You are on page 1of 7

Case Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts:
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that urges
the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila
presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having illegally smoked
opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the said
vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the shores of the city.
In the said demurrer, the defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lower
court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed
aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters.
Held:
Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus the
Philippine courts have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court said
that having the opium smoked within our territorial waters even though aboard a
foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order because it causes such drugs
to produce pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revoked
and the Court ordered further proceedings.

Villareal v. People
G.R. No. 151258
February 1, 2012
Facts:
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila
University School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris
Fraternity. The neophytes, including victim, Lenny Villa, were subjected to initiation
rites. After the second day of initiation rites has ended, accused non-resident or
alumni fraternity members Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal demanded that the
rites be reopened. Dizon and Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to "paddling"
and to additional rounds of physical pain. Lenny Villa received several paddle blows,
one of which was so strong it sent him sprawling to the ground. When they were
already sleeping, the neophytes were roused by Lenny’s shivering and mumblings.
He was brought to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
On 10 January 2002, the Court of Appeals decided that the accusedappellants Dizon and Villareal were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Accused Dizon filed

As the taxi was about to leave. 160188 June 21. Issue: Whether or not the forfeiture of petitioner Dizon’s right to present evidence constitutes denial of due process. People G. Dizon sets forth two main issues first. The court must first explain to the accused personally in clear terms the exact nature and consequences of a waiver.a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. second. The accused reacted by fleeing on . as in the present case. that he was denied due process when the CA sustained the trial courts forfeiture of his right to present evidence. the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandize. and.R. Ruling: Yes. Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the cartons inside. and since Dizon was not scheduled to testify until two weeks later. Valenzuela vs. the trial court preassigned five hearing dates for the reception of evidence. he saw the accused. On the contrary. the forfeiture of petitioner Dizon’s right to present evidence constitutes denial of due process. 15520. The trial court should not have deemed the failure of petitioner to present evidence on 25 August 1993 as a waiver of his right to present evidence. the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence. that he was deprived of due process when the CA did not apply to him the same ratio decidendi that served as basis of acquittal of the other accused. it is not enough that the accused is simply warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding hearings. the most it could have done was to forfeit one out of the five days set for Dizon’s testimonial evidence. it should have considered the excuse of counsel justified. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket. Jovy Calderon. At any rate. especially since counsel for another accused Antonio General had made a last-minute adoption of testimonial evidence that freed up the succeeding trial dates. In fact. Thereafter. In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death. Aristotel Valenzuela.R. No. was waiting. Stripping the accused of all his preassigned trial dates constitutes a patent denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. 2007 Facts: While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket. hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused. questioning the Court of Appeal’s Decision dated 10 January 2002 and Resolution dated 30 August 2002 in CA-G. No. If it really wanted to impose its order strictly.

chanced upon accused-appellants Arnel. 2006. And two other companions. Thus. (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner. People vs Villalba and Villalba G. Homer. 2006. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.R. theft cannot have a frustrated stage. A scruffle ensued between the two men and accused-appellant Arnel eventually stabbed . (2) that said property belongs to another. 2014 FACTS: Maximillian and Frederick. thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court. it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. 207629 / 349 SCRA 532 October 22. Issue: Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage. and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. and Marilou. arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. In the crime of theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals. Josephine.foot. These two groups did not know each other prior to April 29. followed by wife. but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. his girlfriend. Maximillian addressed an insulting remark towards Jenny causing tension between Maximillian and accused-appellant Arnel. (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain. No. the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property. near the vicinity of Faisano Mall in Butuan City. Therefore. Held: No. and can only be attempted or consummated. somewhere along Capitol Drive. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. at around 2:30 in the morning of April 29.

deserve full faith and credence. It necessarily prevails over alibi and denial. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.Maximillian on the chest with a sharp instrument. This is consistent with the puncture wound of Maximillian. None of the witnesses even knew that Maximillian was stabbed. accused-appellants Randy’s presence at the time and place of Maximillian’s stabbing was duly established. alleging that accused-appellants. their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand. ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant Arnel conspired with Accused-appellants Randy to commit the stabbing. The Supreme Court held that jurisprudence requires that conspiracy must be proven as the crime itself. stabbed Maximillian with an icepick. This event shows that he acted instantaneously and spontaneously in stabbing Maximillian. Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their plastic wares and glass wares in La Union. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive. HELD: No. nonetheless. causing a puncture wound that penetrated Maximillian’s heart and ultimately caused Maximillian’s death. they set up their tents to have a place to sleep. There is no strong evidence of the weapon accused-appellants Arnel used in stabbing Maximillian. thus further negating the possibility that he conspired with accused-appellant Randy to commit the stabbing. The same prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witness Josephine and Frederick had positively identified both accused-appellants at the police station soon after accused-appellants’ arrest. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence. FACTS: The petitioner Norberto Cruz was charged with attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness involving different victims. this appeal. Upon reaching the place. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Cruz guilty of both crimes charged. under the solemnity of an oath. Petitioner’s wife and their driver went back to Manila to get . acting in conspiracy with each other. The Information charged accused-appellants with Maximillian’s murder. Hence. Accussed-appellant Randy was not able to attribute any ill motive on the part of the three prosecution witnesses that could have impelled them to testify against him. especially when neither alibi nor denial is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. accused-appellant Randy’s presence at the time and place of Maximillian’s stabbing does not necessarily mean that the former should bear criminal liability for the latter’s death. together with Homer. as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. Accused-appellant Arnel admitted stabbing Maximillian but asserted that he used only a barbecue stick which he found in the area. hence. There is no clear evidence that accused-appellants had a common design to kill Maximillian. would again positively identify both accused-appellants in open court during trial.

The lack of evidence showing his erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with her. rape admits of an attempted stage. The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim. Norberto denies the commission of the crime alleging that he could not possibly do the acts imputed out in the open as there were many people preparing for the “simbang gabi”. He further assails the credibility AAA for the crime of rape. his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her. was his intended felony would be highly unwarranted. the concrete felony is rape.” in other words. and no other. for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. or “susceptible of double interpretation. This prompted Norberto to leave the tent. AAA fought back and Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires. Yet. Petitioner’s embracing and touching the victim’s vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her. rape is consummated once the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touches the external genitalia of the female. she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. Without such showing. The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed. At most. The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge of a female. The . Nonetheless. the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female. inferring from such circumstances that rape. but the offender does not perform all the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge. Carnal knowledge is defined simply as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of attempted rape against AAA? HELD: NO. alleging that the complaints were filed only for the purpose of extorting money from him. Norberto ordered her not to scream or she will be killed. and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should produce the felony. In attempted rape. and not merely stroked the external surface thereof. Rape in its frustrated stage is a physical impossibility. AAA felt that somebody was on top of her mashing her breast and touching her private part. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates rape. Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness. When she returned to their tent. and was already touching her genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. Such circumstances remained equivocal. While sleeping.more goods. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ. AA left the tent to seek for help.” such that it was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to cause rape as the particular injury.

intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner. he brandished a knife and stuck it into a pail used for making taho. No. There and then. Accused-appellant interpose self-defense to justify his actions of stabbing both Joel and Eligio alleging that Joel challenged him to a fight and that he stabbed Eligio to protect himself. unless he committed overt acts leading to rape. if any. 212565. Eligio. ISSUE: . an employee of the factory confronted Casas and told him to get rid of the knife. even from his own declaration of it.R. Casas was able to regain the knife and stabbed Eligio twice while the latter was fleeing. The RTC and the CA convicted him of the crimes charged. Joel slipped and lay prostrate on the floor. Benjamin Casas y Vintulan G. While Casas was in pursuit of Eligio. Consequently. he ran into Joel who tried to help Eligio with the use of a bamboo pole. February 25. People of the Philippines v. Casas stabbed him twice who eventually died. Thereafter. Failing to find Jesus. As a result. However. 2015 FACTS: Accused-appellant Casas was charged with the crime of Murder and Attempted Homicide under Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Eligio and Casas had a fistfight. Records show that accused Casas went to a certain taho factory looking for a certain Jesus.

Is the conviction of Casas for the crimes of Murder and Attempted Homicide proper? HELD: YES and NO. Hence. Joel elected to intervene. and again on Eligio as he was fleeing. The core element of unlawful aggression was not proven. The moment the first aggressor runs away. In this case. then the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated. The Court. There can be no selfdefense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. and even armed himself with a bamboo pole. however. As such. proceeded to flee. there can be no treachery. The Court first rules on the existence of criminal liability. that the victim was forewarned of the danger he was in. unlawful aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist. . and unforeseen attack on the victim. without the slightest provocation on the latter’s part. accused-appellant is guilty only of the crimes of Homice and Attempted Homicide. disagrees that Casas should be convicted of the crime of Murder with respect to the death of Joel due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the existence of treachery. Accordingly. thus. instead of fleeing from it he met it and was killed as a result. The victim must not have known the peril he was exposed to at the moment of the attack. The accused should only be guilty of the crime of Homicide on killing of Joel. brought it to bear on Eligio. It was Casas who was actually the aggressor. Casas’ claim of self-defense falters and his criminal liability stands. The essence of treachery is the sudden. Joel was fully aware of the danger posed in assisting Eligio. Should it appear. The Court affirmed the accused-appellant’s conviction of Attempted Homicide but found the charge of Murder improper. The initial fistfight between Eligio and Casas does not indicate that unlawful aggression was employed by the former against the latter considering that Eligio had already yielded from the brawl and. then on Joel as he lay prostrate. unexpected. however. as he was the one who wielded a knife. in fact. it is rather obvious that Joel was aware of the danger to his life. and. He knew that Casas was armed with a knife and had just used the same on Eligio.