PEOPLE v.

OANIS
74 Phil. 257
G.R. No. L-47722
July 27, 1943

Facts:
Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped
convict, Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They went to the
suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the supposedly Balagtas
sleeping with his back towards the door. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or successively
fired at him which resulted to the victim’s death. The supposedly Balagtas turned out to be
Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.
Issue:
Whether or not requisites necessary to justify or exempt the appellants are attendant.
Held:
No. There is only a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete justifying
circumstance defined in article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. According to such legal
provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance
may be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right; and (b) 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. In the instance case, only the first requisite is present — appellants have acted in the
performance of a duty. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by them committed is
not the necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty.
PEOPLE v. NAZARIO
97 Phil 990
G.R. No. L-7628
September 29, 1955

Facts:
Appeal from the decision of the Manila Court of First Instance finding appellant guilty
of robbery in an inhabited house and sentencing him to imprisonment for six (6) months and
one (1) day prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day prision mayor. Appellant is
deaf and dumb. On this fact, his counsel constructs here the arguement that possibly he did
not know the import of his plea of guilt.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is entitled to additional mitigating circumstance of being
deaf and dumb.

Held:
Yes. Appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of being deaf and dumb, (Art.
13, No. 8, R.P.C.) which in addition to the plea of guilty are two (2) more mitigating
circumstances. The court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable. Therefore, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this
appellant should be and is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for not less than four (4)
months and one (1) day of arresto mayor not more than 4 years 2 months and 1 day of prision
correctional.
PEOPLE v. ASUNCION
179 SCRA 396, 402
G.R. No. 83870
November 14, 1989
Facts:
That on or about November 6, 1978, at nighttime, in the Barangay of Canili,
Municipality of Alfonso Castañeda, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, the accused
Reynato Asuncion and Leonardo Aguinaldo, Policeman and PC Sergeant, respectively, both
attached to the 183rd PC Company, with abuse of their public positions as such police officer
and PC Sergeant, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, advantage of superior
strength and aid of armed men and the generic circumstances of nocturnity and evident
premeditation, and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
mortally shoot with their service firearms (carbines) one Gregorio Vergara, on different parts
of his body which caused his instantaneous death.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused took advantage of their public position to commit the
crime.

Held:
Yes. The accused were both on duty when the crime happened. The also used their
service firearms to commit the crime. The appellants used their authority as members of the
police and constabulary to disarm Vergara before shooting him
PEOPLE v. NULLA
153 SCRA 471, 483
L-69346
August 31, 1987
Facts:
On or about March 20, 1981 Agustin Mecaral, a merchant of some means, and the
owner of a pump boat named "Two Brothers," caused the loading of 56 sacks of rice on the
boat at barangay Agpangi, Naval, Leyte, and thereafter set sail to sell the rice at some nearby
islands. With him on board were four crew members, one of which was Prudencio Nulla.
At about 7 o'clock that night, Mecaral was struck on the head twice with a bolo wielded by
Prudencio Nulla, causing him to drop to the deck, senseless. The boat's anchor and a trailer
(push cart) were then tied to Mecaral's body, after which he was thrown overboard. Mecaral
slowly sank into the dark waters, never to be seen again.

Issue:
Whether or not the location where the crime was committed should be taken into
account as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

Held:
Yes. As defined in the book of Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book 1, pp. 383. “An
uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance
from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other (emphasis
supplied).” A crime committed in a boat that set sail would fall under such definition.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JAIME RODRIGUEZ alias JIMMY alias
WILFRED DE LARA y MEDRANO and RICO LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-60100. March 20, 1985

Facts:
Accused-appellants were convicted of the crime of piracy and were sentenced to suffer
the extreme penalty of death. They contend that the trial court erred in imposing death
penalty despite their plea of non-guilt.

Issue: Whether the accused-appellants contention is correct

Ruling: No.

P.D. No. 532 amending Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, provides that if rape,
murder, or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the
offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when the seizure is
accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall be
imposed. Art. 63 of the RPC also provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
ENRILE VS. SALAZAR
G.R. No. 92163. June 5, 1990.

Facts: On 27 February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested for the crime of rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the failed coup
attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. He filed a petition for habeas corpus
alleging that he was held to answer for a criminal offense which does not exist. Co- accused
Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio also argues that the current case does not fall in line with the
Hernandez ruling. The information in Hernandez charged murders and other common crimes
committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion, whereas the information
against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion,
but not in furtherance, of rebellion.

Issue: Whether the crime of rebellion can be complexed with other crimes.

Ruling: No. The Hernandez doctrine should not be abandoned since the majority sees it as
good law. The President by repealing P.D. 942 that nullifies Hernandez and by enacting a new
provision Art. 142-A in the RPC which imposes the penalty for the most serious offense in its
maximum period when acts punished by graver penalties are committed with crimes under
Chapter I of Title 3, made the doctrine binding. The Hernandez remains binding doctrine to
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion
thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity
that constitutes rebellion. Thus the accused were charged of simple rebellion only.

JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. HON. UMAR AMIN

G.R. No. 93335. September 13 1990
Gutierrez, Jr., J.;
Facts:
Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed with murder. Another information charged
him of violation of PD 1829 for harboring or concealing Gregorio Honasan which delayed the
latter’s apprehension. This was in connection to the alleged rebellious acts committed by
Honasan in connection with the failed coup attempt.

Issue: Whether Enrile could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 although a
rebellion case was already filed against him.

Ruling: No. Second crime was absorbed in the first.

PD No. 1829 Section 1 (c) states:

“SECTION 1. The penalty of prison correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging
from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or
wilfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws
in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction.
xxx xxx xxx”
The petitioner was already facing charges of rebellion in the previous information in
conspiracy with the fugitive Col. Gringo Honasan. Harboring or concealing his alleged co-
conspirator already falls under the first charge

UNITED STATES V. ABAD

G.R. No. L-2335, August 9, 1906

Facts:
The defendant is a former insurgent officer who is found guilty of violating the terms and
conditions of his oath that recognizes the supreme authority of the United States of America in
the Philippine Islands. He allegedly denied to an officer of the United States Army the
existence and whereabouts of certain rifles, which had been concealed by his orders at the
time of his surrender in April, 1901.

Issue: Whether the violation of oaths of allegiance is equivalent to “treason and sedition”

Ruling:
Yes.

The violation of oaths of allegiance, and kindred crimes provided for in Act 292, United
States Philippine Commission, are included in the general terms "treason and sedition" as
used in the amnesty proclamation of 4 July 1902. Treason, in its more general sense, is the
"violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or liege lord, or to the supreme
authority of the state." Sedition, in its more general sense, is "the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the state. Technical terms of the law when used in a statute are ordinarily to be
given their technical signification. But in construing an executive act of the character of this
proclamation, a court is justified in applying a more liberal rule of construction in order to
effectuate, if possible, the beneficent purpose intended. Thus, the violation of oaths made by
an insurgent officer is considered an act of “treason and sedition” in this case.

ESPUELAS VS. PEOPLE

No. L-2990. December 17, 1951

Facts: In 1947, Oscar Espuelas had his picture taken as if he were hanging lifeless from tree
and with a fake suicide letter of Alberto Reveniera to his wife and children, he sent it for
publishing to different local and international newspapers. The fake letter stated that Alberto
killed himself because he was ashamed of the Roxas administration and that his wife to write
to President Truman and Churchill that the Philippine government was infested with many
“Hitlers and Mussolinis” and that his children should burn Roxas’ pictures. Espuelas was
convicted of publishing and circulating scurrilous libels against the Government of the
Philippines.

Issue: Whether the acts of the accused constitute inciting to sedition.

Ruling: Yes. Art. 142 of the RPC states “scurrilous libel” as a form of inciting to sedition. The
essence of seditious libel is its immediate tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of
illegal courses or to induce people to resort to illegal methods to redress the evils which press
upon their minds. A published writing which calls our government one of crooks and
dishonest persons infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e. dictators, and which reveals a tendency
to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to the
government, is a scurrilous libel against the Government.

PEOPLE VS. APARICI

Facts: In a dimly lit stage, Virginia Aparici was “dancing with her hips swaying” with nothing
except on nylon patches over her breasts and a “too abbreviated pair of nylon panties to
interrupt her stark nakedness” and around her waist was a furry white girdle with a middle
piece punctuating attention to which she was supposed to hide.

She avers that she was performing to the lower class and to portray a widow who lost her
husband after being killed by a Japanese. However, the crowd watching were howling and
cheering to continue her performance because they were sexually aroused.

Issue: Whether or not Aparici’s dancing was indecent or immoral in violation of Art. 201 of
the RPC?

Ruling: Yes. The test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is
to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. The test
therefore was satisfied with the crowds reaction. Her defense that the crowd was of lower
class# was not supported by any proof. Moreover, it doesn’t matter what class the crowd
belonged to. &hat is important is Aparici while performing the hula-hula dance was able to
induced or encourage the crowd to think of immoral acts.

PEOPLE VS. KOTTINGER

No. 20569. October 29, 1923

Facts: Kottinger, manager of Camera Supply Co., was charged with having kept for sale in the
store of Camera Supply Co., obscene and indecent pictures, in violation of sec. 12 of Act No.
277 (now Art. 201). These pictures were postcards of six different non-Christian inhabitants
of the Philippines.

Issue: Whether the postcards constitute obscene publications and exhibitions.

Ruling: No. The test in determining whether something is obscene within the meaning of the
statutes, is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt
those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or
other article charged as being obscene may fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks
the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. That pictures which depict the non-
Christian inhabitants of the Philippine Islands as they actually. live, without attempted
presentation of them in unusual posture or dress, are not offensive to chastity, or foul, or
filthy.
 OUANO V. CA

Facts:

A property registered under RFC was offered for sale since the first one was nullified due to a protest
made by Ouano. In the second bidding, it was agreed that Echavez would only make a bid, and if
accepted, divide the property in proportion to their adjoining parties. Echavez’s bid was accepted and
deposited 20% of the preferred price. To ensure the success of the enterprise, they also agreed to
induce the only interested party headed by Mrs. Bonsucan to withdraw from presenting a bid, which
she agreed and paid Ouano’s wife a sum of 2,000 for reimbursement of the expenses. While Ouano
and his wife delivered sums of money to Echavez, RFC never recognized the sharing agreement
between Echavez and Ouano, they only approved the sale of the property.

nullified due to a protest made by Ouano. In the second bidding, it was agreed that Echavez would
only make a bid, and if accepted, divide the property in proportion to their adjoining parties. Echavez’s
bid was accepted and deposited 20% of the preferred price. To ensure the success of the enterprise,
they also agreed to induce the only interested party headed by Mrs. Bonsucan to withdraw from
presenting a bid, which she agreed and paid Ouano’s wife a sum of 2,000 for reimbursement of the
expenses. While Ouano and his wife delivered sums of money to Echavez, RFC never recognized the
sharing agreement between Echavez and Ouano, they only approved the sale of the property.

Issue:

Whether or not Ouano committed machination?

Held:

Yes. It found that the sharing agreement couldn’t be enforced in the absence of consent of RFC and
that the agreement had an unlawful cause. As the trial court stressed, Ouano and Echavez had
promised to share in the property in question as consideration for Ouano’s refraining from taking part
in the auction and also succeeded in causing another bidder to stay away from the auction in order to
reduce the price of the auctioned property.In doing so, these acts constitute machinations in public
auctions penalized under art. 185 of RPC. The fact that the agreement is criminal in character, the
parties not only do have cause of action against each other, they are also liable for prosecution, things
and price of the agreement subject to disposal according to the provisions of RPC.

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012

Facts:
Certification against Forum Shopping was made integral parts of two complaints
for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against the respondent spouses Eddie
Tamondong and Eliza B. Tamondong. Spouses filed a complaint-affidavit against Tomas
for violation of Article 183 of the RPC, for making a false narration in a Certificate
against Forum Shopping.

OSG shared the petitioner’s view and issued Manifestation and Motion in lieu of
Comment relying also in Ilusorio case and the crime of perjury is the deliberate or
intentional giving of false evidence in the court where the evidence is material. The case
was referred to En Banc because of the conflicting rulings in the case of Ilusorio (basis of
the petition) and the Sy Tiong case that was the basis of the assailed RTC-Makati City
ruling.

Issue: Whether or not or not perjury was committed.

Ruling: Yes.

The constitutive act of the offense is the making of an affidavit; thus, the criminal
act is consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn
before a duly authorized person. All of the elements of Perjury is present in this case.
First, the petitioner executed Certificate Against Forum Shopping, duly notarized in
Makati City. Second, deliberate falsehood was also sufficiently alleged to have been
committed in Makati City, not Pasay City. The Information indicates that the Petitioner
has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in another
tribunal or agency, accused knowing well that said material statement was false.
PEOPLE VS. BENJAMIN GALANO
G.R. No. 18701-R. December 2, 1957
De Leon., J.;

Facts:
Galano bought 4 balut eggs with a false pre-war one-peso bill of the Treasure
Certificate series. The word “Victory” at the back of the bill was written in ink. Although
the treasury certificate has been withdrawn from circulation, it was still redeemable at
face value with the Central Bank. Galano was convicted of forging treasury or bank notes
on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged notes
and documents (Article 166).

Issue: Whether Galano was correctly convicted under Article 166 in relation to Article 169

Ruling: Yes

The forgery in Article 166 (in relation to Article 169) of the Revised Penal Code may be
committed by either:

1. By giving to treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to

order mentioned therin, the appearance of a true and genuine document; and

2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures,

letters, or signs contained therein.

The bill was no longer legal tender. Affixing “Victory” was to give the instrument an
appearance of a genuine document. The aforementioned provisions do not only
contemplate fake documents or instruments given the appearance of a true and genuine
document, but also those demonetized instruments/documents.
 DEL ROSARIO VS PEOPLE

GR No. L-16806 | December 1950 Concepcion J.

Facts:
Petitioner Sergio Del Rosarion, alongside Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar, were
convicted by CFI Davao for illegal possession of forged treasury notes. On appeal the CA
affirmed the decision for the lower court except changed the penalty and was increased to 10
years 8 months and a day of prision mayor. Petitioner filed an appeal by certiorari before the
SC Petitioner contends that the treasury notes (one peso bill and two peso bill) showed to
complainant, Apolinario del Rosario, which petitioner and other defendants used to induce
complainant Apolinario that they were counterfeit treasury notes were real. The defendants
succeeded to obtain 1700 pesos from complainant for the purpose of manufacturing
counterfeit money.
Issue:
Whether the or not the use of genuine treasury notes constitutes a violation of Art. 168 of the
RPC.
Held:
Yes
Ruling:
The use of genuine treasury notes for the purpose of manufacturing counterfeit treasury
notes by changing the serial no. is in violation of Art. 168 and 169 of the RPC which the
ossesion of the genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of the “ figures, letters, words
and sign contained” in which had been erased or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as
committed by petitioner is in violaion of said article. SC affirmed in toto the decision of the CA,
cost against petitioner.
PEOPLE VS. ABILONG
GR No. L-1960, Nov 26, 1948
Montemayor, J.;

Facts:
Florentino was initially convicted of attempted robbery, and sentenced with 2
years,
4 months and 1 day of destierro during which he should not enter any place within the
radius of 100 kilometers from the City of Manila. Despite the sentence, he entered Manila
and lived as a vagrant only after a year. Hence, the Court of First Instance of Manila
charged him with the crime of evasion of service of sentence (Art. 157, RPC).

Abilong contended that the penalty of destierro is not an “imprisonment” as

punished in Art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issue: Whether or not destierro is within the purview of “imprisonment” as punished in

Art. 157

Ruling: Yes.

In case of doubt, the Spanish text is controlling. It reads as “sufriendo privación de

libertad” from which the English translation of “imprisonment” was derived. However,
the Spanish text embraces not only imprisonment, but deprivation of liberty. When one is
sentenced with destierro, his liberty is likewise restricted.

Dissenting:

Part of the Spanish text is “fugándose”, which means “to escape.” The translation of
imprisonment is only correct because one can only escape from imprisonment.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BELTRAN

G.R. Nos. L-37168-69, September 13, 1995

Facts:
Mayor Quirolgico and patrolman Tolentino went to the Puzon compound to talk to
Beltran and his companions to surrender in connection with an incident where Beltran
shouted ―vulva of your mother‖ to Alvarado and Urbi. Mayor and patrolman suffered
gunshot wounds and the mayor‘s son died due to a simultaneous discharge of gunfire by
the accused.

Issue: Whether or not the accused committed direct assault.

Ruling: Yes.

The accused are guilty of murder and double attempted murder with direct assault
(under the 2nd form of direct assault). The accused attacked and employed force against
the mayor and police while the latter were engaged in the actual performance of duty and
the accused knew that they were assaulting persons in authority.