OCAMPO VS PEOPLE robbery with physical injuries FACTS: Misayah testified that on 14 November 1995, at around 8:10 p.m.

, he was walking along San Nicolas Street on his way home when three male individuals approached him.1[5] As the place was sufficiently lighted by a nearby post, he was able to identify the trio as accused Cruz, Ocampo and Miranda. When the three accused were already near him, Cruz grabbed Misayahs neck and choked him while Miranda held his shoulder and got his shoulder bag.2 Ocampo meanwhile was in the middle, holding a knife, warning him not to fight back. Sensing that he would be harmed anyway, Misayah fought back by pushing the hands of the accused and trying to parry their blows. He and Cruz then fell on the ground with Cruz on top of him. When the handle of his shoulder bag snapped, all of the accused ran away with the shoulder bag.3 By reason of the incident, Misayah sustained wounds in his hands caused by the bladed weapon held by Ocampo when he attempted to evade Ocampos blows.4[8] The shoulder bag taken from Misayah contained the items enumerated in the aforequoted Information. ISSUE: WON COSPIRACY EXIST? NO WON TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS WHICH IS MISAYAH IS SUFFICIENT AND NEED NO CORROBORATION? TESTIMONY OF MISAYAH IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE 3 ACCUSED

ISSUE: WON SEARCHING INQUIEY CAN STILL BE CONDUCTED? YES even he pleaded guilty the court stil has the duty to conduct searching inquiry

PEOPLE VS DEGUZMAN

-The bank (Citibank) advised Sycip to close his checking account to avoid paying bank charges evry time he made a stop payment order. -Due to the closure of petitioners checking account, the drawee bank dishonoured six postdated checks. FRC filed a complaint against petitioner for violations of BP Blg 22 involving said dishonoured checks. -RTC and CA found petitioner guilty of violating Sec 1 of BP Blg 22 in each of the six cases. Issue: w/n the CA erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. [Or yung related sa topic] w/n petitioner has a valid defense to the charges against him Held: Petitioners exercise of a right of the buyer under Article 23 of PD 957 is a valid defense to the charges against him. Petition is granted. Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the charges against him under BP Blg. 22. RD: -We find that although the first element of the offense exists, the other elements have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. We find from the records no showing that at the time said checks were issued, petitioner had knowledge that his deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover them when presented for encashment. -We are of the view that petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. The third element of subsequent dishonour of the checkwithout valid cause appear to us not established by the prosecution. -Following Article 11 (5) of the RPC, petitoners exercise of a right of the buyer under Art 23 of PD 957 is a valid defense to charges against him. Sec 23 of PD 957: The buyer of a townhouse unit has the right to suspend his amortization payments, should the subdivision or condominium developer fail to develop or complete the project in accordance with duly approved plans and specifications. BAX VS PEOPLE FACTS: Sometime in October 1993, petitioner, for and in behalf of Vachman Industries, Inc. (VACHMAN), purchased 80 metric tons of chemical compounds, known as caustic soda flakes, from Ilyon Industrial Corporation (ILYON), respondent. On December 6, 1993, ILYON delivered 27 metric tons of caustic soda flakes to petitioner. Again in January 1994, ILYON delivered another 27 metric tons of caustic soda flakes to petitioner. In payment therefor, petitioner issued ten (10) checks amounting to P464,750.00 in favor of ILYON. Upon presentment of the checks to the United Coconut Planters Bank for payment, they were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Despite ILYONs demand, petitioner failed to make good the bounced checks for the reason that he has been encountering financial problems. As a result, ILYON caused the filing of ten (10) Informations against petitioner. ISSUE: WON ALL THE ELEMENTS OF BP 22 ARE PRESENT?
ND

FATCS: On 09 September 1985, robbery was committed in Quezon City in the house of Jose L. Obillos, Sr., where various pieces of precious jewelry alleged to be worth millions of pesos were taken. Before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by the accused thru counsel, praying that the information filed against both accused be quashed, on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Among others, the motion alleges, that as per police investigation, the crime took place in Antipolo, Rizal. For this reason, Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 is an independent crime, separate and distinct from that of Robbery. The accused claims, likewise, that jurisdiction to try the same is with the Court within which territorial jurisdiction, the alleged fencing took place ISSUE: WON the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the Municipality or Province wherein the offense was committed? YES BUT ANTIPOLO Prosecution is not correct that it must tried in QC since the court said that the place of robbery or theft where it occurs is inconsequential PEOPLE VS JULIANO FACTS: The accused purchased 190 sacks of milled rice from JCT Agro-Development Corporation and in payment she issued a check for a value of P89,000, knowing at the time of issue that she did not have funds with the drawee bank for payment of the said check. When presented for encashment, it was dishonored by the bank for reason of insufficiency of funds. On the following month the accused issued another check that was again dishonored by the drawee bank for the same reason, to the damage and prejudice of JCT Agro-Development Corporation. The trial court found her guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) and Estafa. Appellant appealed her conviction for estafa to the Court of Appeals, but still found her guilty, with intent to defraud and by means of false pretense, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, committed the offenses. ISSUE: Whether the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant for estafa? RULING: The Court set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court and acquitted Lea Sagan Juliano for the crime of estafa. The accused could not be found guilty of estafa in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed deceit constituting false pretenses or any fraudulent act. Nevertheless, appellants civil liability to JCT remains, in the amount of P89,000, which is the value of the sack of rice she purchased. the fact that the accused no longer deposited the amount necessary to cover the first check within required period cannot be considered prima facie evidence of deceit against her, for complainant own act of accepting the replacement checks and surrendering the 1 st check to the accused meant that complainant no longer holding the accused liable for payment under the said first check. BESIDES she have enough money 78k to pay the 11k first check. SYCIP JR VS CA Francisco Sycip agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit. -Upon execution of the contract to sell, Sycip, as required issued to FRC 48 postdated checks, each on the amount of P9,304 covering 48 monthly instalments. -After moving in his unit, Sycip complained to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. -Sycip served on FRC 2 notarial notices to the effect that he was suspending his instalment payments on the unit pending compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). -Notwithstanding the notarial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycips postdated checks in its possession. Sycip sent stop payment orders to the bank.

PEOPLE VS TALUSAN kidnapping with rape sentence to reclusion perpetua FACTS: That during the period from January 15, 2004 up to January 23. 2004, in the City of Las Pinas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with one ELJOY SALONGA, whose true identity and present whereabout is still unknown, without legal authority or justifiable motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, carry away, detain and deprive AAA, a SIX (6) year old, minor, of her liberty, against her will and consent, and the said detention lasted for eight (8) days, and while accused RENATO TALUSAN y PANGANIBAN @ Nato, @ Roxell B. Verga, Jr., was in custody of AAA and armed with a gun, by means of force, threat, or intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA for several instances against her will and consent thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse, which is prejudicial to her physical and psychological development.

RULING: NO, 2

Element is not present the accused is not notified by the complainant.

It is true that ILYON through its president, Benedict Tan, asked petitioner to pay the dishonoured checks, however such kind of noticeis not the one required by BP22. Since petitioner did not receive a written notice of dishonour of the checks, obviously there is now way of determining when the 5-days period prescribed in sec 2 bp22 would start and end. Thus, the prima facie evidence of petitioners knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit at the time he is sued the check did not arise. ACQUITTED

FERDINAND CRUZ VS PEOPLE FACTS: That on or about the 25th day of October 1996, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then employed as Marketing Manager of Porta-Phone Rentals, Inc. with office address located at 3/F ENZO Bldg., Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, herein represented by Juanito M. Tan, Jr. and had access to the funds of the said corporation, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of said corporation, with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there

willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the amount of P15,000.00 belonging to said Porta-Phone Rentals, Inc., to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforesaid amount of P15,000.00. ISSUE: WON HE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND RIGHT TO QUESTION ANY IRREGULARITY THAT SURROUNDS IT? NO SINCE HE PLEADED GUILTY. WON PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR QUALIFIED THEFT WAS ABSENT? NO it must be noted that the original indictment was for estafa/falsifaction of private doc but later the prosecutor found it proper to charge him with qualified theft. Ferndinand was able to answer the intitial charge of estafa/falsification of private doc through his counter-affifavit. There is no need for Ferdinand to be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavit anew, as he had already answered said allegation when he submitted counter-affi for the original indictment of estafa/falsi of private do. GUILTY OF QUALIFIED THEFT (by reason of grave abuse of confidence) PEOPLE VS ARTEMIO GARCIA CRUZ JR/ REAGALADO BERNABE FATCS: That on or about the 21st day of December, 1996, in the municipality of San Rafael, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping with each other, with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of violence and intimidation, forcibly take from the driver Wilfredo Elis a brand new Toyota Tamaraw FX with Plate No. UJL-761 owned by Fernando Ignacio; That during the commission of the offense, or by reason thereof, the said accused, armed with bladed weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping each other, did then and there, with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Wilfredo Elis in different parts of his body causing mortal wounds which directly resulted in his death. It appears from the record that on December 17, 1996, Joselito Cortez, a taxicab operator based in Marilao, Bulacan, was approached by Garcia and Bernabe because they wanted to borrow his brand new Mitsubishi L300 van for their trip to the Bicol region. Cortez refused, saying that the van was unavailable. Instead, he got in touch with Ferdinand Ignacio, who had just purchased a brand new Toyota Tamaraw FX for P475,500.00.5[3] Ignacio agreed to lease his vehicle to Cortez for two days at the daily rate of P2,000.00. Bernabe and Garcia, on the other hand, rented the vehicle from Cortez for P4,000.00 a day inclusive of the P500.00 drivers fee. They agreed to pay the rental fee upon their return from Bicol. ISSUE: WON EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF GARCIA IS ADMISSIBLE? Appelant voluntary admission to crotez that he and his co-aacued conspired in killing the deceased when the latter opposed their plan to sell the vehicle is admissible as evidence against him. WON CONSPIRACY IS PRESENT? YES all elements of carnapping is present Anent Garcias confession implication appellant in the commission of the offense, it appears that the latter Bernabe did not oppose or affirm garcias statement. Thus, it was not accused garcias admission that prejudice accused-appelant beranabe, but his own SILENCE when it was such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. LAURO SANTOS VS PEOPLE GUILTY OF THEFT FACTS: Sometime in November 1980, the complaining witness, Encarnacion Pealosa, entrusted her car, a 1976 Ford Escort, to herein petitioner Lauro Santos for repair of the carburetor. The work was to cost P300.00. A week later, Santos persuaded her to have her car repainted by him for P6,500.00, within a period of two months. 1

After two months, Pealosa went to the petitioner's repair shop at MacArthur Highway, Malabon, to retrieve her car. Santos refused to deliver the vehicle unless she paid him P634.60 for the repairs. As she did not have the money then, she left the shop to get the needed payment. Upon her return, she could not find Santos although she waited five hours for him. She went back to the shop several times thereafter but to no avail. 2 Pealosa was to learn later that Santos had abandoned his shop in Malabon. Unable to recover her car, she filed a complaint for carnapping against Santos with the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group in Camp Crame. The case was dismissed when the petitioner convinced the military authorities that the complainant had sold the vehicle to him. He submitted for this purpose a Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase in his favor. ISSUE: WON THEFT SHOULD BE THE CRIME AND NOT ESTAFA? If the accused wasonly entrusted with de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes THEFT. Because he was entrusted only with material or physical or defacto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitute THEFT. In order that ESFATA he should have the JURIDICAL POSSESION of thething, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa. It was erroneous for the respondent court to hold THE PETI guilty of qualified theft bec the fact that theobject of the crime was a car was not alleged in the information as qualifying circumstance. PEOPLE VS ISABELO PUNO

PD No. 532 punishes as highway robbery only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim The mere fact that the robbery was committed inside a car which was casually operating on a highway does not make PD No 532 applicable to the case This is not justified by the accused's intention Accused-appellants convicted of robbery (indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months or prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor. Accused to pay Mrs. Sarmiento P7,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages.)

Facts: January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave, QC He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his place When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo driving After the car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped and a young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to "get money" from her Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she handed to the accused But the accused said that they wanted P100,000 more The car sped off north towards the North superhighway where Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000 Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and one P40,000 check Isabelo then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he changed his mind and turned the car again towards Pampanga According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side of the superhighway and was able to flag down a fish vendor's van, her dress had blood because according to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she jumped out of the car The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the complainant except that according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step out of the car He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until he saw that his employer had gotten a ride He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe while running across the highway Issue: Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as "highway robbery" under PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974) Holding: No. No. Ratio: There is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful acts against complainant, other than the extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation. For this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention Jurisprudence reveals that during the early part of the American occupation of our country, roving bands were organized for robbery and pillage and since the then existing law against robbery was inadequate to cope with such moving bands of outlaws, the Brigandage Law was passed (this is the origin of the law on highway robbery)