SET A NO.

15

A.M. No. (2170-MC) P-1356 November 21, 1979

HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI, complainant,

vs.
DIOSDADO S. FLORES, respondent.

FACTS:

Mr. Diosdado S. Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City Court, was recommended for
dismissal from the service by Hon. Remigio E. Zari, Presiding Judge of Branch VI. City Court of
Quezon City, on the following grounds:

1. Conviction for libel on April 28, 1967, (Criminal Case No. Q- 7171), Branch IV,
Court of First Instance, Quezon City), a crime involving moral turpitude.

2. Persistent attempts to unduly influence the undersigned amounting to undue

interest in cases pending before Branch VI

3. Gross discourtesy to superior officers

ISSUE: WON libel is a crime involving moral turpitude

RULING: Yes. Moral turpitude" has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in
the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men, to society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. 14 It implies something immoral in itself, regardless
of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not merely be mala prohibita but, the act itself
must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the
moral turpitude. 15 Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of themselves
immoral but whose illegality lies in the fact of their being positively prohibited.
SET B NO 15

G.R. No. L-101545 January 3, 1995

HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

FACTS: This petition for review on certiorari attacks the conviction of Hermenegildo M. Magsuci,
the Regional Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, of estafa through
falsification of public documents and accused Jaime B. Ancla, Engineer and General Manager of
Dexter Construction, Cagayan de Oro City, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously issue and make it appear in the Certificate of
Completion and the undated Accomplishment Report, that the latter had satisfactorily completed
the Work Order on the forty (40) ton ice plant and cold storage located at Magallanes Street,
Surigao City, when in truth and in fact, there were no such installation and construction made
thereon

ISSUE: Whether or not criminal responsibility may be incurred by a head of office who, in the
discharge of his official duties, has relied on an act of his subordinate.

RULING: No. The fact that the actions taken by Magsuci involved the very functions he had to
discharge in the performance of his official duties. There has been no intimation at all that he had
foreknowledge of any irregularity committed by either or both Engr. Enriquez and Ancla. Petitioner
might have indeed been lax and administratively remiss in placing too much reliance on the official
reports submitted by his subordinate (engineer Enriquez).
SET C NO 15

G.R. No. L-6277 February 26, 1954

JUAN D. CRISOLOGO, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. PABLO VILLALOBOS, respondents.

FACTS:

Juan D. Crisologo, a captain in the USAFFE during the last world war, was on March 12, 1946,
accused of treason filed in the People's Court. But before the accused could be brought under
the jurisdiction of the court, on January 13, 1947,was indicted for violation of Commonwealth Act
No. 408 before a military court. Found innocent of the first and third charges but guilty of the
second, he was on May 8, 1947, sentenced by the military court to life imprisonment. With the
approval on June 17, 1948, of Republic Act No. 311 abolishing the People's Court, the criminal
case in that court against the petitioner was, pursuant to the provisions of said Act, transferred to
the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga and there the charges of treason were amplified.

ISSUE:

WON the Court of Instance of Zamboanga has jurisdiction to try the petitioner for treason?

RULING:

NO. The record in the present case shows that the information for treason in the People's Court
was filed on March 12, 1946, but petitioner had not yet been arrested or brought into the custody
of the court — the warrant of arrest had not even been issued — when the indictment for the
same offense was filed in the military court on January 13, 1947. Under the rule cited, mere priority
in the filing of the complaint in one court does not give that court priority to take cognizance of the
offense, it being necessary in addition that the court where the information is filed has custody or
jurisdiction of the person of defendant.

SET E NO 15

G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989

JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE IGNACIO ALMODOVAR, respondent.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court for a special civil action for certiorari
against the Hon. Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court of Legaspi. The petitioner, then 11
years old was target shooting with his best friend Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other children in
the backyard in the morning of 29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on the
left collar bone, w/c then caused his death.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence?
HELD:
PETITION was DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO EFFECTIVE
17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED.
The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the
morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because ...
the infant (has) no intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability.

lt is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below are not capable of
performing a criminal act. On the other hand, minors above nine years of appeal but below fifteen
are not absolutely exempt. However, they are presumed to be without criminal capacity, but which
presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were "capable of appreciating the
nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted with discernment. " It could not therefore
be argued that discernment is equivalent or connotes 'intent' for they refer to two different
concepts. Intelligence, which includes discernment, is a distinct element of dolo as a means of
committing an offense.
SET F NO 15

AGUILAR
SET L NO 15

G.R. No. L-51368 November 6, 1981

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

vs.
SAGLALA MACATANDA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:.

Saglala Macatanda was taken into custody and was charged with cattle rustling. He pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum .

ISSUE: WON the penalty is proper?

HELD:

No. The penalty imposed by the trial court is within the range, as to its maximum period, but is
beyond the range, as to its minimum period, which should be not more than 4 years and 2 months
of prision correccional.. The judgment appealed from is hereby modified by reducing the minimum
of the indeterminate sentence to 4 years of prision correccional and maintaining the maximum at
8 years of prision mayor as imposed by the lower court.
SET G NO 15

C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, defendants.
AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant.

FACTS: Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the
purpose of attending religious services, and sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the
door. Amado Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing the presence
of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by
her right side, and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his
hand on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this highly improper and offensive conduct
of Amado Capina, Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with
her right hand the fan knife, which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing
Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife
with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting upon
him a wound about 4 1/2 inches deep, which was necessarily mortal. Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina
Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, for the crime of murder,
Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide while Nicolas was acquitted.

ISSUE:

WON Jaurige had acted in the legitimate defense of her honor and that she should be
completely absolved of all criminal responsibility?

RULING:

No. According to the facts established by the evidence and found by the learned trial court in this
case, when the deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on the same bench, near
the door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh, without
her consent, the said chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were already several
people, about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant
and other dignitaries of the organization; and under the circumstances, there was and there could
be no possibility of her being raped. And when she gave Amado Capina a thrust at the base of
the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound 4 1/2 inches deep, causing his death
a few moments later, the means employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently
excessive; and under the facts and circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared
completely exempt from criminal liability
SET H NO 15

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 183566

BONIFACIO BADRIAGO,* TINGA,
Accused-Appellant. VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* and
BRION, JJ.

May 8, 2009

FACTS:
This is an automatic review of the Decision dated April 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00129, which found accused-appellant Bonifacio Badriago guilty of
Frustrated Homicide in Criminal Case No. 4255 and Murder in Criminal Case No. 4276 for
unlawfully and feloniously hack with deliberate intent and with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, one ADRIAN QUINTO and stabing one OLIVER QUINTO with the use of a long sharp
bolo (sundang) on or about the 13th day of September 2002 in the Municipality of Carigara,
[P]rovince of Leyte, Philippines.

ISSUE: WON the accused committed the crime of Frustrated Homicide

RULING:

Yes. From the evidence presented to the trial court, it is very much clear that accused-
appellant was able to perform all the acts that would necessarily result in Adrians death. His
intention to kill can be presumed from the lethal hacking blows Adrian received. The
circumstances, thus, make out a case for frustrated homicide as accused-appellant performed all
the acts necessary to kill Adrian; Adrian only survived due to timely medical intervention as
testified to by his examining physician.
FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR., G.R. No. 180122
- versus -
SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division)

FACTS:

That in or about the month of March, 1992 at Bacolod City, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, ROBERT
P. BALAO, JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO, VIRGILIO V. DACALOS, FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR.,
JOSEPHINE T. ESPINOSA, and NOEL H. LOBRIDO, Public Officers, being the General
Manager, Team Head, Visayas Mgt. Office, Division Manager (Visayas), Manager, RPD, Project
Mgt. Officer A and Supervising Engineer, Diliman, Quezon City, in such capacity and committing
the offense in relation to office and while in the performance of their official functions, conniving,
confederating and mutually helping with each other and with accused ARCEO C. CRUZ, a private
individual and General Manager of A.C. Cruz Construction with address at 7486 Bagtikan Street,
Makati City with deliberate intent, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause to be paid to A.C. Construction public funds in the
amount of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT
PESOS and THIRTY FIVE CENTAVOS (P232,628.35) PHILIPPINE CURRENCY, supposedly for
the excavation and roadfilling works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City
despite the fact no such works were undertaken by A.C. Construction as revealed by the Special
Audit conducted by the Commission on Audit, thus accused public officials in the performance of
their official functions had given unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to accused
Arceo C. Cruz and A.C. Construction and themselves to the damage and prejudice of the
government.