


40/74

ARTICLE 2


41/74

ARTICLE 2


42/74

ARTICLE 2<

Ha'?ula vs. Atty a'ia3a

FACTS: .omplainant alleged t at s e and respondent used to be friends as t ey bot worked att e &ureau of Fire $rotection '&F$(, claimed t at s e approac ed respondent for some legalad!ice and furt er alleged t at in t e course of t eir con!ersation w ic was supposed to be keptconfidential s e disclosed personal secrets only to be informed later by t e respondent t at s e'respondent( would refer t e matter to a lawyer friend% It was malicious, so complainant states,of respondent to a!e refused andling er case only after s e ad already eard er secrets%

6espondent denied gi!ing legal ad!ice to t e complainant and dismissed any suggestion aboutt e e@istence of a lawyer client relations ip between t em% 6espondent also stated t eobser!ation t at t e supposed confidential data and sensiti!e documents ad!erted to are in factmatters of common knowledge in t e &F$%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e /tty% 7adiana breac ed er duty of preser!ing t e confidence of aclient and !iolated t e .ode of $rofessional 6esponsibility%

HELD: :8#% 6espondent was reprimanded and admonis ed% ) e moment complainantapproac ed t e t en recepti!e respondent to seek legal ad!ice, a !eritable lawyer clientrelations ip e!ol!ed between t e two% #uc relations ip imposes upon t e lawyer certainrestrictions circumscribed by t e et ics of t e profession% /mong t e burdens of t e relations ipis t at w ic enjoins t e lawyer, respondent in t is instance, to keep in!iolate confidentialinformation ac>uired or re!ealed during legal consultations% ) e seriousness of t e respondent s

offense notwit standing, t e #upreme .ourt feels t at t ere is room for compassion, absentcompelling e!idence t at t e respondent acted wit ill will% 2it out meaning to condone t eerror of respondent s ways, w at at bottom is before t e .ourt is two former friends becoming

bitter enemies and filing c arges and counter c arges against eac ot er using w ate!er con!enient tools and data were readily a!ailable% "nfortunately, t e personal informationrespondent gat ered from er con!ersation wit complainant became andy in er >uest to e!ent e score% /t t e end of t e day, it appears clear to t e .ourt t at respondent was actuated by t eurge to retaliate wit out per aps realizing t at, in t e process of gi!ing !ent to a negati!esentiment, s e was !iolating t e rule on confidentiality%

45


43/74

ARTICLE 211F$& ill#!a v. Sa3'i a3/aya3

FACTS: $etitioner =eonor Formilleza, con!icted in t e #andiganbayan for indirect bribery, as been wit t e go!ernment ser!ice for around *0 years% # e was t e personnel super!isor of t e

regional office of t e 5I/ in )acloban .ity, =eyte% Her duties include t e processing of t eappointment papers of employees% # e t en filed a petition for re!iew of er case% 7rs% 8strella 7utia was an employee of t e 5I/ from February, 19GK up to 7arc , 19K % Her appointment was coterminous wit a project of t e 5I/% 4n ecember 31, 19K3, er appointment was terminated% ) is notwit standing, s e continued working for t e 5I/ pursuantto t e !erbal instructions of t e regional director of t e /dministration% 7rs% 7utia testified t ats e took steps to obtain eit er a permanent or at t e least a renewed appointment+ t at w en s eapproac ed t e regional director about t e matter s e was ad!ised to see t e petitioner w o wasto determine t e employees to be appointed or promoted+ and t at t e petitioner refused to attendto er appointment papers unless t e latter were gi!en some money% 7rs% 7utia reported er

problem to t e $ ilippine .onstabulary aut orities in t e pro!ince% ) e $. officials told er t atsteps were to be taken to entrap t e petitioner% ) e entrapment e>uipment consisted of marked paper money bills% 7rs% 7utia maintains t at after t ey ad finis ed taking t eir snacks at t ecanteen, s e anded t e marked money bills under t e tabl ewit er rig t and to t e petitioner w o recei!ed t e same wit er left and% /t t at moment, #ergeant &onjoc approac ed t e

petitioner and eld er and olding t e money bills% #ergeant /banes broug t out is cameraand took p otograp s of t e se>uence of e!ents% ) e petitioner was arrested by t e soldiersdespite er objections to t e entrapment% # e was broug t to t e $. crime laboratory in t elocality w ere s e was found positi!e for ultra !iolet powder% In t e presence of t e corporatecounsel of t e petitioner, s e denied accepting any bribe money from 7rs% 7utia%

