You are on page 1of 10

PEOPLE vs.

GALACGAC
Facts: On November 22, 1951, as a consequence of a shooting and beating spree which
occurred in Sta. Cruz, Manila, Enrique Galacgac, a naturalized American Citizen and Paulino
Galacgac were accussed of attempted paricide with physical serious injuries in Criminal Case
NO. 19292 however after trial Paulino Galacgac was acquitted.
For the Criminal Case 19292, serious physical injuries; Criminal Case 19295, attempted
homicide and Criminal Case 19296, illegal possession of firearms he was sentenced to suffer
respectively, four months of arresto mayor, an indeterminate penalty of from six months of
arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correctional and an imprisonment of
one year and one day.
On appeal, Galacgac claimed that the firearm was a homecoming present for his wife and
that he arrived at 3:00pm in Manila however the Phil Constabulary closes at 4:00pm and
therefore he failed to secure a license for the firearm.
Issue: Crime by mere accident
RULING:
SC MODIFIED the judgment of the lower court, Enrique Galacgac was sentenced to suffer
ten days of arresto manor and pay one-half of the cost of Criminal Case 19292; undergo same
number of days of arresto menor and to pay the cost in Criminal Case 19295; and an
indeterminate imprisonment of from one year to two years and six months, and to pay the
cost for Criminal Case 19296. As for Pablo Soriano, he is sentenced to suffer fifteen days of
arresto menor and to pay the cost in Criminal Case 19297.

US V TAYONGTONG

11

FEB

GR No. 6897 | February 15, 1912 | J. Moreland


Accident
Facts:
Tayongtong was driving a large passenger automobile at the time of the incident and was making
his third trip from Iloilo to Jaro, with the vehicle loaded at its fullest capacity (capable of carrying
35 passengers and their baggage).
Principal witness Pablo Tayson alleges that the driver was moving very fast towards them, raising
a cloud of dust, moving the steering wheel from one direction to another, causing the vehicle to
zigzag from its track, cross the other side of the road and strike the deceased
The driver denies these, saying he was driving at a moderate speed when the victim suddenly
crossed the road.

Issue:
W/N the driver ran over the victim by negligence or pure accident
Held:

Accident. Conviction was reversed and the accused acquitted because the Court finds that the
witness made unreasonable, improbable and conflicting comments in his testimony. There was
no reason to show that he was doing otherwise, as corroborated by other disinterested witnesses,
and the fact that a vehicle so large couldnt have gone at the rate of speed described. Per Taysons
testimony, it was also unreasonable that the deceased, seeing plainly that the vehicle was moving
towards him, did not move to save himself.

US. Vs. KNIGHT


Facts. The Appellee-Defendants, E.C. Knight Co., American and other sugar refineries
(Defendants), entered into contracts to purchase four refineries in Philadelphia, thereby
controlling almost the entire refined sugar manufacture in the United States. The government
alleged that by entering into the contracts, the Defendants combined and conspired to
restrain the trade and commerce in refined sugar among the several states and with foreign
nations, contrary to an act of Congress promulgated on July 2, 1890.
Issue. Does the act of Congress overstep the authority given by the Commerce Clause?
Held. Yes. Appeals court judgment affirmed. The majority draws a distinction between the
manufacture of a good and its final disposition. The Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) also says that a goods use in commerce is only incidental to its
manufacture, and as such, the act overreached the power of Congress under the Commerce
Clause.

PP vs. Bienvenido Nocum


Facts: About 9 o'clock in the evening of November 21, 1945, there was a fistic fight between
Federico Bautista and Vicente Aurencio at the corner of Mayhaligue and Magdalena Streets,
City of Manila. Desiring to stop the encounter, defendant shouted at the combatants. As
these paid him no attention, he drew a .45 caliber pistol and shot twice at the air. The bout
continued, however; so he fired another shot at the ground, but unfortunately the bullet
ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco, an innocent by-stander, resident of the place. The
wounded man was promptly carried to the St. Luke's Hospital where he expired soon after.
Held: The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence, the slaying
having been unintentional (cf. People vs. Sara, 55 Phil., 939; and United States vs. Reodique,
32 Phil., 458). It is apparent the defendant wilfully discharged his gun for which he
exhibited no license, by the way without taking the precautions demanded by the
circumstance that the district was populated, and the likehood that his bullet would glance
over the hard pavement of the Manila thoroughfare.
A landowner surprise a youngster in the act of stealing some fruit in his orchard. To scare the
intruder he fired a shotgun aiming at the foliage of a cherry tree. The shot scattered and a
pellet injured the boy, who was standing under the tree. That was reckless negligence, the
Spanish Supreme Court decided. (Sent. June 20, 1900, Viada, 5th ed., Vol. 7, p. 14.)
PEOPLE vs AYAYA
US vs ElICANAL downloaded
US vs ELICANA

PEOPLE vs. QUILOY


US vs Phelps downloaded
People vs chu and sy tseing
People vs martin
FACTS:
August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the
Manila Packing and Export Forwarders carrying Four (4) wrapped packages. The appellant
informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita
Reyes asked if she could examine and inspect the packages. She refused and assures her that the
packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves.
The accused appellant assigns the following errors: The lower court erred in admitting in
evidence the illegality of search and seized objects contained in the four (4) parcels.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal?

HELD:
Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RATIONALE:
Article III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution

Mapp vs Ohio, exclusionary rule

Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective


search warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs Peoples
Court.

The case at the bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was
primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without
the intervention and participation of state authorities. Under the circumstances, can accused /
appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the government without the
latter transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no
cogent reason whty the same should not be admitted.

PEOPLE vs. Rivera


PEOPLE VS. RIVERA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Faustino Rivera was being charged by the crime of Indictment of the Innocent planned
and punished under the Art 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a case
against Rivera for filing a complaint in writing and executing an oath accusing falsely and without
probable cause Vito Sunday and Felisa Moreno of the crime of theft.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Does Art 363 of the R.P.C apply in this case?
It does not apply since the law that the crime Rivera was accused of committing is not explicitly
stated in the R.P.C (although it is worthy to mention that the crime of indictment of the innocent is
present in the Old Penal Code)
The old penal code described it as the charge of the offense is the imputation itself if made in front
of the administrative/ judicial officer while the R.P.C defines the offense as the act that leads
(tends directly) to imputation of the offense.
The art 363 of the R.P.C was defined or described as planting of evidence.
HELD:
COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME FO INCRIMINATION
OF THE INNOCENT.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear, it is improper to resort to a caption
or title to make it obscure.
It is a well settled rule that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect
to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.
PEOPLE vs BERNAL
US VS> REYES

FACTS:
Montoya filed a suit against Bradford for damages due to the oppressive & discriminatory
acts committed by petitioner in excess of her authority as store manager. She claims that she
has been exposed to contempt & ridicule causing her undue embarrassment & indignity. She
further claims that the act was not motivated by any other reason aside from racial
discrimination in our own land w/c is a blow to our national pride & dignity. She seeks for
moral damages of P500k and exemplary damages of P100k.
She believes that this case is under RP courts jurisdiction because act was done outside the
territorial control of the US Military Bases, it does not fall under offenses where US has been
given right to exercise its jurisdiction and Bradford does not possess diplomatic immunity. She
further claims that RP courts can inquire into the factual circumstances & determine WON
Bradford is immune.
ISSUES/RATIO:

