FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR.

, Petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:
The petitioner in his capacity as the manager of the Regional Projects Department and Chairman
of the Inventory and Acceptance Committee, where the alleged anomalies such as ghost
activities, specifically the excavation of unsuitable materials and road filling works and
substandard, defective workmanship, were discovered by COA upon the complaint of Candido M.
Fajutag was charged by the Ombudsman Prosecutor for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (e) of REPUBLIC
ACT No. 3019, AS AMENDED (THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT) by having caused
the contractor the said overpayments to A.C. Construction, the amount of ₱232,628.35 from
public funds which prejudiced the government.

Issue:
whether or not the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan insufficiently averred the
essential elements of the crime charged as it failed to specify the individual participation of all
the accused.

Decision:
Yes. Espinosa and Lobrido are public officers being then the Department Manager, Project
Management Officer A and Supervising Engineer of the NHA respectively; in such capacity and
committing the offense in relation to the office and while in the performance of their official
functions, connived, confederated and mutually helped each other and with accused Arceo C.
Cruz, with deliberate intent through manifest partiality and evident bad faith gave unwarranted
benefits to the latter, A.C. Cruz Construction and to themselves, to the damage and prejudice of
the government. The felonious act consisted of causing to be paid to A.C. Cruz Construction
public funds in the amount of ₱232,628.35 supposedly for excavation and road filling works on
the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City despite the fact that no such works were
undertaken by said construction company as revealed by the Special Audit conducted by COA.

The Supreme Court Enbanc dismissed the petition. The Resolutions dated 2 March 2007 and 18
October 2007 of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan are hereby affirmed.
Rationale:
The essential elements for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are as follows:
1. The accused is a public officer or private person charged in conspiracy with him;
2. Said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his official duties or
in relation to his public position;
3. He causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or private party;
4. Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such
parties; and
5. The public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
Romeo Palon,
defendant-appellant.
Facts:
That on or about the 1st day of June, 1970, in the municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, accused Romeo Palon, together with one Edwin Banatlao, n take, rob and carry away
with them a tricycle, owned by perfectom gatmaitan. Simultaneously on the occasion, with intent
to kill, pursuant to their conspiracy, assault and stab multiple times in the abdomen and the chest
the owner which directly resulted to his death.
Issue:
whether or not there was conspiracy as found by the trial court; and, whether or not the crime
actually committed was robbery with homicide as charged in the information and found by the
trial court
Decision:
Yes. The records show that it was Palon who hired the tricycle from Perfecto Cruz when the first
driver (Leonardo dela Cruz) he approached declined because it was raining and his tricycle had no
canvas ("Trapal"). Two knives were found by Sgt. Victor Reyes with one balisong thrown about
one-half meter from Palon even as Flores ran away and the other knife was recovered later some
distance farther. There were thirteen (13) stab wounds on the body of the victim — in the chest,
mammary region, abdomen, back, left arm, elbow, forearm, hand and thigh. The accused-
appellant was apprehended only because the victim kicked the handlebar or steering mechanism
of the tricycle when he saw some people on the roadside thus causing the vehicle to swerve into
a post and turn turtle.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
There can be no logical explanation for all the above circumstances except that Palon and Flores
conspired to commit the crime and that the two worked together towards its accomplishment.
The records show no other motive for the crime except robbery. The fact of driving off with the
tricycle and with the driver and his earnings shows the consummation of the robbery. And the
words of the victim that he had been held up prove beyond doubt that robbery was in fact
committed.

The Supreme court en banc affirms the decision of the circuit criminal court finding the appelant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide with modification of
sentence from death to reclusion perpetua.
The People of the Philippines v SGT. Alejandro magno and SGT. Brigido Ringor
Facts:
On march 7, 1995, at 9:00 pm, two men in camouflage uniform positively identified as Sgt.
Alejandro Magno and Sgt. Brigido Ringor, by sionita Lizardo the wife of the deceased victim,
Bartolome Lizardo, at barangay Prado, Umingan, Pangasinan to ask the latter for a ride because
allegedly their vehicle was unserviceable.
Sionita lizardo, the wife of the latter, who was then sleeping at the store beside their bungalow
was aroused by her husband's call from the window of his room. The room which happened to
be higher and overlooking from the store. They were casualy talking to the victim when magno
suddenly fired a burst at the former while ringor was pointing the flashlight he was holding
afterwhich they hastily fled.
Both accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment and trial thereafter ensued
On June 17, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused SGT. ALEJANDRO MAGNO and
SGT. BRIGIDO RINGOR equally guilty of and liable for the crime of MURDER, qualified by
treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation.
The supreme penalty of death having been imposed, the aforesaid decision is now before this
Court on automatic review.