ISSUE: 2 et er or not t e accused accepted t e supposed bribe money

HELD: ) e .ourt olds t at t e guilt of t e petitioner in as not been pro!ed beyond reasonabledoubt% # e is ,t erefore, entitled to an ac>uittal% /gainst t e e!idence of t e respondents t at t emoney was anded to petitioner by 7rs% 7utia under t e table is t e assertion of petitioner t at itwas w en s e stood up t at 7rs% 7utia suddenly placed somet ing in er and w ic s e did notknow to be money and w en s e saw t at it was money s e t rew it away% /n e@amination of t ese!en p otograp s t at were allegedly taken immediately after t e passing of t e money s owst at t e petitioner was standing up w en t e $. agents appre ended er%

46


44/74

ARTICLE 220+ C$33ivi3 4ith $& $3s#3ti3 t$ #vasi$3

E' u3'$ S. Al/#&t$" P&$vi3 ial Fis al A3' B$3i(a i$ C. I3tia 1st Asst. P&$vi3 ial Fis al"B$th ( Ca a&i3#s Su&" P#titi$3#&s" v. H$3. Ra(a#l D# La C&u!" I3 His Ca-a ity As %u' #

( Th# C(i ( Ca a&i3#s Su& A3' Eli i$ &/ita" R#s-$3'#3ts.

FACTS: In .riminal .ase 5o% 9 1 of t e .ourt of First Instance of .amarines #ur, 8ligio4rbita, a $ro!incial guard, is prosecuted for t e crime of Infedelity in t e .ustody of $risoner,defined and punis ed under /rticle ** of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode% In t e course of t e trialt ereof, or more particularly during t e cross e@amination of prosecution witness ose8smeralda, assistant pro!incial warden of .amarines #ur, t e defense broug t for t andconfronted t e witness wit a note, marked as e@ ibit, purportedly written by -o!% /rmando.ledera, asking ose 8smeralda to send fi!e men to work in t e construction of a fence at is

ouse at )aculod, .anaman, .amarines #ur, t en leased by t e pro!ince and used as an officialguest ouse% ose 8smeralda, declared, owe!er, t at e could not remember w o a nded t enote for im+ t at e was not sure as to genuineness of t e signature appearing t erein and t at ewas not present w en t e note was made and signed by -o!% .ledera% &elie!ing t at t e escapeof $ablo ena>ue was made possible by t e note of -o!% .ledera to ose 8smeralda and t at.ledera and 8smeralda are e>ually guilty of t e offense for w ic t e accused 8ligio 4rbita ad

been c arged, t e defense cousel filed a motion in court seeking t e amendment of t einformation so as to include -o!% cledera and ose 8smeralda as defendants t erein%

ISSUE: 245 -o!% .ledera and ose 8smeralda may be eld liable for t e escape of $risoner $ablo ena>ue%

HELD: 5o% ) e offense under article 1 L is usually committed by an outsider w o remo!esfrom jail any person t erein confined or elps im escape% If t e offender is a public officer w o

as custody or c arge of t e prisoner, e is liable for infidelity in t e custody of prisoner definedand penalty under /rticle **3 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode% #ince -o!% .ledera as go!ernor is t e

jailer of t e pro!ince, and ose 8smeralda is t e assistant pro!incial warden, t ey cannot be

prosecuted for t e escape 4f $ablo ena>ue under /rticle 1 L of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode%

) ere is likewise no sufficient e!idence to warrant t eir prosecution under /rticle **3 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode% In order to be guilty under article **3 of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode, it isnecessary t at t e public officer ad consented to, or conni!ed in, t e escape of t e prisoner under is custody or c arge% .onni!ance in t e escape of a prisoner on t e part of t e person inc arge is an essential condition in t e commission of t e crime of fait lessness in t e custody of

47


45/74

t e prisoner% If t e public officer c arged wit t e duty of guarding im does not conni!e witt e fugiti!e, t en e as not !iolated t e law and is not guilty of t e crime% For sure noconni!ance in t e escape of $ablo ena>ue from t e custody of t e accused 8ligio 4rbita can bededuced from t e note of -o!% .ledera to ose 8smeralda asking for fi!e men to work in t eguest ouse, it appearing t at t e notes does not mention t e names of t e prisoners to be broug tto t e guest ouse+ and t at it was t e accused 8ligio 4rbita w o picked t e men to compose t ework party% 5eit er is t ere e!idence to warrant t e prosecution of .ledera and 8smeralda under /rticle ** of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode% ) is article punis es t e public officer in w ose custodyor c arge a prisoner as escaped by reason of is negligence resulting in e!asion is definiteamounting to deliberate non performance of duty%

ARTICLE 225 Es a-# $( -&is$3#& u3'#& th# ust$'y $( a -#&s$3 3$t a -u/li $((i #&.

48


46/74

B$3'$ vs. Sa3'i a3/aya3).R. *$. L+58652 ay 2


47/74

Ai& Phili--i3# C$&-$&ati$3 vs. P#3s4#ll I3 .).R. *$. 172805 D# # /#& 10" 2


48/74

P#$-l# vs. )alit).R. *$. L+5177< a& h 2


49/74

).R. *$. 7 61. S#-t# /#& 5" 1 7

P#$-l# ( Th# Phili--i3#s" plaintiff-appellee, vs. %i y Talisi y illa $&" accused-

appellant .

) e accused appellant admits a!ing killed is wife but insists t at e did so only after surprising er in t e !ery act of se@ual intercourse wit anot er man% Howe!er, e fails tosubstantiate t e stringent elements re>uired by law to absol!e im of criminal responsibility% Hisdefense appears no more t an an amalgam of confusion, contradiction and concoction%

Stat# #3t $( th# Cas#

) at on or about 7ay K, 19KK, in t e .ity of Iligan, $ ilippines, and wit in t e jurisdiction of t is Honorable .ourt, t e said accused, a!ing concei!ed a deliberate intent to kill is wife

anita #apio )alisic, did t en and t ere willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and wit e!ident premeditation, attack, assault, stab and wound is wife, as a result of said attack, t e said anita#apio )alisic died%

.ontrary to and in !iolation of /rticle * L of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode%

FACTS: #i@teen year old anilo )alisic testified t at at dawn of 7ay K, 19KK, is mot er, anita

)alisic, was stabbed to deat wit a c isel by is fat er immy )alisic, w o afterwards displayedt e bloodied weapon before t eir altar% 6ealizing t at is mot er was already dead, anilodecided to bring is younger sister to t eir grandfat ers ouse% ) ey passed by t e ouse of t eir aunt, ictoria #apyo )aut o, a sister of t e deceased, and related to er t e bizarre killing% ) elatter urried to t e ouse of t e deceased, arri!ing at si@ oclock t at morning% In t e meantime,

anilo also related t e killing to is paternal grandfat er, #imon )alisic, w o t ereupon proceeded to t e ouse of is son, /ccused appellant immy )alisic, and broug t t e latter to t emilitary camp at )ipanoy, Iligan .ity%

ISSUE: ) e crucial >uestion in t is appeal is w et er t e totality of t e e!idence presented before t e trial court justifies t e application of /rticle * G of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode%

Howe!er, e argues t at e killed is wife under t e e@ceptional circumstance pro!ided in/rticle * G of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode, w ic readsA

/rt% * G% Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances % /ny legallymarried person w o, a!ing surprised is spouse in t e act of committing se@ual intercourse wit

52


50/74

anot er person, s all kill any of t em or bot of t em in t e act or immediately t ereafter, or s all inflict upon t em any serious p ysical injury, s all suffer t e penalty of destierro % @@@%

Ha!ing admitted t e killing, t e accused must now bear t e burden of s owing t e applicabilityof /rticle * G% /ccordingly, t e defense must pro!e t e followingA

1% ) at a legally married person 'or a parent( surprises is spouse 'or is daug ter, under 1Kyears of age and li!ing wit im(, in t e act of committing se@ual intercourse wit anot er

person%

*% ) at e or s e kills any or bot of t em or inflicts upon any or bot of t em any serious p ysical injury in t e act or immediately t ereafter%

3% ) at e as not promoted or facilitated t e prostitution of is wife 'or daug ter( or t at e or s e as not consented to t e infidelity of t e ot er spouse% R13S

2e stress t at t e burden of proof to s ow t e concurrence of all t ree elements rests on t edefense% 7ost critically, /ppellant immy )alisic must pro!e t at e caug t is wife in flagrantedelicto + t at e killed er w ile s e was in t e !ery act of !oluntary se@ual intercourse witanot er man or immediately t ereafter% #adly for im, e as miserably failed to do so%

/fter a t oroug re!iew of t e records of t is case, we find no reason as indeed appellant asfailed to pro!ide any to o!erturn t e trial courts well reasoned ruling% erily, t e claim of t eaccused appellant is t oroug ly unwort y of belief% He was unable to contro!ert t e finding of t e trial court as followsA

If t e accused was attacked by t e !ictim wit a c isel, would e not use is bolo since e wasadmittedly raging mad due to t e !ictims infidelityE 2 y used RsicS a c isel w en t e bolo in

and was more andyE

) e foregoing demonstrate t at /rticle * G of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode is inapplicable to t is case because appellant failed to pro!e t e essential re>uisite of a!ing caug t is wife and er alleged paramour in flagrante delicto% Indeed, appellant succeeded only in demonstrating is utter lack of credibility on t e witness stand%

/ll in all, we find no ground to re!erse or modify t e well reasoned rulings of t e trialcourt% /ppellants uncorroborated, implausible and flimsy testimony as not con!inced us onew it t at e caug t is wife in t e !ery act of !oluntary se@ual intercourse wit anot er man int e li!ing room of t eir ouse w ile e was momentarily away fetc ing water% In fact, e as note!en con!inced us t at suc a man was in t eir ouse w en e brutally killed is wife% / man

betrayed and aggrie!ed by is wifes brazen unfait fulness would a!e immediately surrendered

53

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/97961.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/97961.htm#_edn13


51/74

to t e aut orities and confessed t e trut , instead of simply awaiting is fat er to bring im to t emilitary camp% Incredible t at about sums up appellants case%

;HEREF RE" t e appeal is ereby 85I8 and t e ecision of t e trial courtcon!icting immy )alisic y illamor of parricide is ereby /FFI678 in toto % .osts againstappellant%

S RDERED.

ARTICLE 2, : H$ i i'#

).R. *$. 175


52/74

In its decision, t e ./ agreed wit t e 6). t at t e petitioner ad been positi!elyidentified as t e !ictims assailant% ) e ./, owe!er, ruled t at t e crime committed wasattempted omicide, not frustrated omicide% ) e ./ ruled t at t e prosecution e!idence failedto conclusi!ely s ow t at t e !ictims single stab wound was sufficient to cause deat wit outtimely medical inter!ention%The petitioner was positively identified ) e 6).s and ./s conclusions on t e petitioners positi!e identification are supported by amplee!idence% 2e consider in t is regard t e following pieces of e!idence of t e prosecutionA '1( t emanner of attack w ic was done frontally and at close range, t us allowing t e !ictim to see isassailant+ '*( t e lig ting conditions at t e scene of t e stabbing, pro!ided by two 7eralco

posts+ t e scene was also illuminated by white, fluorescent type lig t coming from a steelmanufacturing s op+ and '3( t at t e !ictim and t e petitioner knew eac ot er also allowed t e!ictim to readily identify t e petitioner as is assailant% The intent to kill was sufficiently established

) e petitioner posits t at e can only be eld liable for serious p ysical injuries since t e intentto kill, t e necessary element to c aracterize t e crime as omicide, was not sufficiently pro!en% ) e assailants intent to kill is t e main element t at distinguis es t e crime of p ysicalinjuries from t e crime of omicide% ) e crime can only be omicide if t e intent to kill is

pro!en%

"nder t ese circumstances, we are con!inced t at t e petitioner, in stabbing, beating andstoning t e !ictim, intended to kill im% ) us, t e crime committed cannot be merely serious

p ysical injuries% Frustrated homicide versus attempted homicide

) e ./ ruled t at t e crime committed only reac ed t e attempted stage as t ere waslack of e!idence t at t e stab wound inflicted was fatal to cause t e !ictims deat % ) e ./obser!ed t at t e attending p ysician did not testify in court% ) e ./ also considered t at t e7edical .ertificate and t e isc arge #ummary issued by t e 8ast /!enue 7edical .enter fells ort of specifying t e nature or gra!ity of t e wound%

