Crimlaw cases list pesigan vs. angeles 129 scra 174 taada vs. tuvera 136 scra 27 * US vs.

ah sing 36 phil 978 maquiabas vs. phil ryukus command 80 phil 262 magno vs. CA GR#96132 - jun.26, 1992 people vs. temblor 161 scra 623 people vs. hassan 157 scra 261 people vs. delos santos 423 scra 153 US vs. ah chong 15 phil 488 people vs. oanis 74 phil 257 estrada vs. sandigan bayan 369 scra 394 * people vs. buan 22 scra 18 people vs. pugad 167 scra 139 people vs. dindoy 56 phil 15 people vs. cagoko 58 phil 524 * urbano vs. IAC 157 scra 1 intod vs. CA 215 scra 52 quinto vs. andres 453 scra 511 people vs. opuran 383 scra 653 . . . . 157 scra 10 ? people vs. jacinto GR#162540 - jul.13, 2009 people vs. lamahang 61 phil 703 people vs. dio 130 scra 151 people vs. trinidad 169 scra 51 people vs. campuhan 329 scra 270 people vs. listerio 335 scra 40 people vs. iria 50 phil 1998 people vs. espiritu CA-G.R. No. 2107-R - May 31, 1949 people vs. dio, C.A. 45 O.G. 3446 people vs. valenzuela GR#160188 - jun.21, 2007 * people vs. dagman 47 phil 768 people vs. baleros,jr. 483 scra 10 GR#138033 feb.22,2006 * US vs bautista 6 Phil 581 people vs. vengco 127 scra 242 people v valdez 159 scra 153 people v escober 157 scra 541 people v elijorde 306 scra 188 people v fabro 325 scra 285 people v bello 428 v 388 Li vs. people 427 scra 217 people v bagano 375 scra 470 people v bangcado 346 scra 189 people v ramos 427 scra 299 fernan v people GR#145927 - aug.24, 2007 people vs garchitorena 597 scra 420 GR#175605 aug.28, 2009 * Self defense. people vs narvaez 121 scra 381 PEOPLE v. BOHOLST-CABALLERO [61 SCRA 180 (1974)] People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366 THE PEOPLE vs. JULIAN SUMICAD 56 phil 643 People vs Luague, 62 Phil 504 People v dela Cruz, 61 Phil 344 people v jaurigue, 76 Phil 174 Toledo v. People, G.R. No. 158057, Sept. 24, 2004 381 scra 351? Urbano vs. people 413 scra 92

401 scra 76 People vs bigan? ----383 scra 15 State of necessity People v Ricohermoso, 56 SCRA 431 Ty v People, 439 SCRA 220 * People of the Philippines vs. Roel Punzalan G.R. No. 78853 N108490? People vs Simon? * People vs delima 46 phil 738 49 scra 439? 340 scra 388? PEOPLE v. BERONILLA 96 phil 566 Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan 268 SCRA 332

PEOPLE v. DELIMA [46 Phil. 738 (1922)] November 10, 2010 Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail. Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima ordered his surrender but Napoleon answered with a stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it, fired his revolver but didnt hit Napoleon. The criminal tried to ran away, not throwing his weapon; the policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried and convicted for homicide; he appealed. Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted. The court held that the killing was done in performance of a duty. Napoleon was under the obligation to surrender and his disobedience with a weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The action was justified by the circumstances. PEOPLE v. BERONILLA [96 Phil. 566 (1955)] November 10, 2010 Nature: Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Abra, convicting the accused of murder. Facts: Arsenio Borjal was mayor of La Paz Abra at the outbreak of war and continued to serve as mayor during the Japanese occupation. Dec 19, 1944 accused-appellant Manuel Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col Arnold. Simultaneously, he received a memorandum issued by Arnold authorizing them to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused of treason, espionage or aiding the enemy. He also received a list of all puppet government officials of Abra, with a memorandum instructing all Military Mayors to investigate said persons and gather against them complaints. Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions placed Borjal under custody and asked residents of La Paz to file case against him. He also appointed a 12-man jury composed of Labuguen as chairman and others, plus Alverne and Balmaceda were prosecutors; Paculdo as clerk of the jury, and Inovermo as counsel for the accused, later Atty. Barreras voluntarily appeared as counsel for Borjal. The jury found Borjal guilty on all counts and imposed death penalty. Mayor Beronilla forwarded the records of the case to Headquarters of Infantry for review. Records were returned on April 18, 1945 with approval of Arnold. On the same day, Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal. Immediately after the execution, Beronilla reported the execution to Arnold, the latter complementing Beronilla. Two years later, Mayor Beronillo and others involved in the Borjal case were indicted by CFI of Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the execution of Borjal. Pres. Roxas issued E.P. no. 8, granting amnesty to all persons who committed acts penalized, under RPC in furtherance of resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. All the accused (except Labuguen who filed and granted amnesty by the AFP), filed their application to Second Guerilla Amnesty Commission, which denied their application on the ground that they were inspired by purely personal motives, thus remanding case to CFI for trial on merits. On July 10, 1950 Beronillo, Paculdo,

Velasco and Adriatico were convicted as conspirator and co-principals of crime murder. They appealed. Issue: WON accused appellants are guilty of murder; and WON they should be granted amnesty. Held: The records are ample to show that Beronilla acted pursuant to the orders of the Infantry Headquarters. Although it was alleged by the state that there was a radiogram from certain Col. Volkmann to Lt. Col. Arnold, on the illegality of Borjals execution, there are no sufficient evidence to show that it was known to Beronilla. Furthermore, the messages of Col. Arnold approving the decisions of Beronilla prove otherwise. The testimony of Rafael Balmaceda, relative of Borjal was also unreliable. The state claims that the appellants held grudges against late Borjal, but court said that the conduct of the appellants does not dispose that they were impelled by malice. In fact, prior to the execution, Beronilla sent the decision for review. The lower court also found that Borjal was really guilty of treasonable acts. The court held that the accusedappellants just acted upon the orders of superiors and criminal intent was not established. Even assuming the accused-appellant are guilty of murder, they should not be denied of the amnesty on the ground that the slaying took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy control. The court held that any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the amnesty proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the accused.

Luis A. Tabuena, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332, February 17, 1997) FACTS: Then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena, General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), over the phone to pay directly to the presidents office and in cash what the MIAA owes the Phil. National Construction Corp. The verbal instruction was reiterated in a Presidential memorandum. In obedience to Pres. Marcos instruction, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, the Asst. Gen. Mgr. and the Acting Finance Services Mgr. of MIAA,respectively, caused the release of P55M of MIAA funds of three (3) withdrawals anddelivered the money to Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, private secretary of Marcos. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts she received from Tabuena. Later, it turned out that PNCC never received the money. The case involves two (2) separate petitions for review by Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta. They appeal the Sandiganbayan decision convicting them of malversation of MIAA funds inthe amount of P55M.Further, petitioners claimed that they were charged with intentional malversation, as alleged in the amended information, but it would appear that they were convicted for malversation with negligence. Hence, their conviction of a crime different from that charged violated their constitutional right to be informed of the accusation.

ISSUE: (1)Whether or not the Sandiganbayan convicted them of a crime not charged in theamended information; and(2)Whether or not Tabuena and Peralta acted in good faith. HELD: (1)No. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The Dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved.(2)Yes. Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. However, a more compelling reason for the ACQUITTAL is the violation of the accused basic constitutional right to due process. Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. The questions of the court were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta may not have raised the issue as an error, there is nevertheless no impediment for the court to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not. The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge "requirement of due process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate. Time and again the Court has declared that due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. That the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties tha this decision will be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due process. HENCE, Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation.