DEFINITION
made false and untruthful representations in violation
PEOPLE V SANTIAGO
 Gregorio Santiago caused the death of Porfirio
Parondo (7 y/o) by hitting him by the automobile that
he was driving
 Charged with Homicide by Reckless Imprudence in
conformity with Act No. 2886 of the PH Legislature
 Gregorio comes to court alleging that said Act is
unconstitutional and has no jurisdiction over his case
o The provisions of G.O. No. 58 which Act No.
2886 repealed have the nature of consti law
and therefore cannot be amended by the
legislature
 ISSUE: WON Act No. 2886 is valid or constitutional
 HELD: G.O. No. 58 have the characteristics of
statutory law so the power of the legislature to amend
it is self-evident
 Sentence is affirmed. Appellant is furthermore
sentences to the accessory penalties.
US V PABLO
 Andres Pablo, a policeman in the municipality of
Balanga, was charged with the crime of perjury or of
false testimony under Art. 318 to 324 of the RPC?
 He was one of the policemen who went to the town of
Tuyo to raid a jueteng game, and there he saw:
o A low table
o 37 bolas
o Tambiolo
o Maximo Malicsi
o Antonio Rodrigo
o Francisco Dato (the only one arrested)
 Before trial, he had a meeting with at the house of
Valentin Sioson, and there he was instructed to testify
against Malicsi and Rodrigo in exchange of a bribe of
PhP15
 SC: Pablo was guilty of such crime under Arts 318-
324 of the RPC
PURPOSE/THEORIES
MAGNO V CA
 Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of
equipment to make his car repair shop operational,
approached Corazon Teng, VP of Mancor Industries.
 Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Mgmt Corp,
advising its VP, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing
to supply the pcs of equipment needed if LS Finance
could accommodate Magno and provide him credit
facilities
 The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay
30% of the total amt of the equipmt as warranty
deposit but Magno couldn’t afford to pay so he
requested Gomez to look for 3rd party who could lend
him that amount
 Without Magno’s knowledge, Corazon was the one
who provided that amount
 As payment, Magno issued 6 checks, 2 of them
cleared and 4 had no sufficient fund
 Magno failed topay LS Finance which then pulled out
the equipment
 Magno was charged w violation of BP22
 ISSUE: WON Magno should be punished for the
issuance of the checks in question
 HELD: No. It would make him pay an unjust debt, and
all the while said amount was in the safekeeping of
LS Finance employees and officials.
LIMITATIONS
ROMUALDEZ V COMELEC
 Dennis Garay filed a case alleging the petitioners
of Sec 10[11] of RA 8189, by indicating they are
residents of 935 San Jose St., Burauen, Leyte, when
in fact, they are residents of 113 Mariposa Loop,
Mariposa St., Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, QC.
 Petitioners: Sec. 45(j) of the Voter’s Registration Act
was void for being vague as it did not refer to a
definite provision of the law
 ISSUE: WON criminal statue may be challenged
considering and following the void for vagueness
doctrine
 SC: No. The SC has declared that facial invalidation
or an “on-its-face” invalidation of criminal statutes is
not appropriate.
 Such invalidation would constitute a departure from
the usual requirement of “actual case or controversy”.
ESTRADA V SANDIGANBAYAN
 Erap wanted Plunder Law to be declared
unconstitutional for being vague (“combination”,
“series”), thus it violates his right to due process
 ISSUE: WON Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a
malum prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the
power of Congress to so classify it.
 SC: It is malum in se which requires proof of criminal
intent.
PEOPLE V DACUYCUY
 Priv respondents (public school officials from Leyte)
were charged before the MTC of Hindang, Leyte for
violating RA No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers).
o They alleged that MTC Hindang has no
juris’d over the case due to the correctional
nature of the penalty of imprisonment
o Sec 32 of said RA is unconstitutional
because 1) the term imprisonment is unfixed
and may run to “reclusion perpetua”, 2) it
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
power, the duration of the penalty of
imprisonment being solely left to the
discretion of the Court
 ISSUES:
o WON RA 4670 is unconstitutional
o WON Mun and City Courts have juris’n over
the case
 HELD
o Yes. RA 4670 is unconstitutional, Sec 32
violates the constitutional prohibition against
undue delegation of legislative powers by
vesting in the court the responsibility of
imposing a duration of imprisonment
o Yes, mun and city courts have juris’n over
this case.
PESIGAN V ANGELES
 Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan transported in the
evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a
calf from Camarines Sur with Batangas as their
destination.
 They were provided w 3 certs:
o Health cert from prov’l vet
o Permit to transfer/transport from prov’l
commander
o 3 certs of inspections
 the carabaos were confiscated by the provincial
veterinarian and the town‘s police station commander
while passing through Camarines Norte
 Confiscation was based on EO No. 626-A which
prohibits transportation of carabaos & carabeef from
one province to another.
 ISSUE: WON EO No. 626-A, providing for the
confiscation and forfeiture by the government of
carabaos transported from one province to another,
dated October 25, 1980 is enforceable before
publication in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982
 HELD: No. The said order isn‘t enforceable against
the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because it‘s a penal
regulation published more than 2 mos. later in the
OG.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
MINUCHER V SCALZO
 Khosrow Minucher – labor attache, Iranian, violation
of RA 6425 but was later acquitted – filed damages
against Scalzo
 Arthur Scalzo – special agent of US PEA
 Diplomatic immunity was raised
 Scalzo was acquitted, for he is an agent of US DEA –
allowed by govt to conduct activities in the country to
help contain the problem of drug trafficking
LIANG V PEOPLE
 Jeffrey Liang – works as an economist at ADB
 Joyce Cabal – charged Liang for oral defamation
 Diplomatic Immunity: Sec 45 of the Agreement b/w
ADB and PF Govt HQ
 Liang is not covered by immunity for slandering is not
within the scope of official duty
US V BULL
 H.N. Bull – master of vessel, wilfully, and unlawfully
transport and bring into the port of Manila the head of
cattle and carabaos, w/o providing suitable means for
securing animals while in transit, so as to avoid
cruelty and unnecessary sufferings
 Animals to be tied by means of rings
 Bull was found guilty of viol of Acts No. 55 and 275
 The PH has juris’n over an offense committed on the
high seas or w/in the territorial waters of our country
 English Rule
PEOPLE V WONG CHENG
 Wong Cheng – illegally smoked opium aboard a
merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while
in Manila Bay
 PH has jurisdiction. Smoking of opium breached PH’s
public order
PEOPLE V LOOK CHOW
 Upon arrival of steamship Erroll (English nationality)
in the ports of Manila and Cebu, 2 sacks of opium
were found during the search of cargo
 4 cans of opium were also found where the crew
habitually sleep
 PH has jurisdiction. In this case, a can of opium is
landed from the vessel upon the PH soil. Thus,
committing an open violation of the laws of the land.
PEOPLE V LOL-LO AND SARAW
 2 boats of Dutch possession left matuta: 1) Dutch and
2) 11 people from Holland
 2nd boat arrived at Buang and Bukid – surrounded by
Moros, all armed – brutally violated 2 women (Lol-lo
and Saraw)
 The 2 were arrested for piracy
 Pircy is a crime not against a particular state but
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent brutal of any country where the offender
may be found or into which he may be carried.
 The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits.
ART. 3.
DOLO V CULPA
PEOPLE V AH CHONG
 Ah Chong was a cook at Officers’ quarters No. 27 in
Fort McKinley, Rizal.
 One night, he was suddenly awakened by someone
who was trying to force open the door of his room. He
asked who it was but there was no answer. “If you
enter the room, I will kill you!”
 He seized a common knife which he kept under his
pillow, and struck out wildly at the intruder when the
latter entered the room.
 It turned out to be his roommate, Pascual.
 ISSUE: Is Ah Chong guilty of homicide?
 HELD: No. Mistake of fact. Not due to negligence or
bad faith.
 Ah Chong was exercising self-defense. He was
acquitted.
PEOPLE V OANIS
 Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to
arrest Anselmo Balagtas, dead or alive.
 They went to the suspected house and found a man
sleeping w his back towards the door. They fired at
him to death.
 Turned out, the man was Serepio Tecson, an
innocent man.
 ISSUES
o WON Oanis and Galanta incur no crim
liability due to innocent mistake of fact
o WON Oanis and Galanta incur no crim
liability in the performance of their duty?
 HELD
o No. Innocent mistake of fact cannot be
applied to the case at bar because Oanis and
Galanta could have checked the person
sleeping was really Balagtas.
o No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable
because the injury committed is not the
necessary consequence of the performance
of their duty.
PEOPLE V PUGAY
 Miranda and Pugay are friends. When a town plaza
was held in Rosario, Cavite, somewhere after
midnight, Pugay and Samson, and other companions
arrived drunk.
 They started having fun with Miranda, who was a
retarded. Pugay took a can of gasoline and poured it
to Miranda, then Samson set Miranda on fire.
 ISSUE: Is there conspiracy b/w Pugay and Samson?
 HELD: No conspiracy. The meeting at the scene of
the incident was purely accidental.
 Pugay was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide.
 Samson was guilty of homicide.
GARCIA V CA
 Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., accused Arsenia Garcia,
one of the designated election officers, of violating the
1987 Electoral Reforms Law.
 Accdg to Sen. Pimentel, Garcia decreased Pimentel’s
votes by 5000.
 RTC found Garcia guilty. Garcia’s defense: due to the
amount of workload she had, her fatigue caused the
tabulation error in Pimentel’s votes.
 Pimentel: Garcia’s act was a violation of Election
Reforms Law, a special law and therefore good faith
is not a defense.
 ISSUE: WON the alleged viol of Arsenia Garcia of the
ERL is a malum prohibitum
 HELD: No. the act of decreasing of votes was
intentional, and so it is morally wrong, therefore it is
mala in se.
MANUEL V PEOPLE
 Eduardo Manuel had 2 marriages; first was with
Rubylus Gaña. Rubylus was charged with estafa and
was imprisoned. After 3 visits, they never saw each
other again.
 During their separation, Manuel married another
woman, Tina Gandalera.
 They eventually separated and Tina found out
Manuel had a previous marriage aside from theirs.
 RTC found Manuel guilty of bigamy
 Manuel’s defense: he did not know he had to go to
court to seek nullification of his 1 st marriage before
marrying Tina. He thought his 1 st marriage had been
dissolved because of his 1st wife’s 20-year absence
 ISSUE: WON Manuel is guilty of bigamy
 HELD: Yes. Should have declared judicial declaration
of presumptive death first
PEOPLE V DELIM
 Modesto Manalo Bantas, is an Igorot carpenter who
has been adopted by the father of Manuel, Marlon,
and Robert (all surnamed Delim)
 One night, Marlon, Robert, and Ronald barged into
Modesto’s house and grabbed and hogtied him, and
herded him outside the house.
 The next day, Randy, Modesto’s son, asked help
from their relatives in looking for his father. They
found him at a grassy area, already dead.
 RTC found appellants guilty of murder.
 ISSUE: WON there was conspiracy and treachery in
this case
 HELD: Conspiracy has been established but no proof
of treachery. Charge lowered to homicide.
IVLER V SAN PEDRO
 Jason Ivler was involved in a vehicular accident and
was charged with
o RIR in Slight PI
o RIR in Homicide and Damage to Property
 Jason pleaded guilty on the 1 st offense and argued
that there exists double jeopardy in the 2 nd
punishment of same offense
 ISSUE: WON Jason’s consti right under DJ bars
further proceedings in RIR in H and DoP
 HELD: Yes. Prior conviction/acquittal of RI bars
subsequent prosecution for the same offense
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
PP V BAYONA
 During the general elections in the neighbourhood of
Aranguel, Cornelio Bayona was surprised by Jose
Desiderio, who wasdesignated to supervise the
elections in Capiz.
 Desiderio then alleged that Bayona was caught w his
Colt Revolver while inside the fence surrounding the
bldg. intended to be a polling stn.
 Defense: he could not leave his revolver in his vehicle
in fear of losing it
 ISSUE: WON Bayona is guilty of violating Sec 416 of
Election Law
 HELD: Yes, the law wc he violated is a statutory provi
and therefore intent is immaterial
US V CHICO
 RTC Manila found Go Chico guilty of violating Act No.
1696, when Chico displayed in one of the windows of
his store, a number of medallions, upon wc were
printed faces of Emilio Aguinaldo, and devices used
during the late insurrection in the PH against the US
 Appellant:
o There was no criminal intent on his part when
he displayed those figures
o The prohibition of the law is directly on
displaying identical representations
 ISSUE: WON criminal intent is necessary in crimes
punishable by special laws
 HELD: No. the legislature did not intend that a
criminal intent must exist for there to be a crime in
crimes punishable by special laws
ART. 4
PEOPLE V ILIGAN
 Fernando Iligan hacked Esmeraldo Quiñones, as a
result of their earlier altercation
 Quiñones was hit by a van later on while his friends
are asking for help
 ISSUE: Iligan guilty of homicide?