Issues:
1) whether the crime committed was murder; and
2) what is the liability of accused-appellants therefor.
Decision:
1. Yes. In treacherously shooting Bartolome Lizardo six times with an M-16 rifle, accused-
appellant Alejandro Magno is, without a doubt, guilty of murder as a principal by direct
participation. But finding no evidence of premeditation to kill the victim the lesser penalty,
or reclusion perpetua, should be imposed.

2. With respect to accused-appellant Brigido Ringor, it must be pointed out that his participation
in the crime was limited only to beaming his flashlight at the victim, Bartolome Lizardo, therefore
finding Ringor only as an accomplice to the crime.should be imposed a penalty next lower in
degree to that imposed on the principal. He is also entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.

The Supreme Court EN BANC Affirms the decision of the RTC with modification
As modified, accused-appellant Alejandro Magno is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, as principal, while accused-appellant Brigido Ringor is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as accomplice, of the crime of murder as defined and penalized in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellant Magno is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, while accused-appellant Ringor is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, v. WILFREDO BAUTISTA y NIELES, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:
The evidence shows that at ten o’clock in the evening of 2 April 1992 victim Alfonson Davila y
Velasco, a flight steward of the Philippines Airlines (PAL), went to the Inflight Center of PAL at the
MIA Road, Pasay City, to inquire about his flight schedule. Before his car could enter Gate 1 it was
stopped by accused Gayak Usman y Adzed and other security guards of the Asian Security and
Investigation Agency assigned in that area. Usman told the victim that he could not enter the gate
because he had no PAL sticker. Davila showed Usman his ID placed in his wallet and thrust it on
his face. The latter simply told Davila that he should have pinned his ID on his chest. The verbal
confrontation however continued. At this point, Accused-appellant Wilfredo Bautista, another
security guard of the Asian Security and Investigation Agency assigned at the entrance for
pedestrian at Gate , approached Usman and Davila and remarked, "Sir, bakit nanampal ka ng
guardiya?" The victim retorted, "Bakit ka nakikialam. Itong kausap ko." 4 Accused-appellant then
took the shotgun slung the shoulder of Usman and stepped back. The argument between Usman
and Davila continued. Then accused-appellant went to the back of the car of Davila and cocked
the shotgun. As he went near Davila the latter said, "Putang ina ka. Huwag kang makikialam dito."
5 Then accused-appellant fired at the victim hitting him on the left side of his head which caused
his death.
Issue:
A. Whether or not the appellant is liable only of homicide and not of murder.
B. Whether or not there is treachery, conspiracy and abuse of superior strength established by
the prosecution

Decision:
Notwithstanding the failure of accused-appellant to prove self-defense, the Court finds him guilty
only of homicide and not murder as found by the trial court. Not a single circumstance alleged in
the information qualifying the crime to murder is present.

The court found no evident premeditation in the killing of the victim. There was no proof of the
time when the intent to commit the crime was engendered in the mind of accused-appellant

No abuse of superiority was established. The fatal shot was fired b]y only of two accused, there
being no proof that they cooperated to take advantage of their superior strength. The fact that
they did not conspire to kill the deceased implies that they did not jointly exploit their superior
strength

The court also find no treachery committed by the appellant. The victim knew the oncoming
danger when the appellant took the shotgun from his fellow guard. When it does not appear that
the shooting was premeditated nor that the accused had consciously chosen a method of
attacked directly and especially to facilitate the perpetration of the homicide without danger to
himself, and his decision to shoot the victim and the accused was entirely accidental, treachery
cannot be imputed to the appellant.
The supreme court through the voice of Justice Bellosillo, found Wilfredo bautista guilty of
homicide and not of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years, four
(4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor minimum as minimum, to twelve (12), years six (6)
months and twenty (200 days of reclusion temporal minimum as maximum. In view of the
reservation to file separate civil action, no civil indemnity is awarded.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. (EMBAS) JOSE TIU, SANTOS AROCHA,
RODOLFO LEAL — Deceased, LUIS (LICAROS) DENOLAN, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:
Jose Tiu, Santos Arocha, Rodolfo Leal and Luis Denolan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder by the court of first instance of Zamboanga del norte in Criminal Case No. 2682,
qualified by treachery and there being no other aggravating or mitigating circumstance present in
the commission thereof, the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of Warlito
Jumangpang in the amount of P30,000.00, plus P10,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
Also in another case the appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated
murder

The prosecution presented three(3) eye witnesses namely Orito, his wife Valencia, and their
daughter lourdes.They testified that on April 30, 1981, at about 2:00 a.m., Otillo, who was
sleeping with his wife Vivencia and their seven children, was awakened by a noise outside their
house in Sitio Pigan, Larangay Disakan of the Municipality of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte.
When identified that it was the carabao that was causing the noise, upon tying the animal,
Warlito and Orito heard shots coming from the side of the road. Orito was hit on the ankle joint
and crawled towards at the back of the house for refuge. While lying flat on the ground he saw
the perpetrator's faces and positively identify them.
Lourdes and Vivencia identified Arocha and Leal as the persons who came up their house, which
was lighted by a lamp or "tingkarol" on top of the sewing machine that night of April 29, 1981.
The moon and the stars were also shining bright then.
Otillo recognized the four accused by the light from their flashlights and also of the moon and the
stars. The four accused were no strangers to the three eyewitnesses, who knew them as CHDF
members who used to pass by their house and ask for water.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting tiu, arocha and denolan. With their alibi that
They all testified that on the night of April 29, 1981. they were in the camp at Datagan, Disakan,
Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, together with several other persons (who were not presented
in court)

Decision:
The Supreme Court through the voice of justice cruz Affirmed the decision of the lower court
finding arocha and denolan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as qualified by treachery
of Warlito Jumampang and attempted murder of Orito Jumampang. With modification of
increasing indemnification from 30,000 to 50,000.
Rationale:
Alibi is also a weak defense and cannot stand against the positive identification of the Accused-
Appellants.
conviction of Rodolfo Leal, who died on July 9, 1984, before the promulgation of the decision on
December 18, 1985, must be set aside as null and void ab initio.
The criminal liability of Jose Tiu was extinguished by his death on May 16, 1988, while his appeal
was pending. However, his civil liability survived him and can be recovered against his estate.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RUBEN CAÑETE (deceased), ALFREDO CAÑETE,
SERGIO CAÑETE (deceased), TRINIDAD CAÑETE and SOTERO CAÑETE (deceased), Appellants.

The Case:
This is an appeal from the decision dated December 15, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
XXVIII, Mandaue City in Criminal Case No. DU-5985, convicting all surnamed Canete of murder of
Leonaldo Tanjay Tumayao by means of treachery and premeditation and sentencing them to
reclusion perpetua.
Facts:
Prosecution story:
On May 24, 1997, at about 10:20 a.m., in Sitio Canagahan, Barangay Tabla, Liloan, Cebu, Leonaldo
Tumayao, Joel Quimod and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after attending a wedding party.
Tumayao was walking ahead of Tundag and Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the
accused, Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots. Quimod and Tundag immediately
looked in the direction where the bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben, Alfredo,
Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad shooting at Tumayao who slumped to the ground. Apparently not
satisfied, all the accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued shooting him. On order
of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot Tumayao in the head. 4

Quimod, who was ten meters behind the victim, ran and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the
accused left, Quimod went home and narrated the incident to Tumayao’s wife.
Defense story:
Teresita canete stated that while at the wedding tumayao indisciminately punched ruben in the
face and teresita convinced her husband to go home to evade trouble. Afterwards teresita saw
tundag handing what it seems like a 45 cal pistol to tumayao. Seconds later, quimod, tumayao,
tundag and the latter's son followed ruben to their house via a habal habal. Afterwards tumayao
shouted "this is now a combat" while firin a gun. Tumayao was in fron of the house of alfredo
who was shouting not to throw stones for it might hit the children. At that point,ruben shot
tumayao with an improvised shot gun. Tumayao slumped on the ground. Alfredo and his wife
witnessed the shooting. When the shooting erupted, teresita, quimod, tundag and his son ran
away from the incident
Trinidad, and sergio however, declared that they were in the mango plantation of their aunt from
6am to 11 am. Upon reaching home they were told by their father that ruben killed tumayao.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court committed grave error in convicting the accused of murder , solely
on the ground of evidently biased and highly incredible testimony of the prosecution witnesses:
joel quimod, lilio tundag and vilma tumaya.

Decision:
The supreme court through the voice of Justice Corona, affirm the decision of the trial court
found Trinidad Cañete and Alfredo Cañete guilty of murder sentencing both with reclusion
perpetua

The time-tested rule is that, between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the
mere denials of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve more credence and are entitled to
greater evidentiary value. 35 More so in this case where appellants failed to sufficiently explain
why a shotgun was found at Sotero’s hut or why Trinidad was found positive for gunpowder
burns.
Neither could appellants’ alibi prosper, since they failed to prove that they were at another place
at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for them to be at
the crime scene. Their alleged presence at the mango plantation was not even established by a
positive declaration from an independent witness.

The trial court finding Alfredo voluntarily surrender to authorities after the incident affords him
of mitigating circumstance. Alfredo and trinidad being guilty beyond reasonable doubt which
carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.Since the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender immediate vindication of a grave offense were present in this case, the lesser penalty
of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed by the trial court.
VIOLETA BAHILIDAD, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The Case:
petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.
28326, convicting petitioner Violeta Bahilidad and co-accused Amelia Carmela C. Zoleta of the
complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents.

Facts:
violeta bahilidad, the petitioner, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by sandigan bayan to
be allegedly conspired with Amelia Zoleta, the president of a fictitious NGO namely Women in
Progress based in sarangani province. Bahilidad was issued with 20,000 pesos check from public
funds and was allegedly mmisappropriated for her own personal use.
Witnesses by prosecution:
Helen Cailing, a State Auditor IV at (COA) leader of the Special Audit Team (SAT) of Sarangani
Province.Cailing further testified that, based on their audit, WIP appeared to be headed by
Zoleta, who was the daughter of Vice-Governor Constantino, and simultaneously an Executive
Assistant III in the latter’s office.
Luttian Tutoh, Region XII Director of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), testified on
the certification3 she issued that WIP and Women in Development (WID) were not registered
cooperatives.
Mary Ann Gadian, Bookbinder II, designated as Computer Operator III at the Office of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani.who acted as state witness, admitted in open court that
she took part in the preparation and processing of a disbursement voucher and its supporting
documents involving a cash advance for WIP sometime in 2002.Gadian further admitted
antedating and changing the date of a January 24, 2002 letter-request from WIP to January 7,
2002 in order to make the letter appear authentic.
Bahilidad, Zoleta and Remulta testified on the other hand that WIP are registered cooperatives
and to support her contention, bahilidad presented a cerification from barangay captain.
Bahilidad insisted that the encashed amount of 20,000 was properly distributed as loans to its
members. Remulta corroborated the story of bahilidad. Zoleta denied knowing bahilidad.

Issue:
whether or not sandiganbayan correctly convict the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents.

Decision:
The Supreme Court through the voice of Justice Nachura granted the petition, set aside the
assailed decision acquitting the petitioner on the grounds that petitioner’s participation in the
crime not adequately proven with moral certainty. Undeniably, petitioner, as a private individual,
had no hand in the preparation, processing or disbursement of the check issued in her name.It is
necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
contribution to the execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active
participation in the actual commission of the crime itself. Other than her being named as the
payee, however, there were no overt acts attributed to her adequate to hold her equally guilty of
the offense proved. There was no showing that petitioner had a hand in the preparation of the
requirements submitted for the disbursement of the check.
There was no showing that petitioner had fore knowledge of any irregularity committed in the
processing and disbursement of the check, or that the COA Rules required that the check had to
be deposited in the bank first, or that an evaluation report from the provincial agriculturist had to
be submitted. Evil intent must unite with the unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. As a general
rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from
felonious responsibility.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT, Appellant