) e !iew from t e frustrated stage of t e crime gi!es t e same results% ) e elements of frustrated

omicide areA '1( t e accused intended to kill is !ictim, as manifested by is use of a deadlyweapon in is assault+ =2> th# vi ti sustai3#' (atal $& $&tal 4$u3'Gs /ut 'i' 3$t 'i#/# aus# $( ti #ly #'i al assista3 # + and '3( none of t e >ualifying circumstance for murder under /rticle * K of t e 6e!ised $enal .ode, as amended, is present% #ince t e prosecution failed

to pro!e t e second element, we cannot old t e petitioner liable for frustrated omicide% 2e modify t e ./ decision wit respect to t e petitioners ci!il liability% ) e ./ ordered

actual damages to be paid in t e amount of $3,K K% 0% ) is is erroneous and contrary to t e pre!ailing jurisprudence%

=astly, we find t at t e !ictim is also entitled to moral damages in t e amountof $10,000%00 in accordance wit settled jurisprudence% R3LS "nder /rticle **19, paragrap 1 of t e

55

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/175023.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/175023.htm#_ftn37


53/74

5ew .i!il .ode, t e !ictim is entitled to moral damages in a criminal offense resulting in p ysical injuries%

;HEREF RE , we ereby DE* t e petition% ) e decision, dated uly *0, *00L, of t e

.ourt of /ppeals in ./ -%6% .6 5o% *9090, finding petitioner -io!ani #errano y .er!antes

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of /ttempted Homicide,is AFFIR ED wit DIFICATI * % ) e petitioner is RDERED to PA t e !ictim,/nt ony -alang, t e following amountsA

'1( $* ,000%00 as temperate damages+ and'*( $10,000%00 as moral damages%

.osts against t e petitioner%S RDERED.

ARTICLE 251 : D#ath Caus#' I3 A Tu ultu$us A((&ay

).R. *$. 1,1uently con!icted by t e court a quo andsentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay t e eirs of t e !ictim $100,000%00 as moraldamages, $ 0,000%00 as temperate damages, and anot er $ 0,000%00 as e@emplary damages %R1S

4n *G anuary 19K9 at around 9A00 o clock in t e e!ening anilo =aurel left is ousetoget er wit 8dwin #elda, a !isitor from &acolod .ity, to attend a public dance at 6izal #t%,7ag asawang )aytay, Hinigaran, 5egros 4ccidental% )wo '*( ours later, or around 11A00o clock t at e!ening, anilo asked 8dwin to take a s ort break from dancing to attend to t eir

personal necessities outside t e dance all% 4nce outside, t ey decided to a!e a drink and boug t two '*( bottles of -old 8agle beer at a nearby store%

/ccording to 8dwin, e was only about t ree '3( meters from anilo w o was relie!ingimself w en a s ort, dark bearded man walked past im, approac ed anilo and stabbed im at

56

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/141080.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/141080.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/141080.htm#_edn1


54/74

t e side% anilo retaliated by striking is assailant wit a alf filled bottle of beer% /lmostsimultaneously, a group of men numbering about se!en 'G(, ganged up on anilo and it imwit assorted weapons, i%e%, bamboo poles, stones and pieces of wood%

$43 omarie #arrosa narrated t at at around 11A30 in t e e!ening of *G anuary 19K9 e wasinside is ouse entertaining some !isitors w en suddenly e eard frantic s outs, Nfig t,fig tXN /nswering t e call of duty, e took is ser!ice pistol, went outside and fired a warnings ot in t e air to break up t e fig t t at was going on some fifty ' 0( meters away% Instincti!ely,t e protagonists broke up and scampered away%

/ccused /necito "nlagada now assails is con!iction on t e ground t at it was error for t etrial court to gi!e full fait and credence to t e lone and uncorroborated testimony of witness8dwin #elda, and in finding t at t e crime of murder was committed instead of Ndeat caused ina tumultuous affrayN under /rt% * 1 of he !evised Penal Code %

