B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

1

Title 1: CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Title TREASON Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes Treason is a war crime. It is punished by state as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation. Law of treason is an emergency measure – dormant until emergency arises What is suspended is the exercise of rights not sovereignty General Rule: Extent of aid/comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals Murder and physical injuries are inherent in the crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy. Are citizens barred from renouncing citizenship during war time? – YES CA 63: oath of allegiance: sworn to help in war is different from swearing to support consti and laws. Being a member is an overt act 2-witness rule: favorable to the accused

Laurel v. Misa

1947

Filipino citizen who gave aid and comfort to the Japanese contends that since sovereignty is suspended, his allegiance as well is suspended

No. Citizen owes his government permanent and absolute allegiance.

People v. Perez

1949

Perez with other Filipinos apprehended women to satisfy desires of Colonel Mini. Accused caused torture of several Filipinos. Seen dragging the American aviator Seen walking with the Americans Accused was member of Makapili. Invoked CA 63 – loss of citizenship: 1. Oath of allegiance 2. Becoming an officer 3. Declared as deserter of armed forces Accused was a Makapili. Witnesses presented only testified to him joining the Makapili army. Other acts were not established by 2 witnesses.

People v. Prieto

1948

No. Commandeering of women, against their will, to satisfy the sexual desires of the enemy is not treason because it doesn’t directly or materially improve war efforts of the enemy. No. Two witness rule was not satisfied. No. There’s no complex crime of treason and murder/PI No. legislature did not intend that can renounce duties simply by taking oath of allegiance during war time. No evidence presented No. 2-witness rule is severely restrictive. Corroboration in direct testimony to the same overt act

People v. Manayao

1947

People v. Adriano PIRACY

1947

People v. Lol-lo and Saraw

1922

Dutch and Moros Boat of Dutch possession was surrounded by 6 vintas with moros. Took all the cargo, raped women and attacked some men. Tawi-tawi, MV Noria, pump boat Accused stole equipments and personal properties of the crew members and passengers. Pilas island Accused was apprehended because he was seen the pants which he took from the victim

Piracy is a crime against mankind. (hostes humani generis) Only political law is changed. Municipal laws remain in force Crime was positively testified by 3 witnesses. PD 532: Mandatory death penalty for persons who committed piracy with rape, murder or homicide Yes. PD 532: special complex crime regardless of number of victims

Is the 2-witness rule still applicable today? Created at a time when the only way to recall events is through human memory and human memory is unreliable. different events: purpose of the rule is defeated now, not the only way to prove treason – VIDEOS! Piracy Mutiny Robbery Offender External Crew/passenger Crew/Passenger Purpose Intent to gain Defiance Intent to gain

People v. Rodriguez

1985

People v. Siyoh

1985

Qualified: if successfully boarded/seized Piracy: enough that vessel was fired upon even if the offenders has not yet boarded

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

2

Title 2: CRIMES AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Title Year ARBITRARY DETENTION Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes Theory of hot pursuit: supposed to apprehend the accused but disappeared and was later on arrested at home while asleep Why would one who evades justice would go home Principle that subversion is a continuing offense Would a person spend every waking moment/100% of the time doing subversive acts? Logical: not yet done with one overt act Ridiculous: committing 100% of the time Warrantless arrest: only if urgent If not urgent, why not just secure a warrant

Umil v. Ramos

1990

NPA, PISTON Arrested in a hospital, Constantino’s house, etc.

Arrests were valid. Subversion is a continuing offense.

People v. Burgos

1986

Gun was buried. NPA pamphlets under a pile of cogon.

He was arbitrarily detained.

Milo v. Salanga

1987

Barrio captain. Detained for 11 hours.

Barrio captain can be held liable for Arbitrary detention.

RA 3590: revised barrio charter Power and duties of barrio captain similar to that of mayors

SEARCH WARRANTS Level of specificity Look for evidence or fish for evidence No idea of a specific crime committed No specific charge Fruit of the poison tree Prohibit illegal search and all fruits obtained from it Why use exclusionary principle when we already have A.128? Incentive/disincentive Need for other means of deterrence If more lenient to police officers= the government will benefit from the search Tendency: just do it, will be pardoned later on Exclusionary rule Deterrence Imperative of judicial integrity Should not profit from lawless behavior Minimize risk of seriously undermining popular trust in government

Stonehill v. Diokno

1967

42 search warrants, search premises of office/warehouse/residence, take possession of persona properties (book of accounts, financial records, etc.) as violation of Central Bank Laws, Custom Laws, Internal Revenue Code and RPC

Search warrants were invalid. Documents were inadmissible as evidence.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Did not discuss what subversive acts were committed Police did not make FACTUAL STATEMENTS Should have described what is there and let the judge make the conclusion Determination of WON the act is subversive is done by the courts What the police did: “it is subversive” What they should’ve done: present evidence of subversion like written articles, etc. Distinguish between factual and non-factual statements

3

Burgos v. Chief of Staff

1984

Metropolitan Mail, We Forum Searched office and seize printing machines and equipments, motor vehicles, numerous papers and documents

Search warrants were invalid No sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause.

OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS Religious rally is not a religious ceremony - Not a place of worship - Object of meeting was to persuade new converts - There was already a commotion before Mandoriao went up the stage - Act was not notoriously offensive to feelings of the faithful Fiscal was ordered to comply with his duties. REMANDED. Question of WON it is offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful is a question of fact. Determined in a proceeding. Acquitted. Second element that the act is notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful was not present. Offense should not be depend upon the subjective conception or characterization of such religious act. Acquitted. No intention of interrupting the services as he allowed himself to be led out, Only UNJUST VEXATION

People v. Mandoriao

1955

INC, debate “Jesus Christ is not God, but only man” Religious rally in a public place (Baguio)

Look at his acts and determine WON it is a religious ceremony

People v. Baes

Church of Christ Funeral would pass the churchyard of a Roman Catholic Church. Priest prevented them but was threaten with physical violence. He was prevailed. Fiscal dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. Christ is the answer Funeral; performed religious rites in the house and in an unfinished barrio chapel Chanting of Alleluia, singing religious hymns Assembly of God, drunk Accused entered the chapel, he was drunk and grab the song leader

According to the feelings of the Catholic not of the other faithful ones. General Rule: perspective of the one offended Not a ruling on guilt but on sufficiency of allegation for trial to proceed

People v. Tengson

1971

Laurel Standard: (dissent from Baes) Perspective of the faithful IN GENERAL Believers of Jesus Christ regardless of religious sect or denomination

People v. Nanoy

1972

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

4

Title 3: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Title Year Facts / Tags REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT Enrile was arrested and charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder in line with the failed coup attempt. Held/Ratio Sir's Notes Why not complex? CONECEPTUAL: they are elements of the crime of rebellion STATUTORY: there are penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion (old law) NOW: statutory cannot be invoked But there’s no case yet to decide if absent the statutory reason, can it be complexed. Overlap of factual foundation. Exactly the same evidence as in the crime of rebellion that on the eve of the coup attempt they were on the house of Enrile. Same basis – Government has to make up its mind on which one it should charge General Rule: Prosecutor’s determination of what crime is usually binding. Court will not change this so long as the charge is correct or that the act constitutes the crime. Exception: If favorable to the accused. – justice should be served. Hernandez doctrine If person accused of murder, other acts would be separate charges. But in rebellion, additional charges are absorbed Avoid circumvention Catch 22: damn if you do, damn if you don’t Confess as member = confess the crime If not = will not be appreciated

Enrile v. Salazar

1990

Hernandez ruling is maintained.

Enrile v. Amin

1990

Enrile was charged with violation of PD 1829 for harboring and concealing Honasan in his house.

He cannot be separately charged.

People v. Dasig

1993

A police officer manning the traffic was killed. The suspects were apparently members of the sparrow unit of NPA.

Simple Rebellion

People v. Lovedioro SEDITION

1995

Accused shot a police. The witness identifies him as member of NPA.

Murder. Defense merely picked up and followed through upon the witness’ testimony. Sedition, murder and physical injuries. Sedition is raising of commotion in state. Persons inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of an official agent. Guilty. Manner and form of expression as well as current environment are important considerations.

People v. Cabrera

1922

Outrage of policemen, Constabulary v. police There a rift between a constabulary and a police officer. A rumor spread that the member of constabulary was allowed to resume work. 77 soldiers escaped barracks and had a shooting spree. Kahapon, ngayon at bukas A play was presented in Teatro Libertad wherein false, seditious and scurrilous language were used.

Sedition does not absorb other offenses. Sedition is a violation of public peace while murder is a crime against persons. No distinction as to persons to which it applies.

INCITING TO SEDITION US v.Tolentino 1906 Time, place, manner doctrine. No need to prove that people actually committed sedition. What to prove: If implied/indirect: leave the audience to interpret

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Pictured himself to be hanging lifeless Accused took a picture of himself to be hanging lifeless with suicide note containing: Displeased/ashamed of Espuelas v. People 1951 government Infested with hitlers and mussolinis Unable to put under juez de cuchillo all the Roxas people VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY Immunity from arrests Both the accused were members of ConCon. One was charged with Martinez v. Morfe 1972 falsification while the other was accused of illegal campaigning. (both were criminal charges.) ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS Armed goons Because of reports of missing carabaos, pigs and goats, patrolling policemen People v. Narvasa 1988 suggested that armed goons should be tracked. When they went to investigate, they were met with a volley of gunfire. DIRECT ASSAULT Puzon compound Mayor and chief of police went to the compound of congressman. Upon reaching the compound, there was simultaneous discharge of firearms. Mayor was injured and his son was killed. Direct Assault It is the captain’s duty to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay.

5

Guilty. It was scurrilous. He suggested assassination of Roxas.

Variance in appreciation underscores difficulty. Clear and Present danger. Punishes the tendency

Not immune. Lawmakers are exempt only from civil arrests and not from arrests involving crimes. RPC – 1932; Constitution - 1935

Odd since civil liability doesn’t include arrests. Art 145 of RPC is superceded by Art 16 Sec 2 of the Constitution. 1935 constitution: no exemption for criminal arrests But there is no civil arrest in the Philippines And no one gets imprisoned in civil cases

Homicide with special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearms. RA 8294 is applied retroactively because it is favorable to the accused.

RA 8294 considers the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide.

People v. Beltran

1985

Direct Assault Mayor is person in authority and the other was a policeman and both were in their official duties to maintain peace and order in community. Construe it as wide as possible. In the Philippines, there are a lot of ceremonial functions.

Barangay captain Barangay captain was stabbed to death People v. Dollantes while delivering speech during a town dance. DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL Assistant provincial warden Orbita was supposed to bring the prisoner to Governor’s house to help in Alberto v. De la Cruz the construction of a fence. He left the prisoner unguarded and so the latter managed to escape.

Not guilty Neither the governor nor the warden can be guilty under A.156

A. 156 – committed by outsider not in charge with custody A. 223 – public officer who connived or consented A. 224 – Negligence

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE Never arrested Convicted of slander but was never Tanega v. Masakayan 1967 arrested. Invoked prescription of the offense. Destierro Accused was sentenced to destierro for People v. Abilong 1948 attempted robbery but he went beyond the limits made against him. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON Conditional pardon Accused was granted pardon on the condition that he will not commit any crime under RPC. He was charged with 20 counts of estafa. New Bilibid Prison Both the accused were already serving their sentence. They were members of Batang Mindanao gang – rival of Happy Go Lucky gang. They feigned sickness so they could kill the victim who was then confined in the prison hospital.

6

Prescription does not start to run because of evasion of sentence. Guilty. SC relied on the Spanish text. Destierro – deprived of liberty to enter the prohibited zone Conviction of crime by a final judgment is not necessary. If the President chooses RAC, no judicial pronouncement (for the crimes after the pardon) is needed to recommit the convict.

She was never arrested – never commenced sentence; how can she possibly evade it? Custody: placed at disposal of authorities Start counting: in prison already, under custody It is unfair that there are other meanings. English should now be the prevailing text.

Torres v. Gonzales

1987

Grant of Pardon can be: 1) an executive act Sec. 64 of the Revised Administrative Code or 2) a judicial act Art 159, RPC

QUASI-RECIDIVISM

People v. Dioso

1964

Max penalty – regardless of mitigating circumstances.

Quasi recidivism: committing crime charged with while serving sentence for a prior offense

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

7

Title 4: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Title COUNTERFEITING Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes What is punished is not merely the harm to the public that may be caused if it enters the circulation but also potential danger that counterfeiter produces should he apply his trade. Defrauding people in buying the coin

People v. Kong Leon

1950

Counterfeited US gold coins Accused had in his possession counterfeited coins. Coins were already out of circulation.

Guilty. Counterfeiting includes foreign coins withdrawn from circulation.

FORGERY Del Rosario v. People 1961 Genuine treasury notes Genuine notes were presented however one digit of the serial number had been erased. Victory Accused bought balut eggs but uses false pre-war bills. Bills such kinds had been withdrawn but are redeemable at face value. Bar exam Accused were correctors of the bar exams. The niece (of Justice Romualdez, examiner of PolLaw) raised the grade of one examinee but did not sign her name when she made the correction. Time records Lawyer was assigned as election registrar of COMELEC. Her job was mostly field work. She was accused of falsifying her time records – timed in when she was really out attending sessions. Salary warrants, poor widow Wife signed and got the check for her husband. Securities custodian Accused has devised his own routine procedure in preparing treasury bills. There were discrepancies that appeared. Vouchers Accused were charged of misappropriating government funds allocated for projects – bridge, roads, etc. Guilty. nd 2 mode – even if genuine Guilty. Still punishable despite having been withdrawn from circulation. Guilty of A.300/301 par 2,3,6 2 – cause it to appear that person participated in the act 3 – attribute to persons statements other than those made by them 6 – alteration/intercalation Not guilty. - No strict obligation to keep and submit time records - Criminal intention is necessary Not guilty - No criminal intent No intent = no deceiving The person who is ought to receive it (one that should’ve been deceived) is the one who asked her to sign. Problem: where will counterfeited notes made from scratch and not just altered be punishable? none

People v. Galano FALSIFICATION

1958

People v. Romualdez

1932

if she signed her name – no falsification

Beradio v. CA

1982

Luague v. CA

1982

Cabigas v. People

Par. 4 - Making untruthful statement in narration of facts There should be legal obligation to disclose If falsification was resorted to hide malversation, both are separate crime and not complexed. Sandaydiego merely relied on the signatures of the others Signatures were real – there should be no falsification

People v. Sandaydiego

1978

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

8
Should have developed the “conclusion of law” statement Remove it from a question of fact and elevate it to a question of law. Part of discretionary funds Accused wrote something else which made it appear as if he was given authority

Siquian v. People

1989

20 year old clerk Mayor employed a girl for clerk position when no such position exist on the budget. Attorney in fact Attorney was only authorized on half portion of the land. License Accused was involved in a vehicular accident. His license was confiscated. He procured a fake license but was caught driving. He presented his fake license when caught. BIR Agent Accused presented an id (of another person) along with other BIR paper to inspect books and receipts (and later on ask money) from victim. CIS Agent Accused represented himself as CIS agent of Phil Constabulary investigating a kidnapping to the PAL legal officer. He was an employee of BMMI and was actually investigating the officials of the corp. Live-in arrangement Woman claims to be the wife and claims death benefits of dead ‘husband’. Husband is married to someone else but they represented themselves as married couple for 19 years and has a child.

Guilty - Took advantage of position

People v. Villalon

1990

Action has prescribed.

USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS People v. Dava USURPATION Guilty. Usurpation can be complexed with other crimes. Falsification of public document was employed to perpetuate usurpation. Not guilty. He is really a CIS agent but was merely suspended. He was not notified of his termination from office. 1991 Guilty. He knew that he could not legally have a license.