Facts:
On 12 September 1999 at around twenty (20) minutes past eight oclock in the evening,
prosecution witness Richard Sison and his younger sister Heidi were watching television inside
their house at Bgy. Soro-soro, Ilaya, Batangas City. When Richard looked out of the window, he
saw a man whom he identified as Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at his father Pepito Sison who
was then closing the front door of their house. The barrel of the gun which was also illegaly
possesed held by Angelito protruded thru their grilled window. Not for long, Richard heard a
gunshot and almost simultaneously saw his father falling to the cement floor. With the help of his
mother Teodora who came from his grandfathers house next door, Richard rushed his father to
the hospital where he died shortly after.
When called to the witness stand, appellant Angelito Bagsit vehemently denied having anything
to do with the death of Pepito Sison. He averred that in the evening of 12 September 1999 he
became drunk after a drinking bout with Dante Bagsit and a certain Marcos Barte who hired him
earlier that morning to take care of his piggery. He remembered having left the house of Marcos
Barte at around eleven oclock in the evening. He recounted that he failed to reach his house, a
mere ten (10)-minute walk, because it was already very dark. Instead, he spent the night leaning
on a fence by the house of one Felix Agdon. And that he was only able to go home at about 5am.
Issue:
1)that in violation of his constitutional rights he was illegally arrested without a warrant;
2) that the trial court gravely erred in giving full faith to the unreliable, incredible and biased
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; and,
3) that he was wrongly meted the penalty of death notwithstanding the presence of reasonable
doubt calling for his exoneration.
Decision:
1. No. The accused voluntarily surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court, as shown by the
counsel-assisted plea he entered during the arraignment and his active participation in the trial
thereafter, voluntarily waives his constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches.
The court ruled that objection to issuance of warrant of arrest shall be made before entering of
plea, otherwise objection is deemed waived.
2. No the court did not erred. The court cannot discount the value of of the testimony given by
zenaida although being circumstantial in nature, the appelant was near the locus criminis.
3. As alleged in the amended Information, the killing was perpetrated with the use of an illegally
possessed firearm. With the passage of RA 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of unlicensed firearm in
murder or homicide is not a separate crime but merely a special aggravating circumstance.
Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is likewise aggravating. The triggerman
showed greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside the
latter's own house

The supreme court en banc affirms the rtc decision finding angelito bagsit guilty of murder
qualified by treachery, with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and
the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposing on him the supreme penalty of
DEATH, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
another P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and, in lieu of actual
damages, temperate damages of P25,000.00 shall be awarded to the heirs of the victim Pepito
Sison. The award of actual damages is deleted for lack of sufficient evidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARDINO GAFFUD, JR.
Facts:
That on or about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of May 10, 1994 at Sitio Biton, Barangay Wasid,
Municipality of Nagtipunan, Province of Quirino, Philippines, Bernardino Gaffud and two (2) John
Does, set the house on fire of Manuel salvador resulting to the latter's death and her daughter.

Prosecution presented six (6) witnesses tending to prove that on the night May 10, 1994, manuel
salvador testified that after hearing two gunshots, he suddenly saw his uncle's house burning
after which seeing three person flee from the vicinity of the burning house towards cagayan river
and identifying the accused appellant by the glow of the flashlight he was holding.
Another witness, Barangay captain portado saw the accused near the house of the deceased
looking for a boat. But to the knowledge of the witness the appellant does not have one.

RTC and CA foundBernardino Gaffud, Jr. guilty of the complex crime of double murder and
sentencing him to death, affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) dated August 28, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 1125.

Issue:
whether or not accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder or
for the complex crime of double murder

Decision:
The Supreme Court En Banc hold that the single act of accused-appellant – burning the house of
Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, Analyn Salvador,
resulting in their deaths – resulted in the complex crime of double murder. The Court Afffirms
March 31, 2005 decision of the CA.

Rationale:
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, reads:
ARTICLE 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.
In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only
one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only
one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.
SANTIAGO PAERA, Petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The case:
This resolves the petition for review1 of the ruling2 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete
City3 (RTC) finding petitioner Santiago Paera guilty of three counts of Grave Threats, in violation
of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Facts:
The petitioner, a Punong Barangay allocated the constituents use of communal water in the land
owned by the complainants Vicente and indalecio darong. Despite The scheduled water
distribution OF the Petitioner, indalecio continued to draw water from the reserve.

The following day, due to water interruption, petitioner and his constituents went to the tank
and saw a tap in the main line which he immediately disconnected. To stop the leak from the
disconnected line, the petitioner fashioned a wooden plug using a borrowed bolo. From this
point where indalecio arrived. What happened next is contested by the parties.

.Indalecio, diosetea, and vicente were threated then by a bolo by the appellant

According to the petitioner it was the indalecio that was threatening the former with a bolo,
because their water line was cut,leaving the petitioner with no chance but to take a defensive
stance, hence causing the complainant to scamper away.

