1. VILLAVICENCIO v.

LUKBAN
39 PHIL 778
FACTS:
Justo Lukban, mayor of Manila, ordered the district of ill-repute women closed.
One hundred and seventy women were deported to Davao without their knowledge
and consent. The women were received as laborers in a banana plantation. Some of
the women were able to escape and return to Manila. The attorney for the relatives
and friends of a considerable number of the deportees presented an application for
habeas corpus to the Supreme Court
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the respondents had authority to deport the women to Davao;
and
2) Whether or not the City of Manila has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas
corpus to Davao
HELD:
The respondents had no authority to deport the women. No official, no matter how
high, is above the law. The courts are the forum which function to safeguard
liberty and to punish official transgressors. The essential object and purpose of the
writ of habeas corpus are to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to
relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. If the mayor and the chief of
police could deport the women, they must have the means to return them from
Davao to Manila. The respondents may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citizen
of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with
impunity in the courts. The great writ of liberty may not be easily evaded. No one
of the defense offered constituted a legitimate bar to the granting of the writ of
habeas corpus.
2. 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!

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

3. People vs Rodriguez 107 Phil. 659 (1960)

Facts:
On October 30, 1956, Elias Rodriguez was charged with illegal possession
of firearm and ammunition. The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that
the crime with which he is charged is already alleged as a component element or
ingredient of the crime of rebellion with which he was charged in Criminal Case
No. 16990 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Issue:
Whether or not illegal possession of firearm and ammunition is already
absorbed in the crime of rebellion?

Held:
Yes

Ratio:

The Court held that, "any or all of the acts described in Art. 135, when
committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in Art.
134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be regarded or
penalized as distinct crimes in themselves; and cannot be considered as giving rise
to a separate crime that, under Art. 48 of the code, would constitute a complex one
with that of rebellion" (People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil., 90; 53 Off. Gaz., 68), the
conclusion is inescapable that the crime with which the accused is charged in the
present case is already absorbed in the rebellion case and so to press it further now
would be to place him in double jeopardy.

4. People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Castro

GR no. 112235, November 29, 1995
Topic: Rebellion
Facts:
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. away from
the Daraga, Albay Public Market when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled
a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman’s right ear and
fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of
whom shot the fallen policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking
the latter’s gun, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled.
The incident was witnessed by Nestor Armenta who claimed that he knew both the
victim and the man who fired the fatal shot. He identified the man who fired at the
deceased as Elias Lovedioro, his nephew.
The victim died on the same day from massive blood loss.
Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder and subsequently found
guilty. Lovedioro appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of
rebellion. He cites the testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness, Nestor
Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with the crime
of rebellion, not murder. He asseverates in his brief that Nestor Armenta identified
him as a member of the New People’s Army. He additionally contends that
because the killing of Lucilo was “a means to or in furtherance of subversive
ends”, said killing should have been deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion
under Art. 134 and 135 of the RPC.
Issue:
Whether or not Lovedioro should be held liable for the crime of murder, instead of
rebellion.
Held: The court ruled in the affirmative.
The court agreed with the Solicitor General that the crime committed was murder
and not rebellion.

5. PEOPLE v ABESAMIS [93 Phil 712 (September 11, 1953)]

PONENTE: Reyes, J.
FACTS: Eduardo Abesamis, a Justice of the Peace, was charged with direct
bribery by demanding and receiving from Marciana Sauri P1,000 to dismiss the
case for Robbery in Band with Rape against Emiliano Castillo, son of said
Marciana Sauri.
ISSUE: WON he is guilty of direct bribery
HELD: NO, he is guilty of indirect bribery
Ratio: The crime charged does not come under the first paragraph of RPC Art 210
which states that the act which the public officer has upon reporting this to the
Philippine Constabulary (NOTE:her husband works for the PC), they formulated a
plan to entrap Formilleza for the alleged felony.

6. PEOPLE v BAES [68 Phil 203 (May 25, 1939)]

FACTS:That on April 14, 1937, at about 9 o'clock a.m., in the municipality of
Lumban, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court,
the aforesaid accused, while holding the funeral of one who in life was called
Antonio Macabigtas, in accordance with the rites of religious sect known as the
"Church of Christ", willfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused the funeral to pass,
as it in fact passed, through the church yard fronting the Roman Catholic Church,
which churchyard belongs to the said Church, and is devoted to the religious
worship thereof ,against the opposition of the undersigned complainant who,
through force and threats of physical violence by the accused, was compelled to
allow the funeral to pass through the said churchyard. An act committed in grave
profanation of the place, in open disregard of the religious feelings of the Catholics
of this municipality, and in violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts complained of constitute the crime defined and
penalized by Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code
HELD: Whether or of the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of
the Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the
feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that
certain acts may offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while
not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith. We,
therefore, take the view that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute the
offense defined and penalized in Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, and
should the fiscal file an information alleging the said facts and a trial be thereafter
held at which the said facts should be conclusively established, the court may find
the accused guilty of the offense complained of, or that of coercion, or that of
trespass under Article 281 of the Revised Penal Code, as may be proper, pursuant
to Section 29 of General Orders, No. 58. "An act is said to be notoriously offensive
to the religious feelings of the faithful when a person ridicules or makes light of
anything constituting a religious dogma; works or scoffs at anything devoted to
religious ceremonies; plays with or damages or destroys any object of veneration
by the faithful."

7. BURGOS v CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP [G.R. No. 64261 (December 26,

1984)]
 FACTS:

The "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum” newspapers were searched and its office
and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles
used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as
numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the
possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We
Forum" newspaper, were seized based on the strength of the two [2] search
warrants issued by respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano.

ISSUE:

WON there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.

HELD:

l NO. The search warrant is in the nature of general warrants.

l Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in
the place sought to be searched. And when the search warrant applied for is
directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication
of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged
subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere
generalization will not suffice.

8. STONEHILL v. DIOKNO [20 SCRA 383 (June 19,

FACTS:

Stonehill et al, herein petitioners, and the corporations they form were alleged to have
committed acts in “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.”
Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners
personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to
search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
residences to search for personal properties “books of accounts, financial records,
vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins(cigarette wrappers)” as the subject of the offense for violations of Central
Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE:

WON the search warrant issued is valid.

HELD:

NO the search warrant is invalid.

l The SC ruled in favor of petitioners.

l The constitution protects the people’s right against unreasonable search and seizure.
It provides; (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined
by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall
particularly describe the things to be seized. In the case at bar, none of these are met.

l The warrant was issued from mere allegation that petitioners committed a “violation
of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and
Revised Penal Code.”

9. US v DE LOS REYES AND ESGUERRA [20 SCRA 383 (November 16,

1911)]

FACTS
Appellant Gabriela Esguerra came to visit Valeriano de los Reyes and his wife at
their home in Manila. On 5 November, while Gabriela was still at de los Reyes’
house, revenue officials went to the house of the accused de los Reyes to search for
opium. De los Reyes refused to let the officials in his house on the ground that,
without search warrant, they were not authorized to search the premises. After a
few moments' conversation, and upon their assertion that they were officers of the
law, while not consenting, he offered no physical resistance to their entry.

While some of the officers were in the house searching for drugs, others were on
the outside watching to see that no one left the house. During the progress of the
search in the front part of the house, one of the officers outside saw the accused
Gabriela throw a package from the window of the kitchen into the grass behind the
house. Upon recovering the package it was found to contained a considerable
quantity of morphine.

Although there is no direct evidence of any kind showing that the accused de los
Reyes had any knowledge of the fact that the Gabriela had possession of the drug,
the trial court convicted Gabriella Esguerra and Valeriano de los Reyes. In its
opinion, the court admitted that the only evidence relative to delos Reyes’
knowledge that the opium was in his house is derived from the fact that he refused
permission to the officials to search his premises, the inference being drawn from
such refusal that the accused had knowledge of the fact that the contraband drug
was located in his house, otherwise he would have offered no objection to the
search.

ISSUE
Whether an accused’s refusal to let the officials without search warrant to search
his house may be a basis of his conviction.

HELD: NO. (court discussed the history of the right against unreasonable search
and seizure)

’every man’s house is his castle,’

But as search-warrants are a species of process exceedingly arbitrary in character,

and which ought not to be resorted to except for very urgent and satisfactory
reasons, the rules of law which pertain to them are of more than ordinary strictness;
and if the party acting under them expects legal protection, it is essential that these
rules be carefully observed. - Judge Cooley.
10. PEOPLE v BURGOS [144 SCRA 1 (September 4, 1986)]
Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities
stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of
the NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused.
Pursuant to this information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D)
and saw him plowing his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices
called Burgos (D) and asked him about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied
having any firearm, but later, Burgos's (D) wife pointed to a place below their
house where a gun was buried in the ground.

After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where
the officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted
that the firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has
just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or
within his view.

11. PEOPLE v. LADJAALAM (2000)

FACTS:
The trial court found the appelant guilty of maintaining a drug den, an offense for
which was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Appelant’s guilt was established by the
testimony of Prosecution Witness , who himself had used the extension house of
appellant as a drug den on several occasions, including the time of the raid. The
former’s testimony was corroborated by all the raiding police officers who testified
before the court. That appelant did not deny ownership of the house and its
extension lent credence to the prosecution’s story.
The trial court also convicted appellant of direct assault with multiple counts of
attempted homicide. It found that “[t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle
[at] the policemen[,] who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x
x x” constituted such complex crime. Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide, the trial court convicted him also of the
separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as amended by
RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to 8 years of prision
mayor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellant can be convicted separately of illegal possession of

firearms after using said firearm in the commission of another crime.

HELD:

NO. The appealed Decision was affirmed with modifications. Appellant is found
guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault and multiple attempted homicide
with the use of a weapon and (2) maintaining a drug den.

RATIO:

The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of
firearms, provided that “no other crime was committed by the person arrested.” If
the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and
murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily,
where the law does not distinguish, neither should [the courts].
12. PEOPLE v. DIOSO (1964)
FACTS: Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca were charged with for the crime of
murder which was committed inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinglupa, Rizal
where both accused were serving sentence, Abarca having been previously
convicted by final judgment of the crime of homicide, and Dioso, of robbery.
ISSUE: Whether the accused are quasi-recidivist. YES.

RATIO: The accused are quasi-recidivist, having committed the crime charged
while serving sentence for a prior offense. As such, the maximum penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony [murder] is death, regardless of the presence
or absence of mitigating (voluntary plea of guilt and voluntary surrender) or
aggravating circumstance (aleviosia) or the complete absence thereof.

But for lack of the requisite votes, the Court is constrained to commute the death
sentence imposed on each of the accused to reclusion perpetua.

13. ALBERTO v. DELA CRUZ (1980)

FACTS: Eligio Orbita is a provincial guard who is being prosecuted for the crime
of Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner as punished by art. 224 of the RPC. Orbita
is charged with the duty of keeping

One of the evidences presented during the trial was a note purportedly written by
Governor Cledera. Cledera was asking Esmeralda to send five men to work in the
construction of a fence at his house at Taculod, Canaman, Camarines Sur.
Esmeralda declared the he could not remember who handed him the note and that
he was not sure as to the genuineness of the signature.

The defense, believing that the escape of Denaque was made possible by the note
of Cledera to Esmeralda, filed a motion in court seeking the amendment of the
information so as to include Cledera and Esmeralda.

The Fiscal manifested in court that after conducting a reinvestigation of the case
and a thorough and intelligent analysis of thee facts and law involved, no prima
facie case against Cledera and Esmeralda exist, hence they cannot be charged.
Orbita field an MFR and the Court issued an order to amend the information so as
to include Cledera and Esmeralda.

Fiscal filed an MFR but it was denied.

ISSUE: WON Cledera and Esmeralda should be included in the information? NO.

RATIO: Rule: Fiscal is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal

information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to support the
allegations thereof Although this power and prerogative of the Fiscal, to determine
whether or not the evidence at hand is sufficient to form a reasonable belief that a
person committed an offense, is not absolute and subject to judicial review, it
would be embarrassing for the prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a
case when he is in no position to do so, because in his opinion, he does not have
the necessary evidence to secure a conviction, or he is not convinced of the merits
of the case.
14. US v. GARCIA (1911)

FACTS: The accused was ordered by the justice of peace to leave the courtroom
because he was causing some interference in a case to which he was not a party.
On leaving he threatened the justice and later waited on a street corner where he
imputed an indecent epithet to said justice and then attacked him, striking him with
a cane he was carrying and also slapping his face.

ISSUE: What did accused Garcia violate? ARTICLE 249, RPC.

RATIO: He committed a violation of Art 249 of the Penal Code, case 2, attempt
against an authority, by attacking an officer in the discharge of his duties as justice
of the peace, with the third of the aggravating circumstances in Art 250, in that he
placed his hands upon an officer of the law.
 15. PEOPLE v. RECTO (2001)

FACT: SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male, also made their investigation and reported
their findings to Linda Rance. At this point, Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto
passed by. He saw SPO4 Rafol, Wilfredo Arce, spouses Crestito and Linda Rance
at the bodega. He went to Barangay Captain Orbe and inquired why they were
there. Barangay Captain Orbe told him that the padlock of the bodega was
destroyed and the palay, stolen. Orbe requested Melchor Recto to stay as he might
be needed. Thereupon, Barangay Tanod Melchor Recto began his own ocular
investigation.
ISSUE:
1. RTC erred in convicting accused of direct assault in Crim. Cases 1970 and 1971.
YES and NO.
2. RTC erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of treachery in Crim. Case
1972 which accordingly resulted in murder in conviction. YES.
RATIO: Appellant contends that he committed the crimes attributed to him in self-
defense and in defense of his uncle, Cornelio Regis Jr.

By invoking self-defense and defense of a relative, appellant plainly admits that he

killed Antonio Macalipay and Emiliano ―Renato‖ Santos and fired the shots that
injured Melchor Recto and Percival Orbe. Thus, appellant has shifted the burden
of evidence to himself. Appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. In
fact, he was clearly the aggressor. Without unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, there can be no viable self-defense or defense of a relative.

16. PEOPLE v BALBAR (1967)

FACTS: 1. While teacher was holding a class, accused entered the classroom,
hugged her, tried to kiss her (kissed eye), chased after her while holding his knife
they fell she suffered slight physical injuries.
2. Infos filed: Direct Assault Upon a Person in Authority and Acts of
Lasciviousness
146 [ 2013. Crim2]
3. Defense: Direct Assault - no sufficient cause of action and charges 2 offenses in
a single complaint. Acts of Lasciviousness – placed him in double jeopardy. 4.
Lower Court quashed Direct Assault charge bec. Info lacks the express allegation
of the element knowledge that that victim was a person in authority

HELD: Case remanded. LC erred in quashing.

RATIO: 1. Direct assault is committed "by any person or persons who, without a
public uprising, . . . shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of
official duties or on occasion of such performance. 2. "teachers, professors, and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities shall be deemed persons in authority, 3. Complainant was
a teacher. Info sufficiently alleges that the accused knew that fact, since she was in
her classroom and engaged in the performance of her duties. He therefore knew
that she was a person in authority, as she was so by specific provision of law. It
matters not that such knowledge on his part is not expressly alleged, complainant's
status as a person in authority being a matter of law and not of fact, ignorance
whereof could not excuse non-compliance on his part.

17. PEOPLE v. RODIL (1981)

FACTS:
Accused Floro Rodil was found guilty for the death of Lt. Guillermo Masana of the
Philippine Constabulary. The accused, armed with a double-bladed dagger, with
evident premeditation and treachery, and with intent to kill, did, attack and stab PC
Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his official duties,
which directly caused his death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of murder can be complexed with assault upon agent of
authority.

HELD:

Yes. The Solicitor General claims the crime committed was murder because "it
was established by the prosecution that during the stabbing incident, appellant
suddenly and without giving the victim a chance to defend himself, stabbed the
latter several times with a dagger, inflicting. The suddenness of the attack does not
by itself suffice to support a finding of treachery , the record failed to show that the
accused made any preparation to kill his victim so as to insure the commission of
the crime. Clearly, therefore, the impelling motive for the attack by appellant on
his victim was the latter's performance of official duty, which the former resented.
This kind of evidence does not clearly show the presence of treachery in the
commission of the crime.

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because it

is obvious that the victim. Identified himself as a PC officer to the accused who is
merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank
and social status to the victim. If the accused herein were charged with the
complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority, and
not merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank or
contempt of or insult to public authority cannot be appreciated as aggravating
because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault against a person in
authority or an agent of a person in authority.

18. PEOPLE v PEREZ [GR No. L-21049 or 45 Phil 599 (December 22,
1923)]
FACTS: Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato
Lodovice, a citizen of that municipality, met on the morning of April 1, 1992, in
the presidencia of Pilar, they engaged in a discussion regarding the administration
of Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez shouting ―And the Filipinos,
like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a
bad thing for the Philippines.‖ This has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt
even though the defense claimed that the discussion was held in a peaceful manner,
and that what Perez wished to say was that the Governor-General should be
removed and substituted by another. Charged with violation of Article 256 of the
Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons
in authority, and convicted thereof, Perez has appealed the case saying that article
256 of the Penal Code is no longer in force.

ISSUE(s): WON accused Perez is liable for violation of the A292: Treason and
Sedition Law

HELD:
142 [ 2013. Crim2]

Yes.

RATIO: The words of the accused did not so much tend to defame, abuse, or
insult, a person in authority, as they did to raise a disturbance in the community.

19. PEOPLE v. TAHIL (1928)

FACTS: The appellants, Datu Tahil and Datu Tarson, were convicted in the Court
of First Instance of Sulu of the crime of rebellion.

Datu Tahil and Datu Tarson started the propaganda which extended the movement,
to obtain the abolition of the land tax and besides, other pretentions in connection
with the attendance of children at school, the privilege of carrying arms and the
removal of certain provincial officials, amongst whom, Governor Moore, with the
threat that if their request were not granted, they would oppose the Government by
forcible means. Datu Tahil made them all, including Datu Tarson, take an oath on
the Koran to this effect. From then on they took turns in guarding the fort and its
surroundings under the orders of Datu Tahil, who always carried a rifle and a
revolver About the middle of January, 1927, the provincial fiscal filed a complaint
against Datu Tahil and his followers charging them with sedition.The following
day Commander Green with a group of soldiers, stationed themselves about 50
meters in front of the fort where he found a red flag flying and demanded the
surrender of Datu Tahil.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of rebellion or sedition.
YES,

RATIO: Datu Tahil failure to surrender with the object of complying with a
judicial warrant of arrest against him and his followers, he resisted this order by
means of force, thus preventing the officer charged with this duty from performing
it. This already constitutes a crime.

In regard to Datu Tarson, it appears that he was one of those who took an oath on
the Koran to oppose the Government by force; that he took part in all the activities
of the movement, assisting in the construction of the fort; that in the day preceding
the incident he was in the fort; and while he left in the afternoon, he returned early
the following morning and was found in the fort when the Government forces
appeared.
20. PEOPLE v. UMALI
FACTS: Going back to the raid staged in Tiaong, it is well to make a short
narration of the happenings shortly before it (as stated in the background),
established by the evidence, so as to ascertain and be informed of the reason or
purpose of said raid, the persons behind it, and those who took part in it. According
to the testimony of Amado Mendoza (a compadre of Pasumbal and helped in the
Umali Pasumbal campaign), on the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal's
father, then being used as his electoral headquarters, he heard Umali instruct
Pasumbal to contact the Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be
killed , Pasumbal complying with the order of his Chief (Umali) went to the
mountains
which were quite near the town and held a conference with Commander Abeng. It
would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going to win
in the elections the next day, and that his death was the surest way to eliminate him
from the electoral fight.

ISSUE: 1. Was there rebellion or sedition on the part of Umali and Pasumbal?
SEDITION. 2. Can Sedition absorb other crimes that concurred with it? NO.

RATIO:
The Court is convinced that the principal and main, though not necessarily the
most serious, crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition.
The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up
arms was not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the
things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion. The
raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local Government. Rather,
the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to
inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public official,
namely, Punzalan who was then Mayor of Tiaong.
21. GONZALES v ABAYA [498 SCRA 445]
FACTS:
July 31, 2003: 321 soldiers, members of the AFP were charged with coup d’etat
defined and penalized under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, after the
staged Oakwood Mutiny.
August 2, 2003: Pursuant to Article 70 of the Articles of War, respondent General
Narciso Abaya, AFP Chief of Staff, ordered the arrest and detention of the soldiers
involved in the Oakwood incident and directed the AFP to conduct its own
separate investigation.
February 11, 2004 RTC, issued an Order stating that “all charges before the court
martial against the accused are hereby declared not service-connected, but rather
absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup detat.” The trial court
then proceeded to hear petitioners’ applications for bail.
 Petitioners maintain that since the RTC has made a determination in its
Order of February 11, 2004 that the offense for violation of Article 96 (conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War is not service-
connected, but is absorbed in the crime of coup detat, the military tribunal cannot
compel them to submit to its jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the doctrine of absorption is applicable, divesting the
military courts of jurisdiction to try petitioners with violation of Article 96 of the
Articles of War.

2) Whether or not the petition for prohibition against respondents to convene a

court martial and charging petitioners with violation of Article 96 of the Articles of
War is proper.

RULING:
1) NO. Doctrine of absorption cannot operate to divest the military court of
jurisdiction.

2) NO. Clearly, the instant petition for prohibition must fail. The office of
prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of authority and is
directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Stated differently, prohibition is the
remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurping
or exercising a jurisdiction or power with which they have not been vested by law.

22. CARIÑO v. PEOPLE & CA April 30, 1963

FACTS: Cariño was charged with the crime of rebellion with murders, arsons,
robberies and kidnappings as a high ranking official of the Hukbalahaps. The
specific acts of rebellion which the accused, Francisco Cariño, committed in
conspiracy with other members of the Communist Party, between the period from
May 6, 1946 to Sept. 12, 1950, include raids, ambush, and seizures. Accused
vigorously denied any participation therein.

Appellant was not a member of the Hukbalahap organization. He did not take up
arms against the government nor did he openly take part in the commission of the
crime of rebellion or insurrection as defined in Art. 134 of the RPC, without which
said crime would not have been committed. The only acts he was shown to have
performed were the sending and furnishing of the cigarettes, powdered milk and
canned goods to a Huk leader, the changing of dollars into pesos for a top level
communist and the helping of Huks in the opening of accounts in a bank of which
he was an official.

ISSUE:
WON the acts of the accused constitute rebellion. NO.

