Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Mapa
People V Mapa
Mapa defendantappellant
GR L-22301, 30 August 1967 (20 SCRA 1164)
En Banc, Fernando (p): 9 concur
Francisco
appellant.
P.
Cabigao
for
defendant
and
People v. Quijada
G.R. Nos. 115008 (July 24, 1996)
FACTS:
Respondent killed Diosdado Iroy using an
unlicensed firearm. He was convicted of 2
offenses, which were separately filed:
1) Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC
2) Illegal possession of firearms in its
aggravated form under PD 1866 Par 2 of Sec 1
of P.D. 1866 states that, If homicide or murder
is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed.
SSUE: 1) W/N the trial courts judgment should
be sustained in conformity with the doctrine laid
down in People v. Tac-an, People v. Tiozon,
People v. Caling, etc. OR to modify the judgment
and convict the appellant only of illegal
possession of firearm in its aggravated form
pursuant to People v. Barros. 2) W/N the 2nd par
of Sec 1 of PD1866 integrated illegal possession
of firearm and the resultant killing into a single
integrated offense.
HELD: 1) The trial courts judgment is affirmed.
2) 2nd par of Sec 1 of P.D. 1866 does not
support a conclusion that intended to treat said
two offenses as a single and integrated offense
of illegal possession with homicide or murder.
It does not use the clause as a result or on the
occasion of to evince an intention to create a
single integrated crime, but rather it uses the
clause with the use of.
LATIN MAXIM: 6c
Enrile v. Salazar
G.R. No. 92163 (June 5, 1990)
FACTS: Petitioner was arrested and charged
with the crime of rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murders allegedly committed
during a failed coup attempt from November 29
to December 10, 1990. Petitioners contend that
they are being charged for a criminal offense
that does not exist in the statute books because
technically, the crime of rebellion cannot be
complexed with other offenses committed on the
occasion thereof.
ISSUE: W/N case of Petitioners falls under the
Hernandez doctrine.
HELD: The doctrine in the case People v.
Hernandez remains as the binding doctrine
operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion
with any other offense committed on the
occasion thereof. The charges of murder and
multiple frustrated murders are absorbed in the
crime of simple rebellion. Therefore, charges
against Petitioners in the information should be
understood as that of simple rebellion under the
RPC. Furthermore, in a concurring opinion,
Justice Feliciano states that if the court ruled
that the charges of murder could be prosecuted
separately from rebellion, then the principle of
non-retroactivity would be violated.
LATIN MAXIM: 1, 46a, 48
FACTS:
Respondent Bank filed a case against Petitioner
Bank for reimbursement of P45,982.23 as a
consequence of six crossed Managers checks
which turned out to have forged and/or
unauthorized endorsements appearing at the
back of each check. Philippine Clearing House
Corp. (PCHC) ordered Petitioner Bank to pay
the said amount. Petitioner Bank appealed
saying that PCHC had no jurisdiction because
the checks involved were non-negotiable
checks.
ISSUE: W/N PCHC had jurisdiction over checks
which are non-negotiable.