PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

ELIAS JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, FRANCO

BRILLANTES and HERMAN GORRICETA
GR NO. L-28547 FEBRUARY 22, 1974

FACTS:
Gorriceta borrowed the ford truck of her sister, while he was on his way
home, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes requested for a ride to Mandurriao.
Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorricetta park his car near the plaza and was instructed
to wait for Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes. A few moments later, the three on them
appeared with each of them carrying two fighting cocks owned by Valentin Baylon.
They horriedly borded the truck and Gorriceta drove the truck towards Jaro.
Patrolman Jabatan Intercepted them.Jaranilla shot and killed him.
The RTC of Iloilo convicted them of Robbery with homicide.Gorriceta became a
witness.
On Appeal to SC Suyo and Brillantes contend that they only committed the crime of
theft and Jaranilla should be charge solely for Homicide for killing Patrolman
Jabatan.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT SUYO AND BRILLANTES ARE ENTITLED TO AN
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
HELD:
Yes.The SC ruled that Accused Suyo and Brillantes can avail the
Indeterminate Sentence Law because although they were recidivists, they are not
habitual delinquents.

HEIRS OF THE LATE FRANCISCO ABUEG VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND
JOSELITO ORAA
GR. NO. 96803 FEBRUARY 17, 1993

FACTS:
Sometime on February 9, 1988, Joselito Oraa, while driving his Yamaha
Enduro motorcyle on the highway within the territorial jurisdiction of Silang, Cavite,
he bumped the bicycle of Francisco Abueg, resulting in his death.
The Trial Court found Joselito Oraa guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property and was sentenced to 4 years and 2 months of
imprisonment and to pay the heirs of his victim P50,000n in moral damages, P50,
000 for exemplary damages and P37,000 as actual damages.
Oraa filed for probation but the same was denied alongside with his motion for
reconsideration of such denial.
Hence, Oraa filed before the CA a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
seeking to restrain the RTC of Tagaytay from enforcing its decision. The CA granted
the petition of Oraa.
The heirs of Francisco Abueg appeals the said CA resolution before the SC, contends
that the order the RTC of Tagaytay already attained finality upon the failure of the
Oraa to Appeal.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO APPEAL RENDER THE
ORDER OF THE RTC ATTAINED FINALITY.
HELD:
NO. The Petitioner was of erroneous belief that said orders attained finality for
failure of private respondent to appeal. Under Section 24 of the rules on probation,
the order of the court granting or denying probation is not appealable. Since there
being no appeal, private respondent has no other plain, speedy and adequate
rememy in the ordinary course of law against the denial of his application for
probation except for the special civil action of certiorari with preliminary mandatory
indjuction and restraining order which he timely filed.
PETITION IS DISMISSED.

RAMON C. TAN VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries. After Manuelito Mendez
left, one of the employees of Rosita, she noticed that some of the welding rods,
propellers and boart spare parts, such as bronze, stainless propellers and brass
screws valued at P48,000 were missing.Rosita informed Victor Sy, the uncle of
Manuelito of the loss. Manuelito was subsequently arrested in Visayas and admitted
that he and his companion Gaudencio Dayup sold the sloten items in the amount of
P13,000 to Mr. Ramon C. Tan, a businessman selling marine parts at Sta. Cruz
Manila.
Rosita Lim did not report the incident of theft to the police and she forgives
Manuelito who asks for forgiveness upon his return to Manila accompanied by Victor
Sy.
Rosita filed before the RTC of Manila for violating the Anti fencing law who later on
convicted Ramon Tan of violating the abvementioned Law.
The CA likewise denied Ramon Tans Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, he filed a petition before the SC.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION HAS SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED THE
ELEMENTS OF FENCING AGAINST THE PETITONER.
HELD:
The Petitioners guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
The SC lays down one the essential elements of the crime of fencing as follows;
1. A crime of robbery was committed;
Manuelito confessed that he stoled those items and sold them to the accused,
However Rosita Lim never reported the theft or even the loss to the police. As the
complainant reported no loss, we cannot hold for certain that there was committed
ac crime of theft. Thus, the first element of Fencing is absent, that is, a crime of
robbery ir theft has been committed.

The prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements of fencing, thus
petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.

JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. JUDGE OMAR AMIN

G.R. NO. 93335 SEPTEMBER 13, 1990

FACTS:
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile has been charged before as having committed
rebellion complexed with murder before the RTC Quezon City and Violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1829 before the RTC of Makati City.
Senator Enrile allegedly harbor Col. Gringo Honasan by giving him food and comfort
together with his men during a party at the petitioners house. The petitioners
failure to do anything for the arrest of Col. Honasan is a violation of Section 1 (c) of
PD 129
Petitioners Omnibus Motion, Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Quash the
charge of violating P.D. No. 1829 on the ground that the same does not constitute
an offense was dismissed by the RTC of Makati and moved for the Arraignment of
Sen. Enrile.
The petitioner appealed to the SC by way of petition for certiorari and alleged that
the alleged harboring or concealing of Col. Honasan is absorbed, or is a component
of element of, the complexed rebellion against him before the RTC of Quezon City.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER COULD BE SEPARATELY CHARGED FOR
VIOLATION OF PD NO. 1829 NOTWITHSTANDING THE REBELLION CASE EARLIER
FILED AGAINST HIM.
HELD:
NO.The petitioners act of harboring or concealing which was based on his
acts of conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection with or in furtherance
of rebellion and must now deemed as absorbed by, merged in, and identified with
the crime of rebellion punished by Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC.
The conversation and, therefore, alleged conspiring of Senator enrile with Col.
Honasan is too intimately tied up with his allegedly harboring and concealing

Honasan for practically the act to form separate crimes of rebellion and violation of
PD no. 1829.
PETITION GRANTED.