CASE TITLE SUMMARY FACTS ISSUE RULING

1. Ient v. Tradition Group, where petitoners herein are employed, and Whether or not Ient and No, Ient and Schulze could not b
Tullett Tullett are competitors in the interdealer broking business. On Schulze could be criminally liable because the
Prebon, G.R. the Tradition Group's motive of expansion and diversification in criminally liable Corporation Code is not a penal
No. 189158, Asia, petitioners lent and Schulze were tasked with the statute. The penalties suggested
January 11, establishment Tradition Financial Services Philippines, Inc. the code are only administrative
2017 However, Tullett, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the City Supreme Court applied rule of le
Prosecution Office of Makati City against the officers/employees as a principle related to liberal
of the Tradition Group for violation of Sections 31 and 34 of the interpretation in favor of the ac
Corporation Code which made them criminally liable under in criminal cases. The rule applie
Section 144. Impleaded as respondents in the ComplaintAffidavit when the court is faced with tw
were petitioners lent and Schulze, Jaime Villalon, who was possible interpretations of a pen
formerly President and Managing Director of Tullett, Mercedes statute, one that is prejudicial to
Chuidian who was formerly a member of Tullett’s Board of accused and another that is favo
Directors. Villalon and Chuidian were charged with using their to him. The rule calls for the ado
former positions in Tullett to sabotage said company by of an interpretation which is mo
orchestrating the mass resignation of its entire brokering staff in lenient to the accused. Accordin
order for them to join Tradition Philippines which was evident on SC, a close reading Section 144 s
their conduct of several meetings with the employees. According that it is not purely a penal prov
to Tullett, petitioners lent and Schulze have conspired with because it provides that when th
Villalon and Chuidian in the latter's acts of disloyalty against the violator is a corporation, an
company. Petitioners argued that there could be no violation of administrative penalty is impose
Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation as these sections refer to form of dissolution, which is not
corporate acts or corporate opportunity, that Section 144 of the criminal sanction. The Court also
same Code cannot be applied to Sections 31 and 34 which added that there is no provision
already contains the penalties or remedies for their violation; and the Corporation Code using an
conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied to emphatic language to compel th
the Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code. The city to construe the provision as a pe
prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint however, on offense.
respondent’s appeal to the Department of Justice, the dismissal
was reversed finding the arguments of the respondent proper.
CA affirmed the decision of the DOJ secretary.
2. Minucher Violation of the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” was filed against Whether or not Arthur Yes, aforeign agent, operating w
v. Scalzo, Minucher following a “buy-bust operation” conducted by Scalzo is indeed entitled a territory, can be cloaked with
G.R. No. Philippine police narcotic agents accompanied by Scalzo in the to diplomatic immunity. immunity from suit as long as it
142396, house of Minucher, an Iranian national, where heroin was said to be established that he is acting
February 11, have been seized. Minucher was later acquitted by the court. within the directives of the send
2003 Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up charges state. The consent or imprimatu
of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo. Scalzo on his the Philippine government to th
counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge of his official activities of the United States Dr
duties as being merely an agent of the Drug Enforcement Enforcement Agency, however,
Administration of the United States Department of Justice. Scalzo be gleaned from the undisputed
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the in the case. The official exchang
ground that, being a special agent of the United States Drug communication between agenci
Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic the government of the two coun
immunity. He attached to his motion Diplomatic Note of the Certifications from officials of bo
United States Embassy addressed to DOJ of the Philippines and a the Philippine Department of Fo
Certification of Vice Consul Donna Woodward, certifying that the Affairs and the United States
note is a true and faithful copy of its original. Trial court denied Embassy Participation of memb
the motion to dismiss. the Philippine Narcotics Comma
the “buy-bust operation” condu
at the residence of Minucher at
behest of Scalzo These may be
inadequate to support the
“diplomatic status” of the latter
they give enough indication that
Philippine government has given
imprimatur, if not consent, to th
activities within Philippine territ
of agent Scalzo of the United Sta
Drug Enforcement Agency. The
description of Scalzo has tasked
to conduct surveillance on suspe
drug suppliers and, after having
ascertained the target, to inform
local law enforcers who would t
be expected to make the arrest.
conducting surveillance activitie
Minucher, later acting as the po
buyer during the buy-bust opera
and then becoming a principal
 witness in the criminal case aga
Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be
to have acted beyond the scope
his official function or duties.
3. Liang v Sometime in 1994, Jeffrey Liang(herein referred as Petitioner), an (1) Whether or not the (1) NO. The petitioner’s case is n
People, G.R. economist of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) was charged of petitioner’s case is covered by the immunity. Court
No. 125865, two accounts of grave oral defamation by the Metropolitan Trial covered with immunity cannot blindly adhere to the
January 28, Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City against his fellow ADB from legal process with communication from the DFA th
2000 worker Joyce Cabal.After the Petitioner was arrested by virtue of regard to the petitioner is covered by any
warrant issued by the MeTC, he then settled his bail for the Section 45 of the immunity. It has no binding effe
criminal charge (2,400) and was eventually releasedfrom jail. The Agreement between the courts. The court needs to prote
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on the other handcontended ADB and the Philippine the right to due process not onl
that the petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process, Gov’t. the accused but also of the
thus, DFA sent a document of “office of protocol” to the MeTC (2) Whether or not the prosecution. Secondly, the imm
judge to justify that the petitioner is immune from suit as conduct of preliminary under Section 45 of the Agreem
provided by Section 45 of the agreement between ADB and investigation was not absolute, but subject to
Philippine Government. The MeTC judge upon receipt of the imperative the exception that the acts mus
document dismissed the two criminal cases and a done in “official capacity”. Henc
motion for reconsideration was then filed but was elevated to slandering a person could not
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City through a certiorari possibly be covered by the imm
and mandamus but the motion was eventually denied as agreement because our laws do
opposed by the DFA. The petitioner then elevated the case to allow the commission of a
Supreme Court holding that he is covered by immunity under the crime, such as defamation, in th
agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before name of official duty.
the criminal cases were filed in MeTC (2) NO. Preliminary Investigation
not a matter of right in cases
cognizable by the MeTC such as
case. Being purely a statutory rig
preliminary investigation may b
invoked only when specifically
granted by law. The rule on crim
procedure is clear that no
preliminary investigation is requ
in
cases falling within the jurisdicti
the MeTC.
Hence, SC denied the petition.
4. People v. In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel Whether or not the We affirm the conviction of all t
Tulin, G.R. owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded Philippines is without accused-appellants. Article 122
No. 111709, with barrels of kerosene, regular gasoline, and diesel oil, was jurisdiction to try a crime Revised Penal Code, before its
August 30, boarded by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates including the committed outside the amendment, provided that pirac
2001 accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. Philippine waters and must be committed on the high
detained the crew and completely took over the vessel. The territory? by any person not a member of
vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes complement nor a passenger
were unloaded transferred and sold under the direct supervision thereof. Upon its amendment b
of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive vessel Republic Act No. 7659, the cove
returned to the Philippines. A series of arrests was thereafter of the pertinent provision was
effected and all the accused were charged with qualified piracy widened to include offenses
or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine committed "in Philippine waters
Waters). They were subsequently convicted of the crime the other hand, under Presidenti
charged. Hence, this appeal. Meanwhile accused Cheong argues Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974)
that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an coverage of the law on piracy
accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done embraces any person including
or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping passenger or member of the
the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to complement of said vessel in
convict, and sentence. Philippine waters." Hence, passe
or not, a member of the comple
or not, any person is covered by
law. Republic Act No. 7659 neith
superseded nor amended the
provisions on piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532. The
no contradiction between the tw
laws. There is likewise no ambig
and hence, there is no need to
construe or interpret the law. A
presidential decree did was to w
the coverage of the law, in keep
with the intent to protect the
citizenry as well as neighbouring
states from crimes against the la
nations. As expressed in one of
"whereas" clauses of Presidentia
Decree No. 532, piracy is "amon
highest forms of lawlessness
condemned by the penal statute
all countries." For this reason, p
 under the Article 122, as amend
and piracy under Presidential De
No. 532 exist harmoniously as
separate laws
5. White Whether or not Ord 7774 The SC ruled that the said ordina
Light Corp. is valid. is null and void as it indeed infri
v. City of upon individual liberty. It also
Manila, G.R. violates the due process clause
No. 122846, serves as a guaranty for protecti
20 January against arbitrary regulation or
20, 2009 seizure. The said ordinance inva
private rights. Note that not all w
goes into motels and hotels for
up rate are really there for obsc
purposes only. Some are tourist
