11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

TodayisSunday,November27,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.181409February11,2010
INTESTATEESTATEOFMANOLITAGONZALESVDA.DECARUNGCONG,representedbyMEDIATRIX
CARUNGCONG,asAdministratrix,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESandWILLIAMSATO,Respondents.
DECISION
CORONA,J.:
Article332oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovides:
ART. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commissionofthecrimeoftheft,swindling,ormaliciousmischiefcommittedorcausedmutuallybythefollowing
persons:
1.Spouses,ascendantsanddescendants,orrelativesbyaffinityinthesameline
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
sameshallhavepassedintothepossessionofanotherand
3.Brothersandsistersandbrothersinlawandsistersinlaw,iflivingtogether.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of
thecrime.(emphasissupplied)
Forpurposesoftheaforementionedprovision,istherelationshipbyaffinitycreatedbetweenthehusbandandthe
bloodrelativesofhiswife(aswellasbetweenthewifeandthebloodrelativesofherhusband)dissolvedbythe
death of one spouse, thus ending the marriage which created such relationship by affinity? Does the beneficial
applicationofArticle332coverthecomplexcrimeofestafathrufalsification?
MediatrixG.Carungcong,inhercapacityasthedulyappointedadministratrix1ofpetitionerintestateestateofher
deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong, filed a complaintaffidavit2 for estafa against her
brotherinlaw,WilliamSato,aJapanesenational.Hercomplaintaffidavitread:
I, MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y GONZALE[S], Filipino, of legal age, single, and resident of Unit 1111, Prince
GregoryCondominium,10512thAvenue,Cubao,QuezonCity,afterbeingdulysworn,deposeandstatethat:
1. I am the duly appointed Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s],
docketedasSpec.Procs.No.[Q]9523621[,]RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch104,beingone
(1)ofhersurvivingdaughters.CopyoftheLettersofAdministrationdatedJune22,1995isheretoattached
asAnnex"A"toformanintegralparthereof.
2. As such Administratrix, I am duty bound not only to preserve the properties of the Intestate Estate of
ManolitaCarungcongYGonzale[s],butalsotorecoversuchfundsand/orpropertiesaspropertybelonging
totheestatebutarepresentlyinthepossessionorcontrolofotherparties.
3. After my appointment as Administratrix, I was able to confer with some of the children of my sister
ZenaidaCarungcongSato[,]whopredeceasedourmotherManolitaCarungcongYGonzales,havingdied
inJapanin1991.
4. In my conference with my nieces Karen Rose Sato and Wendy Mitsuko Sato, age[d] 27 and 24
respectively, I was able to learn that prior to the death of my mother Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s],
[s]pecifically on o[r] about November 24, 1992, their father William Sato, through fraudulent
misrepresentations,wasabletosecurethesignatureandthumbmarkofmymotheronaSpecialPowerof
AttorneywherebymynieceWendyMitsukoSato,whowasthenonlytwenty(20)yearsold,wasmadeher
attorneyinfact,tosellanddisposefour(4)valuablepiecesoflandinTagaytayCity.SaidSpecialPowerof
Attorney,copyofwhichisattachedasANNEX"A"oftheAffidavitofWendyMitsukoSato,wassignedand
thumbmark[ed] by my mother because William Sato told her that the documents she was being made to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