RATIO: These facts, by themselves do not prove criminal intent of helping the
Huks in committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion. Good faith is presumed
and no presumption of this existence of criminal intent can arise from acts which
are in themselves legitimate even if appellant had the intent of aiding the
communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government. The assistance
does extended by him was not efficacious enough to help in the successful
prosecution of the crime so as to make him an accomplice therein.
23. PEOPLE v. OLIVA (2001)
FACTS: May 26, 1986: Jacinto Magbojos, Jr. went out of their house early
morning to count the coconuts in his dad‘s coconut land uphill. At around 8 a.m.,
Cinco & Ibaya went to Magbojos‘ house, however, they left after learning that he
was not home. A few minutes after Magbojos got home, 4 persons entered their
house, hogtied him and took him away walking towards the western direction.

Arturo Inopia, a farmer, testified that Ka Ambot (Oliva) & company visited him at
about 8:30 or 9 a.m. They informed him that they
were out to get Magbojos. Before leaving his house, Oliva warned him not to
report to the police authorities otherwise Inopia will be killed.
Edgardo Labajata, a farmer, testified that he saw Magbojos (then hogtied) in the
company of 5 persons. Magbojos appeared weak & w/abrasions on both sides of
his face & can hardly talk. Oliva questioned Labajata & when the former learned
that the latter knew Magbojos, he was also hogtied but was subsequently released
on the condition that he will leave their brgy.
ISSUE: WON Oliva should be charged w/rebellion. NO.
RATIO:
Contentions of the Defense, Claim lacks factual & legal basis. No rebellion in this
case since the killing was not committed in furtherance of rebellion but for
personal reasons/other motives. Thus, killing must punished separately even if
committed simultaneously w/the rebellious acts there being no proof that the
killing was in connection w/or in furtherance of the rebellious acts.
24. BALERO vs PEOPLE , FEB, 2006
FACTS: One evening, inside her room, Malou retired at around 10:30.
Outside, right in front of her bedroom door, her maid slept on a folding bed.
Early morning of the following day, petitioner, clad in t-shirt and shorts,
entered the room of Malou through its window. Once inside, he approached
Malou and tightly pressed on her face a piece of cloth soaked with chemical
and. at the same time, pinned her down on the bed. She was awakened
thereby and she struggled but could not move.

She wanted to scream for help but the hands covering her mouth with cloth
wet with chemicals were very tight. Still, Malou continued fighting off her
attacker by kicking him until at last her right hand got free. With this, the
opportunity presented itself when she was able to grab hold of his sex organ
which she then squeezed. Petitioner let her go and escaped while Malou went
straight to the bedroom door and roused her maid.

ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of attempted rape?

HELD: No, he is not. There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of

sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge in the present case. The next question
that thus comes to the fore is whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the
pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an
overt act of rape.
 Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere
planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor
by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.

Harmonizing the above definition to the facts of this case, it would be too
strained to construe petitioner's act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the
mouth of Malou which would induce her to sleep as an overt act that will
logically and necessarily ripen into rape. As it were, petitioner did not
commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt
to rape Malou. It cannot be overemphasized that petitioner was fully clothed
and that there was no attempt on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch
her private part. For what reason petitioner wanted the complainant
unconscious, if that was really his immediate intention, is anybody’s guess.

25 PEOPLE v. DASIG (1993)

FACTS: In the afternoon of Aug. 4, 1987, police officers Redempto Manatad,
Ninah Tizon and Rene Catamora were tasked by their commanding officer to assist
in maning the traffic at M. N. Briones and Bonifacio Streets in Mandaue City. At
about 4 pm, Catamora noticed 8 persons acting suspiciously, one of whom he
identified as Edwin Nunez. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of
the men to approach Manatad. He followed the two, but sensing that they were
being followed, they immediately proceeded to the middle of the road and engaged
Cotamora to a gun battle. At that instant, Catamora heard a series of shots from the
other group and thereafter saw Manatad sprawled on the ground. Thereafter, the
Nunez group commandeered a vehicle and fled from the scene of the shooting.
Catamora testified that he can identify Nunez because of the mole at the bridge of
his nose near the left eye which he noticed when the accused passed 2 to 3 meters
in front of him together with his companions. In a follow up operations, Nunuez
and accused Rodrigo Dasig were apprehended, while the others escaped. As the
suit was progressing Nunez died without issue. Dasig was charged with Murder
with direct assault upon a person in authority. The accused contested the charge
and confessed that he is a member of the sparrow unit of the New People‘s Army,
and claimed that he should rather be charged with the crime of rebellion.
ISSUE:
Whether Dasig is liable for Murder with direct assault upon a person in authority
or the crime of rebellion .

RATIO: Dasig not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the sparrow
unit of the NPA but also his participation and that of his group in the killing of
Manatad while manning the traffic in Mandaue City. It is of judicial notice that the
sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the NPA with the objective of
overthrowing the duly constituted government. It is therefore not hard to
comprehend that the killing of police officer Manatad was committed as a means to
or in furtherance of the subversive ends of NPA. Consequently, Dasig is liable for
the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon a person in authority.
26. PEOPLE VS. ADRIANO [GR No.L-477 (June 30, 1947)]
FACTS: Apolinario Adriano, a Filipino citizen accused of treason through
adhering to the Military Forces of Japan, against which the Philippines and the US
were then at war, giving said enemy aid and comfort. Adriano was allegedly a
member of the Makapili, a military organization established and designed to assist
and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial forces. No two of the prosecution
witnesses testified to a single one of the various acts of treason imputed by them to
the appellant.

ISSUE(s): WON mere membership in Makapili is evidence of adherence to enemy

WON mere membership in Makapili is an overt act
WON the two-witness requirement was fulfilled by the testimony of one witness
who saw the appellant in Makapili uniform bearing a gun one day, another witness
another day, and so forth

HELD/RATIO: Yes o Mere fact of having joined a Makapili org. is evidence of

adherence to enemy and giving him aid and comfort; it imports treasonable intent,
considering the purposes for which the org was created. Adherence, unlike overt
acts, need not be proved by the oaths of two witnesses. Yes Being a Makapili is in
itself constitutive of an overt act. The crime of treason was committed if he placed
himself at the enemy's call to fight
side by side with him when the opportune time came even though an opportunity
never presented itself. Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and
comfort. Membership in Makapili as an overt act must be established by the
deposition of two witnesses.
27. PEOPLE V. VICTORIA (1947)
FACTS:

Carmelito Victoria was charged with treason for acting as a spy and aiding the
Japanese Forces.
October 6, 1944- Federico Unson, Isaias Perez and Ruben Godoy were accused of
hiding guerillas. Their house was burnt and they were arrested and tortured.
December 21, 1944- Jose Unson was arrested on the charge that he had a short
wave radio and that he was furnishing radio information to guerillas.
February 10, 1945- Felixberto Romulo was placed under arrest as a guerilla
suspect.
December 21, 1944- HErmogenes Caluag was arrested and subjected to inhuman
torture for allegedly being pro-American and adviser of Guerillas.
March 9. 1944- Antonio San Agustin was arrested, tortured and unlawfully
detained.
June 1944- Melecio Labalan, Sr. was arrested and charged with of being a guerilla.
February 1945- Carmelito joined Makapili Organization and trained as a Japanese
military.

Defense: He was also a guerilla and acted in behalf of other guerilla prisoners.

Lower Court: Accused was guilty in five counts. Counts 5 and 7 were not proven.
ISSUE: Is he guilty of treason?

HELD: His claim of helping guerillas does not relieve him from criminal
responsibility. The performance of righteous action, no matter how meritorious
they may be, is not a justifying, exempting or mitigating circumstance in the
commission of wrongs, and even if appellant had saved the lives of a thousand and
one persons, if he had caused the
killing of a single human being to give aid and comfort to the enemy, he is,
nonetheless a traitor.

28. PEOPLE vs. ALAGAO [16 SCRA 879 (April 30, 1966)]
FACTS: The said accused, being members of the Manila Police Department, were
charged with the complex crime of incriminatory machinations through unlawful
arrest. The allegedly unlawfully arrested complainant, Marcial Apolonio y Santos,
and planted on his person a marked P1.00 bill in order to impute to him the crime
of bribery. The accused filed a motion to quash said information on the grounds
that said crime does not exist.

ISSUE: WON there is a complex crime of unlawful arrest and incriminatory

machinations?

HELD: Yes

RATIO: 1. A perusal of the charge shows that it is a complex crime in the sense
that the unlawful arrest was used as a means to commit the crime of incriminatory
machinations. The accused had to detain the complainant through the unlawful
arrest first before they proceeded with the planting.
2. Solicitor-General points out that the unlawful arrest was a necessary act in order
for the planting of the evidence to have been committed. The trial courts finding
that the planting happened long after the unlawful arrest was not proven by
evidence and even assuming that it was, it still doesn‘t disprove the necessity of the
unlawful arrest in committing the evidence planting
29. SORIANO v. IAC [167 SCRA 222(November 9, 1988)]
FACTS: Tantuico, the then Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) filed an
Information for libel against Soriano and six others in connection with press
releases and articles imputing to Tantuico the tampering
by COA personnel of election returns in the May 14, 1984 Batasan elections at his
residence in Tacloban City and in the COA Regional Office in Palo, Leyte.
Tantuico sought to assure the victory of certain candidates in the said Batasan
elections.

Soriano filed a motion to quash the Information on the ground of improper venue.
He contends that the libel case should have been filed at Quezon City where
Tantuico holds office and where the publication house of the ―Guardian‖ is
located. The ―Guardian‖ published the articles against Tantuico.

ISSUE: Should the Information for libel against Soriano be quashed? YES.

RATIO: The liability of a Quezon City must be deemed as commencing with the
publication of the allegedly libelous material in his newspaper and not with the
typing or mimeographing of press releases by interested persons in different
municipalities or cities, copies of which are sent to metropolitan newspapers for
national publications

30. VICTORIO v. CA [173 SCRA 645 (May 11, 1989)]

FACTS: Atty Ruiz3 had been the lawyer of the Victorios from 1953 to 1963 when
they decided to hire the services of another lawyer, Atty Castillo, to take the place
of Ruiz and his collaborator Judge Guiang.
The Victorios filed an administrative charge (for investigation & disbarment
proceedings against Atty Ruiz, then pending in the OSG) against Judge Guiang
which was assigned to Judge Avancena.
During the hearing, Atty Castillo presented an urgent motion to disqualify Judge
Avancena to hear the admin case, who apparently taken aback, lectured Atty
Castillo. Atty Ruiz, counsel for Judge Guiang, moved that Castillo be cited for
contempt of court.
ISSUE: WON the defamatory words constitute serious oral defamation or simply
slight oral defamation. SERIOUS ORAL DEFAMATION.

RATIO: Guidelines adopted by the Court to determine whether the offense

committed is serious or slight: classification would depend upon their sense and
grammatical meaning judging them separately; also upon the special circumstances
of the case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the
offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. 
Imputing the crime of estafa (considered serious and insulting) against a prominent
lawyer strikes deep into the character of the victim; hence, no special circumstance
need be shown for the defamatory words uttered to be considered grave oral
defamation.
31. PEOPLE v ESCARDA
FACTS:
Late July 1987, at about 2am in the morning, Dionesio Himaya was watching over
his cornfield when he saw Joselito Escarda and Jose Villacastin remove the
cyclone wire used for the corral of 2 carabaos of Rosalina Plaza, with Himaya
testifying that he was only four arm‘s-length away from them. They untied the
carabaos and rode away on it, and afterwards Himaya woke Plaza, who then went
to inform Joel Barrieses, the carabaos‘ owner, of the theft.
Later, Plaza would testify later that Himaya only mentioned Villacastin (There
were four persons charged in the complaint: Escarda and Villacastin, and the two
at-large at the time, Hernani Alegre and Rodolfo Cañedo). After informing
Barrieses, she went to the PC to report the incident
ISSUE: WON the TC erred in convicting him of cattle rustling. NO
HELD/RATIO:

Villacasta argues that the element of ―taking away by any means, method or
scheme w/out the consent of the owner‖ was not proven by the prosecution, that his
identity was not established beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecution failed to
prove ownership of the stolen carabaos by presenting the certificate of ownership,
as required by PD 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling law.
32. PEOPLE vs. CONSEJERO
FACTS: May 25, 1989 – Melchor Pulido was invited by Consejero, a CAFGU
member, to gather fish caught in the Cagayan River. Melchor Pulido agreed, and,
together with Consejero, who was then carrying an M-14 armalite rifle, rode a
banca towards Barangay Jurisdiccion, Lal-lo, Cagayan. That was between the
hours of 8:00 o'clock and 9:00 o'clock in the evening. With them was accused
Rommel Malapit, who was also carrying an M-14 armalite.
ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the complex crime of Robbery with
homicide? NO

RATIO:  Elements of robbery with homicide: o the taking of personal property

with the use of violence or intimidation against a person o the property thus taken
belongs to another o the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus
lucrando on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of
homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed
People vs. Amania – Court had occasion to rule that in robbery with homicide, the
killing must have been directly connected with the robbery. It is necessary that
there must have been an intent on the part of the offenders to commit robbery from
the outset and, on occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. The original
design must have been robbery, and the homicide, even if it precedes or is
subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated
with a view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the property should not be
merely an afterthought which arose subsequent to the killing.
33. PEOPLE V. GULINAO
Facts: On March 3, 1987, at about 9:00 P.M., Dr. Chua, Isagani Gulinao (driver-
bodyguard of Dr. Chua) and some politicians were having a caucus in Malabon. At
about 11:00 P.M., the group of Dr. Chua proceeded to the Bar-Bar Disco House.

Upon arriving at the disco house, Gulinao, who had in his possession an Ingram
machine pistol, swapped the same with a .45 caliber pistol in possession of Dante
Reyes. He then tucked the .45 caliber pistol in his right waist. Gulinao went to the
comfort room and cocked the .45 caliber pistol. He then returned to his seat beside
Dr. Chua.
Issue: WON Gulinao was not allowed to present evidence
WON the conviction of illegal possession of firearm with murder under PD 1866
constitutes double jeopardy
WON he was guilty of robbery (the only relevant issue)
WON he was guilty of carnapping

Held: No, No, No, Yes

Ratio: The record shows that he was given several opportunities to present his
evidence but it was he who refused to take the witness stand or to present any
evidence. The issue of double jeopardy had already been dismissed by the CA
which held that there is no possibility of double jeopardy as the possession thereof
had taken place in two separate and distinct places and jurisdiction and the two
informations state different dates of commission.

34. PEOPLE vs. PUNO [GR No. 97471 (February 17, 1993)]
FACTS: Accused Puno, the victim‘s (Socorro) husband‘s driver, told Mrs. Socorro
that he will be her temporary driver.
At the corner of Araneta Ave, Puno stopped the car and coaccused Amurao
boarded the car.
Amurao poked a gun at Socorro. Puno asked for money and Socorro gave
P7,000.00 from her bag. Puno asked for P100,000.00 more. Socorro drafted 3
checks totaling 100k.
According to Socorro, she jumped out of the car and crossed to the other side of
the highway.
Information was filed for Kidnapping with Ransom

RTC found guilty of robbery with extortion committed on a highway, punishable

under PD 532

ISSUE(s):
WON PD 532 repeals RPC 267 (Kidnapping and serious illegal detention)

HELD/RATIO: No o It repeals RPC 306 and 307 on Brigandage or Highway

robbers and brigands are synonymous o Brigandage vs. Robbery:
Main object of Brigandage Law is to prevent the formation of bands of robbers.
If robbery is committed by a band, whose members were not primarily organized
for the purpose of committing robbery or kidnapping, etc., the crime would not be
brigandage, but only robbery.
Simply because robbery was committed by a band of more than 3 persons, it would
not follow that it was committed by a band of brigands.
35. PEOPLE V ESCOTE
FACTS: Robbery with homicide – death; defense – deprivation of constitutional
rights (SC: There is no law or police regulation requiring a police line-up for
proper identification in every case.)
Escote et al boarded a 5 star bus > along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan
and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup
> Juan fired his gun upward to awaken and scare off the passengers > Victor
followed suit and fired his gun upward > Juan and Victor then accosted the
passengers and divested them of their money and valuables > Juan divested
Romulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers > Victor and Juan
ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest
and right side of his body  Escote was accosted when he showed the slain
police‘s ID when his taxi cab was waived by an authority for traffic violation (SC:
The recovery of part of the loot gave rise to a legal presumption of his guilt)
 
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that treachery was present in
the commission of the crime
Whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstances in robbery with
homicide, and if yes, whether treachery may be appreciated against juan and victor.
HELD:
WoN Treachery is a generic AC in R with H if the victim of homicide is killed
treacherously or treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons (they were
rather sorry but they are going to kill him with his own gun; and thereafter, they
simultaneously fired point blank at the hapless policeman who was practically on
his knees begging for his life. Afterwhich, they calmly positioned themselves at the
front boasting for all to hear, that killing a man is like killing a chicken)
36. PEOPLE VS NAAG G.R No. 136394 February 15, 2001
FACTS: - Desiree Gollena was a singer in a band which regularly plays in Albay. -
In 1996, she decided to go home to Sipi Albay to visit her family.
- She rode a tricycle to Sipi Albay, but when she paid her fare, what she got in
exchange was a slap and not her change.
- Herson Naag then began to abuse her, he punched her in different parts of her
body and kept stabbing her with his screwdriver.
- Desiree Gollena, realizing that it would be futile to defend, pretended that she
was dead.
ISSUE: WON Naag should be guilty of Robbery AND Rape
HELD: Yes, he must be convicted of Robbery AND Rape

RATIO: Because the primary intent of the appellant was to rape her. To prove the
point, Justice Puno mentions 3 reasons. First, the degree and character of violence
that appellant employed upon Desiree shows that his intent was to rape her (Bat
mo pa kailangan bugbugin at saksakin ng screwdriver kung gusto mo lang naman
siya nakawan diba?) The excessive force was clearly meant to attain his lustful
scheme. Second, Appelant transported her to ANOTHER place. Third, appellant
did not ask for the belongings of Desiree at any time requiring a police line-up for
proper identification in every case.)

37. PEOPLE VS. RODOLFO SUYU August 16, 2006

FACTS:
- January 13, 1996 (around 7:15 pm) Clarissa Angeles, a third year student of St.
Paul University was with her boyfriend William Ferrer
- They were inside a pick-up truck in a vacant lot near the Office of the
Commission on Audit and the DepEd in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
- Rommel Macarubbo, who pointed a gun at them, together with Willy Suyu and
Francis Cainglet robbed the two of the following items:
- A pair of gold earring= P1,500 - A gold ring= P1,000 - Cash money (from
Clarissa)= P10
- A wallet containing cash (from William)= P150
- Willy Suyu clubbed William and draged him out of the truck but the latter was
able to escape
- The three accused then dragged Clarissa to a hilly place and brought her to a
house where they met Rodolfo Suyu, halfbrother of Willy.
ISSUE:
W/N the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged.

HELD: NO
- conspiracy to commit the crime was correctly appreciated by the trial court - at
the time of the commission of the crime, accused acted in concert, each doing his
part to fulfill their common design to rob the victim and although only two of
them, through force and intimidation, raped Clarissa, the failure of Macarubbo and
willy Suyu to prevent its commission although they were capable would make their
act to be the act of all
-once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commision of the
crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by any
of them on the occasion of the robberjy, unless any of them proves that he
endeavored to prevent the other from committing rape.
38. PEOPLE v SULTAN [G.R. No. 132470. April 27, 2000]
FACTS:
1. Private complainant Juditha M. Bautista was on her way home from a visit to
her cousin.
2. She passed by an alley
3. when she passed the dark alley in her cousin's compound she met accused-
appellant Fernando L. Sultan, who pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and
announcing it was a "hold-up."
4. He grabbed her and brought her to his house.
5. Once inside the house, he started divesting her of her watch, ring, earrings, and
necklace
6. While pointing an ice pick at her he ordered her to undress.
7. She acceded for fear that he would kill her as she was under constant threat.
8. When she was completely naked, he made her lie down
9. They had sexual intercourse, without the complainant putting up any fight.
10. After the first congress, he went out to smoke
11. He came back and she sexually abused her once again
12. After they had sex, Sultan told her he loved her and that they were to elope
13. In her effort to release herself from his clutches, she ―agreed
14. She went to her house to get her stuff
15. She told her sister what happened and together with her brother, they arrested
the accused
16. He was charged with robbery with rape
ISSUE:
Did he commit robbery with rape?
HELD:
Yes.
Under Art. 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code,
"[a]ny person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons shall suffer:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape

39. PEOPLE v. ARIZOBAL (2000)

FACTS:
In this case, 2 separate Informations were filed before the trial court. The accused,
Arizobal, Lignes, Rogelio Gemino and 2 John Does, were charged with Robbery in
Band with Homicide for robbing and slaying Laurencio Gimenez and his son
Jimmy Gimenez. The 2 cases were tried jointly. The charges against Gemino were
dismissed for lack of evidence. Lignes attended the trial until its conclusion,
whereas, Arizobal escaped from detention and was tried in absentia. The 2 John
Does were never apprehended as they were not sufficiently identified. Evidence
shows that several armed men, entered the house of Laurencio Geminez.
Clementina, wife of Laurencio, testified that she recognized Arizobal and Lignes
as among those who robbed them. When the robbers left with their loot, they took
Laurencio with them to the house of Jimmy Geminez. Later, Clementina heard
some gunshots, which, she believed, killed her husband. Erlinda Gimenez,
Jimmy‘s wife, testified they were also robbed by the same armed men who brought
Laurencio into their house. Erlinda testified that she also recognized Arizobal and
Lignes as among those who robbed them. Erlinda believed that the gunshots she
heard killed Jimmy and Laurencio when the 2 were taken away by the armed men.
Lignes in his defense said he was in another place cooking and serving in a house
blessing occasion. A witness testified that Lignes was present in the said occasion
when the robbery was happening. The trial court gave full credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witness and rejected the alibi of Lignes. The trial
court found the accused Arizobal and Lignes guilty of robbery with homicide.
They were sentenced to die and to indemnify the legal heirs of their victims.
ISSUES: The issues raised in this case are factual and involve the credibility of the
witness.
1. Was the assertion of Lignes that the failure of Clementina to actually witness the
killing of he son and her husband an adequate proof that she failed to identify him
as the killer?
2. Was the alibi of Lignes sufficient to rule out criminal liability on his part?
3. Was there treachery on the part of the robbers?
4. Was the case a case of robbery in band ?
5. Can we cite nighttime as an aggravating circumstance?
HELD:
It is doctrinally settled that in the absence of any showing that the trial court‘s
calibration1 of factual issues, particularly on the matter of credibility, is flawed the
SC is bound by its assessment. The rationale is the presumption that the trial court
is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witness and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The SC finds
no plausible reason to deviate from the trial courts decision that the accused are
indeed guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and it should be punished by
death penalty.
40. PEOPLE v. PONCIANO (1991)
FACTS: Information filed against the appellant states that he took away the
following: 1 Sony Betamax, 1 transformer, 1 rewinder, and 2 wristwatches; that
during the commission of the robbery and/or by reason/on occasion thereof, the
accused stabbed and assaulted Regina Villanueva, Ricardo Rivera, and Alicia
Rivera with a bladed weapon.
ISSUES: 1. Did the court a quo err in finding the accused guilty? NO.
2. Did it err in imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua on three
counts? NO.
RATIO:
The designation of the crime as robbery with multiple homicide is incorrect.
Assuming that a complex crime was committed, it should be categorized as
robbery with homicide regardless of the number of persons killed by reason or on
occasion of the robbery.

The appellant was caught red-handed in possession of wristwatches, belonging to

the victims Ricardo and Alicia Rivera, and the remote control of the Betamax
machine. Such testimony of Orig is not hearsay as Orig was personally present
when Pfc. Chua frisked the appellant and found the aforementioned articles in the
appellant‘s possession.

He is presumed to be the taker in the absence of satisfactorily explanation of his

possession. This is in accordance with Rule 131 Sec 3 (j) of the Revised Rules of
Court. The appellant did not offer any explanation as to the property found on him.

41. PEOPLE v CABBAB, JR. [527 SCRA 589 (July 12, 2007)]
FACTS: 1. Victim Winner Agbulos went with Eddie Quindasan, William Belmes
and others to a y fiesta in a nearby town. Upon arriving they found out that the
celebrations were over.
2. During their stay, they met accused-appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and his cousin-
in-law Sagundino Calpito, who invited them to play ―pepito‖ a local version of
Russian poker.
3. Winner was the winner (hahahaha) of about P12,000. After playing, the group of
Winner Agbulos decided to head home. On their way, they were ambushed by
Cabbab, Jr. and Calpito. Winner died instantaneously because of multiple gunshot
wounds. Quindasan died shortly thereafter. The accused got away with the money
won by Winner.
4. William Belmes was able to escape death (either due to his alertness or due to
the poor marksmanship of the accused).
5. The information filed was for the crimes of Double Murder and Attempted
Murder with Robbery. Trial court acquitted Calpito but found Cabbab, Jr. guilty of
two crimes (Robbery with double Homicide and Attempted Murder).
6. CA modified the decision and found appellant guilty of the special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide (reclusion perpetua) and affirmed Attempted
Murder.
7. The case was then elevated to the SC for automatic review.

ISSUES: 1. WON he was rightly accused of the complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide.

HELD/RATIO:
YES. The crime committer by appellant was correctly characterized by the
appellate court as Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code.
42. PEOPLE V. LAGMAY, Oct. 29, 1992;
FACTS: Accused Lagmay, Baetiong and Padullana rode in a passenger jeepney.
They brought out their unlicensed firearm and bladed weapons and told the
passengers that it was a holdup and threatened them with death if they resisted.
They then took away the personal properties of the passengers. When Patrolman
Pedrano resisted, Baetiong stabbed him in the chest while Lagmay shot him on his
thighs. The accused were convicted with Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua .

ISSUE: WON the felony committed is Robbery with Frustrated Homicide (NO)

RATIO: There is no such felony as Robbery with Frustrated Homicide.

Accused are guilty of the felony of robbery defined in Sec. 4, Art. 294 in the
course of the execution of which serious physical injuries enumerated in pars. 3
and 4 of Art. 263 were inflicted and the circumstances mentioned in Art. 295 were
present.
43. PEOPLE vs. MARQUEZ April 11, 2002
FACTS:
On September 18, 1995, accused said he went to his brother Arcadio Marquez‘s
house in Taguig, Metro Manila to borrow money because he needed capital in
buying and selling of fruits. Arcadio allegedly told him that the money would
come from his wife‘s salary which would be paid on September 24, 1995 yet.
Accused-appellant, therefore, decided to stay and in the meantime help his brother
in the construction of a septic tank. After receiving the money from his brother,
accused-appellant said he left for Mabini, Batangas. To reinforce his alibi,
accused-appellant claimed that while in Taguig on September 22, 1995, the date of
the crime in question, he in fact participated in the settlement of a case between the
spouses.
Marayan. Barangay officials and other individuals who, together with accused-
appellant, claimed to have participated in the settlement of dispute in their
barangay corroborated accused-appellant‘s alibi.

ISSUE: W/N accused committed robbery with homicide?

HELD: Yes

RATIO: The evidence on record fully supports the trial court‘s judgment of
conviction. A conviction for robbery with homicide requires proof of the following
elements: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against
persons or with force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the
taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the occasion of the
robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense was committed. The
offense becomes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art.
294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason
of the robbery.
44. PEOPLE V. AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN, ET AL. G.R. No. L-8919
September 28, 1956
FACTS: 5 November 1953 The spouses Vicente Pacson, Cipriana Tadeo, their 4
minor children and Monica del Mundo (Cipriana‘s mother) were roused by reports
of gunfire. Upon realizing that persons were going up their house, Vicente hid
himself inside the ceiling. Mangulabnan broke the wall to enter the house, and
removed the iron bar from the door leading to the balcony, and after opening said
door, 2 unidentified persons entered. The intruders took pieces of jewelry worn by
Cipriana as well as some cash. One of the unidentified intruders also asked Monica
to give her diamond ring which the latter could not produce, and for this reason, he
struck her twice on the face. Terrified, one of the children called to his mother .
Irked by the boy‘s imprudence, the same unidentified person moved to strike him,
but Monica warded off the blow. At this juncture, the other unidentified person put
his companion aside and climbing on the table, fired his gun at the ceiling. The
three intruders then left the place. After they were gone, Cipriana called to her
husband and receiving no answer, climbed the ceiling and found Vicente lying
facedown already dead.

ISSUE WON Mangulabnan and company are guilty of robbery with homicide

HELD: Yes. In robbery with homicide, it is enough that a homicide would result
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is immaterial that the death would
supervene by mere accident, provided that the homicide be produced by reason or
on occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained , without
reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons
intervening in the commission of the crime.
45. PEOPLE V. JAVA (November 10, 1993)
FACTS:
1. At a gravel and sand establishment, 2 men appearing to be customers arrived.
One of them went to the office building while the other approached Salvador
Cambaya, a truck helper.
2. He then poked a gun at Cambaya, announced a hold-up, divested him of his 20
pesos and ordered him to enter the office where he and other employees and
customers were gathered in front of the counter by the man identified as Felimon
Java.
3. The other guy ransacked the drawers, found some money and took them. They
were robbed of 50,000 pesos. The robbers then fled.
4. Michael Valdez, son of the owner, went after the holduppers. He was shot and as
a result, he died.

ISSUE: W/N the prosecution proved that those who committed the robbery and
those who killed the victim are one and the same persons as to establish the crime
of robbery with homicide.

HELD: RATIO:
1. Cambaya positively identified the accused as one oft hose who held him up as
well as the establishment where he works. Mrs. Valdez identified the same accused
appellant as the jeep passenger who shot and killed his son. Hence the connection
between the robbery and the homicide was sufficiently established.
2. It is settled that Michael attacked and stopped the robbers when they had
already come out of the store where the robbery was committed and got killed in
the process; it cannot be denied that the act of killing was done in order to repel an
aggression which would have endangered the whole success of the robbery
committed. It was done in order to defend the possession of the stolen property. It
has also been held that where the deceased followed the robbers after he had been
robbed and by reason thereof, he was fired upon by one of the robbers, the crime is
robbery with homicide.
3. The same is true even if the murder was perpetrated at a place different from that
of the robbery and after an appreciable interval of time.
46. US vs SANA LIM Nov 19, 1914
FACTS: A certain Moro named Jamilassan with other Moros disembarked at
Cebu. They had 101 tins of opium which they wanted to sell. Jamilassan then went
to a certain alias Esteban to sell the opium. Esteban didnt want to buy the opium so
he went to another Chinese man by the name Sionga (One of the accused) to offer
the sale of opium. Sionga didn't have enough money so he went to the the
municipal treasurer of the pueblo (Tiburcio Ricablanca) in order to report the
attempted sale of opium. Ricablanca then conceived of a plan to seize the opium
and appropriate the opium for himself and his co-conspirators. This plan involved
seizing the opium tins and replacing some tins with molasses, Ricablanca and his
coconspirators would keep some of the tins for themselves and turn over around 23
tins, of which 12 were filled with opium and 11 with molasses. Ricablanca along
with a few policemen then seized the opium and continued with their plan. Due to
this the fiscal charged them with robbery and they were convicted of it.

ISSUE: Was the felony robbery or estafa?

HELD: The felony was robbery. Appellants argue that because their coaccused
were authorized to seize the opium they could only be charged with estafa not
robbery because the taking was lawful, the opium was merely misappropriated.
However, it must be noted that their intent to gain was conceived even before the
seizure of the opium, this classifies their crime as robbery as intent to gain
preceded the seizure.

47. GANAAN v. IAC (1986)

FACTS:
Following are the undisputed facts of the case. Atty. Pintor and his client
Montebon discussed the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint of direct assault
they filed against Atty. Leonardo Laconico. After deciding the proposed
conditions, Montebon made a telephone call to Laconico, who then discussed the
matter with his lawyer appellant Atty. Gaanan. When complainant Montebon
called up, Laconico talked to him. On the advice of Laconico, Gaanan, using an
extension phone, secretly listened to the conversation, where the conditions for the
withdrawal of the complaint were discussed. Part of such conditions was the
payment of P8,000 to Montebon, to which Laconico was amenable. Montebon was
arrested in a restaurant by elements of the Phil. Constabulary when Laconico
handed to him the said amount.
ISSUES: 1. Whether the telephone conversation between the complainant and
accused was private
2. Whether an extension telephone is covered by the term ―device or
arrangement‖ under the Anti-Wiretapping Act
3. Whether the petitioner had authority to listen or e\overhear said telephone
conversation
4. Whether the Anti-Wiretapping Act is ambiguous and, therefore, should be
construed in favor of the petitioner.
RATIO: The telephone conversation between the complainant and accused was
private. The words uttered in the conversation were made between one person and
another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public. Also, only
one of the parties gave the petitioner the authority to listen to the caller‘s message
with the use of extension telephone.

48. SARABIA v. PEOPLE (2001)

FACTS: Josephine Picos-Mapalad and her then boyfriend, Anastacio Mapalad
(now her husband) were forced to have sexual intercourse in one of the
grandstands inside the Garcia Sports Complex by city police force member Sarabia
by pointing his gun at them. After having sex, Sarabia ordered Anastacio to buy
cigarettes for him while Josephine masturbated his penis. He then threatened them
that he will kill them if they tell anyone about what happened. Several days after
the incident, the Mapalads filed three informations for grave coercion. Sarabia
contends that there were lots of discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses
and according to him, this impaired their credibility. He also argues that this is a
case of double jeopardy.

ISSUE:
WON Sarabia is guilty of grave coercion

Held: Yes. The Court held that Sarabia was only desperately raising minor details
in order to impair the credibility of the Mapalad spouses and other witnesses.
Furthermore, the court took into consideration the circumstances involved. Sarabia
was a city police force member and a neighbour of Josephine. Both complainants
were unschooled. At the time of the commission of the crime, Josephine was a 17-
year old laundry woman while Anastacio was a simple grocery bagger. Hence, it
needs no stretch of imagination that when Sarabia threatened to kill them if they
reported the matter, they believed that he could and would make good on his
threat. There is also no double jeopardy as there is no same offense alleged.
49. US v. ALEXANDER (1907)
FACTS: On November 22, 1904, Asuncion Zamora de Paterno, wife of a member
of the advisory board in Quiapo, was standing in the door of her house, No. 162
Calle San Sebastian, in the city of Manila. While standing there the defendant
seized her by the wrist, dragged her from the doorway into the street, along the
street for 40 or 50 ft, and with the assistance of a third person, placed her in a
public carromata. Paterno made such resistance as she could to these acts of
defendant.
ISSUE: WON the obstruction constituted a violation of Sec 27 of Ordinance No.
11 of the city of Manila NO.

RATIO: Sec 27 states: ―It shall be unlawful to place or erect any post, fence,
stand, building, or other obstruction, in whole or in part, upon a street, sidewalk, or
public way, or to obstruct any street, drain, or gutter, without first obtaining a
permit from the department of streets, parks, fire and sanitation.
The Court does not think the ordinance in question in this case was ever intended
to apply to the use of sidewalk for the temporary purpose for which it was used in
this case. To hold that every time that cleanliness required that the wall of the
house or the ceiling or the arcade be cleaned of dust and cobwebs, it was necessary
to secure a permit from the department of public works would be give the
ordinance an unreasonable construction.
50. PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO (1923)
FACTS: Macaria Gabriel, 30-year old, and her aunt Candida Acuña were on their
way to their house after visiting a certain Gregoria Acuña in Barangay Salinas,
Bacoor, Cavite.

Pedro Crisostomo and his companions met them on the way and dragged Macaria
Gabriel along and took her against her will to a rice field.
The other defendants, Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, and Bartolome Caguiat,
caught hold of Candida Acuña, thus preventing her from helping her niece until
Gregoria Acuña, attracted by the cries of Candida, went to the scene and attacked
with a club the defendants.

Candida Acuña was released by her aggressors, and she went immediately to the
house of Macaria Gabriel and reported the matter to the latter's brother,
Constantino, who ran after the ‗abductors‘ of his sister. The defendants
immediately released Macaria.

The record as a whole does not leave room for doubt that the defendants took away
Macaria Gabriel against her will.

The defendant Pedro Crisostomo testified that his intention was to elope with
Macaria and to get married with her in Bacoor. Furthermore, Crisostomo
spontaneously admitted his intention to abduct Macaria in view of the fact that she
firmly answered in the negative to his proposal of marriage.

In order that this fact may constitute abduction , however, it is necessary that the
other element thereof should have been proven, to wit, that if unchaste designs as
provided.

Macaria alleged that Crisostomo kissed her many times while he was holding her
and that she was seasick and passed out as a result of the assault.

ISSUES: 1. WON the defendants are liable for the felony of abduction. NO.
2. WON the intention to marry constitutes an unchaste design necessary in the
felony of abduction.
3. WON there is coercion. OF COURSE NOT.
RATIO:
The defendants are liable only of illegal detention. Crisostomo admitted that his
intention in eloping with Macaria was to get married with her. In this particular
case, the intention to marry does not constitute an unchaste design necessary in the
felony of abduction because Macaria had the required age for consenting to
marriage, and it does not appear that either of them had any impediment to
contracting it.