needed rest or to “wash up” or
freshen up. Hence, the infidelity
sought to be avoided by the said
ordinance is more or less subjec
only to a limited group of peopl
SC reiterates that individual righ
may be adversely affected only
extent that may fairly be require
the legitimate demands of publi
interest or public welfare.
Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) appears to have inflicted Whether or not R.A. No. No, the gender-based classificati
violence against private respondent (wife and daughter). 9262 is discriminatory, RA 9262 does not violate the Eq
Petitioner admitted having an affair with a bank manager. He unjust, and violative of Protection Clause. The equal
callously boasted about their sexual relations to the household the equal protection protection clause in our Constitu
6. Garcia v. help. His infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent. clause. does not guarantee an absolute
Drilon, G.R. Their quarrels left her with bruises and hematoma. Petitioner prohibition against classification
No. 179267, also unconscionably beat up their daughter, Jo-ann, whom he non-identical treatment of wom
June 25, blamed for squealing on him. All these drove respondent Rosalie and men under RA 9262 is justifi
2013 Garcia(wife) to despair causing her to attempt suicide on put them on equal footing and t
December 17, 2005 by slitting her wrist. Instead of taking her to give substance to the policy and
the hospital, petitioner left the house. He never visited her when of the state to ensure the equal
she was confined for seven (7) days. He even told his mother-in- women and men in light of the
law that respondent should just accept his extramarital affair biological, historical, social, and
 since he is not cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a culturally endowed differences
child with her. The private respondent was determined to between men and women. RA 9
separate from petitioner. But she was afraid he would take away by affording special and exclusiv
their children and deprive her of financial support. He warned protection to women and childr
her that if she pursued legal battle, she would not get a single who are vulnerable victims of
centavo from him. After she confronted him of his affair, he domestic violence, undoubtedly
forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of access to full serves the important governme
information about their businesses. Thus, the RTC found objectives of protecting human
reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of rights, insuring gender equality,
violence against respondent and her children and issued a series empowering women. The gende
of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) ordering petitioner, based classification and the spe
among other things, to surrender all his firearms including remedies prescribed by said law
a .9MM caliber firearm and a Walther PPK. favor of women and children are
substantially related, in fact
essentially necessary, to achieve
objectives. Hence, said Act survi
the intermediate review or midd
tier judicial scrutiny. The gender
based classification therein is
therefore not violative of the eq
protection clause embodied in t
1987 Constitution.
7. Cirse “Choy” Torralba, a broadcast journalist with two radio Whether or not the The lower courts applied the str
Guingguing programs airing in Visayas and Mindanao, filed a criminal publication in the instant letter of the law. However, this
v. People, complaint for libel against Segundo Lim and petitioner, Guinguing case is indeed libellous. is compelled to delve deeper int
G.R. No. for causing the publication of records of his criminal cases as well issue considering that changes i
128959, as photographs of his arrest. The criminal records and photos factual milieu evoked a change i
September were published by means of a one-page advertisement paid for judgment applicable. Under the
30, 2005 by Lim in the Sunday Post, a weekly publication edited and criminal libel is defined as a pub
published by petitioner. Choy Torralba asserted that he has been and malicious imputation of a cr
acquitted and that the cases referred to in the publication had or of a vice or defect, real or
already been settled. He sought the conviction of Lim and imaginary, or any act, omission,
Guinguing for libel and claims that such publication placed him in condition, status, or circumstan
public contempt and ridicule and was designed to degrade and tending to cause the dishonor,
malign his person and destroy him as a broadcast journalist. The discredit, or contempt of a natu
trial court and the Court of Appeals found the publication indeed juridical person, or to blacken th
libellous declaring that malice, the most important element of memory of one who is dead. Th
libel, was present in this case every defamatory publication prima the elements of libel are: (a)
facie implies malice on the part of the author and publisher imputation of a discreditable ac
 towards the person subject thereof. The lower courts also ruled condition to another; (b) publica
that publication of calumny even against public officers or of the imputation; (c) identity of
candidates for public office, according to the trial court, is an person defamed; and, (d) existe
offense most dangerous to the people. It deserves punishment of malice.
because the latter may be deceived thereby and reject the best
and deserving citizens to their great injury. Thus, petitioner
prayed for reversal of the judgment against him contending that
his conviction by the lower courts constitutes an infringement of
his constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press.
8. Estrada v.
Escritor, AM
No. P-02-
1651, 22
June 2006

