Southern Hemisphere vs Executive Secretary  While the overbreadth doctrine is

inapplicable, the court may still nalyze the

The Human Securities Act of 2007 was passed, and
vagueness of the statute as applied,
several petitioners filed 6 separate petitions assailing
meaning someone must actually be charged
its constitutionality. While on a procedural level, the
with the crime
case must be dismissed as the requisites of judicial
 If the overbreadth doctrine could be
review have not been satisfied (i.e. petitioners have
applied, we will be using the facial challenge
no locus standi (failure of direct injury test as none
(i.e. looking at the words of the statute on
of them could prove that they were threatened),
its face, and then determine if it is too
failure to present an actual case or controversy
broad that it compasses speech that should
(threats are merely conjecture) etc.), however the
be protected)
court still chose to determine:
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
Whether or not the “overbreadth doctrine” may be
used on the “Human Securities Act” –NO Whether or not the Plunder law, a special law,
made the acts constituting Plunder, which are by
The SC made it clear that the overbreadth doctrine
themselves violations of the RPC, malum
applies only to legislation potentially encompassing
prohibitum? –NO
protected free speech. It does not apply against a
criminal statute. Thus, the overbreadth doctrine will Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of
only apply to the Human Securities act if it regulates criminal intent. Thus, he says . . . "The legislative
speech; which begs the question: declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous
offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the
Whether or not the Human Securities Act regulates
acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently
speech –NO
wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter
The petitioners tried to argue that the act regulates that such acts are punished in a special
speech as one of the elements of “terrorism” is the law,especially since in the case of plunder the
offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se.
government to give in to an unlawful demand. The
Minucher vs CA
petitioners understood “unlawful demand” as a form
of speech. The court does not agree. Minucher was an Iranian national staying in the
Philippines. He befriended Arthur Scalzon who
First of all, the stated element is one of the elements
introduced himself as a special agent of the Drug
of the crime; another one of the elements is that:
Enforcement Administration of the US. The 2
the offender commits an act punishable under any of
frequently conversed and did business with each
the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or
other (Scalzo bought caviar from Minucher, and
under any of the enumerated special penal laws”.
Minucher expressed his interest in a US visasfor
Thus, the supposed speech must not be singled out,
$2,000 per visas). One day, while both where in
but must be taken together with the act. The speech
Minucher’s house, Scalzo told Minucher that his
is not prohibited per se, but merely something that
cousin wanted to meet him; when they got out of
qualifies a crime into another crime (same thing as
the house, Minucher was greeted by American and
premeditation is not a crime, but something
Filipino soldiers. Apparently, it was a drug bust. The
qualifying a crime)
drug bust became international news. Eventually,
Second, what unlawful demand pertains to is Minucher was charged with for violation of the DDA,
conduct and not speech; speech may however make but he was eventually acquitted. Minucher then filed
conduct perceptible a civil case against Scalzo. After several appeals
where the court went back and forth in ruling
Notes whether Scalzo had diplomatic immunity, the case
reached the SC
Whether or not Scalzo was protected by diplomatic
immunity –YES
According to the Court, a foreign agent, operating
within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity
from suit but only as long as it can be established
that he is acting within the directives of the sending
state. The consent of the host state is an
indispensable requirement of basic courtesy
between the two sovereigns.
In this case, however, the primary justification of the
SC for ruling that Scalzo had state immunity from
suit was that the Philipiine government seemed to
give its imprimatur, if not consent, to the activities
within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the
United States Drug Enforcement Agency. This can be
seen from the communications between the DFA
and US Embassy, as well as the participation of
members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in
the "buy-bust operation" conducted at the residence
of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo
The court also notes that it did not seem that Scalzo
was acting beyond the scope of his official function
or duties. The job description of Scalzo has tasked
him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug
suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, to
inform local law enforcers who would then be
expected to make the arrest. In conducting
surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting as
the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and
then becoming a principal witness in the criminal
case against Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to
have acted beyond the scope of his official function
or duties.
Notes
 Only "diplomatic agents," under the terms
of the Convention, are vested with blanket
diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal
suits. The Convention dfines "diplomatic
agents" as the heads of missions or
members of the diplomatic staff, thus
impliedly withholding the same privileges
from all others. It might bear stressing that
even consuls, who represent their
respective states in concerns of commerce
and navigation and perform certain
administrative and notarial duties, such as
the issuance of passports and visas,
authentication of documents, and
administration of oaths, do not ordinarily
enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunities
and privileges accorded diplomats, mainly
for the reason that they are not charged
with the duty of representing their states in
political matters. Indeed, the main yardstick
in ascertaining whether a person is a
diplomat entitled to immunity is the
determination of whether or not he
performs duties of diplomatic nature.
Liang vs People
Liang was a Chinese national who was employed as
an Economist by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
He allegedly, on separate occasions, made
defamatory remarks against one Joyce Cabal, who
was a member of the clerical staff of ADC. 2 criminal
information were filed against him for grave oral
defamation. While the case was initially dismissed
due to the idea that he was supposedly “immune
from legal processes”, the SC ruled upon review that
immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime
such as slander or oral defamation in the name of
official. In these MR; The SC upheld its previous
decision: slander, in general, cannot be considered
as an act performed in an offcial capacity.
People vs Lol-lo
2 Dutch ships, containing men women and children,
1 of the 2 boats arrived between the Islands of
Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. The boat
was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 Moros.
The Moros first asked for food, but once on the
Dutch boat, took for themselves all of the cargo,
attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two
of the women. All of the persons on the Dutch boat,
with the exception of the two young women, were
again placed on it and holes were made in it, with
the idea that it would submerge. The ship was
rescued later on. The 2 women who were repeatedly
violated were able to escape. 2 of the Moros , Lol-lo
and Saraw (the accused) returned to their home in
Tawi-tawi. They were arrest for Piracy. They filed a
demurrer on the grounds that the offense charged
was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands,
and that the facts did not constitute a public offense,
under the laws in force in the Philippines. Theb
demurrer was overruled.
Whether the CFI had jurisdiction even if the crime
did not occur in the Philippines –YES
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a
crime not against any particular state but against all
mankind. It may be punished in the competent
tribunal of any country where the offender may be
found or into which he may be carried. The
jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no
territorial limits.
Whether a crime punishing piracy existed Philippine
law –YES
The crime of piracy was punishable under the
Spanish Civil Code. Under the code, the crime
pertained to someone who committed it against
Spaniards, nations at war with Spain, and nations not
at war with Spain. The issue arises due to the fact
that the Philippines is now under the Americans. The
court rules that the subject penal laws are still in
place, however wherever "Spain" is mentioned, it
should be substituted by the words "United States"
and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned, the word
should be substituted by the expression "citizens of
the United States and citizens of the Philippine
Islands."
People vs Wong Cheng
The accused was on an English Merchant vessel two
and a half miles from the shores of the city. He
smoked opium. He was charged with violating the
Opium Law. The accused filed a demurrer alleging
lack of jurisdiction of the lower court. The CFI
granted the demurrer
Whether the CFO (or the Phil.) has jurisdiction with
regards to a merchant vessel within jurisdictional
waters? –YES
Generally, there are 2 different internationally
accepted rules; the French and the English rule.
The French rule, according to which crimes
committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel should
not be prosecuted in the courts of the country within
whose territorial jurisdiction they were committed,
unless their commission affects the peace and
security of the territory
The English rule, based on the territorial principle
and followed in the United States, according to
which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances
are in general triable in the courts of the country
within whose territory they were committed.
We follow the English rule, which is followed by the
US, as were are now under US rule.
In this case, if the perpetrators merely possessed
opium, the court ruled that they would not be triable
in our court because the primary object of our
Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the
Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by
the use of this drug. Its mere possession in such a
ship, without being used in our territory, does not
bring about in the said territory those effects that
our statute contemplates avoiding.
