Special Assessment - A real property tax proportionately levied on homeowners and landowners to cover the

costs of improvements that will be for the benefit of all upon whom it is imposed.
For example, a special assessment might be made to pay for sidewalks or sewer connections.
Special Assessments - The first definition refers to fees that Homeowners Associations will charge to
owners to cover the costs of building repair that exceed the amount in the current budget. Upcoming
special assessments are required to be included in the CC&Rs for a condo building, so read them
carefully to make sure you understand what you could pay for if you decide to buy a unit. Buyers
receive the CC&Rs within a week after submitting an offer on a unit in the building.
-

special assessments refers to dues that the local city government charges on homeowners for
utilities, road maintenance, and other services like fire protection and street lighting.

a tax levied by a local government on private property to pay the costof local public improvements, as s
idewalk construction or sewagedisposal, that are of general benefit to the property taxed.

P/CPL. GUILLERMO SARABIA, PNP, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 142024, July 20, 2001
This is a petition for review of the decision, dated October 29, 1999, and resolution, dated March 6,
2000, of the Court of Appeals[1] affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 48,
which affirmed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tagbilaran, finding petitioner Guillermo
Sarabia guilty of grave coercion, and denying petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration, respectively.
The facts are as follows:
On June 23, 1991, at around 8 o‘clock in the evening, complainant Josephine Picos-Mapalad and
her then boyfriend, complainant Anastacio Mapalad (now the former‘s husband), were dating at one of
the grandstands inside the Garcia Sports Complex in Tagabilaran City.[2] Petitioner Sarabia, then a
member of the city police force, on that particular evening was passing by the Garcia Sports Complex
on his way to his house. He was carrying with him his service gun and flashlight. He saw the two
lovers and focused his flashlight on them.[3]
According to the prosecution, petitioner, with intimidation, pointed his gun at the two lovers and
forced them to perform sexual acts against their will. Petitioner then extorted P100.00 from
them. Petitioner made complainant Anastacio Mapalad buy him a cigarette outside the complex, and,
while he was gone, petitioner forced complainant Picos-Mapalad to masturbate his
penis.[4] Afterwards, petitioner allowed complainants to leave with the threat that he would kill them if
they reported the incident to anyone. The following morning, complainants went to Panglao and
stayed there for several days to recuperate and to decide what action they would take. With the help of
their relatives, they reported the matter to the police. As a result, three informations for grave coercion
were filed against petitioner.[5]
Petitioner denied the allegations against him. He claimed that he merely confronted complainants
and directed them to go home as the place was dangerous. At this point, complainant Picos-Mapalad
allegedly screamed at him and told him that he had no business telling them what to do, as they were
in a public place and they could do whatever they wanted. Petitioner repeated his warning that he
would take them to the municipal hall if they did not leave. Still, complainants refused to leave and
continued calling him names. To avoid any altercation with them, petitioner left and headed
home.[6] Petitioner vehemently denied the accusations leveled against him by complainants.
Three criminal informations against petitioner for grave coercion were filed in the Municipal Trial
Court of Tagbilaran City, which resulted in the filing of Criminal Case Nos. 4399, 4400, and 4401 in that
court. On November 27, 1996, the Municipal Trial Court, Branch I, Tagbilaran City, rendered a
decision convicting petitioner. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
one crime of Grave Coercion in the three above-entitled cases and therefore hereby CONVICTS him
and sentences him to the penalty of SIX MONTHS of Arresto Mayor and a FINE of P500.00; to pay the
offended parties the sum of P5,000.00 as damages and to pay the costs.[7]
On appeal to the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, the three criminal cases were raffled to two salas of
the court. Criminal Case Nos. 4399 and 4400 (re-docketed as RTC Criminal Cases No. 9729 and 9731)
were assigned to Branch 1, while Criminal Case No. 4401 (re-docketed as RTC Criminal Case No. 9730)
was assigned to Branch 47.[8]
In an Omnibus Decision,[9] dated June 17, 1997, Branch 1 of the RTC of Bohol affirmed the decision
of the Municipal Trial Court in Criminal Case Nos. 4399 and 4400. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion
for Reconsideration questioning the said decision. On the other hand, Branch 47 of the RTC of Bohol
ordered the transfer of the records of Criminal Case No. 9730 to Branch I of the same court to be
consolidated with Criminal Case No. 9729 and 9731. However, on December 29, 1997, the judge of
Branch I inhibited himself from hearing the three consolidated cases without resolving petitioner‘s
Omnibus Motion in Criminal Case Nos. 9729 and 9731 and without rendering a decision on Criminal
Case No. 9730. The three cases were finally raffled off to Branch 48 of the RTC.
In an Omnibus Decision, dated August 3, 1998, Branch 48 of the RTC of Bohol affirmed in toto the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court. In its Omnibus Order, dated August 28, 1998, it likewise denied
petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration.

As stated at the beginning, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner‘s appeal and affirmed in
toto the decision of the lower court. It subsequently denied reconsideration of its decision. Hence this
petition.
First. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals‘ decision, affirming the decisions of the lower
courts, and its resolution, denying his motion for reconsideration, were issued with grave abuse of
discretion because the conclusions of law drawn therefrom vis-à-vis the facts clearly established during
the trial on the merits are gravely erroneous. He insists that when he saw complainants in the sports
complex, he merely directed them to go home. When they refused, he proceeded home.[10]
Petitioner also claims that complainants‘ testimonies are replete with contradictions which put
their credibility in serious doubt. According to petitioner, complainant Picos-Mapalad testified in court
that the day after the incident in question, she went with Anastacio Mapalad to Panglao and stayed
there for three days, but Anastacio Mapalad testified that they stayed in Panglao for one week before
coming back to Tagbilaran City. Complainant Picos-Mapalad also testified that Anastacio Mapalad
had an erection when they were having sex upon petitioner‘s demand and that he ejaculated during
their intercourse. Anastacio Mapalad, on the other hand, denied having had an erection or ejaculating
during the incident.
Petitioner claims that both complainants repeatedly contradicted what they stated in their
respective affidavits and testimonies. It is alleged that complainant Picos-Mapalad variously testified
that she was already married to Anastacio Mapalad on the night of the incident; but later admitted that
they were just sweethearts when the incident happened; and that she executed her affidavit three days
after June 23, 1991, while records showed that it was executed more than a week after said
date. Complainant Anastacio Mapalad likewise testified that he executed his affidavit on June 30, 1991,
when in fact he executed it on July 2, 1991. He also stated in his affidavit that Josephine PicosMapalad‘s relatives reported the incident to the authorities, but testified later on in court that it was he
and Josephine who really reported the incident. He also contradicted his affidavit, wherein he stated
that he and Josephine Picos-Mapalad had been sweethearts for two years before the incident, when he
testified that they had been together for four years, which he subsequently changed to three years.
It is contended that under the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, inasmuch as the
complainants lied and contradicted their statements many times, it is safe to conclude that they also
lied about their other statements to the prejudice of petitioner.
Petitioner belabors the fact that complainants did not report what happened to the authorities right
away when they had every opportunity to do so. Petitioner insists that it was surprising why
complainant Mapalad did not report the matter to the police when he could have done so when he was
ordered by petitioner to buy cigarettes. It was equally surprising, according to petitioner, why both
complainants stayed in Plaza Rizal after the incident, instead of reporting what happened to the police
station, when the station was only a stone‘s throw away from the Plaza. Private complainants spent a
week in Panglao after the incident. Petitioner asks why they did not report what happened to anyone,
but instead waited until after returning to Tagbilaran before approaching the police. It is also puzzling
how complainant Picos-Mapalad could have gotten pregnant as a result of the sexual intercourse she
had with Anastacio Mapalad on the night of the incident when, according to the latter, he neither had
an erection nor ejaculated that night when they were having sexual intercourse.
Given all the above contradictions and variances between private complainants‘ testimonies and
affidavits, petitioner would have this Court believe that the entire incident, upon which the charges of
grave coercion are based, has been entirely fabricated by complainants so that petitioner would pay for
having investigated Josephine Picos-Mapalad‘s brother in an earlier criminal case.
We do not agree.
The basic issue presented in this case centers on the credibility of complainants. It is settled that
when a conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the trial court is accorded
the highest degree of respect. Absent any compelling reason to depart from this established rule,
factual conclusions reached by the lower court, which had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the
demeanor of the witnesses while on the witness stand, should not be disturbed.[11]
Petitioner was apparently trying his best to pick out each and every trivial inconsistency which he
could find in the complainants‘ testimonies in an attempt to discredit them. Such a move betrays
desperation in argument. An erroneous reckoning or misestimation of time, such as that which
complainants committed by giving different time periods as to how long they stayed in Panglao or
varying estimation of the length of time that they had been sweethearts prior to the incident in
question, is too trivial and immaterial to discredit their testimonies, especially in this case where time is

not an essential element or has no bearing on the fact of the commission of the crime. [12] As aptly stated
by the Solicitor General:
. . . Josephine Mapalad‘s claim on the length of time she and Anastacio Mapalad had spent at Panglao
after the incident may be at variance with the time asserted by Anastacio Mapalad; but this is a
collateral matter and did not detract from the fact that they did go to Panglao after the
incident. Josephine Mapalad‘s claim that Anastacio Mapalad had an erection and ejaculated when they
were forced by petitioner to copulate may be at variance with Anastacio Mapalad‘s claim on the same
matter; but this contradiction did not detract from the material fact that they were indeed forced by
petitioner to copulate. Inconsistencies on minor or collateral matters in the testimony of prosecution
eyewitnesses regarding the same event(s) do not affect their credibility; but rather are
strong indicia that their testimon[ies] are unrehearsed and indeed true (Cortez v. Court of Appeals, 245
SCRA 198, 204-205 [1995]).[13]
The same applies to the other inconsistencies in complainants‘ testimonies pointed out by
petitioner. These inconsistencies can hardly affect complainants‘ credibility. They refer to matters of
minor detail or to the precise sequence of events that do not detract from the central fact that petitioner
compelled complainants to perform sexual acts at gunpoint against their will, on which the latter had
consistently and candidly testified. The testimonial discrepancies could have been caused by the
natural fickleness of human memory, which tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, credibility as they
erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[14] When complainants testified, more than four years had
elapsed from the time the incident in question took place. Considering this fact, it would have been
doubtful if complainants had been able to pinpoint or describe with precision the exact sequence of
events. Josephine and Anastacio Mapalad‘s conflicting statements in respect of the details occurring
immediately after the crime may have resulted from the length and tedium of their cross-examination
at the hands of petitioner‘s counsel. In this connection, the Municipal Trial Court aptly observed:
It is true that under rigid cross-examination by defense counsel, private complainants blundered and
gave somewhat contradictory and inconsistent statements. But these seeming inconsistencies are
hallmarks of sincerity. Sense and experience of men tell us that honest and truthful witnesses do not
coincide in the narration of events swiftly occurring before them, especially trifling details. Such minor
contradictions do not affect their credibilities and even strengthen the probative value of their
testimonies. (Flavio de Leon, et al., vs. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 66020, June 22,
1992).[15]
Equally without merit is petitioner‘s assertion that the discrepancy between the complainants‘
affidavits and testimonies in court affects their credibility. While there may exist a variance between
some statements of complainants in their affidavits and their testimonies in open court, the alleged
inconsistencies are more apparent than real. It is to be expected that complainants would give a more
detailed narration in their testimony before the trial court of how petitioner forced them at gunpoint to
have sexual intercourse. Such fact, it is evident, does not necessarily signify that their open court
testimonies conflict with their affidavits.
The contradiction between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness may be explained by the
fact that an affidavit will not always disclose all the facts and will oftentimes and without design
incorrectly describe, without the deponent detecting it, some of the occurrences narrated. As an
affidavit is taken ex-parte, it is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial
suggestions, and sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the
witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of
the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject. It
has thus been held that affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations
because the former are often executed when the affiant‘s mental faculties are not in such a state as to
afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Moreover,
affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally
prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read
to him.[16]
The defense makes much of the fact that complainant failed to report the incident to anyone until
several days after the commission of the crime. We do not believe that an adverse implication can be
drawn from such failure. The non-disclosure by witnesses to police officers of petitioner‘s identity
immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not necessarily against human experience. [17] The
natural reticence of most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors,
as in the case of Josephine Picos-Mapalad and petitioner, is a matter of judicial notice.[18] As the trial
court said, complainants cannot be faulted for this considering that their tormentor was no ordinary

SO ORDERED. petitioner raises the plea of double jeopardy. is absent in this case. An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved. Complainants are both unschooled. dated October 29. (2) the first jeopardy must have terminated. It needs no stretch of the imagination that when petitioner threatened to kill them if they reported the matter to the authorities. as this is alleged in the complaint or information. the following elements must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. Josephine Picos-Mapalad was a 17-hear old laundry woman. §7 of the Rules of Court. Second. while Anastacio Mapalad was a simple grocery bagger. when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former. There is no merit to this contention. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved. Rule 120. the first crime charged. under Rule 117. When an offense includes or is included in another. . and is not necessarily included in. constitute the latter. On the other hand. The third requisite. The crime for which petitioner now stands charged is not the same as the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of person for which he was convicted. Neither is the former an attempt to commit the latter or a frustration thereof. He threatened complainants at gunpoint that he would harm them if they reported the matter to anyone. is AFFIRMED. At the time of the commission of the crime.delinquent but a city policeman. and which is now on appeal with the Court of Appeals. when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. 1999. the test is whether one offense is identical with the other or whether it is an attempt or frustration of the other or whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. Finally. the instant petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals. §5 provides: Sec. To raise the defense of double or second jeopardy. With respect to the third element. 5. they believed entirely and utterly that he could and would make good on his threat. and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. WHEREFORE. He contends the incident which gave rise to this case is also the subject of a criminal case for robbery with violence against or intimidation of person wherein he was convicted. identity of offenses. And the former crime does not necessarily include.

Philippine Currency.160 when in truth and in fact the said person was never granted a loan. 1982. (PCCI). Branch 22 in Criminal Case Nos.000.00 when in truth and in fact said person was never granted a loan.G. 3625 That on or about the 2nd day of June.000. and paying out loans to members taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative. Philippines. never received the same. and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. Province of South Cotabato. and despite demands. to wit: Criminal Case No.6 Criminal Case No. entrusted with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative. and never signed the Cash/Check voucher issued in her name. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the cooperative. and by signing on the appropriate line thereon the signature of Erlinda Omadlao showing that she received the loan.160. Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to December 22. said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative. petitioner. receiving payments to. 1999 Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration. taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative. During an audit conducted in December 1982.R. thus making it appear that the said Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan. refused and still refuses to restitute the same. four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents were filed against Batulanon. (PCCI). and the July 29. and despite demands.R. and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative. Province of South Cotabato. in the aforementioned amount of P4. Inc.4 Thereafter.000. 3626 and 3627. 237 A of PCCI in the name of Gonafreda Oracion by then and there making an entry therein that the said Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan of P4. receiving payments to. 1998 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. entrusted with the duty of managing the aff[a]irs of the cooperative. 30-A of PCCI in the name of Erlinda Omadlao by then and there making an entry therein that the said Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan of P4.00 and thereafter misappropriate and convert to her own use and benefit the said amount. received the loan of P4. vs. and in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself the same and received the loan of P4. respondent. No. 1982 at Poblacion Municipality of Polomolok. 3626 That on or about the 24th day of September.160 and thereafter misappropriate and convert to her own use and benefit the said amount. in the aforementioned amount of P4. namely: Cash/Check Voucher No. CR No. 2006 LEONILA BATULANON.5 Criminal Case No. 1982 at Poblacion. Municipality of Polomolok. affirming with modification the April 15. the same. and paying out loans to members. to the damage and prejudice of PCCI. 1993 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City.. This petition assails the October 30.000. and collections of. unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial document.160. refused and still refuses to restitute the same.00 and by signals on the appropriate line thereon the signature of Gonafreda Oracion showing that she received the loan. namely: Cash/Check Voucher No. 15221. and collections of. the same. Philippine Currency. never received the same. 3453 . and in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself the same and received the amount of P4. Inc. did then and there willfully. unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial document. certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were discovered. and never signed the cash/check voucher issued in her name. CONTRARY TO LAW. 3453. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. thus making it appear that the said Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan and received the amount of P4. 139857 September 15. did then and there willfully. to the damage and prejudice of PCCI. convicting Leonila Batulanon of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Philippines. Philippine Currency. 3625.

receiving payments to.000. 500. Municipality of Polomolok. to the damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the aforementioned amount of P3. Inc. the said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative. Jr. and Bonifacio Jayoma as witnesses. and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. and thereafter.500.000. unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit the said amount. unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial document. refused and still refuses to restitute the same. the same and paying out loans to members.000. taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative. and was granted a loan by the PCCI when in truth and in fact Ferlyn Arroyo never made such a deposit and was never granted loan and after the document was so falsified in the manner set forth.00 with the PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of P5. Province of South Cotabato.500.00. Province of South Cotabato.00 thus making it appear that the said person made fixed deposit on the aforesaid date with.500. did then and there willfully. 1982 at Poblacion.160. did then and there willfully. and in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself the same. and thereafter.000. (PCCI).00 thru Cash Voucher No. and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. entrusted with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative. namely: an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Dennis Batulanon with the PCCI by then and there entering on the appropriate column of the ledger the entry that the said Dennis Batulanon had a fixed deposit of P2. and [despite] demands. and collection of the same and paying out loans to members. said accused did then and there again falsify the Cash/Check Voucher No. Medallo. unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit the said amount. 30A10 for P4. CONTRARY TO LAW. P3. receiving payments to. 3453.8 The cases were raffled to Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. wilfully. did then and there willfully.. and despite demands. the said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative. the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the preparation of cash vouchers9 testified that on certain dates in 1982.That on or about the 10th day of October 1982 at Poblacion. 3625. Cash Voucher No. Philippine Currency. Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the charges.000. 3626 and 3627. and collection of. and received the amount of P3.000. afterwhich a joint trial on the merits ensued. Philippine Currency. refused and still refuses to restitute the same to the damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the aforementioned amount of P5. Batulanon released four Cash Vouchers representing varying amounts to four different individuals as follows: On June 2. Philippine Currency. namely: an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Ferlyn Arroyo with the PCCI by then and there entering on the appropriate column of the ledger the entry that the said Ferlyn Arroyo had a fixed deposit of P1. 276A13 was released . CONTRARY TO LAW. (PCCI) entrusted with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative. thus making it appear that the said Dennis Batulanon received the loan of P5. 1982.00 was released to Erlinda Omadlao.00 with the PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of P3. taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative. thus making it appear that the said Ferlyn Arroyo received the loan of P3. 1982. 237A11 for P4. The prosecution presented Maria Theresa Medallo. and was granted a loan by the PCCI when in truth and in fact Dennis Batulanon never made such a deposit and was never granted loan and offer the document was so falsified in the manner set forth. said accused did then and there again falsify the Cash/Check Voucher of the PCCI in the name of Ferlyn Arroyo by signing therein the signature of Ferlyn Arroyo. Municipality of Polomolok. Philippines.00 when in truth and in fact said Dennis Batulanon never received the loan and in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself the same and receive the loan of P5. 3627 That on or about the 7th day of December. unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial document..00 was released to Gonafreda12 Oracion. did then and there.500. on September 24. when in truth and in fact said Ferlyn Arroyo never received the loan. Philippines. 374 A of PCCI in the name of Dennis Batulanon by signing therein the signature of Dennis Batulanon. Benedicto Gopio.000.. Inc. thus making it appear that the said person made a fixed deposit on the aforesaid date with.7 Criminal Case No. Cash Voucher No.

Arroyo.22 The defense presented two witnesses. Maria Theresa Medallo who was presented as a hostile witness and Batulanon.14 Medallo testified that Omadlao.30 On April 15.26 that contrary to the testimony of Gopio. 30A. that it has become an accepted practice in the cooperative for her to release loans and dispense with the approval of Gopio Jr. 374A.16 Medallo stated that pursuant to the cooperative's by-laws. was a member of the cooperative but there was no proof that she applied for a loan with PCCI in 1982. the trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulanon as follows: . He claimed that Oracion's signature on Cash Voucher No. 1982 and on December 7. and Dennis Batulanon were not eligible to apply for loan because they were not bona fide members of the cooperative. He averred that membership in the cooperative is not open to minors.to Ferlyn Arroyo on October 16. to add his signature on the documents to avoid suspicion of irregularity. Jr. because the cooperative had been registered since 1967.20 Jayoma was the Vice-Chairman of the PCCI Board of Directors in 1980 before becoming its Chairman in 1982 until 1983. minors are eligible for membership in the cooperative provided they are children of regular members. Medallo was able to identify only Cash Voucher No. After certifying that the said document reflected all the financial transactions of the cooperative for that year. 237A in the name of Gonafreda Oracion. that she had started paying off her son's loan but the cooperative refused to accept her payments after the cases were filed in court. only bona fide members who must have a fixed deposit are eligible for loans.15 Ferlyn Arroyo on the other hand. Jr.000..19 Gopio. Jr. She claimed that she did not sign the vouchers in the names of Omadlao. was a member of PCCI since 1975 and a member of its board of directors since 1979. Medallo was subpoenaed by the trial court on behalf of the defense and was asked to bring with her the PCCI General Journal for the year 1982.17 Medallo categorically stated that she saw Batulanon sign the names of Oracion and Arroyo in their respective cash vouchers and made it appear in the records that they were payees and recipients of the amount stated therein. He stated that Oracion is Batulanon's sister-in-law while Dennis Batulanon is her son who was only 3 years old in 1982. She failed to identify the other vouchers because the Journal had missing pages and she was not the one who prepared the entries. she was asked to identify the entries in the Journal with respect to the vouchers in question...23 Batulanon denied all the charges against her.29 On rebuttal. she declared that the same was actually the handwriting of appellant. that the same were signed by the loan applicants in her presence at the PCCI office after she personally released the money to them.28 When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI from 1980 to 1982.21 Jayoma also testified that among the four loans taken. Omadlao. Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her son's name because she is no longer qualified for another loan as she still has to pay off an existing loan.18 As to the signature of Omadlao in Cash Voucher No. 1993. He corroborated Medallo's testimony that Omadlao. Oracion and Dennis Batulanon are not members of PCCI. namely. 1982. the cooperative did not have by-laws yet.25 that she signed the loan application and voucher of her son Dennis Batulanon because he was a minor but she clarified that she asked Gopio. Jayoma belied that PCCI had no by-laws from 1980-1982. that the board of directors passed a resolution in August 1982 authorizing her to certify to the correctness of the entries in the vouchers. P5. She subsequently withdrew her membership in 1983.24 that the three were members of the cooperative as shown by their individual deposits and the ledger. 237A is Batulanon's handwriting.00 was released to Dennis Batulanon thru Cash Voucher No. Oracion. He testified that the loans made to Oracion. Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon did not pass through the cooperative's Credit Committee and PCCI's Board of Directors for screening purposes. in case of his absence. Oracion and Arroyo.27 She also declared that one automatically becomes a member when he deposits money with the cooperative. only that in Arroyo's name was settled.

to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. This is because by signing the name of Omadlao. AS MAXIMUM. Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of commercial document. she is sentenced in each of the four cases to 4 months of ARRESTO MAYOR to 1 year and 2 months of PRISION CORRECTIONAL.34 The petition lacks merit. Article 171. above all things else. the sum of thirteen thousand one hundred sixty (P13. appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the information. the best witness is the person whose signature was allegedly forged. Gonafreda Oracion and Ferlyn Arroyo instead of relying on the testimony of an unreliable and biased witness such as Medallo. and in which he. Inc. hence this petition.00 with legal interest from the institution of the complaints until fully paid. and to indemnify the Polomolok Cooperative Credit . as payee of the amounts appearing in the corresponding cash vouchers. and (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. "Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged?" not. . SO ORDERED. People. Batulanon argues that in any falsification case. whatever may be the name of the crime which those acts constitute. plus legal interests from the filing of the complaints until fully paid. premises considered. and 3453. to indemnify the PCCI in the total sum of P16. The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172.. Oracion. 30A. except those in paragraph 7. should be most interested.31 The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. thus: WHEREFORE. paragraph 236 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification. AS MINIMUM. in the manner stated. x x x That to which his attention should be directed. and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayormaximum.35 we held: From a legal point of view. Batulanon's act38 of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171. plus costs. 3625. finding the accused Leonila Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all the above-entitled case. and in a very real sense.37 In Criminal Case Nos. are the facts alleged. the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. to pay a fine of five thousand (P5. respectively. thus the prosecution should have presented Erlinda Omadlao. "Did you commit a crime named murder?" If he performed the acts alleged. 2.i. Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. In Andaya v.000. plus costs. then he ought to be punished and punished adequately.00). it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged.00) pesos. causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. Batulanon made it appear that they obtained a loan and received its proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan nor receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers.660.32 The motion for reconsideration was denied. x x x If the accused performed the acts alleged in the manner alleged. Appellant LEONILA BATULANON is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents under Par.33 She avers that the crime of falsification of private document requires as an element prejudice to a third person. 3626. and 267A. The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name.160.WHEREFORE. and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document.e. 237A. the law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. x x x The real and important question to him is. She insists that PCCI has not been prejudiced by these loan transactions because these loans are accounts receivable by the cooperative. SO ORDERED.

Thus. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. under Section 22. the proper crime to be charged is estafa. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. only that in Ferlyn Arroyo's name was settled because her mother. Of the four accounts.S. v. Medallo categorically declared that she saw Batulanon forge the signatures of Oracion and Arroyo in the vouchers and made it appear that the amounts stated therein were actually received by these persons. In the case of Arroyo. In U. the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover. Reyes. There is no evidence showing that Medallo was prompted by any ill motive. the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. the proper crime to be charged is falsification.47 the accused changed the description of the pawned article on the face of the pawn ticket and made it appear that the article is of greatly superior value. the Calamba Sugar Estate. agreed to settle the loan to avoid legal prosecution with the understanding however.39 The Court of Appeals40 correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions41 nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. There is no merit in Batulanon's assertion that PCCI has not been prejudiced because the loan transactions are reflected in its books as accounts receivable. the wages of the laborer for 21 days. Infante. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.S. which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized. The accused misappropriated the wages during which the laborer did not work for which he was convicted of falsification of private document. In U. succeeded in obtaining the sacks of sugar. v.45 it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa. Erlinda.46 the accused made it appear in the time book of the Calamba Sugar Estate that a laborer. Medallo's credible testimony and her familiarity with the handwriting of Batulanon proved that it was indeed the latter who signed the name of Arroyo. was held guilty of falsification of a private document. As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document. Her insistence that Medallo is a biased witness is without basis.00 as the value of 150 sacks of sugar.44 The prosecution in this case was able to discharge its burden completely. These alleged borrowers are not members of PCCI and neither are they eligible for a loan. and by means of said falsified documents. .48 the accused presented a document of guaranty purportedly signed by Ortigas Hermanos for the payment of P2. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that in criminal cases. He was found guilty of falsification of a private document. As to the signature of Arroyo. 1929. Contrary to Batulanon's contention. when in reality he had worked only 11 days.The prosecution established that Batulanon caused the preparation of the Cash Vouchers in the name of Omadlao and Oracion knowing that they are not PCCI members and not qualified for a loan from the cooperative. except those involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be compromised. Section 27. Chan Tiao. that she will be reimbursed once the money is collected from Batulanon. worked 21 days during the month of July.42Rather. the prosecution is not duty-bound to present the persons whose signatures were forged as Medallo's eyewitness account of the incident was sufficient. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa.055. and thereafter pawned the falsified ticket in another pawnshop for an amount largely in excess of the true value of the article pawned. and then charged the offended party. 43 In all criminal prosecutions. Batulanon was aware that while the former is a member. by which some disposition or agreement is proved. The claim that Batulanon's letter to the cooperative asking for a compromise was not an admission of guilt is untenable. It has been established that PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide members with no subsisting loan. Ciriaco Sario. evidenced or set forth. they are private documents. in People v. she did not apply for a loan with the cooperative.

3626 and 3453. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol. 3627 involving the cash voucher of Dennis. which is within the range of the allowed imposable penalty. registry. or to return. 7.49 Thus.In view of the foregoing. she shall suffer the aforementioned penalties for each count of the offense charged. Dennis. Said act does not fall under any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 because there in nothing untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that as representative of the latter. What she did was to sign: "by: lbatulanon" to indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt. 1994 until the finality of this judgment. From the time the decision becomes final and executory.00 paid by Ferlyn Arroyo's mother as the same was settled with the understanding that PCCI will reimburse the former once the money is recovered. Batulanon is entitled to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which must be within the range of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. The essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or false statements. Since Batulanon's conviction was for 3 counts of falsification of private documents. in Criminal Case No. or official book. The records. four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. In Criminal Case No. as maximum. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists. signature. the interest rate shall be 12% per annum until its satisfaction.500. that of the genuine original. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. or different from. 3625. the crime committed by Batulanon is estafa and not falsification. which is three (3) years. 3626 and 3453. however. petitioner Batulanon did not falsify the signature of Dennis. 4. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. As to whether. as minimum. 374A. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. the same. the acts that may constitute falsification are the following: 1. 3. 3627. in Criminal Case Nos. 2. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust. Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.660. The amount shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the filing of the complaints on November 28. which is not attendant in this case. or rubric. or on commission. to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. Altering true dates. we find that the Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents in Criminal Case Nos. such representation involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different matter which will make her liable for estafa. the trial court convicted petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis Batulanon's signature in the cash voucher based on the Information charging her of signing the name of her 3 year old son. the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor. but not for falsification. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. 3625. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that money. 8. Article 172 punishes the crime of Falsification of a Private Document with the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods with a duration of two (2) years. . Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them. However. six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to four (4) years. or for administration. reveal that in Cash Voucher No. or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. 6. Taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law.50 The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. nine (9) months and ten (10) days. 3627. or including in such copy a statement contrary to. Hence. it was an error for the courts below to hold that petitioner Batulanon is also guilty of falsification of private document with respect to Criminal Case No. 5. She is also ordered to indemnify PCCI the amount of P11. or.00 representing the aggregate amount of the 3 loans without deducting the amount of P3.

with instruction to his cashier not to deposit the same in the current account of the Manila Rail Road Company until the end of the month. in most cases the offender hopes to be able to restore the funds before the defalcation is discovered. comparatively few men misappropriate trust funds with the intention of defrauding the owner. Batulanon holds the money for administration and in trust for PCCI. the breach of confidence involved in the conversion or diversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is in itself sufficient.S. That the money for which the appellant's checks were substituted was received by him for safe-keeping or administration. or used in other . That he. He replaced said cash with his personal check of the same amount drawn on the Philippine National Bank (PNB). the cashier. is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of paragraph 5. in taking money for his personal use. the check of appellant was discovered to have been carried in the accounts as part of the cash on hand. We can see no reason in the present case why it should not be applied in its literal sense. The latter. Knowing that she is no longer qualified to obtain a loan. x x x Applying the legal principles here stated to the facts of the case. though only temporary. The checks did not constitute cash and as long as they were retained by the appellant or remained under his personal control they were of no value to the corporation. well settled by former adjudications of this court that the disturbance in property rights caused by the misappropriation. (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. might also have misappropriated the same funds and thus have become guilty of estafa. (U. we find all of the necessary elements of estafa x x x. 821.S. Neither can there be any doubt that. He was the responsible financial officer of the corporation and as such had immediate control of the current funds for the purposes of safe-keeping and was charged with the custody of the same.330. there is no doubt that as Cashier/Manager. at first sight. supra. especially where. however. 36 Phil. the appellant misappropriated and diverted the funds for that period. vs. As we have already stated.66 in his account. (Note: The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant)51 Thus in the case of U. in the exercise of such control and custody. such intention rarely exists in cases of this nature and. Although the amount received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as part of the receivables of PCCI. The reason for this is obvious: Grave as the offense is. vs. can hardly be disputed. as in this case. Though authorities have been cited who. An inquiry with the PNB disclosed that he had only P125. In handing down a judgment of conviction.. Goyenechea. he might as well have kept them in his pocket as to deliver them to his subordinate with instructions to retain them.52 the Court convicted the appellant of estafa by misappropriation. 117 U.)53 In the instant case. we are not disposed to extend this interpretation of the law to cases where officers of corporations convert corporate funds to their own use. damage was still caused to the latter because the sum misappropriated by her could have been loaned by PCCI to qualified members. When an audit was conducted. the corporation is of a quasi-public character. he deposited in his account with the PNB sufficient sum to cover the check. although in the afternoon of the same day. or both. appear to hold that misappropriation of trust funds for short periods does not always amount to estafa. she fraudulently used the name of her son who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from PCCI. But it is argued in the present case that it was not the intention of the accused to permanently misappropriate the funds to himself. was a bonded employee who. was aided by subordinates cannot alter the case nor can the fact that one of the subordinates.S. if he had acted on his own responsibility. The statute is clear and makes no distinction between permanent misappropriations and temporary ones. It is. Malong. took the sum of P8. it is not a necessary element of the crime. The appellant's counsel argues that the only injury in this case is the loss of interest suffered by the Railroad Company during the period the funds were withheld by the appellant. The third element of the crime with which the appellant is charged is injury to another.. Her misappropriation of the amount she obtained from the loan is also not disputed as she even admitted receiving the same for personal use. 8 Phil.(3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another.00 out of the funds of the company and used it for personal purposes. a treasurer of the Manila Rail Road Company. the Court explained that: Fraudulent intent in committing the conversion or diversion is very evidently not a necessary element of the form of estafa here discussed. Sevilla. v. as we have seen. from the funds entrusted to him for safekeeping and substituting his personal checks therefor with instructions that the checks were to be retained by the cashier for a certain period.

certainirregularities concerning the release of loans were discovered. Batulaon is entitled to an indeterminate penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor. The complainant Polomok Credit cooperative incorporated(PCCI) employed batulanon as its cashier/manager from may 1980 up to December11. Batulanon vs people of the Philippines502 scra 35 september 15. She is likewise ordered to indemnify Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated the sum of P5. the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) In Criminal Case Nos. Thereafter. the applicable provision is paragraph (3) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.00 but does not exceed P6. 3626 and 3453.00. The interest rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed from finality of this judgment until its satisfaction. 2006 Crime: falsification of private document (estafa) Facts: This petition assails the October 30.1998 decision of the ca in ca-gr no. for each count. as minimum. the disturbance in property rights caused by Batulaono's misappropriation is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Article 315. which imposes the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period toprision correccional in its minimum period. where the amount defrauded is over P200. to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. 1982. There being no modifying circumstances. to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor. Considering that the amount misappropriated by Batulanon was P5.000. With the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.660. 1994 until finality of this judgment. convicting leonila batulanon of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.productive undertakings.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from November 28. 3627.1524. the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. as maximum. During an audit conducted in December 1982. Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of three counts of falsification of private documents and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor.affirming with modification the april 15. as maximum. The interest rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed from finality of this judgment until its satisfaction. WHEREFORE. to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.000. 3625. as minimum. 1993 decision of the rtc of generalsantos city. there exists prejudice in the amount which pcci would have received but was unable to because of batulanons actions.00. and (2) In Criminal Case No. SO ORDERED. . and to indemnify complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated the amount of P11. At any rate.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from November 28. four informations of estafa thru falsifications was filed. 1994 until finality of this judgment. she was incharge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to themember of the cooperative.000. as maximum. as minimum. Issue: Does the crime of falsification of private documents require as an element prejudice to a third person Ruling: There is no merit in batulanons assertion that pcci has not been prejudiced because the loan transaction are reflected in its books as accounts receivable therefore.

.00. Carilla made verbal demands for their return or the proceeds of the sale. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. or of returning the same if unsold to said complainant.R. for the purpose of selling the same on commission basis under the express obligation on the part of the said accused of turning over the proceeds of the sale to said Alberto Carilla. misappropriated and converted the same or the value thereof. and Resolution.MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN. received in trust from said complainant several pieces of jewelry worth P1.[2]dated 29 August 2001. the sisters-in-law issued several checks. Carilla deposited the checks to his bank account. The facts..00. Cubao. confederating with and mutually helping each other. trial on the merits ensued. Philippine Currency.079.[3] dated 26 November 2002. but the said accused. in Quezon City. After the lapse of the above-mentioned period. are summarized in the Comment dated 4 July 2003 of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).‖ . On 2 December 1998. of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC). The checks that were still to fall due were stamped on their face ―account closed. to their own personal use and benefit. Philippine Currency. On 1 August 1997. The sisters-in-law would earn any amount that they would add to the selling price.[6] Thereafter.000. No. pursuant to their conspiracy. G. When arraigned on 5 March 1999. did. is a jeweler whose office is located at Aurora Blvd. were indicted in an Information[5] forestafa under paragraph 1(b). Branch 78.R.000. with intent to defraud. then and there. accused sisters-in-law failed to remit the purchase price or return the pieces of jewelry. finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 1(b). according to the prosecution. in the following manner to wit: the said accused. Manantan was arrested whereas Vizconde remained at large. Alberto Carilla. if sold. to wit: Herein private complainant. while MarissaCeniza-Manantan issued four (4) postdated checks. in the aforesaid amount of P1. the said accused. Sisters-in-law Regina Manantan-Vizconde and Marissa Ceniza-Manantan entered into an agreement with Carilla that they would act as the latter‘s agent in selling the pieces of jewelry worth P1. far from complying with their obligations as aforesaid. 2007 In this Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.00. As such. conspiring together. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.079. Manantan pleaded ―Not Guilty‖ to the charge. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the period comprised from July 15. petitioner Marissa Ceniza-Manantan (Manantan) and her sister-in-law. unlawfully and feloniously defraud one ALBERTO CARILLA.[4] dated 30 July 1999. unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence. Philippines. 156248 August 28.000. They received the jewelry in trust with the obligation to sell them within two (2) weeks and remit the proceeds to private complainant within another two (2) weeks or to return them within the same period if they were unable to sell. affirming with modification the Decision. willfully. the checks were dishonored for the reason that the account from which the checks were drawn had been closed. CR No. 23676. But to his dismay.079. Regina Manantan-Vizconde issued thirteen (13) postdated checks. Quezon City. Q-97-72787. 1994. once in possession of the said items. to the damage and prejudice of said Alberto Carilla. and instead misapplied. After several verbal demands. petitioner Marissa Ceniza-Manantan prays for the reversal of the Decision. Regina Manantan-Vizconde (Vizconde).versus THE PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES. 1994 to September 3. in Criminal Case No. Upon maturity of the checks. failed and refused and still fails and refuses to fulfill their aforesaid obligation despite repeated demands made upon them to do so.

Q-97-72787 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification that accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. THE RECEIPT IN TRUST BY PETITIONER OF CERTAIN PIECES OF JEWELRY FROM PRIVATE COMPLAINANT). GUILTY of the crime of Estafa. But despite this. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. defined and penalized under par. TWELVE (12) YEARS. the award of civil liability is appropriate as the preponderance of evidence sanctioned by the Rules has been satisfied. as maximum. the two accused still refused to pay. of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period. as minimum.[9] Manantan denied that she had any business transaction with Carilla. Hence. SPECIFICALLY CONSPIRACY AND THE ALLEGED CONTRACTUAL RELATION (i.1 (b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.Carilla thus sought the help of a lawyer who made out a written demand upon the accused through their counsel. CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT.00 as actual damages.079. and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of. Manantan also disclaimed any knowledge as to how the four dishonored checks in her name came into the possession of Carilla.[10] Aggrieved. the accused Marissa Ceniza-Manantan is ordered to payP1. In our Resolution dated 10 March 2003. the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the assailed RTC Decision. The modification pertains to Manantan‘s period of imprisonment as provided under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. WERE ESTABLISHED. CONSIDERING INTER ALIA THAT NOT ALL THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE CHARGED. .[11] Manantan filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied for lack of merit by the appellate court in its Resolution dated 26 November 2002. Further. Carilla was constrained to file a criminal complaint. and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.. On 30 July 1999.[13] The petition was then reinstated. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Manantan filed the instant Petition.[8] Manantan alleged that Carilla‘s filing of estafa case against her was a mere harassment suit as Carilla desperately tried but failed to recover from her the jewelries allegedly entrusted to her and to Vizconde.[7] Manantan denied the foregoing accusations. and EIGHT (8) MONTHS. 5(d) of Rule 56. in view of the foregoing. this Court finds accused MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN. the instant appeal is DENIED and the assailed decision of the court a quo in Criminal Case No. In her Counter-Affidavit with Motion to Dismiss dated July 1996. Manantan proffered the following issues[14] for our consideration: I. Manantan filed a Motion for Reconsideration which we subsequently granted in our Resolution dated 7 May 2003. in relation to Sec. the RTC rendered a Decision convicting Manantan of estafa under paragraph 1(b). to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS. During her direct examination before the RTC. The decretal portion of the appellate court‘s decision reads: WHEREFORE. WHICH FINDINGS THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. andONE (1) DAY. and that Vizconde promised to return the checks. Thus: WHEREFORE.e. and (b) failure to indicate in the Petition the counsel‘s roll number as required in Bar Matter 1132. there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Manantan filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. that Vizconde borrowed several checks from her after Vizconde ran out of her own checks. Hence.000.[12] we denied the Petition due to Manantan‘s (a) failure to state the material dates showing when the notice of the assailed decision and resolution were received and when the motion for reconsideration was filed thereby violating Sections 4(b) and 5 of Rule 45. On 29 August 2001. that Vizconde told her that the borrowed checks will only be shown to the former‘s customers or other persons from whom she received jewelries so as to convince them that she had collections.

that the said lone hearing was abbreviated at the expense of the rights and liberty of Manantan. that Manantan and Vizconde would earn from any amount that they would add to the original sale price of the jewelries fixed by him.[17] It also submitted the dishonored checks issued by Manantan[18] to prove that the jewelries were still unpaid for. he instituted the instant case against Manantan and Vizconde. Carilla testified that Manantan and Vizconde agreed to be his agents in selling jewelries. AT LEAST A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE ORDERED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IF ONLY TO AFFORD PETITIONER THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HERSELF WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF AN EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT COUNSEL OF HER OWN CHOICE.[15] EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION The prosecution presented the lone court testimony of Carilla as its testimonial evidence. consisted only of five double-spaced pages as shown in the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN).[20] Manantan conjured denials and alibi in support of her contentions. Manantan denied having any transaction with Carilla. what matters is not the number of witnesses but their credibility and the nature and quality of their testimonies. Manantan alleged that the RTC conducted only one hearing where the prosecution presented only one witness. The threshold issue is. and that Carilla had an ill motive to accuse her of a crime since Carilla failed to recover from her the alleged entrusted jewelries. that he made several verbal demands on Manantan and Vizconde to remit the proceeds of the sale of the jewelries or return the unsold jewelries.[21] In the determination of the sufficiency of evidence. No documentary evidence was utilized. that Manantan and Vizconde failed to make good the value of the dishonored checks despite his repeated demands for them to do so. and that Manantan‘s guilt cannot be proven on the basis of the few questions propounded by the private prosecutor on Carilla and Manantan. It introduced Carilla‘s Complaint-Affidavit dated 11 March 1996 which recounts how Manantan and Vizconde had swindled Carilla of the jewelries. THE CONSEQUENCE WAS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.[22] The testimony of a . STATED DIFFERENTLY. MORE IMPORTANTLY. to substantiate the latter‘s persistent failure to comply therewith. and the demand-letters[19] sent by Carilla to Manantan.[16] This Complaint-Affidavit was admitted as part of Carilla‘s direct testimony. THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER IN THE TRIAL COURT MISERABLY FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO DISCHARGE HIS BOUNDEN DUTY TO HIS CLIENT. that the direct testimony of Carilla. upon which the RTC based its conviction of Manantan. Manantan and Vizconde failed to remit to him the proceeds of the sale of the jewelries or return the unsold jewelries themselves. SAID COUNSEL‘S INCOMPETENCE WAS SO GREAT AND SO EXECRABLE THAT. IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. and to remit the proceeds to him within two weeks after the sale or to return the jewelries in case they were not sold. that after the expiration of the stipulated period. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE On the other hand. She claims that she lent the dishonored checks toVizconde as the latter was running out of checks. that these checks were dishonored by reason of ―Account Closed‖. the defense presented Manantan as its sole witness. that Manantan and Vizconde received from him in trust jewelries with the obligation to sell them within two weeks from receipt thereof. which was Carilla himself.II. that she had no idea as to how the dishonored checks came into the possession of Carilla. whose evidence is credible? It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. and thereafter rested its case. THE AFORESAID FAILURE AND/OR REFUSAL OF HER COUNSEL WERE A VIRTUAL GIVEAWAY TO THE PROSECUTION TO SEND HER TO THE GALLOWS. Anent the first issue. that Manantan and Vizconde issued to him postdated checks as supposed payment of the sales proceeds of the jewelries. The prosecution also offered documentary evidence to buttress Carilla‘s court testimony. and that by reason of the foregoing.

The elements[29]of estafa in the above provision are as follows: a) That money. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission.[31] . hence. she has not presented any plausible proof to successfully rebut the evidence for the prosecution. or by denying having received such money. goods or any other personal property received by the offender in trust. The rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court. provides: ART. nevertheless. The RTC and the Court of Appeals both found Carilla‘s testimony credible and truthful. to the prejudice of the owner thereof. Swindling (estafa). it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single witness. if found positive and credible by the trial court. as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. b) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt.[28] The next question now crops up – were the elements of estafa for which Manantan is charged proven beyond reasonable doubt? Article 315. proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greatest number.[27] In stark contrast. demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof. use and enjoyment. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another for his own benefit. which was positive and categorical. – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1. paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Although the admissibility of these checks was objected to by Manantan during the trial.[30] In a prosecution for estafa. or for administration or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. Beyond her bare denials.[23] Witnesses are to be weighed. admitted them as part of the testimony of Carilla. or on commission. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. The essence of estafa under this paragraph is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received.lone witness. we find the latter‘s testimony consistent with his Complaint-Affidavit dated 11 March 1996. to the prejudice of another. money. and failure to account. 315. even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond. goods. or for administration. Conviction of the accused may still be had on the basis of the positive and credible testimony of a single witness.[26] This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. the evidence for the defense consists mainly of denials. or other property. However. While the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence. upon demand for funds or property held in trust. the latter is accorded greater evidentiary weight. the prosecution presented only one witness. and c) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. the RTC. is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. who was Carilla himself as the complainant. said findings are generally binding upon this Court. It is jurisprudentially settled that as between bare denials and positive testimony on affirmative matters.[25] More telling are the documentary evidences consisting of various checks issued by Manantan which later bounced and the demand letters of Carilla addressed to Manantan. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. Manantan denied having transacted with Carilla. or to return the same. not numbered. When the trial court‘s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court.[24] Verily. is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. however. namely: (b) By misappropriating or converting.

in effect. Carilla hired a lawyer and sent a demand-letter to Manantan but the latter still failed to turn over the jewelries or the sale prices thereof. Donato A. The basis is the tenet that an act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.All of the foregoing enumerated elements of estafa under paragraph 1(b). It was also agreed that Manantan will earn from any amount that she would add to the original sale price of the jewelries fixed by Carilla. and to remit the proceeds to Carillawithin two weeks after the sale or to return the jewelries in case they were not sold. Manantan‘s bare denials are not sufficient to overcome such presumption. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. was incompetent and had failed to discharge his duty as her defense counsel resulting in a denial of due process to her. First.[34] Manantan misappropriated Carilla‘s properties. the mistake or negligence of a counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against his client. Atty. If the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in trust or to account for the money. Second. that after the prosecution had rested its case. Carilla further incurred expenses in hiring a lawyer and in litigating the present case.[37] Apropos the second assignment of error. as we have already determined. Manantan received in trust the jewelries from Carilla for the purpose of selling them within two weeks from receipt thereof. instead. Mallabo if he would file a motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence.[32] Carilla positively and categorically testified on the transaction that transpired between him and Manantan. but he also lost the opportunity to realize profits from the sales of the jewelries.[36] Manantan denied having received jewelries from Carilla. The words ―misappropriate‖ and ―convert‖ as used in the said provision of law connote an act of using or disposing of another‘s property as if it were one‘s own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. The absence of a written document showing receipt of jewelries or other property in trust does not necessarily mean that no such contract exists between the parties. Estafa may also be committed by denying untruthfully that the thing was received.[33] In an agency for the sale of jewelries. Mallabo asked Carilla only a few questions during the latter‘s cross-examination and did not conduct a re-cross examination. Contracts can be made verbally for as long as there is a meeting of the minds of the parties thereto. Manantan as sole witness for the defense.[35] As already heretofore pointed out. Mallaboignored the question and presented. there is misappropriation or conversion by Manantan of the jewelries or the proceeds of the sale thereof. already rested the case for the defense. In other words. Manantan seeks a new trial because her former counsel. Mallabo) of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO). Mallabo (Atty. such denial is unsubstantiated and therefore cannot prevail over the categorical declarations of Carilla that the jewelries were turned over in trust toManantan. it is the agent‘s duty to return the jewelry upon demand of the owner and failure to do so is evidence of conversion of the property by the agent. he may not be held liable for estafa. by failing to remit the sale price of the jewelries or return the same to Carilla upon the expiration of the stipulated period. despite repeated demands by the latter. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. and after a few perfunctory questions to Manantan. which she held in trust. Manantan issued checks to Carilla as supposed payment of the sales proceeds of the jewelries but these checks were dishonored. are duly established herein. She claims that Atty. However. Consequently. Not only did Carilla fail to recover his investment. Finally. However. the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. as well as a denial on her part of receipt of the jewelries. failure to account upon demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust raises a presumption of misappropriation. Hence. which was already a hint of the weakness of the prosecution‘s evidence. as in the present case.[38] Settled is the rule that mistake and negligence of a counsel bind his client. created a fiduciary relationship between Carilla and Manantan.[39] . the RTC Presiding Judge inquired from Atty. this presumption is rebuttable. Manantan‘s denial of the receipt of jewelries also constitutes estafa. This. Manantan‘s failure or refusal to account for or return the jewelries to Carilla had evidently prejudiced the rights and interests of the latter. but Atty.

such cannot be considered as recklessness or gross negligence on his part. to summon witness and to argue the case are not proper grounds for a new trial. sir.[43] Concededly. Atty. sir. sir? A: Yes. with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction. Mallabo also interposed several objections during the re-direct examination of Carilla and challenged the admissibility of the dishonored checks as evidence for the prosecution. Atty. the sufficiency. Mallabo‘s questions were aimed at proving that Carilla was not the owner of the subject jewelries. Hence. Mallabo: Q: You are a jeweler. It is true that Atty. Q: Where is your office? A: 876-C Aurora Blvd. you do not actually own it? A: Yes.[44] Tested against these guidelines. however. the mistakes and omissions of Atty. For all that a losing party will do is to invoke the mistake or negligence of his counsel as a ground for reversing or setting aside a judgment adverse to him. Mallabo even moved for the dismissal of the charge against Manantan. Atty. or the burden of proof. and a new trial may be conducted. is that correct? A: Yes.[46] Atty. we find that Manantan‘s case falls within the general rule rather than the exceptions.[45] It appears from the foregoing that Atty. the proper defense. or (2) the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client‘s deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. the questions were confined to the issue of the ownership of jewelries. because there was neither a total abandonment nor a disregard ofManantan‘s cause or a showing of conscious indifference to or disregard of consequences. Mallabo may only be considered as simple negligence or a slight want of care that circumstances reasonably impose. sir. Court: Proceed. a perusal of the pertinent provision of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is in order: . Atty. relevancy or irrelevancy of certain evidence. in cases where (1) the counsel‘s mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his day in court.[47] Admittedly. Nonetheless. you do not own that jewelry and you are not the owner of those jewelry. the client is not bound by his counsel‘s mistakes. As regards the prison term of Manantan. sir. Mallabo cross-examined Carilla and conducted a direct examination of Manantan. It can be reasonably deduced from the questions that Atty.[42] Error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an error of law nor an irregularity upon which a motion for new trial may be presented. Quoted hereunder is Atty. sir. Q: You are only an agent.[48] If at all. Atty. the foregoing rule admits of exceptions. Mallabo: That will be all for the witness. Mallabo‘s cross-examination of Carilla: Court: Cross. Q: And therefore. Mallabo: With the permission of this Honorable Court. Mallabo asked only few questions during the cross-examination of Carilla. Mallabo committed mistakes and shortcomings in conducting examinations on Carilla and Manantan and in assessing the proper and sufficient evidence for the defense.[41] Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness.A contrary view would be inimical to the greater interest of dispensing justice. Notably. and failure to introduce certain evidence.. thereby putting no end to litigation. Your Honor. Atty. Mallabo‘s strategy in securing petitioner‘s acquittal was to display the absence of the element of prejudice or damage on the part of Carilla.[40] To allow this obnoxious practice would be to put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by accused persons and their counsel. Despite the preceding. Q: Is it a single proprietor or a corporation? A: I am only an agent.

as the case may be. to 6 years. which exceeds P22.000 pesos. – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1st. 1 day to 5 years. 21 days to 8 years Medium – 5 years. 8 months. 5 months.ART.00.00. No costs.[49] Applying the latter provisions. periods. the maximum. The amount swindled from Carilla greatly exceeds the amount of P22. We also sustain the indemnification of actual damages in favor of Carilla in the sum of P1. 8 months.[51] Thus. SO ORDERED.R.000 pesos but does not exceed 22.000. Swindling (estafa). the petition is hereby DENIED. in which case. adding one year for each additional 10. medium and minimum periods of the penalty given are: Maximum – 6 years. not three. goes beyond 20 years. the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing a prison term of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Thus. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against Manantan is prisioncorrecional maximum to prision mayor minimum. WHEREFORE. Under the law. the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional in its minimum to medium periods. the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. the maximum penalty to be imposed in the present case should be 20 years of reclusion temporal.00 made by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals as this is supported by the records[52] of the instant case. Article 315 further states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every additional P10. but in no case shall the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years. 5 months.000. if the amount of the fraud is over 12.00 which. 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. The Decision dated 29 August 2001 and Resolution dated 26 November 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. and if such amount exceeds the latter sum.000. when translated to the additional penalty of one year for every P10. 23676 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.00 defrauded in excess ofP22. the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal. 315.079. but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. 2 months.000.079. In such cases. while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be 20 years. 20 days Minimum – 4 years. the penalty imposable should be the maximum period of 6 years. the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period. .[50] We now apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in computing the proper penalty. and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code.00 defrauded.00.000. CR No.000 pesos. 11 days.000. The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of two. Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty imposed forming one period of each of the three portions. since the amount involved is P1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period.000. 10 days In the present case.

000.[9] And the Court of Appeals[10] affirmed that of the RTC.July 25. 22 at the Makati MeTC.000. 1994 . 2003 Before us for review is the July 16. 1994.00 as damages to compensate the payment of attorney‘s fees. January 25. and February 25. Branch 67 of the Makati MeTC convicted petitioner in a Joint Decision [7] the dispositive portion of which reads: Wherefore. No. Branch 150. which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason ―ACCOUNT CLOSED‖ and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor. vs.000.[8] As stated early on. 133036.000. the four other informations are similarly worded. all drawn against her account at the Prudential Bank.P40.00.R. 1993.R.00 to Miss Yolanda G.Cash said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof. the above-named accused.00 to petitioner who gave a downpayment of P40. SO ORDERED. P. 1993. . and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. on appeal. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS. 1994.[5] hence.00. petitioner issued 9 postdated checks. in view of the foregoing.‖ Except for the check numbers and dates of maturity. January 22. the RTC. Metro Manila. in the Municipality of Makati. The remaining 5 were dishonored due to the closure of petitioner‘s account. the filing of 5 informations[6] against her for violation of B. Petitioner promised alright but she welshed on it. unlawfully and feloniously make out. petitioner proffers as follows: ―1. In settlement of the balance of the purchase price. affirmed the decision of the MeTC.JOY LEE RECUERDO. Drawn Against In the Amount of Postdated/dated Payable to . 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 8 of which in the amount of P40. those dated December 25. 22 for being an unconstitutional law. FLORO to apply on account or for value the check described below: Check No. said account did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment. were cleared. and 1 in the amount of P20. No. the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving said notice.000. Branch 67 convicting Joy Lee Recuerdo (petitioner) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.[1] When Yolanda deposited 8 of the 10 checks to her depository bank. Liberty Savings and Loan Association.008789 . Floro. petitioner. did then and there willfully. the accusatory portion of the first of which reads: That sometime in the first week of December.000. and to pay her also the amount of P20.Prudential Bank .00 . only 3. Petitioner was convicted by an invalid law which is Batas Pambansa Blg. Philippines. After trial.000. Yolanda Floro (Yolanda) who is engaged in jewelry business sold a 3-karat loose diamond stone valued at P420. In the petition for review on certiorari at bar. the court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 on five (5) counts and therefore sentences the accused to suffer an imprisonment of 30 days for each count and to restitute the amount of P 200. drawn (sic) and issue to YOLANDA G. the following facts are established: Sometime in the first week of December 1993. respondents. Makati City which in turn affirmed that of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City. G. 20577 affirming that rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).[2] Yolanda thus went to petitioner‘s dental clinic and advised her to change the dishonored checks to cash. From the evidence of the prosecution. which is the total amount of the five (5) checks.[3] A demand letter[4] was thereupon sent to petitioner for her to settle her obligation but she failed to heed the same.00. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on 5 counts.

[20] it is not for the Court to question the wisdom or policy of the statute. P. Such alleged agreement does not inspire belief. The thrust of the law is to prohibit. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. 3. she having paid P40. P. the practice is proscribed by law.[25] Petitioner thus concludes that she had already paid in full the purchase price of the stone. The terms and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are irrelevant. under pain of penal sanctions.‖[28] (Emphasis supplied. in support of which she cites her alleged agreement with Yolanda – that she could have the stone appraised to determine the purchase price.[19] As held in the case of Lozano.[18] As correctly argued by the Solicitor General. P. has the same effect like any other check. while due deference is given to the opinion of the Vice-President.[23] there was no longer any need to fund the remaining checks which should be returned to her. its primordial intention being to instead ensure the stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currency.000.[21] nor was there consideration therefor. every element of the crime is still to be proven before the trial court to warrant a conviction for violation thereof. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest. are based on surmises. Petitioner further claims that the dishonored checks were not issued for deposit and encashment. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank x x x which check is subsequently dishonored x x x shall be punished by imprisonment. one which inflicts punishment without trial and the essence of which is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.[24] Yolanda. conjectures and speculations.00. 22: The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[12] and that the law is a bill of attainder[13] as it does not leave much room for judicial determination. Martinez[15] where this Court upheld the constitutionality of B. the guilt of the accused having already been decided by the legislature.[27] ―A check issued as an evidence of debt. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. It is sufficient that a reasonable nexus exists between the means and the end. 4. 22. though not intended for encashment. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property.2.‖[11] Petitioner contends that since banks are not damaged by the presentment of dishonored checks as they impose a penalty for each.[14] These matters subject of petitioner‘s contention have long been settled in the landmark case of Lozano v. the same should properly be addressed to the legislature which is in a better position to review the effectiveness and usefulness of the law. The findings of fact of the courts a quo.[26] Petitioner‘s submission does not lie. The Court of Appeals was biased against petitioner when it denied the petition moto propio (sic) without the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General. It is a policy that can be easily eroded if one has yet to determine the . Petitioner was denied her constitutional right to due process for failure of the courts a quo to uphold her presumption of innocence and for convicting her even if the prosecution evidence does not prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.P. that the law ―is in essence a resurrected form of 19th century ‗imprisonment for debt‘‖ since the drawer is coerced to pay his debt on threat of imprisonment even if his failure to pay does not arise from malice or fraud or from any criminal intent to cause damage. 22.) ―BP 22 does not appear to concern itself with what might actually be envisioned by the parties. Reinforcing her thesis. however. which is explicit that ―any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply for an account or for value. petitioner cites the speech made by now Vice-President Teofisto Guingona delivered before the Philippine Bar Association wherein he stressed the need to review the law since it has not prevented the proliferation of bouncing checks. It is within the contemplation of B. For under B.000. could no longer be reached.00 cash plus the P120. only creditors/payees are unduly favored by the law.[17] fails.000.[22] and since she found out that it is only worth P160. so petitioner adds.00 proceeds of the three cleared checks. but an offense against public order. 22 is a bill of attainder. however. primarily the Court of Appeals.[16] (Emphasis supplied) The contention that B.

even petitioner‘s counsel during trial admitted the dishonor. whether the imposition of fine alone would best serve the interests of justice. accused-herein petitioner JOY LEE RECUERDO. for the prosecution to present the drawee bank‘s representative as a witness to testify on the dishonor of the checks because of insufficiency of funds.‖[32] (Emphasis supplied) Yolanda‘s testimony that when she deposited the checks to her depository bank they were dishonored due to ―Account Closed‖[33] thus sufficed. the trial court failed to uphold her right to presumption of innocence when she was convicted based on the sole testimony of Yolanda. it would best serve the interests of justice if petitioner is just fined to enable her to continue her dental practice so as not to deprive her of her income. or otherwise contrary to the imperatives of justice. and that petitioner failed to pay complainant the value of the checks or make arrangements for their payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such checks had not been paid by the drawee bank. Whether the checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. She is competent and qualified witness to testify that she deposited the checks to her account in a bank. 12-2000. Under Administrative Circular No. The rendition of the decision by the appellate court without the comment of the People-Appellee is not by itself proof of bias. and on that ground. 22 is AFFIRMED with In lieu of imprisonment.reason for which checks are issued.‖ such element was not clearly and convincingly proven. ―It is not required much less indispensable. petitioner argues that as no bank representative testified as to ―whether the questioned checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds (sic). 22. as it did in this case. 2001 vests in the courts the discretion to determine. is ordered to pay a FINE equivalent to double the amount of each dishonored check subject of the five cases at bar. this Court notes that no proof. . or ―Account Closed‖ as alleged in the informations and testified on by Yolanda. the affirmance of petitioner‘s conviction is in order. Yolanda Floro. or the terms and conditions for their issuance. or in a notice attached to the dishonored checks duly given to the complainant. The prosecution may present. the assailed decision JOY LEE RECUERDO guilty of violating MODIFICATION. In any event.[34] Finally. SO ORDERED. Administrative Circular No. In fine. work violence on the social order. And she is also ordered to pay private complainant. Considering this and the correctness of the case. the Office of the Solicitor General gave its comment on petitioner‘s Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate court‘s decision.P. not to mention the FINE. only complainant as a witness to prove all the elements of the offense charged. Blg. thus insuring the early settlement of the civil aspect of the case. or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. was proffered that petitioner was not a first time offender. that she subsequently received from the bank the checks returned unpaid with a notation ‗drawn against insufficient funds‘ stamped or written on the dorsal side of the checks themselves. nay allegation. taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case. of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner Batas Pambansa Blg. before an appropriate application of the legislative enactment can be made.[30] hence.‖[29] (Emphasis supplied) Additionally.[31] petitioner‘s argument is untenable. the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200.[35] In the case at bar. WHEREFORE. In fact.000. imprisonment need not be imposed on those found guilty of violating B. petitioner imputes bias on the part of the appellate court when it decided her petition for review without the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General. 13-2001 issued on February 14.00) Pesos representing the total amount of the dishonored checks.

as follows: That on or about April 22. due to alertness of victim William Belmes to roll and poor marksmanship of the accused thus prevented his death. together with Eddie Quindasan.. Godofredo Tubadeza. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.. Province of Abra. a police investigator at Camp Villamor. father and son Vidal Agbulos and Winner Agbulos. Leona Garcia-Beroña. willfully.R. in Sitio Kayawkaw. Abra to attend a ―fiesta‖ celebration. Godofreco Gasa. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. No. did then and there. along with his cousin-in-law Segundino Calpito. After taking their lunch and on their way home. for appropriate action and disposition. 173479 July 12. Mateo[2] which modified the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death. with the intent of gain. Jr. 2007 Before the Court on automatic review is the decision[1] dated February 22. Municipality of San Isidro. 00968 which affirmed. with modification. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. the defense presented the appellant himself.versus JUAN CABBAB. G. while armed with a firearm (not-recover).. located in the same area of Barangay Kimmalasag.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Dra. CR-H. they decided to go home in Villaviciosa.R. Abra. in the course of which the prosecution presented the oral testimonies of M/Sgt. Abra.C. appellant Juan Cabbab. Since it was already lunchtime. father of the victim Winner Agbulos. No.C. On arraignment. Branch 2..[5] to wit: In the morning of 22 April 1988. CR-H. killing Winner Agbulos on the spot and causing the death of Eddie Quindasan shortly thereafter. unlawfully and feloniously assault. and accused Segundino Calpito separately entered their pleas of ―Not Guilty‖ to the crimes charged. PO William Belmes. then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously. a physician at the Abra Provincial Hospital. treachery and evident premeditation. thus. was charged with the crimes of Double Murder and Attempted Murder with Robbery in an Information[4] alleging. The Evidence The People‘s version of the incident is succinctly summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its Appellee‘s Brief. said accused having commenced the execution of Murder by overt acts but were unable to perform all the acts of execution. conspiring. they were met by accused-appellant Juan . steal and carry away the money of Winner Agbulos in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12. attack and shot from ambush WINNER AGBULOS and EDDIE QUINDASAN. Vidal Agbulos. trial on the merits ensued. a member of the Integrated National Police at the Villaviciosa Police Station. whereat it was docketed as CA-G. For its part. went to Barangay Kimmalasag. ALL CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstance of: (1) uninhabited place. JR. then and there willfully. Thereafter. this case was earlier[3] referred to the CA. and George de Lara. appellant Juan Cabbab.00). they found out that the fiesta celebration was already over. which would have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence thereof. Upon arrival in the area. . and Dr. accused Segundino Calpito. an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued. The Case In the court of origin. Philippine currency. with intent to kill. San Isidro. consequently inflicting thereby multiple gunshot wounds on the different parts of their bodies.R. in Criminal Case No. a Forensic Chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).000. Abra. Plaintiff-Appellee. Bangued. 1988. Felipe Abad and Police Officer (PO) William Belmes. 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. finding appellant Juan Cabbab. Jr. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Jr. the abovenamed accused with the intent to kill. the group took their lunch at Sitio Turod. No. unlawfully and feloniously. 687. 01978. Barangay Kimmalasag. confederating and mutually helping one another. take. shot William Belmes. medico-legal officer who conducted an autopsy on the body of Winner Agbulos.

The results of the said examination showed that appellant was negative of nitrates. the decision reads: WHEREFORE. Jr. He declared that his co-accused Calpito was not with him that day. PO William Belmes ran towards Vidal Agbulos and Felipe Abad. testified that he conducted an examination on the paraffin cast taken from appellant to determine the presence of gunpowder residue or nitrates on appellant‘s hands. Winner Agbulos played the dealer/banker in the game while accused-appellant and Segundino Calpito acted as players therein. Winner Agbulos won the game. He arrived home in Kimmalasag. Abra and returned to the scene of the crime where they found Eddie Quindasan who was still alive and who narrated that it was Juan Cabbab. and Segundino Calpito who invited them to play ―pepito. George de Lara. 248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art.m. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder with robbery or better put.‖ Only Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan played ―pepito‖ with the group of accusedappellant. Winner Agbulos‘s group wrapped-up the game and were set for home together with his group. Abra to visit his friends Romeo. i. guilty of two crimes. Abra at around 5:30 p. The court likewise finds the accused Juan Cabbab. PO William Belmes told Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan that they should be going home after three (3) more deals. appellant himself took the witness stand claiming that in the morning of April 22. Suddenly. The Trial Court‘s Decision In a decision[6] dated August 26. Forensic Chemist of the NBI. The three (3) proceeded to the crime scene where they saw the dead body of Winner Agbulos together with Eddie Quindasan whom they mistook for dead. who was behind Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan picking-up guava fruits from a tree. he heard gunshots and saw Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan. Eddie Quindasan was brought to the Abra Provincial Hospital but died the following day. estimated at P12. hit by the gunfire. He likewise averred that he did not know prosecution witnesses PO William Belmes and Vidal Agbulos nor did he know of any motive for them to testify against him. of Winner Agbulos which he won in the card game.‖ a local version of the game of ―russian poker. of April 22. Postmortem examination of Winner Agbulos showed that the cause of his death was ―cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds. saw accused-appellant. Demetrio and Restituto.00. 6 of the Same Code with aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place with no mitigating circumstances and sentences him with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the killing of Winner Agbulos and for robbing the said victim after killing him and for the killing of Eddie Quindasan. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the attempted murder defined and penalized in . He testified that at around 8:30 a. Eddie Quindasan‘s cause of death was ―cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock due to multiple gunshot wounds. wind velocity. He also theorized that a paraffin test would yield a negative result if fertilizers or cosmetics are applied to the hands before the cast is taken. of the following day.. PO William Belmes.m. PO William Belmes dove into a canal to save himself from the continuous gunfire of accused-appellant. 1997. robbery with double homicide and attempted murder as defined in Art. accused Segundino Calpito and a companion running up a hill. who were then walking ahead of the group. the court finds accused Juan Cabbab. Dispositively.m. While walking on their way home from Sitio Turod. San Isidro. 1988.Cabbab. he went fishing at Kimmalasag. Jr.000.‖ On the other hand. About 3:30 p. Jr.m. and Segundino Calpito who ambused them and took the money. Jr. Appellant‘s co-accused Calpito denied having committed the crimes charged.‖ For the defense. all surnamed Borreta. 294 of the same Code or robbery with double homicide defined and penalized under Art. and informed the two that Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan were ambushed by accused-appellant and Segundino Calpito.e. He opined that certain factors may affect the result of the test such as perspiration. 1988. By instant. Baddek.m. He stayed there almost the entire day and left only at around 5:00 p. (1) robbery with double homicide and (2) attempted murder.m. Abra until 4:00 a.. humidity or the type of gun used. Jr. who were walking behind the group. San Isidro. he went to Palao. 248 in relation to Art. The three sought help from the police authorities of Pilar. the trial court acquitted Segundino Calpito but found appellant Juan Cabbab. Around 3:00 o‘clock p. Bangued.

No.000.Art. The appeal must fail. CR-H. whereat it was docketed as CA-G. We quote from the transcripts of the stenographic notes: William Belmes on Re-direct Examination FISCAL FLORES: Q. filed on December 18. 2006. exactly eight (8) days after the incident when the incident wherein you were investigated upon still very very fresh in your mind (sic). informed the Court that it is no longer filing a supplemental brief and was merely adopting its appellee‘s brief before the CA as its supplemental brief. He is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victims P50. Mr. In a decision dated February 22. These offenses attended by the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place with no mitigating circumstances and sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as maximum. The CA also affirmed appellant‘s conviction. that: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Mateo. 00968. for the separate crime of attempted murder. 2006.C. in behalf of appellee People. who was with the victims when the incident happened. Appellant‘s contention that the witnesses for the prosecution failed to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime is belied by the testimony of PO William Belmes. 48 in relation to Art. the OSG. From the CA.R.[8] referred the case and its records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition. 1988.00 also for each of them as moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs of this suit.00 also for each of them as actual expenses and finally. The records of the case were then transmitted to this Court on automatic review. He avers that the witnesses for the prosecution failed to positively identify him as the perpetrator of the crime as they did not actually see him shoot the victims. you stated that you saw the persons shot at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan and after the two (2) had fell down then you also likewise saw them shot at you at the time you were rolling to the ground. the case was then elevated to this Court for automatic review. Pat. the Court. in your statement which you gave to the investigator. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE VERSION IS MORE CREDIBLE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. In its Resolution[9] of September 20. on the other hand. SO ORDERED. Tubadeza. appellant pleads for acquittal. Appellant. 2006 and pursuant to its ruling in People v. Now. the amount of P100. as well as the penalty imposed.000. the CA modified the trial court‘s decision and found appellant guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 6 of the Revised Penal Code. As stated at the onset hereof. Accused Segundino Calpito is acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Insisting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. in its Resolution[7] of January 17.000. the Court resolved to require the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. 2006 his supplemental brief on the lone assigned error. Appellant also relies on the results of the paraffin test showing that he was negative of gunpowder nitrates. when you gave your statement on April 30. Do you affirm and confirm this statement of yours which you subscribed before Fiscal Ricarte Valera? . In a Manifestation dated November 16. Witness. 2006.00 for each of them plus P20.

What happened next when he told you that? When I went ahead I saw Juan Cabbab took the wallet from my son. Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito shoot at you? Yes. COURT: In his testimony before the court he testified before the court that he saw Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito shot at Eddie Quindasan and Winner Agbulos. we quote from the transcripts of stenographic notes: Vidal Agbulos on direct examination FISCAL FLORES: Q. FISCAL FLORES: Q. we object. A. At that time.[13] . And therefore what time is it when they were firing at you? If I‘m not mistaken it was 4:00 o‘clock in the afternoon. Q. A. A. sir. YANURIA: Q.[10] William Belmes on cross-examination ATTY. Again. A. For sure.[11] The above testimony adequately showed that Belmes was able to look at and see appellant at the time he perpetrated the crime. what with the fact that just a few hours before the incident. What did you do next when Felipe Abad informed you again that your son was already killed and Eddie Quindasan was injured? Even if he told me about that I just went ahead.[12] Belmes‘ testimony was corroborated by that of Vidal Agbulos who was also with the group when the robbery and shooting took place. sir. Q. A. Belmes could not have made a mistake with respect to appellant‘s identity. they continued firing attempt and in my case I rolled and they also fired at me. He only saw the persons who were firing at him namely: Juan Cabbab and Segundino Calpito. Winner Agbulos was already prostrate on the ground? Yes. Q. it is misleading. Reform the question. COURT: Q. in so far as the shooting of Eddie Quindasan and Winner Agbulos was not seen. sir.ATTY. YANURIA: Your Honor. Will you tell the court if how far were these two (2) accused when they were firing at you? Eight (8) meters. A. To our mind. In other words. Belmes was just eight (8) meters away from appellant and conditions of visibility were very good at the time of the incident as it was only around 4:00 in the afternoon. Belmes had a face-to-face encounter with appellant before the assault and thus would be able to unmistakably recognize him especially because at the time of the attack. it was even appellant himself who invited Belmes and his group to play poker. A. Jurisprudence recognizes that it is the most natural reaction of victims of violence to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed. it was you being shot out by Segundino Calpito and Juan Cabbab but you did not see them shoot at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan? I saw Juan Cabbab and Segundino fire at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan (the witness using the word ―banat‖) and when they already fell down. my son was lying on the ground facing down. you saw these two (2) accused. However.

the Court accords the highest respect to the trial court‘s evaluation of the credibility of these witnesses. the assailant fired the weapon while wearing gloves or where the assailant thoroughly washes his hands thereafter. of his winnings. Agbulos testified that he was familiar with appellant as he would often see him in a cockpit in San Isidro. the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe at first hand the demeanor of witnesses Belmes and Agbulos and asses whether they are telling the truth or not. however. To warrant conviction for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.[18] The crime committed by appellant was correctly characterized by the appellate court as Robbery with Homicide under Article 294.[16] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene. Abra to visit his friends in the morning of April 22. He also testified that certain factors could contribute to the negative result of a paraffin test such as perspiration. Vidal Agbulos positively identified appellant as the person who robbed his son. the defense of alibi will not hold water. appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime on the date and time of its commission. Baddek. In fact. Abra where the crime was committed. Abra.[14] As George de Lara of the NBI stated in his testimony before the trial court. This Court has observed that it is quite possible for a person to discharge a firearm and yet exhibit no trace of nitrates: when. San Isidro. gave full faith and credence to their testimonies. Unfortunately for appellant. humidity or the type of firearm used. their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.. a finding that the paraffin test on the person of the appellant yielded negative results is not conclusive evidence to show that he indeed had not fired a gun. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive. Further. gunpowder residue would not be found in that person‘s hands. the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons. if a person applies cosmetics on his hands before the cast is taken.[17] Here. Winner. or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. Appellant likewise capitalizes on the results of the paraffin test showing that both his hands yielded no trace of gunpowder residue. appellant‘s positive identification as the perpetrator of the crime renders his defense of alibi unworthy of credit. Baddek.[15] Interjected as a defense is alibi. The weakness of appellant‘s alibi is heavily underscored by the fact that appellant was positively identified by witnesses Belmes and Agbulos who were with the victims at the time of the incident. when by reason or on occasion of the robbery. the crime of homicide shall have been committed. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which reads: Art. In short. the hornbook rule requires a showing that the accused was at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. appellant himself declared that he did not know of any reason why Belmes and Agbulos would implicate him in the crime.Clearly. In fine. then. appellant claiming that he went to Palao. For alibi to prosper. Finding no facts and circumstances of weight and substance that would otherwise warrant a different conclusion. Too. Bangued.— Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against any person shall suffer: 1.m. appellant has not shown any evidence of improper motive on the part of prosecution witnesses Belmes and Agbulos that would have driven them to falsely testify against him. 294. . Bangued. 1988 and returned home only at around 5:30 p. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties.g. the results of the paraffin test would not exculpate him. e. Abra where appellant allegedly visited his friends was only 30 minutes drive from Barangay Kimmalasag. the evidence shows that Palao. Just like Belmes. For sure. Agbulos could also not have been mistaken as to appellant‘s identity considering that it was appellant who personally approached Agbulos‘ group and invited them to play poker just a few hours prior to the commission of the crime. To be sure. The negative findings of said test do not conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time the crime was committed.

Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of the robbery. and (c) P25. and by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof.[19] In Robbery with Homicide.[24] and to exemplary damages in the sum of P25. that the two courts below erred in convicting appellant of the separate crime of attempted murder for the shooting of PO William Belmes. We. appellant is ACQUITTED of the separate crime of attempted murder against the person of PO William Belmes. temperate damages in the amount of P25.00 as civil indemnity. the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.000. Eddie Quindasan. however. CR-H. No. Appellant Juan Cabbab. Finally.000.000.00 he had taken from Winner.00. thus giving them no real chance to defend themselves. the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animo lucrandi.000. the decision dated February 22. WHEREFORE. However.[25] With respect to actual damages. is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In the application of a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. 00968 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1.00 must be awarded to the heirs of Winner because although the exact amount was not proved with certainty.00 as burial expenses but he failed to present receipts therefor. No. or that two or more persons are killed. He is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of Winner Agbulos the following: (a) P50. Winner‘s father.A.00 as moral damages. For reasons herein stated. 4. considering that the crime was committed in 1988 or prior to the effectivity of R.000. Costs de oficio. having lost to Winner Agbulos in the game of poker. . (b) P50. it was reasonable to expect that they incurred expenses for the coffin and burial of the victim.00 as temperate damages. Abrazaldo.000.00. is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide which is a special complex crime that remains fundamentally the same regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed in connection with the robbery. intended to divest Agbulos of his winnings amounting to P20.[20] Here.000. appellant is obliged to return to the heirs of Winner Agbulos the amount of P20.000.R. homicide is committed. Vidal Agbulos. (c) P25. appellant shot and killed him as well as his companion.00 as exemplary damages. the heirs of Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan are each entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50.[21] The Court feels.00 representing the amount stolen from him. in lieu of actual damages. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. testified that he spent a total of P50. so long as the intention of the felon is to rob. the killing may occur before.00 as moral damages. The prescribed penalty for Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the RPC. cannot grant the same to the heirs of Eddie Quindasan for their failure to testify on the matter. InPeople v. the greater penalty shall be applied. or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery. however.000.[23] to moral damages in the amount of P50.A. Appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of Eddie Quindasan P50.[26] we laid down the doctrine that where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be determined because of the absence of receipts to prove them.00.00.‖ In this case. SO ORDERED.00 as exemplary damages. the trial court and the CA correctly imposed upon appellant the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. In pursuit of his plan to rob Agbulos of his winnings. 2. Article 63 of the RPC provides that ―when in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance. and P25. Appellant is hereby ordered to return to the heirs of Winner Agbulos the amount of P20.000.000. the aggravating circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime.[22] We now come to the award of damages.000. 2006 of the CA in CA-G.00. 3. like that for Robbery with Homicide. the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant. temperate damages may be awarded in the amount of P25. Thus.000. during or after the robbery. Jr. another P50.(2) (3) (4) the property taken belongs to another.000.C. 7659 (Death Penalty Law). No.000. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident. as amended by R. as appellant‘s attack on the victims who were then unsuspectingly walking on their way home was sudden and done without any provocation. Conformably with existing jurisprudence. as in this case.00 as civil indemnity. 7659. is reclusion perpetua to death.000.

August 8. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. 2007. With respect to actual damages. 124392. is absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide which is a special complex crime that remains fundamentally the same regardless of the number of homicides or injuries committed in connection with the robbery. it was reasonable to expect that they incurred expenses for the coffin and burial of the victim. can the court still award the same to the heirs? Answer: Yes.G. . De Jesus. testified that he spent a total ofP50.) If actual burial expenses were not proven. (Citing People v. 362 SCRA 325. as in this case. or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery. JULY 12.It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident. or that two or more persons are killed. 397 SCRA 137) we laid down the doctrine that where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be determined because of the absence of receipts to prove them. Thus. temperate damages may be awarded in the amount of P25. the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.00 as burial expenses but he failed to present receipts therefor. G. February 6.000. NO.R.R. May 27. 2003. PER GARCIA Can there be a separate crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during Robbery? Answer: None. so long as the intention of the felon is to rob.000. (G. No. in lieu of actual damages.00 must be awarded to the heirs of Winner because although the exact amount was not proved with certainty. Abrazaldo. G. Winner‘s father.) In Robbery with Homicide. 173479. 128816 & 13997980. No.R.000. 2004. Attempted homicide or attempted murder committed during or on the occasion of the robbery. (Citing People v.In People v.00.R. Cabilto. temperate damages in the amount of P25. the killing may occur before. 2001. during or after the robbery. Nos. 429 SCRA 384. Vidal Agbulos. 134815.

victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their shame to the world. At the police station. authorities asked her if she had been sexually abused. Cainglet on the other hand was able to insert half an inch of his penis into her vagina.R. his half-brother Rodolfo. Clarissa was dragged to a hilly place. No. Yes. She was cursed anew. ISSUES: 1. 2. Rodolfo Suyu started embracing and kissing Clarissa and fondled her breast. later identified as Willy Suyu. *Accused were convicted of robbery with rape* . Hymenal lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in establishing the crime of rape as it is enough that a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes place. Later on. 2006 FACTS: Clarissa Angeles was with her boyfriend William Ferrer. William as able to escape and he immediately went to the police station to report the incident. this does not cast doubt on her testimony for it is not uncommon for a rape victim right after her ordeal too remain mum of what really transpired. Yes. eating snacks inside a pick-up truck parked in a vacant lot near the Office of the CoA and DepEd in Cagayan.People v. They were then held up by four men. Rodolfo then tried to insert his fully erect penis inside her vagina but the girl kicked him. While it is true that the victim initially did not reveal to the authorities the fact that she was raped after the robbery. 170191. Suyu G. Oftentimes. Clarissa filed a criminal complaint for robbery and rape against the accused. the rape is consummated in either case. Willy and Macarubbo served as lookouts. 2. Whether or not the crime of rape is committed with the slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina HELD: 1. Rommel Macarubbo and Francis Cainglet. she was allowed by the culprits to leave. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration. Rodolfo passed her to Cainglet. After pleading for mercy and promising not to report them to authorities. Whether or not the testimony of Clarissa should be given full weight and credence despite assertion of the accused in the inconsistency of her statement. August 16. She declared that there was merely an attempt to rape her.

Pampanga where they alighted from the bus. he (Rodolfo) should continue driving the bus and not report the incident along the way. Juan fired his gun upward to awaken and scare off the passengers. the total amount of P300. The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will follow their instructions. Pampanga.‖ However. baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo. ABS-793. and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim. Jr. the regular driver of Five Star Passenger Bus bearing Plate No. and Victor Acuyan of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Jr. plaintiff-appellee. Another passenger. When the bus reached Dau. Parang pumapatay ng manok. Also on board was Romulo Digap. 1996 at past midnight. G.) located infront of the right ear exited at the left side just below the ear lobe. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers. Tucked on his waist was his service gun bearing Serial Number 769806.000. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in Mexico. sustained six entrance wounds. six passengers boarded the bus. Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision[1] of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. as it had done for decades. Jr. Malaki-laki ito. Rodolfo looked at the side view mirror as well as the rear view and center mirrors installed atop the driver‘s seat to monitor any incoming and overtaking vehicles and to observe the passengers of the bus. The robbery was over in 25 minutes. brought out his identification card bearing No. Alejandro D. The Supreme Court of Spain so ruled. No. rubber shoes. performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the police officer. Pampanga. May pamilya ako. was brought to the funeral parlor where Dr. Bulacan. At Camachile. He fell to the floor of the bus. JR. a resident of Angeles City. Rodolfo heard one of the felons saying: ―Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao.‖ Victor and Juan further told Rodolfo that after they (Victor and Juan) shall have alighted from the bus.. Inc. There were 6 entrance wounds and 6 exit wounds. the Municipal Health Officer of Mabalacat. Jr. Petrified. the regular conductor of the bus. Jr. Bustos. Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth. Mabalacat. Lucia. Bulacan. The doctor prepared and signed an autopsy report detailing the wounds sustained by the police officer and the cause of his death: ―Body still flaccid (not in rigor mortis) bathed with his own blood.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Manio. was seated at the rear portion of the bus on his way home to Angeles City. SPO1 Jose C. entered the chest cavity pierced the heart and left lung and exited at the left axillary line. Manio. Balintawak. Another entrance through the mouth exited at the back of the head fracturing the occiput with an opening of (1. April 4. Juan and Victor suddenly stood up.R. while Victor stood by the door in the mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Bulacan and VICTOR ACUYAN y OCHOVILLOS @ Vic Arroyo of Sto. as well as some passengers. papatayin ka namin. Jr. vs. 2003 Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property.000.‖ The other said: ―Ayos na naman tayo pare. hats and jackets. seated themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. Blood CSF and brain tissues came out... 443-M-97 convicting accused-appellants Juan Gonzales Escote. Angat. drove the bus from its terminal at Pasay City to its destination in Bolinao. treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed treacherously. Jr.5 cm x 2 cm).[2] Juan seated himself on the third seat near the aisle. The cadaver of SPO1 Manio. SPO1 Jose C. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. An entrance (0.‖ The police officer pleaded for mercy: ―Pare maawa ka sa akin. 00898. was seated and demanded that he show them his identification card and wallet. Another fatal bullet entered at the upper right cornea of the sternum. in the middle row of the passengers‘ seats. Niño. meting on each of them the supreme penalty of death. Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror towards the passengers‘ seat and saw Juan and Victor armed with handguns. Pangasinan.00 by way of actual damages. Jr. Victor and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo. the amount of P6. including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote.[3] Juan and Victor took the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun and told him: ―Pasensya ka na Pare. All the entrance were located on his right side. When the bus was travelling along the highway in Plaridel. he will not be harmed. Manio. who were wearing maong pants. @ Jun Mantika of Sta. The lights of the bus were on even as some of the passengers slept. Rodolfo Cacatian. Victor followed suit and fired his gun upward.5 cm x 0. Tolentino.5 cm. Manio. The felons then went to the place Manio. Poblacion. So does the Court rule in this case. JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE. accused-appellants. Severe . Every now and then. Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to the police authorities. whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup.00 by way of actual and moral damages and to pay to Five Star Bus. 140756. Nevertheless. right ear. chest and right side of his body. The Facts The antecedent facts as established by the prosecution are as follows: On September 28.

ABS-793 and killed SPO1 Manio. The police officers confiscated the ammunition. Juan could not produce any. One entrance at the top of the right shoulder exited at the medial side of the right arm. In the course of the investigation. conspiring. the above-named accused. Jr. Cause of Death: Shock.[8] Meneses became suspicious when he noted that the identification card had already expired on March 16. to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the said undetermine[d] amount. and Victor Acuyan with robbery with homicide was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. or on October 25. province of Bulacan.[10] On April 4. a customer of Tony Boy Negro. The other entered above the right breast and exited at the right lateral abdominal wall travelling below muscles and subcutaneous tissues without entering the cavities. a white colored taxi cab without any plate number on its front fender came to view. 1995. with intent of (sic) gain and by means of force. in Plaridel. was 38 years old when he died and had a gross salary of P8. Momentarily. the police officers arrested Victor in Laoang. Rosa road. alias Victor Arroyo. Jr.[5] SPO1 Manio.000. Philippines. on September 28. the Plaridel Police Station Investigators learned that Victor was a native of Laoang. assault and shoot with the service firearm of the said SPO1 Jose C. The Information reads: That on or about the 28th day of September 1996. On one occasion. Meneses and Ferrer executed their joint affiavit of arrest of Juan. during the heist on September 28. 1998. After the prosecution had rested its case on August 26. for his identification card. Bulacan where they reported the robbery and gave their respective sworn statements. Contrary to law. Manio. Meneses brought Juan to the police station. 1998 for the arrest of said accused-appellant. Assisted by Atty. massive internal and external hemorrhage. Jr. He finally confessed to Meneses that he was not a policeman. unlawfully and feloniously. did then and there wilfully. Northern Samar and had him incarcerated in the Bulacan Provincial Jail.[7] Barely a month thereafter.[9] Juan was subsequently turned over to the Plaridel Police Station where Romulo identified him through the latter‘s picture as one of those who robbed the passengers of the Five Star Bus with Plate No. Jr. Northern Samar. the team leader of Alert Team No.00 for the coffin and P10. Juan escaped from the provincial jail. Jr. Tarlac. 1996. in the municipality of Plaridel. 1996. they found five live bullets of a 9 millimeter firearm in his pocket. Rosario spent P20. rob and carry away with one (1) necklace and cash in [the] undetermine[d] amount of one SPO1 Jose C.00 a month. Victor adduced his evidence. When police officers frisked Juan for any deadly weapon. complete brain destruction and injury to the heart and left lung caused by multiple gunshot wounds. Manio. thereby inflicting serious physical injuries which resulted (sic) the death of the said SPO1 Jose C. confederating together and mutually helping each other. and PO3 Florante S. Trial thereafter ensued. Lastly another bullet entered above the right iliac crest travelled superficially and exited above the right inguinal line. At the time. at about midnight. Jr. Juan and Victor were duly arraigned and entered their plea of not guilty to the charge. the Bambang-Concepcion bridge was closed to traffic and the police officers were tasked to divert traffic to the Sta. Ramiro Osorio. he worked as a tire man in the vulcanizing shop located in Banga I. Ferrer were at the police checkpoint along the national highway in Tarlac. Juan admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor. Jr. Jr.[6] Manio. that simultaneously or on the occassion (sic) of said robbery. armed with firearms.. violence and intimidation.hemorrhage in the chest cavity came from the heart and left lung. said accused by means of violence and intimidation and in furtherance of their conspiracy attack. Jr. Ilarde Victorino. who turned out to be the accused Juan Gonzales Escote. 1996. 1 of Tarlac Police Station.[13] In the meantime. Juan told Meneses that he was a policeman and handed over to Meneses the identification card of SPO1 Manio. Plaridel. ordered Victor to sell a . their counsel de parte. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. In the course of their investigation.. take.085. and the money which Juan and Victor took from Manio. was survived by his wife Rosario Manio and their four young children. Jr. an Information charging Juan Gonzales Escote. The other 3 bullets entered the right side and exited on the same side. Bulacan. Bulacan owned by Tony Boy Negro.[11] On the strength of a warrant of arrest.[12] The trial court issued a bench warrant on September 22. Meneses stopped the cab and asked the driver.. Jr. He testified that in 1996. He asked Juan if the latter had a new pay slip.‖[4] Rodolfo and Romulo proceeded to the police station of Plaridel. SPO3 Romeo Meneses. Manio.00 for the burial lot of the slain police officer. Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi.000. 1997. staged the robbery on board Five Star Bus and are responsible for the death of SPO1 Manio.

[16] The Court’s Verdict Anent the first assignment of error. They argue that the police investigators never conducted a police line-up for the identification of the authors of the crime. RESPECTIVELY.000. Victor sold the tire but did not turn over the proceeds of the sale to Ilarde. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. At 11:30 p. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE TWO (2) ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. and Victor Acuyan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. One of the inmates in said provincial jail was Ilarde Victorino. Juan Gonzales Escote. the two witnesses were so petrified during the robbery that they were not able to look at the felons and hence could not positively identify accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.m. SO ORDERED. DRIVER AND CONDUCTOR OF THE FIVE STAR BUS. 1996.00 as actual and moral damages to the heirs of the victim and to pay the Five Star Bus Company the amount of P6. Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that the accused has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses . Northern Samar. Victor learned that Ilarde implicated him for the robbery of the Five Star Bus and the killing of SPO1 Manio. the trial court rendered its Decision judgment finding Juan and Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. the three left the house of the barangay captain and attended the public dance at the town auditorium.m. Juan was rearrested in Daet. 1996. Victor was at the town fiesta in Laoang. the former failed to continue with and terminate his cross-examination of the said witness through no fault of his as the witness failed to appear in subsequent proceedings. The shop was later demolished and after two months of employment.00 as actual damages.000. Manio. WERE ABLE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE TWO (2) MEN WHO HELD-UP THEIR BUS AND KILLED ONE PASSENGER THEREOF AT AROUND 3:00 O‘CLOCK IN THE EARLY MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 28. Jr. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and hereby sentences both to suffer the supreme penalty of Death and to indemnify the heirs of the late SPO1 Jose C. There is no factual and legal basis for their claim that they were illegally deprived of their constitutional and statutory right to fully cross-examine Rodolfo. at 9:30 p. On September 26. Laoang. The Verdict of the Trial Court On March 11. this Court finds both accused.[14] However. Victor likewise testified that he never met Juan until his arrest and detention at the Bulacan Provincial Jail. Joseph Iringco and Rickey Lorcio were having a drinking spree in the house of Barangay Captain Ike Baluya. Jr.. the amount of P300. The latter hated Victor for his misdeed.000. the bus conductor.00 as actual damage. Jr.[15] Assignment of Errors Juan and Victor assail the Decision of the trial court and contend that: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RODOLFO CACATIAN AND ROMULO DIGAP.. he no longer adduced any evidence in his behalf. They aver that although their counsel was able to initially cross-examine Rodolfo. for convicting them of the crime charged. On January 14. Victor and his friends. 1999. 1999. to hit back at him for his failure to turn over to Ilarde the proceeds of the sale of the latter‘s tire. Victor returned to Barangay Muwal-Buwal.tire. Victor and his friends left the auditorium at 5:30 a.m.[17] It is a statutory right found in Section 1(f). Camarines Norte.00 as actual and moral damages and to pay the Five Star Bus P6. They assert that even if the testimonies of Rodolfo and Romulo were to be considered. The contentions of Juan and Victor are not meritorious. meted on each of them the penalty of death and ordered them to pay P300. of September 27. The Court agrees that the right to cross-examine is a constitutional right anchored on due process. 1996. Juan and Victor contend that the trial court committed a reversible error in relying on the testimony of Rodolfo..000.

This is so because the right. Rodolfo did not appear before the court for the continuation of his cross-examination but Rosemarie Manio. 1997. being personal and waivable. in law. Her testimony was terminated. During the trial on April 17. The counsel of Juan and Victor forthwith commenced his cross-examination of the witness but because of the manifestation of said counsel that he cannot finish his cross-examination. Having presented his witnesses. the initial trial for the presentation by the prosecution of its evidence-in-chief was set on November 18. 1998 at 8:30 a. Neither did they file any petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals for the nullification of the Order of the trial court dated January 20. 1997 and December 5. the rule of placing the burden of the case on plaintiff‘s shoulders can be construed to extremes as what happened in the instant proceedings.[26] During the trial set for February 3. Thus. The court issued an order declaring that for failure of said counsel to appear before the court for his crossexamination of Rodolfo.[23] Rodolfo testified on direct examination on November 18. 1998. There is an implied waiver when the party was given the opportunity to confront and crossexamine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.[20] If by his actuations.[21] The testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. It is now too late in the day for Juan and Victor to do so.m.[31] On November 11. It was only on appeal to this Court that Juan and Victor averred for the first time that they were deprived of their right to cross-examine Rodolfo. thus: . He who remains silent when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.m. 1998. the widow of the victim did. Roberto Ramirez as counsel for accused-appellants. 1998. The trial was reset to June 3. the intention to utilize it must be expressed. The prosecution rested its case after the presentation of SPO2 Romeo Meneses and formally offered its documentary evidence. Juan and Victor cannot just fold their arms and supinely wait for the prosecution or for the trial court to initiate the recall of said witness. the accused lost his opportunity to cross-examine wholly or in part the witnesses against him. both at 9:00 a. 19 and 26.[29] The trial scheduled on June 3.[32] They rested their case on January 27. equity will debar him from speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent. Alejandro Tolentino. 1998 at 8:30 a. Court of Appeals. 1998. 1997. the Court held in Fulgado vs. Rodolfo was present but accused-appellants‘ counsel was absent.[25] During the trial on January 20.m. They remained mute after judgment was rendered against them by the trial court. Juan and Victor did not even file any motion to reopen the case before the trial court rendered its decision to allow them to cross-examine Rodolfo.against him at the trial. Victor and Juan waived their right to continue with the cross-examination of said witness. 1998 was cancelled due to the absence of the counsel of Juan and Victor. 1997. because of the nonavailability of the other witnesses of the prosecution. 1998. Ramirez appeared in behalf of Juan and Victor. his right to cross-examine is impliedly waived. the counsel of Juan and Victor appeared but did not move for a reconsideration of the court‘s order dated January 20. all at 8:30 a.[24] On December 5. The next trial was set on September 23. imposed on the party who wishes to exercise said right. the court ordered the continuation thereof to December 5. 1999 without any evidence adduced by Juan. It behooved counsel for Juan and Victor to file said motion and pray that the trial court order the recall of Rodolfo on the witness stand.[18] What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine. the right has always been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. 1998.[30] During the trial on August 26. The prosecution presented her as witness. 1997. 1998 declaring that they had waived their right to cross-examine Rodolfo. The court issued an order appointing Atty. The doctrine of estoppel states that if one maintains silence when in conscience he ought to speak. the burden shifts to his opponent who must now make the appropriate move.[19] The right is a personal one and may be waived expressly or impliedly. Atty. it should be the counsel for the opposing party who should move to cross-examine plaintiff‘s witnesses. the counsel of Juan and Victor failed to appear. et al: The task of recalling a witness for cross examination is.[33] The contention of accused-appellants Juan and Victor that Rodolfo and Romulo failed to identify them as the perpetrators of the crime charged is disbelieved by the trial court. The court ordered the continuation of the trial for the cross-examination of Rodolfo on January 20. Indeed. However. [27] The trial was reset to March 31. 1998. PO2 Rene de la Cruz and Romulo Digap. the original records show that after several resettings.m. April 17 and 24. Indeed.[28] On March 31. It is absurd for the plaintiff himself to ask the court to schedule the cross-examination of his own witnesses because it is not his obligation to ensure that his deponents are cross-examined. 1998. Juan and Victor commenced the presentation of their evidence with the testimony of Victor. Silence or failure to assert it on time amounts to a renunciation thereof. 1998 and for the recall of Rodolfo Cacatian for further cross-examination.[22] In this case. the prosecution presented Dr.

Both then went on to take the money and valuables of the passengers. Moreover. Escote fired his gun upwards. The lights inside the bus were on. Q And before the actual firing of the gun it was even still said bad words before saying the hold-up? A After they fired the gun they uttered bad words. Bulacan. [38] Rodolfo looked many times on the rear. Twenty (20) minutes or so later. it was found out that the slain passenger was a policeman.As can be gathered from the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. Witness before the announcement of the hold-up you do not have any idea that you will encounter that nature which took place. Manio. Juan and Victor passed by where Romulo was standing and gave their instructions to him. the accused boarded at around 3:00 a. During the investigation conducted by the police. Baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo. witness? A Once in a while the driver look at the side mirror and the rear view mirror. Jr. sir. The Court has held in a catena of cases that it is the most natural reaction of victims of violence to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed. the latter collapsed on the floor. when the bus reached the vicinity of Nabuag. . including the bus conductor‘s collections in the amount of P6. during and after they staged the robbery and before they alighted from the bus. at the rear portion of the bus. The above version came from Rodolfo Cacatian and Romulo Digap. side and center view mirrors to observe the center and rear portions of the bus before and during the robbery.00.‖ They pointed their guns at him and fired several shots oblivious of the plea for mercy of their victim. is that correct? A None. there is no iota of doubt that Romulo saw and recognized Juan and Victor before. bus driver and conductor.[34] The Court agrees with the trial court. Juan and Victor were near each other.000.[36] Romulo. a Five Star Bus driven by Rodolfo Cacatian. 1996. of the Caloocan City Police Department. Juan divested Romulo of his collection of the fares from the passengers. Jr. Thereafter. took the gun of a man seated at the back. The two (2) then went back at the front portion of the bus behind the driver‘s seat and were overheard by the bus driver. sir. the duo approached the man at the back telling him in the vernacular ―Pasensiya ka na pare. with impunity: xxx Q So. meanwhile. Considering all the facts and circumstances. The driver drove the bus to the Mabalacat Police Station and reported the incident. It may be true that Romulo was frightened when Juan and Victor suddenly announced a holdup and fired their guns upward. Acuyan.m. SPO1 Jose C. sir. Jr. during and after the heist. in Camachile. along the North Espressway. Simultaneously with the announcement of a hold-up. Juan seated himself in the middle row of the passengers‘ seat near the center aisle while Victor stood near the door of the bus about a meter or so from Romulo.[35] Rodolfo and Romulo had a good look at both Juan and Victor before. Q And the speed of above 70 kilometers per hour your total attention is focus in front of the road. Plaridel. Cacatian. Mr. Balintawak. the two (2) got off the bus. the accused with guns in hand suddenly stood up and announced a hold-up. Rodolfo thus saw Juan and Victor stage the robbery and kill SPO1 Manio. After the shooting. Quezon City. of the ill-fated Five Star Bus. on September 28. correct. the announcement of hold-up was ahead of the firing of the gun? A Yes. respectively. Q Mr. Q Within the two (2) year[s] period that you are plying the route of Manila to Bolinao that was your first experience of hold-up? A Yes. Romulo stationed himself by the door of the bus located in the mid-section of the vehicle. The robbery and the killing were over in 25 minutes. papatayin ka namin. sir. Upon reaching the Mexico overpass of the Expressway in Pampanga. The evidence on record shows that when Juan and Victor boarded the bus and while the said vehicle was on its way to its destination. but it does not follow that he and Rodolfo failed to have a good look at Juan and Victor during the entire time the robbery was taking place. sir. After shooting SPO1 Manio.[37] Romulo thus had a face-to-face encounter with Juan. bound to Pangasinan. talking how easy it was to kill a man.

Q How do you differentiate of (sic) one from the other? A The center mirror is used to check the center aisle while the rear mirror is for the whole view of the passengers. witness? Court: Every now and then they usually look at the side mirror and on the rear. how often is it. Mr. Q What is the purpose of that? A So that I can see the passengers if they are already settled so that I can start the engine. Atty. sir.Q Before the announcement there was no reason for you to look at any at the rear mirror. Osorio: (to the witness) Q When you said every now and then. center mirror and rear view mirror. Q Where are these located? A Two (2) on the side mirror. Mr. that was his statement. witness? A I cannot tell how often but I used to look at the mirror once in a while. there was no mention. Q One of them is located on the left and the other on the right. sir. sir. sir. sir. witness? A Four (4). sir. Mr. Osorio: (to the witness) Q I am asking him if there was no reason for him. Q So that the center mirror and the rear view mirror has the same purpose? A They are different. Court: Every now and then. Q How many mirror do you have. Mr. Q If you are going to look at any of your side mirrors. . sir. Mr. witness? A None. sir. Fiscal: Before the announcement of hold-up. witness? A In the center. Mr. correct. Atty. Q You only look at the side mirror when you are going to over take. correct? A Yes.. sir. sir. correct. Q Where is this center mirror located. sir.. Q What is the purpose and where is it located? A The rear view is located just above my head just to check the passengers. Q The two side mirror protruding outside the bus? A Yes. you will never see any passengers. they are in the side of the bus. sir. sir.. witness? A No. sir. Q What about the remaining mirror? A Rear view mirror.

sir. there are times when you want to recognize a person you look at him intently. Q When you said seconds. witness can you focus your eyes on any of these mirror before getting back your eyes into the main road? A Seconds only. correct. that you were travelling at about 70 kilometers you were glancing every now and then on any of your mirrors at about two seconds. sir. Q Seated passengers? A It is only focus (sic) on the middle aisle sir. witness? A Yes. steady ka lang. correct? A Yes. witness by your side mirror? A Not all glancing. Q If you look at your rear mirror. witness to even accelerate your speed upon the announcement of hold-up? A No sir. Mr. Q But you will agree Mr. sir. Q Before the announcement of hold-up. Q You will never see any head of your passengers if they were seated from the rear mirror portion. witness. correct? A Yes. correct? A Only the portion of their head because they have different hight (sic). witness you were not able to identify any person on the basis of any of your mirror. correct? A Yes. Q And by mere glancing. Fiscal: May I request the vernacular ―alalay ka lang. witness. . sir. witness? A Yes. correct? A If only a glance but when I look at him I can recognize him. sir. you do not used (sic) your mirror to identify the person particularly when you are crossing (sic) at a speed of 70 kilometers per hour? A I do that. sir. sir. sir. Q You agree a while ago by every now and then it is by glancing. sir. sir. sir. Mr. witness that when you said every now and then you are using your mirror? It is only a glance. Mr. Q At that time Mr. witness that you can do to fix your eyes on any of your mirrors and the return back of (sic) your eyes into the main road? A Two seconds. some were not. Q And when you heard the announcement of hold-up your natural reaction is to look either at the center mirror or rear mirror for two seconds. Q And as a driver. you will only see the top portion of the head of your passengers. sir. sir. Q The purposes of your mirror inside your Bus is mainly of the safety of your passengers on board. Mr. Mr. as a driver.Q If you will look at your center mirror you will only see the aisle and you will never see any portion of the body of your passengers? A Yes. all of your passengers were actually sleeping? A Some of my passengers were sleeping. Q How long Mr. for how long the most Mr. they just told me to continue my driving. Q And you were instructed Mr. sir.

Osorio: (to the witness) Q That‘s what you are doing? A During the time they were gathering the money from my passengers. sir. you said you were looking at the mirror? . sir. minimum? Are you sure of that? A Yes. Q And the lights inside the Bus are off. sir. you were only sensing what is happening inside your bus? A I saw something. Q Which of the four (4) mirrors that you are looking at within two seconds. sir. witness for Buses along North Expressway? A 60 kilometers. Atty. you were not looking to anybody except focus yours eyes in front of the road? Fiscal: May I request the vernacular. Mr. witness. that is the time when I look at them. sir. sir.? A Yes. Q That is what you know within the two (2) years that you are driving? Along the North Expressway? A Yes. Q And while you were at the precise moment. you were being instructed to continue driving. sir. witness. Q What is the minimum speed. sir. sir. Mr. sir. witness? A The lights were on. Q The Bus that you were driving is not an air con bus? A Ordinary bus. Q Now.Atty. witness when the hold-up was announced and then when you look for two seconds in the rear mirror you were not able to see any one. correct Mr. Nakikiramdam ako. Q For two seconds. witness? A Most of my passengers. correct? A Yes. Q That is the only thing that you see every now and then. witness you said you are nakikiramdam? A The rear view mirror. at the time of the trip. Q While the passengers were sleep (sic) the light was still on. most of your passengers were already sleep (sic). sir. sir. Mr. Q And at what time your passengers. Mr. Mr. Q You saw something in front of your Bus? You can only see inside when you are going to look at the mirror? A Yes. Some of my passengers were still sleep (sic). Mr. sir. sir. Osorio: (to the witness) Q Steady at what speed? A 70 to 80. Q Are you sure of that 60 kilometers.

sir. Court: . T: S: Kung sakali bang makikita mo pa ang mga ito ay makikilala mo pa sila? Makikilala ko po sila. sir. Q The most that you can remember. Rodolfo declared that he would be able to identify them: 8. Mr. sir. When asked by the police investigators if he could identify the robbers if he see them again.[41] For his part. 5’4” o 5’5” katam-taman ang pangangatawan. witness? A I cannot estimate. Rodolfo spontaneously pointed to and identified Juan and Victor: QFiscal: (to the witness) xxx Q Those two man (sic) who stated that it was a hold-up inside the bus and who fired the gun are they inside the Court room (sic) today? A Yes. sir. parehong naka rubber shoes at pareho ring naka sumbrero. T: Natatandaan mo ba kung ano ang itsura ng dalawang lalaki na nanghold-up sa minamaneho mong bus? S: Halos magkasing taas. Bulacan after the robbery.A Yes. Your Honor. they confiscated the money of the passengers including my collections. Q Point to us? Interpreter: Witness pointing to a man wearing red T-shirt and when asked his name answered Victor Acuyan and the man wearing green T-shirt and when asked his name answered Juan Gonzales.: May we request that the accused be identified. afterwards. Q How many times. Romulo likewise spontaneously pointed to and identified Juan and Victor as the culprits when asked by the prosecutor to identify the robbers from among those in the courtroom: xxx Q You said that you were robbed inside the bus.[40] When asked to identify the robbers during the trial. ma‘am. he described the felons. ma‘am. parehong nakapantalon ng maong naka-suot ng jacket na maong. Interpreter: Witness pointing to the two accused.[39] When Rodolfo gave his sworn statement to the police investigators in Plaridel. Mr. how does (sic) the robbing took place? A They announced a hold up ma‘am. witness at the rear mirror during the entire occurance (sic) of the alleged hold-up? A There were many times. Public Pros. Q You said ―they‖ who announced the hold up. 9. whose (sic) these ―they‖ you are referring to? A Those two (2). witness did you look Mr. Q How long did the alleged hold-up took place? A More or less 25 minutes. please inform the Honorable Court? During the occurance (sic) of the alleged hold-up.

as amended by Republic Act 7659. when by reason or on occasion of the robbery. There is no law or police regulation requiring a police line-up for proper identification in every case. In People v. Jr. Tarlac. the crime of homicide shall have been committed. (b) the property thus taken belongs to another. siendo indiferente que la muerte sea anterior.Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as such identification was not suggested or instigated to the witness by the police. In the Information. Jr. the killing may occur before. Your Honor. xxx[46] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. it is provided that there is robbery with homicide ―cuando con motivo o con ocasión del robo resultare homicidio‖. No se requiere que el homicidio se cometa como medio de ejecución del robo.‘ While police investigators did not place Juan and Victor in a police line-up for proper identification by Rodolfo and Romulo. reads: Art. The Felony Committed by Juan and Victor The Court finds that the trial court committed no error in convicting Juan and Victor of robbery with homicide. Your Honor. he must necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death of the said person and of the robbery committed on him. Victor Acuyan. we can change. Incluso si la muerte sobreviniere por mero accidente. Juan must necessarily be considered the author of the robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio. during or after the robbery. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. . aun cuando no concurra animo homicida. 1997 in Tarlac. siempre que el homicidio se produzca con motivo con ocasión del robo. Jr. el delito existe según constanta jurisprudencia.[44] we held: xxx [T]he recovery of part of the loot from Mantung or the time of his arrest gave rise to a legal presumption of his guilt. the prosecution was burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential elements: xxx (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. Public Pros. 872).[48] the Court held that: In the controlling Spanish version of article 294. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Your Honor. [45] In this case. Juan was in possession of the identification card[43] of the slain police officer.[47] In robbery with homicide. the crime of homicide. it is one Juan Gonzales. Even if there was no police line-up. Derecho Penal. P. .Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Mantung. . To warrant the conviction of Juan and Victor for the said charge. was committed. it cannot thereby be concluded that absent such line-up. 294. As this Court has held. In People v. coetánea o posterior a éste‖ (2 Cuello Calon. so.. ‗[I]n the absence of an explanation of how one has come into possession of stolen effects belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed.Penalties. their identification by Romulo and Rodolfo as the authors of the robbery with homicide was unreliable. so long as the intention of the felons was to rob. . paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Juan failed to explain to the trial court how and under what circumstances he came into possession of said identification card.[42] Moreover. ―Basta que entre aquel este exista una relación meramente ocasional. there is no evidence that the police officers had supplied or even suggested to Rodolfo and Romulo the identities of Juan and Victor as the perpetrators of the robbery and the killing of SPO1 Manio.: May we know from the accused if his name is Juan Escote Gonzales because he just said Juan Escote. which is therein used in a generic sense.(to both accused) What are your names? A Juan Escote. Barut. Article 294. 1975 14th Ed. ni que el culpable tenga intención de matar. when he was accosted by SPO3 Romeo Meneses on October 25. or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

and January 7. and thereafter. Under Article 63. 1910 and July 14. xxx. et al. has also held that it is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident (Decision of September 9. Escote. They first disarmed SPO1 Manio. Jr. provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery. punishable withreclusion perpetua. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. They lost no time pouncing him at the rear section of the bus. et sequitur cited by this Court in People v. in a derisive and humiliating tone. p. that in order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide it is enough that a homicide would result by reason or on the occasion of the robbery (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26. before pulling the trigger. Jr. April 30. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide. without reference or distinction as to the circumstances. punishable byreclusion perpetua to death. one on the shoulder. they calmly positioned themselves at the front boasting for all to hear. Juan and Victor were armed with handguns. that killing a man is like killing a chicken (―Parang pumapatay ng manok‖). aimed their firearms at him and. Hence. they came to decide to execute the latter seemingly because he was a police officer. October 22.[52] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim. 1907. both Juan and Victor are guilty as principals by direct participation of the felony of robbery with homicide under paragraph 1. viz: (a) at the time of the attack. they simultaneously fired point blank at the hapless policeman who was practically on his knees begging for his life. 1886.[50] In this case. modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. Mangulabnan.[49] We see. with impunity on the occasion of the robbery. that they were rather sorry but they are going to kill him with his own gun. 7659. the victim suffered six wounds. methods or forms of attack employed by him. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. 1886. inasmuch as it is only the result obtained. unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. nevertheless. there is only one single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means. After stripping the passengers of their money and valuables. the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juan and Victor conspired and confabulated together in robbing the passengers of the Five Star Bus of their money and valuables and Romulo of his collections of the fares of the passengers and in killing SPO1 Manio. This High Tribunal speaking of the accessory character of the circumstances leading to the homicide. 1917). There is treachery when the following essential elements are present. one on the upper right cornea of the sternum and one above the right iliac crest. the victim was not in a position to defend himself. and . defined in Article 294.Even if the victim of robbery is other than the victim of the homicide committed on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery. However. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. causes. treacherously on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery: The two (2) accused are incomparable in their ruthlessness and base regard for human life. 1892.A. Afterwhich. in particular. respectively). that has to be taken into consideration (Decision of January 12. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain on September 9. Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace.[53] In the case at bar. another on the right breast. the felons should be meted the supreme penalty of death when the crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance attendant in the commission of the crime absent any mitigating circumstance. All the crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.[51] The Court agrees with the trial court that treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime. p. told him. 267 and 259-260. as amended by R. Case law has it that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. 1889 – see Cuello Calon‘s Codigo Penal. another on the right ear. quoted in 2 Hidalgo‘s Penal Code. including the firearm of the victim. Jr. is a class by himself in callousness. The trial court did not specify in the decretal portion of its decision the aggravating circumstances attendant in the commission of the crime mandating the imposition of the death penalty. The Proper Penalty The trial court imposed the supreme penalty of death on Juan and Victor for robbery with homicide. depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. one on the mouth. 501-502). it is evident from the findings of facts contained in the body of the decision of the trial court that it imposed the death penalty on Juan and Victor on its finding that they shot SPO1 Manio. therefore. 1878.

. modos o for mas en la ejecucion que tiendan directa y especialmente a asegurarla sin riesgo para su persona. which was enacted and published in Spanish. He was shot at close range. 1886 the 1850 Penal Code in force in Spain. citing its prior rulings that in robbery with homicide. They opined that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. if not conclusive effect to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and construing the 1850 Penal Code of Spain. in People vs.2. The issues that now come to fore are (1) whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. as amended by Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870. In construing the Old Penal Code and the Revised Penal Code. Regalado (Retired) is of a different view. Ejecutar el hecho con alevosia.then shot him even as he pleaded for dear life. In the latter law. now known as the Revised Penal Code. he was defenseless. The victim was on his way to rejoin his family after a hard day‘s work. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).. – The following are aggravating circumstances: 16. as amended by the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 was applied in the Philippines. Aquino (Retired) says that treachery is appreciated only in crimes against persons as defined in Title 10. with robbery being the main purpose and object of the criminal. paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code is a reproduction of the 1850 Penal Code of Spain and the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 with a slight difference. After all. . this Court held in People vs.[65] Article 14. 14.[58] Indeed. Balagtas[64] for the purpose of determining the penalty to be meted on the felon when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery. employing means. Instead. or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution.[57] These rulings of the Court find support in case law that in robbery with homicide or robbery with rape. Cando that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. leaving his family in grief for his untimely demise. and if in the affirmative. we rule in the affirmative. However. paragraph 2 of the 1860 Penal Code and the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870 of Spain which reads: Art. Reyes (Retired) also is of the opinion that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. homicide or rape are merely incidents of the robbery.[56] It held in another case that treachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against property. treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery. Bariquit. This Court has ruled over the years[54] that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of robbery with homicide. The Penal Code of 1887 in the Philippines was amended by Act 3815. Legal Luminaries in criminal law and eminent commentators of the Revised Penal Code are not in full accord either. citing the decisions of this Court in People vs. Book Two of the Code. whereas in Article 14. This Court opted not to apply its ruling earlier that year in People vs.[59] two distinguished members of this Court advocated a review of the doctrine that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. of the Revised Penal Code.[63] He says that treachery cannot be considered in robbery but can be appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned. paragraph 6. When the victim was shot. Justice Florenz D. methods. this Court had accorded respect and persuasive.[60] this Court in a per curiam decision promulgated in year 2000 declared that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. the words ―the person‖ are used. Hay alevosia cuando el culpable comete cualquiera de los delitos contra las personas empleando medios. a special complex crime (un delito especial complejo) and at the same time a single and indivisible offense (uno solo indivisible). paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code reads: ART. Chief Justice Ramon C.[61] Chief Justice Luis B. this Court in two cases has held that robbery with homicide is a crime against property and hence treachery which is appreciated only to crimes against persons should not be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. On the first issue. in People vs. Aggravating circumstances. [62] However. The law was taken from Chapter IV. Cando. Article 10.[55] However. the words ―las personas‖ (the persons) are used. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. It must be recalled that by Royal Order of December 17. que proceda de la defensa que pudiera hacer el ofendido. 10 . (b) whether treachery may be appreciated against Juan and Victor. thus insuring his death. Bariquit. The killing is a grim example of the utter inhumanity of man to his fellowmen. xxx Article 14. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. he was mercilessly shot to death.

Luego la circunstancia de alevosia solo puede apreciarse en los delitos provistos desde el art. the Supreme Court of Spain has consistently applied treachery to robbery with homicide. aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must be of necessity accompany the commission thereof.[70] Under paragraph 2 of the law. The high court of Spain was not impervious of the fact that robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. treachery would have no application.Going by the letter of the law. y en el homicidio del Jefe del Estado que es un delito contra la seguridad interior del Estado. como. This is so. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. a la vez que contra la propriedad. treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title Eight. treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible crime. 410). However. the word ―homicide‖ is used in its broadest and most generic sense. the Supreme Court of Spain declared that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance not only in crimes against persons but also in robbery with homicide. without which it cannot be committed. en asesinato. xxx. treachery is an aggravating circumstance to said crime. The high court of Spain applied Article 79 of the Spanish Penal Code (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code) and ruled that since treachery is not a constitutive element of the crime of robbery with homicide nor is it inherent in said crime. ni de tal modo inherente que sin ella no pueda cometerse.‖ Thus. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance because as ruled by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision dated September 11. treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime. It further declared that it would be futile to argue that in crimes against property such as robbery with homicide.[68] ―Contra las personas. However. contra la persona. treachery also applies to other crimes such as robbery with homicide:[66] Aun cuando el Codigo solo se refiere a los delitos contra las personas. Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. [67] Viada also says that treachery is appreciated in crimes against persons (delitos contra personas) and also in robbery with homicide (robo con homicidio). the high tribunal ruled. the crime is not only an assault(ataca) on the property of the victims but also of the victims themselves (ofende): xxx que la circunstancia agravante de alevosia ni es constitutiva del delito complejo de robo y homicidio. y no obstante la referencia estricta del texto legal a los delitos contra las personas no es la alevosia aplicable a la mayoria de ellos. In its Sentencia dated March 14. atentario. Citing decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. Hence. cabe estimarla en los que no perteneciendo a este titulo se determinan por muerte o lesiones. 2. Cuello Calon. Neither does it constitute a crime specially punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty therefor. 1878. ni en el homicidio consentido (art. pues como su concurrencia lo cualifica lo transforma en delito distinto. Book II of the Revised Penal Code. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide. sin que quepa arguir que en los . it specifically declared that the classification of robbery with homicide as a crime against property is irrelevant and inconsequential in the application of treachery. 409). . y en algun otro. como el de robo con homicidio. no lo es en el homicidio. 408) ni en el infanticidio (art. ni en la riña tumultuaria (art. the same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in diminishing or increasing the penalty for a crime. 1877.[69] Article 62. aggravating circumstances shall be taken into account. en el robo con homicidio. Chapters One and Two. because when robbery is coupled with crimes committed against persons. classified as a crime against property. 1. Indeed. a noted commentator of the Spanish Penal Code says that despite the strict and express reference of the penal code to treachery being applicable to persons. 417 al 447.

or in the means employed to accomplish it. sino que se ofende a estas. the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery shall be appreciated against all of the felons who had knowledge of the manner of the killing of victims of homicide. dated July 9. y al llegar a este. xxx[71] In fine. con la circunstancia agravante de alevosia. reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute. 80 del Codigo penal en su primera parte. porque no es circunstancia que afecte a la personalidad del delincuente. treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery.[73]provides that circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act. dirigiendolos por otro camino que conducia a un aljibon. The circumstances attending the commission of a crime either relate to the persons participating in the crime or into its manner of execution or to the means employed. I. siendo aplicable a todos los autores del hecho indivisible. 516. we also rule in the affirmative. tirandolo en tierra. in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide.[75] Be that as it may. .[74] Accordingly. 8. Article 62. 516. the said circumstance should be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide: xxx que si aparece probado que el procesado y su co-reo convinieron en matar a un conocido suyo. shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. dados estos hechos. 1875 that where two or more persons perpetrate the crime of robbery with homicide. The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. num. le arrojaron con ella a dicho aljibon. procedente de la defensa del ofendido. no puede sere ni aun discutible que. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code which was taken from Article 80 of the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870. the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. porque cuando estos son complejos de los que se cometen contra las personas. sino que consiste en la ejecusion material del hecho y en los medios empleados para llevarle a cabo. cuando de ellos tuvieron conocimiento todos los participantes en el mismo por el concierto previo y con las condiciones establecidad en la segunda parte del citado articulo. y atandole al pie una piedra de mucho peso. On the second issue. In its Sentencia. Designation of the offense. la manta y los talegos que llevaba.[72] In sum then. se lanzaron de improviso sobre el.delitos contra la propiedad no debe aquella tener aplicacion. compañero de viaje. Treachery merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance. no cabe duda que constituyen el delito complejo del art. treachery cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8. se aumente la criminalidad de los delincuentes. puesto que los medios. concurriendo la agravante de alevosia. with the ratiocination that: xxx si por la Ley basta haberse ejecutado un homicidio simple con motivo ú ocasión del robo para la imposicion de la pena del art. If there is no designation of the offense. forma y modos empleados en la ejecucion del crimen tendieron directa y especialmente a asegurarla sin riesgo para sus autores. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures which reads: Sec. the Spanish Supreme Court held in its Sentencia dated December 17. robandole el dinero. . The latter has a direct bearing upon the criminal liability of all the accused who have knowledge thereof at the time of the commission of the crime or of their cooperation thereon. no solo se ataca a la propiedad. de las que habla el art. valiendose de engaño para hacer bajar a dicho interfecto. en uno de los cuales iba el interfecto. aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of “homicide” and not to the constituent crime of “robbery” of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. the high tribunal of Spain also ruled that when the victim of robbery is killed with treachery. 1877. I. para lo cual desviaron cautelosamente los carros que guiaban. num.

00 to the heirs of SPO1 Manio.[82] The heirs are likewise entitled to damages for the lost earnings of the victim. The heirs are not entitled to expenses allegedly incurred by them during the wake as such expenses are not supported by receipts. Since the penalty imposed on Juan and Victor is reclusion perpetua.00 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING. The award of P6.00 as moral damages. Manio. the general rule had been applied retroactively because if it is more favorable to the accused.00.00] = 28 x P48. the amounts of P50. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and.000.065. He had a gross monthly salary as a member of the Philippine National Police of P8. Juan and Victor are also jointly and severally liable to the said heirs in the total amount of P30.780. treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime.000. There being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the felony of robbery with homicide. SO ORDERED.780.000.00 x 0. Inc. Juan and Victor should each be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.00 for lost earnings. Catubig[78] that the retroactive application of Section 8.000.00 as temperate damages. the bus company is entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P3. This Court held in People vs. Jr.390.[77] Considering that treachery aggravated the crime.[80] The service firearm of the victim was turned over to the Evidence Custodian of the Caloocan City Police Station per order of the trial court on October 22. hereby metes on each of them the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. the heirs are also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25. The court did not specify whether the said amounts included civil indemnity for the death of the victim. Accused-appellants Juan Gonzales Escote.065. Said accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim SPO1 Jose C. generic aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the Information.000. there being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the felony. in lieu of actual damages. However.[76] Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the information. the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P20.920.00.000. the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.00.780. the award should be deleted.349.000. P1.00 x 12 = P96.00 as actual damages and P25. Costs de oficio.920.000.00.00 – P48. the heirs are entitled to the amount of P1. the said corporation is awarded the amount of P3.00 as actual damages.000.780.00 Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual Income = P96. Hence.Although at the time the crime was committed.[81] The prosecution failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove the claim of Five Star Bus.354. Hence.00 to the Five Star Bus.P30.00.00 Lost Earning Capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual IncomeLiving expenses] = 28 x [P96. Jr.390. the heirs of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50. 1997.00 as exemplary damages. in the amount of P6. Jr. and Victor Acuyan are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of robbery with homicide defined in Article 294. 1996 at the age of 38.390. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should not impair the right of the heirs to exemplary damages which had already accrued when the crime was committed prior to the effectivity of the said rule. is deleted.354. however. The evidence on record shows that SPO1 Manio. The Court shall thus modify the awards granted by the trial court. P50.000. However. .00 or a gross annual salary of P96. The heirs are also entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50.000. Rosemarie Manio having testified on the factual basis thereof.00.000. Civil Liability of Juan and Victor The trial court awarded the total amount of P300.00. thus: Age of the victim = 38 years old Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 – age of the victim at the time of death) = 2/3 x (80-38) = 2/3 x 42 = 28 years Gross Annual Income = gross monthly income x 12 months = P8. He was killed on September 28. Inc.5 = P48.00 as civil indemnity.00 = P1.000.000. in lieu thereof. moral damages and the lost earnings of the victim as a police officer of the PNP. was born on August 25.920. the prosecution having adduced evidence receipts for said amounts.[79] However. 1958.00 by way of lost earnings of the victim computed. Jr.

worth THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX (P3. Cagayan. who was also armed with an M-14 armalite rifle. accused-appellant asked the two persons in the boat. 1989. in Criminal Case No. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Cagayan. a CAFGU member. Cagayan. This is an appeal from the February 2. accused-appellant asked the two if there was a nearby store. 1989. armed with an M-14 and a deadly weapon. did then and there wilfully. Lal-lo. VI-619. they brought him to the same northeast direction where . Real. respectively. unlawfully and feloniously take. conspiring together and helping one another with intent to kill and with treachery. When they got nearer. plaintiff-appellee.R. Cagayan. 1989. 2001 LARRY CONSEJERO y PASCUA. and by use of violence against and intimidation of persons. After emptying the contents of the fishnets. LARRY CONSAJERO (sic) and ROMMEL MALAPIT. G.786. the said accused. His co-accused. 1991. drenched in his own blood with hands tied at the back. ―No.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. they noticed at a distance a motorized banca carrying two persons. testified that in the afternoon of May 25. Rommel Malapit tied the hands of Modesto Castillo at his back using a portion of a fishnet and. Rommel Malapit was not arraigned. The information against accused-appellant alleges: That on or about May 25.[3] accused-appellant Larry Consejero entered a plea of not guilty. Cesar R. accused-appellant and accused Rommel Malapit returned holding an armalite rifle and a ten-inch bolo. whereupon accused-appellant told them to accompany him and his companions to the said store. LARRY CONSEJERO y PASCUA and ROMMEL MALAPIT (at large). when the two went out to fish at the Cagayan River using his motorized banca with Briggs and Straton engine. Thus. Romana Castillo. Lal-lo. Twenty meters away lay the dead body of Dionisio Usigan. two dead bodies were discovered not far from the river bank of Barangay Jurisdiccion. 1989. accused-appellant Larry Consejero.[4] According to prosecution witness Jaime Israel.[6] a resident of Maxingal. thereafter. he rode a banca towards Barangay Jurisdiccion. That was between the hours of 8:00 o‘clock and 9:00 o‘clock in the evening of May 25. Melchor Pulido. and in furtherance of their criminal design. one of them.00) PESOS. Briggs and Straton. being still at large. 118334. who was then carrying an M-14 armalite rifle. Upon orders of accused-appellant. They paddled towards the motorized banca.[2] Upon arraignment on April 30. with evident premeditation. No. province of Cagayab (sic). That the crime was committed in an inhabited place. however. 1989. and. With them was accused Rommel Malapit. went with accused-appellant Larry Consejero and accused Rommel Malapit towards the northeast direction. They answered in the affirmative. Melchor Pulido agreed.‖ Then. February 20. ―Were you not the ones who usually demand quota from Barangay Captain Bacuyan?‖ The two replied. accused-appellant said that only one should accompany them. the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Jaime Israel. face down. in the municipality of Lal-lo. steal and carry away against the will of the owner. The facts are as follows: In the morning of May 26. Left behind were Melchor Pulido and Modesto Castillo. Dionisio Usigan was not with them anymore. his neighbor. After ten (10) minutes. Melchor Pulido. the victims were last seen alive in the afternoon of May 25. the said accused LARRY CONSAJERO (sic) and ROMMEL MALAPIT. convicting accused-appellant Larry Consejero y Pascua of the crime of robbery with homicide. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. At the trial. 1994 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri. together with accused-appellant. who turned out to be Dionisio Usigan. accused. Zenaida Usigan and Dr. Philippine Currency. Jaime Israel. was the lifeless body of Modesto Castillo. did then and there wilfully. CONTRARY TO LAW. who sustained thirty-one stab and hack wounds on the different parts of his body. with intent to gain. Upon reaching the bank. and that on the same occassion (sic) of the Robbery. accused-appellant. vs. Lal-lo. armed with an M-14. assault and stabbed one DESTO CASTILLO and one DIONISIO USIGAN inflicting upon them several injuries in the different parts of their bodies which caused their death. The two bancas then proceeded to the river bank. invited him to gather fish caught in the Cagayan River. Branch 6. conspiring together and helping one another.[5] Another prosecution witness. Found lying on the ground. one motor engine.

May 26. before going to Aparri. Lal-lo. one of the two (2) deceased victims herein. and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the Heirs of DIONISIO USIGAN. SPO3 Rogelio Constantino and Patrolman Virgilio Camacam. Philippine Currency. the other of the two (2) accused herein. Accused-appellant spent the night in said house.[12] The version of accused-appellant was corroborated by the testimony of SPO1 Porfirio Divina.00). Cagayan. in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50. and to pay the costs of suit. 1990. Cagayan. He arrived there at around 3:00 o‘clock in the afternoon of May 25. this Court. is hereby ordered to immediately transmit his person for confinement at the Provincial Jail of Cagayan at Tuguegarao. because he was afraid that accused-appellant would make good his threat to kill him and his family if he would reveal what he knew. 1989. the Officer-In-Charge of the Provincial Jail of Cagayan at Aparri. Cagayan or his duly authorized representative. Lal-lo. who happened to be their neighbor. the lifeless body of Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan were found not far from the river bank of Barangay Jurisdiccion. Accused-appellant left his M-14 armalite rifle with one Rey Conseja. is hereby cancelled and. Real. 1994. he met two police officers in the person of SPO1 Porfirio Divina and SPO3 Amante Gorospe. 1989. The following morning. stab. On February 2. The motorized banca ridden by the two deceased was nowhere to be found. SPO3 Edgardo Daniel. 1989 by Dr. one of the two accused herein. They later transferred to the house of SPO1 Porfirio Divina where they resumed drinking. Modesto Castillo was no longer with them. The following morning. Aparri. of the crime of Robbery With Homicide. in the interest of justice. after trial on the merits of this case. and was accordingly issued an M-14 armalite rifle.00).Usigan was taken. immediately after the promulgation of this Decision. Philippine Currency. the other of the two (2) deceased victims herein. Accused-appellant then detached the engine of the motorized banca ridden by Usigan and Castillo. on his own initiative. Cagayan. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. . Again. 1989. It was only when accused-appellant was no longer a member of the CAFGU that he gathered enough courage to report to the authorities. being still at-large. Cesar R. he went to the Office of SPO3 Rogelio Constantino. he stayed most of the time in Aparri. who invited him to have a drinking spree inside the headquarters of the PNP of Aparri. The bail bond set for the provisional liberty of Larry Consejero. Municipal Health Officer of Lal-lo. Cagayan. In fact. finds LARRY CONSEJERO y Pascua. Lal-lo. disclosed that Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan died approximately between 7:00 o‘clock p.[9] The defense relied mainly on denial and alibi. they had to move to the house of his parents-in-law in order to avoid accused-appellant. to 12:00 o‘clock midnight of May 25. 1989. in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50. the three of them headed home.[10] Accused-appellant further testified that on his way to get a ride home.[11] Accused-appellant claimed that he ceased to be a member of the CAFGU and surrendered his M-14 armalite rifle on March 16. only Larry Consejero and Rommel Malapit came back. at around 6:00 o‘clock. The dispositive portion thereof reads: ―WHEREFORE. while Melchor Pulido was told to stand as look-out. Police Station to ask permission to go to the then 117th Philippine Constabulary Company at Barangay Punta. Cagayan. one of the two (2) accused herein. premises considered. Pulido went straight home while accusedappellant and Rommel Malapit brought the engine of the motorized banca to a cogonal area. After they alighted from the banca.000. to report the presence of some New People‘s Army members along the other side of the Cagayan River at Sitio Sianig. and immediately reported to SPO3 Edgardo Daniel. Accused-appellant threatened to kill Melchor Pulido and his family if Pulido reveals what he knew. as defined and penalized under Article 293 and 294. Rommel Malapit. as well as the Heirs of MODESTO OR DESTO CASTILLO.[7] The postmortem examination of the two deceased. while Dionisio Usigan sustained a total of thirty-one (31) hack. the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction under review. 1990. He recounted that in the afternoon of May 25. After they loaded the engine in their banca. as principal. No.[8] Melchor Pulido explained that he executed a sworn statement only on September 12. 1989. From then on. Barangay Fabrica. May 26. Cagayan. conducted at around 12:00 noon of May 26. another CAFGU member. the two accused told Melchor Pulido that the persons they met were already dead. for fear of the NPAs who were allegedly after him. Modesto Castillo sustained eight (8) incised and stab wounds. On the way. 1989.000. rode a passenger jeepney and went straight home. he left the house of SPO1 Divina.m. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant testified that he became a CAFGU member sometime before May 25. PNP. and incised wounds on the different parts of his body.

the evidence presented by the prosecution established the following circumstances pointing to the fact that accused-appellant was the author of the killing of the two deceased and the unlawful taking of the engine of the motorized banca: 1) In the afternoon of May 25. that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other words. Circumstantial evidence. provides: Sec. Like a tapestry made up of strands which create a pattern when interwoven. Rule 133. . when sufficient. Lal-lo. who were both armed with M-14 armalite rifles. AND.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: a) There is more than one circumstance. also went fishing at the Cagayan River. the two deceased went out fishing at the Cagayan River using Jaime Israel‘s motorized banca with Briggs and Straton engine. ―No. the Provincial Warden of Cagayan at Tuguegarao. HE REVEALED TO THE AUTHORITIES HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME ONLY AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR AND THREE MONTHS FROM THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.Cagayan. Rizal. IT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF MELCHOR PULIDO AS SAID TESTIMONY IS FILLED WITH IMPROBABILITIES. should point to overt acts of the appellant that would logically usher to the conclusion and no other that he is guilty of the crime charged. II ASSUMING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DID NOT COMMIT THE FIRST ERROR. and.[13] Hence. the circumstances or a combination thereof. In the case at bar. AND. prosecution witness Melchor Pulido together with accused-appellant and accused Rommel Malapit. Cagayan.‖ . 1989. 3) When the three were emptying the fish nets. III THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT‘S DEFENSE OF ALIBI. 1989. b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. to which they replied. Accused-appellant asked the two persons on board the motorized banca if they were the ones exacting quota from Barangay Captain Bacuyan.[14] The appeal is without merit. immediately thereafter. and c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Section 4 of the Rules of Court. 2) Between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 o‘clock in the evening of May 25. contending that: I THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE EVENTS TESTIFIED TO BY MELCHOR PULIDO AS CONSTITUTING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH GUILT COULD BE INFERRED. the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion. they noticed a motorized banca carrying two persons who turned out to be the two deceased. accused-appellant is before this Court.[15] Thus. particularly in Barangay Jurisdiccion. Cagayan shall transmit his person to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa. 4. IN CONSIDERING SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED BY OTHER PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. SO ORDERED.

1989. 6) Accused-appellant ordered Rommel Malapit to tie the hands of Modesto Castillo. Thus. Bionat. the two accused told Melchor Pulido that the two persons they met were already dead. particularly on the matter of credibility of a witnesses since the trial judge had the opportunity – which is denied to appellate courts – to observe the behavior and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. usher to the inevitable conclusion of accused-appellant‘s liability for the death of the two deceased. 11) The result of the postmortem examination of the two deceased shows that the approximate time of death was between 7:00 o‘clock p. not to mention the ten-inch bolo clasped in the hands of Rommel Malapit. Melchor Pulido saw the two accused bring the engine to a cogonal area. to wit - . the dead body of Modesto Castillo. the gamut of evidence upon which the trial court based its judgment of conviction is anchored mainly on the testimony of prosecution witness Melchor Pulido. comes to the fore. That was the last time Castillo was seen alive. Twenty meters away was located the dead body of Dionisio Usigan with 31 stab wounds. The constant rule in our jurisdiction.[16] the Court. The motorized banca of Jaime Israel was no longer recovered. the observation made by the trial court on the demeanor of Marcelo Pulido while testifying. Cagayan. accused-appellant. From the foregoing. The trial judge is thus able to form at first hand a judgment as to whether particular witnesses are telling the truth or not. went back. their hostile approach towards the two deceased in inquiring if they were the ones exacting quota from the barangay captain. 1989. it can be gleaned unerringly that an unbroken chain of circumstances proven by the prosecution clearly shows the guilt of accused-appellant. in People v. 10) In the morning of May 26. points the liability for the loss of the engine to accused-appellant who was seen to have loaded said engine in their banca on the night of May 25. Lal-lo. but the deceased Dionisio Usigan was no longer with them. Thereafter. is that the Court will accord great respect to the factual conclusions drawn by the trial court. 5) After ten minutes. Similarly. Unequivocally established is the fact that the two deceased were last seen alive in the company of accused-appellant Larry Consejero and accused Rommel Malapit. Likewise. 9) When they alighted from the banca. 8) On their way home. In the case at bar. meted a judgment of conviction on accused-appellant who. attack on his credibility is proffered by the accused-appellant. however.4) Accused-appellant requested the two deceased to accompany them to a nearby store. 1989. 7) The two accused detached the engine of the motorized banca and loaded it in their own banca while Melchor Pulido was asked by accused-appellant to stand as look-out. the fact that the motorized banca and the engine thereof were no longer found at the river bank where they were last seen. the two accused brought Modesto Castillo towards the same northeast direction. all taken together with the circumstances that the dead bodies of the two deceased were found the next morning in the same place where they were last seen alive. was discovered not far from the river bank of Barangay Jurisdiccion. which sustained several stab wounds and whose hands were tied at his back with a portion of a fishnet.[17] Thus. armed with a gun and together with others. and Rommel Malapit.m. The victim was last seen alive under such circumstances and found dead the following day with stab wounds. their treacherous and intimidating scheme in cajoling the two deceased to moor their banca. their strategic taking of the two deceased one after the other and the violent act of tying the hands of Modesto Castillo. which he obeyed using a portion of a fishnet. who was holding his armalite rifle. A combination of their concerted and complementary acts vividly manifest a common criminal intent to kill the victims and to take the engine of the motorized banca. based on circumstantial evidence. tied the victim and took him away from his house. Accused-appellant also threatened to kill Melchor Pulido and his family if Melchor would reveal what he knew. When they reached the river bank the two accused took along with them Dionisio Usigan and proceeded towards the northeast direction. who was clasping a 10-inch bolo in his hand. to 12:00 midnight of May 25. Expectedly. while Modesto Castillo was left on the river bank.

‖ The elements of said crime are as follows: a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person. but he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. at around 3:00 o‘clock in the afternoon of May 25. frankness of their countenances. after a careful scrutiny thereof.. The same is true with respect to the failure of Melchor Pulido to help the two deceased. the Court is of the opinion. Melchor Pulido . found to be credible and worthy of belief. Cagayan at around 3:00 o‘clock in the afternoon of May 25.. no standard form of behavior may be expected of Melchor Pulido and the victims.. Suffice it to say.. clarity and candor.[22] The trial court found that the geographical distance between Barangay Minanga. accused-appellant failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof. for the reason that. especially when the delay is satisfactorily explained. to have been or to be nursing any bias or prejudice against the cause of the defense. observation and experience of ordinary man. The delay of almost sixteen months before Melchor Pulido executed a sworn statement does not in any way diminish the value of his testimony. gesture and inflection of their voices. against the former.. c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. [his] testimonies . [his] testimonies can undoubtedly pass the test of solidly and firmly set touchstones of credibility... however. [his] person[s] and . Cagayan. Besides.. Lal-lo.[19] The alleged improbabilities pointed out by accused-appellant are too inconsequential to merit attention. has come to the belief that the same was marked with spontaneity.. which is therein used in a generic sense. particularly against that of each of the two accused herein.. who is still at-large. that he gained the courage to reveal what he knew. It has also come to the belief that. even assuming that accused-appellant was indeed in Aparri. Cagayan. no longer armed.[20] Anent the defense of alibi theorized by accused-appellant. clearly and convincingly proven by the defense beyond reasonable doubt. Melchor Pulido as well as the two deceased were understandably afraid to antagonize the accused-appellant who was then a CAFGU member and armed with an M-14 armalite rifle. he in fact met accused-appellant at around 4:30 in the afternoon of May 25..[24] . It was only when accused-appellant was no longer a CAFGU member. all of which were perceptible in the emphasis. [has] neither been competently impeached nor sufficiently rebutted.. and. Cagayan. and d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. As correctly argued by the Solicitor General.. both . is not at all precluded.. which are inconsistent with . The crime committed by accused-appellant. and/or to have uttered prior or subsequent statements. or by motorized banca for one and a half (1 1/2) hours. and Barangay Jurisdiccion. Settled is the rule that for alibi to prosper it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed.. both in . they refer merely to trivial matters which do not alter the substance of Melchor Pulido‘s testimony positively identifying accused-appellant as one of the culprits. Larry Consejero and Rommel Malapit. Cagayan. his defense of alibi must fail.. [him]. delay or vacillation in reporting a crime does not negate the credibility of a witness... by the defense![18] As the trial court gave full faith and credit to the testimony of Melchor Pulido which this Court.. or in any manner whatsoever. Hence. more particularly. could not be ―robbery with homicide. Melchor Pulido . 1989.. he was in Aparri. which could be reached by traveling along the national highway by a motor vehicle for twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) minutes more or less. given that what may be natural to one may be strange to another.. simplicity of their languages and total absence of artificiality in their whole manner. As testified. the credibility of .. and/or to have failed to perceive the facts testified to by . on his way home from the Bureau of Posts of Lal-lo. and his presence at the locus criminisat the time of the commission of the crime. [his] testimonies.. aside from demonstrating characters of truthfulness.. . 1989. [has] been greatly enhanced. until the following morning. in conformity with day-to-day common knowledge. and so holds. by Jaime Israel. According to accused-appellant. [his] person[s] and that of . the crime of homicide.. Aparri. [his] testimonies in open court during the trial on the merits of this case. As adequately explained by him. that the same cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant by Melchor Pulido as one of the culprits. accused-appellant cannot successfully make an issue on the two deceased‘s alleged improbable obedience to the orders of accused-appellant as well as their failure to put up resistance. [his] person[s] and in . however. in any manner whatsoever. was committed. Indeed. the threat on his life and that of his family‘s cowed him to silence.. after observing the demeanor of . Cagayan is only twenty (20) kilometers.[21] What is more.. the probability of his traveling back to Lal-lo. Moreover.This Court. b) the property thus taken belongs to another. Verily. inasmuch as the same . Persons do not necessarily react uniformly to a given situation. and hence. more or less. [23] Thus. [has] not been positively. 1989.. the affirmance of the decision under review is in order.

Cagayan. was primarily interested in taking the life of the two deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from the Barangay captain. Then too. WHEREFORE. as maximum.00 but does not exceed P6. the criminal acts of accused-appellant constitute not a complex crime of robbery with homicide. and hence. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. and the homicide. but three separate offenses: two crimes for the killing of the two deceased. as minimum. accused-appellant is entitled to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. Amania.[31] Under Article 309. accused-appellant obviously adopted a method that would insure the absence of any risk to himself which might arise from the defense that may possibly be put up by Modesto Castillo.786. the same was punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Conformably. the taking of his life was undoubtedly attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[25] the Court had occasion to rule that in robbery with homicide. methods. and one for the taking of the Briggs and Straton engine of Jaime Israel.[26] Considering that no evidence on record showed that accused-appellant consciously and purposely adopted means and methods that would make sure that the killing of Dionisio Usigan would not cause any risk to himself. paragraph 3. VI-619. employing means.[27] the Court ruled that where the taking of the personal property was merely an afterthought and was done after the culprit has successfully carried out his primary criminal intent to kill the victim. the killing must have been directly connected with the robbery. the crime committed is theft. the crime committed is homicide because the qualifying circumstance of treachery alleged in the information cannot affect the liability of accusedappellant. of the Revised Penal Code. or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery. as minimum. finding accused-appellant Larry Consejero y Pascua. At the time accused-appellant perpetrated the crime of murder. as maximum. Hence. In the case of Modesto Castillo.In People v. in Criminal Case No. on occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place.000. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. Since there was neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attendant in its commission. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequent to the killing. In People v. the appropriate penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. a CAFGU member. the proper penalty. the prosecution failed to substantiate the attendance of the elements[28] thereof in the unlawful taking of the engine.00. it does not appear that the primary purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the two deceased was to rob the engine of the motorized banca. eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional. the felony committed is theft. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the following crimes – . Though alleged in the information. and was perpetrated after accused-appellant had already accomplished his original criminal purpose of killing the two deceased. the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. Basao. With respect to Dionisio Usigan. In the present case. It is necessary that there must have been an intent on the part of the offenders to commit robbery from the outset and. Branch 86. theft is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods if the value of the property stolen is more than P200.[32] With the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In tying Modesto Castillo‘s hand at his back. the crime committed by accusedappellant is murder. or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution.[30] As shown by the receipt presented by Jaime Israel. Clearly therefore.[29] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. the crime perpetrated was theft. is four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of arresto mayor. must have a direct relation to.00. the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri. even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery. is SET ASIDE and another one is rendered. accusedappellant. since the taking of the engine in the present case was merely an afterthought. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation in the unlawful taking of the engine cannot be considered here. and the taking of the subject engine was merely an afterthought that arose subsequent to the killing of the victims. he purchased the Briggs and Straton engine for P3. to one (1) year. the use of violence or force is no longer necessary. In taking the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca. to fourteen (14) years. The original design must have been robbery. as reparation for the unrecovered Briggs and Straton engine. Absent aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the unlawful taking of the engine. the penalty for theft must be imposed in its medium period. the crime committed is only homicide. From all indications.

for the killing of Modesto Castillo. eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional. as minimum. to fourteen (14) years. for which he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. for the unlawful taking of the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca owned by Jaime Israel.000. for which he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of arresto mayor. Accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50.00) each as indemnity ex delicto. to one (1) year. SO ORDERED. as minimum. as maximum. for the death of Dionisio Usigan. 3) Theft. 2) Homicide. .1) Murder. as maximum. for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

homicide for the death of Usigan. Consejero was then charged of three different crimes. Castillo and Usigan.‖ Afterwards. Upon reaching the shore. Consejero said that only one man should accompany them. The two were killed by allegedly killed by Larry Consejero. the Court finds that there is no evidence showing that Consejero and Malapit adopted means and methods that would make certain the killing of the victim would not cause risk to them. together with Consejero and Malapit. In the present case.PEOPLE vs. The two accused. No. Consejero and Malapit retuned with armalite and bolo respectively but Usigan was no were in sight. Consejero then asked the two men to accompany them to the said store and so the two bancas proceeded to the river bank. they saw motorized banca at a distance and they paddled towards the said banca. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed was a special complex crime of robber with homicide. 2011 FACTS: Morning of May 26. Consejero asked the two if there is any store nearby which the two affirms. The SC believes that the crime committed were separate crime of robbery and homicide based on the evidence and testimony presented. After emptying the contents of the fishnets. or intimidation against a person. Lal-lo. They then head home after loading the said engine to their banca. or by reason thereof. herein accused and Rommel Malapit (still at large). the crime of homicide. RULING: No. the dead bodies of Modesto Castillo and Dionisio Usigan were found not far from the river bank of Brgy. .R. because the killing was undoubtedly attended by circumstance of treachery (by tying the victim‘s hand). who were both armed with M-14 rifle. a CAFGU member. Jurisdiccion. The elements of Robbery with homicide are: a) taking of personal property with the use of violence. From all indications. According to the testimony of Melchor Pulido. Then he. Cansejero and Malapit told Pulido that Usigan and Castillo were already dead and threatened him that they will kill him and his family if he reveals what he knew. rode a banca towards Brgy. The following day. and theft for taking the engine of the motorized banca ridden by the two deceased and owned by a certain Jaime Israel. Capt. Consejero. c) the taking is characterized with intent to gain and d) on the occasion of robber. and the taking of the engine of the banca was merely an afterthought that arose subsequent to the killing of the victims. b) the property taken belongs to another. Bacuyan to which the two replied ―No. was primarily interested in taking the life of the two deceased whom he suspected to be the ones taking quota from the Brgy. hence Usigan went with them and they went to the northeast direction. 1989. Consejero then ordered Malapit to tie the hands of Castillo and then they brought him to the same northeast direction. because although treachery was alleged in the information. Jurisdiccion aound 8:00-9:00PM of May 25. the Court finds that it does not appear that the main purpose of Consejero in accosting the two deceased was to rob the engine of the motorized banca. On their way. Consejero and Malapit were found guilty by the trial court of robbery with homicide. The two returned without Castillo. 1989. which is therein used in a generic sense. Captain. After 10 minutes. 1989. He was invited by Consejero to gather fish caught in the Cagayan River. Consejero then asked the two if they were the people who demand quota from Brgy. CONSEJERO G. the lifeless bodies of Usigan and Castillo were found and the postmortem examination reveals that the two died around 7:00PM-12:00MN of May 25. was committed. Cagayan. The people riding on the said motorized banca were the victims. Consejero then detached the engine of the motorized banca ridden by Usigan and Castillo and told Pulido to stand as lookout. namely: murder for the killing of Castillo. 118334 February 20.

000. 1987 at about 2:00 o‘clock in the morning in [Hacienda] Ricky. JOSE VILLACASTIN. 120548. of P. 1987. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law.[1] In an information dated April 18. October 26. [He] saw two (2) persons riding on the carabao whom he identified as Jose Villacastin. After untying the carabaos. 1988. with no mitigating circumstances to offset the same. SO ORDERED. are hereby entitled to the full credit of their preventive imprisonment as provided for under R. committed as follows: That on or about the 29th day of July. as such. He awakened Rosalina Plaza who thereafter went to Joel Barrieses. finding accused Joselito Escarda and Jose Villacastin Jr. entered a plea of not guilty. Jr. plaintiff-appellee.. assisted by counsel. the first two (2) abovenamed accused. He was able to see Jose Villacastin. Jose Villacastin. did then and there. together with Joselito Escarda. Thereafter. CONTRARY TO LAW. owner of the carabaos. Joel Barrieses.. and there being the presence of three generic aggravating circumstances of [r]ecidivism. Philippine Currency. who are both still-at-large.accused. JR. trial on the merits ensued. wilfully. In its decision. in the Municipality of Sagay. 533. 2001 On appeal is the decision dated September 21. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ―Viol. unlawfully and feloniously take. The accused being detained.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Jr. Provincial Fiscal Othello Villanueva charged accused with violation of Presidential Decree No. HERNANI ALEGRE (at-large) and RODOLFO CAÑEDO (at-large) of the crime of Violation of Presidential Decree No. the accused are each sentenced to suffer. in the amount of P5.. JOSELITO ESCARDA. otherwise known as Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974.00). of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City. confederating and mutually help[ing] one another.D.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Branch 60. this Court finds both accused JOSELITO ESCARDA and JOSE VILLACASTIN. in company of their two (2) other co-accused. considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law. accused Escarda and Villacastin. they rode on it and proceeded to the canefields. belonging to JOEL BARIESES. 586-S. the imprisonment of EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS. cut the cyclone wire because he was just four (4) arms length away from them and after Jose Villacastin cut the wire. and his group passed by his house. to inform the latter that his carabaos were stolen. [He] was still awake at that time because he was watching over his cornfield and while doing so.000. JOSE VILLACASTIN JR. Jr.R. the trial court decreed: WHEREFORE. vs.[2] Upon arraignment. he saw the two accused remove the cyclone wire which was used as the corral for the two (2) carabaos of Rosalina Plaza. [Rosalina Plaza] testified that on July 29. valued in the total amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5. 533‖ (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law). HERNANI ALEGRE. Costs against both accused. in the residence of Joel Barrieses. The facts as presented by the prosecution and summarized by the trial court are as follows: [Dionesio Himaya] testified that on July 29. to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforestated amount. 533. 6127. without the consent of the latter. Province of Negros Occidental. together with all the accessory penalties imposed by law and to indemnify the offended party. (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974).A. No.. EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as the minimum to RECLUSION PERPETUA as the maximum. and RODOLFO CAÑEDO. with intent of gain. G. 1987 at about 2:00 o‘clock in the morning. they swept it aside and untied the two (2) carabaos. in Criminal Case No. JR. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. as follows: The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses JOSELITO ESCARDA. steal and carry away two (2) female carabaos. Dionesio Himaya called her and informed her that the carabaos were stolen and when . Philippines. namely: Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo. conspiring. in view of the foregoing circumstances. nighttime and unlawful entry. 1994.

Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo because he was sleeping in his house which is located in Sitio Candiis. 1995. He did not know the names of the PC who maltreated him and forced him to admit the loss of the carabaos at Hda. his injuries healed while he was in jail. Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo because in the early morning of July 29. Sagay. he had not gone with Joselito Escarda. He started sleeping at 8:00 o‘clock in the evening of July 28. 1987. they alleged that the trial court erred in convicting them of the crime charged. Captain Eduardo Legaspi. On August 29. he started working at 8:00 o‘clock in the morning and ended at 11:00. he did not know the accused Joselito Escarda. for lack of evidence. In the early morning of July 29. Furthermore. 1987.[3] In their defense. Escarda and Villacastin denied the charges. He was asked whether or not he stole the carabaos at Hda. Jr. because the latter always passed by their house. he was attending a dance at Hda. They were detained for about a month at the 334th PC Headquarters and they were transferred to the Municipal Jail of Sagay.asked who stole the carabaos. he was working as cane cutter and hauler in the hacienda of Javelosa located in Barrio Malubon. Ricky to attend a dance held there because there was a fiesta at that time. Jr. When they arrived at the PC Headquarters. Negros Occidental which is fifteen (15) kilometers away from the house of his mother where he was residing. Negros Occidental and there was no lawyer present during his refusal to admit the stealing of the carabaos. Escarda claimed that he was sleeping in the house of Gilda Labrador during the incident while Villacastin declared that he too was sleeping in his house at that time.. he went to the house of his mother where he ate lunch and rested until 3:00 o‘clock in the afternoon. he slept at the house of Gilda Labrador starting at 7:00 o‘clock in the evening and woke up at 6:00 o‘clock in the morning of July 30. testified] that on or before July 29.[4] The defense version of the incident was summarized by the trial court as follows: …Joselito Escarda testified that he did not know his co-accused in this case. Joel Barrieses. also requested to hold in abeyance the commitment of Escarda and Villacastin in view of their pending criminal cases before the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City. Neither did he know of somebody by the name of Dionesio Himaya although he knew somebody by the name of Gilda Labrador. 1987. he left alone for the dance hall located at Hda. we granted the aforesaid request for . Insisting on their innocence. 1987 at 10:00 o‘clock in the evening. she went to the corral to check whether the carabaos were there but discovered that the beasts were no longer there and the cyclone wire was destroyed. Before the incident of July 29. He denied what they were accusing him of because he has not committed the crime. Jose Villacastin. Ricky and while watching the dance. we required the trial court to order the commitment of Escarda and Villacastin to the Bureau of Corrections or the nearest national penal institution. he was arrested and brought to the 334th PC Headquarters in Tan-ao.[8] Accordingly.. Sagay. Ricky because the maltreatment happened in the evening. while it disbelieved the defense of denial and alibi of accused Escarda and Villacastin. They were found guilty as charged. 1987 and woke up the next day. 1987. 1987.e. he was maltreated and was forced to admit it and to make a confession. Dionesio Himaya only mentioned Jose Villacastin. While he was at the dance hall. His injuries were not treated by a physician because the PC would not let him go out of the jail. he did not know the complainant in this case. the charge against accused Rodolfo Cañedo was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. He suffered injuries when they maltreated him so he made a confession before them but did not sign the same. July 29.[6] On November 27. 1987 at 7:00 in the morning. that Jose Villacastin. Escarda and Villacastin filed their notice of appeal. Acting Provincial Warden of Negros Occidental. 1987. so. However. he was arrested by the PC elements and brought to the 334th PC Company where he was maltreated. they were investigated about the stealing of the carabaos and the PC elements wanted them to admit it. After she was informed of the stealing of the carabaos. After he finished working in the field. he was maltreated. He does not know of anybody by the name of Joel Barrieses. In the evening of July 29. 1987. She informed Joel Barrieses. stole the carabaos and she went to the 334th PC Company and reported the incident. she already knew the person of Jose Villacastin. Jr. Further. When he denied the commission of the crime. Earlier. 1987. Executive Judge Renato Muñez requested that their commitment to the Bureau of Corrections be deferred until the termination of the other criminal case[7] against them pending before the said trial court. the charge against co-accused Hernani Alegre was dismissed on motion by the prosecution. specifically. Ricky but he denied the commission of the crime and again. Negros Occidental.[5] The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible. However. i. Jr. In their assignment of error. at more or less 2:00 o‘clock to 3:00 o‘clock. On July 29. Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo. [Jose Villacastin. Sometime on August 29.

[18] Appellant‘s alibi must likewise fail. they were eventually committed to the New Bilibid Prison. He saw appellant and Escarda unleash the two carabaos. Note that the carabaos‘ ownership was never put in issue during the trial in the lower court and is now raised belatedly. or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. He adds that the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the stolen carabaos by presenting the certificate of ownership.[10] On October 12.[19] In this case. appellant‘s assertion. Dionisio Himaya testified that he saw appellant cut the cyclone wire used as corral for the carabaos. He insists that he was sleeping in his house at the time the crime occurred. we are now concerned only with the appeal of the remaining appellant. In this case Rosalina Plaza. Afterwards. He stated that appellant rode on one carabao while Escarda rode on the other. questions not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. baseless and unmeritorious. the overt act which gives rise to the crime of cattle rustling is the taking away of the carabaos by the accused without the consent of the caretaker. in our view. 1998. Similarly.deferment. or other domesticated member of the bovine family. she went right away to the corral and discovered that indeed the two carabaos were missing. employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such large cattle. caretaker. the caretaker of the carabaos. who personally examined Escarda. he assigns only one error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 1999. whether or not for profit or gain. July 29. Atty.[11] We required the Director of the New Bilibid Prison to confirm the voluntariness of said withdrawal. [12] In his certification dated July 15. Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means. On August 9. 1987 at 7:00 A. In his testimony. appellant untied the two carabaos. In his brief.M. Appellant‘s contention concerning lack of proper identification is. Jose Villacastin. It is to be noted that thegravamen in the crime of cattle-rustling is the ―taking‖ or ―killing‖ of large cattle or ―taking‖ its meat or hide without the consent of the owner. and both immediately went away. Prosecution witness Dionisio Himaya identified appellant and Escarda as the rustlers. the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed. Appellant contends that the element of ―taking away of carabaos by any means. He said he easily recognized appellant as he knew him long before the incident. Himaya said he was awake at that time as he was watching over his cornfield nearby. [17] He was just four arm‘s length away. mule. Roberto Sangalang. It is settled that. Appellant‘s assertion that his identity was not positively established deserves no serious consideration. During the trial. that the carabaos were stolen and reported the incident to the police. who declared that after she was informed by Himaya about the incident. the caretaker of the carabaos. the witness positively identified appellant as the same person who stole the carabaos.M. we granted Escarda‘s motion to withdraw appeal. method or scheme.. Muntinlupa City. it is difficult to believe appellant‘s claim that he slept for eleven hours straight just like Escarda. 1987 and woke up the next day. the rule is settled that alibi cannot prosper unless it is proven that during the commission of the crime. horse.[16] The taking was confirmed by Rosalina Plaza. did not consent to the taking away of the carabaos. The ―owner‖ includes the herdsman. appellant failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that it was physically impossible for him to be in the crime scene at the time . Besides. Jr. ass. He also alleges that his identity was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Cattle rustling includes the killing of large cattle. generally. He slept at 8:00 P. July 28. appellant was the nephew of his wife and used to visit them before. or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner or raiser. and there was enough illumination from the moon. Then.[14] as required by the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. Escarda sought the approval of this Court to withdraw his appeal. he should be acquitted. According to the witness. method or scheme without the consent of the owner‖ was not proven by the prosecution. is untenable. carabao.[9] On August 12. 1998. attested that Escarda executed his urgent motion to withdraw appeal on his own free will and fully understood the consequences of the same. appellant rode on one carabao while co-accused Escarda rode on the other and immediately proceeded to the canefield. the owner. 1999. She immediately informed Joel Barrieses.[15] In this case. thus.[13] Accordingly. without the consent of the owner or raiser of cow. As the trial court noted. that the prosecution should have first presented the certificate of ownership of the stolen carabaos to warrant his conviction.

to reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum. WHEREFORE. is declared guilty of violating the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P. 310[24] In the instant case. in Criminal Case No. 1993. however. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Accordingly. It did not state that said conviction was already final. and such evidence is always admissible and conclusive unless the accused himself denies his identity with the person convicted at the former trial. shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. and to pay the costs.D. and to indemnify offended party Joel Barrieses the amount of P5. 627-S on February 8. A recidivist is one who. we find that the trial court also erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. 586-S. In its decision. 2000 but applicable retroactively for being procedural and pro reo.D. We note that the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime. SO ORDERED. to fourteen (14) years. at the time when the case at bar was being tried. the offense was committed with force upon things as the perpetrators had to cut through the cyclone wire fence to gain entrance into the corral and take away the two carabaos therefrom. the penalty imposable on appellant is only prision mayor in its maximum period as minimum. the trial court merely mentioned that appellant was convicted for cattle rustling under Criminal Case No. ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum. the assailed decision dated September 21. The prosecution. Even the records did not show that appellant admitted his previous conviction. there can be no recidivism without final judgment. any person convicted of cattle rustling shall.[25] Under Section 8[26] of P.. 1994. be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[20] Moreover. the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City. failed to specify these circumstances in the charge filed before the trial court. unlawful entry and recidivism. is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Jose Villacastin. 533) and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum. irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved. 533 does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of large cattle under Articles 309 [23] and under the Revised Penal Code. It merely modified the penalties provided for qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 by imposing stiffer penalties thereon under special circumstances. the scene of the crime was only a fifteen-minute walk from appellant‘s house.D.[22] P. at the time of his trial for one crime. 533. ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum. without any mitigating circumstance. Admittedly. to fourteen (14) years. it is proper to impose on appellant only the indefinite prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum. As we had held before. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.000. [21] The best evidence of a prior conviction is a certified copy of the original judgment of conviction.of the incident. . as now required expressly by the Code of Criminal Procedure effective December 1. Thus. Branch 60.

380 P.2d 658]). [19 Cal. [1c] In any event. 3d 486. Plaintiff and Appellant. Dukeslaw observed dismantled phonograph parts and numerous tools. App. which does not constitute a violation of the Vehicle Code. supra. 3d at pp. PABLO GRIFFITH.S. ordered him out of the car. subd. Inside the spring was a hand rolled marijuana cigarette which formed the basis for the instant prosecution. [1a] The trial court. primarily pliers and screwdrivers. 253 Cal. He felt a long hard object in defendant's left front pocket which he believed to be a pocket knife or other weapon. 88 S. at p. indicated it believed the officer's testimony as set forth above. 3d 423. Dukeslaw testified that this put defendant "in a [19 Cal.m. 3d 951] 738]. 1 Cal. 18. Adam.. that the activity is related to a crime.Rptr.Ct. Although the court below speculated that it could probably judicially note that vehicles are frequently stolen by thieves who gain entry to them through a windwing. [2] While it is well established that circumstances short of probable cause for making an arrest may warrant a temporary detention for purposes of investigation (Terry v.2d 889. following the granting of defendant's motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Adam. Officer Dukeslaw of the Los Angeles Police Department and his partner were on patrol in a black and white police car at about 4:35 p." Of course.S.S. Ohio. subdivision (a). Nor do we believe that such grounds for judicial notice exist. supra. People v. Ohio. Dukeslaw. 545]. (Irwin v." The order dismissing the information is affirmed. he also. Asked for such facts he replied: "As far as I am concerned. 462 P. defendant said. 88 S. (People v. 21 [20 L. 59 Cal. he was driving in a sufficiently erratic manner to lead to the objectively reasonable suspicion that he might be intoxicated. 2d 448 [30 Cal. 2d 986. of course. Upon approaching the car. Tested against the objective standard demanded by Terry v. defendant cannot be deemed to have waived compliance with section 455. In view of the court's ruling in defendant's favor immediately after commenting upon the possibility of taking judicial notice. 988 [61 Cal. If we were correct in People v. 1 Cal. Dukeslaw's partner ran a check of the license number of the Chevrolet.5). Code. It was this factor which led us to conclude that his initial detention was lawful. in addition to the fact that the defendant had a broken left windwing and fit a rather generalized description of a burglar who had been active in the immediate area. Henze. 738] in holding that the facts disclosed by the record in that case did not authorize a patdown. 3d 486 [81 Cal. 3d 952]more strategic or offensive type position than he would if he were still sitting in the car. removed a small conical-shaped spring along with it. "nothing. and that defendant is connected to the activity. . we must necessarily reach the same conclusion here.2d at p. These objects led Dukeslaw to suspect the possibility that defendant might be a burglar." Dukeslaw nevertheless stopped defendant's car to investigate the possibility that it was stolen. 905-906. not because he really felt that there were "specific and articulable facts" (Terry v. whether the officer was justified initially in stopping defendant's car. 1868]. Mickelson. Dukeslaw asked defendant what the object was. in granting defendant's motion to suppress." Dukeslaw then reached his hand halfway into defendant's pocket and retrieved the object which turned out to be a screwdriver.Rptr.Rptr. The officers for no apparent reason. 1 Cal. Code. The instant confrontation involved two armed officers and a citizen seated behind the wheel of a car. on the back seat. who was driving south on Valencia. v. Rptr. 427 [82 Cal. Besides.Ed. 21-22 [20 L. observed defendant driving a 1958 Chevrolet north on Valencia in a lawful manner. we can see no justification for intruding this far on defendant's privacy. The lower two-thirds of the right windwing of the Chevrolet was broken. Adam. of undetermined age and origin. App. (a)(7)) from an order dismissing an information which charged defendant with possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. The Constitution does not permit an officer to stop a motorist in broad daylight merely because he observes some damage. the front seat and the floor. The threshold question on this appeal is. 1970.) [1b] By contrast the only unusual circumstance noted by the officer in the instant case was the broken windwing. § 1538. App. It came back "no want. the court did not comply with the notice requirements of section 455. especially in view of the negative report the officer received on the license plate. Code.THE PEOPLE. § 459) of the frequency with which auto thefts are accomplished by means of forced entry through a windwing.Ct.Rptr. People v. unintentionally. This court has not been asked to take judicial notice (Evid. it amply appears from the record that the officer patted defendant down because there was a confrontation. Superior Court. 1. that was entirely due to the uncalled for order.2d 889. Accidental damage and vandalism are other equally reasonable explanations for the condition of the windwing. before such a detention may be undertaken there must be an objectively reasonable suspicion that something out of the ordinary has taken place. 1 Cal. The opening was large enough to admit a hand. 392 U. anybody I stop could possibly have a weapon on them. § 1238. App. As Dukeslaw withdrew the screwdriver.Ed. we approved a stop where.App. we need nor really decide whether the stop was constitutionally authorized. App. 905]) warranting the intrusion. 392 U. Defendant and Respondent This is an appeal by the People (Pen. 392 U. August 19. 1 [20 L. 1868]. and more particularly by breaking out a portion of the windwing. Dukeslaw asked defendant to get out of the car. Ohio. Code § 11530). subdivision (a) of the Evidence Code which would have enabled it to take judicial notice of such a matter. 489 [81 Cal. This was a fact equally reconcilable with an innocent explanation as with a guilty one. The officer conducted a patdown search for offensive weapons.Ed. 484.2d 12]. It is just as reasonable to infer from the existence of a broken windwing that it was broken for the purpose of stealing some object from the vehicle as that it was broken for the purpose of stealing the vehicle itself. 488-489.) In People v.

petitioner. not five banking days as required by law. this petition. petitioner was found guilty as charged. vs. [Cenizal] went to the house of [petitioner] to inform him of the dishonor of the check but [Cenizal] found out that [petitioner] had left the place. Hence. When August 4. The head office of the Bank of the Philippine Islands through a letter dated December 5. 1991 came. Petitioner claims that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to present the dishonored check during the trial.R. [Cenizal] executed an Affidavit of Loss regarding the loss of the check in question and the return slip. Quezon City. He argues that this was beyond the 90-day period provided under the law in connection with the presentment of the check.R. postdated August 4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. [Cenizal] brought the check to the bank for encashment. 2006 PACIFICO B. Checks without sufficient funds Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value. [Petitioner] still failed to make good the amount of the check.000. This petition for review on certiorari assails the April 28. So. Such promise was made verbally seven (7) times.00 from [Cenizal]. 1992 before the office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City his affidavit and submitted documents in support of his complaint for [e]stafa and [v]iolation of [BP 22] against [petitioner]. Significance of the 90-day Period For Presentment of the Check Petitioner asserts that there was no violation of BP 22 because the check was presented to the drawee bank only on December 5. [Petitioner] then issued in favor of Cenizal. informed [Cenizal] that the check bounced because of insufficient funds. 1992. Jr. 1991. We disagree. No. obtained a loan from private complainant Josefino Cenizal [] in the amount ofP100. on April 28. the appellate court affirmed the trial court‘s decision in toto. at Cenizal‘s house located at 70 Panay Avenue. Several weeks thereafter. ARCEO. Petitioner sought reconsideration but it was denied. for P150. shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no . After due investigation.000. otherwise known as the "Bouncing Checks Law. However. (BP) 22. On March 14. [petitioner] obtained an additional loan of P50. 1992. respondent.. without any valid reason. [Cenizal] did not deposit the check immediately because [petitioner] promised [] that he would replace the check with cash. As a consequence. 2000 resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. [Cenizal] executed on January 20.000. Section 1 of BP 22 provides: SECTION 1. Petitioner further questions his conviction since the notice requirement was not complied with and he was given only three days to pay. liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. JR.00. 1991).3 After trial. 163255. Petitioner‘s contentions have no merit. 1991 or 120 days from the date thereof (August 4. CR No. Finally. [petitioner]. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Thereafter. 142641 July 17. 1991. [Cenizal] referred the matter to a lawyer who wrote a letter giving [petitioner] three days from receipt thereof to pay the amount of the check. this case for [v]iolation of [BP 22] was filed against [petitioner] on March 27. The check in question and the return slip were however lost by [Cenizal] as a result of a fire that occurred near his residence on September 16. When his patience ran out." The facts of the case as found by the trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals follow. 1991. He also contends that he should not be held liable for the dishonor of the check because it was presented beyond the 90-day period provided under the law. 19601 affirming the trial court‘s judgment finding petitioner Pacifico B. Bank of the Philippine Islands [(BPI)] Check No. 1999. ordered the bank to stop payment. Arceo. petitioner asserts that he had already paid his obligation to Cenizal.G. Aggrieved.00. which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer. 1999 decision1 and March 27.

and 3. or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon. subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. 1992. knowledge of the maker. the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who. the making. He never denied that the check was presented for payment to the drawee bank and was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.8 . of the Rules of Court. petitioner himself admited that he issued the check.5 The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and issuing a worthless check. The elements of the offense are: 1. not its content. According to current banking practice. Where the check is drawn by a corporation. drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value. for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank. In Wong v. the due execution and existence of the check were sufficiently established. the return slip and other pertinent documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City when he executed his complaint-affidavit during the preliminary investigation. Cenizal‘s presentment of the check to the drawee bank 120 days (four months) after its issue was still within the allowable period. Applicability of the Best Evidence Rule Petitioner‘s insistence on the presentation of the check in evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 is wrong. having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check. the rule applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. otherwise known as the best evidence rule. Court of Appeals. Moreover. the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.7 petitioner was charged for violating the first paragraph of BP 22. the check becomes stale and the drawer is discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay. The City Prosecutor found a prima facie case against petitioner for violation of BP 22 and filed the corresponding information based on the documents. Here.6 Hence. Although the check and the return slip were among the documents lost by Cenizal in a fire that occurred near his residence on September 16. 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 the check in full upon its presentment. company or entity. Thereafter. the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check. ordered the bank to stop payment. existence and loss of the check and the return slip in an affidavit of loss as well as in his testimony during the trial of the case. Section 3. 2.case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos. Petitioner was freed neither from the obligation to keep sufficient funds in his account nor from liability resulting from the dishonor of the check. However. Thus. drawer. the reasonable period within which to present a check to the drawee bank is six months. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time from the date indicated in the check. without any valid cause. Cenizal testified that he presented the originals of the check.4 the Court ruled that the 90-day period provided in the law is not an element of the offense. he was nevertheless able to adequately establish the due execution. Petitioner anchors his argument on Rule 130. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution. Presence of the Elements of the Offense Based on the allegations in the information.

Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the period of five banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor within which to pay the amount of the check.10 Instead. petitioner‘s claim of payment was nothing more than a mere allegation. He then issued a check in favor of Cenizal. He made this request and assurance seven times but repeatedly failed to make good on his promises despite the repeated accommodation granted him by the payee.All these elements are present in this case. because he still remained unpaid after five days of his receipt of dishonor. the check remained in the possession of the payee who demanded the satisfaction of petitioner‘s obligation when the check became due as well as when the check was dishonored by the drawee bank. Cenizal‘s counsel had informed petitioner in writing of the check‘s dishonor and demanded payment of the value of the check. Cenizal charged him in violation of BP 22. contrary to petitioner‘s claim. Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court. Cenizal presented the check within four months of issuance. There was sufficient evidence on record that petitioner knew of the insufficiency of his funds in the drawee bank at the time of the issuance of the check. 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. He presented no proof to support it. are not to be disturbed. that he only given three days to pay and not five banking days as per law. on maturity date. The lower court found him guilty. he requested the payee not to encash it with the promise that he would replace it with cash.000 in consideration of a loan which he obtained from Cenizal. . 1999 decision and March 27. Arceo cannot claim that he was not given five banking days (the rule is three). The SC held that the life of a check is six months. his claim that he paid the obligation was only mere allegation as there was no proof of his payment and that the check still remained on Arceo. In fact. 1991 in the amount of P150. Cenizal went to Arceo's house to inform him of the dishonor but he was not around anymore so he went to Arceo's lawyer and gave him a letter giving him three days to pay the check. the trial court found that the amount due thereon remained unpaid even after five banking days from his receipt of the notice of dishonor. it was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. petitioner should have redeemed or taken the check back in the ordinary course of business. ISSUE: Whether Arceo is guilty. the petition is hereby DENIED. this was why. petitioner still failed to pay the amount of the check. If indeed there was payment.11 WHEREFORE. and that he paid his obligation. These findings (due notice to petitioner and nonpayment of the obligation) were confirmed by the appellate court. Moreover. RULING: The SC denied Arceo's petition. The April 28. Despite receipt of the notice of dishonor and demand for payment.R. This Court has no reason to rule otherwise. Notice of Dishonor to PetitionerAnd Payment of the Obligation The trial court found that. he encashed the check but was dishonored due to insufficient funds. After not replacing the check.9 While petitioner may have been given only three days to pay the value of the check. This negated his claim that he had already paid Cenizal and should therefore be relieved of any liability. The 90-day period in the law is not an element of the offense. 163255 postdated August 4. CR No. When Arceo failed. Both the trial and appellate courts found that petitioner issued BPI check no. Arceo contends that he should not be held liable because it was presented beyond the 90-day period provided under the law. Lastly. Pacifico Arceo obtained a loan from Josefino Cenizal.Costs against petitioner. When the check was deposited. Cenizal. 19601 are AFFIRMED. in which he promised verbally seven times that he would replace it with cash. when affirmed by the appellate court.

1991 December 15. 139292. 161181 TRB – No.00 6. 1991 October 30. 1991 December 15. 1991 September 30. vs.00 100. did then and there willfully. Criminal Case No. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court." Petitioner was likewise ―ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of P573. 182085 No. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1991 September 15. to ask for financial assistance. 2000] JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG. Garcia. and the amounts of the checks hereunder itemized "Check Number TRB – No.R. 182082 No. which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason `ACCOUNT CLOSED' and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor. Failing to receive any payment for the value of the dishonored checks.00. 92-4465 was lodged against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Makati.. 1991 August 30. Metro Manila.000. 1991 October 15. the above-named accused. It would appear that petitioner approached complainant Ignacio Garcia. 161177 No. petitioner issued and delivered to the complainant 18 postdated checks for the repayment of the loan.00 11.00 9. similarly worded as in Criminal Case No. 182084 No.700.00 100. 182079 No. 139292. petitioner.800. When the checks were. NO. draw and issue to complainant Ignacio H. December 5.00 12. 182080 No. "said accused well knowing that at the time of issue thereof. in time.000.R. on eighteen (18) counts.000.00 9. 92-4465 except as to the dates.") Blg.000.R.00 3. 1991 September 18.000. 1991 December 30. 182087 No.00 10. On 08 May 1992. The Information read: "That on or about the 24th day of June. 1991. 92-4466 to No. 18497).00.000. she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such check upon its presentment. "CONTRARY TO LAW. unlawfully and feloniously make out. 1991 November 15. 182088 Dated/Postdated July 18.000.000. 1991 November 30.00 6. 182081 No. 1991 July 24.800. In exchange. of having violated Batas Pambansa ("B.00 6. inclusive. 1991 July 30.000. when appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G. the number.000.00 . to apply on account or for value the dated check/described below: "Check No.‖ The complainant demanded payment allegedly by calling up petitioner at her office. the accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking days after receiving notice. 22 (Anti-Bouncing Check Law). and sentenced to "suffer the penalty of One (1) Year imprisonment for each count (eighteen [18] counts). Garcia accommodated petitioner and gave the latter a loan in the sum of P573. 182074 No. deposited. 1991 : Ignacio H. December 5. 92-4482.00 6. 182086 No.300. an Assistant Vice President of METROBANK. 182078 No. G. Philippines.[G. No.‖[1] The judgment. respondents. 1991 Amount P6. 149906 No.400. in the Municipality of Makati. Garcia. Branch 63. the complainant referred the matter to his lawyer who supposedly wrote petitioner a letter of demand but that the latter ignored the demand. 161183 No.00 6. Jr. Drawn Against In the Amount of Dated/Postdated Payable to : : : : 149900 Traders Royal Bank P50. CR No. 2000 Petitioner was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati.000. was affirmed in toto by the appellate court.000.00 29."[2] Subsequent Informations.P.00 June 24.500. 1991 September 18. the instruments were all dishonored by the drawee bank for this reason: ―Account closed. Jr. docketed Criminal Cases No.

despite failure of the prosecution to formally offer the same. 1991 December 30. Reconsideration was also denied in the resolution. as heretofore stated. rules of evidence. That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank. or attached thereto."[4] The pertinent provisions of B. premised on the absence of a demand letter and that the checks were not issued as payment but as evidence of indebtedness of petitioner or as collaterals of the loans obtained by petitioner. with the reason therefor as aforesaid. the instant petition where petitioner raised the following issues for resolution by the Court "1. or attached thereto. knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. ordered the bank to stop payment. printed or stamped in plain language thereon. was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its decision of 15 February 1999. having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in considering the alleged written demand letter.00"[3] were also filed against petitioner. and the due presentment to the drawee . petitioner filed a demurrer to the evidence. 3. company or entity. The decision. of the appellate court. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer. – It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check. through counsel. when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. "SEC. the reason for drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. petitioner. Blg. Opposed by the prosecution. "SEC. The cases were later consolidated and jointly tried following the "not guilty" plea of petitioner when arraigned on 02 November 1992. Blg. the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check.000. 22. the demurrer was denied by the trial court. – Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value.P. On 07 September 1993. Duty of drawee. 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. (and) "3. 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. for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank." provide: "SECTION 1. on the ground that a written notice of dishonor is not necessary in a prosecution for violation of B. with leave of court.P. Checks without sufficient funds. Hence. 22.000. – The making. In all prosecutions under this Act. without any valid reason. the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act. such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. Relying solely then on the evidence submitted by the prosecution. when refusing to pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment. drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank. 182089 No. Whether or not an alleged verbal demand to pay sufficient to convict herein petitioner for the crime of violation of B. contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Lao vs. to cause to be written. Court of Appeals. or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. the lower court rendered judgment convicting petitioner. In the hearing of 17 February 1994.No. Blg. 22 "Bouncing Checks Law. shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand pesos. 182090 December 30. 274 SCRA 572. waived her right to present evidence in her defense.P.00 100. "2. shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon. 1991 100. 2. "Where the check is drawn by a corporation. "The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check. dated 09 July 1999. shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said check.

drawer or issuer of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the drawee bank of the check issued if the dishonored check is presented within 90 days from the date of the check and the maker or drawer fails to pay thereon or to make arrangement with the drawee bank for that purpose. Petitioner has a right to demand – and the basic postulates of fairness require – that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.. 89 SCRA 440. stamped or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.‘ This was also compared `to certain laws allowing illegal possessors of firearms a certain period of time to surrender the illegally possessed firearms to the Government.00. appellant had knowledge that her checks were dishonored by the bank when complainant Garcia made several oral demands upon her to pay the value of the checks in the amount of P573. within five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. In the case of People vs. complaining witness further testified that his lawyer made a written demand upon appellant but the latter ignored said demand (tsn. without incurring any criminal liability. Moreover. when the maker. 305). however. 171 Phil. the full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five banking days from notice of dishonor is a `complete defense. 13-14). The appellate court said: "The maker's knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of his check (People vs.[8] this Court explained: ―x x x. and that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written. Accordingly. 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 the check in full upon its presentment. there must also be a showing that. hence. Section 2 of B. ordered the bank to stop payment. drawer. In this connection. 1993.P. 22.[7] The presumption does not hold. the Court of Appeals predicated the conviction of petitioner on the supposed fact that petitioner was informed of the dishonor of the checks through verbal notice when the complainant had called her up by telephone informing her of the dishonor of the checks and demanding payment therefor. the Supreme court ruled: . ―It has been observed that the State. 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.‘ The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. under this statute. drawer or issuer of the check pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangement for payment in full by the drawee bank of such checkwithin 5 banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee bank. without any valid cause. making and issuing a bum check.[6] There is deemed to be a prima facie evidence of knowledge on the part of the maker. 22 clearly provides that this presumption arises not from the mere fact of drawing. pp. Laggui. "In the instant case. In Lao vs. and if he opts to perform it the action is abated. such maker or drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of such check.‖[9] In the assailed decision.) The law enumerates the elements of the crime to be (1) the making. The statute has created the prima facie presumption evidently because "knowledge" which involves a state of mind would be difficult to establish. appellant failed and refused to pay the same. Garcia.‘ In this light. if such be the fact.for payment and the dishonor thereof."[5] (Underscoring supplied. the same is admissible evidence. appellant waived her right to present evidence or rebut complainant's testimony that he made oral demands upon appellant to make good the dishonored checks and his lawyer wrote her a demand letter. appellant did not object to the admission of the complainant's testimony with regard to the written demand by moving that it be stricken off the record for being hearsay. actually offers the violator `a compromise by allowing him to perform some act which operates to preempt the criminal action. the drawee shall state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check.800. Blg. Court of Appeals. The law does not require a written notice of the dishonor of such check. Despite said demands. Blg. "Likewise. (2) the knowledge of the maker.P. drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value. May 27. "Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment.

indeed.00"[17] or the sum of P563. the decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED.000.000.[13] Evidently. the sum of which.[15] Without the written notice of dishonor. This amount. 1991 September 18.00 100. 182079 No.00 with 12% legal interest. with 12% legal interest per annum from the filing of the information until the finality of this decision.300. 1991 July 18. 182074 No. there can be no basis.900. 1991 November 30. 1991 December 30. Blg. to witCheck Number TRB – No.800. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing. "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank.00 11. 182086 No. 182089 No. the appellate court did not give weight and credence to the assertion that a demand letter was sent by a counsel of the complainant because of the failure of the prosecution to formally offer it in evidence. shall be subject thereafter to 12%. however.00 6. This is fatal to defendant-appellant's present posture since the failure to object to hearsay evidence constitutes a waiver of the x x right to crossexamine the actual witness to the occurrence. 182084 No. 182087 No. 149900 TRB – No. 1991 July 30. 182078 No. for establishing the presence of "actual knowledge of insufficiency of funds.500. i.00 3.000.00 6. 182081 No.00 12.700. but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.00 6. inclusive of the interest. it has clearly proved petitioner's failure to pay a just debt owing to the private complainant.00 6.00 6.[12] The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. 182090 Dated/Postdated June 24. rendering the evidence admissible.000.000. 1991 September 18. 1991 October 30. 182085 No.00 100.00 29.400."[11] a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. 1991 August 30. 161181 TRB – No.00 9. 149906 No. 182088 No. 1991 December 15. considering what has heretofore been said. however. Costs against petitioner.00 6.P.000. The Court agrees.'"[10] Petitioner counters that the lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal. 1991 November 15. 1991 September 30. 1991 December 30. 1991 Amount P50.000. interest until the due amount is paid.e. 1991 October 15. While. WHEREFORE. Ceballos . 1991 December 15.800. The total face value of the dishonored checks. 1991 December 30. per annum. however. has yet to be made good by petitioner.00 100. taken in conjunction.00 1. per annum. 1991 September 15. People Vs. 161171 No. from the filing of the informations until the finality of this decision. 182080 No. Petitioner Josephine Domagsang is acquitted of the crime charged on reasonable doubt.. 161183 No.000. must be forthwith settled. The Court is convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored. Section 2 of B. to pay to the offended party the face value of the checks in the total amount of P563. Courts are bound to consider as part of the evidence only those which are formally offered[14]for judges must base their findings strictly on the evidence submitted by the parties at the trial.00 10.000."`x x x (It) must be noted that neither the defendant nor his counsel below objected to the admission of the testimonies which are now being assailed as hearsay.00 100. with Section 3 of the law.000. 1991 July 24.000. 182082 No.000. She is ordered. SO ORDERED. such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal."[16] The prosecution may have failed to sufficiently establish a case to warrant conviction.000.

FACTS: -Defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245 when a trap gun mounted in his garage discharged a bullet and hit a teenager in the face. Discussion. was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon. No. -He further contended that he had the right to do indirectly what he could have done directly. one of the boys was shot in the face by the gun. a deadly mechanical device is unacceptable. while a person who is present may use deadly force under certain circumstances. who was trying to break into the Defendant‘s premises. -Defendant contended that the teen was a burglar and he was lawfully defending his property. age 15 and 16. 3d 470 SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed his conviction by the Superior Court of Marin County (California) for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Is a person entitled to use deadly force to prevent a burglary that did not threaten death or serious bodily harm? Held. Mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion. OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon holding that the character and manner of the alleged burglary did not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm and therefore there was no cause for the use of deadly force. when the victim. Facts. two boys. The Defendant lived alone in a home. the Defendant mounted a . Therefore. Upon opening the garage door. attempted to break into the Defendant‘s home. A person is not justified in using deadly force to protect his property from burglary. The Defendant. People v. Don Ceballos (Defendant). The pistol was aimed at the center of the garage door and was designed to discharge if the door was opened several inches. as here. On the day in question. HOLDING: The appellate court affirmed his conviction holding that the character and manner of the alleged burglary did not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm and therefore there was no cause for the use of deadly force. ANALYSIS: -Deadly force could not be used solely for the protection of property. especially where. . the burglars were unarmed. Ceballos 12 Cal. After some tools had been stolen from his home. was hit by a trap gun mounted in the defendant‘s garage. Mechanical devices may never be used for the protection of property. Penal Code § 245.Brief Fact Summary.22 caliber pistol in his garage. Issue. -The court discouraged defendant's use of a trap gun to protect his property saying that deadly mechanical devices are without mercy and discretion.

401-M-98 and Criminal Case No. Estrella. G.‖ Except for the date. When she entered. 11-year old MARY JOY was left in their house with the accused. arrive. Before the accused left. Mary Joy and Benito. The accused called Mary Joy into the bedroom. accused-appellant. She could not shout as the accused threatened to kill her if she did. She desperately tried to extricate herself from underneath the accused but could not resist his lecherous advances as his heavy weight pinned her on the bed. After agonizing for several years over the unceasing sexual assaults. Melita married accused IRENEO ALCOREZA. he warned her that if anyone should ask. Benito accompanied Mary Joy to the police station where they executed their statement. hurriedly took off his clothes and kissed her. After her husband died. Mary Joy again found herself alone in the house with the accused. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the above-named accused did then and there wilfully. unlawfully and feloniously. she should never reveal what he did to her. 1997. Appalled. on September 27. his penis touched her organ but he failed to insert it as he heard her 8-year old brother. When the accused mounted her. He then removed his shorts. Nos. IRENEO MARCELINO. Maria. Mary Joy sought the assistance of her sister Fernanda and revealed to her the sexual ordeal she suffered in the hands of the accused. the above-named accused did then and there wilfully. Sr. The accused immediately pushed her away and put on his clothing. 2001 ALCOREZA y Barely in their teens. province of Bulacan. the girls finally found the courage to reveal their sad fate to their mother who merely turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. They bore their sufferings in silence. Estrella Manila. in the municipality of Sta. 402-M-98) similarly charged the accused. the accused approached her and took off her shorts and panty. September 29. Benito proceeded to Mary Joy‘s house to confront the accused but the latter was nowhere to be found.[3] Barely a week later. ―Contrary to law. She wriggled in pain. province of Bulacan. intimidation and with lewd design have carnal knowledge of his stepdaughter. He pushed Mary Joy on the bed and mounted her.R. vs. after the accused left their house. at about noon.the man who was supposed to secure their future and protect them from harm. Elena. accused wasted no time and forcibly took off her shorts and panty. intimidation and with lewd design have carnal knowledge of his stepdaughter. while her mother was in the poblacionworking as a manicurist. Benito. unlawfully and feloniously.‖ The prosecution evidence disclose that MELITA GONZALES y ALCOREZA bore five children in her marriage to Benito Manila. namely: Fernanda. by means of force. On September 21. He laid her down. Her siblings were then in church. After satisfying his lust. The accused called Mary Joy into the bedroom. 388-M-98.[1] thus: ―That on or about the 28th day of October. 11 years of age. Mary Joy could only cry while putting back her undies. still saw Mary Joy naked on the bed. they were referred to the provincial hospital for physical .PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. MARY JOY MANILA and ESTRELLA MANILA experienced repeated sexual molestation in the hands of their stepfather --. 1997. Mary Joy Manila. He was charged in an Information in Criminal Case No. in the municipality of Sta.. the two (2) Informations[2] for statutory rape (Criminal Case No. Mary Joy felt a mucus-like. Benito. Philippines. 1997. 135452-53. at about 7:00 a. Jr. against her will and without her consent. against her will and without her consent. plaintiff-appellee. ―Contrary to law. When she entered the room. thus: ―That on or about the 21st (and 27th) day of September.m. Her siblings attended a funeral. by means of force. however. 1997. Maria. 1996. slippery substance come out of the accused‘s organ. 1997. Fernanda then accompanied Mary Joy to the house of their grandfather BENITO GONZALES. October 5. September 28. All she could do was cry. Accused IRENEO ALCOREZA y MARCELINO was charged with rape by his 14-year old stepdaughter ESTRELLA MANILA and two (2) counts of statutory rape by his 11-year old stepdaughterMARY JOY MANILA. 14 years of age.. The following day. the accused removed his penis. Benito immediately ran away. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. He kissed and embraced her and inserted his penis into her organ. The next day.

Instead. Suddenly. Benito then assisted Mary Joy in filing his complaint with the MTC of Sta. He is. the court a quo rendered judgment finding the accused guilty only of attempted rape in the case of Estrella and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. She did not intervene and left the matter to her parents. With the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. However. Maria police station.[6] The accused. Fear swept her body. Estrella turned to her grandfather Benito for help as Melita did not make good her threat to report the rape incidents to the police authorities. He alleged that Benito was opposed to his marriage to Melita as he was poor. Bulacan. MANUEL AVES. to the stand. He theorized that Benito Gonzales. Estrella also learned that the accused was also raping her younger sister Mary Joy. Her story of sexual abuse: On October 28. Mary Joy did not approach her or ask her help in filing the case. 388-M-98. He kicked Estrella and warned her not to make a noise. Neither did she try to dissuade her daughters from filing the cases. She could not think of any reason that could have motivated her daughters to file the rape charges against the accused. Melita refused to believe her. Mary Joy had a healed laceration and abrasion on her hymen while Estrella‘s hymen sustained 4 healed lacerations. however. the accused hurriedly stood up.m. (then 8 yrs. Benito learned that the accused had also been molesting his other granddaughter ESTRELLA MANILA since the latter was eight years old. a 49-year old jeepney dispatcher. her mother. the Court resolves that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused Ireneo Alcoreza Y Marcelino for consummated Rape. 1996. She did not talk to her husband or do anything to help him after he was incarcerated. Maria. Jr. The accused got mad and they quarrelled. old).[7] He claimed that the alleged victims could have filed the cases against him as he would spank them once in a while.[9] After the trial. This angered the accused.[4] When they returned to the house. 1997. She disclaimed knowledge about the sexual assaults on Mary Joy as she was not in their house on those two dates. at about 10:00 p.[5] Benito assisted Estrella in filing a complaint for rape and accompanied her to the hospital for medical examination. Estrella sensed the presence of the accused in their room when he laid down beside her. could have also plotted against him and used his granddaughters to file trump up charges of rape.. She was shocked by the revelation. the accused was found guilty and sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death. the accused proferred an alibi. . Estrella confided to her that the accused had been molesting her. In the heat of their argument. MELITA GONZALES y ALCOREZA. She tried to tinker with the door to call the attention of Melita. said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal/medium. However. They kept their bedroom door open as the accused forbade them to lock it. in Criminal Case No. found Guilty of Attempted Rape. Elena (15 years old) and Mary Joy. Melita‘s father. while Estrella and her siblings were sleeping in the other room. at about 10:00 p. Sensing that he might be caught.examination. She came to know about Mary Joy‘s rape charges only after the complaint was filed in court. Melita threatened to sue the accused. It could also be that Benito harbored ill-feelings against him when he ceased to give him financial support. As to the rape charge of Mary Joy. DR. simply denied the rape charges of Estrella. He claimed that on October 28. he was sleeping with his wife in their house. he was out of the house collecting funeral contributions from the jeepney drivers to be given to one of their members. The dispositive portion reads:[10] ―WHEREFORE. Her daughters then sought the assistance of her father Benito in filing the complaint.. The accused then repeatedly tried to remove her shirt and lower her shorts but she resisted. Melita directed Estrella not to tell her siblings about her ordeal. As per the letter-request of the Sta. all premises considered. She was then an arm‘s length away from her siblings who were also sleeping. Nothing unusual happened that night. conducted a gynecological examination of Mary Joy and Estrella. His examination revealed that both Mary Joy and Estrella were in a non-virgin state. Melita then entered the bedroom and asked the accused what he was doing there. the medico-legal officer of the Bulacan Provincial Hospital.m. Estrella was sleeping in their bedroom together with her 3 siblings: Benito.[8] The defense presented the accused‘s wife. 1996. on the two counts of statutory rape filed by Mary Joy. When Estrella revealed to Melita that the accused had been molesting her since she was eight. He claimed that on September 21. The movement awakened Melita who was sleeping in the other room. who was sleeping in the next room.

Q. 401-M-98 AND 402-M-98 AND ATTEMPTED RAPE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. we find her recount of the sexual assault clear. I was alone with my stepfather. While you were alone together with your stepfather on that date and time in your house in Parada. do you remember your whereabouts? A. sir.000. especially that of a child. My stepfather. Q. On the charge of statutory rape committed on September 21. 1997. Indeed.00 for moral damages in each of the two cases. 388-M-98 DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO WARRANT CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. No. What was the unusual incident that happened? A. None. In both Criminal Cases Nos. Appellant also charges that her testimony regarding the rape incident on said date was sketchy as she merely declared that the accused ―tried to push inside my private part his penis. No. it is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony of a rape victim. 1997 rape incident is too flimsy and trivial to merit serious consideration. the said accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the offended party Mary Joy Manila in the sums of P50. Did you have companions in your house at that time? A. With costs against the accused. Were you not in school on that date? A. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY DESPITE THE ERRONEOUS ALLEGATION OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP IN THE INFORMATION. he forced me. as amended by Republic Act 7659 with the attendant circumstance that ―the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is x x x stepfather. sir. sir. 401-M-98 and 402-M-98.M. Q. SO ORDERED.Inasmuch as the civil aspect of this case is deemed to be instituted in this case. 401-M-98). In line with established jurisprudence. Q. he is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death by lethal injection. For having violated Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. between 7:00 and 8:00 A. It was a Saturday. sir. was there any unusual incident that happened? A. She cannot be expected to remember every minute detail of her ordeal. sir. We shall discuss the two issues jointly. Q.. Q.000. Q. brief and convincing. sir. By virtue hereof. Mary Joy declared that the accused forced her to lie down on the floor but changed her story on cross-examination and said she was made to lie down on the bed. 1997 (Criminal Case No. Going over the records. I was at home. sir. the accused is further directed to indemnify the complainant Estrella Manila in the amount of P25. Q. in both these cases. appellant contends that Mary Joy‘s testimony is far from credible. Yes. He called me and told me to undress. Can you tell us why your stepfather was there? Was he not working at that time? A. He points out that during her direct testimony. Thus: ”Q.‖[11] (emphasis supplied) On automatic appeal. x x x or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. sir. It had a ring of truth that can come only from the lips of an innocent child victim. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Mary Joy regarding the September 21. Who called you and told you to undress? A.00 as moral damages. How did your stepfather force you? .‖ We disagree. the Court resolves that the prosecution has successfully undertaken its burden to prove the guilt of accused Ireneo Alcoreza Y Marcelino beyond reasonable doubt. On September 21. And did you oblige? A.‖ the accused Ireneo Alcoreza Y Marcelino is hereby found guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape as charged. the appellant assigns the following errors: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF STATUTORY RAPE IN CRIMINAL CASES NO.

We thus find no reason to disturb the trial court‘s assessment of her credibility. Where were you at that time when your stepfather removed your shorts and panty? Inside the bedroom. sir. A. what did he do? He went on top of me and kissed me. The testimony of Melita and even the admission of the appellant . coupled with the medical findings. sir. A. A. Second. appellant‘s alibi that at the time of the incident he was out of the house collecting funeral contributions is vague. How long did your stepfather insert his private organ into yours? I don’t know. A. The Information alleged that the appellant raped his 11-year old stepdaughter Mary Joy. Due to his proximity. it failed to offer the marriage contract of the appellant and Melita which would establish that Mary Joy is the stepdaughter of the appellant. Clearly. How did the accused cease from abusing you that morning? He removed his penis. A. sir. he failed to mention what time he left the house that fateful day. Q. sir. However. Be that as it may. First. during his incarceration. A. he removed his clothings. Neither did she lift a finger to help her husband. sir. sir. Q. Did you have panty (sic) at that time? Yes. A. What were the apparel removed from you? My shorts and panty. What were you wearing that time? I was wearing shorts and t-shirt. Q. sir. It only made clear the fact that she did nothing to assist her daughters in vindicating their honor and she left the matter completely to her parents. A. Although the prosecution established that Mary Joy was the daughter of Melita. unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Q. How about bra? Only sando. sir. A. He was the one who removed my dress. A. A. The qualifying circumstance of minority of Mary Joy was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the presentation of her birth certificate.”[12] The above-quoted testimony. the accused can be convicted only of simple statutory rape and. Q. Q. After your stepfather removed your shorts and panty. he did not present any witness to corroborate his alleged whereabouts on said date. A. Q. Q. the penalty of death imposed against him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. sir. Q. Could it be an hour? No. Q. where were your other siblings? They went to church. A. sir. sir. sir. Q. even assuming the truth of his allegation. what did he do? He inserted his penis inside my private part. What did he do after inserting his penis into your private part? He was kissing me. sir. Will you please describe that thing that you felt which came from his private organ? At (sic) appeared like mucus and it is (sic) slippery (madulas). How about your stepfather. A. Q. You said that it was a Saturday. Q. Q. sir. A. sir. So your sando remained (sic) with you? Yes. A. What was he wearing at that time before he removed his clothes? He was wearing only shorts. sir. Did you feel anything coming out from his private organ? Yes. return to his house and perpetrate the sexual assault on Mary Joy. prove beyond doubt that the appellant was able to consummate the sexual assault of his hapless victim Mary Joy. In stark contrast. sir. Q. sir. Q. A.[13] Neither did the testimony of Melita help his cause. sir. Third. accordingly. In (sic) what moment did he remove his clothes? After undressing me. the relationship between the appellant and Mary Joy was not established with the same degree of proof. appellant himself admitted that he was a mere three kilometers away from his house. After your stepfather lie (sic) on top of your (sic). A.A. he could have easily left his collection chores. How about your mother? My siblings attended a funeral while my mother is in Poblacion. A. Q. it was not impossible for him to have been in the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. what was he wearing at that time? None. the appellant. Q. Q. sir.

as per the testimony of Estrella. he failed to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance. As the labias are required to be ―touched‖ by the penis. to convict appellant with qualified rape on the basis of the common-law relationship is to violate his right to be properly informed of the accusation against him. Thus. To be sure. sir. It made no mention of a common-law relationship between the appellant and Melita. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ and not merely stroked the external surface thereof for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. What did the accused do in (sic) his penis in trying (sic) to insert his penis into your private organ? A. just as the crime itself. Q. It must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt. You said that the accused failed to insert. what the Information alleged is that the appellant is the stepfather of Mary Joy.‖ Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and taking into account Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. a common-law relationship between the appellant and Melita was still proved and this should qualify the crime at bar. [15]Neither can it be argued that without the marriage contract. He was inserting his penis. Q. what did he do? A. Mary Joy’s account of what transpired on said date clearly reveals that the appellant failed to insert his penis in her organ. Q.. sir.regarding their marriage do not meet the required standard of proof. by the timely arrival of the victim‘s brother. 1997 against Mary Joy (Criminal Case No.”[16] The aforequoted testimony shows that the appellant failed to consummate the crime of rape as his penis merely touched Mary Joy‘s organ. It touched my private organ. we find that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of consummated rape. Q. As Estrella‘s account of the incident showed that there was no real and immediate threat to . Appellant contends that. the appellant only got as far as raising her shirt up to her abdomen for Estrella resisted his advances and caused Melita to awaken and enter the room. Q. However. stroking or grazing of organs. How did it happen that the accused failed to insert his penis in your private organs (sic)? A. No. Accordingly. they are presumed to be married. He laid me down.[17] the Court clarified that mere touching of the private organ of the victim should be understood ―as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the femal organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or pudendum. what did the accused do? A. Was he wearing anything at that time when he placed himself on top of you? A.[18] the appellant can only be convicted of attempted rape. 402-M-98). None. what did he do next? A. his penis merely touched Mary Joy‘s private organ. undressing and kissing his victim and lying on top of her. did he attempt to insert his penis in your private organ? A. He kissed me. hence the conclusion that touching the labia majora or minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. what did he do? A. thus: “Q. a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina. After he undress (sic) me. Relationship as a qualifying circumstance in rape must not only be alleged clearly. sir. i. As to the second count of statutory rape allegedly committed on September 27. He went on top of me. Because my brother arrived. the penalty to be imposed on him should be an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. which are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface. He commenced the commission of rape by removing his clothes. Campuhan. After undressing you. Did he succeed in inserting his penis in your private parts (sic)? A. or the mons pubis x x x. Hence. At what moment did he remove his clothings? A. x x x Thus. Q. After the accused had laid (sic) on top of you. touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact. Q.e. the appellant argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of attempted rape as the evidence failed to establish the elements of the crime. Q. After you were laid down by your stepfather. As to the rape charge of Estrella (Criminal Case No. In People vs. No. Q. After the accused laid on top of you. 388-M-98). to touch with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface. as the crime committed by the appellant is attempted rape.[14] The Court cannot rely on the disputable presumption that when a man and a woman live together as husband and wife.

Moreover. he could not be found guilty of attempted rape. he kept his clothes on during the entire time that he was in the bedroom. In fact.00) as exemplary damages.000. 388-M-98. appellant‘s theory that Mary Joy. We also find it hard to believe that Benito will utilize his grandchildren to hit back at the appellant for ceasing to give him financial support. the appellant is found guilty of simple statutory rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the complainant Mary Joy Manila the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50. . at whatever stage. No grandfather would expose his grandchildren to shame and humiliation were it not for the purpose of vindicating the wrong committed on them.000. and to indemnify the victim Estrella Manila in the amount of five thousand pesos (P5. are insufficient to prove that the appellant intended to have carnal knowledge of Estrella. These acts. Benito merely intervened in filing the rape charges as his granddaughters ran to him for assistance.000.00) as moral damages. was committed. In Criminal Case No.her womanhood up to the time the appellant desisted from consummating the rape. and to indemnify Mary Joy Manila the sum of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25. as explained by Benito on rebuttal. the appellant is found guilty of attempted rape. He is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum.00) by way of indemnity. Estrella and Benito were motivated by ill-feelings in filing the rape charges against him does not merit serious consideration. the impugned Decision is modified as follows: In Criminal Case No. as in this case.00) as moral damages and twenty-five thousand pesos (P25.”[19] From the circumstances thus proved. the victims were children who had not been exposed to worldly ways. He also tried to remove her shirt but he was able to lift it only up to her abdomen as she would lower it again. The appellant touched her private parts.[20] especially where. He is hereby sentenced with the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum. Parental punishment is never a valid reason for a victim to cry rape against the man in the house who she looks up to as her father. On a last note. The appellant did not earn enough. 401-M-98.00) as exemplary damages. as described by Estrella. and In Criminal Case No. the appellant surreptitiously entered her bedroom and laid down beside her.000.[21] IN VIEW WHEREOF. All that the appellant was able to do was touch her “private parts. the appellant can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness. He did not lie on top of Estrella or even made the motion of removing his underwear. It was Benito who even assisted the appellant in looking for jeepneys he could drive for his livelihood.000. We agree. He repeatedly tried to pull down her shorts and panty but he failed as she resisted.00) as moral damages and two thousand pesos (P2. appellant IRENEO ALCOREZA y MARCELINO is adjudged guilty of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. His claim that the filing of the cases is an act of vengeance on the part of the children as he used to spank them once in a while is not persuasive. SO ORDERED. the appellant was so poor he could not have been in a position to provide him financial assistance.000. A careful scrutiny of the records reveals that the prosecution evidence failed to prove that rape. the additional sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50. As recounted by Estrella. 402-M-98. Neither does it appear that he tried to insert his finger or any object into the genital or anal orifice of Estrella.

FLORENTINO ENGUERO. after Florentino Enguero had previously provided himself with a pistol. 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal. At the instance of Eugenio.R. P. From the river they went to the house of Enguero where they took their supper. they shall not suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency on account of the nature of the principal penalty. K and K-1. Exh. They took him along with them too. and the pair of shoes. The one bottle of Siutong wine. 1952 the four defendants met at Yabo River. The towel. Cal. the Jacket. D. the blue pant. Nos. They appealed. They made the four tied men sit on the ground in front of the store guarded by Narvarte who had the bolo in his hand. J. Exh. Nazario Narvarte and Dionisio Bueno were charged with the crime of robbery in band in three separate informations and after a joint trial the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur found them guilty as charged and sentenced them as follows: (a) In Criminal Case No. Manuel Bilog for appellants. 1957 G. Jose Tariman. The gray skin suit marked Exhs. The Pistol. is already confiscated. Camarines Sur. Q. G. Lupi. Exh. As no question of fact is raised. and its scabbard Exh. shall be returned to Cresenciano Magistrado. Florentino Enguero is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty which shall not be less than 8 years and 21 days of prison mayor nor more than 14 years. shall be returned to Nazario Narvarte. Pointing his pistol at him. they passed at the house of Teodulo Banta where Enguero ordered him and his brother-in-law. O. Exh. 45. M. Francisco Bugagao. and all of them to indemnify Anatolia Bragais in the amount of P3 and to pay the cost. and to pay the cost. Florentino Enguero is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty which shall not be less than 8 years and 21 days of prisons mayor nor more than 14 years. H. by decision of this court in Criminal Case No. the pair of tennis shoes Exh. the only error assigned to have been committed by the trial court being the conviction and sentence of the defendants for three robberies in band instead of only one. JOSE TARIMAN. shall be refused to Florentino Enguero. (b) In Criminal Case No.: Florentino Enguero. plaintiff-appellee. Enguero had his hands tied behind his back and ordered him to go with them. 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal. I to Anatolia Bragais.80 respectively. to Juan Margarte. and the flashlight. Exh. the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this Court. Exh. 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal. Exh. 2729. Pointing his . L. L-8922-24 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. at the point of his pistol to guide them to the barrio. Exh. B. Nazario Narvarte and Dionisio Bueno each to suffer an indeterminate penalty which shall not be less than 4 years and 2 months of prison correccional nor more than 8 years and 21 days of prison mayor. 2716. defendant-appellants. W/SM-394701. Nazario Narvarte and Dionisio Bueno each to suffer an indeterminate penalty which shall not be less than 4 years and 2 months of prison correccional nor more than 8 years and 21 days of prison mayor. Exh. black and white. and all of them to indemnify Florentina Ogarte de Binaday in the amount of P36. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for appellee. and the hammer. but before reaching the barrio itself. They continued on their way and later they met again one Ernesto Belgado whose hands they also tied behind his back. C. They arrived in the barrio at about 8:00 in the evening and went directly to the store of Cresenciano Magistrado which adjoins his house. are confiscated. After eating Enguero issued to Nazario Narvarte a bolo. PADILLA. Jose Tariman. 2714. NAZARIO NARVARTE and DIONISIO BUENO. Nazario Narvarte and Dionisio Bueno each to suffer an indeterminate penalty which shall not be less than 4 years and 2 months of prison correccional or more than 8 years and 21 days of prison mayor. Jose Tariman withdrew his appeal.88 and P17. and on the way they met Pedro Bragais by the stairs of his house. Lupi. a piece of hardwood. The trial court found the following: At about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of July 9. and (c) In Criminal Case No.75 and to pay the costs. H. C-1. vs. The balisong. Florentino Enguero is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty which shall not be less than 8 years and 21 days of prison mayor nor more than 14 years. N. Exh. 2715.February 28. With the two as guides. Thus armed sagan. while Enguero entered the store. E. and the bolo. the skin pant Exh. while he himself had the pistol. and the birthstone ring. the pair of red leather shoes. their hands were tied behind their backs. the group proceeded towards the barrio. to Jose Tariman a balisong and to Dionisio Bueno. Exh. the raincoat. In the three cases. and all of them to indemnity Creseciano Magistrado and Juan Margarte in the amount of P38. Jose Tariman. Jose Tariman. Exh.

After their arrest Enguero and Tariman were investigated by Capt.80. together with those whom they forced to follow them. The time was about 11:00 o'clock in the evening.20. Exhibit S is the sworn statement of Enguero. In there exhibits the four accused have . R). 2 dozen bottles of Hoctung wine worth P8. two pairs of gold earrings worth P10. one dozen bottles of wine. worth P3. They then left the house after cautioning Florentina not to report them to the authorities. Banta and Bugagao. Magistrado ordered his wife who was in the house to give their money to them. She replied that she had none. Anatolia Bragais. Enguero took and carried away from her house a pair of shoes worth P18. Dominador M. After a few days the defendants were apprehended pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Justice of the Peace Court of Lupi on July 16. and to make her reveal it. Fearing for his life. one pair of sock worth P2. Enguero demanded money from him. After having committed the acts narrated above and when it was about 10:00 in the evening. Bragais. R). Enguero demanded money from her. Exh. wife of Ireneo Binday. Carulla opened a trunk and took P3 from it. together with Magistrado. a blue pant worth P12 and a hammer. The value of the goods and money taken makes a total of P36. one dozen Sardine at P4.40 besides money amounting to P4. the barrio school teacher who was lodging with the Magistrados. Belgado. Justice of the Peace of Lupi. he threatened to cut her throat with the sharp instrument. all of whom they forced to go with them. However. together with Magistrado. one cake of soap worth P. 1952. Tariman. Pointing at the neck of Anatolia a sharp instrument. Then they left the house. The investigation was made in question and answer from and reduced to writing which later was subscribed and sworn to by the defendants before Mamerto M. one dozen cartons Purico. Upon arriving Enguero and Carulla went up the house while.80.30.33. but the case against him was later dismissed upon motion of the Provincial Fiscal) went up the house. The goods consisted of one dozen bottles of Coca-Cola worth P1. after which they untied the hands of Margate.80. the four defendants. Exhibit T of Bueno. These articles including the P3 in cash have a total value of P45. went to the nearby house of Victorino Togno about 14 meters from the house of Magistrado (See Exh. From this last house the four defendants. Enguero and Carulla then asked Florentina to provide them with empty sacks which she did. but she begged for pity and said they could get instead the goods in her store.50. After warning them out to report to the authorities. located about 54 meters from the house of Cresenciano Magistrado (See sketch. She told him that she had no other money.80 from Magistrado's wife. and her son were in the house. a jacket worth P12.20. Then they looked for some one who could carry goods for them. and one package of Matches worth P0. 14 tins of tinapa worth P4. in one of the rooms of the house. one dozen bottles Pomade worth P4. Upon arriving they gathered the other stolen goods and put them inside the sacks. Upon arriving Florentino Enguero. one birthstone ring worth P70. Tariman and Narvarte gathered the goods and put them inside the sacks. Margate whose hands were still tied behind his back and the four other tied individuals.20. Jaope Nobleza of the same company. After committing the acts mentioned in the next proceeding paragraph. proceeded to the house of Florentina Ogarte. one pair of tennis shoes worth P5. returned to the store of Magistrado. And upon finding Juan Margarte. all with total value of P87. He threw the goods to his co-defendants on the ground through the door. Not having found anything. and Narvarte and Bueno by First Lieut. one dozen cans of Sardines worth P7. Margate and the four tied men whom they again forced to go with them.pistol at Magistrado. who had the open balisong in his hand brought him down to the ground and there tied his hands behind his back. 15 tins of Salmon worth P11. Jose Tariman and Clementino Carulla (this last one was originally accused with the four defendants. After drinking Enguero took the goods displayed in the store and passed them on to Bueno and Tariman who piled them on the ground in front of the store. Narvate and Bueno again stood as guard on the ground.75. Gutierrez of the 1st Camarines Sur PC Company. Bueno and Tariman then went up the house and took P4. the four accused and Carulla. They found Glicerio Buensalida and Absalon Medrano. wife of Victorino Togno.80 taken from the wife of Magistrado amounts to P39. Bueno. a medal and a crucifix worth P10. while their abovenamed companions remained on the ground guarded by Bueno and Narvarte. but Enguero nonetheless searched her waistline.15.20. Hoctung. The total value of these articles together with the sum of P4. Enguero.80. Bueno. Exhibit U of Narvarte and Exhibit V of Tariman. Enguero left her and took from the store 2 dozen cans of Sardine worth P8. Upon seeing a birthstone ring in Margarte's finger. After a while Enguero and Tariman went down to the store and told Magistrado to give them wine which they drank.13. The defendants also carried away the following articles belonging to Juan Margate. the four defendants left and went away with the stolen goods carried by Buensalida and Medrano. Enguero asked Anatolia where she kept the rest of her money. Bueno forcibly took it away from him. valued at P3. he began to hold her private parts. Enguero pointed his pistol at Florentina and ordered her to produce her money and jewels. Bonot.

admitted and confessed among other statements. Exhibit T 1 pair shoes. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Following the lead in the written confessions Sgt. 437. light green. Obviously. Exhibit F. The crime committed is robbery in band punished in articles 294. each and everyone of them signed Exhibit J below the articles recovered respectively from them (Exhibits J-1. as minimum. . was recovered from Jose Tariman. 1 pant skin (blue). amending further article 295 of the Revised Penal Code. prepared by Sgt. Exhibit E. As evidence of this fact. as maximum. 45 W/SN-394701 with one magazine and one ammunition used during the robbery. in connection with article 295 of the same Code. Exhibit G. birthstone. Narvaez. The contention is without merit. In the case cited by counsel the defendant entered the yard of a house where he found two fighting this case. as amended by Republic Act No. which is prison mayor in its medium period. One pair of leather shoes (Red). The above articles are listed in an inventory. Exhibit M 1 flashlight used during the robbery. pointing to the investigators the whereabouts of some of the stolen articles. after committing the first crime of robbery in band the appellants went to another house where they committed the second and after committing it they proceeded to another house where they committed the third. rubber.. or 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. From Nazario Narvarte. 18. Exhibit O 1 pant skin (Ceniza). Exhibit Q 1 hammer (Steel) Exhibit I. gray. Modified as to the penalty to be imposed upon each of the three appellants. the rule in the case cited cannot be invoked and applied to the present. Exhibit J. or from 3 years and 1 day to 10 years. Exhibit N 1 Pistol. 1952 and recovered from them some of the goods and arms used during the robberies. J-3 and J-4). Exhibit B 1 pair of Tennis shoes (Elpo). with prison correccional in its maximum period to prison mayor in its medium period. de Leon. skin. the penalty to be imposed is the maximum period of the proper penalty. Exhibit H 1 jacket. Counsel de oficio argues that the appellants are guilty of one crime only citing in support of his contention the case of People vs. J-2. black and white. in which all the four defendants certified that the goods were taken from their custody. and 8 years and 1 day ofprison mayor. 373. the penalty to be imposed upon each of the appellants is the next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense. From Dionisio Bueno. Exhibit L 1 Knife (balisong) used during the robbery. of theRevised Penal Code. used during the robbery. Cal. Fernando Narvaes took the defendants to their respective houses on July 22. in each of the three crimes committed. skin. as amended by Republic Act No. the following were recovered: 1 towel (white). paragraph 5. their respective participation in the three different robberies. and the accessories of the law. the following were recovered: 1 ring. 373. Exhibit D 1 raincoat. The second paragraph of article 295 of the Revised Penal Code which impose the penalty next higher in degree upon the leader of the band has been left out by Republic Act No. with proportionate costs in each case against the appellants. From Florentino Enguero the following were recovered: 1 suit. 49 Phil. As the robbery was committed in band. the rest of the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Exhibits K and K-1 1 bottle of Siu Tung wine.

with intent to gain. but without the use of violence or intimidation against any person or the use of force upon anything. to return the stolen roosters to their respective owners and to pay the costs in both cases. 1925. six months and one day presidio correcional. G. Modesto Reyes for appellant. the second declares a particular act to be theft which is not included in the description in the first paragraph. the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the municipal court in each to suffer the penalty of three years. We have reviewed the evidence and find no grounds to support the contention of the appellant. declaring the costs in case No.G. in connection with paragraph 3 of article 520 of the same Code. the trial court found the accused guilty of one crime of theft. under Act No. with the costs de oficio. then. Espiritu. valued at P10. or four years. pleaded not guilty in both cases. and. due to the fact that it is not only important to our jurisprudence. and without violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things. one with colored plumage valued at P8 belonging to Diego Magat. 25375. that the guilt of the accused in the present case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. and taking into consideration the circumstance that the accused is an habitual delinquent sentenced him in said two cases to the penalty of three years.: Early in the morning of December 21. belonging to Ignacio Nicolas. R. with the exceptions therein noted. We are of the opinion. took the two roosters. 47 Phil. de oficio without the obligation to indemnify.R. 3244. The accused appealed to this court and his counsel alleges that the trial court erred: (a) In holding that the guilt of the accused was proven by his own admission. with intent to gain. 517. Manila. and the other with white plumage and black spots. which were tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court. VILLAMOR. The penalty provided in the law is that of presidio correcional in its full extent. shall take anything which is the personal property of another without the latter's consent. The question. The case falls under the provisions of paragraph 5 of article 518 of the Penal Code. and the third also considers theft a series of acts with similar characteristics to the general type. The first defines theft in general. 3062 an additional penalty must be imposed upon him consisting of half the penalty provided or the crime committed. to determine is whether or not the fact that the accused. 2. vs. 24753[[1]]). The accused being an habitual delinquent. (People vs. or 2 years and 1 month presidio correcional. 728. Any person who. holding that the theft of the two roosters constituted but one crime. shall with knowledge of its ownership appropriate the same with of gain. Any person who. but the Attorney-General raises a question in his brief which we believe it is necessary for us to resolve now. 25375 and 25376 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. The following are guilty of theft: 1. Article 517 of the Penal Code reads as follows: ART. two game roosters which were in the yard. G. Aguinaldo. but also to the due prosecution of violators of the law. with intent to gain. took. amended by section 1 of Act No. plaintiff-appellee. Vicente de Leon y Flora entered the yard of Vicente Magat's house on Domingo Santiago Street. one belonging to Vicente Magat and the other to Ignacio Nicolas. defendant-appellant. on the theft of Magat's rooster and the other that of Nicolas'. The accused appealed from this judgment to the Court of First Instance. No. We could stop right here. J. and (c) in sentencing instead of acquitting the accused. and there having been present the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. . People vs. having found anything which has been lost. In view of the evidence. upon being arraigned upon the same informations. the penalty must be imposed upon the accused in its maximum degree. The Attorney-General urges that the penalty for two crimes of theft be imposed upon the accused for each of the stolen roosters. and so hold. (b) in not giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. six moths and one day presidio correccional and to pay the costs in case R. Nos. two moths and one day presidio correcional. No. on the same occasion and in the same place. Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.. as the roosters were returned to their respective owners. VICENTEDE LEON Y FLORA. 25376. Vicente de Leon y Flora was prosecuted in the municipal court for two crimes of theft. It will be remembered that article 517 of the Penal Code contains three paragraphs enumerating the acts which constitute the crime of theft. Upon being arraigned. constitutes two crimes of theft.

page 799. 382. This doctrine. No. paragraph one of article five hundred and ninety-five. There is no series of acts here for the accomplishment of different purposes. Thurston 27 S. we have not lost sight of the doctrine laid down in United States vs. Beerman. State.560. 1905. (Decision of the supreme Court of Spain of November 22. Any person guilty of malicious damage who shall remove or make use of the things damaged. In American cases the same doctrine is maintained as in Spanish decisions in regard to the question which is here debated: In Corpus Juris. As may be seen. vol. as well as the damage that said act may occasion to the members of the community. 260). The crime of theft is an offense against personal property and what is punished is the alarm caused in the community by the perpetration of the act which is violative of the individual rights guaranteed by the law. S. we are of the opinion that the unity of the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the same place. 1 Lea [Tenn. in response to the unity of thought in the criminal purpose on one occasion. is what constitutes the crime of theft. Cas." (U. it being easy to pass from one to the other. where the accused made no objection to the information on the ground that it charged more than one offense. two cows and two calves on one night. which are merely of a civil nature. have imposed the prescribed penalties for each and all of the offenses of which the accused was convicted in accordance with the provisions of article 87 of the Penal Code. which livestock was found in various adjacent and open meadows. the theft of the property of each owner is a separate crime and may be prosecuted as such. C. It is not an element of the crime of theft that the culprit know the owner of the thing stolen. and fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes.. as described in the first paragraph of article 517. 1898. therefore. 498. according to which. Morton vs. 412. does not authorize the legal conception that the said accused committed four thefts on said night. 24 Fed. 5 Cranch C. and six hundred and three. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain.3. because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize two separate crimes. 36. The act of taking the roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent existence of their own. the prosecution properly submitted evidence as to the commission of each and all of the offenses charged. constitutes only one crime of theft. it is evident that all the elements mentioned in the first paragraph of article 517 of the Penal Code exist. and articles five hundred and ninety-six.. however. five hundred and ninety-eight. the crime being consummated provided that being stolen belongs to another and the same is taken with intent to gain. is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the article unlawfully belonged to two distinct persons. it is said in regard to the taking of articles belonging to two different owners at the same time and place: "In a few jurisdictions the rule obtains that if two or more articles belonging to different are stolen at the same time and place. but only one as found by the lower court. not force upon things. in its decision of July 13. which must be punished separately. so that after the unlawful act of taking another's property is proven. vs. but the trial court convicted the accused in the two cases. considering the facts alleged in the said complaints as constituting but one crime. Therefore. 1894. Under sound principles. said: The act of unlawfully taking two colts.) What constitutes the crime of theft is the taking of another's property with intent to gain. because the law does not require it nor does it affect the criminal liability. C. Balaba (37 Phil. but only the restitution or indemnification of damages. 14. the act taking another's property without violence or intimidation against persons.) In other jurisdiction it is . belonging to four owners. constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft. the act of taking the two roosters. without the consent of the owner. said accused knowing that the meadows in which this livestock was found were open and adjacent. and three of article five hundred and ninety-two paragraph one of article five hundred and ninety-three. In arriving at this conclusion. subject to the exceptions established by paragraphs one two. State vs. L. which did not commit an error of law by holding that the acts were committed on a single occasion.) Neither is it necessary for the existence of the crime of theft that it should appear in a specific manner who the owner is of the thing stolen. and the trial court also properly entered judgment of conviction of each and all of these offenses which were established by the introduction of competent evidence at the trial and should. with intent to gain and without the consent of its owner. The Supreme Court of Spain.]. and which determines the existence of only one crime. is not applicable to the present case as two separate complaints have been filed herein against the accused.. October 4. but only one of which was consummated. because the fact that the persons injured by the taking of the cattle by the accused were several.

So ordered. St. Mjelde. Sampson.. U.. 65 Pac.. 171.Furnace vs. 42 Wash. Va..-State vs.. 50 App. C. 490.-State vs. An.. D. Quintini.-Clemm vs..-State vs. 474. Ann.. 75 Pac.. 85 Iowa. and to pay the costs. Mich. 157 Iowa. 335. 571... C.-Peo. State. 61 Eng. Merril. 71 South East. 276. 87. 809. Warren. 19 N. Tex. Ostrand. Emery. 61 Wash. 37 Mo. 212. 154 Ala. 624. Johns.-93. Romualdez and Villa-Real.State vs. Butts. Com. 473. 688. 228. 9 Ga. 12... Rep. 373. State.-Lowe vs. St. Am.]. Wyo. Rep. 58 Atl. 782. D. 51 So. Johnson.. H. 7 Wyo. Oh-State vs. A. 65 Pac. Rep. vs. 90 Miss. 54. 765.. 3 Tex. State.. State. Com.. 54 Pac. 1119.. vs.. State. Mickel.. Utah-State vs. L. State..Com. 253.. Md. 44 N. & K. Mont.. M.. Avanceña. 67. State vs. [N.. State vs. 802.. Bleasdale.held that such a theft may be prosecuted.. 180. 26 Atl. 138 Mass. 85 Pac. 54 North East. 57 Ga.. 2 Pac. 112 Pac. 54 Am.. Smith. N.. Morphin. Dean vs. 401.-Nichols vs. 104 Mass. C. 66. Com. J. modified and the accused Vicente de Leon y Flora is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years and three months presidio mayor. 257. 455. Com. 9 Nev.LBul.) For the foregoing. 121.. 55..-Fulmer vs. U. 97 Pa. 39 Am. the mere fact that some of them belonged to one person and some to another does not dissolve the act into separate crimes.. 2 Wash. the judgment appealed from must be.Newton. 884. 533. Hennessey. St. 339. Sullivan. State. 969.. 10 D. Rep. 37 Am. 679. 7 Mo.. 56. C.. 45 Tex. vs. 42 Law.-Wilson vs. State vs.. 68 Vt. Holies vs. 602. JJ.. State. Congrove. 284. 507.-Reg. State vs. 81 Mich. 34 Atl. 78 Ky. St. at the pleasure of the State.. . 612. 537. Rep. Miss. 145 Pac. as is hereby. 106. stored in the same place. 23 Utah. 162.. concurs in the result. 336. St. 101. Ga. 43 So.. 23 Cinc..... 573. State. Johnson. 29 Mont. 77 Md. Mo. Dec.. Addison vs.. 179. III. 794.. Vt. 17.. Lorton vs.. 2 C. Dalton vs. S. Or. 189.-Ackerman vs. 500..... concur. 878. 45 So.State vs.. 1917-D. 42 Vt. 91 Miss.-Peo.. Cas.. 180. 23 Oh. Blay... 13 Am. vs. 26 Nev. N. 503. are taken by a single larcenous act. 9 Tex. (Bushman vs. Dist. A. 153 Ind. Ky. J. Iowa-State vs. 44 So. 23 Am. Larson. State vs. 151. 196. 109 Iowa. Douglas. Terr. Rep. H. vs. 539.-Alexander vs. 488. Lambert. (Reprint). 484. M. 802. S..-State vs.-Chanock vs. C.. 109 North East. 227. State vs. Ind. 289. Lent. Clark. 659... 552. 140. State.-State vs.State vs.. Israel. either as one offense or as several distinct offenses. 46 Or. 466.. 33. 932. Pa.. State vs.. 249.. 370. 124 Am. 637. 85.. 507. 70 N. 682. 15 Pa.. 765. (Ala. 77 Vt. State.. 45 North West. Hudson vs.. 504.. Dec. 90 Va. 20 South East. Klasner.. A. Street. 267 Fed. 138 North West. with the accessories of the law. 35 Am. Heywood. 52 North West. 95 North West. Rep. S.) But the prevailing rule is that if several articles. 321.-State vs.. Simons. C. State vs. Laws. 269 III. 99 Am. D. Com.-State vs. S. 10 Oh. Rep. 432.. Kieffer.. Eng. N.-State vs. 36 Am. St.. 824. 17 S. 80 North West. Bell vs. 732. Ward vs. 967.. vs. Wash. 441. 76. State 42 Ins. 80 Pac. 109.

any body of land. robbing were done for private purposes or for profit. 3. illegal association are absorbed. takes part therein by: 1. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Article 134 REBELLION OR INSURRECTION  ELEMENTS: 1. Persons liable for rebellion Any person who: 1. wholly or partially. intimidation. Merely sympathizing is not participation. 2. to remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws – 1. naval or other armed forces. the crime would be separately be punished and would not be embraced by rebellion (People v. support or participation With or without civilian support or participation 9. duly constituted authorities any military camp or installation 6. directed the others 2. not necessary to convict the accused who is in conspiracy w/ others actually taking arms against the gov’t       Purpose of the uprising must be shown but it is not necessary that it be accomplished A change of government w/o external participation RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT – actual participation. or 2. 5. If there is no public uprising. mere threat of removing Phil is sufficient Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other crime. strategy or stealth Directed against: 4. spoke for them signed receipts and other documents issued in their name 4. Furthermore. Any person merely participating or executing the command of others in rebellion    Success is immaterial. maintains. threat. taking arms against the government (force/violence) That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either 1. 1. without any political motivation. 2. the crime is of direct assault. even if not in furtherance of rebellion cannot be complexed  If killing. purpose is always political Rebellion used where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing government Insurrection refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance to prevent the exercise of gov’t authority w/ respect to particular matters or subjects  Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the gov’t. promotes 2. engaging in war against the forces of the government destroying property or committing serious violence 3. or 3.TITLE THREE I. or ii. any government employee and even by civilian . the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof. there must be ACTUAL participation Not necessary that there is killing. while holding any public office or employment. Rape. Fernando)    Read People v. communication networks or public utilities 1. it is a continuing crime such along with the crime of conspiracy or proposal to commit such  A private crime may be committed during rebellion. However. Accompanied by violence. Salazar 1. Examples: killing. Purpose of seizing or diminishing state power  Crime may be committed by a single person. i. That there be – public uprising and 2. Singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines 1. with or without civilian 8. or 2 To deprive the chief executive or congress. of any of their powers or prerogatives  1. heads a rebellion or insurrection. performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels Person deemed leader of rebellion in case he is unknown: Any person who in fact: Article 134-A COUP D E’TAT  1. Hernandez and Enrile v. possessions of firearms. Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in the case of rebellion. other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power 7. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated (Note: “diverting public funds” is malversation absorbed in rebellion). Committed by any person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment. ELEMENTS: Swift attack 2. 4. Any person who. 3. illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is distinct from the crime of rebellion.

Public uprising OR AND adherence and giving Overt Acts aid or comfort to enemies Purpose of objective Deliver the gov’t to enemy during war Article 135 Penalties  1. commands others to undertake a coup. destroying property or committing serious violence exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated 2. Taking up of arms not even necessary. In Government Service Anyone who leads. 2 more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the government For any of the purposes of rebellion 3. intimidation. 4. supports. takes part therein Any person merely participating or executing the command of other in a rebellion. without any political motivation. Who are liable? Any person who: 1. levying war against the gov’t. directs. Seizing or diminishing state power.   Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians. heads a rebellion or insurrection engaging in war against the forces of the gov’t 5. 2. threat. 3. Article 136 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION OR INSURRECTION  ELEMENTS: 1. would be separately punished and would not be absorbed in the Diverting public funds is malversation absorbed in rebellion rebellion. They decide to commit it PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (136)    ELEMENTS:   Conspiracy must be immediately prior to rebellion 1. or that they never recognized the government 3. strategy or stealth Nature of Crime Treason (114) Rebellion (134) Coup d’etat (134-A) Sedition (139) Crime against National Security Crime against Public Order Crime against Public Order Crime against Public Order Taking up arms against the gov’t See article. 6. Promotes Maintains 3. Any person who. aids in a coup. 1. soliciting membership in. robbing etc for private persons or for profit. while holding any public office or employment. which may result in homicide. what is important is violence. See enumeration in article. finances. Not in Government Service Anyone who participates or in an manner. Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common crimes committed in pursuance of the movement to overthrow the government Killing. It is not limited to hostilities against the armed force. Rising publicly or tumultuously (caused by more than 3 armed men or provided with means of violence) See article. Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in rebellion It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to. 4. For any of the purposes of rebellion Proposes its execution to some other person/s Organizing a group of soldiers. 3. 2. abets. Article 137 DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES    ELEMENTS: Presupposes existence of rebellion Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters . and soliciting funds for the organization show conspiracy to overthrow the gov’t The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make the accused guilty of conspiracy if there’s no evidence that the hearers then and there agreed to rise up in arms against the gov’t If it is during the rebellion. A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms the government 2. 2. then it is already taking part in it.



If there are means to prevent the rebellion but did not resist it, then there’s disloyalty. If there are no means, no fault

1.

Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power

2.

Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels

3.

Accepting appointment to office under rebels

If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this
The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels of the people.

Article 138
INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

ELEMENTS:

1.

That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government

2.

That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion

3.

That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end


Intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion
There must be uprising to take up arms and rise publicly for the purposes indicated in Art 134

Proposal to Commit Rebellion (136)

Inciting to Rebellion (138)

The person who proposes has decided to commit rebellion.

Not required that the offender has decided to commit
rebellion.

The person who proposes the execution of the crime uses
secret means.

The inciting is done publicly.

Article 139
SEDITION

ELEMENTS:

1.
1.

That the offenders rise –
Publicly (if no public uprising = tumult and other disturbance of public order)

2.
3.

Tumultuously (vis-à-vis rebellion where there must be a taking of arms)
to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election

4.

to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or
prevent the execution of any administrative order

5.
6.

to inflict any act or hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee
to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class (hence, even private persons may be

7.

offended parties)
to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the national government of all its property or any part thereof

2.
3.

That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods
That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:

Sedition: raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace or at least such measures that
evidently engenders it.

Difference from rebellion – object or purpose of the surprising. For sedition – sufficient that uprising is tumultuous. In rebellion – there must be taking
up of arms against the government.









Sedition – purpose may be either political or social. In rebellion – always political

1.
2.

leader of the sedition, and
other persons participating in the sedition

Tumultuous – caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
Preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions
In sedition – offender may be a private or public person (Ex. Soldier)
Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur
Q: Are common crimes absorbed in sedition? In P v. Umali, SC held that NO. Crimes committed in that case were independent of each other.
Preventing election through legal means – NOT sedition
But when sugar farmers demonstrated and destroyed the properties of sugar barons – sedition
Persons liable for sedition:

Article 142
INCITING TO SEDITION

ELEMENTS:

1.

That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition

2.
3.

That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition (134)
That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same
end (purpose: cause commotion not exactly against the government; actual disturbance not necessary)


Different acts of inciting to sedition:

1.
2.

Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc.
Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous]

3.

libels against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace
Knowingly concealing such evil practices

1.
2.

when they tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office; or
when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes

When punishable:

3.

when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or

4.

when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the
government

II. CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION
Article 143
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES

ELEMENTS:

1.

That there be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or
division thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board

2.

That the offender who may be any persons prevents such meeting by force or fraud

Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are liable under Art 143, when the defect of the meeting is not
manifest and requires an investigation before its existence can be determined.

Article 144
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS

ELEMENTS:

1.

That there be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
board or city or municipal council or board

2.

That the offender does any of the following acts
1.
he disturbs any of such meetings

Complaint must be filed by member of the Legislative body. Accused may also be punished for contempt.

2.

he behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it

Article 145
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY


1.

Acts punishable:
By using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of Congress from –

1.
2.

attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from
expressing his opinions or

3.
2.

casting his vote
By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or special session, except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor

Elements:
1.

That the offender is a public officer or employee

2.

That he arrests or searches any member of Congress

3.
4.

That Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in a regular or special session
That the member searched has not committed a crime punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor (1987 constitution: privilege
from arrest while congress in session in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment).

Article partly inoperative because of the 1987 Constitution

III. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Article 146
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES

Two (2) Types of illegal assemblies:

a. Meeting of the first form
1.
2.

Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving
purpose : to commit any of crimes punishable under the code

3.

meeting attended by armed persons

b. Meeting of the second form
1.

Meeting, gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving

2.

Audience whether armed or not, is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault.




Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be armed

1.

the organizers or leaders of the meeting

2.
1.

persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity – not liable)
if they are not armed, penalty is arresto mayor

2.
1.

if they carry arms, like bolos or knives, or licensed firearms, penalty is prision correccional
purpose of the meeting is to commit acts punishable under the RPC

2.

considered as leader or organizer of the meeting

Persons liable for illegal assembly
Responsibility of persons merely present at the meeting
Presumptions if person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm:

Article 147
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS

ELEMENTS:

Persons liable:

1.
2.

Organized totally or partially for the purpose of committing any of the crimes in RPC
Or for some purpose contrary to public morals

1.

founders, directors and president of the association

2.

mere members of the association

Illegal Assembly (146)

Illegal Association (147)

Must be an actual meeting of armed persons to commit any of
the crimes punishable under the RPC, or of individuals who,
although not armed, are incited to the commission of treason,
rebellion, sedition or assault upon a person in authority of his
agent.

No need for such

It is the meeting and the attendance at such that are punished

Act of forming or organizing and membership in the
association

Persons liable: leaders and those present

Founders, directors, president and members

IV. ASSAULT, RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE

Article 148
DIRECT ASSAULT

ELEMENTS OF THE 1ST FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT

1.

That the offender employs force or intimidation.

2.

That the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the crimes of sedition. (victim need not
be person in authority)

3.

That there is no public uprising.

ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT:

1.
2.

That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.
That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.

3.

That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not
essential), or that he is assaulted (b) by reason of the past performance of official duties (motive is essential).

4.

That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties (with intention to offend,
injure or assault).

5.

That there is no public uprising.

Always complexed with the material consequence of the act (e.g. direct assault with murder) except if resulting in a light felony, in which case, the
consequence is absorbed

Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist is not direct assault because if done against an agent of a person in authority, the force employed must
be of serious character


The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority (ex. Laying of hands)
The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent only or a person in authority (ex. Pointing a gun)

Person in Authority

Agent

Force Employed

Intimidation/Resistance

Need not be serious

Serious

Must be of serious character

Serious

Person in authority: any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority to govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a
member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission


A barangay captain is a person in authority, so is a Division Superintendent of schools, President of Sanitary Division and a teacher
Agent: is one who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public
order and the protection and security of life and property. (Example. Barrio councilman and any person who comes to the aid of the person in
authority, policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of the BIR, Malacañang confidential agent)


Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, still direct assault.
When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is entitled to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault
or resistance nor for physical injuries, because he acts in legitimate self-defense

There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another when they both contend that they were in the exercise of their respective
duties.




When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual performance of his official duty when attacked

1.
2.

when the assault is committed with a weapon
when the offender is a public officer or employee

3.

when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority

Circumstances qualifying the offense (Qualified Assault):
Complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder, or with serious physical injuries.
Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.

Article 149
INDIRECT ASSAULT


1.

ELEMENTS:
That a person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault defined in ART. 148.

2.

That a person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent.

3.

That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the authority or his agent.


Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed
To be indirect assault, the person who should be aided is the agent (not the person in authority because it is already direct assault, the person
coming to the aid of the person in authority being considered as an agent and an attack on the latter is already direct assault). Example. Aiding a
policeman under attack.

Article 150
DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS

Acts punishable:

1.

refusing without legal excuse to obey summons

2.

refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation

3.

refusing to answer any legal inquiry to produce books, records etc.

4.

restraining another from attending as witness in such body

5.

inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn

Article 151
RESISTANCE DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENT OF SUCH PERSON (par. 1)

ELEMENTS:

1.

That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender.

2.

That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent.

3.

That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts. 148, 149 and 150.

SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)

ELEMENTS:

1.
2.

That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty gives a lawful order to the offender.
That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority.

3.

That such disobedience is not of a serious nature.

Resistant and Disobedience to a Person in Authority or
Direct Assault (148)

Agents of such Person (151)

PIA or his agent must be engaged in the performance of
official duties or that he is assaulted

PIA or his agent must be in the actual performance of his duties.

Direct assault is committed in 4 ways – by attacking,
employing force, and seriously resisting a PIA or his agent.

Committed by resisting or seriously disobeying a PIA or his agent.

Use of force against an agent of PIA must be serious and
deliberate.

Use of force against an agent of a PIA is not so serious; no
manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing it.

Article 152
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY/AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY:

Persons in Authority – any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental

1.

corporation, board or commission.
Barangay captain

2.

Barangay chairman

3.

Teachers

4.
5.

Professors
Persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities

6.

Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance

Agent of Person in Authority – any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with

1.

the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property.
Barrio councilman

2.
3.

Barrio policeman
Barangay leader

4.

Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority

Section 388 of the Local Gov’t Code provides that “for purposes of the RPC, the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of
the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and members
who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and the security of life, property, or the
maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be
deemed AGENT of persons in authority.

V. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DISORDERS
Article 153


1.

TYPES OF TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER:
Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment

2.

Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions, gatherings or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Art 131 and 132 (Public
Officers interrupting peaceful meetings or religious worship).

3.
4.

Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place
Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place

5.

Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.

Offenders – not minor delinquents nor detention prisoners If escaped within the 15 day appeal period – no evasion No applicable to deportation as the sentence Flimsy excuse for violating destierro – not acceptable 1. false keys. although rebellious or seditious in nature. CONFLAGRATIONS. Mitigating circumstance – if it takes place outside the penal establishment by taking the guards by surprise VI. calculated to cause alarm or danger 2. 3. otherwise. justifying or extolling any act punished by law. violence or intimidation 4. That the offender is a convict by final judgement who is confined in a penal institution. outsider Alarms and Scandals (155) Crime against Public Order Private persons. disguise.  Tumultuous – if caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means of violence (circumstance qualifying the disturbance/interruption) – “tumultuous in character” Article 154  TYPES OF UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES: 1. . he is guilty of evasion of sentence). gates. EARTHQUAKES OR OTHER CALAMITIES: 1. That the offender removes therefor such person. windows. (fact of return immaterial). 3. lithography or any other means of publication as news any false news which may 2. is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition. it is illegal discharge What governs is the result. insult or annoy Firearm must not be pointed at a person. Circumstances qualifying the offense (done thru): unlawful entry (by “scaling”) 2. intimidation or bribery. ELEMENTS OF DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS: That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment. this article applies. by the same 3. Discharging any firearm. officially Printing. deceit. EVASION OF SENTENCE OR SERVICE Article 157  1. periodicals or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s name or which are classified as anonymous. by means of printing. or other explosive within any town or public place. publishing or distributing or (causing the same) books. Art 131 and 132 punishes the same acts if committed by public officers who are NOT participants in the meeting  The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is an unconscious outburst which. endanger the public order.       A continuing offense. or helps the escape of such person (if the escapee is serving final judgement. Instigating or taking active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusement 4. 2. firecracker. not the intent CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable Tumults and other Disturbances (153) Crime against Public Order Private persons. or if committed by public officers they are not participants therein.    Charivari – mock serenade or discordant noises made with kettles. Article 155  TYPES OF ALARMS AND SCANDALS: 1. outsider Article 156  1. If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is NOT committed by public officers. rocket. 2. its inciting to rebellion or sedition. roofs or floors using picklocks. 3. designed to deride. breaking doors. Publishing or causing to be published. That he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty (destierro included) That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term if his sentence. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising. otherwise. or before they have been published 4. tin horns etc. walls. connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution Article 158  ELEMENTS OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS. pamphlets. 3. provided the act is not covered by Art 153 (tumult). Offender is a private individual      Prisoner may be detention prisoner or one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment A policeman assigned to the city jail as guard who while off-duty released a prisoner is liable here It may be committed through negligence Circumstances qualifying the offense – is committed by means of violence. ELEMENTS OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE: That the offender is a convict by final judgment. means or by words. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise. or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State. utterances or speeches Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority.

ELEMENTS: That the offender was a convict. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the insurance of a proclamation by the chief executive announcing the passing away of such calamity. 2. explosion. Minority) Reiteracion: offender shall have served out his sentence for the prior offense A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at age 70. 3. Offender must escape to be entitled to allowance Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer. no conviction necessary. or 4. prision correccional in its minimum period – if the penalty remitted does not exceed 6 years 2.     Penalty: an increase by 1/5 of the time remaining to be served under the original sentence. or while serving the same. the unexpired portion of his original sentence – if the penalty remitted is higher than 6 years VII. in no case to exceed 6 months. 2.  Quasi-recidivism : a person after having been convicted by final judgement shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence. on the occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny. 3. or 5.1.   Condition extends to special laws – violation of illegal voting Offender must have been found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted under this Article.      Second crimes must belong to the RPC. But if under Revised Admin Code. resulting from. President has power to arrest. similar catastrophe. That he violated any of the conditions of such pardon. VIOLATION OF PARDON Infringement of conditions/terms of President ORDINARY EVASION To evade the penalty given by the courts – disturbs the public order  Two penalties provided: 1.2. not special laws. First crime may be either from the RPC or special laws  Quasi-Recidivism may be offset by a special privileged mitigating circumstance (ex. Except: Unworthy or Habitual Delinquent If new felony is evasion of sentence – offender is not a quasi-recidivist Penalty: maximum period of the penalty for the new felony should be imposed (mitigating circumstance can only be appreciated if the maximum is divisible) . 2. earthquake. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME Article 160 COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE-PENALTY: (quasi-recidivism)  1. a revolt Disarming the guards is not mutiny Article 159 VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON  1. mutiny in which he has not participated. a sedition. That there is disorder. reincarnate offender without trial. conflagration. That the offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the chief executive. 1. ELEMENTS That the offender was already convicted by final judgement of one offense. 2.