You are on page 1of 12

ARTICLE 17: Principals  The appellant contends that the lower court erred in holding that he was

guilty.
1. Principals by Direct Participation ISSUE: W/N the appellant should be acquitted.
HELD: YES.
a. US v. Diris (Nov 17 1913 Carson, J.)  In order to convict a defendant as principal in the commission of a crime,
FACTS: it must be shown either
 Fulgencio Seal received from the railroad company more than 400 pesos (1) that he took a direct part in the execution of the criminal act;
in payment for a land they expropriated. Defendant Toman Olea, Seal’s (2) that he directly forced or induced another or others to commit
nephew, saw when the money was handed over and knew that it was it; or
deposited in a trunk. Olea had free access to Seal’s house. (3) that he cooperated in the commission of the offense by an act
 On the day of the crime, Seal left the house in the morning. A short time without which it would not have been accomplished.
thereafter, the three defendants Olea, Anselmo Diris, and Eustaquio  It is not claimed that the appellant directly took part in the burning of the
Siaga appeared at the tienda. building. It was stressed by the prosecution that he was absent from the
o Siaga engaged Seal’s wife in conversation while the other two scene. He was prosecuted on the theory that he induced his said
went upstairs, broke the trunk and took the money. codefendants to set fire to the building.
o Seal’s wife was quite deaf. She stated that she was the two go  In conspiracy, there needs to be guilty cooperation of at least two people,
upstairs but Olea was her nephew and was accustomed to in which there is a mutual dependence of the guilt of each person upon
seeing him there. that of the other.
o Seal found out about the robbery and upon confronting Olea it  All accused should be jointly tried and convicted, or acquitted.
was agreed upon that if Seal wouldn’t press charges Olea would  An accessory cannot be held guilty unless the principal himself is also
recover the money from the other defendants. held guilty. This rule arises from dependent criminality.
o They went to search for Diris. Seal was told to wait until Olea  The acquittal of the principal is an immediate and absolute discharge of
returned, but when he didn’t return Seal found him with Diris at a the accessory. A could not conspire with B if the latter did not conspire at
barbershop. They were reported to the police. all.
 It was suggested by counsel that Siaga was merely a “complice”  While the crime charged in the present case is not conspiracy as a
(accessary before the fact) and was not a principal. distinct offense, it is clear from the nature of the evidence presented that
ISSUE: W/N Siaga is a principal in the crime. appellant alone could not have committed the unlawful act.
HELD: YES.  It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that a conviction for crime can
 Siaga acted concurrently with the other two. In talking with the woman he not be had unless the corpus delicti is first established. The appellant
distracted her from what was going on upstairs. He was evidently serving was convicted on circumstantial evidence.
as a guard to his companions. o To establish the corpus delicti in arson the proof of two elements
o One who shares the guilty purpose and aids and abets the is required, namely, (1) the burning of the house or other thing,
commission of the crime by his presence at the time of its and (2) the criminal agency in causing it.
perpetration, even though he may not have taken an active part o Corpus delicti can be proven by circumstantial evidence.
in its material execution, is guilty as a principal. However, the circumstances must be an unbroken chain which
 Standing guard is direct participation. leads one to fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the
defendant as guilty.
2. Principals by Inducement o While the facts proved in the present case are sufficient to raise
grave suspicions against the appellant, they fall far short of
a. People v. Ong Chiat Lay (Oct 26 1934 Abad Santos, J.) establishing his guilt clearly and satisfactorily.
FACTS:
 Ong Chiat Lay and two others, Ong Ban Hua and Kua Sing, were b. US v. Indanan (Jan 29 1913 Moreland, J.)
charged with feloniously burning a building in which was located a store FACTS:
belonging to the appellant. The appellant was convicted of arson while  Accused Panglima Indanan was alleged to have committed the murder of
the other two were acquitted. the victim Sariol. He was the headman of Parang at the time.
 Indanan sent Induk to bring Sariol to his house. Indanan ordered the  After parking his car, Camantigue joined Abadilla in the restaurant and
witnesses Akiran and Suhuri to tie Sariol. also smelled the marijuana smoke coming from the table of Vicente
 When nighttime came, Indanan ordered Sariol to be taken to the Chinese Capalad and Napoleon Montealegre.
cemetery to be killed. Indanan asserted that he had an order to that o Camantigue approached the two, collared them, and said
effect from the governor. “Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?”
 Indanan ordered Akiran that he (Akiran) should aid in killing Sariol, and o Capalad suddenly pulled out a knife from a scabbard on his
ordered Akiran to take his bolo. waist and started stabbing Camantigue in the back.
 Sariol was taken to the cemetery and was killed. Kalyakan struck the first o Camantigue released Montealegre to get his gun, but the latter
blow with his bolo, and Akiran followed. restrained the former’s hand.
 According to the testimony of the witnesses, Indanan had a very powerful o Capald fled and Camantigue fired at him Capalad fled to a dark
influence over Kalyakan, Suhuri, and Akiran. alley. Camantigue abandoned the chase and asked to be taken
ISSUE: W/N Indanan is a principal in the case. to the hospital. Capalad was found dead in the alley with a bullet
HELD: YES. in his chest.