People v. Cortez

Gigantoni v. People

USING FICTITIOUS NAME Not guilty. Not uncommon in Phil Society Assumed role without sinister purpose

Legamia v. IAC

1984

PERJURY Civil service commission, reappointment as school admin assistant Diaz v. People 1990 Accused misrepresented himself to have graduated from Cosmopolitan and Harvardian college when in fact he was not. MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS Auction Ouano and Echavez agreed that only the latter would bid and Ouano v. CA if accepted they will divide the property. They also induce the other party to withdraw. Guilty. Why not falsification? Because of precedent: People v. Cruz

Guilty. Agreement that one will refrain from taking part in auction and inducing another bidder to not bid is considered machination in public auctions.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

9

Title 6: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
GAMBLING Title PD 1602 LOI 816 IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS Pictures of natives Accused owns Camera Supply co. Postcards were confiscated for being obscene and indecent. – portraying inhabitants in their native dress Hula-hula dance Woman performs a dance wearing skimpy clothes in a theater with male audience. 1957 Fighting fish, toro Performance of actual sexual intercourse Test: Whether it will deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influence and into whose hands a publication or article charged as obscene may fall Whether it shocks the ordinary/common sense of men of indecency Standard of general morality allows context There’s a degree of unreliability – different reaction from different people An actual exhibition of sexual act has no redeeming feature and nothing in it but clear unmitigated obscenity Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

People v. Kottinger

Not obscene/indecent.

People v. Aparici

Guilty. -

Reaction of the public during performance is the gauge

People v. Padan VAGRANCY Perez v. NavarroDomingo PD 1563 RA 9208

Guilty

vagrancy

Art. 202 is unconstitutional which penalizes the act of loitering impinges on the individual’s right to locomotion and freedom of expression.

Bill of attainder Punish status not punish acts

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

10

Title 7: CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Title Year Facts / Tags BRIBERYAND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS Something for the new year Dominguez was then mayor and was tasked to execute the decision of labor arbiter. Manipon garnished the account of Manipon v. Sandiganbayan Dominguez but did not inform the arbiter about it. M told D that he could remedy the withdrawal so they could have something for the new year. Tax clearance, Rizal café Dacumas, revenue examiner, offered to Dacumas v. Sandiganbayan settle tax liability of Revilla by pulling out its assessment papers from office of BIR and procuring tax clearance. GRAFT AND CORRUPTION Assistant Director of NBI Almeda was accused of having unexplained wealth as his acquisitions were manifestly out of proportion to his income. Issue is WON petition may be amended without consent of Almeda. Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

Direct Bribery. Promise of public officer to perform act or to refrain from doing it may be expressed or implied.

Novation: Original – pursuant to the judgment of labor arbiter Novated – C/D agreed to pay/receive less amount

Direct Bribery. Implausibility of public official’s promise does not mean that they are not made. RA 1379. Yes. It is CIVIL in nature. Proceeding ends in forfeiture not a penalty Different proceeding from that of CRIMPRO

Almeda v. Perez

BASIS: rule on criminal procedures CIVIL: petition > answer CRIMINAL: Preliminary Investigation > reading > plea > trial > judgment RA 1379 did not specify what process will be followed Why differentiate? The prohibition against self-incrimination also applies to civil proceedings. The constitution does not qualify. Right against self incrimination: 1. Refuse to answer question 2. Be called as a witness Both apply to criminal. Only No. 1 is applicable to civil. Quantum of proof required: Civil – preponderance Criminal – beyond reasonable doubt Rule on evidence: not just procedural but also substantive

Cabal v. Kapunan

Chief of Staff of AFP Cabal was accused of having unexplained wealth. He was asked to take the witness stand for the other party. He refused. Fiscal charged with contempt.

Civil in procedure. Criminal in substance and effect.

Republic v. CA

Civil engineer, Bureau of public highways Accused of having unexplained wealth; complaint included wife and father. Respondent presented evidence that the properties came from donations and loans from GSIS, DBP, parent in law, and Cong. Durano.

Not Guilty. SALN – not the only evidence that can be appreciated.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Statutory provisions requiring public officials to periodically submit sworn SAL are part of police power of state and are not an invasion of private liberty protected by DPC.

11

Morfe v. Mutuc

Constitutionality of RA 3019 1. Exceed permissible police power 2. Due process 3. Right to privacy (search&seizure) Assistant principal of a HS Jaravata proposed to 6 teachers that he would follow up their salary differentials provided that they would reimburse his expenses. However, what he took from the teachers exceed the expenses he incurred. Vouchers, mayor Trieste was charged with 12 violation of RA 3019 in relation to the 12 vouchers he signed as mayor.

Is it an encroachment to privacy? Yes, but it is part. No other practicable way to prohibit/ensure that public officials won’t steal.

Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan

Not guilty. Intervention in salary differential is NOT one of the obligations or responsibilities of his position.

Trieste v. Sandiganbayan

Not guilty. There must be DIRECT PARTICIPATION or intervention on the part of the public official and in the use of such power becomes influential in the acts made by him Elements of RA 3019 Sec.3(e) 1. Public officer charged with duty of granting licenses/permits 2. He caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefit 3. Injury/unwarranted benefit was done with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan

Road widening, right of way agent Mejorada contacted the owners of the land which will be affected by the road widening project. He made them sign a blank paper. The value received by the owners is lower than that written on the “agreement”.

Guilty.

PLUNDER Perjury is a crime mala in se. Criminal intent must be proved. There’s no need to prove each and every act of plunder. All that needs to be proven is a pattern of acts that constitute plunder. Combination – at least 2 acts from different categories Series – at least 2 acts from the same category

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

MALVERSATION Cashier, leave of absence(maternity leave) Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of Mindanao State Univ. There were discrepancies in the remittances. The money was used for tuition privileges, uniforms, basketball balls. Malversation of public funds - Not only in misapp or converting public funds to one’s personal use but also knowingly allowing others to make use/misapp them

Labatagos v. Sandiganbayan

Public funds can only be disbursed with proper authorization Generally, it is the head of the department. Usually, a different person other than the custodian.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Malversation through negligence - There is prima facie evidence where accountable officer fails to account for public funds entrusted to him upon demand of a duly authorized officer Guilty. - No need for direct evidence of personal misapp as long as there is shortage in his account and he cannot satisfactorily explain it He is not a public officer. - P.O. does not only perform public duties but he should have authority in performing such functions granted by law, election or competent authority

12

Estepa v. Sandiganbayan

Brownout, paymasters Paymaster lost 50,000 because of his negligence.

A.217 can be committed intentionally or through negligence

Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan

Postmaster Ilogon granted cash advancements to employees which result to a shortage in his account.

In malversation, what is punished is the breach of trust, not so much the damage caused

Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan

Earth moving business Azarcon was tasked to keep the properties of a delinquent taxpayer. He failed to do so as the delinquent taxpayer was able to get the property from him.

Power to make a person a depository cannot be stretched to include power to appoint him as public officer

INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS Assisting a female prisoner Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan Rodillas was tasked to escort a female prisoner. Latter was able to escape.

Guilty

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

13

Title 8: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Title PARRICIDE People v. Jumawan Year Facts / Tags Husband was killed by relatives of wife. Wife wanted to be separated from husband Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

Murder. Relationship should be alleged in the information for the accused to be convicted for parricide. The fact that one only intended to maltreat his wife does not exempt him from the liability of killing her. Article applies. RPC doesn’t require the killing be instantly after witnessing the infidelity but only requires that the killing be the direct result of husband’s outrage in witnessing infidelity. Murder. Killing is qualified by treachery. Deceased was already retreating backwards when he was shot and was subjected to successive shots after. – FIRED WHEN ALREADY SHOT Pugay: Homicide thru reckless imprudence Samson: Homicide Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion - Merely intended to kill victim but not to cause abortion Medical report did not identify which wound killed the victim. The person who shot the fatal wound was unknown. Victim died as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other. – ALL ARE LIABLE. There is poor ballistic evidence. It is easy to determine who fired. We already have the technology for it. H thru RI: you should not pour gasoline on a person because of the likelihood that he will be injured But is pouring of gasoline a lawful act/ Q.C . of fire: cannot be appreciated if not intentionally used “great waste” – even if only 1 person, arguable

Wife wanted to sell conjugal home. One day, when husband returned home, his wife was People v. Tomotorgo gone. He followed his wife and caught up with her. Wife throws the baby on the grass, husband got mad and hit wife with a stick DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLCITED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES Wife had an affair with another man while husband was reviewing for bar exams. One day, husband caught wife with her other man. He left the house and went to a PC soldier to get a gun. He looked for the wife’s paramour and killed him.

People v. Abarca

MURDER AND HOMICIDE Fan knife, police department Victim was invited to the police dept because he refuses to surrender his fan knife. A heated argument ensued which led to the killing of the victim.

People v. Buensuceso

People v. Pugay

Human torch, retardate Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda. Samson set Miranda on fire.

UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION Inquiry should be: what purpose Kill mother? Kill child?

People v. Salufrania

Boxing stomach of pregnant woman

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
HAZING RA 8049 RAPE Boarding house Only small part of his penis was inserted. Consummated rape - No crime of frustrated rape. - Perfect penetration is not necessary to consummate rape. Statutory rape: Proof of intimidation or force is immaterial.

14

People v. Orita

People v. Mangalino

Takbuhan, 6 yrs old Accused raped the girl and gave her 2 pesos.

People v. Balbuena

Tomboy

Guilty

An exception to the general framework of rape cases – not the typical complainant – worked for her that she is a tomboy “not exactly ugly” Proof: looks like a man, dresses like a man, drinks with men Typical rape: Barrio lass doctrine

People v. Castro People v. Atento

People v. Campuhan

First cousin, 6 yrs old, ‘nasabit sa hiyero’ Defense: chased by dog, envy of the lola to the scholastic records Mentally retardate, ‘masarap’ 16 years old, mental age of 9 to 12 “ayoko, ayoko” Accused was helper of the uncle of the victim. While the mother was preparing Milo, she heard her daughter cry, “ayoko, ayoko”. She rushed to the bedroom and found the accused on top of the child. Qualified rape Accused was the father of the victim. Buntot page Berana raped his sister in law.

Guilty Guilty Determining factor: lack of reason If 30, mental age of 16, consensual: not rape

Attempted Rape - Should be touching with intent of penetration - Mother is not in the position to see - No evidence Child denies penetration: kept her legs crossed Not qualified. - Relationship, to be appreciated as Q.C., should be alleged in the information Cannot be appreciated even if proven during the trial Not qualified. - Prosecution failed to adduce proof of the relationship - Should’ve presented evidence to establish the marriage of accused with the sister of victim More stringent proof is necessary like marriage contract, etc.

People v. Gallo

People v. Berana

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

15

Title 9: CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Title Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Circumstances taken together - foreigner, no money, passport being held, constant fear of being re-arrested - enough to create fear which restrained him from doing the things he wanted to do | Any payment that releases one from captivity is a ransom Not grave coercion since the intent of accused was to deprive liberty, with specific purpose of producing his common law wife Sir's Notes KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION Japanese Buddhist priest held and kept by the accused in their company until money they advanced were paid to them. Accused held at knife point sister of his common law wife, for the purpose of producing the latter. Accused took from Mandaluyong and brought to Antipolo a child to be adopted, for consideration of P700. Contends afterwards that child was brought there only for safekeeping. Aida and Avelyn taken in by Mameng Lim in her store. When found by her father 2 weeks later, no tearful reunion. Victim killed prior to the making of any demand for ransom. TC found him guilty of kidnapping for ransom with murder. Deprivation of liberty need not be physical Means employed may be basis for determining whether there is deprivation of liberty or coercion. Known within the area that the person to whom the child was brought wanted to adopt.

People v. Tomio

1991

People v. Mercado

1984

People v. Del Socorro

1990

There is kidnapping. There were a number of other things accused could have done instead of bringing the child to Antipolo if the child's welfare was the primary concern. NO kidnapping. There was no detention, Aida was free to come and go as she pleased. No motive for detention. That accused was only a good samaritan shown NO kidnapping, only murder. The detention of the victim was incidental, the intent being only to kill him. That ransom was demanded does not make the crime one of kidnapping, particularly as it was a mere afterthought. Prior to RA 7659, complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder may be charged only if kidnapping was used as a means to commit the murder. If murder only took place on the occasion of kidnapping, they would be charged seprarately. RA 7659 removed the distinction. Complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder could be charged in either situation.

People v. Lim

1990

"Tearful reunion doctrine"

People v. Padica

1993

To: kidnapper, don't pick up the ransom yourself.

People v. Ramos

1998

Victim taken from EDSA to Blueridge to Glori's to Bulacan. Ransom was paid. Victim eventually shot by accused for her last attempt at escape.

Regardless of purpose, automatically complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder

KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR Parents left child with clinic. The clinic faciliated several adoptions. Child sought to be retrieved in the custody of another. Owner of clinic found guilty under A. 270. For conviction under A. 270, it is required that there is deliberate refusal to deliver a minor to his guardians. The child here has not been sufficiently identified as the one which has been left by the claimants at the clinic. Without being identified, it cannot be said that claimants had a right to the custody of the child.

People v. Ty

1996

There should be a refusal to surrender the RIGHT child.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
ABANDONMENT OF ONE'S VICTIM Accused charged and convicted of both reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and abandonment of one's victim. Protection against double jeopardy being invoked. Meaning of "accidentally" in A. 275 par. 2. No double jeopardy. "Accidentally" does not refer to accident referred to in Art. 12. It should just be distinguished from acts intended, and the accident may result from negligence.

16

Lamera v. CA

1991

If abandonment of victim used to qualify the reckless imprudence charge, there would have been double jeopardy. |Abandonment of one's victim requires dolo, it being under Crimes against Security

GRAVE THREATS Accused made advances against complainant who is married. Upon being rejected, he made threats against the husband of the complainant. Acts of lasciviousness and threats were filed. Pardon was given by the husband after filing of the second charge. Picket turned chase. Protesters brought placards (Agustin mamamatay ka rin) and called to the complainant (Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita; Agustin, PIM). Accused was convicted of grave threats and grave oral defamation. Accused is a mayor who sealed off stalls along a highway upon recommendation of Municipal Health Office. Said stalls had been judicially declared as public nuisances as well as nuisances per se. He was convicted for grave coercion. Accused was convicted for coercing a complainant, a pregnant woman, into signing withdrawal slip by shouting with piercing looks and threatening to file charges against her. Acts of lasciviousness conviction affirmed. The threat complained of is but an element of the crime committed. Also, the threat being complained of was committed not against the complainant, but against her husband. Threats deliberately made to the complainant, sufficient to create well-grounded fear in his mind that such threat would be carried out. | No grave oral defamation. PIM merely used to make the threats more emphatic. Threats can be means for intimidation; intimidation means to commit crime.

People v. Timbol

1949

Reyes v. People

1969

Determined PIM should not be taken literally | CONTEXT MATTERS in determining whether an act falls under grave threats

GRAVE COERCION NO grave coercion. As mayor, he had lawful authority to seal off said stalls, abatement being allowed even without judicial proceedings. NO coercion. Her lengthy stay at the bank propelled by her desire to clear her name, and not due to threats made. | There is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue as this is often made on the belief on the right to do so | The threat You can actually be compelled to do something against your will, provied there is lawful authority as basis thereof. Test of intimidation: credible fear that engendered in the mind of the person intimidated | Personal circumstances and background of the person being intimidated matter. Timing indicated intent to annoy | The pabasa readers could be held guilty of unjust vexation only if the intent to unjustly vex was sufficiently proven No longer abuse against chastity, now acts of lasciviousness

Timoner v. People

1983

Lee v. CA

1991

UNJUST VEXATION Accused constructed barbed wire fence around chapel while the pabasa was eing read. They were convicted of A. 133 offending the religious feelings Accused made advances to complainant while inside a chapel. Convicted of abuse against chastity. NO offending the religious feelings. Though it is within the right of the property owners to construct a fence, the circumstances under which it was constructed show their intention to vex and annoy. Guilty of unjust vexation Since crime of abuse of chastity requiring the presence of lewd designs, and any person could not possibly have lewd designs while inside a chapel - only unjust vexation.

People v. Reyes

1934

People v. Anonuevo

1937

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

17

Title 10: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ROBBERY Title Year Facts / Tags Robbery committed by breaking through the wall of the store adjacent to the house and subsequently inflicting violence against the homeowners. TC and CA applied A. 294, as intimidation characterized the robbery, even though it had a lighter penalty had A. 299 been applied. Two households robbed in succession, the first with money and firearm taken, the second with a greater amount of money. Accused were convicted of robbery in band, arson and robbery with homicide and physical injuries. It is contended that there should only be one charge of robbery. Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

Napolis v. CA

1972

Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is a much graver crime, with A. 294 being the applicable provision. Due to the circumstances of the case, however, a much lighter penalty of PC max to PM min as compared to the RT imposed by A. 299 if robbery is committed by breaking into an inhabited house without inflicting violence. Court resolved then to make a complex crime (A. 294 and A. 299) when the elements of both crimes are present, with the resulting penalty of RT max. Two charges for robbery are proper. Different acts were performed for distinct purposes which resulted in juridically independent crimes, even if they be part of a general plan.

People v. Biruar

1984

Decision was anchored on the distinct sets of crime. Regardless of the entire plan, there are still two distinct criminal intents, both of which should be appreciated.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE While robbery was being committed, accused shot into the ceiling. Unknown to him, a person was hiding there. The gunshot into the ceiling caused the latter's death. Crime of robbery with homicide was committed. If a homicide results by reason of, or on the occasion of, robbery, complex crime has been committed, absent any intervening causes. Crime of robbery with homicide was committed. Since it was one of those committing the robbery were responsible for the death, the complex crime was committed even though decedent was among the robbers | Had it been the security guard who had caused the death, there would be no complex crime.

People v. Mangulabnan

1956

The homicide need not be intentional.

People v. Calixtro

1983

During a robbery in a bank, one of the robbers get shot and killed. Through the ante-mortem statement of the decedent, it was established that it was his corobbers which shot him.

Lots of hypothetical questions to illustrate the scope of homicide committed as a result of, or on the occasion of, robbery.

People v. Pecato

1987

Several men arrived at the house of Larong when the family was about to sleep. They demanded money from Felix Larong but he answered he had none. When asked by the accused whether Felix recognized them, he answered yes because they were relatives. Thus, Pecato shot Larong. The robbers took money from Felix’s daughter and left.

The crime committed is robbery with homicide since Felix Larong resulted by reason or on occasion of the robbery.

If after the commission of homicide, robbery or theft was committed as an afterthought, then the charge would not be a special complex crime.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Ang and boyfriend Kalaykay took a cab and upon reaching the bridge, two armed men entered the car on both sides. They took some cash, watch and pen. Kalykay then shouted “hold-up hold-up”. Thus , he was stabbed and shot by the robbers. Diana Ang was driven somewhere and was raped by both men. Guilty of robbery with homicide. Rape is an aggravating circumstance. Although not in the list of aggravating circumstances, rape can be considered under ignominy since rape is not necessary in the commission of robbery.

18

People v. Tapales

1979

In the commission of robbery with homicide and rape, rape is just an aggravating circumstance The charge should be robbery with homicide regardless of the number of persons killed, i.e., no robbery with multiple homicide. There is no complex crime of robbery with murder. Why? Art. 294 par. 1 provides that there is robbery with homicide regardless of the specification of killing so long as it is on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.

People v.Quinones

1990

Three men riding a Mitsubishi car were intercepted by 7 men along the highway. They were taken to a nearby area where they were robbed and slain. The robbers got P300,000 in cash, etc.

Gulity of robbery with homicide. There is no crime or robbery with multiple homicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty

ROBBERY WITH RAPE People v. Patola 1986 2 customers entered the store and took cash, appliances and jewelry. Before they left, they raped the salesladies of the store. Man raped the victim. He then saw the victim’s watch and took it 3 men broke into a house and took personal effects and appliances. 2 of the accused including Reynaldo Maniquez raped the maids. The three jumped bail. Only Maniquez was reapprehended Guilty of robbery with rape under Art. 294(2) Guilty of 2 indepoendent crimes:robbery and rape. The principal intent was to rape the victim. Stealing was just an afterthought Maniquez is guilty of robbery with rape. -Sir: OLD RULE

People v. Dinola

1990

-Sir: OLD RULE

People v. Moreno 1993

Sir: -OLD RULE NEW RULE: In robbery with rape, the rule is the same as the rule in robbery with homicide. Instead of convicting only the sexual offenders of Robbery with Rape, their co-conspirators will also be made liable to the same offense, even if they did not actually rape any of the victims.

People v. Balacanao 2003

15 men robbed the Calata home and 4 of them raped Mrs. Calata.

All conspirators for robbery are liable for the Robbery with rape even if some of them did not actually rape any of the victims

ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES 4 armed men entered the lumberyard and demanded money from the owner. Then the police and military authorities surrounded the premises and launched an offensive. As a result the daughters of the owner were injured as well as two of the robbers. One daughter had her leg amputated. Guilty of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention. There was unlawful taking. Taking is considered completed when the property was placed within the dominion and control of the accused. Not being able to dispose the money is not a defense. Robbery is consummated when the robber acquires possession of property even for a short period of time.

People v. Salvilla 1990

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
ROBBERY IN BAND

19

People v. Apduhan 1968

6 men armed with unlicensed firearms and weapons robbed the Miano home, took cash and inflicted physical injuries on the occupants of the house.

Gulity of special complex crime of robbery with homicide

What is the problem with the interpretation that Art 296 (unlicensed firearm) applies only to cases under Art 295 (i.e. pars. 3,4,5 of Art 294)? The effect of Art. 295 is to impose the maximum penalty. The effect of Art. 296 is to impose the maximum penalty. Thus, Art. 296 does not add anything.

ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS Why not apply Art 294. Par 1 considering that there was taking of fighting cocks plus killing of policemen? The taking had already been consummated and has nothing to do with the killing. The killing of the police officer is a completely distinct act. In robbery with force upon things under Art. 302, the building must be habitable although currently uninhabited

People v. Jaranilla 1974

Three men stole fighting cocks from the coop of owner Baylon. To get away, they hailed a pickup but was chased by 2 patrolmen. Accused Jaranilla then shot one patrolmen who died as a result

The chicken coop is not one of the buildings considered under Art. 302. Thus, the crime committed is theft. Jaranilla is guilty of theft, homicide and direct assault, The other two accused are guilty of theft only.

CARNAPPING Three men involved in the business of buying cars advertised the same in the newspapers. The victim responded to the add. During the transaction, the victim was killed and his vehicle was taken away by the three men who tried to resell the automobile Two men stabbed the victim to take and steal the latter’s tricycle. Petitioners: No violation since the tricycle does not fall within the purview of the RA. It is not licensed to operate in a public highway. All three are guilty of carnappingwith homicide since the victim was killed in the commission of the carnapping. Guilty of violating RA 6539 and not robbery with violence against persons. Public highways are not limited to national roads or those connecting towns to the exclusion of streets within a town Illustration of what carnapping is: taking with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, by using force upon things.

People v. de la Cruz 1990

Izon v. People 1981 HIGHWAY ROBBERY

A motorized tricycle is a motor vehicle within the ambit of Sec. 2 of RA 6539

People v. Puno 1993

Puno, the driver of Mrs. Socorro’s husband, drove for Socorro one day. Along the way, Puno’s nephew entered the car and the two men took money and checks from Socorro.

Crime committed is simple robbery, not kidnapping, not highway robbery. Motive is just to gain money. Detention is incidental to the taking of money (so it’s not kidnapping). Not highway robbery under PD 532 since highway robbery is perpetrated against any random person on Philippine highways, i.e., indiscriminately.

Not just because robbery was done in a highway means that it falls within the ambit of highway robbery.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Not highway robbery since there was no proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. Crime committed is robbery with homicide. Rape is an aggravating circumstance.

20
Conviction for highway robbery requires that the accused organized themselves for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. This is why it is very difficult to convict anybody in P.D. 532. You can just charge them separately for separate crimes

People v. Pulusan

Pulusan et al held a robbery inside a jeep, killed four passengers, and raped a female passenger.

CATTLE RUSTLING 2 men (Namocatcat and Cago) arrived at Taer’s house with 2 male carabaos which Namocatcat wanted Tear to tend. The real owners of the carabaos discovered that the latter were missing. They then found the 2 carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near Taer’s house. Taer was convicted of the crime of cattle rustling but only as an accomplice since conspiracy was not proven Ordonio was convicted of cattle rustling because of his actuations when the lost calf was found in his possession. He refused to give the calf claiming it belonged to his brother. Intent to gain may be inferred from the deliberate failure by the accused to deliver the lost property to the proper person knowing that the property does not belong to him - Failure to present required documents when demanded by authorities is prima facie evidence of cattle rustling (according to magic notes)

Taer v. CA

Ordonio v. CA 1991

The owner discovered that his 11 month old cow was missing. When he asked Ordonio, the latter denied seeing the cow. Pajunar then heard the cow mooing but Ordonio claimed that it was the cow he was tending and that it was his brother’s cow.

-no discussion except for tearful reunion doctrine.

THEFT Driver-bodyguard Gulinao shot his boss Dr. Chua. As he was about to leave the discohouse, he turned back and took Dr. Chua’s fold ring embedded with diamonds. The crime committed is not robbery but theft. The taking of Dr. Chua’s ring was but an afterthought. The force employed on killing Dr. Chua has no bearing on the taking of the ring. The killing and theft are taken as separate crimes. The use of violence was not for the purpose of taking since the taking was just an afterthought The crime committed is qualified theft because the object of the crime is a car. Why not estafa? In estafa, the thing is entrusted to the person, i.e. there is juridical possession as opposed to de facto possession. Juridical possession usually arises as a result of contract. An example is trust. In estafa, the taking of the object is due to fraud. In Santos, the accused already accomplished the taking prior to the fraud. Falsification was instead made for the purpose of concealing the taking.

People v. Gulinao 1989

Santos v. People 1990

Ms. Penalosa entrusted her Ford Escort to Santos. Santos then persuaded her to have the car repainted by him within two months. After 2 mos., Santos refused to give the vehicle until Penalosa she paid for repairs. Penalosa returned to deliver the payment but Santos was not there. After coming back many times, she learned that Santos already abandoned his shop. Penalosa filed a complaint for estafa.

Crime committed is qualified theft and not estafa. The offense contains all the elements of theft: 1)taking of personal property, 2) said property belongs to another, 3) taking is done with intent to gain, 4) taking done w/o owner’s consent, 5) taking is accomplished w/o the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
ILLEGAL FISHING Hizon v. CA

21

There’s a presumption of Illegal Fishing when the ff. are found in the fishing boat: (RA 8550) 1. Explosives, poisonous substances or equipment for electric fishing Fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, poisonous substance The stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on the ground within the premises of the plantation is qualified theft. If the coconuts were not in the plantation, it is just simple theft. Lumber is a processed log or timber. Possession of raw or processed timber is penalized under Sec. 38 P.D. 705 Revised Forestry Code. Sir's Question: Give an example of a circumstance w/c would establish criminal intent contemplated in estafa? A: Claiming you are the owner of the thing, for it indicates an unwillingness to comply with the obligation to return the thing.

QUALIFIED THEFT Empelis v. IAC ILLEGAL LOGGING Mustang Lumber v. CA ESTAFA

Manahan v. CA

1996

Dump truck and Payloader; Manahan leased a dump truck from IFC but failed to return it. Was there estafa?

Art. 315 (b) No. Criminal intent was not proven. Note, however, that although a contract of lease is not fiduciary in nature, Art. 315 is broad enough to cover civil obligations. Art. 315 (b) The appropriation or conversion of monery or property received, to the prejudice of the owner of it, is the essence of estafa through misappropriation; in this case, LR was the one who told Saddul not to give the handling fee yet because the amount due was not yet certain. Sec. 13 of PD115 (Trust Receipts Law), and Art. 315, 1(b) Yes. With trust receipts, the entrustee binds himself to repay the entruster by selling and returning the proceeds or disposing of the goods by other means (or by returning the goods themselves). A violation of this undertaking constitutes estafa. Sec. 13 of PD115 It does. Acts involving the violation of trust receipts occuring after promulgation of PD115 would make the accused liable for estafa under Art. 315, 1(b) of the RPC. |

Saddul, Jr. v. CA

1990

Land Rover(LR); Saddul, an employee of AMPI, was tasked to deal with Lyndsay of LR,Phil. He eventually left the company, taking w/ him the account of LR. He was sued for estafa by AMPI, allegedly because he did not give them the handling fee due them by LR while he was AMPI's employee.

Sir: AMPI can demand, but not from Saddul. AMPI was a stranger to the trust relationship between Saddul and Leyland. There is no estafa yet. .

Allied Banking Corp. v. Ordonez

1990

Dolomites; Does the penal provision of PD115 apply when goods covered by a Trust Receipt do not form part of the finished products which are ulitmately sold but are used up in the operations of the entrustee-manufacturer?

Trust receipts in practice are securities. The transfer of ownership is a legal fiction.|Sir: What's the relationship between PD 115 (mala prohibita) and Art. 315 (mala in se)? If you violate 115, are you violating that or committing estafa? Karen's answer: Argue for a violation of 115, because being mala prohibita, it's easier to prove. The PD is not unconstitutional for imposing imprisonment for non-payment of debts, because the criminal liability springs from the violation of the trust receipt.

Lee v. Rodil

1989

The Court is asked to reconsider the issue of W/N the violation of a trust receipt agreement constitutes the crime of estafa.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Apo Dapo, the Dwarf; Complainant Kapoe says the accused made him believe that a dwarf told them there was hidden treasure under his lot, and in exchange for his share, he was induced to give them money.

22

Celino v. CA

1988

Art. 315, 2(a) By falsely pretendign to possess power, the accused were able to swindle Kapoe. Art. 315, 2(a), in relation to Art. 172 No criminal liability as accomplice because of lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of criminal intent.| There's civil liability though, because only preponderance of evidence is needed. Art. 315, par. 2. Also, Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171 (6) There is a presumption that when one has a forged document and uses it, that person is the forger. Sir's Question: Give an example of a circumstance w/c would establish criminal intent contemplated in estafa? A: Claiming you are the owner of the thing, for it indicates an unwillingness to comply with the obligation to return the thing.

Abejuela v. People

1991

Balo, employee of Banco Filipino (BF), borrowed his friend's BF passbook, and made a bogus deposit and many withdrawals using it. Abejuela was charged as Balo's accomplice.

Koh Tieck Heng v. People

1990

Koh was charged and convicted with estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and attempted estafa.

Manahan v. CA

1996

Dump truck and Payloader; Manahan leased a dump truck from IFC but failed to return it. Was there estafa?

Art. 315 (b) No. Criminal intent was not proven. Note, however, that although a contract of lease is not fiduciary in nature, Art. 315 is broad enough to cover civil obligations.

BOUNCING CHECKS Nierras v. Dacuycuy People v. Grospe

An accused can be held separately liable for estafa under Art 315 and BP 22. (Review the substantial differences in the digest.) Essential element of crime under BP 22 is the knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of the funds backing such check. Determining factor in ascertaining court jurisdiction is the place of issuance of check. BP 22 is a crime malum prohibitum and does not make a distinction on the intent of the issuance of the bouncing check. BP 22 covers all checks including memorandum checks. BP 22 although malum prohibitum does not dispense the need to prove the existence of all the elements of the offense. A notice of dishonor of the checks must be sent by the petitioner or the drawee bank to give the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution and give him a chance to pay amount due or make an arrangement for its payment.

Que v. People People v. Nitafan Lim Lao v. CA Idos v. CA

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
OTHER DECEITS Villaflor v. CA Veloso v. Sandiganbayan MALICIOUS MISCHIEF Caballes v. DAR Essential element in the crime of malicious mischief is “damage deliberately caused to the property of another.” If damage is done to one’s own property, no liability.