1. WON the case is under the RTCs jurisdiction - YES


Intervention of a third party is discretionary upon the Court. US did not obtain leave of court
(something like asking for Courts permission) to intervene in the present case. Technically, it
should not be allowed to intervene but since RTC entertained its motion to dismiss, it is
deemed to have allowed US to intervene. By voluntarily appearing, US must be deemed to
have subjected itself to RTCs jurisdiction.
2. WON RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying Bradfords motion to dismiss. NO
Petitioners failed to specify any grounds for a motion to dismiss enumerated in Sec. 1, Rule 16,
Rules of Court. Thus, it actually lacks cause of action. A cause of action is necessary so that
Court would be able to render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the
complaint. A motion to dismiss w/c fails to state a cause of action hypothetically admits the
truth of the allegations in the complaint. RTC should have deferred the resolution instead of
denying it for lack of merit. But this is immaterial at this time since petitioners have already
brought this petition to the SC.

PEOPLE vs rabao
US vs Bertucio
People vs. Libria
People vs benito downloaded
Us vs. taylor downloaded
Inovero vs colonel
TAVERA vs. Valdez already written in 7th batch
People vs. romualdo
Facts: FACTS:

The People of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commissionon Good


Government (PCGG), filed on July 12, 1989 an information before theanti-graft court
charging the accused with violation of Section 5, Republic ActNo. 3019,5 as
amended. the NationalShipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO), a governmentowned andcontrolled corporation and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering
Company(BASECO), a private corporation, the majority stocks of which is owned
byformer President Ferdinand E. Marcos, whereby the NASSCO sold,
transferredand conveyed to the BASECO its ownership and all its titles and interests
overall equipment and facilities including structures, buildings, shops,
quarters,houses, plants and expendable and semi-expendable assets, located at
theEngineer Island known as the Engineer Island Shops including some of itsequipment and
machineries from Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte neededby BASECO in
its shipbuilding and ship repair program for the amount of P5,000,000.00.
ISSUE:

Whether the constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him was violated for notspecifying the acts
of intervention that he supposedly performed.
HELD:
The Court did not agree with the petitioner's contention.When allegations in the
information are vague or indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a motion to
quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars. The pertinent provision in the Rules
of Court is Section 9 of Rule 116, whichwe quote:"Section 9. Bill of particulars. -- The
accused may, before arraignment, movefor a bill of particulars to enable him properly
to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the
complaint or informationand the details desired."

PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003


FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover procedures, and
that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner
asserts that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to provide relief to the accused in line with the
constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices inhibit themselves from deciding in the Motion for
Reconsideration given they were only appointed in the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments.
The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioners contention that while Sec.8
secures the rights of the accused, it does not and should not preclude the equally important right of
the State to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said
rule may not be given a retroactive application.

Summary of People v. Hernandez


S. Ct. of CA In Bank (1964)
Facts: Defendant was charged with Statutory Rape. Defendant and the victim were not married,
and had been companions for several months prior to January 3, 1961 the date of the
commission of the alleged offense. On that date she was 17 years 9 months old and voluntarily
entered into sexual intercourse with the defendant.
Issue: Whether the defendant possessed the necessary intent and knowledge at the time of the
commission of the crime?
Holding: No
Procedure: Convicted by a bench trial for misdemeanor. Reversed.
Rule: Act of sexual intercourse, accomplished with a female, not the wife of the perpetrator,
where the female is under the age of 18.
There must be a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence.
One is not capable of committing a crime who commits an act under ignorance or mistake of fact
which disproves any criminal intent.
Ct. Rationale: Lack of consent is a required element of the crime as the legislature mandated.
By the statutory language there must be a union, or joint operation of act and intent, the
elements of conduct and mental state that must be infused. The defendant participated in a
mutual act of sexual intercourse, believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent. The
defendant entertained a reasonable belief that his partner, whom he resided with, was beyond
the age of consent.

People vs Oso
People vs. quitain
People vs. jose

Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo
Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually
helped one another, then and there, to wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and
single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four
principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon,
have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to
the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the
element of conspiracy.

Held:
No, the trial courts ruling was not proper. The SC ruled that since the element of
conspiracy was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the
accused is also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who
conspired to commit the crime. The SC modified the judgment as follows:
appellants Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., and Eduardo Aquino are guilty of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and each and every one of them is
likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof,
each of them is likewise convicted with four death penalties and to indemnify the
victim of the sum of P10,000 in each of the four crimes. The case against Rogelio
Caal was dismissed only in so far as the criminal liability is concerned due to his
death in prison prior to promulgation of judgment.
Ivler vs. san pedro
FACTS:
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner herein, Jason Ivler was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig with two separate offenses:
1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property
Petitioner pleaded guilty for the first charge, but moved to quash the second charge invoking double jeopardy
having been convicted for the previous offense.
MeTC however, refused quashal finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner's conviction in the first offense charged, bars his prosecution in the second offense
charged.

HELD:
Reckless imprudence is a Single Crime, its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine
the penalty.
The two charges against the petitioner, arising from the same facts were prosecuted under the same provision of
the RPC, as amended, namely Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi offenses.
The proposition (inferred from Art 3 of the RPC) that "reckless imprudence" is not a crime in itself but simple a
way of committing it.
Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi offense.
The Court thru Justice JB Reyes: Reason and precedent both coincide in that ones convicted or acquitted to a
specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. The gravity of
the consequence is only taken into account to determined the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of an
offense.

People vs jose repeat


People vs edna maingan
People vs bayotas
Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof.
Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the
criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with
regard to the civil liability of Bayotas arising from his commission of the offense charged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his
civil liability.
HELD:
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by death of the convict personal
liabilities are extinguished, as to pecuniary penalties liability therefore is extinguished only when
the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
Thus the court made a ruling as follows:
1.
2.

3.

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely thereon;
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Aricle 1157 of the Civil
Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a
result of the same act or omission: Law, Contracts, Quasi-contracts, Delicts,Quasi-delicts;
Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way
of separate civil action and may be enforced either against the executor/administrator of the
estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation aside from delicts;

People vs Tamayo

FRANCISCO vs CA

FACTS:

June 23, 1977: Adalia Francisco (Francisco) president of A. Francisco


Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC) and Jaime C. Ong
(Ong) President and General Manager of Herby Commercial &
Construction Corporation (HCCC), entered into a contract where HCCC
agreed to undertake the construction of 35 housing units and the
development of 35 hectares of land.

According to Francisco, she agreed to grant HCCC the loans in


the total amount of P585K and covered by 18 promissory notes in order
to obviate the risk of the non-completion of the project.

RTC: favored Ong and against IBAA and Francisco

CA affirmed RTC

ISSUE: W/N Francisco can sign Ongs name on the checks and it was not
forgery
HELD: NO.

Francisco had custody of the checks, as proven by the check


vouchers bearing her uncontested signature

Francisco forged the signature of Ong on the checks to make it


appear as if Ong had indorsed said checks

The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is


under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may
indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability

An agent, when so signing, should indicate that he is merely


signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his
principal; otherwise he shall be held personally liable

Instead of signing Ongs name, Francisco should have


signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as
an agent of HCCC

DE Guzman vs. People

The said jewelries were later found in the possession of a certain Danilo Alcantara in his
house in Antipolo, Rizal.
Subsequently, a Quezon City prosecutor filed an information against Alcantara for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. The criminal case was filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. Alcantara filed a motion to quash the said information on the
ground that the QC-RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Judge Jose De Guzman ruled
in favor of Alcantara.
The Solicitor General argued that what the judge did was wrong because the crime of
fencing is a continuing crime; that an ingredient of the crime, that is, the robbery,
happened in Quezon City, hence, Quezon City courts have jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not fencing is a continuing crime.
HELD: No. A continuing crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising
from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. In this case, there
are actually two separate crimes which are robbery and fencing. They are independent
of each other. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in
the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission
of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend
on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. Alcantara should be
prosecuted in Antipolo because thats where the crime of fencing was allegedly
committed.