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
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.




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

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

Per Tayson’s testimony. Desiring to stop the encounter. the Spanish Supreme Court decided. the act overreached the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. US. Viada. however. and as such.Accident. and the fact that a vehicle so large couldn’t have gone at the rate of speed described. but unfortunately the bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco. Conviction was reversed and the accused acquitted because the Court finds that the witness made unreasonable. by the way — without taking the precautions demanded by the circumstance that the district was populated.45 caliber pistol and shot twice at the air. defendant shouted at the combatants. Does the act of Congress overstep the authority given by the Commerce Clause? Held. A landowner surprise a youngster in the act of stealing some fruit in his orchard. As these paid him no attention. The Appellee-Defendants. contrary to an act of Congress promulgated on July 2. resident of the place. 55 Phil. The government alleged that by entering into the contracts. American and other sugar refineries (Defendants). 7. There was no reason to show that he was doing otherwise. City of Manila. thereby controlling almost the entire refined sugar manufacture in the United States. Appeals court judgment affirmed. People vs. 1900. improbable and conflicting comments in his testimony. Luke's Hospital where he expired soon after. Yes. the Defendants combined and conspired to restrain the trade and commerce in refined sugar among the several states and with foreign nations. who was standing under the tree. The wounded man was promptly carried to the St. Bienvenido Nocum Facts: About 9 o'clock in the evening of November 21. as corroborated by other disinterested witnesses. Vol.C. and United States vs. an innocent by-stander. 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. p. Issue. The bout continued. KNIGHT Facts. Reodique. Vs.. (Sent. E. Sara. and the likehood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement of the Manila thoroughfare.) PEOPLE vs AYAYA US vs ElICANAL downloaded US vs ELICANA . 1890. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) also says that a good’s use in commerce is only incidental to its manufacture. entered into contracts to purchase four refineries in Philadelphia. it was also unreasonable that the deceased. there was a fistic fight between Federico Bautista and Vicente Aurencio at the corner of Mayhaligue and Magdalena Streets. It is apparent the defendant wilfully discharged his gun — for which he exhibited no license. PP vs. 458). 939. June 20. 14. The majority draws a distinction between the manufacture of a good and its final disposition. seeing plainly that the vehicle was moving towards him. 5th ed. That was reckless negligence.. so he fired another shot at the ground. Knight Co. Held: The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence. 1945.. the slaying having been unintentional (cf.. 32 Phil. he drew a . did not move to save himself.

Switzerland. Sherly Reyes. 1957. acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of state authorities. appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. and gloves. abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs People’s Court. Under the circumstances. declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search warrant. . 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. QUILOY US vs Phelps downloaded People vs chu and sy tseing People vs martin FACTS: August 14. 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. the appellant and his common-law wife. RATIONALE: Article III. can accused / appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. cigars.PEOPLE vs. exclusionary rule Stonehill vs Diokno. 1987 Constitution Mapp vs Ohio. ISSUE: Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal? HELD: Yes. 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. Sections 2 and 3. Anita Reyes asked if she could examine and inspect the packages. She refused and assures her that the packages simply contained books.

it is improper to resort to a caption or title to make it obscure. Rivera PEOPLE VS.C was defined or described as “planting of evidence. 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.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. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON: It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear.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. She believes that this case is under RP courts’ jurisdiction because act was done outside the territorial control of the US Military Bases.” HELD: COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT. 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. The art 363 of the R.C defines the offense as the act that leads (tends directly) to imputation of the offense.P. She claims that she has been exposed to contempt & ridicule causing her undue embarrassment & indignity. It is a well settled rule that statutes should receive a sensible construction. ISSUES OF THE CASE: Does Art 363 of the R.P. ISSUES/RATIO: .P. She further claims that RP courts can inquire into the factual circumstances & determine WON Bradford is immune.P. 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 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. 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 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. such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. She seeks for moral damages of P500k and exemplary damages of P100k.

Thus. US must be deemed to have subjected itself to RTC’s jurisdiction.000. a governmentowned andcontrolled corporation and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company(BASECO). 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. NO Petitioners failed to specify any grounds for a motion to dismiss enumerated in Sec. Technically. taylor downloaded Inovero vs colonel TAVERA vs. 1989 an information before theanti-graft court charging the accused with violation of Section 5. the majority stocks of which is owned byformer President Ferdinand E. Republic ActNo. PEOPLE vs rabao US vs Bertucio People vs.5 as amended. US did not obtain leave of court (something like asking for Court’s permission) to intervene in the present case. WON RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying Bradford’s motion to dismiss.YES Intervention of a third party is discretionary upon the Court. RTC should have deferred the resolution instead of denying it for lack of merit. WON the case is under the RTC’s jurisdiction . it is deemed to have allowed US to intervene. filed on July 12.houses. it should not be allowed to intervene but since RTC entertained its motion to dismiss. Rules of Court. But this is immaterial at this time since petitioners have already brought this petition to the SC. Marcos. whereby the NASSCO sold. romualdo Facts: FACTS: The People of the Philippines. 2. By voluntarily appearing.00. transferredand conveyed to the BASECO its ownership and all its titles and interests overall equipment and facilities including structures. plants and expendable and semi-expendable assets. a private corporation. Libria People vs benito downloaded Us vs. the NationalShipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO). quarters. through the Presidential Commissionon Good Government (PCGG). 1. 3019. it actually lacks cause of action. Camarines Norte neededby BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair program for the amount of P5.000. shops. located at theEngineer Island known as the Engineer Island Shops including some of itsequipment and machineries from Jose Panganiban. Rule 16. A motion to dismiss w/c fails to state a cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. ISSUE: .1. buildings. Valdez already written in 7th batch People vs.

Bill of particulars. The defendant participated in a mutual act of sexual intercourse. Defendant and the victim were not married. HELD: The Court did not agree with the petitioner's contention. believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent. 19. whichwe quote:"Section 9. accomplished with a female. Lacson. Summary of People v. The pertinent provision in the Rules of Court is Section 9 of Rule 116. was beyond the age of consent. and had been companions for several months prior to January 3. before arraignment. . -. By the statutory language “there must be a union. movefor a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. it does not and should not preclude the equally important right of the State to public justice. The court upheld the petitioners’ contention that while Sec." PEOPLE vs. whom he resided with. On that date she was 17 years 9 months old and voluntarily entered into sexual intercourse with the defendant. The defendant entertained a reasonable belief that his partner.” the elements of conduct and mental state that must be infused. Ct. Ct. where the female is under the age of 18. The rule should be applied prospectively. One is not capable of committing a crime who commits an act under ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves any criminal intent. of CA In Bank (1964) Facts: Defendant was charged with Statutory Rape. 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. not the wife of the perpetrator.8 secures the rights of the accused. If a procedural rule impairs a vested right. the remedy of the accused is not a motion to quash. or joint operation of act and intent. and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused. 2002 oral arguments. 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. Rule: Act of sexual intercourse. There must be a union. October 7. 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. but a motion for a bill of particulars. or would work injustice. the said rule may not be given a retroactive application. or joint operation of act and intent.The accused may.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. Reversed. 1961 – the date of the commission of the alleged offense. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or informationand the details desired. Hernandez S.When allegations in the information are vague or indefinite. Rationale: Lack of consent is a required element of the crime as the legislature mandated. 2003 FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover procedures. or criminal negligence.

Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries 2. each of the accused is also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who conspired to commit the crime. have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property Petitioner pleaded guilty for the first charge. MeTC however. The case against Rogelio Cañal was dismissed only in so far as the criminal liability is concerned due to his death in prison prior to promulgation of judgment. and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City. but moved to quash the second charge invoking double jeopardy having been convicted for the previous offense. 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. a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident. where the four principal accused. jose Facts: On June 26. Held: No. to wilfully. then and there. 25 years old and single. petitioner herein. where the act of one is the act of all. . refused quashal finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. Ivler vs. 1967.000 in each of the four crimes.. Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig with two separate offenses: 1. The SC modified the judgment as follows: appellants Jaime Jose. As a consequence thereof. and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. quitain People vs. each of them is likewise convicted with four death penalties and to indemnify the victim of the sum of P10. Basilio Pineda Jr. four principal-accused Jaime Jose. Basilio Pineda Jr.People vs Oso People vs. with lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena “Maggie” dela Riva. confederated with and mutually helped one another. by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon. unlawfully and feloniously. The SC ruled that since the element of conspiracy was present. Issue: Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the element of conspiracy. Eduardo Aquino and Rogelio Cañal conspired together. the trial court’s ruling was not proper.. san pedro FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004.

Quasi-delicts. HELD: Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by death of the convict personal liabilities are extinguished. namely Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi offenses. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determined the penalty. 2. People vs Tamayo . Quasi-contracts. 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. HELD: Reckless imprudence is a Single Crime. depending on the source of obligation aside from delicts. Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi offense. People vs jose repeat People vs edna maingan People vs bayotas Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof. the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. bars his prosecution in the second offense charged. arising from the same facts were prosecuted under the same provision of the RPC. as to pecuniary penalties liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused.ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner's conviction in the first offense charged. if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. as amended. Corollarily. Pending appeal of his conviction. The Court thru Justice JB Reyes: Reason and precedent both coincide in that ones convicted or acquitted to a specific act of reckless imprudence. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. 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. Thus the court made a ruling as follows: 1. Contracts. 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. its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine the penalty. However. it does not qualify the substance of an offense. Consequently. 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. ISSUE: Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability. Delicts…. Bayotas died. The two charges against the petitioner. 3.

entered into a contract where HCCC agreed to undertake the construction of 35 housing units and the development of 35 hectares of land. should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal.  Francisco had custody of the checks. when so signing. 1977: Adalia Francisco (Francisco) president of A. Ong (Ong) President and General Manager of Herby Commercial & Construction Corporation (HCCC). Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of HCCC DE Guzman vs. 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.  According to Francisco. 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.FRANCISCO vs CA FACTS:  June 23. otherwise he shall be held personally liable  Instead of signing Ongs name.  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. he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability  An agent. Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC) and Jaime C. People .

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