 The Court was in the opinion that the domination of the accused over the o Montealegre escaped during the confusion.
persons who, at his orders, killed the deceased was such as to make him ISSUE: W/N Montealegre is a principal in the crime.
responsible for whatever they did in obedience to such orders. HELD: YES.
 Principals in a crime are those who directly force or induce others to  During the trial, the appellant testified that he did not see Camantigue
commit it. being stabbed, which the Court held was unbelievable since he was one
o Force = by actual physical force or by grave fear; of the principal figures of the stabbing.
o Induce directly = by command, or for consideration, or by any  If it was true that appellant ran away before the stabbing, there would
other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of have been nothing to restrain Camantigue from drawing his pistol.
the crime and which was done for the purpose of inducing such  Appellant also testified that he knew that the victim was a policeman, and
criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. that the victim was also in uniform.
 Indanan’s words and acts had the effect of a command.  Appellant is a co-principal for having collaborated with Capalad in killing
o Since he was the headman, he seemed to be the person whose the victim.
word was law and whose commands were to be obeyed. o They acted in concert, Capalad stabbing the victim 7 times while
o He also falsely represented that he had a warrant from the the appellant prevented the victim from drawing his gun.
governor which authorized the killing. He did so to insure o While it is true that the accused-appellant did not himself commit
obedience to his orders. the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally guilty thereof for
 Where the inducement offered by the accused is of such a nature and having prevented Camantigue from resisting the attack against
made in such a way that it becomes the determining cause of the crime, him.
and such inducement was offered with the intention of producing that  The requisites of Art. 17(3) are:
result, then the accused is guilty by inducement of the crime committed o (1) participating in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either
by the person so induced. anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
o The inducement must be made directly with the intention of immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and
procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement o (2) cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
must be the determining cause of the crime. another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
 Although there is no evidence of a prior agreement between Capalad
3. Principals by Indispensable Cooperation and Montealegre, their subsequent acts proved the presence of
conspiracy.
a. People v. Montealegre (May 31 1988 Cruz, J.) o two or more persons aimed by their acts towards
FACTS: accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part
 Edmundo Abadilla detected the smell of marijuana smoke from a nearby so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
table while he was eating at a restaurant. He quietly went outside and connected and cooperative
saw policeman Renato Camantigue in his car which he hailed to report o A conspiracy may be entered into after the commencement of
the incident. overt acts leading to the consummation of the crime.
 Appellant’s acts were a positive act towards the realization of a common grew in intensity. As the commotion died down, the 8 men returned to the
criminal intent, although the intent can be classified as instantaneous. banca carrying bayongs.
 As a result of the shooting, may people got killed and injured.
b. People v. Simbra (Sept 30 1982 Relova, J.) o Two of the men went into the bank asking for their money to be
FACTS: changed but was refused because the bank didn’t have small
 Complainant Gresilda Gonzales (15 yrs) left her house to fetch water denominations. Suddenly, 3 armed men entered and fired at the
from the well in the public market. While walking along an unlighted part ceiling and walls.
of the road, appellant Sergio Tolibas and Roberto Simbra (smelling pf o When the tellers said that they did not have the key for the vault,
tuba) grabbed her by the arms. She struck Simbra with the hose she was the men shot at the vault until the doors opened. However, they
holding and shouted for help. Tolibas covered her mouth with a could not get anything because the compartments were locked.
handkerchief. o The men went to the two teller cages and took the money inside.
 The two men dragged Gresilda to the “serin” (a pile of sawdust o Beside the bank was a police outpost. Policemen heard the
surrounded by grasses and big trees). gunshots. Some of the policemen were hit by the shots coming
o Simbra threw her on the ground, Tolibas held down her arms from the left side of the bank.
and covered her mouth and removed her pants and underwear  It is noteworthy that the three appellants Simeon Doble, Antonio
o Simbra succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her twice. Romanquin, and Cresencio Doble had no participation in the crime.
o Tolibas also had carnal knowledge with her 3 times while Simbra o SG recommends the acquittal of Simeon.
held her down. o SG observed that Simeon only met with the malefactors in his
o The two men threatened Gresilda that if she told anyone what house to discuss the crime and that he did not perform any act
happened, they will kill her. tending to the perpetration of the robbery and had no direct
 Simbra and Tolibas brought Gresilda to the house of Ernanita Jusay, participation therein.
Tolibas’ sister. Gresilda could not leave until she was fetched by her aunt o His act only amounts to joining in a conspiracy and is not
and a policeman because the two men were guarding her. punishable.
 Tolibas claims that he had carnal knowledge with Gresilda but did so with ISSUE:
her consent. 1. W/N Simeon can be considered as an accomplice in the crime. NO.
ISSUE: W/N appellant Tolibas was a principal in the crime. 2. W/N Antonio and Cresencio can be considered as accomplice in the
HELD: YES. crime. YES.
 Considering that the two men has sex with Gresilda against her will by HELD:
employing force and intimidation, the crime committed is rape thru direct 1.
participation.  Even if the SG’s contention is rational, Simeon’s statement before the
 When Tolibas aided Simbra and made it possible for the latter to carnal Navotas Police Dept. that “he has not yet received his share” gives the
knowledge of complainant also against her will and through force and impression that Simeon has given material or moral support or
intimidation, appellant committed another crime of rape through encouragement to the principal culprits.
indispensable cooperation. Thus, appellant is guilty of two crimes of o However, a reading of his whole extrajudicial statement would
consummated rape. erase that impression, and reveals the true import of that
statement as intended only to show that Simeon had nothing to
ARTICLE 18: Accomplices do with commission of the crime and therefore did not receive
any share of the fruits thereof.
a. People v. Doble (May 31 1982 De Castro, J.)  The only link between Simeon and the crime is his house was used as
FACTS: the meeting place of the malefactors for their final conference. He did not
 10 men, almost all heavily armed, left the shores of Manila in a motor join them because of a 5-year old foot injury.
banca and went to Navotas, Rizal. There intended to rob the Navotas  His mere presence in his house where the conspirators met, and for
Branch of the Prudential Bank and Trust Company. merely telling them that he could not join them because of his foot injury,
 8 men disembarked from the banca and went to the beach in the and will just wait for them, evidently as a mere gesture of politeness in
direction of the bank. Shots were fired and people panicked. The shots not being able to join them in their criminal purpose, for he could not be
of any help in the attainment thereof, and also to avoid being suspected
that he was against their vicious plan for which they may harm him,  After meeting Roberto, Ernesto and victim’s brother Julius saw appellant
Simeon is by no means a co-conspirator, not having even taken Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle. The latter was carrying an
active part in the talks among the malefactors in his house. armalite.
2.  At the hospital Roberto identified Jessie as the assailant in his ante-
 Cresencio’s consenting to look for a banca, however, did not necessarily mortem statement.
make him a co-conspirator. Neither would it appear that Joe Intsik  Vino and Jessie were charged with murder. Vino was found guilty by the
wanted to draft Cresencio into his band of malefactors that would commit TC as an accessory to the crime of murder.
the robbery more than just asking his help to look for a banca. He also ISSUE: W/N Vino is an accessory to the crime.
did not receive a share of the loot. HELD: YES.
 Antonio, for his part, appears not to be known to the principal malefactors  Vino was charged in the information as a principal but was convicted as
still at large, to be asked to join actively in the conspiracy. The amount an accessory; this is entirely possible.
received by Romaquin indicates that the malefactors did not consider o Under Art. 16 of the RPC, the two other categories of persons
appellant as their confederate in the same character as those responsible for the commission of the same offense are the
constituting the band of robbers. The sum given to Romaquin could very accomplice and the accessory.
well represent only the rental of his banca, and for the cooperation he o Vino knew about the commission and was present therein since
extended to the malefactors. he was driving the bicycle that Jessie was on. He actively
 The apprehension of the actual robbers that Antonio might speed away assisted in the principal’s escape.
in fear of being implicated is further proof that Antonio was not  The trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the
considered a co-conspirator (they didn’t trust him). charge against the principal.
 Cresencio testified that when he was given the gun to cover Antonio, he o The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice
returned it because he didn’t know how to use it and that they were and accessory are distinct from each other.
guarded by someone else near the beach.  An accessory may nevertheless be convicted of a crime even if the
 At most, the two men’s liability are of accomplices. principal is acquitted.
o They joined in the criminal design when Cresencio consented to o The identity of the assailant was not clearly established. Jessie
look for a banca and Romaquin provided it when asked by the was merely seen carrying the armalite and riding on the bicycle
gang leader Joe Intsik, and then brought the malefactors to the with Vino.
scene of the robbery, despite knowledge of the evil purpose for o The victim did not immediately reveal to his father and brother
which the banca was to be used. who did it. The bullet was also not subject to ballistic
o Appellants thus cooperated but not in an indispensable manner. examinations.
Even without appellants providing the banca, the robbery could o Jessie was acquitted as the trial court was not persuaded that he
have been committed. was positively identified to be the man with the gun riding on the
 There must be a community of unlawful purpose between the principal bicycle driven by Vino.
and accomplice and assistance knowingly and intentionally given, to o Vino’s trial established his guilt as an accessory beyond
supply material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense and in reasonable doubt. The identity of the assailant is of no
an efficacious way. significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the accessory.
 What appellants may be said to have joined is the criminal design to rob,
which makes them accomplices. Their complicity must be limited to the ARTICLES 21, 24, 25
robbery and not the killing.
 People v. Echegaray (Feb 7 1997 Per Curiam)
ARTICLES 19 & 20: Accessories FACTS:
 Appellant Leo Echegaray was convicted for raping his 10-year old
a. Vino v. People (Oct 19 1989 Gancayco, J.) daughter in April 1994, during the effect of RA 7659 or the Death
FACTS: Penalty Law.
 Roberto Tejada left his house to go to the house of Isidro Salazar to  Appellant seeks to reverse the decision of the death sentence imposed
watch TV. While Roberto’s father Ernesto was resting, he heard two upon him.
gunshots. He then heard Roberto cry out that he had been shot.
