PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FREDIE LIZADA (G.R. No. 143468-71.

January 24, 2003)

Subject: Criminal Law 1- Attempted Felonies

Ponente: Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.

Doctrine:  The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the
intended crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by him before his desistance.

FACTS: In August 1998, the petitioner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means
of force, violence and intimidation Analia Orillosa, his stepdaughter, by embracing, kissing, and touching
her private parts. He then proceeded with carnal knowedge to remove her skirt and panty and placed
himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. This allegation was repeated four
times in a different occasions.

However, medical examination revealed that Analia’s hymen was intact, and the other parts of her
vagina was not injured due to an insertion of average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection.

The testimony of Rossel, Analia’s sister, also proved that no insertion of penis happened because the
petitioner stopped after he saw her.

Hence, petitioner was charged for four counts of qualified rape under four separate information. RTC
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him and sentenced to Death
Penalty in each and every case as provided for in the seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code.

However, petitioner averred in his brief that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt and that the testimony of Rossel was not taken into consideration in the decision.

ISSUE: WON Lizada is guilty of acts of lasciviousness only.

RULING: NO. Accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape and not of acts of lasciviousness.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The essential elements of an attempted felony
are as follows:

1. The offender commencesthe commission of the felony directly by overt acts;

2. He does not performall the acts of execution which should producethe felony;

3. The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneousdesistance;

4. The non-performance of all acts of executionwas due to causeor accident other than his

spontaneous desistance.

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

If the malefactor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his spontaneous desistance, he
is not guilty of an attempted felony.The law does not punish him for his attempt to commit a felony.

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and taking into account Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, the
appellant can only be convicted of attempted rape. He commenced the commission of rape by removing
his clothes, undressing and kissing his victim and lying on top of her. However, he failed to perform all
the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of a cause other than his own
spontaneous desistance, i.e., by the timely arrival of the victims brother. Thus, his penis merely touched
Mary Joys private organ. Accordingly, as the crime committed by the appellant is attempted rape, the
penalty to be imposed on him should be an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision
correccional  as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum.

PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil. 515 (Digest)

No Complex Crime of Rebellion With Murder, Arson or Robbery

FACTS:

                Amado HERNANDEZ5 (member of the CPP and President of the Congress of Labor
Organizations) re-filed for bail (previous one denied) for his conviction of rebellion complexed with
murders, arsons and robberies. The prosecution said to deny this again because the capital punishment
may be imposed. The defense however contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder,
arson, or robbery. The information states that the “…murders, arsons and robberies allegedly
perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection
therewith and in furtherance thereof.”

ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.

Held: NO! Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons, and robberies
described therein are mere ingredients to the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by the said
defendants as, means “necessary” for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion. The crime, therefore,
is simple rebellion.

RATIO:

                Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and robberies
described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by HERNANDEZ, as
means “necessary” for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion and that the crime charged in the
amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons and robberies. Under Article 1346 and 1357, these five (5) classes of acts constitute only
one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty. One of the means by which
rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by “engaging in war against the forces of
the government” and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These expressions
imply everything that war connotes. Since Article 135 constitute only 1 crime, Article 48 doesn’t apply
since it requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.

US v Valdez, GR No. L-14128 December 10, 2018 – FRUSTRATED ARSON

Facts: The house of a certain Mrs. Lewis was seen to have smoke issuing from its lower floor. When she
ordered Banal to look for the source, it was found out that it came between a post of the house and a
partition of the entresol, a piece of a jute sack and a rag which were burning. At that moment the
defendant Valdes was in the entresol, engaged in his work of cleaning. He was later on arrested and
made a statement that he had set the fire to the said rag and piece of sack under the house due to the
inducement of other prisoners and that he had started the several other fires which had occurred in said
house on previous days.

Issue: WN the accused has committed the crime of frustrated arson?

Ruling: Yes. The fact of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag, soaked with kerosene oil and placed beside
an upright of the house and a partition of the entresol of the building, thus endangering the burning of
the latter, constitutes the crime of frustrated arson of an inhabited house, on an occasion when some of
its inmates were inside of it.

The crime is classified only as frustrated arson, inasmuch as the defendant performed all the acts
conceive to the burning of said house, but nevertheless., owing to causes independent of his will, the
criminal act which he intended was not produced. The offense committed cannot be classified as
consummated arson by the burning of said inhabited house, for the reason that no part of the building
had yet commenced to burn, although, as the piece of sack and the rag, soaked in kerosene oil, had
been placed near partition of the entresol, the partition might have started to burn, had the fire not
been put out on time.

people vs sobrevilla case digest

G.R. No. 13785, U.S. v. Adiao, 38 Phil. 754

Facts.

The defendant, a custom officer, was charged with the crime of theft for abstracting a leather belt from
the baggage of a Japanese and secreting the belt in his desk in the Custom House, where it was found by
other customs employees. He was found guilty of the lesser crime of frustrated theft. He appealed
contending that he was under observation during the entire transaction and that he was unable to get
the merchandise out of the Custom House,

Issue.

Is the crime of theft done by the defendant only in its frustrated phase?

Held.

No. Based on these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the crime can not properly be
classified as frustrated, as this word is defined in article 3 of the Penal Code, but that since the offender
performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment crime of theft. The fact that the
defendant was under observation during the entire transaction and that he was unable to get the
merchandise out of the Custom House, is not decisive; all the elements of the completed crime of theft
are present.

us vs dominguez 41 phil 409

people vs erinia 50 phil 998

people vs mariano

SIMON FERNAN JR. AND EXPEDITO TORREVILAS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 145927
AUGUST 24, 2007)

“CONSPIRACY: INFAMOUS 86 MILLION HIGHWAY SCAM”

Facts:

COA Regional Director solicited for the authentication and report on the sub-allotment advises
issued to highway engineering districts in Cebu particularly Cebu City, Cebu 1 st, Cebu 2nd and Mandaue
City Highway Engineering Districts. Apparently, the two sets of LAA’s were received by the districts. One
set consists of regular LAA’s in authenticated and normally processed manner while the other set
consists of fake LAA’s all of these were approved for the Finance Officer by Chief Accountant Rolando
Mangubat. Mangubat, however, had no authority to approve them because he had already been
detailed to the MPH Central Office. It was found out that the practice of using fake LAA’s had been going
on for years.

Four of the accused hatched an ingenious plan to siphon off large sums of money from the
government coffers using fake LAA’s, vouchers and other documents to conceal the traces.

The anti-graft court has found the case has merit and that Fernan Jr. and Expedito Torrevilas
along with the other accused guilty as co-principals in the crime of Estafa through falsification of Public
Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised
Penal code, and there being no modifying circumstances in attendance, sentenced each of them to
imprisonment and payment of the penalties.

Issue:

Whether or not the honourable sandiiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners as co-

conspirators despite the prosecution’s failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts
and circumstances that would implicate them as co-conspirators and justify their conviction.

Ruling:

No. The Sandigan Bayan has accurately ruled on conviction of the petitioners as co-conspirators
in spite of the prosecution’s failure to prove such. The court explained why direct proof of prior
agreement is not necessary: “Secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy.
It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it
is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful
object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other,
were in fact, connected and cooperative, which indicates closeness of personal association and
concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must
have shown to have performed a concerted act to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Eugenio vs people gr 168163

PEOPLE V. GLINO DECEMBER 4, 2007
FACTS:

While aboard a jeepney, the accused Glino blocked Virginia’s path while his co-accused
Baloes, who died later in prison, stabbed Virginia’s husband Domingo several times which
resulted in Domingo’s death. Glino denies knowing Baloes.
ISSUE:

Whether or not there was conspiracy

HELD:

Yes, there is conspiracy when Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It must be shown to
exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself (Neither joint nor
simultaneous act PER SE is sufficient proof of conspiracy).
Also, in conspiracy, who actually killed the victim is immaterial. The act of one is the act
of all. Hence, it is not necessary that all participants deliver the fatal blow.
In this case, the acts of Baloes and Glino before, during, and after the killing of Domingo
indicate joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiment. Virginia narrated that
while Baloes was stabbing Domingo, Glino blocked her path and prevented her from helping. He
later joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo.
Hence, Glino is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

CASE: Anicia Ramos-Andan vs.People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 136388 March 14, 2006]

PONENTE: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:

SUBJECT:

1.       Criminal Law – Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC

FACTS:     Anicia Ramos-Andan and Potenciana Nieto approached Elizabeth E. Calderon and offered to
buy the latter’s 18-carat heart-shaped diamond ring. Elizabeth agreed to sell her ring. In turn,
Potenciana tendered her three (3) postdated checks. To evidence the transaction, the parties prepared a
receipt evidencing the sale. Anicia signed the same.When Elizabeth deposited the checks upon maturity
with the drawee bank, they bounced for the reason “Account Closed.” She then sent Potenciana a
demand letter to pay, but she refused.

Elizabeth filed a Complaint for Estafa against Anicia and Potenciana. Finding a probable cause for Estafa
against them, the Prosecutor filed the corresponding Information for Estafa with the Regional Trial
Court. Subsequently, Anicia was arrested but Potenciana has remained at large.

During the hearing, Andan denied buying a diamond ring from Elizabeth, maintaining that she signed the
receipt and the checks merely as a witness to the transaction between Elizabeth and Potenciana. Thus,
she could not be held liable for the bounced checks she did not issue.

ISSUE:

Whether Anicia cannot be held criminally liable considering that she is not the drawer of the checks.
RULING:

While it was Potenciana who draws the checks, however, it was Anicia who directly and
personally negotiated the same. It was she who signed the receipt evidencing the sale. It was she who
handed the checks to Elizabeth and endorsed them as payment for the ring. It is thus clear that Anicia
and Potenciana acted in concert for the purpose of inducing and defrauding Elizabeth to part with her
jewelry.

The elements of the offense as defined and penalized by Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, are:
(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was
issued;
(2) lack of or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(3) the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee did not know that the offender had no
funds or insufficient funds.

All these elements are present in this case. The prosecution proved that the checks were issued in
payment of a simultaneous obligation, i.e., the checks were issued in payment for the ring. The checks
bounced when Elizabeth deposited them for the reason “Account Closed.” There is no showing
whatsoever that before Anicia handed and endorsed the checks to Elizabeth, she took steps to ascertain
that Potenciana has sufficient funds in her account. Upon being informed that the checks bounced, she
failed to give an adequate explanation why Potenciana’s account was closed. In Echaus v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. L-57343 July 23, 1990), we ruled that “the fact that the postdated checks…were not
covered by sufficient funds, when they fell due, in the absence of any explanation or justification by
petitioner, satisfied the element of deceit in the crime of estafa, as defined in paragraph 2 of Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code.”

REPORT THIS AD

————————————————-

THINGS DECIDED:

A)       The elements of the offense as defined and penalized by Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, are:

(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was
issued;
(2) lack of or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(3) the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee did not know that the offender had no
funds or insufficient funds.

B)       “The fact that the postdated checks were not covered by sufficient funds, when they fell due, in
the absence of any explanation or justification by petitioner, satisfied the element of deceit in the crime
of estafa, as defined in paragraph 2 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.”  [Echaus v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. L-57343 July 23, 1990)]
people vs serrano et. al gr 179038 march 6 2010