However, the perpetrators smoked opium within our
territorial limits. That is a danger to public order.
US vs Ah Chiong
Ah Chong was a cook, while Gualberto was a
muchacho. They were roommates. Usually, they
locked the door with a hook and a chair. When one
of them wanted to come in, they would generally
knock and then reveal their identity. One night, Ah
Chiong was sleeping when it sounded like someone
was forcing the door open. Ah Chiong shouted:
“Who’s there?”, no one answered. He the shouted:
“If you enter, I will kill you”. The door the opened,
and the chair blocking the door went flying; hitting
Ah Chiong. He thought that he was being attacked.
He puilled out a knife from under his pillow and then
attacked the person behind the door, who turned
out to be his roommate. He realized this as the
moonlight hit. He tried to ask for help. The
roommate dided the next da, due to the wounds
received.
Whether mistake of fact acquits Ah Chiong --YES
Under the penal code, malice or criminal intent is
necessary to be liable criminally. Thus, a mistake of
fact in the commission of crime would acquit the
perpetrator if it can be shown that:
1. The act would have been lawful if the facts
were as the perpetrator thought them to be
2. His Intention was lawful
3. There was no fault or carelesness on the
part of the accused
In this case, the act of the accused would be seen as
a legitimate exercise of self defense, if the facts were
as the accused thought them to be. His intentions
were lawful, and there was no fault or negligence on
his part as he took steps to try to ascertain the
identity of the person trying to open the door.
People vs Oanis
Captain Monsod (Constabulary Provincial Inspector)
received orders to arrest a certain escaped convict
Anselmo Balagatas with bailarina named Irene in
Cabanatuan. “Get him dead or alive”. Galanta was
one of 4 men called to assist Monsod in the search
and capture. Oanis, the chief of police, was also
called by Monsod. Oanis says he knew Irene as
someone wit loose morals. The Captain’s search
party was divided into with Oanis and Galanta being
in the same group. The group of Oanis was able to
get to Irene’s house. At this point, the accounts of
Irenr, Oanis and Galanta differed.
According to Irene Oanis approached one Brigida
Mallare where Irene was, she directed them to her
room. Mallare also told theme that Irene was
sleeping with her paramour. There they saw A man
sleeping with his back towards the door. Gallanta
and Oanis then fired their .32 and .45 revolvers.
Irene woke up and fainted. Apparently, the man was
not Balagtas, but Serapio Tecson (innocent man).
According to Gallanta, Mallare told them that
Balagtas was sleeping with Irene. When they were by
the door, Oanis yelled “If you are Balagtas, stand
up!”. When Tecson was about to stand, Oanis
immediately fired at him.
According to Oanis, when he yelled “If you are
Balagtas, stand up!”, Gallanta immediately fired at
Tecson. It was only after Oanis saw Balagtas on the
floor trying to pick something up that he fire at him.
The trial court belived the account of Irene because,
the accounts of of Gallanata and Oanis did not
corroborate each other. It seemed that they were
trying to put the blame of each other.
Whether the accused may raise the defense of
mistake of fact (Ah Chong)? –NO
There is a big difference between this case and Ah
Chong. In Ah Choing, Ahchong tried to ascertain the
identity of the person behind the door. When the
door went flying open, Ah Chong’s choices were
constrained. His act of attacking the perceived
attacker was justified.
In this case on the other hand, the officers had all
the time in the world ascertain the identity of
Balagtas. Even if the person actually turned out to be
Balagtas, they could have arrested him without
bloodshed. Firing at him was using unnecessary
force.
Notes
 The court believes that the crime is murder
and not reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide, as Tecson was asleep when it
happened. There was alevosia.
 There is however an incomplete defense of
“acting in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office”. The
elements are
o that the offender acted in the
performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and
(PRESENT)
o that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary
consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or
office (LACKING)
People vs Magdalena
According Gabion, a witness of the event, during a
carnival, he was reading comics when he saw a
accused Pugay and Samso with a group. They all
seemed to be drunk. They approached Miranda, a 25
year old retardate, and started pokin fun at him.
They started tickiling him, but then Pugay was able
to get a can of gasoline and then poured it on
Miranda. Samson then lit Miranda on fire. The fire
was put out by the bystanders, but Miranda died in
the hospital. They were charged an convicted for
murder in the lower courts.
Whether Samson’s defense that he merely
intended to burn Miranda’s clothes, acquits him? –
NO
Art 4 of the RPC says that criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended
Even if the intent was to only burn the clothes, that
still would have resulted in some kind of physical
injury which is still a crime under the RPC. He still
would be responsible for homicide or murder which
results from committing a lesser offense.
Notes
 Samson tried to argue that he thought that
the gasoline was actually water – The court
did not believe him as he would have notice
the strong smell of gasoline
 Pugay supposedly knew Miranda. Miranda
often did errands for him
 Puay and Gabion were friends
People vs Garcia
Sanily and Bentley Billon (brother and sister) were
commuting to school. Garcia was driving a jeepney in
a speedy manner in a school zone. Because of this,
he hit Sanily Billon. Garcia was allegedly confused as
to what transpires, and he moved forward thus
running over Sanily’s stomach area. Garcia helped in
bringing Sanily to the Sta. Lucia Hospita., but due to
lack od equipment, Sanily was transfreed to Quezon
City General. She died 4 days later. Garcia was tried
and convicted for murder.
Whether Garcia was properly convicted for Murder
and not Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide.
–NO
In the lower court, the court found that the
qualifying circumstance of premeditation was
present, but the SC does not agree. Premeditation
required cool thought. In this case, there was merely
a short time from the point the jeep hit the victim,
and the point where the jeep accelerated. It seems
that the acceleration was caused by confusion, and
not the intent of Garcia to murder the victim.
The proper crime then is reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. Here, the accused is penalized
not for malicious intent, but the inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing
such act.
Appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution
when he disregarded a traffic sign cautioning
motorists to slow down and drove his vehicle in full
speed despite being aware that he was traversing a
school zone and pedestrians were crossing the
street. He should have observed due diligence of a
reasonably prudent man by slackening his speed and
proceeding cautiously while passing the area.
People vs Delim
The accused Marlon, Ronald and Leon (Delims)
Modesto, his wife Rita, their child Randy,a nd
Randy’s children were all having summer in their
home when Marlon, Robert and Ronald (Delims)
barged into their house with hand guns and closed
the door. Thy tied Modesto, and then herded him
towards the direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan.
Modesto’s family looked for Modesto. 4 days later,
they found him in a hopusing project in Paldit, Sison,
Pangasinan which they checked before. Modesto’s
body was already decomposing.
Marlon, Ronald and Leon (there were actually 5 of
them, but the participation of the others were not
mentioned in the facts) interposed denial and alibi.
Ronald claimed he was home which was 2km from
Modesto’s house. Leon alleged that he was in his
sister’s house in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. Marlon
asserted that he was on vacation in Dumaguete City
The trial court found them guilty of murder
Whether the crime charged in the Information is  The employment
murder or kidnapping –MURDER of means of
execution which
This issue arose because some of the members of
gives the person
the court believed that the crime as alleged in the
attacked no
information was kidnapping, because the description
opportunity to
of the act seemed to be kidnapping, and that killing
defend himself or
the victim was of no moment, and that the
retaliate
prosecution failed to prove murder. With regards to
 the means of
the motive:
execution is
Whether motive is an element of murder? deliberately or
–NO consciously
adopted
Motive is not essential element of murder  Although the victim may
and/or kidnapping, however specific intent have been defenseless at
is. Specific intent is not synonymous with the time he was seized
motive. Motive generally is referred to as but there is no evidence
the reason which prompts the accused to as to the particulars of
engage in a particular criminal activity. how he was assaulted and
Specific intent is that which the perpetrator killed, treachery cannot
intends to do. be appreciated against the
accused. In this case, the
In this case, it is evident on the face of the
victim was defenseless
Information that the specific intent of the
when seized by Marlon
malefactors in barging into the house of Modesto
and Ronald. However, the
was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill
prosecution failed to
him with the attendant modifying circumstances.
present any witness or
The act of the malefactors of abducting Modesto
conclusive evidence that
was merely incidental to their primary purpose of
Modesto was defenseless
killing him. Moreover, there is no specific allegation
immediately before and
in the information that the primary intent of the
when he was attacked and
malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom
killed.
or liberty and that killing him was merely incidental
o Superior Strength
to kidnapping. Irrefragably then, the crime charged
in the Information is Murder under Article 248 of the  Requires
Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article  That the
268 thereof. assailants
deliberately took
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab(bed), h(e)ld, advantage of
hog-tie(d), gag(ged), with a piece of cloth, brought their combined
out and abduct(ed) Modesto Delim (while) Leon strength in order
Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house (and) to consummate
guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto the crime. It is
Delim from helping the latter necessary to
show that the
Notes
malefactors
 The accused were convicted for HOMICIDE cooperated in
as there was no such a way as to
o Treachery secure advantage
 Requires from their
 superiority in namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-
strength. 74 offenses.
 In this case, the
The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article
prosecution failed to
365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely
adduce evidence that
a means to commit other crimes such that conviction
Marlon and Ronald
or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent
deliberately took
prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless
advantage of their
of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s
numerical superiority
unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy
when Modesto was killed.
as applied to Article 365.
The barefaced facts that
the malefactors
outnumbered Modesto
and were armed while Villareal vs People
Modesto was not does
7 freshmen law students (including Leonardo
not constitute proof that
"Lenny" Villa) of the Ateneo de Manila University
the three took advantage
School of Law signified their intention to join the
of their numerical
Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). Their
superiority and their
initiation rites were to last for 3 days, wherein they
handguns when Modesto
will be subjected to hazing (e.g. stepping on the legs
was shot and stabbed
of the neophytes, paddling etc.). On the 2nd night,

after the activities, Lenny was found to be shivering.
Ivler vs San Pedro The Aquilan’s tried to help him by keeping him warm
in a sleeping bag. It didn’t work. They brought him to
Jason Ivler was involved in a vehicular accident, a hospital. He was dead on arrival.
which resulted in the filing of 2 separate offenses
against him: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed
Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by against the 35 Aquilans. Eventaully the courts found
respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); that there was no conspiracy, so each of the accused
and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide were to be tried separately.
and Damage to Property for the death of respondent
Two of the accused-appellants – Fidelito Dizon and
Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the
Artemio Villareal – were found guilty beyond
spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under
He pleaded guilty to the first charge and was meted Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
with the penalty of public censure. Invoking his
The OSG filed an MR with regards to the finding
conviction, petitioner moved to quash the
against Dizon and Villareal; he alleges even if the act
Information for the second delict for placing him in
complained of was born of imprudence or
jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense
negligence, malicious intent can still be appreciated
of reckless imprudence.
on account of the gravity of the actions of the
Whether petitioner’s constitutional right under the accused.I t contends that the imposable penalty for
Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in intentional felony can also be applied to the present
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and case on the ground that the nature of the
Damage to Property for the death of respondent imprudence or negligence of the accused was so
Ponce’s husband. –YES gross that the felony already amounted to malice

The two charges against petitioner, arising from the Whether malice can be appreciated crime
same facts, were prosecuted under the same committed by culpa –NO
provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
The finding of a felony committed by means of culpa
is legally inconsistent with that committed by means
of dolo. Culpable felonies involve those wrongs done
as a result of an act performed without malice or
criminal design.

Notes

 Test for Culpa:

o Would a prudent man in the
position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed foresee
harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the
course about to be pursued? If so,
the law imposes on the doer the
duty to take precaution against the
mischievous results of the act.
Failure to do so constitutes
negligence.