 Appellant questions the constitutionality of RA 7659, stating that is meant by heinous crimes; (2) that Congress specify and
according to the Consti the death penalty is a severe and excessive penalize by death, only crimes that qualify as heinous in
penalty in crimes where no death results from the offense (Art. III Sec. accordance with the definition or description set in the death
19(1)) and that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment in penalty bill and/or designate crimes punishable by reclusion
violation of Art. III Sec. 11 of the Consti. perpetua to death in which latter case, death can only be
 The death penalty is an ancient practice and was used by our imposed upon the attendance of circumstances duly proven in
forefathers. The dawning of civilization brought sensitization to the past court that characterize the crime to be heinous in accordance
barbarity of state power under the rule of law. with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill; and
 One of the powers of the state is to secure society against threatened (3) that Congress, in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly
and actual evil. Pursuant to this, the legislature enacts criminal laws that motivated by “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
define and punish illegal acts, and the judiciary tries and sentences o Congress defined heinous crimes as crimes which are
criminals in accordance with these laws. grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of
 The list of offenses punishable by death are lengthened by the legislature their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and
as a response to the emergencies of the times. perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common
 After the Marcos regime, the 1987 Consti was enacted. The first draft of standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized
what is now Art. III Sec. 19(1) was originally worded as “Excessive fines and ordered society.
shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment, or  Senators Lina and Tanada demanded for the specification of the
the death penalty inflicted. Death penalty already imposed shall be elements of heinous crimes. However, there are two types of crimes in
commuted to reclusion perpetua.” the death penalty bill:
o The framers of the Consti decided for the Constitutional abolition o (1) crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua to death
of the death penalty so that the legislature cannot enact a law to o (2) crimes penalized by mandatory capital punishment upon the
restore it. attendance of certain specifies qualifying circumstances.
 HOWEVER, the original wording did not survive the debate. It was stated  Under R.A. No. 7659, there are enumerated crimes which are penalized
that although the Consti abolishes the death penalty, it should be by reclusion perpetua to death. All the foregoing crimes are not capital
afforded some flexibility to future legislation since its absolute abolition crimes per se, the uniform penalty for all of them being not mandatory
can leave society helpless in the face of future upsurge of crimes or death but the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. In other
emergencies. words, it is premature to demand for a specification of the heinous
 Art. III Sec. 19(1) was amended, and now reads: “Excessive fines shall elements in each of the foregoing crimes because they are not anyway
not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. mandatorily penalized with death.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling  On the other hand, RA 7659 also enumerated the crimes imposed with
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides the mandatory death penalty.
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion  Heinous crimes have implications in the scheme of the larger socio-
perpetua.” political and economic context in which the State finds itself to be
 Senate Bill 891 was approved on third reading on August 16, 1993. It struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged
was consolidated with House Bill 62. masses.
 On December 31, 1993, RA 7659 entitled “An Act to Impose the Death  The Court held that RA 7659 has correctly identified crimes warranting
Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the the mandatory death penalty. As for those punishable by reclusion
Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for perpetua to death, the proper time to determine their heinousness is
Other Purposes,” took effect. when on automatic review the Court is called to pass on a death
ISSUE: W/N RA 7659 is unconstitutional. sentence with the TC meting out the death sentence in exercise of its
HELD: NO. judicial discretion.
 Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution plainly vests in  The Court held that the death penalty is imposed on heinous crimes
Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty “for compelling because
reasons involving heinous crimes.” o the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable
o The constitutional exercise of this limited power to reimpose the acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts
death penalty entails: (1) that Congress define or describe what with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the
masses from abject poverty through organized governmental FACTS:
strategies based on a disciplined and honest citizenry  Accused Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph were charged with violating
o they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts would  The accused sold and delivered 60 blue-colored tablets with Motorola
pose actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of logos, contained in 6 sachets. The tablets were METAMPHETAMINE.
government, they must be permanently prevented from doing so  Brodett was also separately charged for the illegal possession of the
 Appellant relies on the case Furman v. Georgia wherein it was following:
categorically ruled that the death penalty is a cruel, degrading, or o 4 yellow tablets with Playboy logos and 10 transparent capsules
inhuman punishment. However, this contention is misleading and with white powder inside, which were ECSTASY
inaccurate. o 5 sachets of a white powdery substance which was COCCAINE
o The defense theory in Furman centered not so much on the o 5 sachets of COCCAINE placed in a light-yellow folder paper
nature of the death penalty as a criminal sanction but on the o 3 sachets containing dried leaves of
discrimination against the black accused who is meted out the TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL
death penalty by a white jury that is given the unconditional  During the RTC proceedings, Brodett filed a Motion to Return Non-Drug
discretion to determine whether or not to impose the death Evidence and averred that during his arrest, the PH Drug Enforcement
penalty. Agency (PDEA) seized his personal non-drug affects including a 2004
 Appellant asseverates that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman or Honda Accord.
degrading punishment for the crime of rape mainly because the latter,  The RTC granted his motion, however PDEA moved to reconsider the
unlike murder, does not involve the taking of life. order but was denied.
o He cites the case of Coker v. Georgia wherein it was stated that  PDEA elevated the matter to the CA, but it was dismissed.
rape is deserving of a serious punishment, but it does not ISSUE: W/N PDEA has the right to withhold the release of the car to Brodett.
compare with murder. HELD: YES.
o The Court disagreed with the US SC’s contention that the gauge  PDEA contends that the decision of the CA was not in accordance with
of whether or not a crime warrants the death penalty or not, is the intent of the framers of RA 9165.
the attendance of the circumstance of death on the part of the o The car was registered under Myra Brodett and was seized
victim. during a legitimate operation.
 The forfeiture of life simply because life was taken, never o They assert that even if the car belonged to a third person, her
was a defining essence of the death penalty in the ownership did not authorize its release because she was under
context of our legal history and cultural experience; the obligation to prove to the RTC that she had no knowledge of
rather, the death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes the crime.
because the perpetrators thereof have committed  Brodett counters that RA 9165 states that confiscation and forfeiture of
unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act may be done by PDEA,
dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely unless such proceeds or instruments are the property of a third person
destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the not liable for the crime.
masses from abject poverty through organized  The court with the jurisdiction over the offense can seize the instruments
governmental strategies based on a disciplined and used to commit crime and illegally owned or possessed contraband.
honest citizenry, and because they have so caused o The accused must not profit from his crime and must not acquire
irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and property or possession thru the unlawful act.
the society and a repetition of their acts would pose o To return to the convict from whom the contraband was taken, in
actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival one way or another, is not prudent or proper, because doing so
of government, they must be permanently prevented will give rise to a violation of the law for possessing the
from doing so. contraband again.
 Property used as evidence must be returned once the criminal
ARTICLES 25 & 26
proceedings to which it relates have terminated, unless it is then subject
to forfeiture or other proceedings.
PDEA v. Brodett (Sept 28 2011 Bersamin, J.)
 Sec. 20 of RA 9165 provides that instruments or tools with which the  Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested for the
crime was committed, unless they are property of a third person not crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder committed
liable for the crime, shall be destroyed without delay. during the period of a failed coup. He was charged alongside spouses
 Art. 45 of the RPC states that: Such proceeds and instruments or tools Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan.
shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they  Enrile, thru his counsel, filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that
be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been:
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. o held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the
 The Office of the City Prosecutor states that the delivery to the RTC of statute books;
the listed personal effects for safekeeping, to be held there throughout o charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no
the duration of the trial, would be to enable the Prosecution and the complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was
Defense to exhaust their possible evidentiary value. conducted, hence was denied due process;
 PDEA also contends that the car should not have been released o denied his right to bail; and
because it had been seized from accused Brodett during a legitimate o arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued
anti-illegal operation. without the judge who issued it first having personally
 The Court agrees with the PDEA and the Office of the City determined the existence of probable cause.
Prosecutor.  The SG contended that the information in Hernandez charged murders
o The RTC granted Brodett’s Motion while the criminal and other common crimes committed as a necessary means for the
proceedings were still going on and the trial was yet to be commission of rebellion, whereas the information against Enrile et
completed. al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but
o Ordering the release of the car at that poin tof the proceedings not in furtherance, of rebellion.
was premature, considering that the third paragraph of Section  The SG would distinguish between the complex crime ("delito complejo")
20 expressly forbids the disposition, alienation, or transfer of any arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another,
property, or income derived therefrom, that has been confiscated which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 RPC, and is the
from the accused charged under R.A. 9165 during the pendency subject of the Hernandez ruling, and the compound crime ("delito
of the proceedings in the RTC. compuesto") arising from a single act constituting two or more grave or
o The determination of whetheror not the car would be subject of less grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the same paragraph,
forfeiture could be made only when the judgment was to be with which Hernandez was not concerned and to which, therefore, it
rendered in the proceedings. should not apply.
o To release it before the judgment is rendered is to deprive the ISSUE: W/N the doctrine of Hernandez applies to the case.
trial court and the parties access to it as evidence. HELD: YES.
 If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were
Republic v. Glasgow (Jan 18 2008 Corona, J.) punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following
FACTS: penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime
 The Republic of the PH petitions to review the order of the RTC of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the
dismissing their complaint for forfeiture filed against the Glasgow Credit corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances
and Collection Services (Glasgow) and Citystate Savings Bank present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the
(CSBI). crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death,
 The complaint was filed pursuant to RA 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in
Act of 2001). the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not
 *** be imposed upon him.
 The petitioner’s contention that he was charged with a non-existent crime
Enrile v. Salazar (Jun 5 1990 Narvasa J.) is meritorious. Read in the context of Hernandez, Enrile can only be
FACTS: merely charged with simple rebellion. The other acts are mere
 The validity and the limits of the applicability of the doctrine of People v. ingredients of the crime of rebellion as means necessary for its
Hernandez is questioned in the present case, 34 years after it was perpetration.
decided.
 The petitioners are entitled to bail before final conviction, as a matter of  At the time the police talked to appellant in his farm, the latter was
right. already under investigation as a suspect. The questioning by the police
 The Hernandez ruling is still valid. All other crimes committed in carrying was no longer a general inquiry.
out rebellion are deemed absorbed.  In trying to elicit information from appellant, the police were already
investigating appellant as a suspect. At this point, he was already under
People v. Valdez (Sept 25 2000 Quisumbing, J.) custodial investigation and had a right to counsel even if he had not yet
FACTS: been arrested.
 Appellant Abe Valdez was found by the RTC to be guilty of violating RA o Custodial Investigation is "questioning initiated by law
6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He was sentenced to death enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
by lethal injection. or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
 Prosecution witness SPO3 Marcelo Tipay testified that he received a tip way."
about the presence of a marijuana plantation allegedly owned by Valdez. o Even before Valdez was arrested, the police made him take
o The following day, a police team went to the plantation. They incriminating photos in front of the plants. It may be inferred that
found Valdez alone in his hut and saw 7 ft. high marijuana plants he had already been deprived of his freedom of action.
in 2 rows. Valdez admitted that the plants were his.  Valdez’ admission was flawed in its admissibility.
o The plants were uprooted and Valdez was arrested. o For a confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the following
ISSUE: W/N Valdez was correctly sentenced to death by lethal injection. requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with
HELD: NO. the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it
 The confiscated plants were obtained during an illegal search and must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.
seizure. o Valdez’ admission was verbal. It was also uncounseled.
o There was no warrant even if the police officers had enough time  The trial court relied on two pieces of probative matter to convict
to get one. appellant of the offense charged. These were the seized marijuana
o Even if the lot was unfenced, the right against unreasonable plants, and appellant's purportedly voluntary confession of ownership.
searches is the immunity of one’s person which includes his o There was no other evidence presented to link appellant with the
property. offense charged.
 The trial court relied on Valdez admitting ownership to the plants in  The Constitution decrees that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
convicting him. shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved..."
o This admission was not done while being under custodial  Absent the required degree of proof of an accused's guilt, he is entitled
investigation. to an acquittal.
o The OSG avers that Valdez was not yet under custodial
investigation when he admitted to ownership and his rights to
counsel were not yet attached.
o The Constitution plainly declares that any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right: (1) to remain silent; (2) to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice; and (3) to be
informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
o An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry but
starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect.
o The moment the police try to elicit admissions or confessions or
even plain information from a person suspected of having
committed an offense, he should at that juncture be assisted by
counsel, unless he waives the right in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
People v. de Leon (Oct 8 1926 Villamor, J.)  The trial court found Simon guilty of violating RA 6425 and sentenced
FACTS: him to life imprisonment.
 Defendant Vicente de Leon entered the yard of Vicente Magat and  RA 6425 was further amended by RA 7659.
without violence and intimidation took, with intent to gain, 2 game o Under the amendment, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
roosters belonging to Magat and Ignacio Nicolas. death shall be imposed if the drug involved weighed 5.750 grams
 De Leon was prosecuted for 2 crimes of theft. or more for marijuana. Less than that, the penalty shall be prison
 The trial court found De Leon guilty for only 1 crime of theft, holding that coreccional to reclusion perpetua.
the theft of 2 roosters constituted only 1 crime. o Simon only had 3.8 grams of marijuana in his custody.
ISSUE: W/N 2 crimes of theft should be imposed upon the defendant. ISSUE: W/N RA 7659 should be given retroactive effect.
HELD: HELD:
 The act of taking 2 roosters in response to the unity of thought of the
criminal purpose on one occasion is not affect by the fact that the People v. Gabres (Feb 6 1997 Vitug, J.)
roosters belonged to 2 distinct persons. FACTS:
 There is no series of acts for the accomplishment of different purposes,  Five counts of estafa were filed against spouses Perlito and Lucrecia
but only 1 of which was consummated and determines the existence of Gabres, the latter being herein appellant.
only 1 crime. o The spouses defrauded Joel Panida by representing themselves
o The act of taking the roosters in the same place and on the same as licensed recruiters for overseas employment.
occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent o They took 45k from Panida which they misappropriated for their
existence of their own, because there are not two distinct own use.
appropriations nor two intentions that characterize two separate  The spouses were also accused of engaging in large scale illegal
crimes. recruitment that constitutes economic sabotage.
 It is not necessary in theft for the culprit to know the owner of the thing o Oreta Nisperos heard the the spouses were recruiting factory
stolen, because the law does not require it nor does it affect the criminal workers for Korea. Together with her son Ramil, Joel Panida,
liability, but only the restitution or indemnification of damages. Julius Aoay, Tarciso Dacsig, Jr., Jonard Dulay, and Ronaldo
 The fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not Mirabueno, promised to pay for the required placement fees.
produce a multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately. o The spouses assured them that they could expect their
departure within a few days. However, the call from their
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW supposed employer never came.
Indeterminate Sentence – a prison sentence which consists of a range of o After months of waiting, the applicants demanded the return of
years. their money from the spouses. They were issued 4 10k checks,
Act 4103 – enacted on December 5, 1933; amended by Act 4225 and RA but they all bounced.
4203 (June 19, 1965) o The applicants sought the assistance of the PH Overseas
Employment Admin-CAR (POEA-CAR). It certified that the
People v. Simon (Jul 29 1994 Regalado, J.) spouses were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for
FACTS: overseas employment.
 Accused Martin Simon was charged with violating RA 6425 or the o Perlito was able to evade arrest and Lucrecia was the only one
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He allegedly sold 4 tea bags of tried. She was found guilty of all 6 charges.
marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer. ISSUE: W/N the penalty should be modified.
o The police unit of Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga was HELD: YES.
informed by a NARCOM operative that a certain “Alyas Pusa”  Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the
was conducting illegal drug activities. penalty shall be "that which, in view of the attending circumstances,
o A buy-bust team was then formed and proceeded to Sto. Cristo. could be properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code, and the
The informant pointed out Simon and one of the operatives minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that
asked him if he had marijuana. Simon sold 2 tea bags of prescribed" for the offense.
marijuana and was subsequently arrested. o The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty
 Upon arrest, Simon orally waived his right to counsel. prescribed by the RPC for the offense, without first considering
any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the o Teoora identified the accused during the trial. She stated that
crime. she was at her farm and was about to graze the animals when all
o The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the of a sudden Lampaza came from behind her and twisted both
sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the her arms. He then lifted her and brought her to the nipa hut.
range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the There, he threatened her with his bolo and raped her.
periods into which it might be subdivided. ISSUE: W/N the penalty should be modified.
o The modifying circumstances are considered only in the HELD: YES.
imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.  Under the law in effect when the crime was committed, the penalty for
 The amount of 22k involved in the case should be taken as analogous to simple rape was reclusion perpetua. In imposing a lower indeterminate
a modifying circumstance in the imposition of the maximum term of the penalty, the trial court erred, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law
indeterminate sentence and not as the initial determination of the does not apply when the offense involved is punishable with reclusion
indeterminate penalty, since penal laws should be interpreted in favor of perpetua.
the accused.
 The penalty prescribed for the estafa charge against Gabres is prison People v. Ducosin (Dec 14 1933 Butte, J.)
correccional minimum to medium. FACTS:
o The minimum period of the indeterminate sentence should be  Appellant Valeriano Ducosin was convicted of frustrated murder against
anywhere within 6 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. & 2 mos. one Rafael Yanguas, and was referred to the SC for the proper
o The maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be 6 interpretation and application of Act 4103 or the ISLAW. This is the first
years & 1 day because the amounts involved exceeded 22k, plus case involving said law.
additional 1 year for each additional 10k.  ISLAW was enacted on Dec. 5 1933
 The Court modified the penalties imposed by the trial court as follows:  Under Art. 288 RPC, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion
o In the criminal case where amount involved is 45k, the minimum temporal in its maximum period to death. Under Art. 50, the penalty for a
penalty should be reduced to 4 years and 2 mos. of prison frustrated felony is the one next lower degree from the penalty for the
coreccional, the maximum of the allowable minimum penalty of consummated felony.
the indeterminate sentence. o In the present case, the penalty is prison mayor in its maximum
o 50k: minimum penalty is reduced to 4 years & 2 mos. of prison period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, of 10 years
coreccional. Maximum is 6 year and 1 day of prison mayor plus a and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months.
period of 2 years for each additional 10k for a total max. period  Ducosin has the fixed penalty within the minimum period, 10 years and 1
of 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor. day to 12 years, leaving to the discretion of the court the precise time to
o In 2 criminal cases where the amounts were 40k, the min penalty be served within this range.
is 2 years, 8 months, and 1 day of prision coreccional. Max is 6 ISSUE: W/N the penalty should be modified.
years and 1 days of prison mayor plus 1 year. HELD: YES.
o All the other penalties were affirmed without modification.  Act 4103 was enacted after the appeal to SC. The Court is now required
to revise the sentence pursuant to the law.
People v. Lampaza (Nov 24 1999 Panganiban, J.)  Under Sec. 1 of the Act, instead of a single fixed penalty there should be
FACTS: two penalties referred to as “maximum” and “minimum”.
 Accused Egmedio Lampaza was charged with the rape of Teodora o The prisoner must serve the minimum penalty before he is
Wacay and, applying the ISLAW, was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day eligible for parole.
to 14 years and 8 months as minimum, and 17 years and 4 months and 1  How shall the maximum and minimum be determined?
day to 20 years as maximum by the trial court. o MAXIMUM
 The CA modified his penalty to reclusion perpetua.  Must be determined in accordance with the provisions of
 The antecedent facts are as follows: the RPC exactly as if the Act was never passed.
o Teodora’s nephew found her running out of one of the nipa huts  The Act does not make inoperative the RPC.
in the farm. When she reached him, she was sobbing and very  According to its legislative history, attention was called in
pale. She explained to him that she was afraid of somebody and taking care that the Act not be in conflict with the RPC.
could not stay in their Barangay.
o In this case, the maximum penalty is correct. It should be 10 Mustapha v. People (Oct 20 2015 Peralta, J.)
years and 1 day, reclusion temporal in its medium, because of FACTS:
the plea of guilty.  Petitioner Mustapha Dimakuta was indicted for violating RA 7610 or the
o MINIMUM Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and
 Shall not be less than the minimum imprisonment period Discriminatory Act.
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC o Mustapha committed a lascivious conduct upon AAA, 16 years
to the offense. old, by embracing her, touching her breast and private part
 This provision gives the courts the widest discretion they against her will and without her consent.
have ever had.  The RTC sentenced Mustapha to an indeterminate penalty of
 The Court construes the expression in Sec. 1 “the imprisonment ranging from 10 years of prison mayor (minimum) to 17
penalty next lower to that prescribed by said Code for years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal (maximum), with the
the offense” to mean that the penalty next lower accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
determined by the court in the case is the maximum.  Mustapha elevated the matter to the CA. The CA modified the penalty to
o In this case, the next lower penalty to the maximum is prison 6 months of arresto mayor (minimum) to 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional in its maximum period to prison mayor in its medium correctional (maximum).
period (4 years and 2 months and 1 day to 10 years).  Instead of further appealing the case, Mustapha filed before the CA a
 The basic purpose of the ISLAW is to “uplift and redeem motion to allow him to apply for probation. He cited Colinares v. People
valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and wherein the petitioner was allowed to apply for probation after his
excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic sentence was reduced on appeal.
usefulness.” o The CA denied the motion. It ruled that Colinares did not apply
 The criminal should be considered first as an individual because in it the petitioner raised the issue of the correctness of
and second as a member of society. Penalties shall not the penalty.
be standardized but fitted to the individual to protect o The CA cited Lagrosa v. People as the applicable case, wherein
social order. the application for probation was denied because the petitioners
 The factors that should be considered in determining assailed the merits of their convictions rather than the penalty.
the minimum penalty are: (1) His age, especially with ISSUE: W/N Mustapha should be allowed to apply for probation.
reference to extreme youth or old age; (2) his general HELD: NO.
health and physical condition; (3) his mentality, heredity  HISTORY OF THE PROBATION LAW
and personal habits; (4) his previous conduct, o Probation was first introduced by the Americans and was for
environment and mode of life (and criminal record if juvenile delinquents. As for those above 18, under Act. 4221
any); (5) his previous education, both intellectual and those who were convicted and sentenced on appeal were
moral; (6) his proclivities and aptitudes for usefulness or allowed to be placed on probation after the sentence has
injury to society; (7) his demeanor during trial and his become final and the service has begun. However, Act. 4221
attitude with regard to the crime committed; (8) the was declared unconstitutional by the SC.
manner and circumstances in which the crime was o During Martial Law, Marcos issued PD 968 which allowed the
committed; (9) the gravity of the offense filing of an application for probation at any time after the
 The ISLAW aims to individualize the administration of defendant had been convicted and sentenced.
criminal law.  It was amended to state that the application may be
o In this case, the appellant was unfortunately convicted before the made after the defendant had been convicted and
effectivity of Act 4103. The Court ruled that they minimum period sentenced but BEFORE he begins to serve.
is 7 years, which is within the range of the penalty next lower  It was again amended, allowing the convicted and
degree to the maximum. sentenced defendant to apply within the 15-day period
PROBATION for perfecting an appeal.
P.D. 968 – establishing a probation system and the appropriation for its funds  Colinares held that since the trial court imposed a penalty which was
(Jul 24 1976) beyond what was allowed by the Probation Law, which was erroneous,
the accused was deprived of his choice to apply for probation and was
instead compelled to appeal the case.
o The accused in Colinares should not have been allowed to have
the benefit of probation. The Probation Law is not a penal law to
be liberally construed in favor of the accused.
 Probation may be filed even if the accused has filed a notice of appeal
when:
o The appeal is merely intended for the correction of the penalty
imposed by the lower court, which when corrected would entitle
the accused to apply for probation
o The appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which the
accused was convicted and that the accused should only be
liable to the lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
crime for which he was originally convicted and the proper
penalty imposable is within the probationable period.
 Before an appeal is filed based on the grounds enumerated above, the
accused must first file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
trial court based on the grounds above and manifest his intent to apply
for probation once the motion is granted. Without such motion, the
appeal should be denied.
 The notice of appeal should contain the following averments:
o that an earlier motion for reconsideration was filed but was
denied by the trial court;
o that the appeal is only for reviewing the penalty imposed by the
lower court or the conviction should only be for a lesser crime
necessarily included in the crime charged in the information; and
o that the accused-appellant is not seeking acquittal of the
conviction.
 Probation shound not be granted:
o When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a
crime where the penalty imposed is within the probationable
period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal
o When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the merits
of his conviction in issue, even if there is an alternative prayer for
the correction of the penalty imposed by the trial court or for a
conviction to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the
crime in which he was convicted where the penalty is within the
probationable period.
 IN THE PRESENT CASE, Mustapha appealed the trial court’s judgment
of conviction before the CA, alleging that the RTC erred in finding him
guilty of violationg RA 7610.
o Mustapha anchored his appeal on a claim of innocence and/or
lack of evidence. This is inconsistent with the Probation Law that
the only qualified penitent offender should be allowed to apply for
probation.