9. People v.
Echagaray,
G.R. No.
117472, 7
February
1997
10. Corpuz
v. People,
G.R. No.
180016,
April 29,
2014

11. People
v. Ferrer, L-
32613-14,
December
27, 1972

12. US v. Usury Law - 1. On December 30, 1915, complainants Bartolome Oliveros and WoN the Usury Law has a No. The Usury Law, a penal law,
Diaz Conde, prohibit Engracia Lianco entered into a contract with the defendants retroactive effect in this cannot become retroactive unle
L-18208, lenders concerning a debt of P300. Oliveros and co. were obligated to case is favorable to the person accus
February 14, from pay five percent interest per month within the first ten days of WoN the law impaired (Art. 21 and 22 Penal Code)
1922 charging every month. On May 6, 1921, Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria the contract Yes. If a contract is legal at its
borrowers R. De Conde were charged with violating the Usury Law in the inception, it cannot be rendered
excessively Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. They were found illegal by any subsequent or ex p
high rates guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of P120 and in case of insolvency, facto legislation.
of interest
to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the
on loans.
provisions of law. They took it to SC to plead. the acts complained of by the
Shall be
12% per defendants did not constitute a
annum. at the time they were committe
 and therefore the sentence of t
Ex post lower court is revoked. Ordered
facto Law – the complaint be dismissed.
law has
been
defined as
one which
imposes a
punishment
for an act
which was
not
punishable
at the time it
was
committed.
13. People
v. Abilong, L-
1960,
November
26, 1948

14. People The case, happened in Libmanan, Camarines Sur, involved

v. Formigones, a dedicated family man. He was the breadwinner in
Formigones, the family. He was a hardworking husband who was always
L-3246, thinking of the welfare of his family.
November One time, his wife was sitting on the stairways. Without any
29, 1950 provocation, he took his bolo and stabbed his wife in the back
that penetrated her right lung causing severe hemorrhage.
The wife fell on the ground with blod oozing from her body.
Formigones picked p the lifeless body of his wife, brought her
upstairs and laid her on the floor. He laid beside her.
Prosecuted for parricide, the trial court convicted Formigones for
 the crime charged. On appeal, he interposed the defense of
insanity. His lawyer cited the testimonies of two guards of the
provincial jail stating that they saw him acting strangely while
detained therein; that he would remove his clothing and go stark
naked in the presence of other prisoners; that he refused to take
a bath and wash his clothes; and would sing by himself without
being asked.
15. .
Ladonga v.
People, G.R.
No. 141066,
February 17,
2005

16. . People Martin Simon Sunga was sentenced with the punishment of Whether or not the Yes, the respondent can avail of
v. Simon, reclusion perpetua for violating the Dangerous Drug Act (RA No. respondent can avail of lesser punishment prescribed by
G.R. No. 6425). He allegedly sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics the lesser punishment 22 of the RPC.Republic Act No.
93028, 29 Command during a buy-bust operation which was sold for pursuant to Art.22 of the already took effect on Decembe
July 1994 P40.00. The said buy-bust operation was executed on or RPC. 1993 after its publication on
about October 22, 1988.In this case, the respondent was praying December 16, 1993 while the
for a lesser punishment under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). respondent was still serving his
sentence.Hence, the responden
given an indeterminate penalty
arresto mayor or prision correcti
instead of serving its full senten
reclusion perpetua.The
Indeterminate Sentence Law is
applicable to this case since dru
offenses are not included in nor
appellant committed any act wh
would put him within the excep
to said law and the penalty to b
imposed does not involve reclus
perpetua or death, provided, of
course that the penalty asultima
resolved will exceed one year of
imprisonment.Republic Act No.
as now amended by Republic Ac
7569, has unqualifiedly adopted
penalties under the Revised Pe
Code in their technical signific
and effects.In fact, for purpos
determining the maximum of sa
sentence, we have applied the
provisions of he amended Sectio
of said law to arrive at prision
correctional and Article 64 of
Code to impose the same in
medium period.Such offense,
although provided for in a speci
law, is now in the effect punishe
and under the Revised Code.