You are on page 1of 7

ARTICLE 15

1. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People and Sato G.R.
No. 181409, February 11, 2010
FACTS:
William Sato, the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was already 79 years old and
blind). induced the latter to sign and thumbmark an SPA in favor of his daughter. Wendy. The
old woman believed that the SPA involved only her taxes, while in fact, it authorized Wendy,
to sell Manolita’s properties.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the death of William’s wife and Manolita’s daughter, Zenaida,
extinguished the relationship by affinity between William and Manolita.
2. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his
relationship to Manolita.
HELD:
1. No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased
spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the
marriage produced children or not.
2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the
felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State
condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said
crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly
liable.
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein.
The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it applies
exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply
where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such
as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the offender
criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief and
considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against
certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability. The
waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to property is achieved through (and
therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and
presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no
longer simply the property right of a family relation but a paramount public interest.

unjust or excessive. guardian. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused 3. Godofredo Pascua sustained two mortal wounds for which he died instantaneously. 335 of the RPC. therefore. he stabbed twice the victim Godofredo Pascua with a bolo. did not err in finding the accused Filomeno Camano guilty of Murder in each of the two cases. The offense being attended by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication. Province of Camarines Sur. the accused proceeded to the seashore and on finding Mariano Buenaflore leaning at the gate of the fence of his house. tapering to the end. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim” ISSUE: Whether the common-law husband of the girl’s grandmother included RULING: No! Courts must not bring cases within the provisions of the law which are not clearly embraced by it. in the barrio of Nato. the trial court’s conclusion cannot be sustained. the imposable penalty is . Atop FACTS: Sec. 4) There is merit in the contention. The alternative circumstance of intoxication should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3 rd civil degree. 5) Death penalty is not cruel. 11 of RA 7659. ISSUE: 1) Whether or not there is not evident premeditation. People v. in a kneeling position. and his head stooping down hacked the latter with the same bolo. No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly within the terms of a statute can be brought within them. ascendant. 3) Whether or not superior strength is absorbed in treachery. The rule is already settled the abuse of superiority is absorbed in treachery. called in the vernacular of Bicol “palas” which is a sharp bladed and pointed instrument about 2 feet long including the black handle. step-parent. RULING: 1) As there is no direct evidence of the planning or preparation in the killing of Pascua and Buenaflor and of the marked persistence to accomplish that plan. while the latter was walking alone along the barrio street almost in front of the store of one Socorro Buates. 3) The contention is correct.2. 5) Whether or not death is cruel and unusual penalty. about and one-half inches in width. without any aggravating circumstance to offset it. After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua. 2) The contention is without merit. 2) Whether or not treachery is not present. Municipality of Sagnay. Camano 115 SCRA 688 FACTS: On February 17. after the accused had been drinking liquor. provides that the death penalty for rape may be imposed if the “offender is a parent. The trial court. 4) Whether or not alternative circumstance of intoxication was erroneously appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. between four and five in the afternoon. which amended Art. People v. with both arms on top of the fence. 1970.

“ Plain view ” issue Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA 6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972]. Section 4 [Sale. People vs. scope and definition > Types > Warrantless search and seizure > “ Plain view ” doctrine FACTS Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one “ Jun” [Doria] was engaged in illegal drug activities. the appellant should be. and inside it was something wrapped in plastic. so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. 1989 5.the minimum of that provided by law or 17 years. as minimum. 4 months and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. “ Jun” identified her as “Neneth. in each case. He was arrested. sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal. ” and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the house]. to 17 years. and upon inquiry. He peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. 4. as he is hereby. Standing by the door. and it appeared similar to the marijuana earlier sold to him by “ Jun. but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. ” His suspicion aroused. the arrest is legally objectionable. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. Florencio Doria [“ Jun ”] and Violeta Gaddao [ “Neneth ” ] 22 Jan 1999 / Puno / Appeal from a Pasig RTC decision Search and seizure > Nature. . Delivery. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal offense. No. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her. People v. The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. NO RATIO Re: warrantless arrest Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by Doria. The bricks were examined and they were found to be dried marijuana leaves. 68898 March 31. the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. so he entered the house and took hold of the box. RTC convicted them. Doria did not point to her as his associate in the drug business. Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and Conspiracy]. as maximum. ISSUE AND HOLDING WON RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view. making its warrantless seizure valid. so he led the police team to her house. 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Lapaz GR. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him. he revealed that he left it at the house of his associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao]. One of the box’ s flaps was open. This identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs. Administration.

600. No. hence. The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s house Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. what is material is the submission of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation of the drug as evidence in court.V. On crossexamination. Leonen in “People v.white. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent c. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime. Doria sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit. In his direct examination. however. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area b. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on crossexamination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1.Requisites a. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court. he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana. it was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. the poseur-buyer Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug DORIA SENTENCED TO SUFFER RECLUSION PERPETUA + 500K FINE GADDAO ACQUITTED 6. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana. 2014 “Chicks mo dong?” These words led to the arrest of a sex trafficker and the rescue of two minors in Cebu City in 2008. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC) in a 21-page ponencia by Associate Justice Marvic M. If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article. then the article is deemed in plain view. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. and her subsequent conviction by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court." Each of the ten bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags-.F. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime. 211465 December 3. Where the object seized was inside a closed package. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. People vs.   In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents.” . Casio. Casio G. the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.R. pink or blue in color.00 he received.

abusive.” In his ponencia.” He also noted that it should be the people and the government that should unite and “contribute to a commitment to finally stamp out slavery and human trafficking. abusive. including a 17-year-old minor "for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploration. slavery." The entrapment operation was instigated by the International Justice Mission. upheld the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling which in turn had affirmed the conviction of accused Shirley A. along with other girls. a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will. 9208 or the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. through Leonen.” Two police officers testified that during an entrapment operation where they acted as decoys in Cebu City's red-light district.The SC's Second Division.” It was not convinced by the defense that the victims had given their consent and ruled that “(t)he victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive. We should continue to strive for the best of our world. “a human rights organization that rescues victims of violence. Casio for violation of Republic Act No.000..in exchange for money. guys?)” The accused told the officers to wait and then.m. Leonen said that “Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying desperation that compels our women to endure indignities.” The accused was caught recruiting two girls..000 to P500.” It also raised the award of moral damages from P150.” which “coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City." The SC said that “[b]ased on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts of trafficking in persons. between 7 p.” The SC sentenced Casio “to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2 million. accused performed all the elements in the commission of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys….000 in accordance with a previous ruling. and 8 p. Even without the use of coercive. where our choices of human intimacies are real choices. and awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P100. accused Casio “called their attention by saying “Chicks mo dong? (Do you like girls. and oppression. or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking.m. The rescued minor “described [that] her job as a prostitute required her to display herself. or deceptive means. . She received P400 for every customer who selected her. and not the last resort taken just to survive. sexual exploitation. by acting as their procurer for different customers. returned after a few minutes with two girls whose services would cost P500 each.

written by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. the ruling stressed that “trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent. otherwise known as “The Anti-Rape Law. The trial court convicted accused. Lalli”. the conviction of two illegal recruiters after they sent four women. . including a minor. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape and not just acts of lasciviousness? Held: The trial is court correct in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the accused-appellant. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.” the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child below seven (7) years of age. the accused claimed that the minor “admitted engaging in prostitution” prior to the accused's recruitment and that she “was predisposed to having sex with customers for money. The first was in 2011 when the SC upheld in the case of “People v.” However. Criselda Fuentes. Further amended by Republic Act No. to Malaysia to work as prostitutes. 8353. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES 7.” It is the second time since the passage in 2003 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law that the SC took a strong stance on the trafficking of persons. through the testimony of the victim’s mother. Carpio. there is no dispute that the victim was six (6) years of age when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her. 7659. 2000 FACTS: The accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed that he only inserted his left index finger into her vagina because he was sexually aroused at that time. The victim’s age was duly established by the prosecution. In the present case.In her defense. and further corroborated by Crisselle’s Certificate of Live Birth. People vs Balgos January 26.

the appellant jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house. The following information was provided by the prosecution: 1) In the afternoon of September 24. 3) Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellant’s house. ISSUE: Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Nos. September 19. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized. 8294. Furthermore. such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. nor has he been given authority to carry firearms. “unless no other crime was committed”. and 3) direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. HELD: No. to wit: 1) maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A. if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm.8. 5) Records show that appellant had not filed any application for license to possess firearm and ammunition. . 1997. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they were met by a volley of gunfire coming from the second floor of the said house. of Republic Act No. 2) After gaining entrance. 4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for gunpowder nitrates. 136149-51. Also found was a pencil case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside. Ladjaalam G. No. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder. He was subsequently arrested at the back of his house after a brief chase. 2000 Appellee: People of the Philippines Appellant: Walpan Ladjaalam alias “Warpan” FACTS: Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16). illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier saw appellant firing the rifle. People vs.R. As he noticed their presence. Article III. three of which he was found guilty. 1866 as amended by Republic Act. They saw that it was the appellant who fired the M14 rifle towards them. each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. 2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree No.