1/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

sign involved her taxes. At that time, my mother was completely blind, having gone blind almost ten (10)
yearspriortoNovember,1992.
5.TheaforesaidSpecialPowerofAttorneywassignedbymymotherinthepresenceofWendy,myother
nieceBelindaKikuSato,ourmaidManaTingzon,andGovernorJosephineRamirezwholaterbecamethe
secondwifeofmysisterswidowerWilliamSato.
6.WendyMitsukoSatoatteststothefactthatmymothersignedthedocumentinthebeliefthattheywere
inconnectionwithhertaxes,notknowing,sinceshewasblind,thatthesamewasinfactaSpecialPowerof
AttorneytosellherTagaytayproperties.
7.OnthebasisoftheaforesaidSpecialPowerofAttorney,WilliamSatofoundbuyersforthepropertyand
made my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign three (3) deeds of absolute sale in favor of (a) Anita Ng (Doc.
2194,PageNo.41,BookNo.V,Seriesof1992ofNotaryPublicVicenteB.Custodio),(b)AnitaNg(Doc.
No.2331,PageNo.68,BookNo.V,Seriesof1992ofNotaryPublicVicenteB.Custodio)and(c)RubyLee
Tsai(Doc.No.II,PageNo.65,BookNo.II,Seriesof1993ofNotaryPublicToribioD.Labid).xxx
8.PerthestatementofWendyMitsukoC.Sato,theconsiderationsappearingonthedeedsofabsolutesale
were not the true and actual considerations received by her father William Sato from the buyers of her
grandmothers properties. She attests that Anita Ng actually paid P7,000,000.00forthepropertycovered
byTCTNo.3148andP7,034,000.00forthepropertycoveredbyTCTNo.3149.Alltheaforesaidproceeds
were turned over to William Sato who undertook to make the proper accounting thereof to my mother,
ManolitaCarungcongGonzale[s].
9.Again,perthestatementofWendyMitsukoC.Sato,RubyLeeTsaipaidP8,000,000.00fortheproperty
covered by Tax Declaration No. GR0160735, and the proceeds thereof were likewise turned over to
WilliamSato.
10.TheconsiderationsappearingonthedeedsofsalewerefalsifiedasWendyMitsukoC.Satohasactual
knowledgeofthetrueamountspaidbythebuyers,asstatedinherAffidavit,sinceshewasthesignatory
theretoastheattorneyinfactofManolitaCarungcongYGonzale[s].
11.Wendywasonly20yearsoldatthetimeandwasnotinanypositiontoopposeortorefuseherfathers
orders.
12.Afterreceivingthetotalconsiderationsforthepropertiessoldunderthepowerofattorneyfraudulently
secured from my mother, which total P22,034,000.00, William Sato failed to account for the same and
neverdeliveredtheproceedstoManolitaCarungcongYGonzale[s]untilthelatterdiedonJune8,1994.
13.DemandshavebeenmadeforWilliamSatotomakeanaccountingandtodelivertheproceedsofthe
salestomeasAdministratrixofmymothersestate,butherefusedandfailed,andcontinuestorefuseand
to fail to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the estate of the deceased Manolita Carungcong Y
Gonzale[s]andoftheheirswhichincludehissix(6)childrenwithmysisterZenaidaCarungcongSato.xx
x3
Wendy Mitsuko Satos supporting affidavit and the special power of attorney allegedly issued by the deceased
ManolitaGonzalesvda.deCarungconginfavorofWendywereattachedtothecomplaintaffidavitofMediatrix.
InaresolutiondatedMarch25,1997,theCityProsecutorofQuezonCitydismissedthecomplaint.4 On appeal,
however,theSecretaryofJusticereversedandsetasidetheresolutiondatedMarch25,1997anddirectedthe
CityProsecutorofQuezonCitytofileanInformationagainstSatoforviolationofArticle315,paragraph3(a)ofthe
Revised Penal Code.5 Thus, the following Information was filed against Sato in the Regional Trial Court of
QuezonCity,Branch87:6
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses WILLIAM SATO of the crime of ESTAFA under Article 315[,] par. 3(a) of the Revised
PenalCode,committedasfollows:
That on or about the 24th day of November, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the abovenamed accused, by
means of deceit, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud MANOLITA GONZALES VDA.
DE CARUNGCONG in the following manner, to wit: the said accused induced said Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
Carungcong[,]whowasalreadythenblindand79yearsold[,]tosignandthumbmarkaspecialpowerofattorney
datedNovember24,1992infavorofWendyMitsukoC.Sato,daughterofsaidaccused,makingherbelievethat
saiddocumentinvolvedonlyhertaxes,accusedknowingfullywellthatsaiddocumentauthorizesWendyMitsuko
C.Sato,thenaminor,tosell,assign,transferorotherwisedisposeoftoanypersonorentityofherpropertiesall
locatedatTagaytayCity,asfollows:
1.OneThousandEightHundredSeven(ty)One(1,871)squaremetersmoreorlessandcoveredbyT.C.T.
No.3147
2. Five Hundred Forty (540) square meters more or less and covered by T.C.T. No. 3148 with Tax
DeclarationNo.GR0160722,CadastralLotNo.7106
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

2/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

3. Five Hundred Forty (540) square meters more or less and covered by T.C.T. No. 3149 with Tax
DeclarationNo.GR0160721,CadastralLotNo.7104
4. Eight Hundred Eighty Eight (888) square meters more or less with Tax Declaration No. GR0161735,
CadastralLotNo.7062
registeredinthenameofManolitaGonzalesVda.DeCarungcong,andonceinthepossessionofthesaidspecial
power of attorney and other pertinent documents, said accused made Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign the three (3)
DeedsofAbsoluteSalecoveringTransferCertificateofTitle[TCT]No.3148forP250,000.00,[TCT]No.3149for
P250,000.00and[TaxDeclaration]GR0160735forP650,000.00andonceinpossessionoftheproceedsofthe
sale of the above properties, said accused, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to his own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong
whodiedin1994.
Contrarytolaw.7
Subsequently, the prosecution moved for the amendment of the Information so as to increase the amount of
damages from P1,150,000, the total amount stated in the deeds of sale, to P22,034,000, the actual amount
receivedbySato.
Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, his
relationship to the person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his motherinlaw, was an
exemptingcircumstance.
TheprosecutiondisputedSatosmotioninanoppositiondatedMarch29,2006.
InanorderdatedApril17,2006,8thetrialcourtgrantedSatosmotionandorderedthedismissalofthecriminal
case:
TheTrialProsecutorscontentionisthatthedeathofthewifeoftheaccusedseveredtherelationshipofaffinity
between accused and his motherinlaw. Therefore, the mantle of protection provided to the accused by the
relationshipisnolongerobtaining.
A judicious and thorough examination of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code convinces this Court of the
correctness of the contention of the [d]efense. While it is true that the death of Zenaida CarungcongSato has
extinguished the marriage of accused with her, it does not erase the fact that accused and Zenaidas mother,
herein complainant, are still son[inlaw] and motherinlaw and they remained son[inlaw] and motherinlaw
evenbeyondthedeathofZenaida.
Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, is very explicit and states no proviso. "No criminal, but only civil
liability[,] shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or
causedmutuallybyxxx1)spouses,ascendantsanddescendants,orrelativesbyaffinityinthesameline."
Article 332, according to Aquino, in his Commentaries [to] Revised Penal Code, preserves family harmony and
obviates scandal, hence even in cases of theft and malicious mischief, where the crime is committed by a
stepfather against his stepson, by a grandson against his grandfather, by a son against his mother, no criminal
liability is incurred by the accused only civil (Vicente Alavare, 52 Phil. 65 Adame, CA 40 OG 12th Supp. 63
Cristobal,84Phil.473).
Suchexemptingcircumstanceisapplicableherein.
WHEREFORE, finding the Motion to Quash Original Information meritorious, the same is GRANTED and, as
prayedfor,caseisherebyDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.9(underliningsuppliedintheoriginal)
Theprosecutionsmotionforreconsideration10wasdeniedinanorderdatedJune2,2006.11
Dissatisfiedwiththetrialcourtsrulings,theintestateestateofManolita,representedbyMediatrix,filedapetition
for certiorari in the Court of Appeals12 which, however, in a decision13 dated August 9, 2007, dismissed it. It
ruled:
[W]esustainthefindingof[thetrialcourt]thatthedeathofZenaidadidnotextinguishtherelationshipbyaffinity
betweenherhusband,privaterespondentSato,andhermotherManolita,anddoesnotbartheapplicationofthe
exemptingcircumstanceunderArticle332(1)oftheRevisedPenalCodeinfavorofprivaterespondentSato.
Wefurtheragreewiththesubmissionofthe[OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)]thatnothinginthelawand/or
existing jurisprudence supports the argument of petitioner that the fact of death of Zenaida dissolved the
relationshipbyaffinitybetweenManolitaandprivaterespondentSato,andthusremovedtheprotectivemantleof
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code from said private respondent and that notwithstanding the death of
Zenaida, private respondent Sato remains to be the soninlaw of Manolita, and a brotherinlaw of petitioner
administratrix. As further pointed out by the OSG, the filing of the criminal case for estafa against private
respondent Sato already created havoc among members of the Carungcong and Sato families as private
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

3/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

respondentsdaughterWendyMitsukoSatojoinedcausewithheraunt[Mediatrix]CarungcongyGonzales,while
two(2)otherchildrenofprivaterespondent,WilliamFrancisandBelindaSato,tookthesideoftheirfather.
Thereisadearthofjurisprudenceand/orcommentarieselaboratingontheprovisionofArticle332oftheRevised
PenalCode.However,fromtheplainlanguageofthelaw,itisclearthattheexemptionfromcriminalliabilityfor
thecrimeofswindling(estafa)underArticle315oftheRevisedPenalCodeappliestoprivaterespondentSato,as
soninlawofManolita,theybeing"relativesbyaffinityinthesameline"underArticle332(1)ofthesameCode.
WecannotdrawthedistinctionthatfollowingthedeathofZenaidain1991,privaterespondentSatoisnolonger
the soninlaw of Manolita, so as to exclude the former from the exempting circumstance provided for in Article
332(1)oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Ubilexnondistinguitnecnosdistingueredebemos.Basicistheruleinstatutoryconstructionthatwherethelaw
does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of law
wherenoneisindicated.Thecourtscouldonlydistinguishwheretherearefactsorcircumstancesshowingthat
the lawgiver intended a distinction or qualification. In such a case, the courts would merely give effect to the
lawgivers intent. The solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not include the
powertocorrectbyreadingintothelawwhatisnotwrittentherein.
Further, it is an established principle of statutory construction that penal laws are strictly construed against the
Stateandliberallyinfavoroftheaccused.Anyreasonabledoubtmustberesolvedinfavoroftheaccused.Inthis
case, the plain meaning of Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Codes simple language is most favorable to
Sato.14
Theappellatecourtdeniedreconsideration.15Hence,thispetition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not reversing the orders of the trial court. It cites the
commentaryofJusticeLuisB.ReyesinhisbookoncriminallawthattherationaleofArticle332oftheRevised
Penal Code exempting the persons mentioned therein from criminal liability is that the law recognizes the
presumedcoownershipofthepropertybetweentheoffenderandtheoffendedparty.Here,theproperties
subjectoftheestafacasewereownedbyManolitawhosedaughter,ZenaidaCarungcongSato(Satoswife),died
on January 28, 1991. Hence, Zenaida never became a coowner because, under the law, her right to the
three parcels of land could have arisen only after her mothers death. Since Zenaida predeceased her
mother, Manolita, no such right came about and the mantle of protection provided to Sato by the
relationshipnolongerexisted.
SatocountersthatArticle332makesnodistinctionthattherelationshipmaynotbeinvokedincaseofdeathof
the spouse at the time the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, while the death of Zenaida extinguished her
marriagewithSato,itdidnotdissolvethesoninlawandmotherinlawrelationshipbetweenSatoandZenaidas
mother,Manolita.
Forhispart,theSolicitorGeneralmaintainsthatSatoiscoveredbytheexemptionfromcriminalliabilityprovided
underArticle332.NothinginthelawandjurisprudencesupportspetitionersclaimthatZenaidasdeathdissolved
the relationship by affinity between Sato and Manolita. As it is, the criminal case against Sato created havoc
amongthemembersoftheCarungcongandSatofamilies,asituationsoughttobeparticularlyavoidedbyArticle
332s provision exempting a family member committing theft, estafa or malicious mischief from criminal liability
andreducinghis/herliabilitytothecivilaspectonly.
Thepetitionhasmerit.
The resolution of this case rests on the interpretation of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code. In particular, it
callsforthedeterminationofthefollowing:(1)theeffectofdeathontherelationshipbyaffinitycreatedbetweena
surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse and (2) the extent of the coverage of Article
332.
EffectofDeathonRelationshipByAffinityasAbsolutoryCause
Article332providesforanabsolutorycause16inthecrimesoftheft,estafa(orswindling)andmaliciousmischief.It
limits the responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his
relationshiptotheoffendedparty.
Inconnectionwiththerelativesmentionedinthefirstparagraph,ithasbeenheldthatincludedintheexemptions
are parentsinlaw, stepparents and adopted children.17 By virtue thereof, no criminal liability is incurred by the
stepfatherwhocommitsmaliciousmischiefagainsthisstepson18bythestepmotherwhocommitstheftagainst
herstepson19bythestepfatherwhostealssomethingfromhisstepson20bythegrandsonwhostealsfromhis
grandfather21bytheaccusedwhoswindleshissisterinlawlivingwithhim22andbythesonwhostealsaring
fromhismother.23
Affinity is the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of the other spouse. It is a relationship by
marriageor
afamilialrelationresultingfrommarriage.24Itisafictivekinship,afictioncreatedbylawinconnectionwiththe
institutionofmarriageandfamilyrelations.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