ISSUE:
The question is whether or not the petitioner is guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

DECISION:
appellant is guilty of three (3) counts of grave threat. In the case , petitioner was as much
surprised to see Indalecio as the latter was in seeing petitioner when they chanced upon each
other near the water tank. Similarly, petitioner came across Diosetea as he was chasing Indalecio
who had scampered for safety. Lastly, petitioner crossed paths with Vicente while running after
Indalecio. To reiterate, petitioner’s intent to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente with bodily
harm arose only when he chanced upon each of his victims.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
RUBEN TAKBOBO
FACTS:
appellant Ruben Takbobo ,a middle aged fisherman, and Lucia P. Takbobo were married in 1969.
They had nine children, one of whom is already dead. The couple, together with their youngest
daughter, 6-year old Madilyn, and a nephew were residing at Barangay Guiwanon, Ginatilan,
Cebu. Accused-appellant, was charged and found guilty with the killing of his wife ,lucia takbobo,
in Criminal Case No. CBU-21961 before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 8, in an
information which alleges that on or about 11:00 P.M. on March 25, 1991, in Barangay Guiwanon,
Ginatilan, Cebu, said appellant, who was the husband of Lucia Takbobo, hacked and stabbed the
latter with a knife and bolo, thereby inflicting upon her multiple fatal hack and stab wounds
which resulted in her instantaneous death. Madylin, the daughter of the appellant and the
deceased,claimed to have witnessed the whole incident of the killing of her mother.
Shortly after the accused appellant surrendered to the police authorities, claiming she had killed
his wife after seeing her sleep with another man.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty at his arraignment.

Issue:
whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of passion
and obfuscation, voluntary surrender any voluntary plea of guilty, the Court agree with appellant
and the Solicitor General that the crime was attended by the last two mitigating circumstances.

Decision:
Trial Court did not erred. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the penalty
cannot be lowered by one degree, no matter how many mitigating circumstances are present.
The record of the case confirm compliance with the requisites for appreciation of voluntary
surrender. However the trial court did not agree with the submission of the defense on this
matter. The appellant was not able to prove that his wife is sleeping with another man but it
appears only that he was not in the right mind. Having said that the appellant cannot be credited
with the mitigating circumstance.
Notwithstanding the presence of two mitigating circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance, we do not agree with the argument of appellant and, surprisingly, the
recommendation of the Solicitor General to reduce the penalty to reclusion temporal. This would
patently run counter to the rules for the application of invisible penalties under Article 63 7

The Supreme Court through the voice of Justice Regalado affirms the decision of the trial court of
finding the Ruben Takbobo guilty of parricide hereby sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
Santos Ducas and Edgardo Ducay

Facts:
12th day of October, 1986 at about 5:00 am, Santos Ducay allegedly carrying a long firearm and
his son, Edgardo Ducay allegedly carrying a caliber 45 pistol started firing at Manuel Labos who
was standing half a sleep. Then they shot the mother of manuel, Pacita Lbos, resulting to their
instant death. Thereafter shot lina, Ma. Christina, and Edwin all surnamed Labos. After the
incident the accused appellants turned their backs and stated "ubos ang lahi!". Lina labos was
able to identify the father and son .

the Regional Trial Court finds guilty beyond reasonable doubt Santos Ducay of the complex crime
of double murder and multiple frustrated murder and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and and
all the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the victims.

Issue:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED.

Decision:
Two Crimes of Murder and Three Crimes of Frustrated Murder.
The trial court expressed the view that two murders and three frustrated murders were
committed, or that there are as many crimes as there are victims in this case because "the trigger
of the gun used in committing the acts complained of was pressed in several instances and not in
one single act. However, it did not impose the corresponding penalties therefor "because the
information to which the accused pleaded is only one crime of double murder and multiple
frustrated murder."
The crimes committed were not caused by a single act nor were any of the crimes committed as a
necessary means of committing the others. In this case, there are as many crimes committed as
there are victims. The trial court correctly ruled that there was no complex crime "considering
that the trigger of the gun used in committing the acts complained of was pressed in several
instances and not in one single act." It is settled that when various victims expire from separate
shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.