In an attempt to discredit t e lone eyewitness, accused appellant posits t e !iew t at t ecircumstances of t e place, t e swiftness of t e attack, and t e drunken state of t e witnessengender serious doubt t at t e witness positi!ely identified t e malefactor%

&ut, accused appellant claims t at t e lower court erred in con!icting im of murder >ualified by treac ery and not Ndeat in a tumultuous affray%N

N eat in a tumultuous affrayN is defined in /rt% * 1 of he !evised Penal Code as followsA

/rt% * 1% eat caused in a tumultuous affray% 2 en, w ile se!eral persons, not composinggroups organized for t e common purpose of assaulting and attacking eac ot er reciprocally,>uarrel and assault eac ot er in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in t e course of t eaffray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained w o actually killed t e deceased, but t e

person or persons w o inflicted serious p ysical injuries can be identified, suc person or persons s all be punis ed by prision mayor %

/ tumultuous affray takes place w en a >uarrel occurs between se!eral persons w o engagein a confused and tumultuous manner, in t e course of w ic a person is killed or wounded andt e aut or t ereof cannot be ascertained%) e >uarrel in t e instant case is between a distinct

group of indi!iduals, one of w om was sufficiently identified as t e principal aut or of t ekilling, as against a common, particular !ictim% It is not, as t e defense suggests, a NtumultuousaffrayN wit in t e meaning of /rt% * 1 of he !evised Penal Code , t at is, a melee or free for all,w ere se!eral persons not comprising definite or identifiable groups attack one anot er in aconfused and disorganized manner, resulting in t e deat or injury of one or some of t em%

57


55/74

) e ci!il aspect of t e case s ould owe!er be modified in consonance wit pre!ailing jurisprudence% In addition to $ 0,000%00 as ci!il indemnity, t e eirs of t e decedent are entitledto a reduced amount of $ 0,000%00 as moral damages, w ile temperate damages of $ 0,000%00and e@emplary damages of anot er $ 0,000%00 s ould be deleted for lack of factual and legal

basis%

;HEREF RE" t e ecision appealed from is /FFI678 wit t e following74 IFI./)I45A /ccused appellant /58.I)4 "5=/-/ / y #"/5C"8 a%k%a% N Lapad N isordered to pay t e eirs of t e deceased anilo =aurel $ 0,000%00 as ci!il indemnity, plus moraldamages in t e reduced amount of $ 0,000%00% .osts against accused appellant%

S RDERED.

ARTICLE 250: )I I*) ASSISTA*CE T SUICIDE

).R. *$. 1 2 0 Au ust 11" 2


56/74

) e antecedents are as followsA

$etitioner 2allem 7aritime #er!ices, Inc% is a domestic corporation licensed to engage in t emanning business% $etitioner 2allem 7aritime # ip 7anagement is a foreign corporation w icis t e principal of 2allem 7aritime #er!ices, Inc%, w ile 6eginaldo 4ben is t e $resident of 2allem 7aritime #er!ices, Inc% In *00 , petitioner 2allem 7aritime #er!ices, Inc% and Hernani$edrajas 'Hernani( entered into a contract of employment w erein Hernani was ired as 8ngine&oy on board t e 7J .rown ade% # e was also informed t at in!estigations were beingconducted by t e Italian -o!ernment relati!e to Hernani s deat % His body was repatriated back to t e $ ilippines in /pril *00 %

#uspecting foul play, onnabelle soug t t e assistance of t e $ ilippine 5ational $olice '$5$(.rime =aboratory to conduct a forensic e@amination on t e remains of Hernani and to in!estigatet e cause of is deat % onnabelle also re>uested t e 5ational &ureau of In!estigation '5&I( toin!estigate t e incident% /fter t e in!estigation, t e $5$ .rime =aboratory and t e 5&Iconcluded t at omicide cannot be totally ruled out% ue to t e foregoing, in une *00 ,

onnabelle, as beneficiary of Hernani, filed a claim for deat compensation benefits under t e$48/ #tandard 8mployment .ontract and t e /ssociates7arine 4fficer s and #eafarer s "nionof t e $ ilippines .ollecti!e &argaining /greement '/74#"$.&/(% # e also demandedattorney s fees, moral, and e@emplary damages%