4/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

If marriage gives rise to ones relationship by affinity to the blood relatives of ones spouse, does the
extinguishmentofmarriagebythedeathofthespousedissolvetherelationshipbyaffinity?
Philippinejurisprudencehasnopreviousencounterwiththeissuethatconfrontsusinthiscase.Thatiswhythe
trial and appellate courts acknowledged the "dearth of jurisprudence and/or commentaries" on the matter. In
contrast,intheAmericanlegalsystem,therearetwoviewsonthesubject.AsoneFilipinoauthorobserved:
Incaseamarriageisterminatedbythedeathofoneofthespouses,thereareconflictingviews.Therearesome
who believe that relationship by affinity is not terminated whether there are children or not in the marriage
(Carman vs. Newell, N.Y. 1 [Denio] 25, 26). However, the better view supported by most judicial authorities in
other jurisdictions is that, if the spouses have no living issues or children and one of the spouses dies, the
relationshipbyaffinityisdissolved.Itfollowstherulethatrelationshipbyaffinityceaseswiththedissolutionofthe
marriagewhichproducesit(Kellyv.Neely,12Ark.657,659,56AmDec.288).Ontheotherhand,therelationship
by affinity is continued despite the death of one of the spouses where there are living issues or children of the
marriage"inwhoseveinsthebloodofthepartiesarecommingled,sincetherelationshipofaffinitywascontinued
throughthemediumoftheissueofthemarriage"(Paddockvs.Wells,2Barb.Ch.331,333).25
Thefirstview(theterminatedaffinityview)holdsthatrelationshipbyaffinityterminateswiththedissolutionofthe
marriageeitherbydeathordivorcewhichgaverisetotherelationshipofaffinitybetweentheparties.26Underthis
view, the relationship by affinity is simply coextensive and coexistent with the marriage that produced it. Its
duration is indispensably and necessarily determined by the marriage that created it. Thus, it exists only for so
longasthemarriagesubsists,suchthatthedeathofaspouseipsofactoendstherelationshipbyaffinityofthe
survivingspousetothedeceasedspousesbloodrelatives.
The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity continues even after the death of one spouse
whenthereisasurvivingissue.27Therationaleisthattherelationshipispreservedbecauseofthelivingissueof
themarriageinwhoseveinsthebloodofbothpartiesiscommingled.28
Thesecondview(thecontinuingaffinityview)maintainsthatrelationshipbyaffinitybetweenthesurvivingspouse
andthekindredofthedeceasedspousecontinuesevenafterthedeathofthedeceasedspouse,regardlessof
whetherthemarriageproducedchildrenornot.29Underthisview,therelationshipbyaffinityenduresevenafter
thedissolutionofthemarriagethatproduceditasaresultofthedeathofoneofthepartiestothesaidmarriage.
This view considers that, where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit steprelatives or inlaws, the "tie of
affinity"betweenthesepeopleandtheirrelativesbymarriageisnottoberegardedasterminateduponthedeath
ofoneofthemarriedparties.30
After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the two views, we hold that the second view is
moreconsistentwiththelanguageandspiritofArticle332(1)oftheRevisedPenalCode.
First,theterminatedaffinityviewisgenerallyappliedincasesofjurydisqualificationandincest.31 On the
otherhand,thecontinuingaffinityviewhasbeenappliedintheinterpretationoflawsthatintendtobenefit
steprelatives or inlaws. Since the purpose of the absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to be
beneficialtorelativesbyaffinitywithinthedegreecoveredunderthesaidprovision,thecontinuingaffinity
viewismoreappropriate.
Second,thelanguageofArticle332(1)whichspeaksof"relativesbyaffinityinthesameline"iscouchedin
generallanguage.Thelegislativeintenttomakenodistinctionbetweenthespouseofoneslivingchildand
thesurvivingspouseofonesdeceasedchild(incaseofasoninlawordaughterinlawwithrespecttohis
orherparentsinlaw)32canbedrawnfromArticle332(1)oftheRevisedPenalCodewithoutdoingviolence
toitslanguage.
Third,theConstitutiondeclaresthattheprotectionandstrengtheningofthefamilyasabasicautonomous
socialinstitutionarepoliciesoftheStateandthatitisthedutyoftheStatetostrengthenthesolidarityofthe
family.33CongresshasalsoaffirmedasaStateandnationalpolicythatcourtsshallpreservethesolidarity
of the family.34 In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate
scandal.35 The view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the death of one of the parties to the
marriagethatcreateditismoreinaccordwithfamilysolidarityandharmony.
Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in
favoroftheaccused.Indubioproreo.Whenindoubt,rulefortheaccused.36Thisisinconsonancewith
the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is
establishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.37
Intimatelyrelatedtotheindubioproreoprincipleistheruleoflenity.38Theruleapplieswhenthecourtisfaced
with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is
favorabletohim.Therulecallsfortheadoptionofaninterpretationwhichismorelenienttotheaccused.
LenitybecomesallthemoreappropriatewhenthiscaseisviewedthroughthelensofthebasicpurposeofArticle
332oftheRevisedPenalCodetopreservefamilyharmonybyprovidinganabsolutorycause.Sincethegoalof
Article 332(1) is to benefit the accused, the Court should adopt an application or interpretation that is more
favorabletotheaccused.Inthiscase,thatinterpretationisthecontinuingaffinityview.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

