People vs Gaffud Jr.

G.R No. 168050

September 19, 2008

Facts:

The accused Bernardo Gaffud Jr. with two others were then indicted for the Double murder
of Father and Daughter, Manuel and Analyn Salvador so they could attend a wedding held at the
barangay hall. On the night of May 10, 1984, the late patriarch’s nephew was on the way to his
house, whilst walking he suddenly heard gunshots being fired which was also testified by his uncle’s
neighbour, thereafter he later saw his uncle’s house on fire. Due to the light emanating from the
burning house he saw in the vicinity three men running away from the burning house, where he
identified one of as Gaffud Jr. holding a flashlight. Manuel’s nephew rushed to the Barangay Hall to
look for his uncle but was instead welcomed by the Barangay Captain who said that the victim was
not there. Therefore, they rushed back to the house and found the burnt remains of the victims. The
captain later testified that he saw Gaffud Jr. earlier a few meters from the house of the victims
claiming he was searching for his fishing boat that the Captain knew wasn’t true as the accused did
not own one. The victim’s wife also testified that earlier he went to the accused house to ask about
his husband’s share in a venture, which the accused replied saying he will go to their house in the
afternoon to introduce his in-law also she added that there was already a complaint about the
accused and his brother slaughtering the victim’s wife’s pig.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the court erred in convicting him even though the fact that conspiracy was
not proven, also there was no evidence as to what overt acts he had committed which would
result and constitute to the murder of the victims.
2. Whether or not the accused should be held liable for two separate counts of murder or
instead be held liable for the complex crime of double murder

Held:

Conspiracy, in this case, is not essential. The rule is that in the absence of evidence showing
the direct participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, conspiracy must be
established by clear and convincing evidence in order to convict the accused. In the case at bar,
however, direct participation of accused-appellant in the killing of the victims was established
beyond doubt by the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, a finding of conspiracy is no longer essential
for the conviction of accused-appellant.

Furthermore, The Court ruled that 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. The burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing the
latter and his daughter, resulting in their deaths resulted in the complex crime of double murder.
Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.
 US vs Taylor

G.R No. L-9726

December 18, 1914

Facts:

The complainant alleges that Carson Taylor, the defendant acting as the editor, proprietor,
manger, printer and publisher of Manila Daily Publisher should be accused of the crime libel. The
Accused was indicted for publishing libellous and malicious articles against the honor of Ramon
Sotelo implicating him as a conspirator to defraud an insurance company through burning his own
building in order to collect insurance money.

Issue:

1 .Wether or not the defendant should be accused of the crime of libel against the
complainant.

Held:

No, the Supreme Court held that common law crimes do not exist in the Philippine islands.
Thus, an act does not constitute a crime when no law makes it so. In the instant case, although libel
is made a crime, the defendant is not the author, editor, or proprietor of the said newspaper—
instead, only its manager. Neither does the proof show in the record that the manager played a part
in the publication of the article.

US vs Pablo

G.R No. L-11676

October 17, 1916

Facts:

Andres Pablo, the defendant is a policeman who was ordered to raid a jueteng game. As he
arrived, he saw Malicsi and Rodrigo leave the premises. Later as they had executed the raid he only
saw Dato who was seated in a low table inside the place, further searches yielded bolas and
tambiolo paraphernalia of illegal gambling. He then later in court attested that he did not see Malicsi
and Rodrigo on the premises. It was later found out that he was bribed by Malicsi and Rodrigo for 15
pesos for his silence over their appearance in the premises which Pablo accepted. Therefore, Pablo
was charged with perjury under the provisions of Act no. 1697. Though under the administrative
code it did not mention on what penal laws the said offense would be punished at.

Issue:

Wether or not Pablo is charged with perjury or false testimony under the revised penal code
when the same has been repealed by Act no. 1697.

Held:

Yes. The respondent is guilty of such crime under Article 318 to 324 of the penal code since
such articles are not expressly repealed by the Administrative code when it repealed Act No. 1697.
Law 11, Title 2, Book 3, of the Novisima Recopilacion states that, “All laws… not expressly repealed
by other subsequent laws, must be literally obeyed and the excuse that they are not in use cannot
avail.” Said articles of the Penal Code are in force and are properly applicable to crimes of false
testimony. In the present case, the proven evidence showed that Andres Pablo falsely testified
before the court by perverting the truth in favor of the alleged gamblers, Maximo Malicsi and
Antonio Rodrigo and in receiving bribe from the said accused which aggravated the crime – proof
showed he received P15 in order that he exclude the two ringleaders in his sworn testimony. The
court held that, “ … in the commission of the crime of false testimony, there concurred the
aggravating circumstance of price or reward, No. 3 of article 10 of the Code, with no mitigating
circumstance to offset the effects of the said aggravating one; wherefore the defendant has incurred
the maximum period of the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional
in its medium degree, and a fine.”

Paredes vs Sandigangbayan

G.R No. 101724

July 3, 1992

Facts:

Paredes Jr., then a provincial attorney of Agusan del sur was granted land through free
patent. Later he was then charged a complaint by a former mayor of Agusan for violation of R.A
3019 because he was allegedly using his influence as a provincial attorney to persuade and induce
the Land Inspector of the district of Agusan del sur to favorably endorse him for free patent. The
Fiscal then conducted a preliminary investigation of the complainant and the witnesses without any
notice to Paredes Jr. cause there was a problem with the summons. Later the court had found a
prima facie evidence against Paredes. Paredes then contended that the preliminary investigation
was void in account of not being notified as the investigation was held. During which he was then
elected as the governor of Agusan, concurrently his land was returned to public domain and
information was filed and a warrant of arrest was issued. He refused to post bail as a protest against
injustice to him as a governor. His wife later contended and filed an action for Habeas Corpus stating
that the arrest was void because the investigation was void and the crime had already prescribed.

Issue:

1. Wether or not the warrant of arrest is void because the preliminary investigation was
also void.
2. Wether or not the crime had already prescribed.

Held:

The warrant of arrest is not void. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect
the court's jurisdiction over the case nor impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it
defective. The remedy is to demand that PI be conducted before entering his plea, the court should
then suspend the trial and order the fiscal to conduct a PI, that is, to file a Motion before the trial
court to quash the Warrant of Arrest, and/or the Information on grounds provided by the
Rules, or to ask for an investigation/reinvestigation of the case. Habeas corpus would not lie
after the Warrant of commitment was issued by the Court on the basis of the Information filed
against the accused. So it is explicitly provided for by Section 14,Rule 102 of the Rules of Court . The
settled rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained
of his liberty is in custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to
do so . Second, The defence of prescription of the offense charged in the information should be
pleaded in the criminal action otherwise it would be deemed waived. Whether the crime may still be
prosecuted and penalized should be determined in the criminal case not in a
specialproceeding of habeas corpus.

The defense of
prescription of the offense
charged in the
information should be
pleaded
in the criminal action
otherwise it would be
deemed waived. Whether
the crime may still
PCGG vs Desierto

G.R No. 132120

February 10, 2003

Facts:
 Then Ombudsman Desierto exonerated Disini for charges of violation against the Anti-graft
law. The reason for the dismissal was because Desierto claimed there was lack of evidence. The
PCGG then charged Disini with bribery of the late president marcos to induce him to favor
individuals and corporations. The charge pertained to the award, negotiation, amendment, signing,
and implementation of contracts related to the Nuclear Power Plant of the National Power
corporation, which resulted in unscrupulous benefits and unlawful acquisition of profit by the former
president.

Issue:

Wether or not the PCGG had submitted sufficient evidence for the case against Disini but
due to grave abuse of discretion by the ombudsman dismissed the charges.

Held:

The ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. While there are certain
instances when this Court may intervene in the prosecution of cases, such as, (1) when necessary to
afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when necessary for the
orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a
prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority; (5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) when
double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8)
where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) where the charges are manifestly false
and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against
the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied, none apply here.

After examination of the records and the evidence presented by petitioner, the Court finds no
cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Ombudsman.

No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Ombudsman. Grave abuse of discretion implies
a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The exercise of
power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

People vs Ferrer

G.R No. L-32613-14

December 27, 1972

Facts:

Feliciano Co was charged for violation of Anti-Subversion act, when he had been elected as
an officer of the communist party of the Philippines, an illegal organization aimed to topple the
Philippines government. Later, Tayag and others were charged for violation of Anti-Subversion act,
tagging them as members of Kabataang Makabayan, an organization instigating to overthrow the
government.

Issue:
 1.Wether or not Anti-subversion act was a bill of attainder.

Held:

The court ruled that it was not a bill of attainder, it is only when a statute applies either to
named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
punishment on them without a judicial trial does it become a bill of attainder. In this case, when the
act is viewed in its actual operation, it will be seen that it does not specify the Communist Party of
the Philippines or the member thereof for the purpose of punishment. What it does is simple to
declare the party to be an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for the
purposes of the prohibition. The term "Communist Part of the Philippines" issues solely for
definitional purposes. In fact the act applies not only to the Communist Party of the Philippines but
also to "any organisation having the same purpose and their successors." Its focus is not on
individuals but on conduct.

Bocea vs Teves

G.R No. 181704

December 06, 2011

Facts:

Former president GMA signed a R.A. 9335, a law to optimize the BIR and BOC through
creating a reward and sanction system, and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. It covers all
employees in the BIR and BOC with atleast 6 months of service, each board prescribed regulations
and rules, set criteria and procedures for removing officials and employees whose revenue falls
short, terminate personnel in accordance with the rules set forth, perform other functions and
report to congress. Bearue of customs employee association contended it was a bill of attainder
because it inflicts punishment to a specific group of people.

Issue:

1.Wether or not R.A. 9335 is a bill of attainder.

Held:

The court ruled that R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It
does not seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down the
grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the consequences
thereof. The democratic processes are still followed and the constitutional rights of the concerned
employee are amply protected.

Saguisag vs Ochoa

G.R No. 212426

January 12, 2016

Facts:
 The US and the Philippines ratified the Enhanced Defense Corporation Agreement, an
executive agreement, giving the US military more presence in the Philippines amidst the maritime
dispute of the Philippines against China. The US embassy and DFA complied with all necessary
requirements for the agreement, and former President Benigno Aquino III ratified it. It was not
submitted to the legislative department. Petitioners contend that it should have passed through the
senate as it is not a treaty.

Issue:

Wether or not the EDCA between the Philippines and the U.S is constitutional.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the EDCA was constitutional. The entry of US troops in the Philippines
has been valid through an existing treaty, The Visiting Forces Agreement supported by the Mutual
Defense Treaty. Leading to the court to the conclusion that an agreement such as the disputed one
is in bounds of the of the obligations imposed in both treaties. It fully conforms to the Philippine
legal regime through the MDT and VFA.