People vs. de Leon (Continued Crime) Facts: Accused was charged with theft.

Accused stole two roosters belonging to different owners, but it was found on the same location. Accused was found guilty of one count of theft. Attorney-General insisted that he should be liable for two counts of theft. Issue: WON the act to taking two roosters belonging to different owners should be considered tow separate counts of theft? Held: NO. The act cannot be considered as two counts of theft. There was a single intention for the crime, which is material. The fact that it belongs to different owners is immaterial. People vs. Bon (Death Penalty) Facts: Accused was charged with 6 counts of rape and 2 counts of attempted rape. Accused was found guilty. Before the penalty is served Death Penalty was declared suspended. Issue: How will the penalty for attempted rape be applied? Held: The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposable on rape as two indivisible penalty. Because death penalty was suspended reclusion perpetua would now be the pealty for consummated rape. Thus, two degrees lower form the imposable penalty for attempted rape, which is reclusion perpetua, is prision mayor. People vs. Patriarca (Pardon and Amnesty) Facts: Accused was charged with murder. He was found guilty of the charge. His defense: it was done in pursuance to the ideology of the NPA. He applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 347 which grants amnesty to rebel. Issue: Won he would be held liable for the crime charged? Held: NO. Basing on the evidence the act/crime was made in pursuance to his ideology. He was qualified for amnesty as attested by the Amnesty Commissioner. He could not be made liable. Amnesty acts as forgiveness to the crime. The effect would be as if he did not committed the offense.

Romualdez vs CA ( Prescription) Accused claims that Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion when it file an information for Anti-Graft while it has been dismissed already by the Sandiganbayan. He also claimed that the case had already prescribed. Respondent argued that it had not prescribed because accused was out of the country, thus tolling the period applying the RPC suppletorily. Issue: WON the RPC would act as a deterrent to the running of the prescriptive period? Held: No. RPC and Anti-Graft had conflicting provisions regarding prescription of offense. The provision of Anti-Graft should prevail being a special law. Further, it is favorable to the accused.