5/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

Thus,forpurposesofArticle332(1)oftheRevisedPenalCode,weholdthattherelationshipbyaffinitycreated
betweenthesurvivingspouseandthebloodrelativesofthedeceasedspousesurvivesthedeathofeitherpartyto
the marriage which created the affinity. (The same principle applies to the justifying circumstance of defense of
ones relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of grave offense committed against ones relatives under Article 13[5] of the same Code and the
absolutorycauseofrelationshipinfavorofaccessoriesunderArticle20alsoofthesameCode.)
ScopeofArticle332ofTheRevisedPenalCode
TheabsolutorycauseunderArticle332oftheRevisedPenalCodeonlyappliestothefeloniesoftheft,swindling
andmaliciousmischief.Underthesaidprovision,theStatecondonesthecriminalresponsibilityoftheoffenderin
cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the
offenderforthesaidcrimesbutleavestheprivateoffendedpartywiththeoptiontoholdtheoffendercivillyliable.
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
complexedwithanothercrime,suchastheftthroughfalsificationorestafathroughfalsification.39
TheInformationagainstSatochargeshimwithestafa.However,therealnatureoftheoffenseisdeterminedby
thefactsallegedintheInformation,notbythedesignationoftheoffense.40Whatcontrolsisnotthetitleofthe
InformationorthedesignationoftheoffensebuttheactualfactsrecitedintheInformation.41Inotherwords,itis
the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the
crimebeingchargedintheInformation.42Itistheexclusiveprovinceofthecourttosaywhatthecrimeisorwhat
itisnamed.43ThedeterminationbytheprosecutorwhosignstheInformationofthecrimecommittedismerelyan
opinionwhichisnotbindingonthecourt.44
AreadingofthefactsallegedintheInformationrevealsthatSatoisbeingchargednotwithsimpleestafabutwith
the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. In particular, the Information states that
Sato,bymeansofdeceit,intentionallydefraudedManolitacommittedasfollows:
(a) Sato presented a document to Manolita (who was already blind at that time) and induced her to sign
andthumbmarkthesame
(b)hemadeManolitabelievethatthesaiddocumentwasinconnectionwithhertaxeswhenitwasinfacta
specialpowerofattorney(SPA)authorizinghisminordaughterWendytosell,assign,transferorotherwise
disposeofManolitaspropertiesinTagaytayCity
(c)relyingonSatosinducementandrepresentation,ManolitasignedandthumbmarkedtheSPAinfavorof
WendyMitsukoSato,daughterofSato
(d) using the document, he sold the properties to third parties but he neither delivered the proceeds to
Manolitanoraccountedforthesameand
(d)despiterepeateddemands,hefailedandrefusedtodelivertheproceeds,tothedamageandprejudice
oftheestateofManolita.
The above averments in the Information show that the estafa was committed by attributing to Manolita (who
participatedintheexecutionofthedocument)statementsotherthanthoseinfactmadebyher.Manolitasactsof
signingtheSPAandaffixingherthumbmarktothatdocumentweretheveryexpressionofherspecificintention
thatsomethingbedoneabouthertaxes.Hersignatureandthumbmarkweretheaffirmationofherstatementon
such intention as she only signed and thumbmarked the SPA (a document which she could not have read)
because of Satos representation that the document pertained to her taxes. In signing and thumbmarking the
document,ManolitashowedthatshebelievedandadoptedtherepresentationsofSatoastowhatthedocument
wasallabout,i.e.,thatitinvolvedhertaxes.Hersignatureandthumbmark,therefore,servedasherconformityto
Satosproposalthatsheexecuteadocumenttosettlehertaxes.
Thus, by inducing Manolita to sign the SPA, Sato made it appear that Manolita granted his daughter Wendy a
special power of attorney for the purpose of selling, assigning, transferring or otherwise disposing of Manolitas
TagaytaypropertieswhenthefactwasthatManolitasignedandthumbmarkedthedocumentpresentedbySato
inthebeliefthatitpertainedtohertaxes.Indeed,thedocumentitself,theSPA,andeverythingthatitcontained
werefalselyattributedtoManolitawhenshewasmadetosigntheSPA.
Moreover,theallegationsintheInformationthat
(1) "once in the possession of the said special power of attorney and other pertinent documents, [Sato]
madeWendyMitsukoSatosignthethree(3)DeedsofAbsoluteSale"and
(2) "once in possession of the proceeds of the sale of the above properties, said accused, misapplied,
misappropriatedandconvertedthesametohisownpersonaluseandbenefit"raisethepresumptionthat
Sato, as the possessor of the falsified document and the one who benefited therefrom, was the author
thereof.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

6/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

Furthermore, it should be noted that the prosecution moved for the amendment of the Information so as to
increasetheamountofdamagesfromP1,150,000toP22,034,000.Thiswasgrantedbythetrialcourtandwas
affirmed by the Court of Appeals on certiorari. This meant that the amended Information would now state that,
whilethetotalamountofconsiderationstatedinthedeedsofabsolutesalewasonlyP1,150,000, Sato actually
receivedthetotalamountofP22,034,000asproceedsofthesaleofManolitasproperties.45Thisalsomeantthat
the deeds of sale (which were public documents) were also falsified by making untruthful statements as to the
amountsofconsiderationstatedinthedeeds.
Therefore,theallegationsintheInformationessentiallychargedacrimethatwasnotsimpleestafa.Satoresorted
to falsification of public documents (particularly, the special power of attorney and the deeds of sale) as a
necessarymeanstocommittheestafa.
Since the crime with which respondent was charged was not simple estafa but the complex crime of estafa
throughfalsificationofpublicdocuments,SatocannotavailhimselfoftheabsolutorycauseprovidedunderArticle
332oftheRevisedPenalCodeinhisfavor.
Effect of Absolutory Cause Under Article 332 on Criminal Liability For The Complex Crime of Estafa
ThroughFalsificationofPublicDocuments
The question may be asked: if the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple estafa by virtue of the
absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, should he not be absolved also from criminal
liabilityforthecomplexcrimeofestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocuments?No.
True, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document is
requiredforaproperconvictionforthecomplexcrimeofestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocument.Thatis
therulinginGonzaludov.People.46Itmeansthattheprosecutionmustestablishthattheaccusedresortedtothe
falsificationofapublicdocumentasanecessarymeanstocommitthecrimeofestafa.
However,aproperappreciationofthescopeandapplicationofArticle332oftheRevisedPenalCodeandofthe
natureofacomplexcrimewouldnegateexemptionfromcriminalliabilityforthecomplexcrimeofestafathrough
falsificationofpublicdocuments,simplybecausetheaccusedmaynotbeheldcriminallyliableforsimpleestafa
byvirtueoftheabsolutorycauseunderArticle332.
TheabsolutorycauseunderArticle332ismeanttoaddressspecificcrimesagainstproperty,namely,thesimple
crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not
affectedbytheabsolutorycauseprovidedbythesaidprovision.ToapplytheabsolutorycauseunderArticle332
oftheRevisedPenalCodetooneofthecomponentcrimesofacomplexcrimeforthepurposeofnegatingthe
existenceofthatcomplexcrimeistoundulyexpandthescopeofArticle332.Inotherwords,toapplyArticle332
tothecomplexcrimeofestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocumentwouldbetomistakenlytreatthecrimeof
estafaasaseparatesimplecrime,notasthecomponentcrimethatitisinthatsituation.Itwouldwronglyconsider
theindictmentasseparatechargesofestafaandfalsificationofpublicdocument,notasasinglechargeforthe
single(complex)crimeofestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocument.
UnderArticle332oftheRevisedPenalCode,theStatewaivesitsrighttoholdtheoffendercriminallyliableforthe
simplecrimesoftheft,swindlingandmaliciousmischiefandconsiderstheviolationofthejuridicalrighttoproperty
committedbytheoffenderagainstcertainfamilymembersasaprivatematterandthereforesubjectonlytocivil
liability.Thewaiverdoesnotapplywhentheviolationoftherighttopropertyisachievedthrough(andtherefore
inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of public
documents.For,inthelatterinstance,whatisinvolvedisnolongersimplythepropertyrightofafamily
relationbutaparamountpublicinterest.
ThepurposeofArticle332istopreservefamilyharmonyandobviatescandal.47Thus,theactionprovidedunder
thesaidprovisionsimplyconcernstheprivaterelationsofthepartiesasfamilymembersandislimitedtothecivil
aspect between the offender and the offended party. When estafa is committed through falsification of a public
document,however,thematteracquiresaveryseriouspublicdimensionandgoesbeyondtherespectiverights
andliabilitiesoffamilymembersamongthemselves.Effectively,whentheoffenderresortstoanactthatbreaches
publicinterestintheintegrityofpublicdocumentsasameanstoviolatethepropertyrightsofafamilymember,
heisremovedfromtheprotectivemantleoftheabsolutorycauseunderArticle332.
In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents,itwouldbewrongtoconsiderthecomponentcrimesseparatelyfromeachother.Whiletheremaybe
twocomponentcrimes(estafaandfalsificationofdocuments),bothfeloniesareanimatedbyandresultfromone
andthesamecriminalintentforwhichthereisonlyonecriminalliability.48Thatistheconceptofacomplexcrime.
Inotherwords,whiletherearetwocrimes,theyaretreatedonlyasone,subjecttoasinglecriminalliability.
Asopposedtoasimplecrimewhereonlyonejuridicalrightorinterestisviolated(e.g.,homicidewhichviolates
the right to life, theft which violates the right to property),49 a complex crime constitutes a violation of diverse
juridicalrightsorinterestsbymeansofdiverseacts,eachofwhichisasimplecrimeinitself.50Sinceonlyasingle
criminalintentunderliesthediverseacts,however,thecomponentcrimesareconsideredaselementsofasingle
crime,thecomplexcrime.ThisisthecorrectinterpretationofacomplexcrimeastreatedunderArticle48ofthe
RevisedPenalCode.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

7/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

Inthecaseofacomplexcrime,therefore,thereisaformal(orideal)pluralityofcrimeswherethesamecriminal
intentresultsintwoormorecomponentcrimesconstitutingacomplexcrimeforwhichthereisonlyonecriminal
liability.51(Thecomplexcrimeofestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocumentfallsunderthiscategory.)Thisis
differentfromamaterial(orreal)pluralityofcrimeswheredifferentcriminalintentsresultintwoormorecrimes,
foreachofwhichtheaccusedincurscriminalliability.52Thelattercategoryiscoveredneitherbytheconceptof
complexcrimesnorbyArticle48.
UnderArticle48oftheRevisedPenalCode,theformalpluralityofcrimes(concursusdelictuorumorconcursode
delitos)givesrisetoasinglecriminalliabilityandrequirestheimpositionofasinglepenalty:
Although [a] complex crime quantitatively consists of two or more crimes, it is only one crime in law on which a
single penalty is imposed and the two or more crimes constituting the same are more conveniently termed as
componentcrimes.53(emphasissupplied)

In[a]complexcrime,althoughtwoormorecrimesareactuallycommitted,theyconstituteonlyonecrimeinthe
eyesofthelawaswellasintheconscienceoftheoffender.Theoffenderhasonlyonecriminalintent.Eveninthe
casewhereanoffenseisanecessarymeansforcommittingtheother,theevilintentoftheoffenderisonlyone.54
Forthisreason,whileaconvictionforestafathroughfalsificationofpublicdocumentrequiresthattheelementsof
both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and
considered independently of that for falsification. The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents
are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsification of public
documents.
Therefore, it would be incorrect to claim that, to be criminally liable for the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document, the liability for estafa should be considered separately from the liability for
falsificationofpublicdocument.Suchapproachwoulddisregardthenatureofacomplexcrimeandcontradictthe
letterandspiritofArticle48oftheRevisedPenalCode.Itwouldwronglydisregardthedistinctionbetweenformal
pluralityandmaterialplurality,asitimproperlytreatsthepluralityofcrimesinthecomplexcrimeofestafathrough
falsificationofpublicdocumentasamerematerialpluralitywherethefeloniesareconsideredasseparatecrimes
tobepunishedindividually.
FalsificationofPublicDocumentsMayBeaNecessaryMeansforCommittingEstafaEvenUnderArticle
315(3[a])
TheelementsoftheoffenseofestafapunishedunderArticle315(3[a])oftheRevisedPenalCodeareasfollows:
(1)theoffenderinducedtheoffendedpartytosignadocument
(2)deceitwasemployedtomaketheoffendedpartysignthedocument
(3)theoffendedpartypersonallysignedthedocumentand
(4)prejudiceiscausedtotheoffendedparty.
WhileinestafaunderArticle315(a)oftheRevisedPenalCode,thelawdoesnotrequirethatthedocumentbe
falsified for the consummation thereof, it does not mean that the falsification of the document cannot be
consideredasanecessarymeanstocommittheestafaunderthatprovision.
The phrase "necessary means" does not connote indispensable means for if it did, then the offense as a
"necessarymeans"tocommitanotherwouldbeanindispensableelementofthelatterandwouldbeaningredient
thereof.55InPeoplev.Salvilla,56thephrase"necessarymeans"merelysignifiesthatonecrimeiscommittedto
facilitateandinsurethecommissionoftheother.57Inthiscase,thecrimeoffalsificationofpublicdocument,the
SPA,wassucha"necessarymeans"asitwasresortedtobySatotofacilitateandcarryoutmoreeffectivelyhis
evildesigntoswindlehismotherinlaw.Inparticular,heusedtheSPAtoselltheTagaytaypropertiesofManolita
tounsuspectingthirdpersons.
WhentheoffendercommitsinapublicdocumentanyoftheactsoffalsificationenumeratedinArticle171ofthe
Revised Penal Code as a necessary means to commit another crime, like estafa, theft or malversation, the two
crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the same Code.58 The falsification of a public, official or
commercial document may be a means of committing estafa because, before the falsified document is actually
utilizedtodefraudanother,thecrimeoffalsificationhasalreadybeenconsummated,damageorintenttocause
damagenotbeinganelementofthecrimeoffalsificationofapublic,officialorcommercialdocument.59Inother
words, the crime of falsification was committed prior to the consummation of the crime of estafa.60 Actually
utilizing the falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa.61 The damage to
anotheriscausedbythecommissionofestafa,notbythefalsificationofthedocument.62
1 a v v p h i1

Applying the above principles to this case, the allegations in the Information show that the falsification of public
document was consummated when Sato presented a readymade SPA to Manolita who signed the same as a
statement of her intention in connection with her taxes. While the falsification was consummated upon the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

8/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

executionoftheSPA,theconsummationoftheestafaoccurredonlywhenSatolaterutilizedtheSPA.Hedidso
particularly when he had the properties sold and thereafter pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Damage or
prejudice to Manolita was caused not by the falsification of the SPA (as no damage was yet caused to the
propertyrightsofManolitaatthetimeshewasmadetosignthedocument)butbythesubsequentuseofthesaid
document. That is why the falsification of the public document was used to facilitate and ensure (that is, as a
necessarymeansfor)thecommissionoftheestafa.
ThesituationwouldhavebeendifferentifSato,usingthesameinducement,hadmadeManolitasignadeedof
sale of the properties either in his favor or in favor of third parties. In that case, the damage would have been
caused by, and at exactly the same time as, the execution of the document, not prior thereto. Therefore, the
crimecommittedwouldonlyhavebeenthesimplecrimeofestafa.63Ontheotherhand,absentanyinducement
(suchasifManolitaherselfhadbeentheonewhoaskedthatadocumentpertainingtohertaxesbepreparedfor
hersignature,butwhatwaspresentedtoherforhersignaturewasanSPA),thecrimewouldhaveonlybeenthe
simplecrimeoffalsification.64
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 9, 2007 and the resolution dated
January23,2008oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.S.P.No.95260areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Thecase
is remanded to the trial court which is directed to try the accused with dispatch for the complex crime of estafa
throughfalsificationofpublicdocuments.
SOORDERED.
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1 Per letters of administration dated June 22, 1995 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,

Branch104inSP.Proc.Q9523621.
2DocketedasI.S.No.9619651.Rollo,pp.8990.
3Id.
4Id.,pp.8588.
5ResolutionNo.313,s.2000datedFebruary17,2000.Id.,pp.8184.
6DocketedasCriminalCaseNo.Q0091385.Id.,pp.9192.
7Id.
8PennedbyJudgeFatimaGonzalesAsdala.Id.,pp.126129.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

9/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

9Id.
10DatedApril26,2006.Id.,pp.130131.
11Id.,p.131.
12DocketedasCAG.R.S.P.No.95260.
13PennedbyAssociateJusticeCeliaC.LibreaLeagogoandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRegalado

E.Maambong(retired)andSixtoC.Marella,Jr.oftheSeventeenthDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals.Rollo,
pp.2840.
14Id.
15Id.,pp.4243.
16 An absolutory cause is a circumstance which is present prior to or simultaneously with the offense by

reasonofwhichtheaccusedwhoactswithcriminalintent,freedomandintelligencedoesnotincurcriminal
liabilityforanactthatconstitutesacrime(Regalado,Florenz,CriminalLawConspectus,ThirdEdition,61
62[2007]).
17Id.,p.736.
18Peoplev.Alvarez,52Phil.65(1928).
19 Aquino, Ramon and Carolina Grio Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Volume III, 374 (1997), citing

Peoplev.Adame,CA40O.G.Supp.No.12,p.63.
20Id.citingPeoplev.Tupasi,36O.G.2086.
21Id.citingPeoplev.Patubo,CAG.R.No.10616R,15August1953.
22Id.citingPeoplev.Navas,CA51O.G.219.
23Id.citingPeoplev.Cristobal,84Phil.473(1949).
24Blodgetv.Brinsmaid,9Vt.27,1837WL1956(Vt.).
25Sta.Maria,Melencio,PersonsandFamilyRelationsLaw,FourthEdition,228229(2004).
26 Back v. Back, L.R.A. 1916C,752, 148 Iowa 223, 125 N.W. 1009, Am.Ann.Cas. 1912B, 1025 citing

Blodgetv.Brinsmaid,9Vt.27Noblev.State,22OhioSt.541Statev.Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 N. E.

747,21Am.St.Rep.790Wilsonv.State,100Tenn.596,46S.W.451,66Am.St.Rep.789Johnsonv.
State,20Tex.App.609,54Am.Rep.535Peguesv.Baker,110Ala.251,17South.943Tagertv.State,
143Ala.88,39South.293,111Am.St.Rep.17Bigelowv.Sprague,140Mass.425,5N.E.144Vannoy
v.Givens,23N.J.Law,2011Bishop,NewCrim.Procedure,90126Cyc.845.
27Inthisconnection,oneofthecommentatorsontheRevisedPenalCodewrote:

Deathofthespouseterminatestherelationshipbyaffinity(Kellyv.Neely,12Ark.6[5]7,659,56AmD
288Chasev.Jennings,38Me.44,45)unlessthemarriagehasresultedinissuewhoisstillliving,in
which case the relationship of affinity continues (Dearmond v. Dearmond, 10 Ind. 191 Bigelow v.
Sprague,140Mass.425,5NE144).
SeeReyes,LuisB.,RevisedPenalCode,BookI,FifteenthEditionRevised188,(2001).
28InreBourdeuxEstate,37Wash.2d561,225P.2d433,26A.L.R.2d249.
29Carmanv.Newell,N.Y.1Denio25.
30InreBourdeuxEstate,supra.ThisviewhasbeenadoptedandappliedinSecurityUnionCasualtyCo.v.

Kelly, Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 286 American General Insurance Co. v. Richardson, Tex.Civ.App., 132
S.W.2d161Simcokev.GrandLodgeofA.O.U.W.ofIowa,84Iowa383,51N.W.8,15L.R.A.114Faxon
v.GrandLodgeBrotherhoodofLocomotiveFiremenandM.E.Rhea,87Ill.App.262McGaugheyv.Grand
Lodge A. O. U. W. of State of Minnesota, 148 Minn. 136, 180 N.W. 1001 Hernandez v. Supreme Forest
Woodmen Circle, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 346 Renner v. Supreme Lodge of Bohemian Slavonian
Benevolent Society, 89 Wis. 401, 62 N.W. 80 following Jones v. Mangan, 151 Wis. 215, 138 N.W. 618
Steele v. Suwalski, 7 Cir., 75 F.2d 885, 99 A.L.R. 588 Benefield v. United States, D.C., 58 F.Supp. 904
Lewisv.O'Hair,Tex.Civ.App.,130S.W.2d379.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

10/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

31Indeed,Kellyv.Neely,supranote27,Paddockv.Wells,2Barb.Ch.331,333,Chasev.Jennings,supra

note 27, Dearmond v. Dearmond, supra note 27 and Bigelow v. Sprague, supra note 27 are all jury
disqualificationcases.
32 Or between the child of a living parent and the surviving child of a deceased parent (in case of a

stepchildwithrespecttothestepparent).
33Section12,ArticleIIandSection1,Article15.
34Section2,RepublicActNo.8369(FamilyCourtsActof1997).
35AquinoandGrioAquino,supranote19.
36 See Justice Renato C. Coronas separate (concurring) opinion in People v. Temporada (G.R. No.,

173473,17December2008,574SCRA258,318328).
37SeeSection14(2),ArticleIII,Constitution.
38JusticeCoronasseparate(concurring)opinioninPeoplev.Temporada,supra.
39Regalado,Florenz,supranote16,p.736.
40Maltov.People,G.R.No.164733,21September2007,533SCRA643.
41 Id. citing Peoplev.Resayaga, G.R. No. 49536, 30 March 1988, 159 SCRA 426 and Santos v. People,

G.R.No.77429,29January1990,181SCRA487.
42Id.citingPeoplev.Elesterio,G.R.No.63971,09May1989,173SCRA243.
43Herrera,Oscar,RemedialLaw,VolumeFourCriminalProcedure,59(1992Editionreprintedin2001).
44Peoplev.Gorospe,53Phil.960(1928).
45 While the parties as well as the CA and RTC decisions spoke of an amended Information, the said

amendedInformationwasnotincludedintherecordsofthiscase.
46G.R.No.150910,06February2006,481SCRA569.
47Aquino,RamonandCarolinaGrioAquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,VolumeIII,374(1997).
48Regalado,supranote16,p.172.
49Aquino,RamonandCarolinaGrioAquino,supranote47atp.662.
50Id.
51Regalado,supranote6,p.172.
52Id.
53Id.,p.176.
54Reyes,supranote8,p.650.
55Peoplev.Salvilla,G.R.No.86163,26April1989,184SCRA671.
56Id.
57Id.
58Reyes,supranote20atp.226.
59Id.
60Id.
61Id.
62Id.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

11/12

11/27/2016

G.R.No.181409

63SeeUnitedStatesv.Berry,5Phil.370(1905)andUnitedStatesv.Malong,36Phil.821(1917).
64SeeUnitedStatesv.Capule,24Phil.12(1913).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html

12/12