G.R. No.

L-19069 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Philippines

vs Amadeo Peralta

FACTS:

PERALTA, et al., convicts who are confined in the New Bilibid Prison, caused the death of several inmates. This is due
to a riot that ensued between the two warring gangs, the "Sigue-Sigue" and the "OXO".

ISSUE:

Are PERALTA, et al. quasirecidivists as defined under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code?

RULING:

The Court said that YES. Under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall commit a felony after
having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall
be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Here, the accused have
committed the crime of murder while serving the sentence of a conviction by final judgment.

Facts:

February 1958, Peralta among other inmates of New Bilibid Prisons, conspired and mutually helped one another,
with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with deadly weapons, feloniously killed Jose Carriego, Eugene
Barnosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts of New Bilibid. Aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is present
because the crime was committed while the offenders were convicted by final judgments.

Upon motion of the fiscal before trial, the lower court dismissed the charge against one of the accused for lack of
evidence. After prosecution of the case, the charge against 6 accused were dismissed for failure to establish a prima
facie case against them. After trial, 5 of the accused were also acquitted, then 1 died.

Issues:

(1) it fails to consider the legality of imposing multiple capital penalties; (2) it fails to distinguish between imposition
of penalty and service of sentence; (3) it ignores the fact that multiple death sentences could be served
simultaneously; and (4) it overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties.

Ruling:

The evidence on record proves beyond peradventure that the accused acted in concert from the moment they
bolted their common brigade, up until the time they killed their last victim, Santos Cruz. While it is true that
Parumog, Larita and Luna did not participate in the actual killing of Carriego, nonetheless, as co-conspirators they
are equally guilty and collectively liable for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. It is not indispensable that
a co-conspirator should take a direct part in every act and should know the part which the others have to perform.
Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the execution of the
crime. All those who in one way or another help and cooperate in the consummation of a felony previously
planned are co-principals. Hence, all of the six accused are guilty of the slaughter of Carriego, Barbosa and Santos
Cruz — each is guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder.

Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously. A cursory
reading of article 70 will show that there are only two modes of serving two or more (multiple) penalties:
simultaneously or successively. The first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the
nature of the penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions
does not only permit but actually necessitates simultaneous service.

In view of the attendance of the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism, as all of the six accused at the
time of the commission of the offenses were serving sentences in the New Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa by virtue of
convictions by final judgments the penalty for each offense must be imposed in its maximum period, which is the
mandate of the first paragraph of article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. Viada observes, in a position, that the
severe penalty imposed on a quasi-recidivist is justified because of his perversity and incorrigibility.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is hereby modified as follows: Amadeo Peralta, Andres Factora, Leonardo
Dosal, Angel Parumog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna are each pronounced guilty of three separate and
distinct crimes of murder and are each sentenced to three death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally,
indemnify the heirs of each of the three deceased victims in the sum of P12,000; each will pay one-sixth of the
costs.

People vs. Alberca (June 26, 1996)

“Around eight o’clock in the evening of January 12, 1992, Ninfa Pasquin was at her house situated in Sitio Inadlayan,
Barangay Macatol, Pototan, Iloilo. She was busy preparing her lesson plan when she was alarmed by the barking of
dogs. She looked outside the window and aided by the moonlight and her heavy-duty flashlight, she saw appellant
with three (3) companions walking outside her fence. She noticed that appellant was carrying a shotgun while his
companions were carrying firearms tucked at their waist. She thought that they were merely conducting their
nightly rounds since appellant was then a barangay tanod.

“After observing the appellant and his companions, she returned to her table to continue her work. She,
however, started feeling uneasy because her husband had not yet come home.

“About eleven o’clock of the same evening, Ninfa again looked outside the window and saw several persons
hiding behind some tall grasses near their fence. She thought that one of them was her husband. She then went
to the kitchen to wash her face.

“While washing her face, she heard an explosion near their house. She heard another explosion which prompted
her to take her flashlight and look out the window. When she turned on the flashlight towards the place where
the explosion came from, she saw appellant still carrying a shotgun and running away with his three companions.
The four of them passed by the side of their fence. She also saw a person half-hanging at the entrance of the
fence. While appellant was running, she heard him shout to his companions: ‘You run fast’. However, Ninfa
could not identify the person at the entrance of their fence because he was lying prone on the ground.

“In great fear, she closed the window. After a while, she heard her name being called by Rex Dosado, her husband’s
nephew. Rex shouted that his ‘Tiyo Manolo’ was at the entrance of their fence and that he was already dead.
Forthwith, she ran downstairs, still carrying her flashlight. She and her nephew examined her husband’s body and
they discovered two (2) gunshot wounds. Ninfa then ran to her brother-in-law, Felicisimo Pasquin, who lived nearby,
and told him that her husband was already dead. Rex, on the other hand, reported the incident to the Barangay
Kagawad who passed on the information to the Poto[t]an Police Station.

“The patrol team on duty immediately responded and found at the scene of the crime an empty shell of a shotgun.
Ninfa also told them that right after she heard the shots, she saw appellant running away, holding a shotgun. She
recognized the appellant not only because he was a barangay tanod in their area, but also he used to go to their
house to buy eggs.

“The next day, a team from the Pototan Police Station, composed of SPO2 Romeo Benamarca, SPO3 Primo S.
Cabrera, and SPO1 Enrico Parreño returned and invited appellant to go with them to Camp Delgado in order to
conduct a paraffin examination. The results of the paraffin examination showed that appellant’s hands were positive
for gunpowder nitrates.

“Dr. Isabel Cenal, Rural Health Physician of Pototan Rural Health Unit, examined the body of the victim. She found
two (2) gunshot wounds on the body of the victim, both of which were fatal and caused his instantaneous death.

“After appellant learned of the positive result for gun powder nitrates, he immediately fled from Pototan. He was
arrested several months later, on November 15, 1992, in Mandur[r]iao, Iloilo by the members of the Mandur[r]iao
Police.”

Held: (Implied Conspiracy)

Conspiracy; The rule in conspiracy is that the act of one is the act of all.—It is true that none of the witnesses for
the prosecution testified having seen accused-appellant stab Felipe Climaco, a point on which the defense harps.
There was conspiracy in this case, however, as shown by the concerted manner in which accused-appellant and
his companions entered the Saycon compound and later withdrew from it and the way they attacked the security
guard and the houseboy. Regardless of the part of accused-appellant in the stabbing of the guard and the
wounding of the houseboy, he is liable because of the rule in conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all. People
vs. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613, G.R. No. 117106 June 26, 1996

Robbery with Homicide; It is not necessary that the person robbed be the same person whom the malefactors
originally intended to rob.—Upon the facts thus established the Court is convinced that accused-appellant is guilty of
robbery with homicide. While accused-appellant and his companions failed to rob the Saycons, the fact is that they
took the gun of the security guard for the purpose of gain. Since the group in addition killed the guard, the crime
committed is the complex one of robbery with homicide. It is not necessary that the person robbed be the same
person whom the malefactors originally intended to rob. In People v. Ga, the accused planned to rob a house at
Forbes Park in Makati. They killed the house owner, Don Julio Gonzaga, and his wife and houseboy and seriously
wounded his daughter and, as help was coming, they fled without being able to take anything from the house.
Instead they took a wristwatch and transistor radio belonging to a houseboy. It was held that the crime was robbery
with homicide. People vs. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613, G.R. No. 117106 June 26, 1996.

Fernan Jr. et. Al v. People

86 million highway scam; 119 criminal cases filed with the Sandiganbayan (SB) involving no less than 36 former
officials and employees of the then Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) and several suppliers of construction
materials for defalcation of public funds arising from numerous transactions in the Cebu First Highway Engineering
District in 1977.

FACTS:

Accused Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and
Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), all of MPH Region VII came up with the plan to steal large sums of money from government
treasury. Mangubat had found a way to withdraw government money through the use of fake LAAs, vouchers and
other documents and to conceal traces thereof with the connivance of other government officials and employees. In
fine, the fraudulent scheme involved the splitting of LAAs and RSEs so that the amount covered by each general
voucher is less than P50,000.00 to do away with the approval of the Regional Auditor; the charging of disbursements
to unliquidated obligations due the previous year to provide the supposed source of funds; and the manipulation of
the books of account by negation or adjustment, i.e., the cancellation of checks through journal vouchers to conceal
disbursements in excess of the cash disbursement ceiling (CDC), so as not to reflect such disbursements in the trial
balances submitted to the Regional Office.

Mangubat enticed Preagido, Cruz and Sayson to join him. All three agreed to help him carry out his plan.

o They typed the fake LAAs during Saturdays.

o Cruz and Sayson also took charge of negotiating or selling the fake LAAs to contractors at 26% of the gross
amount.

o Preagido on her part manipulated the General Ledger, Journal Vouchers and General Journal thru negative
entries to conceal the illegal disbursements.

