PEOPLE v. SIMON [34 SCRA 555 (1994)] Nature: Appeal from a judgment of Guagua, Pampanga RTC Facts: Oct.

22, 1988, Pampanga. Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 AII 4 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) through a NARCOM poser-buyer. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up (testimonies & evidence proved otherwise) & evidence was inadmissible (held, because there was no counsel). Issue: WON correct penalty applied? Held: No. Conviction modified. There was overlapping error in the law thus the SC had to harmonize conflicting provisions by providing for degrees of graduation. Rule: degrees applied depending on quantity then apply mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Least penalty should be prision correccional so as not to depreciate seriousness of crime. Justified in applying RPC provisions because law adopted penalties under RPC in their technical terms thus significations and effects will also apply. It rules in people v. Tsang Hin Wai that when special law grants discretion to SC to apply penalties, Code wont be held. Otherwise, SC should be guided by rules in RPC that being the expert in criminal law administration. Digest: PEOPLE vs. ROEL PUNZALAN, ET. AL., G.R. No. 78853 November 8, 1991 Facts: Appellant Marietta was employed by the Fules as a house-help. She served as personal nursemaid to the mistress of the house and the victim, Mrs. Fule. Accused Roel Punzalan and Jose Vecidor were employed as house-boys. In July 9, 1985, accused Domingo Mendoza, husband of appellant Marietta, stayed in the servants quarters of the Fule house and was seen to have been in close secretive conversation with the rest of the accused. At 4pm, Judge Fule left his house for Manila and with that, the accused were heard to have decided to effect their plan on the same day. At around 11:30 pm, Mrs. Fule and accused Marietta locked up all the doors of the house with all the servants, other than Marietta, asked to leave the house and stay at their quarters. At around 12:30 am, Marietta was alleged to have called the 2 accused house boys and let them inside the house. Accused Marietta was alleged to have knocked on the victims bedroom door on some pretext so that the victim will open her door, which was locked on the inside. When victim opened her door, the houseboys rushed inside her room, gagged her and stabbed her multiple times. She was left bleeding on her bed while the houseboys ransacked her drawers for cash and jewelry. At this time, accused Marietta did not help the victim nor prevent the killing of the victim. Accused Domingo waited in the parked jeep outside the Fules house as a means of escape. At 6am, accused Marietta woke up another houseboy, Murillo, and Nieves Santos, witness, without telling them about anything unusual that happened the previous night. When the houseboy Murillo was cleaning the Fule compound, he noticed that the front gate of the compound was open. He reported this to accused Marietta and Santos, and the three then reported such to Gregorio Fule, the son of the victim. Accused Marietta then mentioned that they were robbed the previous night. Houseboy Murillo was asked to fetch the police. Subsequently, the son Fule found the bloody clothes used by the accused and other items which led him to the room of his mother, which he saw bloody and dead. The son confronted accused

Marietta as to what happened but she responded that she knew nothing as she was asleep the whole time. Issue: Was appellant Marietta guilty of robbery with homicide for having conspired with the other accused? Held: Yes. Based on the following, Marietta was deemed to have acted in concert with the rest of the accused in the robbery, which eventually led to murder: 1. She had participated in the discussion among her husband Domingo Mendoza, Roel Punzalan and Jose Besida in the afternoon before the robbery and the killing, when Domingo Mendoza had declared that the time to carry out their plan had arrived with Judge Fule gone; 2. Marieta had unlocked doors and summoned Roel Punzalan and Jose Besida from the servants' quarters and brought them inside Judge Fule's house an hour or so before the robbery and the killing were committed; 3. Appellant Marieta had, by her own testimony, seen Jose Besida enter her room leading to Mrs. Fule's room while Mrs. Fule and others were watching a video film, but failed to report that fact to Mrs. Fule or to anyone else in the household then watching the video film; 4. After hearing the moaning of Mrs. Fule through the open bedroom door and after she was aware that Roel Punzalan and another person had left Mrs. Fule's room in the corridor in which Marieta slept, she, per her own testimony, stayed in the floor for four hours without attempting to find out what had happened to Mrs. Fule and without attempting to awaken Nieves Santos or anybody else and to raise the alarm; 5. Marieta had not been harmed in any way by Roel Punzalan and Jose Besida although she obviously recognized them; they had not even tied or gagged her to prevent her from raising an alarm.