1. People v. Buyagan G.R. No. 187733.February 8, 2012 BRION, J. Buyagan Appealed.

CA affirmed, but modified the RTC decision wherein Buyagan was found guity of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Sentenced to death. 10.30.00 – RTC found Buyagan guilty of the aforementioned crime. It gave credence to the prosecution witnesses who said that Buyagan shot Jun Calixto and PO2 Osorio. Jun grabbed Buyagan’s robbery partner (John Doe) who robbed WT Construction Supply. This was when Buyagan shot him. PO2 Osorio what shot by Buyagan when the former was chasing him after the incident The testimony of the witnesses were straightforward and consistent with the medico-legal findings. Penalty: Death plus 50k civil, 22400 as actual, 592k as unearned income. To heirs of Osorio: 50k as civil, 200k moral 50690 as actual, 1588600 as unearned income. CA: affirmed but modified penalty to RP. CA said that there was conspiracy between him and Doe. The special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide exists as long as the intention is to rob and the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. Buyagan failed to impute illmotive on the witnesses to falsely testify against him. ISSUE: W/N the lower courts correctly ruled that there was a complex crime of Robbery w/ Homicide. (SC: YES) HELD: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were committed at the same time.5 In the present case, we find no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness accounts of the prosecution witnesses are worthy of belief as they were clear and straightforward and were consistent with the medical findings of Dr. Vladimir Villaseñor. They positively identified the appellant as the person who shot Calixto at the back of his head as the latter was grappling with John

Doe; three others all declared that the appellant shot PO2 Osorio at the market while the latter was chasing him. Significantly, the appellant never imputed any ill motive on the part of these witnesses to falsely testify against him. The lower courts correctly ruled that the appellant and John Doe acted in conspiracy with one another. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution. The records show that after John Doe robbed the WT Construction Supply store, he casually walked away from the store but Calixto grabbed him. While John Doe and Calixto were grappling with each other, the appellant suddenly appeared from behind and shot Calixto on the head. Immediately after, both the appellant and John Doe ran towards the Hilltop Road going to the direction of the Hangar Market. Clearly, the two accused acted in concert to attain a common purpose. Their respective actions summed up to collective efforts to achieve a common criminal objective. In People v. Ebet,7 we explained that homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if its commission was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. Under the given facts, the appellant clearly shot Calixto to facilitate the escape of his robber-companion, John Doe, and to preserve the latter’s possession of the stolen items. The Proper Penalty The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is penalized, under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised

00 as temperate damages. 9346. to the heirs of Calixto since the proven actual damages amounted to only P22. in lieu of actual damages.10 For the same reasons.R. Considering that the proven amount is less than P25.000. as amended. Appellant Teofilo "Rey" Buyagan is hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. pursuant to our ruling in People v."13 We find that the second exception applies to the case. as affirmed by the CA. People v.00 as exemplary damages. we also award temperate damages in the amount of P25.000. however.00 to P75. Since the aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm had been alleged and proven during trial. 01938 isAFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. 2008 in CA-G.000.P30. we award temperate damages in the amount of P25. in lieu of actual damages.00. As a rule." Pursuant to this law.600.A. established jurisprudence only allows expenses duly supported by receipts. we cannot impose the death penalty in view of Republic Act (R. respectively. to be duly supported by evidence. documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity. The existence of one aggravating circumstance also merits the grant of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.400.000.) No.000. the body of the opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment. delete the award for loss of earning capacity to Calixto’s heirs because the prosecution failed to establish this claim.000.00 as moral damages. With respect to actual damages. CR-H. there are recognized exceptions to this rule: (a) where there is ambiguity or uncertainty. Out of the P50. Suyu 3. and (b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.000.000. the appellant is ordered to pay the victim’s heirs the amounts of P75.00 as exemplary damages.588. we increase the amounts of the awarded civil indemnities fromP50. P25. The omission to state in the dispositive portion the award of moral damages to the heirs of Calixto was through mere inadvertence.1âwphi1 The body of the RTC decision shows the clear intent of the RTC to award moral damages to the heirs of Calixto. andP1.A.C. We. People v Cabbab .00 as loss of earning capacity. with the modification that the appellant shall not be eligible for parole.Penal Code. SO ORDERED. the appellant is ordered to pay the victim’s heirs the following amounts: P75.00 as civil indemnity.000.00 to P75.00.9 We affirm.00. No. No.00 as moral damages.000.00. he was not a worker earning less than the current minimum wage under current labor laws. andP25. we uphold the award of moral damages to the heirs of PO2 Osorio and to the heirs of Calixto.00.00 in lieu of actual damages.000. but reduce the amount awarded from P200.000. these exceptions do not apply to Calixto as he was a security guard when he died. " While the general rule is that the portion of a decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part thereof.00 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to PO2 Osorio’s heirs. For the death of Calixto. 2. to the heirs of PO2 Osorio and of Calixto.000. The difference consists of unreceipted amounts claimed by the victim’s wife. No costs.000. the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 19.000.000. P30. we award exemplary damages of P30. WHEREFORE. we affirm the CA’s reduction of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count.588. because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decision's ratio decidendi. P75.00 was supported by receipts.00 awarded by the RTC to PO2 Osorio’s heirs.00 as temperate damages.000. as the imposable penalty against the appellant would have been death were it not for the enactment of R.11 Finally. we observed that the dispositive portion of the RTC decision. entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Civil Liabilities For the deaths of Calixto and PO2 Osorio. Villanueva. the lower court correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the death penalty pursuant to Article 638 of the Revised Penal Code. 9346. P75. with reclusion perpetua to death.600. Nonetheless. only P15. For the death of PO2 Osorio. the award of P1.690. only awarded moral damages to the heirs of PO2 Osorio. While there are exceptions to this rule.00 as civil indemnity. in lieu of actual damages.12 However.

The confluence of the following established facts and circumstances sustains the appellate court’s affirmance of appellant’s conviction: First. People vs. AAA was found dead in her house. destroyed the door lock of the “Rice in a Box” stall of . He was at the time we aring AAA’s missing necklace. Ricky "Totsie" Marquez (Marquez). claiming that he only acted as a look-out. Michael Hipona Facts: Michael Hipona was convicted by the RTC of Rape with Homicide (and Robbery) for the death of her aunt AAA. robbery was the main intent of appellant. 6.appellant extrajudicially confessed to the radio reporter that he committed the crime due to his peers and because of poverty. Following Article 294(1) and Article 62(1)1 of the Revised Penal Code. 2002 in Caloocan City. appellant was in possession of AAA’s necklace at the time he was arrested. I’m sorry.4. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Marquez v People FACTS: On April 6. after considering the circumstantial evidence found Michael guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide (and Robbery) and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death: Based on the foregoing circumstances. On the basis of BBB’s information. appellant admitted to his relatives and the media that he was present during commission of the crime. the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance. However. but qualified his participation in the crime. which led to her death. the police arrested appellant. rape should have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance instead. declared that her son had told her that "Mama. BBB executed an affidavit affirming this confession. Roy Bernardo (Bernardo). They also found that the main electrical switch was turned off. Upon investigation. People v Evangelio 7. physically manhandled and strangled. the youngest sister of her mother. hence. Hence. sealed his destiny to perdition and points to a conclusion beyond moral certainty that his hands were soiled and sullied by blood of his own Aun Seva was acquitted for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Michael cited the testimony of the DNA expert that the vaginal smears taken from AAA were negative of appellant’s DNA.bored into the lawanit wall of her comfort room. The case was elevated to the CA. She was raped. I did it because I did not have the money. Issue: WON appellant should be liable for Rape with Homicide (and Robbery) Ruling: SC affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to Robbery with Homicide. *Just in case: For circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused. who is Michael’s mother. Her necklace with two heart-shaped pendants bearing her initials and handbag were missing. which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. albeit only as a look-out. SC said argument has no merit. He was likewise presented to the media and his relatives. and to another radio reporter"live-on-the-air" about a day after his arrest. drawing the police to conclude that the perpetrator was familiar with the layout of AAA’s house. SC said that from the evidence. Jomer Magalong (Magalong) and accused Ryan Benzon (Benzon) confederating together and mutually aiding each other. third. second. and fourth. he apologized claiming he did it because of his peers and poverty. during which AAA’s sister BBB. appellant was frequently visiting AAA prior to her death. specially of his failure to explain why he was in possession of victim’s stolen necklace with pendants. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. The police thus called for a meeting of AAA’s relatives. People v Basao 5." Seva was arrested while Reypacs remained at large. Seva alias "Gerpacs" and a certain "Reypacs. the important consideration being not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. and AAA’s death resulted by reason of or on the o ccasion thereof. The RTC. plus his confession to the media in the presence of his relatives. the appeal to SC arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that he should only be held liable for robbery and not for Rape with Homicide (and Robbery)." apologizing for AAA’s death. Presence of spermatozoa is not essential in finding that rape was committed. and attributed the crime to his co-accused Romulo B. the police found a hole – big enough for a person to enter . his familiarity with the layout of the house.

By breaking any wall. Three (3) boxes of Teriyaki Sauce. wardrobes. by any of the following means: 1. 4. It should have been under Art. rob and carry away the following items. 1. . Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building. picklocks. and if – (a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery is committed. roof.Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. chests. picklocks. If any closed or sealed receptacle.000 pieces of Boxes. 3. Mallari confessed to his brother of his participation to the crime and then eventually to the stall owner Valderosa. did then and there willfully. Kitchen Utensils. the appellate court discussed about robbery in an inhabited house Article 299 of the RPC in its assailed Decision. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. Fresh Meat (48 kls). chest. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery. once inside. Held: Yes. wardrobe. Unlike the trial court. to wit: Two (2) pieces Rice Cooker (heavy duty). after the robbery took . If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys. when the case was decided by the CA. It was different. 4. The records show that the store alleged to have been robbed by petitioners is not an inhabited house. In fact. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. has been removed. 299. or floor or breaking any door or window. 302. or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle. When the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos.Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship. 2. if the value of the property taken shall exceed 250 pesos. xxxx ART. though. 299. or other similar tools.One (1) piece of [Teppanyaki] (big). If any wall. . floor.one SONIA VALDEROSA and passing/entering thru the same. If any door. as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Issue: W/N CA erred in finding that the accused are guilty of robbery under Art. 302 ART. public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as defined under Article 301. unlawfully and feloniously take. the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed. 5. 2. it then proceeded to affirm the penalty imposed by the trial court upon the petitioners after finding them guilty of the crime charged. even if the same be broken open elsewhere. Or if – (b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances: 1. or similar tools.One (1) Heavy duty blender One (1) Programmer Calculator and One (1) Transistor Radio. if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken. RTC gave credence to the testimony of Mallari and held that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Force Upon Things but did not discuss whether the robbery in this case was committed in an inhabited house or in an uninhabited place. By using false keys. By breaking of doors. shall be punished by reclusion temporal. From Valderosa’s testimony. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress. 3. it can be deduced that the establishment allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. 2. roof. provided that any of the following circumstances is present: 1. Pursuant to the same provision. or outside door or window has been broken.

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the crime Issue: whether or not international telephone calls using Bay Super Orient Cards through the telecommunication services provided by PLDT for such calls. shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. Neither was the place where the store is located owned by the government.– Theft is committed by any person who. to the damage and prejudice of legitimate operators like PLDT. since the owner lived in a separate house. in short. Accused Laurel filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)" on the groundS that RPC does not punish use of ISR. and . the telecommunication services provided by PLDT and its business of providing said services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. the Amended Information does not contain material allegations charging the petitioner of theft of personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.The petition is meritorious. Who are liable for theft. with intent to gain but without violence. After preliminary investigation the information was amended to include Laurel and the other members of the board for THEFT using ISR. the robbery committed therein is punished under Article 302. An information or complaint for simple theft must allege the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property.place. An information or complaint must state explicitly and directly every act or omission constituting an offense and must allege facts establishing the conduct. 8.. For one to be guilty of theft the accused must have an intent to steal (animus furandi) personal property. cables. Laurel v Abrogar DOCTRINE: The general rule is that. PLDT’s business of providing said telecommunication services. Hence. 308. Laurel is the board member and corporate secretary of Baynet. termination or bypass charges and accounting rates. meaning the intent to deprive another of his ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from and concurrently with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo (dolus malus). Thus. (Baynet) sells "Bay Super Orient Card" which uses an alternative calling patterns called International Simple Resale (ISR). as well as compliance with the regulatory requirements of the NTC. The prosecutor found probable cause for THEFT and filed Information. Only those movable properties which can be taken and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of theft. against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. Facts: Baynet Co. Ltd. Search warrants were issued against baynet through PLDT's complaint. (b) the said property belongs to another. or. the ISR operator offers international telecommunication services at a lower rate. SC. granted. antenna or air wave or frequency. and that no personal property was stolen from PLDT. which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the terminating country (the country where the call is destined). dismissed. The seach was followed by an inquest investigation. The telephone calls belong to the person calling not to PLDT. the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not Article 299 of the RPC. Is being sued for network fraud. there was a need to inform Valderosa of the same as she was obviously not residing in the store. are proper subjects of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code Held: RTC denied MQ MR denied. 2 other filipinos and two japanese composed the board. (c) the taking be done with intent to gain. It was actually just a stall rented by Valderosa from a private person. "If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling. ISR is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using International Private Leased Lines (IPL). Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft as follows: Art. only movable properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of occupation by another are proper objects of theft. The operator of an ISR is able to evade payment of access. The international telephone calls placed by Bay Super Orient Card holders. Petition for Certiorari with CA.

However. for that matter. Under the law. 8484. Such rights or interests are intangible and cannot be "taken" by another. Respondent PLDT does not acquire possession. The human voice and the electronic voice signals or current caused thereby are intangible and not susceptible of possession. is not the subject of theft or larceny. RPC could not have included human voice or ISR in theft since such was not existing at that time. account number. violation of Republic Act No. Section 33 of Republic Act Commerce Act of 2000 provides: No. Significantly.t is not necessary that the property be actually carried away out of the physical possession of the lawful possessor or that he should have made his escape with it. gas and electricity are susceptible of taking since they can be appropritated. Among the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 9 of the law are the acts of obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device. the petitioner is not charged of violation of R. Electronic . only those movable properties which can be taken and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of theft. The essence of the element is the taking of a thing out of the possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi. goods. 8484. otherwise known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998. Intangible properties such as rights and ideas are not subject of theft because the same cannot be "taken" from the place it is found and is occupied or appropriated. on February 11. if an individual steals a credit card and uses the same to obtain services. PLDT merely transmits the electronic voice signals through its facilities and equipment. plate. services or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. clearly. code. A naked right existing merely in contemplation of law. must have obtained complete and absolute possession and control of the property adverse to the rights of the owner or the lawful possessor thereof. personal identification number and other telecommunication services. Congress did not amend the definition of theft rather they passed RA 8484 and 8792. conspiracy to commit access devices fraud is a crime.A. 8792. Neither asportation nor actual manual possession of property is required. Under Section 11 of the law. They both have different definitions. There is "taking" of personal property. electronic serial number. an access device means any card. ownership of the voices of the telephone callers or of the electronic voice signals or current emanating from said calls. Thus. The general rule is that. Business and services cannot be taken thus. not a subject of theft. The taker. 1998. or if such property is under the dominion and control of the thief. movable properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code should be distinguished from the rights or interests to which they relate. not all personal properties may be the proper subjects of theft. at some particular amount. he is liable of the following: theft of the credit card under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Republic Act No. with intent to defraud or intent to gain and fleeing thereafter. 8484. "Personal property" under the Revised Penal Code must be considered in tandem with the word "take" in the law. much less. a prosecution under the law shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provisions of the Revised Penal Code inclusive of theft under Rule 308 of the Revised Penal Code and estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner is not charged of estafa before the RTC in the Amended Information. occupation or appropriation by the respondent PLDT or even the petitioner. although it may be very valuable to the person who is entitled to exercise it.(d) the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation of person/s or force upon things. and theft is consummated when the offender unlawfully acquires possession of personal property even if for a short time. Constructive possession of the thief of the property is enough. and of effecting transactions with one or more access devices issued to another person or persons to receive payment or any other thing of value. The statutory definition of "taking" and movable property indicates that. only movable properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of occupation by another are proper objects of theft. and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code with the service provider as the private complainant. equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money.

Placido filed a complaint for theft against Ernesto. the CA affirmed the conviction. Conviction AFFIRMED. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner 5. including the introduction of computer viruses and the like. People Facts: Placido and Wilson (the partners) entered into a partnership agreement to subcontract a rip rap and spillway project in Benguet. not juridical possession. 9. v. Cruz v People 14. without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system. Ernesto was contending that the money belonged to the partnership hence it cannot be the object of theft as between the partners and that he acted as an agent of the partnership. De Vera. destruction.S. as follows: a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things All the elements of theft are present in the case at bar. 2. Theft or Estafa? Held: Theft. but if he has the juridical possession of the thing. his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa In the case at bar. Aquino. Issue: What is the crime committed by Ernesto. alter. Although there is misappropriation of funds here. hence he is guilty of theft. or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices. not estafa. the partners. People v Tanchanco 12. Pideli vs. The project was completed and they were paid.Sec. The money belongs to the partners and it was taken by Ernesto against the consent of the owner. there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. steal. theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be punished by a minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100. 33. Chief Justice Ramon C. That there be taking of personal property That said property belongs to another That the taking be done with intent to gain 4. The following day Ernesto was nowhere to be found. On appeal. Valenzuela v People 10. instead of dividing the proceeds. Since the hardware was yet unpaid. Juridical possession remained with the partners. in his commentary on the Revised Penal Code. Penalties. Miranda v People 11. resulting on the corruption. However. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years. Ernesto was correctly found guilty of theft. 13. succinctly opined: The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. Briones v People . his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft. Ernesto Pideli (the accused) offered them to use his credit line with a hardware. alteration. 3.000. The trial court convicted Ernesto of Theft. the Court has consistently ruled that not all misappropriation is estafa. Ernesto was entrusted only with material or physical possession of the money.— The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment. As early as U. They were in need of a supplier of construction material. or any access in order to corrupt. The project continued and the hardware supplied the materials. entrusted the money to Ernesto for the purpose of paying the hardware. The elements of theft are as follows: 1.

we are left to consider the nature of the crime committed. while the intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking and can only be negated by special circumstances showing a 34 different intent on the part of the perpetrator. 9) On MR/MNT/MTD. It relied on the positive testimony of Gual. the abovenamed accused. S/G Gual only testified that Briones merely grabbed the firearm and ran away with it. Briones said that he was merely protecting his brother when he took the gun. in the Municipality of Parañaque. we can only convict Briones for the crime of theft for taking S/G Molina’s firearm without his consent. (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. Metro Manila. In arriving at this conclusion. Theft is produced the moment there is deprivation of personal property due to its 36 taking with intent to gain. (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain. the elements constituting the crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal property.00. RTC: charge was robbery but convicted for simple theft CA: Briones appealed but convicted him of Robbery saying that force and intimidation was employed by Briones. Facts: 1) Info: “on or about the 6th day of January 1998. unlawfully and feloniously divest from him a . and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or 33 intimidation of persons or force upon things. and by means of force. 7) RTC found Briones guilty of Simple Theft. were not refuted by the defense's evidence before the RTC. Under the circumstance. CONTRARY TO LAW. with intent to gain and against the will of the complainant S/G Dabbin Molina. the government needs to prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property be committed with violence or intimidation against persons. (SC: NO) W/N the lower courts were correct in convicting Briones (SC: YES) HELD: I. We previously held that intent to gain is a mental state whose existence is demonstrated by a person’s overt 35 acts. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. and (3) the taking be done with animo 32 lucrandi. The failure to specify the correct crime committed. 8) CA found Briones guilty of robbery sating that force and intimidation attended the taking of Molina’s gun as he approached the latter with the intent of taking the gun away. violence and intimidation. On the other hand. 6) Briones denied participating and said that he was in his house during the incident. It was unsure though if violence and intimidation was used to get the gun. showing his unlawful taking of the firearm and running away with it immediately after. that the firearm was not found nor retrieved after this unlawful taking. At this point. gun worth P8. They noticed that Bersamina was being mauled by 4 individuals. To show that robbery was committed. these pieces of evidence defeat Briones’ belated contention that he threw away the firearm immediately after he got hold of it. We stress that these pieces of evidence. did then and there willfully. Issue/s: W/N Robbery was the correct crime. Briones' overt acts in this case were in grabbing S/G Molina’s firearm and running away with it. Molina lost his gun to Briones. we are keenly aware that the accused was indicted under a charge for robbery. There is also evidence. as proven by the evidence on record. (2) that said property belongs to another. including Briones and his brother. more or less.38 cal. Further. He was convicted of the crime of Robbery.” 2) S/G Molina was a security guard and was issued a . Thus. . 4) the S/Gs tried to stop the mauling. not theft. It ruled that it is only simple theft because violence and intimidation was not proven.PetRev on Cert wherein Briones is appealing the affirmation of the CA. We have no doubt that the elements of taking of personal property which belongs to another person without his consent have been established in the case.000.38 cal. Gual merely testified that Briones grabbed the gun of Molina. 3) S/G Molina and S/G Gual were manning the northwest gate of BF homes in Parañaque. the element is present in the crime of robbery and absent in the crime of theft. the distinguishing element between the crimes of robbery and theft is the use of violence or intimidation as a means of taking the property belonging to another. We agree with the RTC that only the crime of theft was committed in the case as S/G Gual's testimony does not show that violence or intimidation attended the taking of the firearm. as testified to by S/G Gual. (2) the property taken belongs to another. CA denied hence petition. Thus.

burning the units occupied by the other tenants. He also sought police protection from his neighbors who accused him of starting the fire. RTC found Gonzales guilty of arson (penalty: Prision Correccional to Reclusion Temporal as max). the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. the evidence was found negative of any flammable substance.R. People v Lourdes 18. the CA affirmed the RTC. 24127 are hereby MODIFIED. no exceptional 23 reasons in this case exist to justify a deviation. 1avvphil Additionally. They also now foist on this Court an 20 Affidavit of Desistance dated July 29. Petitioner Rommel Briones is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of THEFT under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. After investigation. WHEREFORE. they must be substantiated by 18 clear and convincing proof. What significantly remains on record is the unopposed testimony of S/G Gual that Briones grabbed the firearm from S/G Molina. Under the present facts. From the facts. We have previously ruled that for these defenses to deserve merit. 2002 and Resolution dated November 13. an error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not a ground for new trial. Likewise. Francisco v People 17. Milla v People 19. premises considered. he later denied it claiming that the fire was caused by faulty electrical wiring and also denied fighting with his aunt. no evidence on record exists to show that this firearm was pointed at Briones or at his companions. these defenses were without corroboration. CR No. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information. 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. A change of Briones' defense from denial and alibi to selfdefense or defense of a relative is effectively a change of theory of the case brought only during appeal. neither party can change his or her theory 22 on appeal. II. and saw all the incidents of the crime. as well as an Affidavit dated July 22. the discrepancies did not necessarily discredit them because . SO ORDERED. While this rule is not absolute. However. As S/G Gual is a credible eyewitness to the incident. or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. it does not appear that Briones was denied competent legal representation in the proceedings before the RTC. Briones and his new counsel desperately now move to try the case again at the expense of Briones’ former counsel. Upon appeal. People v Montaner 20. threw away the firearm after grabbing it from S/G Molina. CA held that the denial of Gonzales cannot prevail over the positive identification of a witness and that the prosecution established circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. yelling that he will burn the house down.however. we find that the CA did not commit any reversible error when it denied Briones' motion for new trial. The Decision dated July 17. On the contrary. Gonzales admitted responsibility for the fire. based on allegedly newly discovered 19 evidence. He said she was partially deaf so he had to speak in a loud voice for her to hear him. Although there were discrepancies in the oral testimony and affidavits of witnesses. will not bar Briones’ conviction for the crime of 37 theft. 15. Tenants testified that they heard Gonzales quarrelling with his aunt. we find no reason to doubt that he was with S/G Molina when the incident happened. Belen Real v People 16. They blame the former counsel’s allegedly erroneous legal strategy when he raised denial and alibi as Briones’ defenses. The testimonies were corroborated by the police investigator who testified that when they arrived at the crime scene. In this case. For these reasons. Gonzalez v People Facts: Gonzales was charged of arson after setting fire to their room in an apartment building. as amended. These documents allegedly prove that Briones had no intent to gain and. Briones could only set up denial and alibi as his defenses. As against this credible and positive testimony of S/G Gual. the allegations in the Information are sufficient to make out a charge of theft. instead of invoking self -defense or defense of a relative. He is sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor. in fact. Nonetheless. we find no error in the RTC and CA conclusion that he is criminally liable under the criminal information. We cannot allow this move. 21 2002 executed by one Oskar Salud. The crime committed is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or 38 information. Law and fairness to the adverse party demand that when a party adopts a particular theory and the case is tried and decided on the basis of that theory in the court below. Afterwards he set a pile of clothes on fire which smelled of LPG gas. 2002 executed by Fuentes.

CA held that the alleged discrepancies pertain to minor matters which negated any suspicion that the testimony was perjured and rehearsed. constitute inferior evidence as against the circumstantial evidence coupled with the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the offense by a credible witness.M. however. be instances where. In this case. the findings of the Physical Science Report is a negative evidence and taken together with the bare denial of petitioner. Bravo pointed a gun at Mauro and demanded for him to bring out the akusan (object for witchcraft). RTC found Bravo guilty of Arson. supported only with testimonies of relatives. of August 10. The occurrence of the fire was established by the burnt house. the eyewitness positively identified Gonzales as the culprit who caused the fire. As a general rule. As to the identity of the arsonist. if credible. In the prosecution for arson. proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti. the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony in court. no direct evidence was presented. When these are present. Both the trial and appellate courts found the testimony of eyewitness Canlas credible. and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. and (2) the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. when the findings of both courts are in agreement. without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his accurate recollection of the subject. is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. is enough to prove 10 the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. a fire because of criminal agency. if credible.affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. and (2) the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. this Court will not reverse their findings of fact. Mauro was able to make him go away but before Bravo left he said that Mauro and his family will burn to death. proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti. (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. a fire because of criminal agency. the only issue is the credibility of the witness. at Brgy. In arson. Bravo FACTS: That on or about 9:30 P. the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused.─ Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance. in our view. although a witness may not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime. the charred bodies of the two fire victims and testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Municipality of Naguilian. Circumstantial evidence. 21. La Union. 1989. he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime . Benjamin Bravo motivated by anger and hatred stormed into the house of one Mauro Camacho who he thinks put a curse on his father. that is. the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes 11 inaccurate. 1613. People v. Issue: Whether the discrepancies in the affidavit and the court testimonies of a witness are sufficient to exculpate Gonzales of the crime of arson Held: No. Held: Yes. Shirley Camacho (daughter in law of Mauro) and her four month old son Jerickson Camacho were sleeping. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. In arson. that is. Magungunay. the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused. The arson committed in the instant case involving an inhabited house or dwelling is covered by Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. CA affirmed Issue: W/N circumstantial evidence is enough to prove the accused’s guilt even if there is no direct evidence proving that he caused the fire. After a few seconds a fire broke out in the second flr of the house where one Mrs. Whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court. sometimes from partial suggestions and sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries. Ratio: In the prosecution for arson. They both were trapped and died instantaneously and also the house of Dominador Camacho was also gutted down by the fire. when sufficient. Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 4. Furthermore. Buebos & Buebos v People 22. Moreover. There may. However.

because it is basic and elementary that there can be no conviction until and unless an accused is positively identified. Private complainant was able to pay the parking fee at the booth ahead of petitioner. Sr. And fifth. then nobody can ever be convicted unless there is an eyewitness. leads to the only fair and reasonable conclusion. namely. 1989. Mauro Camacho. The following circumstances form an unbroken chain that point to no other than that appellant is the arsonist. po-urak daytoy balay yo (all of you will die. Susan and Mary Ann. heard gunshots and then saw a big fire in the room occupied by Shirley Camacho and her son. their house got burned downed. PHILIPPINES. having been overtaken by the Vitara. which resulted the touching of their side view mirrors. This prompted the private complainant's wife and daughter. The side view mirror of the Vitara was pushed backward and naturally. Sr. Midway.as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. which. heard gunshots that prompted him to go outside. Second: A week after the rumors had spread that Mauro Camacho. The accused himself even went up the house of the Camachos and pointed his long firearm at Mauro. An information was filed for malicious mischief against Taguinod to which he pleaded not guilty. He then saw a fire to the north about a kilometer away from where he was. The CRV. Sr. because it is settled that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. which forms part of circumstantial evidence. which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others. Barangay councilman Alejandro Marzan. If the actual eyewitness are the only ones allowed to possibly positively identify a suspect or accused to the exclusion of others. While they were returning to the car. to go down from his house. respectively. the Vitara bumped the CRV's rear portion and pushed the CRV until it hit the stainless steel railing located at the exit portion of the ramp. If resort to circumstantial evidence would not be allowed to prove identity of the accused on the absence of direct evidence. Taguinod v People G. both cars sustained damages. Such a proposition is absolutely absurd. Third: The accused was present at the scene of the crime at about 9:30 pm on August 10. Naguilian. the Bravo family. RTC affirmed. but the Vitara tried to overtake. Fifteen seconds later. When they were about to queue at the corner to pay the parking fees. the respective vehicles were edging each other. including the accused. the private complainant instructed his wife and daughter to go back to the CRV.R.vs. CA modified only the penalties. daring Mauro Camacho. and his wife had subjected the father of the accused to their witchcraft. He was convicted of malicious mischief with a punishment of 4 months and damages. hence. Facts: at the parking area of the Rockwell Powerplant Mall. Pedro Ang (private complainant) was driving his Honda CRV (CRV) from the 3rd basement parking. Petition for review to SC Issue: WON taguinod has committed malicious mischief. he encountered Benjamin Bravo running from the opposite direction and carrying a long firearm. 1989. 23. Fourth: The accused was heard uttering while going down the stairs of the house the Camachos: Matay kayo aminen. Petitioner appeared to be hostile. La Union at about 9:30 pm of August 10. 185833 October 12. then felons would go free and the community would be denied proper protection.As a result of the collision. the CRV having most of it. When the CRV was at the upward ramp leading to the exit. had denounced Mauro Camacho and his wife of engaging in witchcraft. This is the second type of positive identification. while at a wake in Barangay Ambaracao Sur. 2011 PEOPLE OF THE ROBERT TAGUINOD. took another lane. to alight from the CRV and confront the petitioner. No. The Bravos blamed the witchcraft to be the cause of the illness of the father of the accused. The CRV was ahead of the queue. I will burn your house). to wit: First: Prior to the burning incident. Sr. the side view mirror of the CRV was pushed forward. He rushed towards the place of the fire. while Robert Taguinod (petitioner) was driving his Suzuki Vitara (Vitara) from the 2nd basement parking. when taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain. . petitioner accelerated the Vitara and moved backward as if to hit them.

Blg. Affirmed modifications only on omission of attorney's fees. pertinent to the present case. (2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. the pounded hood of the vitara and the “bad mouthing” of the wife and daughter of the complainant are proof enough to establish existence of the element of hate revenge and other ill motive . are: (1) The making. Second. Wong was charged for 3 separate Informations for violation of BP 22. without any valid cause. the CA affirmed the trial court. the hitting of the back portion of the CRV by the petitioner was clearly deliberate control his speed in view of the gravitational pull. the act of damaging the rear bumper of the CRV does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. Inc (LPI). This . 22 under the first situation. The elements of B. drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value. 22: (1) by making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value knowing at the time of issue that the check is not sufficiently funded.P. The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code has been proven beyond reasonable doubt which are: (1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another. when the Vitara bumped the CRV.P.Held: This Court finds the petition partly meritorious. The incident of the collision of the side mirrors of both cars. the petitioner was just giving vent to his anger and hate as a result of a heated encounter between him and the private complainant. Blg. Issue: What is the crime committed by the accused? Held: He is liable for violation of BP 22. Intestate estate of Manolita Gonzalez v People 25. and (3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer. Hence this petition. drawer. They instead agreed to apply the checks to the payment of Wong’s unremitted collections. LPI required Wong’s customers to issue postdated checks before LPI would accept their purchase orders.P. Tan v People 27. CA and People Facts: Wong was an agent of Limtong Press. Petitioner contends that the first element does not exist because the checks were not issued to apply for account or for value. (2) The knowledge of the maker. Wong issued 6 postdated checks and drawn payable to the order of LPI. First. Wong was notified about the dishonor but he failed to settle the same within 5 days. On appeal. (3) That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it. Since Wong had a history of unremitted collections. The said checks were dishonored. 22 case by claiming that the checks were issued as guarantee and the obligations they were supposed to guarantee were already paid. a manufacturer of calendars. 24. ordered the bank to stop payment. Wong vs. People v Cerbito 26. or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. and (2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issue but failing to keep sufficient funds therein or credit with said bank to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days. He attempts to distinguish his situation from the usual "cut-and-dried" B. Lastly. There are two (2) ways of violating B. for in his mind he was wronged. These checks were initially intended to guarantee the calendar orders of customers who failed to issue postdated checks but LPI refused to accept the checks as guarantee. The trial court convicted Wong.

sufficient evidence that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issuance of the checks. or 180 days. Rather." By current banking practice.P. 22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present. shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon. LPI was constrained to deposit the said checks. which took effect on November 21. Section 2 of B. the statute provides that such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. An essential element of the offense is "knowledge" on the part of the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon its presentment. 22 punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. – The making." To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. the RTC and CA having both ruled that the checks were in payment for unremitted collections.flawed argument has no factual basis. petitioner was duly notified of such fact but failed to make arrangements for full payment within five (5) banking days thereof. 2000. 1986. . the maker or drawer makes arrangements for payment of the check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check. the penalty imposed on petitioner should now be modified to a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the checks that were dishonored. 12-2000.P. or 157 days after the December 30. but such knowledge could still be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.P. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof. Petitioner avers that since the complainant deposited the checks on June 5. the maker’s knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds. Blg. or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. However. Private respondent herein deposited the checks 157 days after the date of the check.P. when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. 22 should not apply to him. nowhere in said provision does the law require a maker to maintain funds in his bank account for only 90 days. a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months. He further claims that he should not be expected to keep his bank account active and funded beyond the ninety-day period. B. Likewise. As found by the trial court. "a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay. drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank. 1985 maturity date. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish. the presumption of knowledge of lack of funds under Section 2 of B. Upon his failure to do so. Hence said checks cannot be considered stale. the clear import of the law is to establish a prima facie presumption of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds under the following conditions (1) presentment within 90 days from date of the check. Blg. we find no error in the respondent court’s affirmance of his conviction by the trial court for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law. and (2) the dishonor of the check and failure of the maker to make arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after notice thereof. the argument has no legal basis. 22 provides: Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. It is not an element of the offense. private respondent did not deposit the checks because of the reassurance of petitioner that he would issue new checks. and not as guarantee. As to the second element. Blg. Only the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was lost. on record. the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge where payment of the check "is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. for what B. After the checks were dishonored. pursuant to the policy guidelines in Administrative Circular No. And despite petitioner’s insistent plea of innocence. There is. Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Blg.22 Contrary to petitioner’s assertions. Thus.

G. such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. LGI was notified but failed to refund the checks.. March 12. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. VILLAMAYOR and PHELPS DODGE PHILS. 1986. No. 2) LCI defaulted on some of the rentals.L. COURT OF APPEALS.P. Domagsang was acquitted of the crime. The vouchers for the checks indicated that: a) checks are not to be presented without prior approval of LGI to be given not later then May 30. PDP foreclosed the LGI properties in its possession despite the latter’s protest. INC. Both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored. RTC ruled for LGI saying that the sale was invalid. RTC JUDGE EDWIN A. 1986 b) But if written approval is not given by LCI before the date. 28. PDP advised LGI that it was transferring the contents of the LGI warehouse in the leased premises since a new tenant was moving in and that the properties of LGI will be placed in PDP’s custody. 129764.. Domagsang failed to pay. When presented for payment. to be served consecutively. Blg. 5) June 2. LGI lodged a complaint for damages against PDP and the notary who conducted the auction sale. 1986. 2 is 115442. A mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. The checks were dishonored. the petition is DENIED. PDP did not receive further comms from LGI. Griffith v CA GEOFFREY F. Both the RTC and Court of Appeals convicted Domagsang of the crime. MTC JUDGE MANUEL D. Griffith. 1988. Griffith was found guilty by the RTC on two counts for violation of BP22. respondents. However. 7) May 10. applied the proceeds to the arrears and ordered PDP to return 1.R. Was to suffer imprisonment of 6 mos. VILLASOR. CA affirmed. 29. as president of LGI issued two checks (1 is 100K.65) both from FEBTC. As such. Domagsang issued eighteen (18) postdated checks to Ignacio. In consideration of the loan.800. J. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)? The Supreme Court held that Although Section 2 of B. vs. HON. Section 3 states that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. 22 does state that the notice of dishonor be in writing. the said checks bounced for the reasons &quot. Ignacio demanded payment by calling up Domagsang at her office. 1986. QUISUMBING. . 4) On May 29. Thereafter remanded to the MeTC due to the subsequent expansion of the latter court’s jurisdiction over BP22 cases. Domagsang v CA Josephine Domagsang obtained a loan from Ignacio Garcia in the amount of P573. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court. 1987. petitioner. However. she was ordered to pay Ignacio the total face value of the dishonored checks as it was established that she failed to pay her debt.00. FACTS: 1) 1985 Phelps Dodge Philippines (PDP) leased its lot and factory to Lincoln Gerard Inc (LGI) for two years at a monthly rate of 75k. 2002. two informations for BP22 were filed against Griffith before the RTC.07M since it was the excess of the sale. 3) May 20. CA affirmed. PDP then presented the checks for payment.Account Closed&quot.WHEREFORE. This is final and irrevocable.. but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. GRIFFITH. 6) November 6. Griffith wrote PDP not to present checks for payment because they could not be funded due to the four-week labor strike which paralyzed the operations of LGI. PDP shall present checks for payment. Will a verbal notice of dishonor or demand to pay enough to convict a person for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.

586. under these circumstances. which became final after it was affirmed by the appellate court. in our view.65. Said property was already in Phelps Dodge's custody earlier.586.54029 to satisfy Phelps Dodge claim for unpaid rentals. 12-2000. 22 violations rather than imprisonment to "best serve the ends of criminal justice. totalling P215. Phelps Dodge was able to collect the face value of the two checks. per decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. 73260-61. this Court has expressed a policy preference for fine as penalty in cases of B."25 It was not designed to favor or encourage those who seek to enrich themselves through manipulation and circumvention of the purpose of the law. 9) Griffith assails the decision due to the fact that PDP knew that the checking accounts did not have sufficient funds and the latter presented it for payment despite such knowledge. sold Lincoln Gerard's property for cash amounting to P1. the civil obligation of Lincoln Gerard. in Administrative Circular No. 22.26 Noteworthy. ISSUE: W/N the conviction was correct. that also the proceeds realized in the said sale should be deducted from the account of Lincoln with Phelps.00. by resorting to the remedy of foreclosure and auction sale. while the philosophy underlying our penal system leans toward the classical school that imposes penalties for retribution. This was the situation when." Moreover.12 representing the balance of the rental in arrearages. (SC: NO) HELD: The Bouncing Checks Law "was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account user.953. was no longer subsisting. Inc.953. through a notarial foreclosure and auction that were later on judicially declared invalid.27 such retribution should be aimed at "actual and potential wrongdoers".88 to Lincoln Gerard. Branch 69. that out of what had happened in the case as the trial court had resolved in its decision. In fact. almost two years after the auction sale. Francisco with the concurrence of Justices Reynato S. already exacted its proverbial pound of flesh through foreclosure and auction sale as its chosen remedy. Phelps is duty bound to pay Lincoln in damages P1.12 less P254."33 Petitioner's efforts to quash in the Court of Appeals the charges against him was frustrated on procedural grounds because. so that only P47. petitioner was charged with two counts of violation of B. computed at P301.072.12 may only be the rentals in arrears which Lincoln should pay.600.8) MeTC found Griffith guilty for both counts. appeal and not . Griffith v. The obligation of Lincoln Gerard to Phelps Dodge for said rentals was onlyP301. Further. it bears repeating that Phelps Dodge. Judge Milagros Caguioa. the checks issued were corporate checks that Lincoln Gerard allegedly failed to fund for a valid reason duly communicated to the payee. see how petitioner's conviction and sentence could be upheld without running afoul of basic principles of fairness and justice.31 That the money value of the two checks signed by petitioner was already collected. it impounded items owned by Lincoln Gerard valued far in excess of the debt or the checks.953.R. purportedly because a new tenant was moving into the leased premises. We cannot.P.12. Phelps Dodge was ordered to pay or returnP1. well-written as it is. For Phelps Dodge has. CA denied appeal. But did not judge the civil aspect of the case due to Res Judi or Litis Pen. and that consequently. By that time.28 Note that in the two criminal cases filed by Phelps Dodge against petitioner. though respondent Court of Appeals calls the payment thereof as involuntary. Isnani: "…We are persuaded that the defense has good and solid defenses against both charges in Criminal Cases Nos.32 Said Justice C. We can even say that the decision rendered in Branch 69 in Civil Case No. could not be ignored in appreciating the antecedents of the two criminal charges against petitioner. there is absolutely no consideration remaining in support of the two (2) subject checks. had put up a formidable obstacle to any conviction in the criminal cases with the findings therein made that the sale by public auction of the properties of Lincoln was illegal and had no justification under the facts. to Phelps Dodge Phils. however.30 Thus. CA-G. SP No. 55276.953.072. RTC affirmed in toto. Puno and Asaali S. Inc. 20980.442.P. according to Justice Francisco.120. in connection with the petitioner's motion to quash the charges herein before they were tried on the merits. That is why we find quite instructive the reasoning of the Court of Appeals earlier rendered in deciding the petition for Certiorari and Injunction.88 from which had been deducted the amount of P47. Because of the invalid foreclosure and sale.

considering that the money value of the two checks issued by petitioner has already been effectively paid two years before the informations against him were filed. (When the reason for the law ceases. 22 two years after said collection. Costs de officio. are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. the petition is hereby GRANTED. 22 in Criminal Cases Nos.) It is not the letter alone but the spirit of the law also that gives it life.P.certiorari was the proper remedy. 1997. et cessat lex. we should not apply penal laws mechanically. Griffith is ACQUITTED of the charges of violation of B. 41678 and 41679. 22 is the issuance of worthless checks that are dishonored upon their presentment for payment.34 In a petition for certiorari. While we agree with the private respondent that the gravamen of violation of B. This is especially so in this case where a debtor's criminalization would not serve the ends of justice but in fact subvert it. 22. 30. we find merit in this petition.P. we find that holding the debtor's president to answer for a criminal offense under B. or whether there should be a distinction between postdated and other kinds of checks need no longer detain us for being immaterial now to the determination of the issue of guilt or innocence of petitioner.R. Ratione cessat lex. In sum. 22. People v Dimat . The creditor having collected already more than a sufficient amount to cover the value of the checks for payment of rentals.P. 19621 dated March 14.P. Petitioner Geoffrey F. and its resolution dated July 8. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. SO ORDERED. 1997. People v Lagat 31. We hold that petitioner herein could not be validly and justly convicted or sentenced for violation of B. is no longer tenable nor justified by law or equitable considerations. the law ceases. only issues of jurisdiction including grave abuse of discretion are considered. but an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. via auction sale. No.P.35We must find if the application of the law is consistent with the purpose of and reason for the law. Whether the number of checks issued determines the number of violations of B. WHEREFORE.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful