People vs. Mercado, et, al.

G.R. No. 111165, July 17, 1997

FACTS:

Walking home from Rodelio Gumapang’s birthday party, Elizabeth Ilagan was met by Rogelio
and Reynaldo Mercado who walked in the same direction. She was then punched on the breast
and stomach three (3) times which rendered her unconscious. The duo then held her on her
arms and legs as Rodelio started undressing her. She struggled to break free but was unable to
do so. She lost consciousness for about ten (10) minutes and realized that the duo was gone
and decided to simply go home. She did not bring up the incident until after two (2) days after
her father’s questioning. The medical examination which followed the confession revealed that
there were lacerations on the reproductive organ which indicated the possibility of rape.

In writing, she pointed out those who had committed the crime while in the police station to
file for a complaint. Those representing the accused sought out Ilagan’s father to settle the case
but the latter refused.

On or about October 24, 1986, Reynaldo Mercado, Rodelio Guerrero, and Rogelio Mercado are
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, punishable under Article 334 of the Penal Code
and sentenced to reclusion perptua with a fine of Php 50,000 to be rewarded to Elizabeth
Ilagan, the victim. Hence, this appeal.

The accused contend that there were discrepancies regarding Ilagan’s testimony and the
findings of the trial court, specifically:

1.) That the Court’s erred in acknowledging Ilagan’s inconsistent testimonies

2.) That the Court erred in concluding that the accused conspired and aided each other in
committing the said crime; and

3.) The Court erred in sentencing all accused of rape and reclusion perpetua

It was revealed that the complaint was filed by the Ilagan’s father and not the victim herself as
she did not have the mental and physical capacity to do so, according to the doctor who
examined her.

Some of the inconsistencies, however, were from the victim herself:

1.) The victim claimed that a long fire arm was used against her in the direct examination;
in the cross-examination, she stated that no fire arm was used in committing the crime.
2.) In the Municipal Trial Court, the accused took turns in having sexual intercourse with
her; however, she claimed that only Guerrero took advantage of her during the cross-
examination.
3.) Ilagan claimed that she was raped in a muddy road while going back to her home while
her father claimed that she was raped under a star apple tree.

Undeterred, the accused argue that they were not seen together at any place before the
crime was committed, hence, lacking sufficient preparatory acts which would indicate a
conspiracy.

ISSUE/S: W/N the Court erred in sentencing all the accused of rape and reclusion perpetua

RULING: The appeal is denied. In People vs. Silong, the Court ruled that the acts of the
accused to reach a common criminal objective suffices as conspiracy; In People vs. Mallari,
the Court also ruled that in a conspiracy, “the act of one is the act of all”.

Felicisimo Lazarte vs Sandiganbayan

GR. No. L-69137, March 13, 2009

FACTS: The petitioner is accused not only of malversation of public funds but also
conspiring with Josephine Angsico, Virgilio Dacalos, Robert Balao, and Josephine Espinosa.
Lazarte, being an engineer and chair of the National Housing Authority (NHA) allegedly
misappropriated Php 230,000.00 to pay a construction company by name of A.C. Cruz
Construction in Makati for a ghost project in Bacolod City.

Candido Fajutag, Jr., the Project Engineer, discovered deficiencies in the supporting
documents required for Work Instruction No. 1, namely: 1.) Copy of approved concrete
pouring 2.) Survey results of original ground and finished leaks 3.) Volume calculation of
earth fill rendered on site 4.) Test results of the quality of materials and compaction and 5.)
Copy of work instructions regarding the demolished concrete structures.

Upon further investigation, Fajutag found that there was no actual excavation and road
filing done by A.C. Construction. A Memorandum was subsequently released, terminating
the contract with the said construction company on June 27, 1991. However, payment for
the services A.C. Construction amounting to Php 1,000,000 was still received by an certain
Arceo Cruz and a Memorandum was even released for the settlement of funds to the
construction company despite the fact that Triad Construction and Development
Corporation was already given the reigns in the project. Thus, Fajutag, Jr., brought up these
irregularities to the Commission on Audit (COA)

The special audit investigation revealed the anomalies, most of which are ghost activities
which were confirmed by laboratory tests. They also found that A.C. Cruz Construction had
been overpaid by Php 232,6285.35.

The group filed a motion to quash in Court for the following reasons : 1.) The facts laid out
do not constitute as an offense 2.) the information does not conform to the prescribed form
3.) constitutional rights of the accused to be informed of the case against them is violated
and 5.) individual participation of the accused cannot be determined.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Lazarte, being a
department manager of the NHA.

RULING: The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction of the case. This is due to
the fact that, during the commission of the offense, Lazarte worked for a government-
owned and controlled corporation. Sandiganbayan is granted jurisdiction of all criminal and
civil cases involving public officers and employees including GOCCs which the NHA is a part
of.

Rosario Astudillo and Filipina Orellana vs. People of the Philippines

GR. No. 159734 and GR.No. 159745, November 29, 2006

FACTS: The accused were hired as sales persons under Western Marketing Corporation
along with Flormarie Robel and Roberto Benitez as service-in-charge/cashier reliever and
floor manager respectively. While preparing the monthly sales report of their branch, the
accountant noticed irregularities in the sales report – there were missing invoices and a
shortage of cash sales collection. This was reported to the branch’s manager, Lily Chan Ong.

In a following meeting with Ong, Orellana admitted bringing home appliances belonging to
the company while Astudillo decided to confess in a written letter, asking for apology. It was
also revealed that the when an Inventory of Stocks took place, several other appliances
were missing.

Western Corporation filed a case against Astudillo and Orellana as well as Robel and Benitez
for Qualified theft in the RTC. The Court of Appeals also concurs with the lower Court’s
decision. Hence, this petition

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the employee’s extra-judicial admissions are admissible in the case
against them.

RULING: The Court ruled that Astudillo and Orellana’s petition had no bearing on the case
as they were not under custodial investigation thus making their statements admissible.
Astudillo and Orellana’s claim of being coerced by Ong to write the statements has no effect
on the case other than self-serving defense.

The Court modifies their conviction with Astudillo acquitted and Orellana serving reclusion
perpetua and accessory penalties pursuant to Article 40 of the Penal Code.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
ROMEO AGAPINAY, ALEX AGAPINAY, FORTUNATO AGAPINAY, DANTE AGAPINAY, DELFIN
AGAPINAY and CIRILO AGAPINAY
G.R. No. 77776 June 27, 1990

FACTS: On April 13, 1981, Virgilio Paino took the portable shed that were using by the
accused without permission of the latter. Hence, Romeo Agapinay berated the former for
taking the shed. Soon the two got into an altercation with Romeo stabbing him in his right
arm while Delfin and Fortunato Agapinay held his arms. Romeo stabbed him for the second
time at the right side of his back. Virgilio, however, managed to escape and ran away. While he
was running, Delfin, Alex, Fortunato, Dante, and Cirilo threw rocks at him. All of a sudden Amor
Flores appeared and plunged a knife at the back of Virgilio. It was then that Virgilio collapsed.
Antonio and Eufemio Paino, brothers of Virgilio, and Artemio Siababa brought the wounded
Virgilio to the Don Alfonso Enrile Hospital at Gonzaga but he was declared dead on arrival. But
before he died, he revealed that the Agapinays as well as Amor Flores, as responsible for the
incident. During arraignment, all six accused pleaded "not guilty”. The lower court found that
the Agapinays had conspired to kill Virgilio Paino and thus held them, all principals by
participation.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not there was conspiracy on the part of Agapinays when they
committed the crime charged.
2. Whether or not there exists unlawful aggression on the part of Virgilio.
3. Whether or not the Agapinays are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder qualified by treachery.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that:

1. Conspiracy has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt to hold all six accused as co-
principals in the crime of murder. Conspiracy means, however, an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and a decision to commit itHence, the parties'
liability should be considered individually. Only Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato should be
held as principals in the crime of murder. Romeo is guilty, as he admitted in court by
direct participation, while Delfin and Fortunato are liable as principals by
cooperation. In holding the victim by his arms, both allowed Romeo to inflict upon him
a stab wound. Alex, Dante, and Cirilo, however, are held as simple accomplices for their
acts of pelting the victim with rocks. Since the Virgilio had already sustained two stab
wounds, the act of hurling rocks at him was not indispensable to justify holding them
legally liable as principals.
2. Defense of relatives require three elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending
 the relative had no part in provoking the assailant, should any provocation have been
given by the person attacked. Of these three requisites, "unlawful aggression" is said to
be the most essential.

The Court is not persuaded that Virgilio Paino had acted with unlawful aggression that
might have provoked the Agapinays' deadly wrath. The records show that all that
Virgilio did was to mutter offensive language to Delfin Agapinay and 'injurious words or
threats do not amount to unlawful aggression. It has also been ruled that: "Self-defense
does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the
scene." However, the accused should be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
provocation (or vindication of a grave offense or passion or obfuscation since clearly, the
deceased uttered offending words made the Agapinays, especially Romeo, react
violently.) While the trial court disregarded this particular piece of evidence, the entire
picture seems to indicate that Virgilio Paino did say foul words which made the
Agapinays act in retaliation.

3. There is no dout that murder has been committed, but not out of treachery. Treachery
is dependent on the suddenness of the attack, by which the victim is deprived of all
defenses, and in which the malefactor faces no risk to himself.

Hence, the manner of attack must be shown and thhere is no such showing here. The
fact that Delfin and Fortunato Agapinay held Virgilio Paino while Romeo stabbed him,
does not demonstrate treachery. Rather, what it proves is abuse of superiority (in
numbers). It is evident in the records that the trio of had taken advantage of their
strength to overwhelm the victim who was already sustained injuries. This qualifies as
murder.

DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS. PEOPLE

GR. No. 111426, July 11,1994

FACTS: Teodoro Encarnacion, Former Undersecretary of the Department of Public

Works and Highways arrived at his residence from the airport and immediately
proceeded inside his house. Five (5) unidentified masked-armed persons appeared from
the grassy portion of the lot and aimed their guns at his driver and two helpers who
were dragged inside the house. The robbers ransacked the house and took away pieces
of jewelry and other personal properties which included a diamond crucifix .The matter
was reported to the police. The police asked Teodoro to prepare a list of items of
jewelry and other valuables that were lost. He was later informed that some of the lost
items were in Chinatown area as tipped by an informer. His wife was able to recognize
the stolen jewelry displayed at the stall being tended by Norma Dizon-Pamintuan.
Norma was arrested, tried and convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law. In convicting
the petitioner, the trial court ruled that “there is no doubt that the recovered items
 were found in the possession of the accused and she was not able to rebut the
presumption although the evidence for the prosecution alleged that the stall is owned
by Fredo. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the accused is guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law or P.D. 1615

RULING: By definition, Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy
and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows,
or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft according to Section 2 of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).

Its elements include:

1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

2) The accused , who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possess, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or
in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been
derived from the proceeds of the said crime;

3) The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
and

4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

Section 5 of PD 1612 provides that mere possession of any good, article, item or object,
or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prime
evidence of fencing. Thus it is merely logical that the petitioner is presumed to have
knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of
Robbery or Theft. This presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence
enshrined in the law.

Dizon-Pamintuan is thus subject to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum and a minimum of eighteen (18) years and five (5) months of reclusion
temporal maximum as maximum with accessory penalties.