The Supreme Court Through the voice of Chief Justice Hillario Davide Jr. hereby Affirms the
Decision of the RTC with modifications As modified, appellant Santos Ducay is convicted of (a)
two crimes of murder for the death of Pacita Labos and Manuel Labos and is accordingly
sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each death, with the indemnity in each crime increased from
P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in conformance with the current policy of this Court; and (b) three
crimes of frustrated murder committed on Lina Labos, Ma. Cristina Labos and Edwin Labos, and is
hereby sentenced in each crime to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor medium as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal medium as maximum.

Yu v People of the Philippines

Facts:
March 25, 1991, petitioner was charged with 19 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 91, Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 19468 to
19486.
Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. After hearing, the trial court rendered
a Decision finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges of violation of batas
pambansa blg 22.and imposing upon her fourteen counts of indemnification to susan andaya and
to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine in each of the above-
entitled cases and to pay the costs of suit.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court’s Decision.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in its
Resolution dated May 29, 1998.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner should suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of
the fines imposed by the Regional Trial Court when the violated special law does not expressly
state the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.

Decision:
Yes. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is expressly provided under Articles 38 and 39 of
the Revised Penal Code. The Court hold that the imposition of Subsidiary Imprisonment can be
suppletory to the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 pursuant to Article 10 of the Revised Penal
Code.

The Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 clarifying the imposition of
imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and subsidiary imprisonment upon the
accused found guilty but is unable to pay the fine he is sentenced to pay. In clarifying the
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment, the Circular states that if the accused is unable to pay the
fine imposed by the trial court, "there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal
Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment."

The Supreme Court through the voice of Justice Sandoval-Guttierez Denies the petition.
KARLO ANGELO DABALOS y SAN DIEGO, Petitioner, vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,BRANCH 59, ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA), REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDING JUDGE MA. ANGELICA T. PARAS-QUIAMBAO; THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR,
ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA); AND ABC

Facts:
On July 13, 2009, in the city of Angeles, Pampanga, the above-named accused, being then the
boyfriend of the complainant, unlawfully and feloniously use personal violence on the
complainant, by pulling her hair, punching complainant’s back, shoulder and left eye, thereby
demeaning and degrading the complainant’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, in
violation of Section 5(a) of the Republic Act 9262.

The RTC denied the petitioner's motion since there was a dating history between the appellant
and the complainant, the infliction of slight physical injury constituted violence against women
and their children as defined in Sec. 3(a) of RA 9262.

Issues:
1) whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense
2) whether or not RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused; and
3) whether or not the Information alleging a fact contrary to what has been admitted should be
quashed.

Decision:
The Supreme Court Through the voice of Justice Perlas- Bernabe dismiss the petition, lifted the
temporary restraining order of the court therefore authorizing the RTC to proceed with the
criminal case.
Rationale:
1)The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law.

2)The court cannot construe in favor of the accused appellant for the law is unambiguous leaving
no room for construction but only application of the provision of R.A. 9262. As correctly ruled by
the RTC, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient
evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and
the victim when the physical harm was committed.

3)Sec. 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that an information may be amended, in
form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. In
the present case, the accused petitioner has not yet been arraigned, hence, the RTC was correct
in directing the amendment of the Information and in denying the motion to quash the same.

People of the Philippine Islands vs. Magdalena Caliso

GR No. L-37271 July 1, 1933

The Case:
The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of murder by the Court of First Instance of
Occidental Negros, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , to indemnify the
parents of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law
Facts:
On February 8, 1932, Magdalena Caliso, A maid of Mr and Mrs Esmeralda, allegedly Killed the son
of her Messrs. by administering concentrated acetic acid on the 9 month old boy. causing him
burns in the mouth, throat, intestines and other
vital parts of the internal organs that necessarily caused the death by suffocation
of the victim, who succumbed a few hours later; that in the commission of this crime, the
aggravating circumstances of alevosia have concurred. Two hours prior to the fateful act, the
accused appellant was repeatedly insulted by her lady employer after the latter have learned that
the accused-appellant turned the master's bedroom as a lover's rendezvous.

Issue:
Whether or not The accused-appellant administered the substance which caused the death of
the victim.