 HELD: Yes, the hacking of bolo AT THE HIGHWAY
was the proximate cause of the victim’s death
PEOPLE V MANANQUIL
 Valentina Mananquil burned his husband at the
gasoline stn where he worked. He sustained burns
which led to him having pneumonia
 ISSUE: WON Mananquil is guilty of parricide
 SC: Yes. Elias Day, her husband, won’t have
pneumonia or won’t have died if not for the burns
sustained
 But Mananquil was 70 y/o and was issued executive
clemency
QUINTO V ANDRES
 Edison Garcia, with his playmates, Wilson Quinto,
Dante Andres, and Randyver Pacheco decided to go
fishing in a drainage culvert. Garcia opted to stay
behind for it was dark inside.
 Moments later, Andres came out carrying Wilson’s
dead body. He went to the house of Melba, Wilson’s
mother, to inform her of what happened. Wilson was
buried w/o complaints.
 2 weeks later, NBI took sworn statements of
Pacheco, Garcia, and Melba. NBI then filed a criminal
complaint for homicide against Andres and Pacheco.
Respondents, in turn, filed a demurrer of evidence on
the grd of insufficiency of evidence which was
granted by the trial court
 ISSUES:
o WON the extinction of respondents’ criminal
liability, likewise, carries with it the extinction
of their civil liability
o WON POE exists to hold respondents civilly
liable for the death of Wilson
 HELD:
o Yes. The civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding on
the final judgment in the civil action that the
act from where the civil liability may arise
does not exist
o No. the prosecution failed to adduce POE
PP V QUIANZON
 During a novena, Andres Aribuabo asked Juan
Quianzon for food (thrice) which pissed off the latter.
 Q took hold of a firebrand and applied it to Aribuabo’s
neck.
 CFI charged Q with homicide
 Defense: Should not be homicide but serious physical
injury only because Aribuabo would have survived if
he did not remove the wound drainage
 ISSUE: WON Q committed homicide
 HELD: Yes, even w/o said act of the patient, accdg to  Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were charged
the doc, the fatal consequence (death) could still w Consummated theft for stealing boxes of detergent
have followed from the supermarket where they work
 Defense: not consummated because they haven’t
URBANO V IAC freely disposed the articles yet
 Filomeno Urbano went to his ricefield to find out that it  ISSUE: WON Valenzuela should be guilty of C-Theft
is flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal  HELD: Yes, there was already unlawful taking.
nearby
 He learned that the one responsible for the opening
of the canal was Marcelo Javier
 The 2 got into quarrel and Urbano hacked Javier and
hit him in the palm. Javier ran but was pursued by
Urbano and hacked him again hitting him on the left
leg.
 Later on, the 2 got into a settlement agreement where
Urbano would pay Javier P700 for his medical
expenses
 Javier later on died due to tetanus toxin
 Urbano was charged w homicide
 ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause
from the time Javier was wounded until his death wc
would exculpate Urbano from any liability
 HELD:
o Infection of the wound was an efficient
intervening cause
o The tetanus may have been the proximate
cause of Javier’s death wc Urbano has
nothing to do with
o Urbano is guilty only of slight PI, but his crim
liability was wiped out by the compromise
agreement

PEOPLE V MARCO
 In a fiesta. Simeon Marco approached Contancio
Sabelbero. Due to a prior misunderstanding their
convo led to Simeon pulling a knife and Const
running for his life
 Const running  passed by Rafael Marco (Simeon’s
dad), who hit him with a cane  Vicente Sabelbero
(Const’s dad), saw Simeon about to stab Const 
grab Simeon’s hand  Rafael approached with a
cane and a knife also  Vicente told his sons,
including Bienvenido to run away
 Bienvenido was chased by Rafael and got stabbed,
1st was on his left hand  Dulcisimo Beltran arrived
at the scene and stabbed Bien near his anus  Then
came Simeon who stabbed Bien near his upper
breast
 ISSUE: WON Rafael was guilty of murder
 HELD: No. Rafael was only guilty of slight PI.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

INTOD V CA
 Bernardina Palangpangan v Aniceto Dumalagan.
Dumalagan threatened Salvador Mandaya to kill
Palangpangan, w Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian,
Santos Tubio, and Avelino Daligdig
 They went to Palangpangan’s house, fired at her
bedroom but no one was there
 RTC: Attempted murder
 ISSUE: WON Intod was guilty of A-Murder
 HELD: No. Impossible crime.

PP V DOMASIA
 8 y/o Enrico Agra was kidnapped by a man named
Pablito Domasia, who conspired with the kid’s dad’s
co-doctor, Dr. Samson Tan
 WON: Pablito Domasia and Dr. Tan were guilty of
kidnapping w serious illegal detention
 HELD: Yes.

VILLANUEVA V PP