You are on page 1of 8

PEOPLE VS FELIPE KALALO, ET. AL.

G.R. NOS. 39303-39305


MARCH 17, 1934

FACTS:
On November 10, 1932, the appellants namely, Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan
Kalalo, and Gregoria Ramos, were tried in Batangas jointly with Alejandro Garcia,
Fausto Abrenica and ALipia Abrenica with Criminal Cases Nos. 6858, 6859 and
6860, the first two for murder and the last for frustrated murder. Upon
agreement of the parties said three cases were tried together and after the
presentation of their respective evidence, the said court acquitted Alejandro
Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica and sentenced and the other
applicants.

ISSUE: W/O Accused-appellants are liable of the crimes of murder and discharge
of firearms?

HELD:
The first case is for the alleged murder of Marcelino Panaligan, to 17 years, 4
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory
penalties, and to indemnity the heirs of the aforesaid victim, the deceased
Marcelino Panaligan, in the sum of P1,000 with the costs.

The second case is for the alleged murder of Arcadio Holgado, to 17 years, 4
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory
penalties, and to indemnity the heirs of the aforesaid victim, the deceased
Arcadio Holgado, in the sum of P1,000 with the costs.

In the third case, that is, the court held that the crime committed was simply that
of discharge of firearm, not frustrated murder, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo was
sentenced to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prison correccional and to pay the
proportionate part of the costs of the proceedings. Felipe Kalalo and Juan Kalalo,
as well as their co-accused Fausta and Alipia Abrenica, Gregorio Ramos and
Alejandro Garcia, were acquitted of the charges therein.
In all other aspects, the appealed sentences in the said three cases are hereby
affirmed without prejudice to crediting the appellants therein with one-half of the
time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, in accordance
with the Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. So ordered.

PEOPLE VS. LISTERIO


GR. NO. 122099
JULY 5, 2000

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:
• Criminal Case No. 91-5842 and Criminal Case No. 91-5843 were filed against Agapito
Listerio y Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela
• Upon arraignment, accused Agapito Listerio y Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela
pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Their other co-accused have remained at large.
• May 14, 1991:
o Marlon Araque’s Version: Marlon and his brother Jeonito were in Purok 4, Alabang,
Muntinlupa to collect a sum of money from Tino. Having failed they turned backAs they were
passing Tramo near Tino’s place, a group composed of Agapito Listerio, Samson dela Torre,
George dela Torre, Marlon dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya blocked their path and attacked
them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. Jeonito Araque from behind with 3 stab wounds:
1. upper right portion of his back, 2. lower right portion and 3. middle portion of the left side
of his back causing him to fall down. Marlon was hit on the head by Samson dela Torre and
Bonifacio Bancaya with lead pipes and momentarily lost consciousness. When he regained
consciousness 3 minutes later, Jeonito was already dead and the group fled. He was brought
to the hospital for treatment of his forearm and the shoulder
o Agapito Listerio’s Version: Agapito Listerio is a 39 years old, married, side walk vegetable
vendor and a resident of Purok 4.
 1:00 pm: He was in store of Nimfa Agustin drinking beer with Edgar Demolador and
Andres Gininao
 2:00 pm: He went to his house and slept
 5:00 pm: Remolador and Gininao woke him up and told him there was a quarrel near the
railroad track
 6:00 pm: 2 policemen passed by going to the house of Samson de la Torre while he was
chatting with Remolador and Gininao and invited them for questioning. But, the two were
sent home. He was handed a Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Marlon Araque, implicating
him for the death of Jeonito Araque and the frustrated murder of Marlon Araque. When he
confronted Marlon as to why he was being included in the case, the latter replied “because
you ejected us from your house”
• Dr. Manimtim’s Autopsy Reports:
o Marlon Araque: 2 wounds on the forearm and the shoulder were caused by a sharp object
like a knife while the other 2 were caused by a blunt instrument such as a lead pipe
o Jeonito Araque: 3 stab wounds were inflicted from behind by a sharp, pointed and single-
bladed instrument like a kitchen knife, balisong or any similar instrument. Considering the
involvement of a vital organ and a major blood vessel, the first wound was considered
fatal. Unlike the first, the second and third wounds were non-fatal. The first and second
wounds were inflicted by knife thrusts delivered starting below going upward by assailants
who were standing behind the victim
• RTC: Attempted Homicide only on the basis of Dr. Manimtim’s testimony that none of the
wounds sustained by Marlon Araque were fatal

ISSUE: W/N there is a conspiracy for frustrated homicide

HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1.] the award of P5,000.00 to Marlon Araque by way of moral damages in Criminal Case No.
91-5843 is DELETED;

2.] Accused-Appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 91-5843
of Frustrated Homicide and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of
Prision Correccional, as minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as
maximum.

After finality of this Decision, the records shall be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, which is directed to render judgment based on the evidence against Samson dela
Torre y Esquela.

• Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for criminals do not write down their lawless
plans and plots. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint
purpose, concert of action and community of interest
• conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence of acts charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite
acts, conditions and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose
accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential to establish a
conspiracy, it being sufficient that the condition attending to its commission and the acts
executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and
objective
• It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt acts as a direct or
indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act
may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may
consist of moral assistance to his con-conspirators by being present at the commission of the
crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators
• Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, it denotes an intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose
o all of them armed with deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably shows their
criminal design to kill the victims
• conspirator is equally liable for the crime as it is unnecessary to determine who inflicted
the fatal wound because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all
• Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. That circumstance qualifies the crime into murder.
o all of them armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes, blocked (hinarang) the path of
the victims effectively cutting off their escape
• The commission of the crime was also attended by abuse of superior strength on account
of the fact that accused-appellant and his companions were not only numerically superior to
the victims but also because all of them, armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes,
purposely used force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the persons
attacked. However, this aggravating circumstance is already absorbed in treachery. In the
light of the finding of conspiracy, evident premeditation need not be further appreciated,
absent concrete proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had
elapsed before it was carried out.
• What determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated is whether or not the
subjective phase in the commission of an offense has been passed (NOT gravity of the wound)
• Subjective phase
o portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the
commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior
acts, should result in the consummated crime.
• Objective phase
o Forward the subjective phase
o period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he has control – that period
between the point where he begins and the point where he voluntarily desists.
• If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his
own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt.
• If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated
• frustrated when: (subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is
complete)
o the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
o the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator’s will
• attempted felony: (offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense)
o the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of the crime
o he is not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; and
o his failure to perform all the acts of execution was due to some cause or accident other
than his spontaneous desistance
• intent to kill determines whether the infliction of injuries should be punished as
attempted or frustrated murder, homicide, parricide or consummated physical injuries
o intent to kill of the malefactors herein who were armed with bladed weapons and lead
pipes can hardly be doubted given the prevailing facts of the case
o can not be denied that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense
considering that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he
lost consciousness and fell, Marlon’s attackers apparently thought he was already dead and
fled
US VS ISAAC DOMINGUEZ

FACTS:
On or about January 19, 1920 in the City of Manila, accused Isaac Dominguez who
was a salesman at the Philippine Education Co., Inc. did then and there receive
the sum of 750pesos from one Lamberto Garcia as payment for five copies of
Sam’s “Practical Business Letters” bought from the store.
The accused should have immediately delivered to the Cashier said amount but
which he did not deliver, until after it was discovered that he had sold the books
and received their value without delivering it to the cashier, as was his duty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused committed frustrated estafa after he retained in his
possession the proceeds of sale, delivering them to the cashier only after the
deceit had been discovered.

RULING:
Yes, accused Isaac Dominguez is guilty of frustrated estafa of 37 1/2 pesetas, in as
much as he performed all the acts of execution which should produce the crime
as a consequence, but which, by reason of causes independent of his will, did not
produce it, no appreciable damage having been caused to the offended party,
such damage being one of the essential elements of the crime due to the timely
discovery of the acts prosecuted

GREGORY JAMES POZAR VS. CA (APPLICATION FOR PROBATION. ENVELOPE WITH


P100 BILL.)

FACTS:

Petitioner, an American citizen and a permanent resident of the Philippines, was


charged in an information, with the crime of Corruption of a Public Official. As
stated in the Information, petitioner “did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously give to the complainant, Mr. Danilo Ocampo, the City Probation
Officer, the sum of one hundred (P100.00) pesos in a paper bill with serial No.
BC530309, under circumstances that would make the said City Probation Officer,
Mr. Danilo Ocampo, liable for bribery.”
Manalo, Clerk at the Probation Office of Angeles City, declared that he started
working at the Probation Office since May 2, 1978 and came to know appellant
because the latter had gone to said office in connection with his application for
probation. At about noontime of December 17, 1979, appellant came to the office
looking for Probation Officer Danilo Ocampo and since the latter was out at the
time, appellant gave him a closed envelope bearing the name of Ocampo for
delivery to the latter.

Two days later, he gave the envelope to Ocampo who opened the same in his
presence. The enveloped contain some official papers connected with appellant’s
application for probation and attached thereto was a hundred-peso bill. Ocampo
then remarked: “This is something bad that the opening of the envelope was
done on December 19, 1979.” Ocampo kept the envelope and its contents,
including the one hundred-peso bill, but within a week’s time gave them to him
with instructions to give the same to appellant but the latter never came to the
office and so he returned them to Ocampo.

Although he later saw appellant about two weeks after December 17, 1979, when
the latter came to the office to sign some papers, he never mentioned to
appellant the one hundred-peso bill.

RULING: NO, the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of
Corruption of Public Official as consummated offense (which is affirmed by the
respondent appellant court) for it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution as
recited in both decisions of the trial and appellate courts, that the complainant
Probation Officer did not accept the one hundred-peso bill. Hence, the crime would
be attempted corruption of a public official (to be the correct charge).
Accused was ACQUITTED.

GARCIA VS CA AND THE PEOPLE

FACTS:

 Accused were Fidelino Garcia, Leopoldo Garcia, and Wilfredo Garcia


 All were charged with murder
 Witnesses were police officers – Francisco Rollera, Pobeda, and Roadilla
 Victim was Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena
 Rollera testimony: Wilfredo and Leopoldo were ganging on Olgena.
Leopoldo held the victim, Fidelino hit him with an empty bottle, and
Wilfredo stabbed the victim with a fan knife that got stuck in Olgena’s
body. Olgena managed to free himself from Leopoldo, took the knife out of
his body and stabbed Fidelino in the stomach. Rollera fired a warning
shots. Olgena retreated to a store, Wilfredo in pursuit. Inside the store,
Olgena stabbed Wilfredo twice in the neck and stomach. They called for
police help.
 Medico-legal certificate stated that COD was cerebral hemorrhage
 RTC convicted them of homicide. Accused Fidelino appealed.

ISSUES:
 WON there was conspiracy
 Error in conviction because evidence does not establish culpability as
principal, co-conspirator, or accomplice

HOLDING:
 No conspiracy because the information doesn’t satisfy the requirement that
conspiracy be conveyed in “appropriate language”. Conspiracy must be
alleged, and not merely inferred. There must be a particular statement in
the accusatory portion of the charge sheet mentioning a definite act
constituting conspiracy. Indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1) follows
the words of the statue creating the offense and reasonable informs the
accused of the offense he is charged with; (2) contains a sufficient
statement of an overt act to effect the object of conspiracy; (3) alleges both
conspiracy and contemplated crime in the language of the statue defining
them.

PEOPLE VS ARQUILLOS TABUSO


October 26, 1999

Arquillos Tabuso was found guilty of murder. In the service of his sentence, he is
entitled to the provision of Article 29 [Period of Preventive imprisonment
deducted from term imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have undergone
preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have
undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily
in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners xxx.] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

HELD:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement on the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In a number of cases, this Court
ruled that similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of
conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The mere presence of a
person at the scene of the crime does not make him a co-conspirator. Assumed
intimacy between two persons of itself does not give much significance to the
existence of criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy certainly transcends companionship.
Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.

You might also like