Decision:
The Court finds the accused-appellant guilty of murder with aggravating circumstance of aleviosa,
dwelling, and abuse of confidence whose circumstance is attended with the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction and having acted on the impulses of a feeling that caused her
outburst and obsession sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua and indemnifying the
parents P1,000.00. With the accessory penalties and to pay the cost of the trial.
Rationale:
The only one who has not been able to smell this substance is the accused. In the commission of
a crime, the only one who has an interest in denying the existence of a body of crime is almost
always, or almost without, the author of it. And this attitude of the accused of denying such an
obvious thing and about which the Court has no doubt, corroborates, in the judgment of the
Court, all the circumstantial evidence that has been presented by the accusation.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
MIZPAH R. REYES, respondent.

Facts:
In June 1983 Complainants Cristina R. Masikat, Julieta R. Vergara and Aurora Rizare Vda. de
Ebueza allegedly discovered from the records of the Registry of Deeds that the parcel of land
owned by their parents was transfered to the name of their sister, the respondent, through a
notarized deed of sale executed and signed on May 19, 1961 by their parents Julio Rizare and
Patricia Pampo. The deed of sale was registered with the Register of Deeds of Lipa City on May
26, 1961. NBI reported that the signature of their mother was falsified although their father's
were genuine. The sisters of the accused after investigation filed a complaint before the Regional
trial Court of Batangas first for allegedly making it appear in the notarized deed of sale that
Patricia Pampo, the mother of the accused, participated in the sale of a parcel of land by
falsifying Pampo's signature, and second for allegedly making an untruthful statement of fact in
the deed of sale, more specifically, by stating that accused was single.
Before arraignment, accused filed a motion to quash both information in which the trial court
granted stating that:
If registration is a notice to the whole world, then registration is in itself a notice and therefore,
the prescriptive period of registered document must start to run from the date the same was
annotated in the Register of Deeds.
Considering the lapse of more than twenty (20) years before the two informations were filed, the
crimes for which the accused, Mizpah Reyes, are charged have already prescribed.

Issue:
1)Whether or not the crime has prescribed;

Decision:
YES. The crime has prescribed and the decision in favor of the accused stating that the crime
should have been reckoned earlier considering the lapse of more than 20 years.

The rule is well-established that registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole world.
The record is constructive notice of its contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable,
included therein. All persons are charged with knowledge of what it contains.
The law on prescription of crimes rests on a more fundamental principle. Being more than a
statute of repose, it is an act of grace whereby the state, after the lapse of a certain period of
time, surrenders its sovereign power to prosecute the criminal act. While the law on prescription
of civil suits is interposed by the legislature as an impartial arbiter between two contending
parties, the law on prescription of crimes is an act of amnesty and liberality on the part of the
state in favor of the offender

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellee, vs.

WILLIAM PAGE, defendant- appellant.

Facts:
Page and camposano was convicted with robbery with homicide by the court of first instance of
Rizal Dated July 21, 1973 and was Sentenced with reclusion perpetua, was ordered to pay the
heirs of Veronica Villaverde-balacapo an indemnity of 12,000 + 20,000 as moral damages.

Page was armed with a balisong knife and camposano with a revolver when they conducted the
robbery in a jeepney bound too manila on February 13, 1972. The accused face was covered with
cloth.
When the jeepney reached the portion of harison blvd. in front of san antonio savings bank, Pge
pressed a knife at the neck of Scoty declaring a Hold-up.
Cmposano told the woman passenger to bring out their money and not to shout or there will be
shots. They replied that they already had given everything to camposano.
When the jeepney was in front of CASA Marcos and El Presidente Hotel one woman jumped out
the jeepney, the other woman shouted, Camposano kicked her, thus causing her to fall out of the
jeepney as well.
Believing that that were being followed by another car( police) Camposano told the jeepney
driver to hit full speed.
according to scot, the accused told the driver to stop at Balacapo Street near the airport. After
robbing scot of his other 1 peso bill, the two malefactors fled to the dark.
After positively identifying the perpetrators, the police went to the accused house but did not
find him( page). His father however promised to surrender him.

The woman who jumped ( veronica Balacapo) died because of her injury by hitting her head of
the pavement

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is liable for the death of veronica Balacapo during the conduct of
their Hold-up?

Decision:
The Supreme Court Through the voice of Justice Aquino Affirmed the decision of the court of
first instance convicting the apellant of Robbery with Homicide and sentence of Reclusion
Perpetua on the ground that if a man create in another person's mind an immediate sence of
danger, which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing, the latter injures himself or
have died, the man who creates such state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries.