Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests

142396 February 11, 2003)


Violation of the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” was filed against Minucher following a “buy-bust
operation” conducted by Philippine police narcotic agents accompanied by Scalzo in the house of
Minucher, an Iranian national, where heroin was said to have been seized. Minucher was later acquitted
by the court.

Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur

Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge of his official duties as being merely an
agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice.

Scalzo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, being a special agent of
the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. He
attached to his motion Diplomatic Note of the United States Embassy addressed to DOJ of the
Philippines and a Certification of Vice Consul Donna Woodward, certifying that the note is a true and
faithful copy of its original. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss.


Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity.



A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long as it can be
established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state.

The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency, however, can be gleaned from the undisputed facts in the case.

The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the government of the two countries

Certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States

Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the “buy-bust operation” conducted
at the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo

These may be inadequate to support the “diplomatic status” of the latter but they give enough
indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the activities
within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency.

the MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country. the immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement is not absolute. 2000 Petitioner: Jeffrey Liang Respondent: People of the Philippines FACTS: Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal. The petitioner’s case is not covered by the immunity. later acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. The court needs to protect the right to due process not only of the accused but also of the prosecution. the petitioner elevated the case to the SC via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal case. LIANG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR no. and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher. 125865 January 28. HELD: (1) NO. slandering a person could not . When its motion was denied. Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication from the DFA that the petitioner is covered by any immunity. the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the motion for reconsideration was denied. he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of oral defamation. It has no binding effect in courts. Hence. The next day. (2) Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and. Secondly. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. After fixing petitioner’s bail. Sometime in 1994. In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the petitioner’s case is covered with immunity from legal process with regard to Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Gov’t. the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the criminal cases. the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. to inform local law enforcers who would then be expected to make the arrest. Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties. Based on the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit. after having ascertained the target. but subject to the exception that the acts must be done in “official capacity”.

" a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation. the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters. Being purely a statutory right. INFANTE. (2) NO. The pirates including the accused Roger P. Hence. in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well as . under Presidential Decree No. stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime.R. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence. Virgilio Loyola. there is no need to construe or interpret the law. ANDRES C. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law. ISSUE: WON the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory? RULING: We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants. In the evening of March 2. in the name of official duty. the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters. was boarded by 7 fully armed pirates. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters). 532.accused-appellants. SC denied the petition.ROGER P. Preliminary Investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as this case. CECILIO O. Thereafter. Hence. and Andres Infante Jr. passenger or not. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659. loaded with barrels of kerosene. 1991. 111709 August 30. No. "M/T Tabangao. any person is covered by the law. and sentence. 532 (issued in 1974). G. and diesel oil. CHANGCO. a member of the complement or not. before its amendment." On the other hand. A series of arrests was thereafter affected and all the accused were charged with qualified piracy or violation of Presidential Decree No. Meanwhile accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory. TULIN. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. CHEONG SAN HIONG.vs. provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. detained the crew and completely took over the vessel. They were subsequently convicted of the crime charged." Hence. The vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded transferred and sold under the direct supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. andJOHN DOES. this appeal.plaintiff-appellee. Tulin. The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Republic Act No. the captive vessel returned to the Philippines. Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code. preliminary investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted by law. LOYOLA. to convict. 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. such as defamation. There is no contradiction between the two laws. regular gasoline. VIRGILIO I.

Some are tourists who needed rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up. piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries. then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled “An Ordinance” prohibiting short time admission in hotels. the same need not be committed in Philippine waters. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. as amended. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of police power." For this reason. suffice it to state that unquestionably. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters. motels. And such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. motels. Under the LGC. and sold. operation and maintenance of cafes. The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less subjected only to a limited group of people. the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests neighbouring states from crimes against the law of nations. The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid. lodging houses and other similar establishments. and piracy under Presidential Decree No. As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused- appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters.. pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. restaurants. It also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. White Light Corp. hence. transferred. The said ordinance invades private rights. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws. HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. including tourist guides and transports. vs City of Manila Police Power – Not Validly Exercised – Infringement of Private Rights On 3 Dec 1992. lodging houses. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to have the Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. hotels. Hence. the City is empowered to regulate the establishment. the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters. inns. beerhouses. 532. The CA ruled in favor of the City. . although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded. pension houses. piracy under the Article 122. Although Presidential Decree No.

His infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent which spawned several quarrels that left respondent wounded. in fact essentially necessary. Thus. she would not get a single centavo from him. Hence. The gender-based classification therein is therefore not violative of the equal protection clause embodied in the 1987 Constitution.Estrada believes that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the . Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married. Republic Act No. 179267 GARCIA v. Petitioner hence. and culturally endowed differences between men and women. After she confronted him of his affair. RA 9262. by affording special and exclusive protection to women and children. Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Hence. historical. and empowering women. who are vulnerable victims of domestic violence. The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. No. undoubtedly serves the important governmental objectives of protecting human rights. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests G. he forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of access to full information about their businesses.R. the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence against respondent and her children and issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) pursuant to RA 9262. to achieve such objectives. social. no source of income. The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an absolute prohibition against classification. challenged the constitutionality of RA 9262 on making a gender-based classification. The gender-based classification and the special remedies prescribed by said law in favor of women and children are substantially related. said Act survives the intermediate review or middle-tier judicial scrutiny. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 is discriminatory. DRILON 699 SCRA 352 FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) admitted having an affair with a bank manager. unjust. But she was afraid he would take away their children and deprive her of financial support. and violative of the equal protection clause. Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their daughter. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners. insuring gender equality. RULING: No. The non-identical treatment of women and men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on equal footing and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to ensure the equality of women and men in light of the biological. Jo-ann. He warned her that if she pursued legal battle.

The Declaration makes the union moral and binding within the congregation throughout the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. Secretary of Education is instructive on the matter. No. limitless and without bounds. even heretical when weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. the Court has ruled that government employees engaged in illicit relations are guilty of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" for which he/she may be held administratively liable. Escritor is not guilty of gross immorality and she cannot be penalized for her freedom of religion justifies her conjugal arraignment. One may believe in most anything. The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedom. viz: The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's imagination and thought. but instead sought to prove that they did not commit the alleged act or have abated from committing the act. In a catena of cases. . So is the freedom of belief. may be enjoyed. But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief. however strange. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests image of the judiciary. the realm of belief poses no difficulty. thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Issue: Is Escritor guilty of gross immorality for having an illicit relationship? Does her religious belief justify such act? Ruling: Yes the act was grossly immoral. including religious belief. bizarre and unreasonable the same may appear to others. The respondents themselves did not foist the defense that their conduct was not immoral. In interpreting the Free Exercise Clause. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. In these cases. there was not one dissent to the majority's ruling that their conduct was immoral. including religious freedom. there is quite a stretch of road to travel. The early case of Gerona v. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations.

· Lower court found the publication libelous Issue: WON the petitioners is guilty of libel Ruling: NO. filed a libel complaint against Guingguing and Lim. A supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prepared by the FLAG on behalf of accused-appellant. commonly known as the Death Penalty Law. No. 1994. 117472. and (3) purely legal question of the constitutionality of R. 1997 Per Curiam Facts: The SC rendered a decision in the instant case affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of raping his ten-year old daughter. . accused-appellant discharged the defense counsel. This was dismissed. Section 19 (1) absolutely abolished the death penalty. accused-appellant was inevitably meted out the supreme penalty of death. · Lim said that Torralba makes scurillous attacks against him and his family over his programs. and retained the services of the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force of the Free Legal Assistance Group of the Philippines.A. 7659. 1996. February 7. No. Issue: Whether or not Article III.R. 7659. Julian R. Vitug. (2) alleged incompetence of accused- appellant's former counsel. On August 6.A. was already in effect. he opted for paid advertisements to answer the attacks. Cirser Torralba is a public figure as established in the case of Ayer Productions. The crime having been committed sometime in April. · Lim published a paid article at Sunday Post and published the records and pictures of estafa cases filed against Torralba. In sum.) No. Atty. during which time Republic Act (R. The accused-appellant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration which focused on the sinister motive of the victim's grandmother that precipitated the filing of the alleged false accusation of rape against the accused. People v Echegaray G. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests Guinguing v People Facts: · Cirser Torralba. the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raises three (3) main issues: (1) mixed factual and legal matters relating to the trial proceedings and findings. a radio broadcaster of DYLA and DYFX based in Cebu City.

" Munoz. but the punishment of death is not cruel. The Senate never doubted its power as vested in it by the constitution. and the judiciary tries and sentences the criminals in accordance with these laws. the legislative arm of government enacts criminal laws that define and punish illegal acts that may be committed by its own subjects.. the decision. In Ex-parte Kemmler. Pursuant to this. The language. the executive agencies enforce these laws. the death penalty was not completely abolished by the 1987 Constitution. while rather awkward. is still plain enough Nothing is more defining of the true content of Article III. to re-impose the death penalty or not. 136 U. By this amendment. to enact legislation re-imposing the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. The provision merely says that the death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes the Congress hereafter provides for it and. The opposition to the death penalty uniformly took the form of a constitutional question of whether or not the death penalty is a cruel. The import of this amendment is unmistakable. as long as that penalty remains in the statute books. 436. unjust nor excessive. . as a matter of policy. shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua."The penalty complained of is neither cruel. and second. With seventeen (17) affirmative votes and seven (7) negative votes and no abstention. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests Ratio: One of the indispensable powers of the state is the power to secure society against threatened and actual evil. However. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous. Limaco.A reading of Section 19 (1) of Article III will readily show that there is really nothing therein which expressly declares the abolition of the death penalty. Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution than the form in which the legislature took the initiative in re-imposing the death penalty. it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions."x x x there are quite a number of people who honestly believe that the supreme penalty is either morally wrong or unwise or ineffective. it merely suspended the death penalty and gave Congress the discretion to review it at the propitious time. Harden. the Chair declared that the Senate has voted to re-incorporate death as a penalty in the scale of penalties as provided in the Revised Penal Code. unjust. and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases. excessive or unusual punishment in violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusualpunishments. if already imposed.S. the Senate proceeded to a two-step process consisting of: first. the vote to pass on the third reading the bill re-imposing the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Rather. within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. the United States Supreme Court said that 'punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death. Pursuant to this constitutional mandate. something more than the mere extinguishment of life.

A. death can only be imposed upon the attendance of circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the crime to be heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill. that the aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code need be additionally alleged as establishing the heinousness of the crime for the trial court to validly impose the death penalty in the crimes under R. 7659 punished by reclusion perpetua to death. destabilizing. implications and consequences so destructive. As to the other crimes in R. among the hundred or so re-impositionists in the Lower House. No. The proper time to determine their heinousness in contemplation of law. Romero of Negros Oriental. for it is subject to a clear showing of "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.A. A studious comparison of the legislative proceedings in the Senate and in the House of Representatives reveals that. and (3) that Congress. debilitating. repercussions. 7659 has correctly identified crimes warranting the mandatory penalty of death. the Lower House seemed less quarrelsome about the form of the death penalty bill as a special law specifying certain heinous crimes without regard to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and more unified in the perception of what crimes are heinous and that the fact of their very heinousness involves the compulsion and the imperative to suppress. is when on automatic review. in fact. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests We have no doubt. however. 7659. 62 by Representative Miguel L. Be it the foregoing general statement of Representative Sanchez or the following details of the nature of the heinous crimes enumerated in House Bill No." It is specifically against the foregoing capital crimes that the test of heinousness must be squarely applied. We believe. that insofar as the element of heinousness is concerned.A. Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution plainly vests in Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty "for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes". while both Chambers were not wanting of oppositors to the death penalty. This is not to say. No. their occurrence." The constitutional exercise of this limited power to re-impose the death penalty entails (1) that Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes. interspersed with each other. This power is not subsumed in the plenary legislative power of Congress. 7659 which are punished with the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. that the elements of heinousness and compulsion are inseparable and are. Because the subject crimes are either so revolting and debasing as to violate the most minimum of the human standards of decency or its effects. they are admittingly no less abominable than those mandatorily penalized by death. however. No. or aggravating in the context of our socio- . No. only crimes that qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill and/or designate crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in which latter case. (2) that Congress specify and penalize by death. Article III. with the trial court meting out the death sentence in exercise of judicial discretion. therefore.A. in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly motivated by "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. we are called to pass on a death sentence involving crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under R. no doubt as to their cause. there was clearly. R. if not completely eradicate.

these crimes must be frustrated.R. 7659 cites that there has been an "alarming upsurge of such crimes". No. 7659 states is that "the Congress. 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against the respondent Feliciano Co in the CFI of Tarlac.A. may re-impose the death penalty. finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes. curtailed and altogether eradicated." PEOPLE VS. directed the Government prosecutors to file the corresponding information. Fittingly. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests political and economic agenda as a developing nation. for the same was never intended by said law to be the yardstick to determine the existence of compelling reasons involving heinous crimes." A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. He is an instructor in the Mao Tse Tung University. charging the respondent Nilo Tayag and five others with subversion. Nothing in the said provision imposes a requirement that for a death penalty bill to be valid. the military arm of the CPP.A. Judge Jose C. It is immaterial and irrelevant that R. in the interest of justice. a subversive organization as defined in RA 1700. 1972 On March 5. ISSUE: WON the Acts violates the right to freedom of speech and association? HELD: Article III. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. public order and rule of law. the training school of recruits of the NPA. what R. Article III. Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution simply states that congress. The above accused were officers and/or ranking leaders of the Kabatasang Makabayan (KM). a positive manifestation in the form of a higher incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven following the suspension of the death penalty. No. finding a prima facie case against Co. Anther criminal complaint was filed with the same court. Respondent was an officer and/or ranking leader of the Communists Party of the Philippines (CPP). FERRER 43 SCRA 382 G. thus. Tayag moved to quash on the ground that the statute is a bill of attainder. Nos. for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. L-32613-14 December 27. and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes. 1970 a criminal complaint for violation of Sec. section 1 (11) of the Constitution states that "No bill of attainder or ex port facto law shall be enacted. an outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the Government of the Philippines by means of illegal means for the purpose of establisihing a totalitarian regime. The constitutional ban . Co moved to quash thee information on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Acts is a bill of attainder. de Guzman conducted a preliminary investigation and. Neither does the said provision require that the death penalty be resorted to as a last recourse when all other criminal reforms have failed to abate criminality in society.

. any such society. or becomes or is a member of. however. this feature is not enough to render it a bill of attainder.S. The singling out of a definite class. is not such association as is protected by the first Amendment. A statute prohibiting partners or employees of securities underwriting firms from serving as officers or employees of national banks on the basis of a legislative finding that the persons mentioned would be subject to the temptation to commit acts deemed inimical to the national economy. United States: It was settled in Dennis that advocacy with which we are here concerned is not constitutionally protected speech. group or assembly of persons. a statute requiring every secret. bills of attainder were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political minorities. the Act is aimed against conspiracies to overthrow the Government by force. was declared valid even if in its operation it was shown to apply only to the members of the Ku Klux Klan. albeit under the aegis of what purports to be a political party. is so indirect and so insubstantial as to be clearly and heavily outweighed by the overriding considerations of national security and the preservation of democratic institutions in his country. the "Court said in Scales vs. for the five years next following his conviction. violence or other illegal means. suffice to stigmatize a statute as a bill of attainder. group. . advocate. Similarly. Federal Smith Act is similar in many respects to the membership provision of the Anti-Subversion Act. that the Act specifies individuals and not activities. or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence. or assembly of persons who teach. oath-bound society having a membership of at least twenty to register. and a legislative intent.000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years. has been declared not to be a bill of attainder.. and punishing any person who becomes a member of such society which fails to register or remains a member thereof. or both. and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof. and it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed. In sustaining the validity of this provision. when it constitutes a purposeful form of complicity in a group engaging in this same forbidden advocacy. The former provides: Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society. the imposition of a burden on it.. and it was further established that a combination to promote such advocacy. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial function. The membership clause of the U. or affiliated with. We can discern no reason why membership. knowing the purpose thereof — Shall be fined not more than $20. History in perspective. should receive any greater degree of protection from the guarantees of that Amendment. Even assuming. Whatever interest in freedom of speech and freedom of association is infringed by the prohibition against knowing membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Here. is admissible as evidence)? Yes. Corpuz promised that he will pay. but to no avail. April 29. 180016. The designation of the offense by the statute. after the expiration of 30 days. the exclusion of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime. 2014 PERALTA.R. do not make the latter fatally defective. Corpuz argued as follows: a. subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime. the following satisfies the sufficiency of information: 1. The information was defective because the date when the jewelry should be returned and the date when crime occurred is different from the one testified to by Tangcoy. paragraph 1. It is true that the gravamen of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315. Corpuz also failed to raise an objection in his Comment to the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even admitted having signed the said receipt. d. The proof submitted by Tangcoy (receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere photocopy. . When Corpuz and Tangcoy met. Fourth element of estafa or demand is not proved. The period expired without Corpuz remitting anything to Tangcoy. marked and testified upon in court by Tangcoy. b. Is the date of occurrence of time material in estafa cases with abuse of confidence? No. such objection shall be considered as waived. Corpuz never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified. as a general rule. Hence.: FACTS: Accused Corpuz received from complainant Tangcoy pieces of jewelry with an obligation to sell the same and remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the same if not sold. c. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence. as reflected in the Information. No. J. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests LITO CORPUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Sole testimony of Tangcoy is not sufficient for conviction ISSUES and RULING Can the court admit as evidence a photocopy of document without violating the best evidence rule (only original documents. Further. Tangcoy filed a case for estafa with abuse of confidence against Corpuz.

The approximate time of the commission of the offense.” such is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause considering that Section 11 of the same Rule requires a statement of the precise time only when the same is a material ingredient of the offense. The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. and the place wherein the offense was committed. the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered. 3. an opportunity denied the appellate courts. property]. The 4th element is satisfied. People. No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. Even though the information indicates that the time of offense was committed “on or about the 5th of July 1991. the query was tantamount to a demand. Note first that settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses. it may be verbal. Demand need not even be formal. but by the quality of their testimonies. for in determining the value and credibility of evidence. SC gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand. In Tubb v. What is the form of demand required in estafa with abuse of confidence? Note first that the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that money. which merely rely on the records of the case. The name of the offended party. especially when such finding is affirmed by the CA. (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt. goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust. and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. where the complainant merely verbally inquired about the money entrusted to the accused. . The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of. The specific word “demand” need not even be used to show that it has indeed been made upon the person charged. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests 2. or to return the same. would be tantamount to a demand. and 4. or for administration. or on commission. May a sole witness be considered credible? Yes. since even a mere query as to the whereabouts of the money [in this case. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses.

2655 or the Usury Law came into effect. Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco accomplished and delivered to the defendants a contract (named ‘Exhibit B’) which stated that the Oliveros and Lianco had borrowed from the latter a sum of three hundred pesos (Php 300). The law stated that that the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money. Issues: WoN the Usury Law has a retroactive effect in this case WoN the law impaired the contract Held and Ratio: No. Any amount of interest paid or to be paid in excess of that fixed by law is considered usurious. 21 and 22 Penal Code) Yes. Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. (Art. On May 6. […] shall be 12% per annum. payable within the first ten days of each and every month. a penal law. DIAZ-CONDE Plaintiff-appellee: THE UNITED STATES Defendants-appellants: Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. sentenced to pay a fine of P120 and in case of insolvency. 1915. . Oliveros and Lianco obligated themselves to pay to the defendants interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per month. were obligated to pay five percent interest per month within the first ten days of every month. De Conde What happened: On December 30. and by virtue of the terms of said contract. They took it to SC to plead. If a contract is legal at its inception. Act no. cannot become retroactive unless it is favorable to the person accused. De Conde were charged with violating the Usury Law in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. 1916. Diaz-Conde (42 Phil 766) Facts: On December 30. They were found guilty. On May 1. goods or credits. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests US vs. it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation. Oliveros and co. The Usury Law. 1915. to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of law. THE UNITED STATES v. 1916. complainants Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco entered into a contract with the defendants concerning a debt of P300. the first payment to be made on the January 10. 1921. defendants acquitted. therefore unlawful. Decision: Judgment reversed.

the defendants had collected a usurious rate of interest after the adoption of the Usury Law in the Philippine Islands (Act No. liability or disability. they were guilty in the violation of that law and should be punished in accordance with its provisions. However. Hon. Ruling of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court en banc promulgated on February 14. in the course of its opinion. Laws must be construed prospectively and not retrospectively. 1921. If that were permitted. charged. which is prohibited by Philippine law. if they cannot meet their debt obligations. or giving a new right of action. 2655 was adopted. No. then the obligations of a contract might be impaired. V. For all of said reasons the judgment imposed by the lower court should be revoked. and that they should each be discharged from the custody of the law. M. 1922 its ruling on the case of The United States vs Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria R. From that sentence each of the defendants made an appeal. judge. there was no usury law in force in the Philippine Islands. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests A complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on May 6. (d) The said law could have no retroactive effect or operation (e) The said law impairs the obligation of a contract. It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time of the contract was made must govern its interpretation and application. Upon said complaint they were arrested. 2655). Contention of the Accused: (a) The contract upon which the alleged usurious interest was collected was executed before Act No. that the complaint should be dismissed. On September 1. must not be construed as having a retroactive effect. the defendants would suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law. the case was finally brought on for trial. (b) The time that the said contract was made (December 30. A law imposing a new penalty. Therefore. stated that at the time of the execution and delivery of said contract. or four months and a half after the contract was executed. del Rosario. L-18208). 1915). 1921. . there was no law in force in the Philippine Islands that punishes usury. At the end of the trial. The court has decided that the acts complained of by the defendants did not constitute a crime at the time they were committed. De Conde (G. If a contract is legal at its commencement. 2655 did not become effective until the May 1. and pleaded not guilty. charging the defendants with a violation of the Usury Law (Act No. found that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of P120 and. with consideration to the evidences cited in court. 1916. it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation. 2655). (c) Act No. Contention of the State: The lower court.R.

ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in imposing apenalty on the accused under article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. as in the case of Act No. Every law that makes an action. and which was innocent when done. providing it is curative in character. The complaint was therefore dismissed. though partial. in the sense that asin the present case.Florentino Abilong. FLORENTINOABILONG. FACTS: That on or about the 17th day of September. defendant-appellant. being thena convict sentenced a nd ordered to servedestierro during which he should not enter any place within the radius of 100 kilometres from the City of Manila for attempted robbery. and punishes such action. it is a deprivation of liberty. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests Ex post facto laws. vs. 1950 (G. but ex post facto laws are absolutely prohibited unless its retroactive effect is favorable to the defendant. EN BANC [G. the accused. which does notcover evasion of service of "destierro. FORMIGONES November 29. It isequally clear that although the SolicitorGeneral impliedly admits destierro as notconstituting imprisonment. criminal." PEOPLE v.]THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. A law may be given a retroactive effect in civil action.plaintiff- appellee. Philippines. as quoted in the brief of the Solicitor General that "it is clear that a person under sentence of destierro issuffering deprivation of his liberty and escapes from the restrictions of the penalty when he enters the prohibited area. 1948. in the City of Manila. done before the passage of the law. and the defendants were discharged from the custody of the law with costs. No. are prohibited in this jurisdiction. Samonte.R. No." RULING: It is clear that the word "imprisonment" used in the English text is a wrong or erroneous translation of the phrase "sufriendo privacionde libertad" used in the Spanish text.R. L-1960. Under the case of People vs. L-3246) PARTIES: plaintiff-appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES defendant-appellant: ABELARDO FORMIGONES . 2655. is an ex post facto law. the appellant by hissentence of destierro was deprived of theliberty to enter the City of Manila. The Legislature is prohibited from adopting a law which will make an act done before its adoption a crime. November 26. unless they are favorable to the defendant. 1947. evaded the service of said sentence by going beyond the limits made against him and commit vagrancy.

ISSUE: WON the defendant who is suffering from feeblemindedness is exempt from criminal liability. that sometimes he would remove his clothes in front of others. assuming that it was not feigned to stimulate insanity. . Dr. When she fall ont he ground the defendant carried her up the house. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. and remained silent and indifferent to his surroundings. Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests FACTS: From November to December 1946. They said that he behaved like an insane person. it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric. Zacarias Formigones to find employment as harvesters. Francisco Gomez told that Abelardo was suffering only from feeblemindedness and not imbecility and that he could distinguish right from wrong. defendant Abelardo Formigones together with his wife Julia Agricola. would not take a bath. or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. In order that an exempting circumstance may be taken into account. or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. that he acts without the least discernment. laid her on the floor of the living room and then lay down beside her. the accused. that there be a complete absence of the power to discern. took his bolo from the wall of the house and stabbed his wife at the back. it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. the blade penetrating the right lung which latter caused her death. he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. His counsel presented testimonies of two guards of the provincial jail where defendant was confined. As to the strange behaviour of the accused during his confinement. that the accused be deprived of reason. and his five children lived in the house of his half-brother. He could distinguish right from wrong. He was convicted of parricide and was sentenced to prison. HELD: No. One afternoon. An imbecile so as to be exempt from criminal liability. without any previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever. that is. that there be no responsibility for his own acts. His counsel claimed that e is an imbecile therefore exempt from criminal liability.

Kriz Abeja | Crim Case Digests II .