Thus, in the initial report of the auditors (Exhibit D), it was discovered that the doubtful allotments and other
anomalies escaped notice due to the following manipulations:

LAAs were generally not signed by the Finance Officer nor recorded in the books of accounts. Disbursements made
on the basis of these fake LAAs were charged to the unliquidated Obligations (Account 8-81-400), although the
obligations being paid were not among those certified to the unliquidated obligations (Account 8-81-400) at the end
of the preceding year.

The four formed the nucleus of the nefarious conspiracy. Other government employees, tempted by the prospect of
earning big money, allowed their names to be used and signed spurious documents.

It was also made to appear that the payments were made for alleged prior years obligations and chargeable to
Account 8-81-400, obviously because, they were not properly funded.
The nuclei of this massive conspiracy, namely: Rolando Mangubat, Jose Sayson, and Edgardo Cruz, all of MPH Region
VII, were found guilty in all 119 counts and were accordingly sentenced by the SB. The other conniver, Delia
Preagido, after being found guilty in some of the cases, became a state witness in the remainder. On the basis of her
testimony and pertinent documents, Informations were filed, convictions were obtained, and criminal penalties
were imposed on the rest of the accused.

On the other hand, petitioners were both Civil Engineers of the MPH assigned to the Cebu First Highway Engineering
District.

• Petitioner Fernan, Jr. was included among the accused in 6 criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. 2879, 2880,
2881, 2885, 2914, and 2918) allegedly for having signed six (6) tally sheets or statements of deliveries of materials,
used as bases for the preparation of the corresponding number of general vouchers. Fund releases were made to the
suppliers, contractors, and payees based on these general vouchers.

• On the other hand, petitioner Torrevillas was one of the accused in 9 criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos.
2855, 2856, 2858, 2859, 2909, 2910, 2914, 2919, and 2932.)

The Sandiganbayans Ruling

Petitioners were charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.

The anti-graft court was fully convinced of the guilt of petitioner Fernan, Jr. Petitioner Torrevillas suffered the same
fate and was convicted in the nine (9) criminal cases, to wit:

Petitioners made the supplication before the court a quo to recall the adverse judgments against them which was
declined by the August 29, 2000 SB Resolution.

Firm in their belief that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, they now interpose the instant petition to clear their
names.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners are liable as co- conspirators of the crimes committed.

HELD: YES. Petitioners’ guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt

On the part of petitioners, they readily admitted that they either signed the tally sheets and/or delivery receipts,
reports of inspection, requests for supplies and materials, and other related documents which became part of the
supporting documents that led to the issuance of general vouchers and eventually the disbursement of public funds.
The tally sheets are statements of delivery that purportedly indicated the specified quantities of materials for the
construction and maintenance of roads that have been delivered on supposed project sites on given dates at specific
places.

The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the court a quo that all the essential elements of the crime of
estafa through falsification of public documents were present. There is no question that petitioners, at the time of
the commission of the crime, were public officers civil engineers assigned to the MPH. Their signing of tally sheets
and related documents pertaining to the alleged deliveries of supplies for road repair and construction constitutes
intervention and/or taking advantage of their official positions, especially considering that they had the duty to
inspect the purported deliveries and ascertain the veracity of the documents and the statements contained in them.

The essential elements of estafa through falsification of public documents are present in the cases against
petitioners, as follows:

1. Deceit: Petitioners Fernan, Jr. and Torrevillas made it appear that supplies for road construction and maintenance
were delivered by suppliers allegedly in furtherance of alleged lawful projects when in fact said supplies were not
delivered and no actual asphalting or repair of road was implemented. In doing so, petitioners:

1.1. Were public officers or employees at the time of the commission of the offenses;

1.2. Took advantage of their official position as highway engineers; and

1.3. Made untruthful statements in several narrations of fact.

2. Damage: The government disbursed PhP 146,000 in the case of Fernan, Jr. and PhP 337,861.01 in the case of
Torrevillas, as payments to various suppliers for the delivery of non-existent supplies.

By way of defense, petitioners posit that the tally sheets and other documents could in fact be traced to
genuine LAAs that were in the custody of the NBI. Unfortunately, these genuine LAAs were not introduced in
evidence. It is an age-old axiom that s/he who alleges something must prove it. Petitioners assertion that the
documents they signed were all genuine and duly covered by genuine LAAs was substantiated only by their own self-
serving and uncorroborated testimonies. We hesitate to give much weight and credit to their bare testimonies in the
face of clear, convincing, overwhelming, and hard evidence adduced by the State.

If the genuine LAAs were vital to their defense, and they firmly believed that the documents were indeed in the
custody of the NBI, then petitioners could have easily procured the compulsory process to compel the production of
said documents. However, petitioners miserably failed to avail of subpoena duces tecum which the court a quo could
have readily granted. The inability to produce such important and exculpatory pieces of evidence proved disastrous
to petitioners cause. Their conviction was indeed supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt which was not
overturned by defense evidence.

Petitioners acted in conspiracy with one another

Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution. Considering,
however, the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no need to prove it by
direct evidence.

The Court finds that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the wheel conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons
who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a single hub, namely:
Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Edgardo
Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate spokes of the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of
the wheel.

After a close re-examination of the records, the Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the anti-graft court
that petitioners are co-conspirators of the other accused, headed by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat, who were
similarly convicted in practically all the 119 counts of estafa. Undisturbed is the rule that this Court is not a trier of
facts and in the absence of strong and compelling reasons or justifications, it will accord finality to the findings of
facts of the SB. The feeble defense of petitioners that they were not aware of the ingenuous plan of the group of
accused Mangubat and the indispensable acts to defraud the government does not merit any consideration. The
State is not tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with the other accused, for such
requirement, in many cases, would border on near impossibility. The State needs to adduce proof only when the
accused committed acts that constitute a vital connection to the chain of conspiracy or in furtherance of the
objective of the conspiracy.

In the case at bench, the signing of the fake tally sheets and/or delivery receipts, reports of inspection, and requests
for supplies and materials by petitioners on separate occasions is vital to the success of the Mangubat Group in
siphoning off government funds. Without such fabricated documents, the general vouchers covering the supply of
materials cannot be properly accomplished and submitted to the disbursing officer for the preparation of checks.

In sum, the required quantum of proof has been adduced by the State on the conspiracy among the accused
including petitioners. The conviction of petitioners must perforce be sustained.

GO-TAN V. TAN

FACTS: Sharica (petitioner) and Steven Tan are married with 2 daughters. Petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for
the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and herparents-in-law, alleging that Steven,
in conspiracy with her parents in law, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in
violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004.Respondents contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction overtheir persons since, as parents-
in-law of the petitioner, they werenot covered by Sec 3 of the said law which explicitly providesthat the offender
should be related to the victim only by marriage,a former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationshipPetitioner
argued that respondents were covered by R.A. No.9262 under a liberal interpretation thereof aimed at
promotingthe protection and safety of victims of violence. R.A. No. 9262must be understood in the light of the
provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which explicitly provides for the suppletory RPCand, accordingly, the
provision on conspiracy under Article 8 ofthe RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262

ISSUE: WON R.A No. 9262 may be liberally interpreted toinclude the parents-in-law as an ‘offender.’
HELD: Yes. While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that theoffender be related or connected to the victim
by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the
principle of conspiracy under theRPC. Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for thesuppletory
application of the RPC, thus: SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act, theRevised Penal Code
and other applicable laws, shall havesuppletory application. Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides :
ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under

special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws,
unless the lattershould specially provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may
beapplied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished underspecial laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the
special law issilent on a particular matter.With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy underArticle 8 of
the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No.9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that
theRPC shall be supplementary to said law.Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature,
are necessarilyapplicable, may be applied suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A.
No.9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve acriminal design is shown, the act of
one is the act of all theconspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participationof each of them
becomes secondary, since all the conspiratorsare principals.

People of the Philippines Vs. Dela Torre

Facts:

Appellant-spouse Butchoy and Fe de la Torre employed Baby Jane Dagot as housemaid. That on or about the second
week of September 1992 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, appellants Fe de la Torre woke Baby Jane and her
husband Butchoy, Fe then ordered Butchoy to have sex with Baby Jane also threatening Baby Jane Dagot with a
bladed weapon if ever said minor refused to submit to perform a sexual act with his husband. The accused Butchoy,
in conspiracy and confederating with his wife Fe De La Torre by means of force threat and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with Baby Jane Dagot, a 16 years of age against her
will and consent.

Issue: Whether or not the court has accurately implicated Fe dela Torre as Co principal in the rape case committed
against the complainant jointly with her husband.

Ruling:

Yes. Fe dela Torre was proven beyond reasonable doubt as a co-principal for indispensable cooperation in the
Commission of the crime by threatening Baby Jane Dagot with a bladed weapon if ever said complainant refused to
submit to perform a sexual act with her co-accused Butchoy Dela Torre.

Under the revised Penal Code, however, an accused may be considered a principal by direct participation by
inducement, or by indispensable cooperation, This is true in charge of rape against a woman provided of course a
man is charged together with her. The court convicted woman as a principle by direct participation since it was
proven that she held down the complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.