23

Employing false representations and false pretenses in obtaining loan from someone makes one liable for estafa under Art 318. District auditor defrauding the government through acts of “splitting” general vouchers and checks to avoid action, review or approval by higher authorities, is guilty of estafa through falsification of public documents.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

24

Title 11: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Title ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS Truck driver; Camp John Hay Famularcano forcibly hugged Dionisia with the intention of kissing her and touching her private parts and even managed to touch her breast. Dionisia’s dress got torn up to the waist. Famularcano says that he did that as a revenge for what Dionisia’s father did to his wife. Motive is of no consequence in the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The essence of the lewdness is in the very act itself. Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

People vs. Famularcano

1947

QUALIFIED SEDUCTION People v. Fontanilla Babanto v. Zosa Perez v. CA

Deceit as an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction does not to be proved in qualified seduction as deceit is replaced by abuse of confidence Virginity as an essential element on the crime of qualified seduction must be alleged in the complaint. Consented Abduction: 1. Consent 2. Lewd design Rape in Tagaytay; elopement Sunpongco et. al. abducted Angeles from the jeepney from the jeepney she’s riding, forced into a car, and brought in Tagaytay. In Tagaytay, Sunpongco succeeded having carnal knowledge with her by using force. Defense was that he and Angeles is supposed to elope but Angeles didn’t arrive Qualified Seduction: 1. Abuse of authority, confidence or relationship 2. Sexual Intercourse Forcible abduction with rape is accomplished when offenders abduct a woman with a lewd design and succeed in having carnal knowledge of her, both against her will and with the use of force and intimidation Forcible abduction was established. She was dragged against her will. Also, lewd designs are manifested by actions inside car and the act of raping her. Rape was also established. Absence of spermatozoa doesn’t disprove rape; penetration and not emission is the important consideration

ABDUCTION Forcible abduction and rape are separate crimes. Rape could be complexed with forcible abduction.

People vs. Sunpongco

1988

People vs. Jose

1971

Maggie dela Riva case Maggie’s car collided with another, then the driver of the other car dragged her in his car. Inside the car, Jose and Aquino dragged kissed and touched her. She was blindfolded, brought in a hotel, made to dance naked, then raped by four men. She was later set free.

Four death penalties were imposed here.

People vs. Alburo

1990

Jeepney driver raped girl jeepney passenger Alburo insisted that Evelyn and her friends board his jeepney to which the girls complied. When Evelyn was about to alight, she was threatened that her skirt will be raised. They sped off. She was again threatened with a knife. Alburo succeeded having carnal knowledge with her while she was unconscious because her head was bumped in the steering wheel. The jeepney on the way back was flagged.

Taking a person against her will and forcing the person to engage in sexual intercourse constitutes the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

25
This case is an outlier vis-à-vis the first 3 cases. Distinction: Distance involved. Here, the abduction and the rape happened in a very close proximity. Former 3 cases involved long drives.

People vs. Godines

1991

Escaping mom was caught and then raped Victim Esther Ancajas was awakened by the commotion in the other room. She tried to escape with her child but was got caught. She was dragged, brought into a vacant lot and raped for 2 times.

The crime of forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main purpose of the accused is to rape the victim

PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE OFFENSES Under Art. 344 of the RPC, adultery can’t be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. This is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the prosecution proceedings. Without which, court can’t exercise jurisdiction to try the case. There must be a legal capacity to sue as a ground for motion to dismiss in civil cases. After a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute adultery proceedings against the offender.

Pilapil vs. Ibay- Somera

1989

Filipina and German divorce A Filipina and a German were married in Germany and cohabited for some years in Manila. German spouse obtained divorce in Germany. Later, he filed 2 complaints of adultery against wife before the CFI of Manila because while the 2 were still married, Imelda had affairs with 2 men. Pilapil’s motion to quash was denied. Hence, this special civil action.

Title 12: CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
Title SIMULATION OF BIRTHS People v. Sangalang BIGAMY Man with 3 marriages Proceso Rosima was married to Maria Gorrea. Then, he married Maria Faicol (as Proceso Aragon). Gorrea died. He then married a Jesusa Maglasang. Aragon was convicted of bigamy. Aragon appeals. The 2 marriage (Faicol and Aragon) is void ab ibnitio because it was celebrated during the subsistence of a rd previous marriage. 3 marriage is valid. Aragon is not guilty of bigamy.
nd

Year

Facts / Tags

Held/Ratio

Sir's Notes

For one to be held liable for simulation birth is the registration of said child by the pretending parent in the registry of deeds as his or her child when it is not the case.

People vs. Aragon

1957

Prior the Family Code, a judicial decree declaring a marriage as void ab ibnitio is not required.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

26

Title 13: CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Title LIBEL “I doubt how you become a doctor”; cross-examination Atty. Malit was cross-examining Dr. Macaspac and asked a question on whether she knew the person who “made” the exhibit. Macaspac replied that she didn’t understand the word “made”. Petitioner said it means “prepared” but Macaspac still didn’t answer. Petitioner said: “I doubt how you become a doctor”. A complaint for slander was filed against petitioner and later, for unjust vexation. Telegram A telegram sent by Rafael Mercado (petitioner) to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways is the subject of a libel case. Said telegram requests an investigation of the activities of Virginia Mercado for there is a reason to believe that she is enriching herself via corrupt practices. After sending the said telegram, petitioner also filed other charges against Virginia but they are either dismissed for lack of evidence or Virginia is proven to be innocent. Affidavit in Manila/ Cauayan; libel charge in Nueva Vizcaya An information for libel charging Agbayani, Bautista, et. al. was filed by Mahinan in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. Mahinan is the manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of GSIS at Cauayan, Isabela. Libel charges were based on 1) the affidavits of Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan, Isabela, 2) Bautista’s undated letter and 3) Agbayani’s unusual incident report which was notarized in Manila. The 4 accused filed a motion to quash claiming that the offense charged comes within the jurisdiction of CFI Isabela. Sugarcane planters; “An Island of Fear” A Newsweek article entitled “An Island of Fear” portrayed the province of Negros Occidental as a place dominated by big landowners/ sugarcane planters, who “not only exploited the impoverished and underpaid sugarcane workers but also brutalized and killed them with impunity” Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

Malit vs. People

1982

Statements made in judicial proceedings are privileged but only if pertinent or relevant to the case involved.

There is no bar to libel prosecutions in lieu of the free speech and free press guarantees of the Constitution. Qualified privilege of free speech may be lost by proof of malice. Statement found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual.

Mercado vs. CFI

1982

Agbayani vs. Sayo

1979

The venue of actions for libel are: In the RTC of the province/ city st 1.) Where the libelous article was printed/ 1 published 2.) Where any of the offended parties actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense But where the offended party is a public officer, the action shall be filed 1.) Where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense Where the libelous article was printed and first published

Newsweek vs. IAC

1986

In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. Defamatory remarks directed at a class or group of persons in general language only are not actionable by individuals composing the class or group unless the statements are so sweeping as to apply to every individual in that class or group

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
De facto president Pedro Lacsa volunteered his services to the Philippine Columbian’s Association’s Board of Directors to act as an auditor. He had access to records of its members and discovered that the association’s President Ponciano Marquez is just an associate member and not a proprietary member. Hence, disqualified to be the president. He sent a letter to Marquez addressing him as de facto president and asked him to yield the presidency. Lacsa even published the letter in the newsletter of the association. Lacsa contends that the term “de facto president” isn’t libelous per se. Election returns Commission on Audit personnel were caught opening election returns. Cesar Villegas portrayed in a press release in Leyte that Tantuico is the person responsible for such incident. The full text of the press release was published in the newspaper “The Guardian”, whose editor-publisher is Marcelo Soriano. Tantuico charged Soriano and 6 others for libel. Case was docketed at RTC of Leyte. Soriano contends that libel case should have been filed at QC, where Tantuico holds office and where publishing house of “The Guardian” is located. 21 relatives of the late Amir Mindalano filed a libel case against the writer who published that Amir was the only leader in Lanao del Sur who did not come from any royal house and had lived with an American family which resulted in their family's ridicule and disrespute.

27

Lacsa vs. IAC

1988

The test for libelous meaning is the import conveyed by the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader.

Soriano vs. IAC

1988

The liability of a Manila or Quezon City editor must be deemed as commencing with the publication of the allegedly libelous material in his newspaper and not with the typing of mimeographing of press release by interested persons in different municipalities or cities, copies of which are sent to metropolitan newspapers for national publication. As Tantuico held office in QC and the offending newspaper is published in QC, the case should be filed in a QC Court.

Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Noel

1988

No libel. Titles of royalty of nobility not generally recognized or acknowledged socially in te national community. From the viewpoint of the average person in our present day community, the statement complained of is not defamatory. No libel. A fair and true report of a judicial proceeding without comment or remarks is not punishable. The rationale to giving such a publication privelege is that the pleadings have become part of publicr ecord and are open to public scrutiny. They are also presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in nature, apporapriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before the courts for proper administrations of justice. Sazon was guilty of libel. The test to determine if the words used are defamatory in character: Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputatio than false charges directly made. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person/persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, reputaion, or to hold the person/persons up to public ridicule. ALSO, there rule on privelege regarding a complaint on the part of a public official only applies when complaint is addressed soley to some official having jurisidiction to inquire into the charges, or power to redress grievance IN CONNECTION with acts of the public officer related to the discharge of their official duties.

Santos v. CA

1991

Santos published a verbatim copy of a complaint filed with the SEC against the complainants.

Sazon v. CA

1996

Sazon and Abdon both residents of PML homes and both ran for presidency in the homeowner's subdivision. Sazon won. Leaflets were distributed sayin "supalpal si Sazon" and "Sazon, saan na ang pondo ng simbahan?" was written on the walls near the entrance of the subdivision. Sazon retaliated by publishing article in newsletter containing descriptions of Abdon and his wife suchh as "mandurugas, mag-ingat sa panlilinlang, matagal na taying linoko, may kasamang pagyayabang" etc.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Vazquez, one of the 37 families who complained about anomalies with the NHA regarding their complaint against the Barangay Chairman and the General Manager of NHA, said in an interview that was published that the Barangay Chairman was engaged in landgrabbing, illegal gambling and stealing of chickens. Prieto said to a person he was passing by that he was missing last night when his mother-in-law was looking for him because he "dated Esterlita Vicente in the land of Boromeo" and "why would we get married, we would enjoy the pleasure of dating, anyway the parents dont know about it". On another occasion he said to a friend of Esterlita, "the girl is already badly damaged, he will just make use of her, Tell her I want to talk to her in the kitchen to have pleasure with her." Two women who were both teachers and neigbors. Victoria had told her maid not to fetch water from Crisitna's, nor to eat their because they could not repay them. In retaliation while the two were outside their houses, Cristina told Victoria "You are a teacher with leukorhea", "your vagina is odorous", "When you were single many men made use of your vagina because you could not bear a child." Victoria replied "is yours perfumed?" Judge reprimanded two accused and their lawyer and opposing counsel, Atty. Ruiz moved that they be cited in contempt. While the two accused were outside the judge's sala, they were overheard by the security guard conversing with each other and saying to the effect that "mayayabang yang putang inang abogado Ruiz na yan, babarilin ko an putang inang abogadong yan, estapador at suwapang" Prieto said to a person he was passing by that he was missing last night when his mother-in-law was looking for him because he "dated Esterlita Vicente in the land of Boromeo" and "why would we get married, we would enjoy the pleasure of dating, anyway the parents dont know about it". On another occasion he said to a friend of Esterlita, "the girl is already badly damaged, he will just make use of her, Tell her I want to talk to her in the kitchen to have pleasure with her." Two women who were both teachers and neigbors. Victoria had told her maid not to fetch water from Crisitna's, nor to eat their because they could not repay them. In retaliation while the two were outside their houses, Cristina told Victoria "You are a teacher with leukorhea", "your vagina is odorous", "When you were single many men made use of your vagina because you could not bear a child." Victoria replied "is yours perfumed?"

28
No libel. Court established Actual Malice rule: liability for libel only attaches when public official concerned proves that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless diregard of whether it was false or not.

Vazquez v. CA

1999

SLANDER

People v. Prieto

1989

Guilty of serious oral defamation. The requiremtnt that the imputation must be public is fully satisfied when the defamatory statements were uttered or "delivered in a manner that makes it possible fot the public to know it, even if actually only one person happens to learn of it.

People v. Mendoza

1975

Cristina was guilty of slander. Person slandered may be justified to hit back with another slander only if his reply is made in good faith, without malice and it is not necessarily defamatory of his assailant.

Victorio v. CA

1978

Guilty of grave oral defamation. They imputed the crime of estafa against a prominent lawyer, one time justice of peace and IBP president and a professor of law. As the scurilous imputation strikes deep into the character of the the victim, no special circumstances need be shown for the defamatory words uttered to be considered grave oral defamtion.

People v. Prieto

1989

Guilty of serious oral defamation. The requiremtnt that the imputation must be public is fully satisfied when the defamatory statements were uttered or "delivered in a manner that makes it possible fot the public to know it, even if actually only one person happens to learn of it.

People v. Mendoza

1975

Cristina was guilty of slander. Person slandered may be justified to hit back with another slander only if his reply is made in good faith, without malice and it is not necessarily defamatory of his assailant.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie
Instead of the offended party, a Counsel in the Office of City Fiscal was the one who filed an information regarding oral defamation, where the uttered words imputed to the offended party were either a public crime (prostitution) or a private crime (adultery).

29
Since she is presumed to be single, the remarks uttered imputed prostitution (a public crime). A slander case can be prosecuted de oficio (where the complaint is not filed by the offended party) when the uttered words of the offender imputes to another a public crime. It could’ve been unjust vexation only, but since there was an attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt, the offense is slander by deed. If there were lewd designs, intimidation/deprivation of reason/etc., it could’ve been acts of lasciviousness.

People v. Orcullo SLANDER BY DEED People v. Motita

1982

1966

Bunch of men were laughing while one of them was holding a mirror under the legs of a female passerby to see her private parts.

INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT PERSON Defendants claim that since the incrimination of an innocent person (by planting evidence) was made after the unlawful arrest, People v. Alagao 1966 and not through such arrest, there is no “complex crime of incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest” (as was charged against them). WIRETAPPING Ganaan v. IAC 1986 Petitioner was asked to listen to a telephone conversation through a telephone extension.

There was a close connection between the act of unlawful arrest and the act of investigating the victim (during which they planted the evidence). Thus, there is such complex crime in this case since the unlawful arrest was resorted to as a necessary means to incriminate the victim.

Ramirez v. CA

1995

Petitioner recorded a telephone conversation using a tape recorder.

As long as such device (telephone extension) was not installed deliberately for the purpose of listening to a private conversation (as in this case), it does not fall under the prohibition against “devices of arrangement” under the purview of RA 4200. rd The law punishes not only 3 parties to the conversation who wiretap, but also those involved in the conversation who wiretap. Further, the nature/content of the conversation is immaterial, and RA 4200 does not distinguish between “private communication” and “private conversation” (the tapping of both are punishable); else it would absurdly narrow the meaning of “communication” enunciated in the law.

B2013 Crim2 Reviewer | Case doctrines Camille  Arianne  Jill  Loraine  Richard  Welga  JC  Sophie

30

Title 14: QUASI-OFFENSES
Title CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE People v. Cano 1966 Bus driver who was driving carelessly was charged, among others, with “multiple physical injuries through reckless imprudence”. Petitioner was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence, and it was not alleged in the information that he failed to give support to the person injured. After being found guilty of physical injuries through reckless imprudence, petitioner was again found guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence (arising from the same accident). To avoid a head-on collision with a jeep, a car driver swerved but hit an old man about to cross the road (dead on arrival). Two doctors were held guilty of simple negligence resulting in homicide, for the death of a 13-year old girl patient. The negligence/imprudence itself, and not its effects like physical injuries, is the principal or vital factor in said offenses. JBL Reyes in a previous case: more accurate is “reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries”. Failure to lend assistance to the victim results in the next higher penalty when committed by negligence/imprudence. But since such failure to lend assistance it is a qualifying circumstance, and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information for the higher penalty to apply. The law punishes the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. Once convicted/acquitted of an act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act (for another consequence arising therefrom). Else, it will be double jeopardy. Not guilty of homicide through simple or reckless imprudence. Since the danger confronting the driver was imminent and didn’t afford him time to think rationally, he is not held guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt a better method, upon hindsight (aka the emergency/corollary rule). The chain of events during and after the surgical procedure was within the full control and knowledge of the doctors, and could determine decisively what needed to be done. It was incumbent upon them to overturn the prima facie evidence of negligence presented by the prosecution, by reciting measures they took to counter the serious condition of the patient after surgery. They failed to do so. Year Facts / Tags Held/Ratio Sir's Notes

Ibabao v. People

1984

Buerano v. CA

1982

Gan v. CA

1988

Carillo v. People

1994

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful