You are on page 1of 7


Spouses Gregorio and Lilia Tactacan are owners of a sari-sari store. 2. At around 8:10 p.m. they closed their store and left for home on board their passenger type jeepney. 3. As Gregorio was maneuvering his jeep backwards from where it was parked, two unidentified men suddenly climbed on board. 4. They asked that they be dropped of in the town proper. 5. Lilia informed the two men that they were not passing through the town. 6. The two then said hat they would get off at the nearest intersection. 7. About 500 meters they robbed the spouses and stabbed Lilia resulting to her death. 8. Two informations were filed against Armando Reanzares charging him with Anti-Piracy and Anti Highway Robbery, and violation of RA 6539 (Carnapping) 9. The RTC found him guilty of Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery) 10. He was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death. ISSUE: Was the conviction by the RTC proper? HELD: Indeed the accused is guilty. But that the accused was guilty of Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As held in a number of cases, conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized for the purpose of committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit highway robbery. Neither is there proof that they attempted to commit similar robberies to show the indiscriminate perpetration thereof. On the other hand, what the prosecution established was only a single act of robbery against the particular persons of the Tactacan spouses. Clearly, this single act of depredation is not what is contemplated under PD 532 as its objective is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitant who travel from one place to another thereby disturbing the peace and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the people.

People v. Tomas Tundag (October 2000) Facts: Mary Ann Tundag, alleged that her father, Tomas Tundag, raped her twice. First was on September 5, 1997 and the other on November 18, 1997. 2 separate criminal cases were filed against her father. Mary Ann Tundag also alleged that she was 13 years old when she was raped by her father. (However, the prosecution in the case at bar was not able to show any documents pertaining to Mary Anns age at the time of the

commission of the rape. The prosecution then asked the Court to take judicial notice that Mary Ann was under 18years of age which was subsequently granted without conducting a hearing.) She narrated that her father used a knife to threaten her not to shout while he was raping her on both occasions.While raping her, he was even asking her if it felt good. He was even laughing. After the commission of the second rape, Mary Ann went to her neighbor (by the name of Bebie Cabahug) and toldher what happened to her. They reported this to the police and was later examined by a doctor who concluded thatshe was not a virgin anymore. The Trial Court convicted Tomas Tundag on both counts of rape and was sentenced to the penalty of death. On appeal to the CA, Tomas flatly denied that the incidents complained of ever took place. He contends that on September 5, 1997, he was working as a watch repairman near Gals Bakery in Mandaue City Market and went home Tired and sleepy at around 11:00 oclock that evening. On November 7, 1997, he claims he was at work. In his brief, he argues that it was impossible for him to have raped his daughter because when the incidents allegedly transpired, he went to work and naturally, being exhausted and tired, it is impossible for him to do such wrongdoings.

Issue: WON Tomas Tundag is guilty of the crime of rape Held: Yes! Tomas Tundags defense of alibi and denial is negative and self -serving. It hardly counts as a worthy and weighty ground for exculpation in a trial involving his freedom and his life. Against the testimony of private complainant who testified on affirmative matters, such defense is not only trite but pathetic. Denial is an inherently weak defense, which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her honor. The victims account of the rapes complained of was straightforward, detailed, and consistent. Her testimony never wavered even after it had been explained to her that her father could be meted out the death penalty if found guilty by the court. Dr. Acebes testified that her findings of healed hymenal lacerations in the complainants private parts meant a history of sexual congress on her part. According to her, the lacerations may have been caused by the entry of an erect male organ into complainants genitals. But this does not conclusively and absolutely mean that there was sexual intercourse or contact because it can be caused by masturbation of fingers or other things, nonetheless, the presence of the hymenal lacerations tends to support private complainants claim that she was raped by appellant. Appellant next contends that his daughter pressed the rape charges against him because she had quarreled with him after he had castigated her for misbehavior. But such allegation of a family feud, however, does not explain the charges away. Filing a case for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughters accusation must be taken seriously. It goes against human experience that a girl would fabricate a story which would drag herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. Appellant likewise points out that it was very unlikely for him to have committed the crimes imputed to him considering that he and his wife had ten children to attend to and care for. This argument, however, is impertinent and immaterial since he was estranged from his wife, and private complainant was the only child who lived with him. Nor does appellants assertion that private complainant has some psychological problems and a low IQ of 76 in any way favor his defense. These matters did not affect the credibility

of her testimony that appellant raped her twice. We note that the victim understood the consequences of prosecuting the rape charges against her own father her fathers death. Issue 2: WON the penalty of death imposed on him is correct. WON it was correct for the Court to take judicial notice of Mary Anns age without a hearing. Held: No. Death penalty should not have been imposed. It was incorrect for the Court to take judicial notice of Mary Anns age without a proper hearing. Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 penalizes rape of a minor daughter by her father as qualified rape and a heinous crime. The elements are as follows: (1) sexual congress; (2) with woman; (3)by force or without her consent; and in order to warrant the imposition of capital punishment, the additional elements that:(4) the victim is under 18 years old at the time of the rape and (5) the offender is a parent of the victim RULE 129 SEC 4 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS Aguenza va Metropolitan Bank PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines, Inc. 212 SCRA 194 (1992) Offer and Objection Facts: The vessel SS VISHVA YASH belonging to or operated by SCI Line (Shipping Corp. of India) took on board 2 consignment of cargoes for shipment from LA to Manila and Davao covered by bills of lading issued by SCI Line. The cargoes were insured by Tagum Plastics and PHILAMGEN. For the purpose of transhipment from Manila to Davao, SCI Line made use of M/V Sweet Love owned and operated by Sweet Lines. The cargoes were comingled with similar cargoes belonging to Evergreen Plantation and Standfilco. After the shipments were discharged, it was discovered that there were damages, losses and shortages on the cargo covered by the bills of lading. From the total of 7,000 bags only 5,820 were delivered to the consignee, leaving a balance of 1,080 to which Sweet Lines and F.E. Zueelig is answerable to.Philamgen and Tagum Plastics commenced a suit against Sweet Lines Inc. (SLI), Davao Arastre, SCI Line and FE Zuellig to recover the cost of damaged shipment. Philamgen: SLI failed to adduce any evidence in support of the ground of prescription and that the bills of lading said to contain the shortened periods for filing and for instituting a court action against the carrier were never offered in evidence SLI: it is standard practice in its operations to issue bills of lading for shipments entrusted to it for carriage and that it issued bills of lading Issue: WON the bills of lading may be considered as evidence though not formally offered? Held: Yes.

Although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence, the litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading w/c are practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence they are inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto. The bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents w/c under the Rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the genuineness and due execution of w/c are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party. Philamgens failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness and due execution, of the instruments in question amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Moreover, when the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an admitted fact. ALANO VS CA Facts on or about June 10, 1986, in the City of Manila, Philippines, Alano did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Roberto S. Carlos in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, pretending to be still the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 1,172 square meters, more or less, located at Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila, covered by Tax Declaration No. 120-004-00398, well knowing that he had previously sold the same to the said Roberto S. Carlos for P30,000.00, sold the aforesaid property for the second time to one Erlinda B. Dandoy for P87,900.00, thereby depriving the said Roberto S. Carlos of his rightful ownership/possession of the said parcel of land, to the damage and prejudice of the said Roberto S. Carlos in the aforesaid amount of P30,000.00, Philippine currency. Petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that there was a prejudicial question pending resolution in another case being tried in the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Pasig, Branch 68. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 55103 and entitled "Roberto Carlos and Trinidad M. Carlos v. Arturo Alano, et. al.," concerns the nullity of the sale and recovery of possession and damages. In the aforementioned Civil Case, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner seeking the annulment of the second sale of said parcel of land made by the petitioner to a certain Erlinda Dandoy on the premise that the said land was previously sold to them. In his answer, petitioner contends that he never sold the property to the private respondents and that his signature appearing in the deed of absolute sale in favor of the latter was a forgery, hence, the alleged sale was fictitious and inexistent. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that the civil case was filed on March 1, 1985, five years before June 19, 1990 when the criminal case for estafa was instituted. During pre-trial, Alano failed to raise the defense of forgery. Issue: w/n petition has merit Ruling there is no question that a stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties 10 and by virtue of which

the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statement contained in the exhibit. 11 Accordingly, the stipulation of facts stated in the pre-trial order amounts to an admission by the petitioner resulting in the waiver of his right to present evidence on his behalf. While it is true that the right to present evidence is guaranteed under the Constitution, 12 this right may be waived expressly or impliedly. 13 Since the suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, the same is subject to a waiver by virtue of the prior acts of the accused. After all, the doctrine of waiver is made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right and without detriment to the community at large. 14 Accordingly, petitioner's admission in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial of the criminal amounts to a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case. Hence, we have no reason to nullify such waiver, it being not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. 15 Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the pre-trial order was signed by the petitioner himself. As such, the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pre-trial hearing applies. PEOPLE VS. SOLAYAO (GR 119220, SEPT. 20, 1996) Digest FACTS: - Nilo Solayao was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16, with the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1866. - SPO3 Jose Nio stated that he and other operatives went to Barangay Caulangohan, Caibiran, Biliran. They were to conduct an intelligence patrol as required of them by their intelligence officer to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. - The team of Police Officer Nio proceeded to Barangay Onion where they met the group of accusedappellant Nilo Solayao numbering five. The former became suspicious when they observed that the latter were drunk and that Solayao was wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. Solayaos companions, upon seeing the government agents, fled. - Confiscated from Solayao is a homemade firearm called Latong. Solayao admitted that he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon, SPO3 Nio confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policeman of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm. - Solayao was found guilty, then he appealed to the court against the admissibility of the firearm as evidence as it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search. ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the homemade firearm. HELD: Firearm is admissible as evidence. RATIO: The case at bar constitutes an instance where a search and seizure may be effected without first making an arrest. There was justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accused-appellant when his companions fled upon seeing the government agents. Under the circumstances, the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. Suspicion also arouse when the group was spotted dressed in camouflage.

Also the officers were precisely in the area to conduct an operation to verify the intelligence report and stop any potential disturbance in the area.

RULE 130 SECTION 1 OBJECT EVIDENCE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO MANALO Y CABISUELAS, accused-appellant. Facts: Accused was charged for the killing of Warlito Bonilla and CarlitoDiomampo with the use of an unlicensed pistol. Accused entered a plea of not quilty but was nevertheless convicted of two counts of murder by the RTC on the positive identification by Lacbay (witness) that accused is the perpetrator of the crime. Hence this present appeal urging the court to reverse the conviction. Accused avers that the trial court erred in convicting him considering that there is no physical evidence that he fired a gun. Issue: WON accused-appellant should be acquitted on the ground of lack of physical evidence that he fired a gun? (he was not subjected to paraffin test) Held: No. The lack of physical evidence that accused fired a gun is not sufficient to acquit him. Such circumstance of the absence of physical evidence showing that accused-appellant fired a gunneither proves his innocence as well. In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test (People vs. Talingdan, 191 SCRA 333 [1990]; People v. Roallos, 113 SCRA 584 [1982]). The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol (People vs. Rebullar, 188 SCRA 838 [1990]). PEOPLE VS MALIMIT PEOPLE VS JUMAMOY PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROSALINO FLORES Facts: Flores was charged of murder for the killing of Antonio Garcia with the use of a handgun. He entered a plea of not guilty proffering that he was attending the party of another person. The RTC convicted Flores of the crime charged. Hence this present appeal wherein accused asserts that there is no evidence that he shot the deceased considering that he tested negative in the paraffin test and that the gun supposedly used to kill the victim and the slugs were never presented in evidence. Issue: Whether or not the lack of object evidence warrants his acquittal? Held: No.

The fact that accused-appellant tested negative in the paraffin test; that the prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission of the crime and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is of no moment. It has been held that the negative findings of the paraffin test do not conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time the crime was committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person discharged a firearm with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed his hands thereafter. Since accused-appellant submitted himself for paraffin test 3 days after the shooting, it is likely that he has already washed his hands thoroughly and removed all traces of nitrates in his hand. It has also been held that the non-presentation by the prosecution of the gun used and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is not fatal to the casewhen there is positive identification of the assailant, as in the instant case. The victims daughter, Myla, positively identified accused as the perpetrator of the crime since she saw him pointing a gun at her father and when she shouted, "siJianggo, siJianggo," Flores ran away. Another witness, Roberto Santiago, saw the accused fleeing the scene of the crime while holding a gun. Although Myla and Roberto may not have seen the accused-appellant in the actual act of shooting the victim, the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution point to him as the only person who may have been responsible for the commission of the crime to the exclusion of any other person. At the time Myla and Roberto saw accused-appellant they were at a distance reasonable to make an accurate identification. Myla was only an arm's length away, while Roberto was 10 to 11 meters away from accused-appellant. Further, Myla and Roberto are familiar with the accused-appellant as they live in the same place and accused-appellant is Myla's uncle.