ENRILE vs AMIN

FACTS: Affidavits were executed by three (3) employees of the Silahis International Hotel who
stated that the fugitive Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended
the mass and birthday party held at the residence of the petitioner in the evening of December
1, 1989. Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan conferred with accused Senator Juan Ponce Enrile
accompanied by about 100 fully armed rebel soldiers wearing white armed patches".

ISSUE: whether or not the petitioner could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829
notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against him.

RULING: NO. The resolution of the above issue brings us anew to the case of People v.
Hernandez doctrine. This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. If a person cannot be charged
with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied, neither can he be
charged separately for two (2) different offenses where one is a constitutive or component
element or committed in furtherance of rebellion. As held in People v. Hernandez, supra:

In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as
well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose.
The decisive factor is the intent or motive. (p. 536)

Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in
themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. In this case, the act of
harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or
an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate
charge. If the act is committed with political or social motives, which are in furtherance of
rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being
punished separately.

POSADAS vs OMBUDSMAN

FACTS: Venturina was killed in a rumble between his fraternity Sigma Rho and Scintilla Juris.
Chancellor Posadas asked theNBI for assistance in determining the persons responsible for the
crime. Chief Dizon and his men went to U.P. on the basis of the supposed positive identification
of two eyewitnesses Lachica and Mangrobang and attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag as
suspects.

Petitioners objected on the ground that the NBI did not have warrants of arrest with them.
Dizon filed a complaint charging with violation of P.D. 1829, which makes it unlawful for anyone
to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.

ISSUE: Whether there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioners for violation of P.D. No.
1829.
RULING: No, there is no probable cause to charge plaintiffs of violating Section 1(c) of P.D.
1829. Probable cause is defined as "sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a
crime cognizable by the court has been committed and that the respondents are probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial" (Section 1, Rule 12, Rules of Court). The absence of
an arrest warrant, the absence of knowledge or reasonable ground on the part of the accused
to believe that the students had committed a crime, the absence of any law punishing refusal to
attend an investigation at the NBI, all show that there is no sufficient ground to charge the
accused with Obstruction of Justice.

ANGELES vs GAITE

FACTS: Petitioner Judge Angeles was the foster mother to her 14 year-old grandniece.
Petitioner's love for the child extended to her half-brother which had a falling out with
petitioner for his failure to do a very important errand for which he was severely reprimanded
over the phone. He, in conspiracy with his co-horts retaliated by inducing his half-sister, Maria
Mercedes, to leave petitioner's custody. Michael used to have free access to the undersigned's
house and he took the girl away while petitioner was at her office. Petitioner filed a complaint
for Kidnapping under Article 271 of the Revised Penal Code against Michael Vistan. Warrants of
arrest were subsequently issued against them but they went into hiding. He dragged along with
him his half-sister Maria Mercedes. Prosecutor Benjamin R. Caraig recommended to uphold the
charge of Violation of RA 7160 but recommended that only one Information be filed against
Michael Vistan. The charge of Violation of PD 1829 was dismissed.

ISSUE: WON, CA ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISMISSAL BY THE DOJ SECRETARY OF THE
COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 1(E). P.D. 1829 AGAINST MICHAEL VISTAN.

RULING: No. Petitioner argues that the evasion of arrest constitutes a violation of Section 1(e)
of PD No. 1829, (e) Delaying the prosecution of criminal case by obstructing the service of
processes or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals' offices in Tanodbayan, or in
the courts. SC agrees with the CA that based on the evidence presented by petitioner, the
failure on the part of the arresting officer/s to arrest the person of the accused makes the latter
a fugitive from justice and is not equivalent to a commission of another offense of obstruction
of justice.

PADIERNOS vs PEOPLE

FACTS: DENR Officer Balico approached a truck loaded with lumber, which was parked at a
national highway in Dingalan. He requested from the truck driver the lumber's supporting
documents but they failed to produce any. Owner Santiago agreed with the DENROs and the
police officers to bring the truck to the police station. Mesina started the engine and Roxas,
Santiago, and Padiernos immediately got on board at the front of the truck. The DENRO group
also got on board at the back of the truck.
Since the truck was then parked opposite the direction to the police station, Balico thought that
Mesina would maneuver the truck so that they could proceed to the police station. To their
surprise, Mesina increased the truck's speed and headed towards the direction of Nueva Ecija,
leaving behind their two policemen escorts who chased the truck and fired three warning shots.
The Philippine Army blocked the road and flagged down the truck at Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija.

ISSUE: WON, petitioners are liable for violation of Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829.

RULING: YES. the present case, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 - the illegal possession of
lumber - had already been discovered at the time the petitioners took the truck. This discovery
led to the confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber. P.D. 1829 addresses the
necessity of penalizing acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the
successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. Its elements are (b) altering,
destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any
investigation of or official proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in criminal cases.

CANDAO vs PEOPLE

FACTS: COA constituted a team of for Expanded Special Audit of the Office of the Regional
Governor, (ORG-ARMM). It was found that illegal withdrawals were made from the depository
accounts of the agency through the issuance of checks payable to the order of petitioner Haron
without the required disbursement vouchers. Cases for malversation of public funds against
Candao et al.

ISSUE: WON, the accused is guilty of malversation, imposition of penalty

RULING: Under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the amount
involved exceeds ₱22,000.00, in addition to fine equal to the funds malversed. Considering that
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attended the crime charged, the maximum
imposable penalty shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal
maximum to reclusion perpetua, or eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty, which is
one degree lower from the maximum imposable penalty, shall be within the range of prision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, or ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months.34 The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan on petitioners
needs therefore to be modified insofar as the maximum penalty is concerned and is hereby
reduced to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, for each
count.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

PEOPLE VS NANG KAY

FACTS: Nang Kay was charged with illegal possession of firearms (3 grease guns and 2
Thompson Submachine guns, and empty magazines, without the necessary license). He pleaded
guilty. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 1 day, with the accessories of the
law, and to pay costs. He appeals to this Court that the trial court failed to inform him at the
arraignment of his right to be assisted by counsel. Solgen also questions the correctness of the
penalty imposed, expressing the opinion and making the recommendation that the law on
indeterminate sentence should have been applied.

ISSUE: WON the ISLAW was applied in this case

RULING: If we are now to apply the law on indeterminate sentence in the instant case, the
prison term would to be more than five (5) years for the reason that the minimum could not be
less than five (5) years and the maximum necessarily would have to be more than five (5) years
but not more than ten (10) years. That would certainly be not in accordance with the purpose
of the law on indeterminate sentence; in fact it would run counter to its spirit. Besides, it has
also been held that the law on indeterminate sentence being penal in character must receive a
strict construction in favor of the one to whom the penalty is exacted. In cases where the
application of the law on indeterminate sentence would be unfavorable to the accused,
resulting in the lengthening of his prison sentence, said law on indeterminate sentence should
not be applied. Under this opinion, it is obvious that the trial court did not err in sentencing the
appellant to imprisonment for five (5) years and one (1) day.

BATISTIS vs PEOPLE

FACTS: RTC Manila convicted Juno Batistis for violations of Section 155 (infringement of
trademark) and Section 168 (unfair competition) of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act
No. 8293). CA affirmed the conviction for infringement of trademark, but reversed the
conviction for unfair competition for failure of the State to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Batistis now appeals via petition for review on certiorari to challenge the CA’s
affirmance of his conviction for infringement of trademark.

Upon Allied Domecq Philippines request, agents of NBI conducted a test-buy in the premises of
Batistis, and confirmed that he was actively engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution
of counterfeit Fundador brandy products.

He thereby infringed the registered Fundador trademark by the colorable imitation of it

through applying the dominant features of the trademark on the fake products, particularly the
two bottles filled with Fundador brandy.25 His acts constituted infringement of trademark as set
forth in Section 155, supra.
ISSUE: WON ISLAW should be applied in this case

RULING: Yes. Penalty Imposed should be an Indeterminate Penalty and Fine. If the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

The need for specifying the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence is
to prevent the unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and to enhance the economic
usefulness of the accused, since he may be exempted from serving the entire sentence,
depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental, and moral record. The requirement of
imposing an indeterminate sentence in all criminal offenses is deemed mandatory.

In this case, both trial court and the CA did not have a similar circumstance to justify the lenity
towards the accused. Secondly, the large number of Fundador articles confiscated from his
house (namely, 241 empty bottles of Fundador, 163 Fundador boxes, a half sack full of
Fundador plastic caps, and two filled bottles of Fundador Brandy) clearly demonstrated that
Batistis had been committing a grave economic offense over a period of time, thereby
deserving for him the indeterminate, rather than the straight and lower, penalty.

ZAFRA VS PEOPLE

FACTS: Appellant is the Revenue Collection Agent of BIR. An audit team from the central office
of the BIR was tasked to audit the cash and non-cash accountabilities of the appellant. A
comparison of the entries in said documents revealed that the data pertaining to 18 RORs with
the same serial number vary with respect to the name of the taxpayer, the kind of tax paid, the
amount of tax and the date of payment.

ISSUE: WON the penalty is composed of 3 periods?

FACTS: No. SC saw an obvious need to correct the penalties imposed on the petitioner. He was
duly convicted of 18 counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public
documents, all complex crimes. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
for each count is to be imposed in its maximum period. Falsification of a public document by a
public officer is penalized with prision mayor and a fine not to exceed ₱5,000.00. Prision mayor
has a duration of six years and one day to 12 years of imprisonment. In contrast, the penalty for
malversation ranges from prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods to reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua depending on the amount
misappropriated, and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or to the total value of
the property embezzled

PEOPLE vs BAYKER

FACTS:
FACTS: An illegal recruiter can be liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment committed in large
scale and estafa without risk of being put in double jeopardy, provided that the accused has
been so charged under separate informations.

The penalty for illegal recruitment committed in large scale, pursuant to Section 7(b)30 of
Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers' Act), is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. In light of the provision of the law, the CA patently
erred in reducing the fine to P100,000.00. Hence, we hereby increase the fine to P500,000.00.

The minimum of the indeterminate sentence is taken from prision correctional in its minimum
period to prision correctional in its medium period (i.e., six months and one day to four years
and two months),

In view of the foregoing, the indeterminate sentence for the accused-appellant is from four
years and two months of prision correctional, as the minimum, to nine years, eight months and
21 days of prision mayor.