$etitioners claim t at t ey a!e no obligation to pay deat benefits to t e eirs of Hernani because t e latter s deat was self inflicted and t erefore e@empted from t e co!erage of deat benefits under t e $ ilippine 4!erseas 8mployment /gency #tandard 8mployment .ontract

'$48/#8.( and t e /74#"$ .&/% $etitioners argued t at Hernani was in!ol!ed in a drugsmuggling acti!ity and fearing t at e would be arrested and would bring s ame to is family, ecommitted suicide% )o support t eir claim, petitioners attac ed anaut enticated Forensic6eport 3 released by t e 7edical 8@aminer in Italy w ic stated t at Hernani committed suicide

by anging imself% ) e same report indicated t at during t e course of t e autopsy, Hernani wasfound positi!e for cocaine% 2 en is lifeless body was found anging, two suicide notes werefound by t e Italian aut orities% 4ne was addressed to is wife and t e ot er to t e !essel s crew%) e suicide note addressed to is wife stated t at e committed suicide because e wasimplicated in a drug syndicate and e did not want to be jailed for t e rest of is life% ) e secondsuicide note led to t e arrest of eck &oy osep Harder, w o admitted is participation in t e

drug dealing operation% It also pointed t e Italian aut orities to w ere t e remaining cocaine andt e proceeds from its illegal sale were being idden on board t e !essel% 4n 7arc 31, *00L, t e=abor /rbiter '=/( ruled in fa!or of petitioners and denied t e respondents claim for deat

benefits% ) e =/ sustained petitioners claim t at Hernani committed suicide, gi!ing credence tot e Forensic 6eport submitted by t e Italian aut orities concluding t at is deat was selfinflicted%

59

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_192993_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_192993_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_192993_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_192993_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_192993_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_192993_2014.html#fnt4


57/74


58/74

2H868F468, t e petition is -6/5)8 % ) e ecision of t e .ourt of /ppeals in ./ -%6% #$ 5o% 10* 99, dated February 11, *010, and t e 6esolution dated uly *0, *010, are 68 86#8and #8) /#I 8% ) e =abor /rbiter s ecision dated 7arc 31, *00L is 68I5#)/)8 %

#4 46 868 %

61


59/74

ARTICLE 255: I3(a3ti i'#

).R. *$. ,5186 S#-t# /#& 0


60/74

&y t e way, it s ould be stated t at t ere is no e!idence s owing ow t e c ild in >uestion died%r% 5epomuceno imself affirmed t at t e wounds found in t e body of t e c ild were not

caused by t e and of man but by bites animals, t e pigs t at usually roamed t roug t e t icketw ere it was found%

Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punis able, must be committed wilfully or consciously, or at least it must be result of a !oluntary, conscious and free act or omission% 8!enin cases w ere said crimes are committed t roug mere imprudence, t e person w o commitst em, under said circumstances, must be in t e full enjoyment of is mental faculties%

In conclusion, taking into account t e foregoing facts and considerations, and granting t at t eappellant was aware of er in!oluntary c ildbirt in t e t icket and t at s e later failed to take

er c ild t erefrom, a!ing been so pre!ented by reason of causes entirely independent of er will, it s ould be eld t at t e alleged errors attributed to t e lower court by t e appellant aretrue+ and it appearing t at under suc circumstances said appellant as t e fourt and se!ente@empting circumstances in er fa!or, is ereby ac>uitted of t e crime of w ic s e ad beeaccused and con!icted, wit costs de oficio , and s e is actually confined in jail in connectionwit t is case, it is ordered t at s e be released immediately% #o ordered%

63


61/74

ARTICLE 26

PGChi#( I3s-# t$& F#&3a3'$ Bill#'$ v. ;ilh#l i3a ;a a3;ilh#l i3a ;a a3

FACTS: ) e case stemmed from t e arrest of complainants /lberto 7ina, 5ilo ay 7ina andFerdinand .aasi on February *G, *000 along an alley, Interior 33*, 8dang #treet, $asay.ity, by

petitioners police officers% ) ey were reported to a!e been caug t in flagrante delicto drinkingli>uor in a public place% ) e complainants alleged t at t eir arrest was unlawful and was only

upon t e

Documents

Criminal Law II Digests